The Hip Hop Outreach Begins!

h/t Coates

Rush to Steele: Remember Who Your Daddy Is

Limbaugh sez Obama is "Bastardizing" Constitution

How any conservative could say this after Bush is beyond me. They're awfully scared of Obama, it seems. Particularly Rush. From the looks of it, Rush, the only thing you have to fear is food itself.

Nice to See Obama Relaxing

Hopefully it calms people down a little to see that he is relaxed...notice the great reaction he gets too.

Michael Steele, Minstrel Act

This is becoming so pathetic that it is nearly beyond the power of words. First, Steele calls for a "hip hop makeover" of the Republican Party, which he promises will be "off the hook". I look forward to seeing this.

Then he threatens primary challenges to the three Republican Senators who voted for the stimulus bill (at least, in his haste to establish street cred, he didn't threaten to bus' a cap in their asses).

Olympia Snowe (R-ME), one of the dreaded three, had a nice, tart reply: "When we were in the majority, there were more of us [moderates]. Now that we're in the minority, there are less of us," Snowe explained, also adding: "If that's what they want to be, well that's their choice."

Now, after Bobby Jindal's truly painful speech responding to Obama's sort-of SOTU, Steele bucks up Jindal by saying, "...some slum love out to my buddy, gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin' awesome job in his state. He's really turned around on some core principles -- like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff...the easy stuff."

Maybe Steele will deliver the next Republican response to Obama by saying, "Yo, I be down wit yo boy an' all dat, but dis' muh'fuckin' budget is FUCKED UP, y'all. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyt..." (Steele then grabs his testicles, to complete the 80's retro feel).

What a joke. Who on earth is going to be drawn to the Republican party because of this? It is such insultingly obvious gimmickry, not exactly what's needed for a party that is reeling from electoral defeat, ideological drift, and struggling to be taken seriously again.

Interesting Insider on How the R's Will Come at Obama

From a conservative radio host...a group which tends to be pretty well plugged in on the right side of the street.

When you first read it, it's easy to get indignant about just how badly these guys want Obama to fail. But really, what other choice do they have? Politicians aren't good samaritans.

Having said that, I do agree with their initial assessment that Geithner needs to grow a set. Among Obama's econ team, Summers is clearly the one with presence, political savvy, and real debating skills. Geithner seems like a sheltered technocrat, not exactly made for the contact sport aspect of Washington.

Their underestimations of the rest of Obama's team, and Obama himself, are obvious and self-deluding, but again, what choice do they have? They have to convince themselves that they can win, that there is a strategy, that they are smarter than the moment they are in.

I don't get all purist about their obvious lust to return to power. I expect them to feel that way, just as I expect Democrats to feel that way when they are in the minority.

Here's what I don't get: What do Republicans want to do with government power? Why do they want to be in the majority? Why do they want the presidency? What do they propose we do? What are their answers? Please, respond without saying incredibly stupid things like "Drill Baby Drill" and cutting taxes on billionaires.

Republicans have yet to construct an actual worldview that is responsive to the challenges the country faces. Sitting in the shadows, lying in wait for Obama to stumble isn't much of a plan. Is that all y'all got?

The Leader of the Republican Party

JTP versus BHO...

Some Sanity From Lugar on Cuba

And valuable political cover for Obama as well, making it easier for him to pursue significant policy changes in Cuba.

Lugar is known to be not only an internationalist, but also an ally and friend of Obama's, so this is not to be taken lightly.

Taibbi Whiffs on Hardball

Great (and as always, funny) in the beginning on J. Edgar Hoover, but he bites down hard and stays silent when Barnicle turns into a reactionary white rage guy.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

John McCain, R.I.P.

What is fascinating about John McCain is how much people who have followed his career continue to credulously insist that he truly is the noble figure they embraced in the late 90s and the 2000 Republican primaries. We like the McCain we imagined him to be then.

John McCain made his bus famous in 2000 during his first run for president, calling it the “Straight Talk Express.” In 2008, he moved up to a fancy, configured jet, painting its sides with the same slogan. The trouble is, when you examine McCain’s polices and public utterances you will find very little resembling straight talk. A substantive reading of his record leads to one clear conclusion: The John McCain of 2000 would have been a political adversary to the John McCain of 2008. In fact, John McCain in 2000 would likely have held the McCain of 2008 in disdain and contempt.

The John McCain of 2000 stood up to the George W. Bush faction of the GOP, expressing and fighting for his different beliefs. Sadly, the John McCain of 2008 shamelessly pandered to that Bush base, attempting to gain the support of the establishment that he previously railed against. Radical figures that McCain wouldn’t have touched in 2000 were sought after for their endorsements. Let’s be real: Would the John McCain of 2000 ever solicit the support of someone like the Revs. John Hagee or Rod Parsley? Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group McCain vehemently decried in 2004, actually served as top surrogates to bash fellow veterans who supported Obama. Lobbyists and Bush fundraisers he denounced eight years ago suddenly became valued donors.

But perhaps no example better illustrates how McCain's burning ambition overwhelmed his principles than in the hiring of one Tucker Eskew. Eskew coordinated one of the ugliest smear campaigns in modern American politics during the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000, including robocalls and campaign literature that suggested McCain was gay, that his wife was a drug addict, that his adopted Bangladeshi child was actually McCain's illegitimate biological child that he had fathered with a black prostitute, that his time as a POW had left him mentally unstable, and that he had abandoned veterans issues during his tenure in Congress. Words fail. How desperately does a man have to lust for the presidency to hire, of all people, the very man who had directly and personally harmed him, smeared his wife, and dishonored his child?

McCain’s shifting of his stances wasn’t just the process of evolution or changing with the times; it was a wholesale pandering, making substantive changes in a transparent effort to garner votes. McCain’s statements on any given issue were shaped by who happened to be sitting in the audience. In front of conservatives, McCain pledged to appoint right wing judges like Justice Samuel Alito to the courts. But according to Ben Smith, while wooing former Clinton supporters, McCain suggested he would appoint more moderate judges, emphasizing his votes to confirm Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. At town halls, McCain emphasized enforcement to deal with illegal immigration, while in closed-door meetings with Hispanic leaders he promised if elected president to overhaul federal immigration laws. This kind of blatant pandering led conservative Hispanic leader Rosanna Pulido to complain, “He’s one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he’s a different John McCain in front of Hispanics.”

On gun control, where ironically McCain has criticized Obama for shifting his position, McCain radically altered his own to get in line with the NRA. In 1999, McCain supported banning certain assault weapons and “Saturday night specials,” as well as requiring safety locks and background checks at gun shows. He co-sponsored the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill of 2003, which would have closed the gun-show loophole. Through 2004, he had a C+ rating from the NRA, who described McCain as their “Judas goat — leading the sheep to slaughter,” and as “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.” Yet by 2007, his position had changed again. After the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said he believed in “no gun control.” McCain’s new position as a gun rights advocate reaped great financial benefits: The NRA eventually endorsed him and spent $40 million on the 2008 campaign, including at least $15 million to smear Obama.

