Ooh, the Germans are mad at me. I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans!

From the "you can lead a horse to water" file: Obama vs. Bush at 100 days.

While much has been made of Obama’s high levels of support in recent weeks, most new presidents still have some reserve of good will at the 100-day mark. Bush, for instance, did not score below 59 percent approval in any of our communities in early 2001. Even in our very Democratic, big-city “Industrial Metropolis” counties, which voted against him by large margins, he did well.

Obama, on the other hand, is below 50 percent in our heavily Latino “Immigration Nation” communities and at just 50 percent in our “Military Bastions” located near military bases. He’s also at just 51 percent in our culturally conservative “Evangelical Epicenters.”

Get that?

Democrats in big cities were willing to put aside an election that was arguably stolen to support a Republican president for the good of the nation, but Republicans in "Evangelical Epicenters" are unwilling to accept an electoral trouncing and put aside their differences for the good of the nation, so obviously this reflects upon the character and actions of these two presidents in question.

Your math. It doesn't work.

Here's a crazy idea-- Maybe, just maybe comparing the Democratic and Republican bases doesn't work because the two disparate groups have fundamentally differing idea of their responsibilities as citizens. Perhaps one groups values diversity and even *gasp* disagreement while the other takes a slash and burn, my way or the highway approach to political power that the founders of this great nation would consider abhorrent.

Put another way- Barack Obama is not a "divisive" president just because the average Republican is an unpatriotic, uneducated fuckwit.

Don't hang their stupidity on him.

/have a nice Monday. :)

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

I watched the speech last night and came away convinced more than ever that we made the right choice in November.

Besides Obama's great ability to communicate complex economic issues in easily understandable terms, I got a kick out of how much of his speech was composed of subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the opposition. He put Republicans in the position of having to choose to cheer against economic recovery, ending the war in Iraq and making sure CEOs pay their fair share.

When Obama mentioned the deficit and Republicans started catcalling he immediately pointed out that he would be tackling that "that deficit that I inherited." He put the jerks in their place.
Indeed- you could tell from Jindal's response to Obama's speech and the Republican talking points in response to the speech that they simply do not have a solution to Obama. If Republicans weren't being propped up by the Fourth Estate they would be completely irrelevant at this point.

Are we supposed to take a political party seriously when the biggest criticism they can level at the President's take on the state of the union is that the President lied when he said "The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." You guys can't see how ridiculous and petty that is? C'mon, really?

This isn't nitpicking, it's picking micro-organisms of nits themselves.

Putting aside the triteness of the "it was Karl Benz not Henry Ford who invented the automobile" line of argument, do you really want to put your political party in the position of advocating that it wasn't an American that built the auto industry, that the United States really isn't number one? That's a political winner.

If I didn't hate those knuckleheads so much I might actually feel sorry for their clueless asses.

A wrong decision is better than indecision.

Today has been spent in the discussion about Sarah Palin's "historic" nomination for VP by the Republican party.(*)

Much of the discussion has centered around the question of whether Palin has the experience and the qualifications to be Vice President or, in the chance that McCain chokes on a piece of chicken at the Old Country Buffet, President of the United States.

Excuse me but isn't this the wrong fucking question? Because personally I don't really care about who the Republicans nominate to be Vice President. They could nominate Tony Fucking Soprano for all I care. It still wouldn't solve the problem that their PRESIDENTIAL nominee is an intemperate, senile old man with little to no grasp of economics or foreign policy.

Screw Sarah Palin's qualifications. John McCain isn't qualified to be President. What does it matter who he chooses to serve with him?


(*I assume by "historic" they mean over twenty years after the Democrats had actually broken that particular taboo. Historic as in "we've advanced as far as the twentieth century." Next thing you no they'll be making the historic move of changing their party's platform to allow women to wear skirts that show their ankles. Assholes.)

Remember, you come of a proud race. Why, you're a... a pachyderm, and pachyderms don't cry.

Not only is this a great article about the poor fortunes of the Republican party with yesterday's results in Mississippi in mind but I love this graphic--

I'm the Horned One. The Devil. Let me give you my card.

As consumers of information, as most of my friends who read this blog no doubt are, It's fascinating to me how disparate tidbits of information gel into the larger narrative. Just this morning I'm reading Digby's take on yesterday's Comey testimony before congress and Josh Marshall's continuing coverage of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal and am struck by how very much alike these two scandals are.

First Digby -

How over-the-top must this have been for staunch Republican John Ashcroft to have risen from his ICU bed to argue against it and the entire top echelon of the DOJ were preparing to resign? These are not ordinary times and the law enforcement community has not been particularly squeamish about stretching the Bill of Rights. None of those people are bleeding heart liberals or candidates for the presidency of the ACLU. For them to be this adamant, it must have been something completely beyond the pale.

