Heads in the Sand

by Kevin Theis

There is little left open to debate when it comes to climate change. That emissions from automobiles, factories and homes has forever altered weather patterns, shrunk icebergs and raised sea levels is now established fact. Only the truly far-right wing fringe dares to suggest that global climate change is a fantasy. The only question is: what do we do about it and how fast can we do it.

To address this issue, the United States Senate convened a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to address this urgent matter. And that's when things got ugly. From CNN:

"Republicans boycotted a Senate committee hearing Tuesday on a major bill to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change."

Charming. As with the health care debate, the stimulus package and virtually every other important piece of legislation that this Congress and this President want to address, the Republicans are digging in their heels and cementing themselves as the "Party of No."

I don't just mean that they are not contributing to the debate and trying to stifle discussion of these matters. Its worse than that. They are the party of no ideas, no solutions, no flexibility, no fairness, no obligation to their constituents and no soul.

Chairman Barbara Boxer continued the meeting, despite the absence of the minority party members and good for her. We cannot continue to let these morons try to run the show.

They're the minority party. Let's treat them that way.

In An (Upstate) New York State of Mind

by Kevin Theis

In case you missed it, the drama unfolding in New York State's 23rd District is- for political junkies- the equivalent of pure, uncut heroin.

Here's the Reader's Digest version: New York's 23rd is a solidly Republican district. They haven't elected a Democrat to Congress since the 1800's. So when the Republicans nominated Dede Scozzafava to run for the seat, it seemed a done deal. The Democrats put up a guy named Bill Owens, but nobody seriously expected Owens to win. And that was that.

Well, not quite. See, Ms. Scozzafava has one little problem: she does not hew to the GOP party line. She has her own opinions about abortion (she's pro-choice) and same-sex marriage (she's pro-marriage equality) and these opinions, among others, caused some of the more extreme elements of the Republican party to question whether or not she truly represented Republican values (she doesn't, thank God). Their decision? Put up a third-party "Conservative" candidate, Doug Hoffman.

Now, Hoffman- he's a party animal. As The Atlantic describes him, he says "no to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to tax hikes, yes to strong defense, no on the stimulus bill, no to cap and trade." In short, a GoOPer's wet dream. Sure, he doesn't actually live in the district or have any awareness of the issues facing voters in the 23rd district. But who cares? He doesn't like gay people and wants to stop women from exercising control over their bodies and that's all that really counts, isn't it?

So Hoffman is tapped to run against Scozzafava and Owens and the minute that happens, the GOP starts to fracture. Half of the wingnuts- and we're talking about the far right of the party- gravitate to Hoffman. These endorsements come from from such GOP luminaries as Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Fred "Sleepy" Thompson, Gary Bauer, Dick Armey, Rick "Santorum" Santorum and Steve Forbes. (Frankly, if that group endorsed me, I'd leap off a bridge.)

Scozzafava, however, was backed by the party-line guys. Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele (the GOP Chairman) were duty-bound to back the party's candidate, albeit tepidly. And so the race was on.

Immediately benefiting from this fracture was, of course, Democrat Bill Owens. Nothing like a little opposition party friction to boost your campaign, right? According to last week's polling, Owens was running a little ahead of Scozzafava and a lot ahead of Hoffman.

But that was last week. This week, two political shockers arrived: first, Scozzafava announced that she was suspending her campaign. The immediate thought was: kiss it good-bye Owens. This election is over.

But then the second half of the shocker arrived: Republican Scozzafava was endorsing...the Democrat. Owens was getting Scozzafava's backing and Hoffman was offered the opportunity to go pound sand.

So now...it's really on. All three candidates will appear on the ballot tomorrow. Supporters are pouring cash into the race. And by tomorrow night, New York's 23rd will either have a Conservative Party Congressman or the first Democratic Congressman in over a hundred years.

Should be fun.

Going...to Throw Up

by Kevin Theis

The mystery is over. She got a mil and a quarter. Read it and weep:

Sarah Palin reports she received $1.25 million as a retainer for her upcoming book "Going Rogue." The former Alaska governor says in her financial disclosure statement released Tuesday that she received the money from publisher HarperCollins. Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate, resigned in July. She kept a fairly low profile as she worked with her book's ghostwriter.

So how much did the ghostwriter get? A substantial fee or, as Levi said to Bristol, "Can I give you a little tip?" (Ooooh, that's bad.)

More:

Palin is regarded as a possible 2012 contender for the presidency. Past candidates, notably Barack Obama, have been helped by writing best-selling books, invaluable platforms for politicians to tell their story.

Yeah, except Barack actually wrote his books. No ghosts needed.

So the couldn't-hack-it-so-she-quit ex-Governor of Alaska walks away with a cool six figure deal, huh?

Jesus wept.

Mr. Wrong

by Kevin Theis

You would think that, in the pundit world, there would be rules about how often you can be dead wrong before your credentials are stripped away and you are no longer considered a Serious Journalist. This being the land of the free and the home of the brave, however, no such rules exist.