McCain’s radically changed position on taxes was and is probably the most outrageous example of not adhering to straight talk. In the runup to 2008, he was seeking to curry the favor of people such as Grover Norquist (formerly one of his oldest foes in Washington), who is lucky he’s not in jail for helping launder money for Jack Abramoff. In 2001, McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against President Bush’s tax cuts, saying he could not “in good conscience” vote for them. He argued in a speech on the Senate floor that the bill gave “generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” McCain would go on to oppose two more rounds of Bush tax cuts. As late as November 2005, McCain was resolute in his sensibility, arguing in an interview with supply sider Stephen Moore:

"I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy and I still do. I want to cut the taxes on the middle class." Even when I confront him with emphatic evidence that those tax cuts have been an economic triumph and have increased revenues, he is unrepentant and defends his "no" vote by falling back on class-warfare type thinking: "We have a wealth gap in this country, and that worries me."

However, in 2006 McCain’s concerns with the Bush tax cuts had seemingly vanished, as he voted to extend tax cuts that would have expired before 2010. During the campaign, he pledged to permanently extend the rest of the cuts, leading Norquist to note that McCain had “moved to a position where we are very comfortable." He also added, "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy he's flopped." Many newspapers dutifully noted the switch in stark terms, but it never became a significant campaign issue, thanks largely to McCain's surprisingly enduring image as a straight-talking reform oriented guy. It seems that the glow of being a former POW buys a great deal of cover.

It’s hard to imagine someone changing positions on so many fundamental issues as McCain. The list goes on and on. McCain’s flip-flops on Social Security, oil drilling, campaign financing, the use of torture, the GI Bill, immigration (the link here is to a YouTube...must see stuff), abortion, and appeasing the religious right, are serious examples of a man pandering, not progressing.

But the largest difference between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 is the philosophical approach to the election. John McCain in 2000 ran not just to win, but to make a broader point that the system in Washington was broken and needed to be changed. Characteristically, McCain cast himself as uniquely suited to be the change agent the country needed. His POW-forged character was just the antidote the country needed to eight years of Clintonian hedging, parsing, and character failures.

Consider this quote, from a daring speech in 2000 that McCain gave in Pat Robertson's backyard, Virginia Beach: “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” My, how times change. The McCain of 2008 ran for one reason: to get himself elected. If that meant promising to perpetuate the broken system in Washington and continue the failed policies of George W. Bush, so be it, as long as it could lead to McCain winning on Election Day. This ultimate difference between the two McCains is best illustrated by early American statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration, “I’d rather be right than be president.”

This is roughly the narrative agreed upon by former McCainiacs, or at least observers who have soured on McCain.

Critics of McCain say he lost in 2000 because he tried to run a principled, high-minded campaign during a time when the country's politics were small-minded, trivial, and corrosive. In the age of Newt and Bubba, blowjobs, subpoenas and Larry Flynt, and in a time of seemingly effortless economic harmony and relative peace in the world, politics seemed more like reality TV than a critical national enterprise. McCain was simply too good, too honest, too decent a man to thrive in the sleaze-infused, special interest dominated muck of American politics. The problem wasn't McCain, nor the American public, but instead was "the system", which McCain had in fact made the centerpiece of his 2000 campaign.

The problem with this narrative is that it simply cannot withstand the scrutiny of McCain's own record since 2006, when he began to ready himself for his 2008 run, and then the risible, self-diminishing campaign he wound up running.

To advance this point, it is illustrative to look at how McCain comported himself after each of his defeats--first 2000, then 2008.

After his 2000 primary loss, McCain did not endorse Bush for two full months, and throughout the campaign, press leaks continued to emerge about McCain (and his staff's) bitterness at the lowball tactics of the Bush people. They truly believed that the better man had not won, and that Bush's victory was a triumph of big money and machine politics, nothing more (some of McCain's more liberal friends in California, once a group he assiduously cultivated, have reported on him bragging not to have even voted for Bush in 2000).

After Bush took office in 2001, McCain's legislative record was as stridently anti-Bush as could possibly be amassed:

* Voted against Bush's signature tax cuts, as described above
* Worked with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy on a Patients Rights bill, over Bush's stated opposition
* Passed Campaign Finance Reform, again over Bush's opposition
* Proposed climate change and gun control laws with Joe Lieberman, both opposed by Bush
* Floated trial balloons about running for president as an independent in 2004, and about switching to the Democratic Party
* Worked on a prescription drug reimportation law with Byron Dorgan and Ted Kennedy (and slammed Bush's preferred watered down substitute, offered by Judd Gregg, of all people)

Predictably, his repeated, near-constant opposition to Bush's agenda drew considerable anger from his own party, an anger which was compounded by the media's continued fawning over McCain the Maverick.

What's wrong with any of that, you say. This is what is wrong. If McCain actually was embracing these policies, and the pragmatic/center worldview that they represent, then virtually every position he adopted in 2008 would become intellectually impossible (and in some cases where McCain's previous position was based on moral grounds, such as taxes and the Eskew hire, emotionally and morally impossible as well). How on earth could McCain complete so many abrupt about faces without any recognition, even off the record, of the gigantic inconsistencies he was asking everyone to accept about himself? A possible answer, besides the "McCain fell from grace" narrative, is that McCain's politics are simply intensely personal, rooted in his conception of character, namely his own character, and the recognition that he believes is due him. Public policy making is not a detail-oriented, data driven process, nor is it a matter of political philosophy. Rather, it is McCain placing himself at the center of a great morality drama for which only a man of his unique patriotism and character will do.
Hence, the ridiculous suspension of his campaign, the postponement of the first day of the Republican National Convention due to a hurricane, and the highly personal character attacks on Obama. McCain turned there when his narrative, McCain as desperately needed hero, wasn't selling well with a public that wanted actual policy changes. Of course, McCain's legislative record from 2001-2005 was definitely at odds with Bush and would have been a pretty easy sell in a change election. The problem is he couldn't get nominated that way. No problem, says St. John. Character matters, policy less so. So the policies get form-fitted to squeak through the Republican primary process, and McCain relies upon all the MSM goodwill and hero status he has banked through the years to be the "shiny object" that distracts attention from the untenable faux policy transformations he has undergone to make himself viable in the primaries.

What matters is not what McCain will do as president. What matters is that McCain becomes president. McCain's personal attacks on Obama are justified quite simply: I am a better man than he is, just like I was a better man than Bush. Therefore, whatever I have to do to secure my just reward is entirely appropriate.

To further prove the point, what has McCain done since Obama won? Opposed him on each and every substantive step he has taken, with the same intensity and caustic criticism as he did with Bush, despite Obama's repeated graciousness. Only this time, McCain is on the opposite policy side. The positions he takes now to support his attacks on Obama are actually opposite the positions he took in combating Bush in 2001-2005. For example, McCain actually attacks Obama now for not embracing the very supply side tax policies that McCain sharply criticized as "offending his conscience" in 2001. Particularly in light of the incredible malfeasance that has come to light on Wall Street and among other industry leaders (auto, banks, mortgage companies, etc.), one would think that cutting their taxes would be of far greater offense to McCain's conscience now than in 2001, but somehow the diffident media never seem to ask him about that. Of course that doesn't really matter much. For McCain, it's all deeply personal anyway. He lost. Again. And that damned Obama is gonna feel it. Even now, as he petulantly slams the recent stimulus bill as "not bipartisan enough" despite his complete disinterest in working on it, he is essentially pounding his shoe on the table, longing for the old days when process mattered more than policy, where his bona fides as the principled, bipartisan dealmaker were celebrated on editorial pages and cable chat shows. Being relegated to the sidelines is not for McCain, and the abyss of irrelevance is simply more than he can stand.