My suspicion has always been that there was some part of this program --- or an entirely different program --- that included spying on political opponents. Even spying on peace marchers and Greenpeace types wouldn't seem to me to be of such a substantial departure from the agreed upon post 9/11 framework that it would cause such a reaction from the top brass, nor would it be so important to the president that he would send Gonzales and Card into the ICU to get Ashcroft to sign off on it while he was high on drugs.

Then Marshall -

If you look over the broad scattering of documents thus far released on the Attorney Purge, there's at least an argument to be made that it unfolds something like this. Someone gets the bright idea, very early in 2005 to can all of the US Attorneys or a lot of them. But for one reason or another the idea gets rejected or just dies a slow bureaucratic death. However it happens, by the end of 2005 the idea's basically moribund.

But then in early 2006 some problems come up -- a rising wave of Republican corruption scandals and declining Republican political fortunes. And the US Attorney Purge idea gets revived -- but now with a much more specific focus, with an eye toward the 2006 and 2008 elections. Certain US Attorneys become more of a problem with expanding corruption investigations.

If I'm sure of anything with regards to what the founders intended for this country it's this: the power of the federal government should never be engaged in partisan political activities. The modern Republican party as embodied by the Bush administration seems to care less about this truism.

This is just one of the examples why I consider the Republican/ Democratic party are equivalent argument absurd. The Democrat party has a hell of a lot of problems. But nothing they could do could compare to the sheer un-American evil we've seen out of Bush and his crew in congress this past six years.

Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Oh, happy day.

Not just for Democrats. Republicans can once again fufill that role they seem so happy and comfortable in: whiny ass titty baby. The whining about congressional "minority rights" is just the warm up.

I heard a great proposal with regards to this issue- Democrats will pass Pelosi's old "minority bill of rights" as long as it's tied to a change in House rules so that the rules themselves can't be updated without support of 70% of House members.

Dinosaurs, uh, had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction!

Shortly after the Republicans took the House in 1994 newly installed Speaker Newt Gingrich had the skull of a T-Rex mounted in his office which he dubbed "T-Rex Anne." He was asked about that skull during a PBS interview in 2001 and explained that he had it as a reminder to the other Republican members of the House not to forget humility.

Eighty-five million years ago Rex Anne was out there feeling very important, looking for something to eat, and so I just wanted to remind my members, "Let's not get too full of ourselves here. This is a long democracy. We'll have our innings, but there'll be other people who will get their innings, too."

I recall reading an article on Gingrich at the time they took congress in which he referenced the skull and taking the opposite in his intended symbolism: it represented the primacy of the powerful on the food change and the (hoped) permanence of Gingrich's Republican majority. It represented more hubris than humility.

I remember thinking at the time that he seemed awfully comfortable in the Speaker's office. That it was going to be a huge hassle for him in a couple years when the voters realize their mistake and Republicans lose the House again and he has to move that big skull back out of that office. I resolved to do whatever I could to make sure Gingrich - and his T Rex skull - were kicked to the curb.

Now - fourteen years later and with Gingrich long gone - it looks like his revolution is finally coming to an end today. Although that's a long time to wait I take comfort in the fact that it could have been much worse.

It could've been eighty-five million years.

Sir, the truth is, I talk to God all the time, and, no offense, but he never mentioned you.

Georgia is one of the best, most politically astute writers over at Kos but I think she misses a big part of the Mullah Dobson grandstanding described on the front page of the New York Times. When she writes

Now, the base will feel that intimidation. Rove will demonize the alternative (that alternative being a Democratic Congress) and will try to scare the radical right into voting Republican--or else.

What is clear from watching this love-hate relationship between the Republican leadership and the radical right is that Dobson and the rest of his cabal are finally realizing they were punk'd. They were used, they were manipulated, and now they can either fall for the same prank again or stay home.

She is making the assumption that the radical religious right isn't politically savvy enough to understand they're being played. I guess that's possible. They certainly haven't played great politics since last year's Schiavo disaster. Up to that point they'd shown a little more discretion in letting their radicalism become the story realizing their religious views are pretty scary stuff to most Americans.

But it seems to me that Dobson has also demonstrated a good understanding of political strategy in the past and it's just as likely that he's strategically positioning himself for a loss. Dobson can read the polls and the over/under and sees the likely loss of the House to the Democrats this Fall. He's not threatening Republicans to push for his positions if they want to win. He's setting himself up to say "I told you so" once Republicans take some losses.

He's setting Republicans up to ask themselves if they lost because they weren't radical enough. Scary, huh?