You can be wrong, wrong again and then dead wrong and still carry on as if nothing happened. Case in point: William Kristol.

I've written about Kristol before (he's "Pie-Face" to my regular readers (do I have regular readers?)) and his abysmal track record is there for anyone to see. He was a big Bush supporter (wrong), a strong backer of the war in Iraq (wrong), he predicted that Obama would never beat Hillary Clinton (wrong) and, most famously, Kristol was the guy who was responsible for bringing Sarah Palin to prominence (can you get any more wrong?).

So now Pie-Face is predicting the 2012 election. And guess who's going to win? Surprise! It's a super-duper right-wing conservative!

I suspect that the person most likely to break into this group of front-runners would be a businessman who stands up against President Obama's big-government proposals, a retired general who objects to Obama's foreign policy or a civic activist who rallies the public against some liberal outrage. If a Republican elected official emerges, it will probably be because he or she champions some populist cause, not because that person is a fine representative or senator or governor.

Yeah! Damn libruls! They're ruining the country! And after Bush took such good care of it, too!

This gets better, the more you read. See, in Kristol's world, this is not simply a center-right country, as many have claimed. It's a far-right country. And a far-right country, obviously, will want a far right candidate. The GOP itself, foundering because it keeps trying to tack to the center, MUST lurch sharply right or it will lose the base. So who best represents Republican (read: American) values? Who else?

The center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties. Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots.

That's right. The center of gravity is...way, way, way off to the right. I mean...Glenn Beck is good for the Republican Party? Only if GOP is going to stand for Glenn's Obama Paranoia.

These people- Palin, Gingrich, Beck and Limbaugh- are the most polarizing mouthpieces that the Republicans have to offer. And Kristol, that genius, is somehow claiming that they represent the bright and shining future of the party.

Okay, Bill. Whatever you say. Keep up the good work.

The Lady or the Tiger

by Kevin Theis

Here's the latest question among the politerati: Is Barack Obama comparable to Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan?

The question presumes two things: One- that Carter was a failure. Two- that Reagan was a success.

Given that the question is based on two complete fallacies: that Carter was awful and that Reagan was wonderful, I'd be happy to offer my humble opinion:

If Obama is more like Carter than Reagan- he's got my vote for a second term.

Easy.

More Good News

by Kevin Theis

...and lord knows we can use it, especially from this Senate Majority Leader. From CNN:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is poised to proceed with plans to introduce a Senate health care bill with a public health insurance option that would allow states to opt out, a senior aide to Reid toldCNN on Sunday.

Love it. Especially the "opt out" part of this bill. Mississippi and Alabama want to keep their votors from a public option choice? Let 'em. Nobody ever pleased the American voter by denying them something they desperately need.

So pass the bill and FORCE the GOP politicians to opt out and then...duck. Because when the people figure out how screwed they are, they'll strike back.

And hard.

Is Fox News...News?

by Kevin Theis

So the Obama Administration finally admits (like other well-known, commonly accepted factoids like "the sky is blue" and "grass is green"), that Fox News amounts to nothing more than a political media arm of the Republican Party and...well, people just freak out.

See, when Bush was in office, he was reknowned for his disdain for the press, but at least Bush hated every journalist. Not just one specific news organization. Bush knew that things like "questions" and "examination" led to things like "discovery" and "ending secrecy" so he steered clear of the press whenever he could.

But Barack? He's an open book. He talks to journalists every day. Hell, the press has started to complain that he's too available. Available to everyone, that is...but Fox News.

It is no secret that Fox, run by right-wing icon Rupert Murdock, is a Republican tool. They parrot the GOP party line, they use Republican Party talking points as their template for "reportage," and they consistently attack Obama at each and every turn, just as they did Clinton and every other Democratic politician.

But when the Obama administration decides to cut them off and deny them access, well...that's just not nice. Now, the poor Fox folks- they feel hurt. The attacks on them are just unfair. They're just like every other news organization, after all. Are they GOP oriented? Nooooo. Heavens nooooo.

To prove it, just go to the Fox News website. You'll see just how fair they are. Just take a look at some of their headlines:

"Obama Threatening Press Freedom?"

"10 Reasons for Moral Outrage"

"The World Turns On America and It's Weak White House"

"American YOU Can Still Stop ObamaCare!"

"Time For Obama to Stop Attacking Fox News and Grow Up"

Yes. Barack Obama is the one that needs to grow up. Not this bastion of fairness and responsibility.

Lord, no.

There's Only So Much Dick You Can Take

By Kevin Theis

Former Vice President and Current Ass-Wart Dick Cheney was at it again this week, perhaps trying to overshadow his loudmouthed offspring (see previous post on the subject), offering a unique glimpse of what it must be like to see your shitty legacy crumbling before your eyes.