It's quite sad for me, really. The 2000 election was the first time I was seriously engaged in American politics, and I was quite taken with McCain, who really did seem like a national antidote after the twin sleaze shows that were Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress. I never wanted to see McCain be so small. But he is.

Just call him Obama the Plumber

In his previous post, somehow Jormungandr missed Ax really laying some much-needed wood to "good guy" Andy Card:

"I mentioned Andy Card saying that we were somehow denigrating the Presidency because people were wearing short sleeves in the Oval Office. We’re wearing short sleeves because we have to roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess that we inherited."

Axelrod Disses Rove

This is surprising since Axelrod typically avoids calling attention to himself. Still, it's a good kissoff.

But, Axelrod saved his strongest condemnation for the man who held his job in the Bush White House: Karl Rove. Of Rove's criticism of Obama's economic stimulus plan, Axelrod said: "The last thing that I think we are looking for at this juncture is advice on fiscal integrity or ethics from Karl Rove -- anyone who's read the newspapers for the last eight years would laugh at that."

What is truly embarrassing here is that it takes Axelrod to actually respond to Rove and put him in his place. The media still somehow have some strange, grudging admiration for Rove (perhaps because he managed to get a retarded ex-drunkard elected president?), and never seem to call him out despite his obvious, brazen lies and distortions.

Leahy tells Cheney to "go f-ck yourself"

Long overdue, if you ask me. And if you're one of the few who reads this blog, you are asking me, basically.

Here's Leahy responding to Cheney's recent warning that Obama is making it easier for terrorists to strike the US:

"I just want to say here Bush and Cheney were in charge when the last attack happened," Leahy said. "They were warned about the last attack before it happened. On September 10th their proposal was to cut our counter-terrorism budget substantially. I don't need any lectures from him. They screwed up badly.

"They are also the same people who said the war in Iraq would be over in a couple weeks, shock and awe and we would find the weapons of mass destruction. Their policy was to let Osama bin Laden get away when we had him cornered and send the troops into a useless war in Iraq. No, no, I don't think he has a great deal of credibility."

The Republican world view

has devolved into this:

Bill Ayers and Sarah Palin

(CNN) – Sarah Palin once accused Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” a catchphrase intended to highlight Obama’s connection to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers.
Now that the campaign rhetoric has subsided, Ayers has an idea for a new show starring his Alaskan nemesis.
“I did send her a note after the election,” he says of Palin in the upcoming issue of the New York Times magazine. “I suggested that we have a talk show together called ‘Pallin’ Around With Sarah and Bill.’ I haven’t heard back.”
Ayers assiduously avoided interviews and press attention during the presidential race, but he insists the Obama campaign never told him to keep quiet.

Obama's Master Plan Continues...

Wearing down the righties, bit by bit...check out this ridiculous frustration on the part of Laura Ingraham, directed at one of our favorite faux-centrists, Arlen Specter:

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter got into an on-air quarrel with radio host Laura Ingraham Monday, who suggested the Republican supported a stimulus package because he was "wined and dined" by President Obama.

Ingraham's listeners were treated to a snide and ultimately gutless scolding of Specter for participating in a White House party, to which members of Congress from both parties were invited. Specter responded by calling the 44-year old Ingraham a "young lady" and her line of questioning "baloney."

INGRAHAM: Is it nice to be wined and dined at the White House? And, you're treated pretty well when you're a Republican bucking other Republicans, right Senator?

SPECTER: Now let's get off it Laura. I'm not drinking any wine at the White House and I don't dine at the White House. If the president wants to talk to me -- I talk to him and I make my own independent judgment. Don't give me the wine and dine baloney, young lady.

Get off my lawn!!!

In between documenting the mini-holocaust that is the Nevada GOP's rule over that unfortunate state, the Las Vegas Gleaner offered this spot-on take on Stain Brain John McCain:

Speaking of yesterday's news ... anybody get a load of laughably unsuccessful former presidential candidate John McCain blabbering on, eloquence at full stutter, in opposition to, you know, doing something positive to help the economy?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that he knows nothing about economics and never has, John Sidney McCain III is and always will be the cynical prick who, while standing under a sign that said "Country First" no less, personally decided that it was acceptable -- nay, safe -- for subarctic freak show Sarah Palin to be a sick old man's vice president.

Now he's waddling to and fro demanding that people pay attention to him on matters of vital national interest? He's kidding, right? Does anybody think he's credible?
Does he think he's credible?

Surely even those souls who once admired McCain recognize that the shameful old loser has to earn his way back into a position where he deserves to be taken seriously. And whether he can ever do that or not, now is certainly way too soon for him to be swaggering around like he's somebody. What a chump.

The Real James Harrison Highlight

Nevermind his amazing 100-yard TD in the Super Bowl...

How I Wish Obama Would Talk to the Republicans

Warning: Not safe for work.

I Guess Andy Card Called in Sick That Day

This is Bush on Jan 22, 2001 in the Oval Office--No Jacket Required?

Obama Delivers...This Needs to be the Drumbeat

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-40550

"Bipartisanship"

Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship.

Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship.

Obama wants bipartisanship.

I see the political smarts in his outreach to Republicans, but has he overdone it, and empowered them as legitimate critics of his plans?

Has he outsmarted himself?

Donovan McNabb, RIP

I've pulled for this guy a long time, since I think Philly is probably the single hardest place to play. But now he's calling out the Eagles defense for losing the NFC Championship game.

Catastrophic.

How on earth he ever comes back from that is beyond me. I watched the game as an Eagles fan, even a McNabb fan, hoping that the often overcriticized McNabb would get his day in the sun and have an opportunity to win the Super Bowl. And yes, I thought the comeback he led was great to watch, and yes, it was rough watching Arizona march all too easily downfield for the winning score.

But I have to believe that McNabb's comments here are the culmination of career-long frustration combined with the realization that this was likely his last, best chance of getting the ring. He's lost whatever sense of proportionality he ever had. The Eagles defense did not have a strong game against Arizona. However, the Cards put up 400 yards of offense against the #1 defense in the league in the Super Bowl, which ought to put a different perspective on the Eagles' own struggles to contain them.

The Eagles defense won several games for Philly this year, and also had to carry Donovan at times when he was inconsistent and underperforming. I don't remember reading about a Philly defender calling out McNabb, even when he was benched in the Baltimore game.

I just don't see how this gets taken back, and I don't see how his teammates could stomach playing with him after this.

