“Why is it that Republicans are so offended to see two gay men holding hands, but do not have the same moral outrage about two children who are being turned away from the hospital because their parents can’t get health insurance?”
“What about that moral outrage, what about those values?”
-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (April 29, 2007)
Four years ago today, President Bush surrendered the war effort in favor of a costly photo-op in which he declared that major combat operations were over:
In recognition of the anniversary of Mission Accomplished, I’m re-posting two videos that I’ve used before. The first is a 38 second clip from the famous “Mission Accomplished” speech given four years ago today, and the second is the clip from a few months prior to Mission Accomplished, where Donald Rumsfeld promised that the war would last no longer than a few days, weeks or months.
I’m torn between Edwards and Obama as my top choice for Democratic nominee.
Either would make a good president. Even better if they were on the same ticket. The question for today’s post is who would make the better presidentialcandidate. In terms of being able to offer bold leadership and in terms of his ability to inspire, my current view is that Edwards is the better choice.
This goes against the conventional wisdom, which to some extent is that Obama, with his immigrant roots and amazing life story, is more “inspirational” than Edwards, with his expensive haircuts and equally expensive smile.
As pretty and privileged as he may be, I believe that Edwards genuinely cares about this country and has great compassion for the poor and those who are too weak to protect themselves. Obama undoubtedly feels the same way, but comparing the two I think Edwards has shown greater strength of his convictions in this early phase of the election cycle. He seems to be less willing to listen to the bad advice of Washington “beltway” advisers and pundits, who strive to water-down politicians’ messages until they all sound alike. Obama, I’m afraid, is starting to sound more and more like other generic Democratic candidates (such as Clinton, my third choice).
Edwards was burned in 2004, and learned some lessons from that defeat. He knows that one reason the Democrats lost in 2004 because people saw the party as wavering and flip-floppy, while they saw Bush as stronger in his convictions. The new, seasoned Edwards is bolder, clearer, and more intelligent than the one we saw in 2004. He knows what’s right and importantly, he isn’t afraid to say it. For example, he’s the first one to put a specific health care proposal on the table.
Personally, I believe that about 30% of this country is very conservative, 30% is very liberal, and about 40% have no strong convictions either way, but they do have a wide range of opinions that would seemingly put them in both camps — at times in a somewhat contradictory way. (For example, they are pro-health care reform, but fearful of big government actions in the economic market). However, one thing that all of these middle 40% want is someone with courage, strength, and confidence. They want a strong personality — a leader. Kerry had trouble with these voters when he gave esoteric and complex answers to seemingly simple questions. Other democrats struggle with these voters when they say they are strong on health care and then don’t really have anything specific when they are asked what they intend to do about it. Republicans, even ones with extreme flip-flops such as Bush (click for examples of extreme Bush flip-floppery) attract these voters when they speak in moral absolutes about things like god, gays, and guns.
Edwards has been through the fire of one of the most brutal campaigns in recent history. He came out of it, learned lessons from it, and as a result has more strength and confidence than ever before. Obama has not been there — his senate campaign was a breeze. As it stands, I’m afraid that Obama is too susceptible to the pundits. This fear was partially confirmed when I heard him speak in Oakland a few weeks ago. He spoke in broad, general, generic terms that were barely distinguishable from the other Democratic candidates. Too much like Senator Clinton.
So as it stands, I’m leaning towards Edwards.
This skit from MadTV would be hilarious if it weren’t so painfully true:
On April 2, 2007, Maryland became the first state to join the National Popular Vote interstate Compact (agreement). If enough states join the Compact, the Electoral College system of voting will effectively come to an end.
The National Popular Vote plan is so simple and elegant it’s amazing nobody thought of it sooner. The idea behind it was originated John R. Koza, a computer scientist (not a political scientist).
Here’s how it works: States have complete power under the Constitution to allocate their Electoral College votes as they see fit. Historically, each state has allocated its Electoral College vote based on the election outcome in that State. Under the National Popular Vote Compact, member states agree that their Electoral College votes will be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of the election outcome in any particular state.
The National Popular Vote plan would only take effect only once enough states join the Compact so that the outcome of the presidential election would be determine solely by this method. In other words, enough states have to sign on so that a majority of the Electoral College votes would be under the Compact. This is a significantly lower hurdle than amending the Constitution. Once it passes in enough states, the next president would be picked based solely on whoever won the most votes. The way it should be.
“The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Nov. 14, 2002.
President Bush took another four years before he made Rumsfeld step down. And Bush now wonders why this country is weary of his unnecessary war.
Update 4/5/2007: It’s funny that a few months later, Donald Rumsfeld changed his estimate from 5 days/weeks to six days/weeks. Here’s a short clip of that absurd prediction, made on February 7, 2003:
For transcript, click here.
Republican Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah recently said that there is “nothing wrong” with firing a federal prosecutor solely “for the reason of politics.” I wonder how Congressman Cannon would feel if a newly elected Democratic president appointed a prosecutor for the sole purpose of investigating and digging up some dirt on Cannon and trying to prosecute him. Hey, it’s just politics!