Here's the story- see, Dick Cheney (The Most Reviled Man on Earth (TM)) gets invited to speak in front of these über-conservative groups about every other week and the guys who invite him expect Dick to deliver the red meat. Dick doesn't disappoint.

To really view Cheney's remarks in context, however, it is important to remember one of the unwritten rules of politics. So, history lesson: Back in President Truman's day, when Harry was trying to sort through the Korean mess, political opponent and Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously declared that "Politics stops at the water's edge."

In other words, when it comes to foreign policy, you back your President. You don't undermine him with criticism and carping behind his back. It's the political equivalent of Vito Corleone's motto about never discussing busines outside the family. It just ain't cricket, right?

But...things changed under George W. Bush. See, when Bush was pushing his war of choice in Iraq, some people started squawking. When the Patriot Act was introduced, criticism followed. When no WMD's were discovered in Baghdad, there was an outcry. And, little by little, the "water's edge" language didn't seem to matter anymore.

Except, of course, to the White House. The Bush Administration was outraged that un-American, hippy, liberal foreign policy apologists would DARE to say something untoward about Bush's overseas decisions. It was wrong. It was unpatriotic. It was....dangerous.

The Bush message could not be clearer: DO NOT criticize the President on foreign policy. Politics STOPS at the water's edge. Got it?

Back to today's news: now that the Democrats have a guy in the White House and Dick is outside looking in, how is he behaving? From CNN:

After a summer in which Dick Cheney dialed back his attacks on President Obama's national security polices, the former vice president told a conservative gathering Wednesday that the Obama administration had damaged America's relationship with key allies, dangerously wavered in Afghanistan, undermined progress in Iraq, and intentionally sabotaged the Bush administration's national security legacy.

Saying that Obama has "sabotaged the Bush administration's national security legacy" is a lot like saying "The exterminator killed all the rats and roaches, the heartless bastard." But never mind.

More:

In the hard-hitting and wide-ranging speech at Center for Security policy, Cheney targeted the new administration's decision-making process on how to proceed in Afghanistan, saying Obama has failed to give troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals, and appeared "afraid to make a decision."

Damn right! I mean, if there's one thing the Bushies knew how to do it was make a decision. Bush was, after all, The Decider (TM). And when he made a decision, nothing stopped him from carrying it out. Not facts, not changing conditions on the ground, not piles of dead American
soldiers...nothing.

"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger," Cheney said. "Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."

Hey, Dick- know what emboldens our adversaries? Calling the President a pussy, that's what. So the question is: Were the dirty fucking hippies who criticized Bush within their rights to do so when they did it? Or is Dick Cheney just a complete and utter hypocritical douchebag?

And yes, the question is rhetorical.

The Failure of Bipartisanship

You gotta give the guy credit. When Barack Obama was campaigning, he swore that he would try to reach across the aisle and create a more bipartisan Washington.

Then, after he was elected - but before he took office - he renewed this pledge.

After he was sworn in...lo and behold...he kept his promise, attempting to forge a new coalition with the opposing party, giving the GOoPers a chance to work with him and try to heal the rifts created in the last eight years.

Well, we all see where that got him. He reached out and pulled back a stump. This means, for me, that the great bipartisan experiment is over.

Obama's a smart guy. He knows better than me that these people are not interested in working with him. They're out to get him. Embarrass him. Stop his policies from moving forward, no matter how much the public needs or wants them.

It's the same attitude Bush had when he took over from Clinton. See, Bush hated everything to do with Clinton, no matter how much sense the policy may have made, and spent the first year in office reversing Clinton's rules and dismissing all of his priorities.

Including a little thing called "keeping an eye on terrorists."

The result? Eight years of political, foreign policy and fiscal mayhem. The collapse of the financial system. 9/11. Katrina. Two unending wars. Deficits as far as the eye can see.

One of these days, and it may happen soon, Barack is going to wake up and say, "You know what? Fuck this shit! Those guys are out to get me? I'll get them. I'm from Chicago, motherfucker! Nobody messes with us."

After that, the fur will fly.

Can't wait.

Another GOoPer Shows Signs of Sanity

Susan Collins, R-Maine, has good news for Barack Obama. And he could use some, these days. From HuffPo:

A second Republican senator signaled Wednesday she's open to voting for sweeping health care legislation this year, putting President Barack Obama closer to a historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democratic leaders.

But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

Okay, so there's two really important pieces of news here: First, Obama has taken a step closer to passing health care reform this year. That's good. But the second bit of news is the caveat that Collins wants to make "substantial improvements" to the bill. In other words, weaken it. That's bad.

"My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview. "I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work."

The mind reels to think of what the Senate will do to gut this legislation and then, God help us, what the House will do to it once they get their hands on it.

Still and all, the news is mostly good. So I'll take it. But every time this bill passes through some committee or other, it gets watered down. What, at the end of the day, will we end up with?