Daschle, awash in DC filth

Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for secretary of Health & Human Services, is in trouble because he failed to pay taxes on a car and driver provided for him by a company he was lobbying for. The whole affair highlights exactly why Daschle is a poor choice: he is possibly the classic example of the "After-Dinner Democrat" that Jormungandr and I described on this blog some time ago:

During the Clinton years, there was a certain brand of "moderate" Democrat who liked to describe self as a "fiscal conservative who was liberal on social issues." This was the type of Dem who was happy to listen to constituents pressing issues like wage stagnation, the war on drugs, or health care reform, only after their latest black-tie dinner with corporate lobbyists. "After dinner."

On his blog, Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi responded to the Daschle nomination by exposing his and his wife's extensive ties to several key industries through their lobbying firms. "There are whores and there are whores, and then there's Tom Daschle," Taibbi wrote.

Now Glenn Greenwald peels back the formica of Daschle's story even more, revealing a rotted landscape infested with soulless influence-peddling and moral hypocrisy. Go read it. I'm more convinced than ever that he is just a terrible choice for any meaningful position in the Obama administration. He represents everything about "business-as-usual" in DC that Obama promised to end.

Okay Now THIS Pisses Me Off

Listen to Dubya's former shitbag Chief of Staff Andy Card:

MEDVED: There is a new order in the White House. There is a couple of columns today. One column by Karl Rove, your former associate in the most recent Bush White House. And the other column, it’s a piece in the New York Times by Sheryl Stolberg. She talks about the new era of informality that Barack Obama has introduced into the White House. He’s working there late at night. He comes in relatively late, two hours later than President Bush used to come in at his desk. And he’s dropped this rule that everybody has to wear jacket and tie in the Oval Office. Now, you worked in the Oval Office for years and years.
CARD: I started working at the White House with President Reagan and then I was deputy chief of staff to former President Bush and then chief of staff to former President George W. Bush.
MEDVED: And all those three presidents had…
CARD: And yes, I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

HEY ANDY! YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE DISRESPECTS THE OFFICE? LYING YOUR ASSES OFF TO GET THE COUNTRY INTO A BULLSHIT WAR THAT LED TO THE DEATHS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, CRIPPLED THE FEDERAL BUDGET, AND LED TO THE HORRENDOUS ABUSES OF ABU GHRAIB THAT HAVE DEVASTATED THE MORAL STANDING OF UNITED STATES!

HEY ANDY! YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE DISRESPECTS THE OFFICE? SITTING ON YOUR FUCKING ASSES NOT DOING ANYTHING WHEN A MAJOR AMERICAN CITY DROWNED BEFORE OUR EYES!

I AM SURE THE RESIDENTS OF NEW ORLEANS, SOLDIERS' FAMILIES, AND THE MILLIONS OF ECONOMICALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE DAMNED GLAD THAT, NO MATTER HOW BAD THEY HAVE IT, AT LEAST THE GUYS WHO BROUGHT ALL THIS DOWN UPON THEM WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO WEAR A FUCKING COAT AND TIE!

HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT "DISRESPECTING THE OFFICE"???

Lefty Blog Gets it Right

MyDD is dead on about McConnell's stimulus intentions here, and the institutional weakness that Reid has created in the Senate. I hope the Obama people are aware of what they are up against.

Opposite Super Bowl Pick

Well, Eric has just identified what I've been saying is the only scenario by which the Cards win. They have to jump out to a sizable early lead, at least 2 TDs, to have a shot. But I don't think that's going to happen. Great defense almost always kills great offense in the big game.

1. Pittsburgh comes out very aggressive on offense, throwing a lot, and puts up a TD on its opening drive. Hines Ward makes big drive-sustaining catches to make it happen.

2. The Pittsburgh defense scores a TD in the first half, probably a sack and fumble of Warner, but just as easily could be a Troy Polamalu pick-six. The D is going to have a big game, doing for the whole game what Philly's D did only in the third quarter: stuffing the run and hitting Warner consistently. Warner will make mistakes if put under constant pressure.

3. Fitzgerald doesn't have a catch until the third quarter. Anquan Boldin makes more plays in this game. The Cards' newly discovered running game gets stuffed early and they abandon it by halftime.

4. The Cards come back in the second half to make it close. Boldin takes a short pass for a long TD. Pittsburgh puts it out of reach with a long TD by Santonio Holmes in the fourth quarter, possibly on a punt return.

5. Big Ben is going to have a monster game. The Cards may hit him but they are undersized and will have a hard time bringing him down. Look for Ben to make some big throws after being hit and/or breaking the pocket. Pittsburgh will march up and down the field on the Cards, scoring TDs while the Cards kick FGs, esp in the first half (a flip of what happened to the Eagles in the NFC title game).

6. Meweldi Moore will be a bigger factor in the running game than Willie Parker.

MVP: Big Ben

Stimulus Follies

As we all know, the House version of the stimulus plan passed without a single Republican vote, and yet, Republican governors are rather anxious to see it pass so they can balance their budgets without having to strip vital services like cops, teachers, social safety nets, and infrastructure.

My personal favorite is Louisiana's Bobby "Exorcism" Jindal, who, according to the AP, "said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress". Nothing like conservative dogma meeting the harsh reality of actual governance.

Democrats should simply write the bill they want and dare the R's to vote against it.

Super Bowl Pick

Here goes.

1. Warner will start fast. Cards will put up 21 points in the first half.
2. 2 turnovers for Roethlisberger in the first half.
3. Fitz will have some catches, but Breaston will surprise by scoring on a big play (60+ yards).
4. Willie Parker will not run the ball well for Pittsburgh. They'll try to stick with it for a while, but it will soon be apparent that it's all on Big Ben.
5. Pittsburgh makes a comeback in the second half, but it doesn't ever get within a one possession game.
6. Big Ben gets sacked at least five times.
7. Warner throws no picks, and makes the key completions when it counts in the second half to extend drives and make it harder for Pittsburgh to come back.

Final: Cards 31, Pittsburgh 17

MVP: Warner

Steele-ing the Achievement Gap

Already you have many observers drawing a false equivalency between the achievements of Steele and Obama, which is just another way of diminishing the latter as somehow "unaccomplished."

But Steele has never won an election, except the one held yesterday among RNC faithful. Obama won the Presidency. Doesn't that count for something in the "achievement" column?

The other day a dittohead of my acquaintance repeated to me Rush's line that Obama really hasn't accomplished very much in his life.

To which I replied: He's President of the United States!

That's pretty good isn't it?

Maybe not the same as being paid millions to sit on your fat ass scarfing Cheetos, popping amphetamines, and vicariously fantasizing about being physically able to grab one's ankles, but it is something.

Steele for Senate...a flashback

Had to post this re: Steele. They actually paid homeless people to walk around Baltimore in fall 2006 with this sign, falsely calling him a Democrat to try and peel off black votes. Heckuva job, Steelie!

Good Grief, Daschle

How dumb is this?

(sigh)

Republicans Gone Black

The RNC has just elected an African American as its chairman for the first time in its history.

Michael Steele, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, who got thumped in the 2006 Senate race despite hiring homeless people to pass out fake signs and despite running away from his own party affiliation by touting the (non-existent) support of "Steele Democrats". His brother, Shelby Steele, is one of those hating-on-Obama "black conservatives" who has made a series of foolish, completely wrong predictions about Obama's fortunes over the past two years. (By the way, according to Shelby, I as a white liberal only voted for Obama for superficial reasons of white guilt and wannabe hipster fascination; to which I say, fuck you).

Anyway, my favorite reaction so far comes from Kos, who notes that Steele narrowly edged out South Carolina's Katon Dawson, who until recently belonged to that most Jurassic of entities, the all-white golf club, and who says he got into politics as a teenager in response to court-ordered school integration:

"So yet again, the black man kept Dawson down."

Juan Cole, Fearless Vampire Killer

Cole slays neocon "historian" Fouad Ajami in a must-read column today on his blog. Ajami attempts to pull the Rovian move of projecting your own failures upon your opponent (in this case, President Obama). Even a pull quote here won't do it justice - go read the whole thing.

I wish Cole was on TV more often.

"A has-been hypocrite loser"

As we watch Obama rope-a-dope Rush into a well-deserved obsolescence, it's enjoyable also to watch the dead-ender red state Republicans in Congress grudgingly bend over and grab their ankles (to use a Rushism) to appease the bloated pig who rules their world. My personal favorite response to Rush's recent whines about how he hopes Obama fails, how he's a victim of "the media," and how he thinks the economic crisis that his party's ideology created should be solved, came from Representative Alan Grayson (h/t Digby):

"Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we'd all need pain killers."

This Was Just...Well, You'll See...

Arlen Specter, Wuss Boy

As a Republican Senator from a state that leans increasingly Democratic (PA), Arlen Specter has had to keep his moderate credentials current over the years. His willingness to vote for union-friendly legislation, his coolness to Republican tax cut orthodoxy, and his pro-choice stance have made him a target for the hard right at times. In fact, in 2004, then-Rep Pat Toomey of PA, a hard right conservative (and now the president of the Club for Growth, a righty pressure group), actually challenged Specter in a Republican primary for Specter's Senate seat.

Despite being far closer to Toomey philosophically, the Bush White House strongly supported Specter, recognizing that in Pennsylvania, Specter is a better candidate against a Democrat. With Bush's support, Specter still barely held off Toomey, winning 51-49.

Well, ol' Arlen is up for re-election again in 2010, and Toomey is still a darling of the right wing of a party that is pretty mad at getting its butt kicked in two straight election cycles. Holding their noses and voting for Arlen isn't exactly the mood of the right wing these days. Specter knows this, which is why he has spent the past several weeks attacking Obama's attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, for being peripherally involved in the infamous Marc Rich pardon during Clinton's final days in office. Specter delayed the confirmation hearing, then delayed the committee vote, and subjected Holder to harsh questioning, character attacks, and exhaustive discovery requests.

What a political boon for Specter. He gets to burnish his cred with the right wingers in his state by playing culture warrior, and to do so, he uses an issue that allows him to bring up the everlasting catnip of the culture war crowd--Bill Clinton. Hmmmm...could it be that visions of Pat Toomey were dancing in Arlen's head as he went down this uncharacteristic path? Nahhh...just a coincidence.

Well, yesterday, Toomey announced that he would not run against Specter in 2010. And...lo and behold, today, Specter announces that he will not only stop delaying the confirmation process for Holder, but he will even vote for his confirmation!

So...rake him over the coals to help forestall a primary challenge, then vote for him because that's what Pennsylvania voters would want, and besides, by November 2010, they won't remember how much trouble you created along the way. Arlen's a moderate! He voted to confirm Eric Holder, the first African-American attorney general in history! : )

So Obama Meets House Republicans...and...

A GOP source to TIME's Jay Newton-Small:

Nearly as many House Republicans sought to get their photos taken with Obama as questioned him about the stimulus during their meeting.

How I'd feel

if I had to deal with party hacks like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and so forth, who bargain in bad faith on the stimulus bill, who lie about the effects of closing Guantanamo, who whine like babies because Obama refuses to adopt the righty policies that voters overwhelmingly rejected in the last two elections and that are largely responsible for all our problems.

Assholes.

Obama Speaking to the Dems

At least as I imagine it behind closed doors. One of the greatest scenes in all of film, just for Jormungandr:

McCain, Relevant at all Costs

McCain accomplishes a double whammy of incoherence here--he manages to oppose the Obama economic plan because it doesn't "do enough" to create jobs, while also saying the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy need to be made permanent.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain says it will take some big changes before he would vote for the Obama administration's stimulus package.
The Arizona Republican, who calls himself a member of the loyal opposition, says he can't vote for the proposal as it is now written. For one, he doesn't think it would do enough to put people back to work.
The former GOP presidential nominee also says he will push to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, which helped high-earning people. Those cuts expire next year and President Barack Obama has said he would not seek to renew them.
McCain spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

OK, so let's get this straight. We need to "do more" (how else do you "do more" without spending more?) to create jobs while also continuing the huge tax cuts for the wealthy that blew up the federal budget in the first place--tax cuts that do absolutely nothing to create jobs. I'll bet we hear about some silly little earmark soon from Mr. Maverick, protesting (justifiably) a few million dollars of dumb spending while he advocates for hundreds of billions of dollars of tax benefits for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

The kicker is that this prescription is given by the guy who styles himself as an old-line fiscal conservative.

Will these contradictions be seriously questioned by the media? Doubtful. Do they ever really question McCain, esp. to his face?

But it does appear that the hyperventilating righty criticisms of McCain (see Santorum, Rick and Journal, Wall Street) as a tool of Obama's have sunken in. Why else would he say he will push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? McCain is many things, but he isn't stupid, and he knows damn well that is simply never going to happen with Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. Why would a so-called "realist" like McCain chase a fool's errand?

I guess this is what passes for Mavericky independence these days?

From my vantage point, politicians are moved by three things: (1) ambition; (2) fear of irrelevance; and (3) rarely, actual belief in something. Since this is now McCain's 20th (or 21st? I've lost count) position on the economy over the course of the last 2 years, I'll leave you to determine which of the three motives is driving him.

Updated, 12:30pm: I see this hasn't escaped notice...pretty obvious stuff, but disappointing.

Baracky

As long as our new Preznit is punking the dumbass Republicans, it seems a good time to revisit this fabulous video from the primary campaign:

Obama Continues to Lecture the R's

Brilliant.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Obama Pwns Congressional Republicans

Nice to see a Democrat who has some spine.

Today's very enjoyable quote of the day:


"I won."

-- President Obama, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, in response to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on why he's not including more Republican ideas in his economic stimulus plan.

Sublimated perversions of the Right

An indispensible compilation by Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Republican Hypocrisy Watch

This one just seemed particularly funny. Ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley, who has been hammering away at Treasury Sec nominee Tim Geithner for tax filing errors (that Geithner has already corrected and settled up w/ the IRS), has his own financial reporting problems.

Pot, meet kettle. : )

Mr. President

Just hadda post this...complete with Roberts' flub too. From the commentary I've read, this speech has already been surprisingly underappreciated.

The Last Word on Blago

It belongs, fittingly, to Matt Taibbi.

NRO Losing Its Mind

Maybe a fallacy, because that assumes that it was in possession of it at one point. Anyway, here is how one of their minions responds to Obama's call for gov't that works:

"The Era of Big Government Is Over..." [Peter Kirsanow]
From Obama's inaugural address:
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too large or too small, but whether it works..."
Hold onto your wallets, folks. We're about to get the biggest government in history.

Hilarious. Where was this guy when Bush was destroying the federal budget with tax cuts for the rich and sweetheart deals for Halliburton?

Cool Link

Follow this link to see inauguration headlines across America and around the world. Kinda neat.

"Put Away Childish Things"

Good luck, Obama.

The day after the historic inauguration, here are the most popular websites on CNN:




OK, first is Michelle's dress, second is a story about a gay mayor shagging a teenager, and then...a substantive story about the challenges the new administration faces.

"Ain't that America...for you and me...ain't that America...somethin' ta see, baby..." -- John Mellencamp

Just in Case You Needed More Symbolism...

LOL. How perfect.

Cheney in wheelchair with pulled back muscle
10 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney pulled a muscle in his back while moving boxes and will be in a wheelchair for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney was helping to move into his new home outside Washington in McLean, Va., when he injured his back.
His doctor recommended that he needed a wheelchair for the next couple of days.
Perino said that Cheney is OK otherwise.
"The vice president is looking forward to being there for tomorrow's historic inaugural activities," Perino said.

Inaugural Thoughts

I've read quite a bit and seen lots of TV here in these last couple of days...

and I think this moment is entirely too big to be captured in words, images, music, gatherings of people...it's just too big. Maybe even bigger than Obama himself, frankly.

Shut Em Down

As we contemplate the human wreckage of Israel's misbegotten Gaza war, Americans need to start pressuring their elected representatives to cut off the gargantuan financial and military aid the US provides to our "friend" in the Middle East.

For decades now, Israel's illegal (and misnamed) "settlements" have expanded due largely to the multibillion dollar "loans" from the US. I put "loans" in quotes b/c it's a euphemism - Israel isn't expected to ever pay them back, so they're really de facto gifts.

Now, journalist Robert Bryce writes in Salon about the massive amounts of military hardware and gasoline - in the midst of a fuel crisis here - that our government has been funneling to Israel. Wonder why most of the Islamic world blames the US for Israel's actions, why we will get the blowback from Gaza? Read this and weep:

It's well known that the U.S. supplies the Israelis with much of their military hardware. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has provided about $53 billion in military aid to Israel. What's not well known is that since 2004, U.S. taxpayers have paid to supply over 500 million gallons of refined oil products -- worth about $1.1 billion –- to the Israeli military. While a handful of countries get motor fuel from the U.S., they receive only a fraction of the fuel that Israel does -- fuel now being used by Israeli fighter jets, helicopters and tanks to battle Hamas.

According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, between 2004 and 2007 the U.S. Defense Department gave $818 million worth of fuel to the Israeli military. The total amount was 479 million gallons, the equivalent of about 66 gallons per Israeli citizen. In 2008, an additional $280 million in fuel was given to the Israeli military, again at U.S. taxpayers' expense. The U.S. has even paid the cost of shipping the fuel from U.S. refineries to ports in Israel.

In 2008, the fuel shipped to Israel from U.S. refineries accounted for 2 percent of Israel's $13.3 billion defense budget. Publicly available data shows that about 2 percent of the U.S. Defense Department's budget is also spent on oil. A senior analyst at the Pentagon, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, says the Israel Defense Force's fuel use is most likely similar to that of the U.S. Defense Department. In other words, the Israeli military is spending about the same percentage of its defense budget on oil as the U.S. is. Therefore it's possible that the U.S. is providing most, or perhaps even all, of the Israeli military's fuel needs.

What's more, Israel does not need the U.S. handout. Its own recently privatized refineries, located at Haifa and Ashdod, could supply all of the fuel needed by the Israeli military. Those same refineries are now producing and selling jet fuel and other refined products on the open market. But rather than purchase lower-cost jet fuel from its own refineries, the Israeli military is using U.S. taxpayer money to buy and ship large quantities of fuel from U.S. refineries.

The Israeli government obtains the fuel through the Defense Department's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, and pays for the fuel and the shipping with funds granted to it through Foreign Military Financing (FMF), another Defense Department program. (In 2008, Congress earmarked $2.4 billion in FMF money for Israel, and $2.5 billion for 2009.) The dimensions of the FMS fuel program are virtually unknown among America's top experts on Middle East policy. For his part, the Pentagon analyst was surprised to learn that FMS money was even being used to supply fuel to Israel. "That's not the purpose of the program," he says. "FMS was designed to allow U.S. weapons makers to sell their goods to foreign countries. The idea that fuel is being bought under FMS is very, very odd."

The fuel program, in fact, raises a number of pressing questions. The shipments have occurred during times of record-high oil prices, when American consumers have been angered by motor fuel prices that in 2008 exceeded $4 per gallon. Given those high prices, it appears to make little sense for the U.S. government to be promoting policies that reduce the volume of -- and potentially raise the price of -- motor fuel
available for sale to U.S. motorists.

The U.S. fuel shipments are part of a sustained policy that has widened the energy gap between Israel and its neighbors. Over the past few years, the Israel Defense Force has cut off fuel supplies and destroyed electricity infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Those embargoes and attacks on power plants have exacerbated a huge gap in per-capita energy consumption between Israelis and Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. And that sharp disparity helps explain why the Palestinians have never been able to build a viable economy.

Wondering what your tax dollars are paying for? Go look at the photographs taken in Gaza this past month, which I won't post here, of dead kids and families who were deliberately killed by our "friend's" military. What would they do without our money?

President Obama needs to shut this shit down. His advisors are promising that he will "forcefully" address the situation on Wednesday, his first full day in office. Let's hope so.

In Praise of Me

Well, after a pretty lousy run of prognosticating in the playoffs this year, I finally scored big yesterday...so why not praise me for it?

Arizona-Philly: I said 31-20 Arizona, and they won 32-25. Let's look further, though.

I said the Arizona receivers would be just too much for Philly--check.

I said Arizona's defense would not be great, but would do just enough to slow down McNabb--check (yes, he led a great comeback, but they got the big stop on the last drive).

I said the Eagles receivers would drop a few critical passes--check.

Pittsburgh-Baltimore: I said 20-17 Pittsburgh, and they won 23-14. Again, let's look further.

I said Santonio Holmes would score a long TD, and he scored on a wild 65-yard TD pass--check.

I said that both QBs would be pummeled, but the key would be Flacco's 3 INTs to Roethlisberger's zero--EXACTLY RIGHT!

I said the Ravens would score a TD off a Willie Parker fumble--not quite, but Parker did fumble and the Ravens recovered.

So...I am now the king of football. :)

The AIPAC-Likudnik logo

H/t John Cole

Game On

Arizona 31, Philly 20

• Boldin and Fitzgerald just too much.
• Neither team runs the ball well at all.
• Cards defense not great, but does just enough to slow down McNabb.
• Eagles receivers will drop a couple of critical passes.
• Throw in some really ugly, lucky play (tipped interception, questionable fumble call...something), and Arizona wins!

Pittsburgh 20, Baltimore 17.

• Watch out for Santonio Holmes to break a big TD.
• Both QBs will get pummeled. Flacco will throw three picks, Roethlisberger will throw none.
• Ravens will score a defensive TD off a Willie Parker fumble.
• FG on the last play of the game wins it for Pittsburgh.

Becoming What You Say You Hate

H/t Juan Cole. Apparently our pal Thomas Friedman voiced similar sentiments in the New York Times too.

Mr. 22% Readies His Exit

Can the 22% who still (still!) approve of Bush...not to be rude here...but can they leave when he leaves?

Thomas Friedman, R.I.P.

How he walks out of his house after this devastating takedown by Matt Taibbi is beyond me. This is deeply funny, must-read stuff.

Bill Moyers on Gaza

Great stuff (h/t Glenn Greenwald):

For too much of the world at large the names of the dead and wounded in Gaza might as well be John Doe too. They are the casualties and victims of Israel's decision to silence the rockets from Hamas terrorists by waging war on an entire population. Yes, every nation has the right to defend its people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead.

But brute force can turn self-defense into state terrorism. It's what the U.S. did in Vietnam, with B-52s and napalm, and again in Iraq, with shock and awe. By killing indiscriminately - the elderly, kids, entire families by destroying schools and hospitals — Israel did exactly what terrorists do and exactly what Hamas wanted. It spilled the blood that turns the wheel of retribution.

Hardly had Israeli tank fire killed and injured scores at a UN school in Gaza than a senior Hamas leader went on television to announce, "The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children." Already attacks on Jews in Europe are escalating — a burning car crashes into a synagogue in Southern France, a fiery object is hurled through a window in Sweden, venomous anti-Semitic graffiti appears across the continent, and arsonists strike in London.

What we are seeing in Gaza is the latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible: the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" now proclaimed, "You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the
carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place."

So God-soaked violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, "It's like Dante's Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage."

America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who
claim divine sanctions for Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House. Rarely does our mainstream media depart from the monotonous monologue of the party line. Many American Jews know, as Aaron David Miller writes in the current "Newsweek", that the destruction in Gaza won't do much to address Israel's longer-term needs.

But those who raise questions are accused by a prominent reform rabbi of being "morally deficient." One Jewish American activist told me this week that never in 30 years has he seen such blind and binding conformity in his community. "You'd never know," he said, "that it is the Gazans who are doing most of the suffering."

We are in a terrible bind — Israel, the Palestinians, the United States. Each greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression. Is it possible to turn this mindless tragedy toward peace? For starters, read Aaron David Miller's article in the current "Newsweek". Get his book, "The Much Too Promised Land". And pay no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy. Here are the people who pay the price.

Obama on This Week

He sure seems commanding and presidential. But as he discusses his plans, I find myself unable to fully grasp it. This is what commentators commonly reference when they say he needs to be "more specific".

How specific can he be, frankly? And no matter how much detail, aren't we in essence taking a leap of faith, regardless of what array of policies are ultimately enacted? It all seems to be as much a matter of religion as anything else. Republicans insist that business tax cuts and credits are what "create jobs and grow the economy". Democrats want more federal spending (called "investments" for marketing purposes) and say that "creates jobs and puts a down payment on fixing the structural deficiencies of the current economy".

What works?

How the hell can you prove it?

I know that giving massive tax cuts to incredibly wealthy people and big business, as Bush did, sounds pretty stupid (and immoral) to me.

Peggy Noonan made a good point in the roundtable after Obama's appearance, where she said, "I hope he wants the right things because he is probably going to get most or all of what he wants."

I second that emotion

Today Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for an investigation into whether war crimes were being committed by Israel in Gaza:

"The vicious cycle of provocation and retribution must be brought to an end," she said.

Scores of people, including children, had been killed or wounded in "Israel's totally unacceptable strikes" against clearly marked U.N. facilities sheltering Gaza civilians, she said. Harm to civilians caused by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel was also "unacceptable".

Pillay was addressing a special session of the U.N. Human Rights Council a day after the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 14-day-old conflict and a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

But check out this nugget at the end about the U.S. response:

The United States, Israel's main ally, has virtually stopped taking part in the Council, which it says has lost credibility.

Why, because the Council criticized Israel? Is it now the 51st state or something?

Maybe Jeremiah Wright was right: "God damn America" indeed. My government fails to represent me fairly in these types of decisions, I complain to my elected officials, they ignore me, I vent about it to the three or so people who will read it here. I sign petitions. I join in e-mail campaigns. I march in the street. Nothing changes.

I will be seriously pissed if President Obama doesn't change course in a meaningful way after January 20.

Update: This is a hopeful sign. If Obama is actually going to engage in direct diplomacy with Hamas, that's already a quantum improvement from the fucktardedness of the Bush years. And it beats the spineless, amoral, ethically challenged national Dems - not a huge feat but better than nothing.

Marvel Team-Up starring Spider-Man and... Barack Obama

So, so, so cool:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Spider-Man has a new sidekick: The president-elect.

Barack Obama collected Spider-Man comics as a child, so Marvel Comics wanted to give him a "shout-out back" by featuring him in a bonus story, said Joe
Quesada, Marvel's editor-in-chief.

"How great is that? The commander in chief to be is actually a nerd in chief," Quesada said. "It was really, really cool to see that we had a geek in the White House. We're all thrilled with that."

The comic starts with Spider-Man's alter-ego Peter Parker taking photographs at the inauguration, before spotting two identical Obamas. Parker decides "the future president's gonna need Spider-Man," and springs into action, using basketball to determine the real Obama and punching out the impostor.

Obama thanks him with a fist-bump.

Obama has said that as a child, he collected Spider-Man and Conan the Barbarian comic books. His Senate Web site used to have a photo of him posing in front of a Superman statue.

The Obama story is a bonus in Marvel Comic's Amazing Spider-Man #583,
available in comic book shops nationwide on Jan. 14 for $3.99 and is expected to
sell out, with half the covers devoted to Obama.

Harry Reid, shmendrick

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake has the definitive takedown of the incompetence of Harry Reid. Go check it out.

Who does the Senate represent?

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell just pushed a Senate resolution voicing support for Israel and repeating the same bogus lines about what the US would do if we were attacked with rockets from Mexico or Canada. Jon Stewart disposed of this crap pretty easily last night.

Is this the American Senate or the Israeli Senate? How fucking tone-deaf to public opinion, both in and out of the US, is this idiotic resolution?

Just saying.

"A big concentration camp"

That's what a spokesman for the Vatican is calling Gaza today. Israel condemned this characterization, likening it to "Hamas propaganda." On the other hand, we have this from the International Red Cross:

Workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza say they have gone into houses and discovered horrific scenes of corpses, and of living children still next to the body of their mother. Physicians in Gaza are convince that the official death and casualty totals for this military operation are gross underestimates, and that there are lots of buildings with undiscovered corpses in them alongside orphaned children.

The real history behind the Gaza crisis

Rashid Khalidi, a professor whom you may remember as a former colleague of Barack Obama in Chicago, offers a succinct explanation of the recent history of relations between Israel and Gaza in today's New York Times.

I'm actually surprised the NYT published this, since it has put forth a relentless pro-war tilt in its coverage.

The standoff continues as our "friend" digs us in deeper with a huge chunk of the world's population.

And More Blowback Courtesy of Our "Friend" Israel

Or, with friends like these.... As if to underscore my previous point about Gaza, now we have this:

Iraq's Sadr urges reprisals against US over Gaza war
AFPAFP Global Edition
Jan 07, 2009

The Shiite radical movement of Moqtada al-Sadr, which fought two wars with US troops in 2004, threatened on Wednesday to resume attacks on American targets inside Iraq over Washington's support for the Israeli assault on Gaza.

"I ask the Iraqi resistance to engage in revenge operations against the United States, the biggest partner of the Zionist enemy," Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the central shrine city of Najaf.

He called on "all countries which host Israeli embassies on their territory to close down those missions which are the source of terrorism in Arab and Islamic countries as a sign of support for the Palestinian people."

Sadr also urged Iraqis to "place Palestinian flags on the roofs of all buildings, mosques and churches in a show of support for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Gaza."

Again, I ask: why the hell do we think Israel is such a great ally?

Blowback

Juan Cole has a great post today suggesting that Israel's incursion into Gaza will almost certainly result in more blowback for the US from the Islamic world. Read the whole thing, but here's the money part below:

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons; in the place where Jesus is said to have made water into wine, Israeli bombs wrought a different sort of transformation. In the distant, picturesque port of Hamburg, a young graduate student studying traditional architecture of Aleppo saw footage like this on the news [graphic]. He was consumed with anguish and the desire for revenge. He immediately wrote out a martyrdom will, pledging to die avenging the innocent victims, killed with airplanes and bombs that were a free gift from the United States. His name was Muhammad Atta. Five years later he piloted American Airlines 11 into the World Trade Center.

On Tuesday, the Israeli military shelled a United Nations school to which terrified Gazans had fled for refuge, killing at least 42 persons and wounding 55, virtually all of them civilians, and many of them children. The Palestinian death toll rose to 660. The Israelis say they took fire from one of the schools. Was it tank fire?

You wonder if someone somewhere is writing out a will today.

In fact, you know that the Israeli leaders know that likely their atrocities against civilians in Gaza will produce further terrorism, both against the United States and Israel. They are obviously entirely willing to take that risk. Why? The Israeli far right thrives on ethnic conflict. It may be worried that Obama will try to curb it. What is the worst that could happen, from their point of view? That Obama's presidency would be destroyed by an alleged failure to prevent such an attack, and that the US public would be shifted to the Right and rededicate itself to its flagging crusade against Islam-- oops, I mean "war on terror"?

Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA Bin Laden desk for some years and knows something about radical fundamentalism, concludes, "What is likely to become known across the Islamic world as the "Gaza slaughter" will ensure the continued growth of the Sunni insurgency al-Qaeda leads and inspires."

And as though on cue, Ayman al-Zawahiri came out with a video Tuesday, saying, ""We will never stop until we avenge the death of all who are killed, injured, widowed and orphaned in Palestine and throughout the Islamic world . . ." He then attacked Barack Obama, saying "These air strikes are a gift from Obama before he takes office, and from Hosni Mubarak, the traitor who is the primary partner in your siege and murder."

What I am saying is that Israeli leaders like Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and the Israeli high command and intelligence all knew this danger very well when they launched this bloodbath. They subjected you and me to it anyway, because it is immaterial to them what happens to the United States as a result of their bloody-mindedness. They want theirs. They are no different in that regard from American hawks. Bush knew he was endangering Madrid and Glasgow when he attacked Iraq. He didn't care about his allies, either. In the Hawk Business, provoking terrorism is all to the good. Nor are they different in this regard from the leadership of Hamas, which also acted provocatively without regard to the wider consequences.

If you read the whole thing it gets worse. We learn that the Israeli bombing of a UN school in which hundreds of Gazans had taken refuge was not, as we're being told today in the American media, a haven for rocket attacks on Israel. It was full of civilians, and the UN had even given the coordinates to the Israeli military so it would be spared.

We need to cut these fanatics off from the money spigot. It makes me livid and heartsick to know that my tax dollars are helping pay for bombs and ammo to kill women and children so that Shecky from Brooklyn can have a suburban house in a gated community in the illegal settlements and "find himself" in the land "promised" by the Bible.

Every time I see a "settler" (terrible euphemism), wild-eyed, spittle flying, demand to know if critics of Israel are "anti-Semitic" I wonder how many people think "not yet, keep pushing me."

Jon Stewart, National Treasure

Here he is with the perfect sendup of our current Senate circus:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Crisis in the Senate - Deliberative Disorder

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Manu Ginobili awesomeness

Since You Sucked Last Time

OK, I guess we both "sucked" but who knew that Pennington was going to channel Jay Fiedler in that game? Miami "pwned" themselves. On the other hand, you should have foreseen the Tavaris factor - the guy is a pick-six machine. Not exactly a Jedi-like prediction. Here are my picks:

Tennessee 24, Baltimore 10

I see a wider margin than you in this one. I think TN will score at least one defensive TD, and TN has the power running game to go right at Baltimore instead of trying to run around them (too fast) or trick them (too smart). Even Miami was able to control the clock for most of last week's game, so imagine TN going on long drives and pounding Baltimore into frustration. LenDale White and Chris Johnson are not Eddie George. You have to expect Kerry Collins would like to get revenge for that Super Bowl beating he took back in 2000.

Pittsburgh 20, San Diego 10

You predict Sproles will break a big play and Big Ben gets knocked out of the game; I see the exact opposite. Pitt's D is faster and harder hitting than Indy's - we'll learn this week why Sproles can't be an every-down back. He goes down. As for Ben, I just have a feeling that he will have a big game. San Diego has a terrible pass D, and not much of a rush, even though Pitt's awful line play may make them look good.

Also, I think Tennessee will beat either one of these teams. The only real threat left to them is Baltimore.

Carolina 38, Arizona 17

I couldn't disagree more with your upset special. Arizona is a soft finesse team that will get crushed by the more physical Panthers, who also can match AZ's team speed better than Atlanta could. Watch the Panthers get numerous turnovers out of Warner, with at least one defensive TD. In fact, I bet Matt Leinart gets to finish the game. Time to go back to Wal-Mart Kurt.

And now, my Upset Special:

Philly 31, NY Giants 21

I think McNabb and Westbrook are both due for breakout performances, and I think the Giants are not the same team without Plaxico. In fact, I think it will be Philly, not the Giants, who get a defensive TD.

The only way this pick works, though, is for Philly to jump on them early, get a big early lead, like 10-0 or 14-0, and take out the Giants' running game. I watched Philly beat the Giants a few weeks ago, and they stuffed the run, but no Brandon Jacobs in that one. He is the X-factor. A smash-mouth Jacobs game and this pick is toast. But I just have a feeling.

This would put Philly at Carolina for the title, a rematch of that embarrassing choke-job defeat by McNabb a few years ago. But I think McNabb does much better as the underdog so watch out.