One big difference between a president and a king is that the president can’t shout “off with his head” at anyone he doesn’t like. A president can’t use the muscle and power of the Federal Government to prosecute his enemies and protect his friends.
Right?
Maybe not. Bush has been firing federal prosecutors solely on the basis that they hadn’t demonstrated sufficient loyalty to him. For President Bush, the Justice Department is just another political tool, and he can use it to prosecute his enemies and protect his political allies from prosecution.
As I’ve said before, this is not business as usual. Every administration plays its political games and pushes its agenda. But don’t forget this important piece of information: Up until the Patriot Act revised the law (purportedly for reasons of national security), every time a president fired a US Attorney, the replacement US Attorney had to receive Senate confirmation. Thanks to the Patriot Act and the mantra of “national security,” Bush gets to replace the fired prosecutors with whomever he wants, without Senate approval.
Before the 2006 elections that threw them out of office, the Republican Congress — under the mantle of national security — handed massive amounts of new power over to the Bush Administration, and President Bush has been busy abusing that power.
There’s so much cleaning up to do.
Much damage has been done to our country (and to the world) during the last six years of the Bush Administration. After Bush is gone (and after we’re finished dancing in the streets), where do we start the first set of repairs to our Republic?
Back in November, I posted my top nine list on the subject.
And last weekend, the New York Times editorial page published a “must do” list, specifically addressing the restoration of the Rule of Law, a founding principle of our society for which our President has no respect.
Here’s a shorthand and slightly revised version of the Time’s Must Do List, based on the March 4, 2007 editorial. I encourage you to read the original article:
This is a great political parody of the famous TV commercial that officially launched the Apple Macintosh in 1984. (Younger readers, “Macintosh” is what is now just a “Mac”). It’s ostensibly pro-Barack Obama, but Obama’s campaign was apparently not connected to it’s production:
[Disclaimer: While an easy target for parody, Hillary Clinton is not all that bad. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not a fan, but I'll vote for her if I have to.]
By the way, the original Apple 1984 advertisement is well worth viewing. Released in 1984 and only aired once, it makes reference to Orwell’s 1984 and is clearly suggestive of the 1984 Summer Olympics which were held in Los Angeles and were boycotted by the authoritarian regimes of the Soviet bloc. Twenty+ years later, even after the creation of Windows and the death of the horrible MS-DOS, the video still effectively captures the essence of the battle between the Mac and the PC:
Rebeka Rice, a high school student in California, was disciplined by the school principal after using the phrase “that’s so gay” in a derogatory way.
Her parents have sued.
Rebeka Rice argues that she wasn’t being hateful. Instead, she said that she only meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”
Hmmm. Isn’t there something hateful about using the word “gay” as a synonym for “stupid, silly, or dumb?” That’s so Rebeka Rice, if you ask me. And by that I mean, “what an idiot.”
I think it’s time to turn the phrase “that’s so gay” into a compliment. Why not? I love The Gays! In that spirit, I submit for you what I believe is the gayest music video I’ve ever seen. I mean that entirely as a compliment. Love it or hate it, how can you watch this video and not think “that’s so gay?”
(Don’t worry, it’s rated G. Or at least PG.)
The artist who calls himself “RX” has taken audio samples of speeches by George W. Bush and mixed them up to create music. The British paper the Guardian has referred to RX’s music as “sublime subversion.” I agree.
With permission of the artist, I’ve posted a handful of my favorite RX tunes on a dedicated web page [click here].
Or you can visit RX’s official site at ThePartyParty.com.
There was a time when I liked John McCain.
Even though I don’t agree with McCain politically (he’s very conservative), I have always respected the man. Not only for his service in the Vietnam War, but also for his willingness to speak up and be a “maverick” in his political party.
Unfortunately, ambition for higher office has gotten the best of John McCain. To make peace with the right-wingers who control his party’s presidential primaries, he compromised on allowing torture, he compromised on mutilating the Geneva Conventions, he compromised on separation of church and state, and he voted to allow the president to unconstitutionally suspend habeas corpus.
Someone’s done a nice little video about his decline:
Wanna know how to make Dick Cheney angry? Say something positive and affirming about his daughter, Mary.
It won’t make him angry if you merely criticize his daughter for being a lesbian, or if you try to strip gays and lesbians of equal rights.
For example, notice the Vice President’s reaction when Focus on the Family (a pro-Bush organization) issued the following statement:
“Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.”
Focus on the Family wasn’t merely making a general statement about gay rights. They were directly attacking Dick Cheney’s daughter. Out of line, don’t you think?
One might expect our preternaturally combative Vice President to respond to Focus on the Family’s focus on his family. But he did not. The Vice President said nothing. No public expression of outrage.
He didn’t even give the Bush allies over at Focus on the Family one of his trademark snarls.
Contrast this with his reaction when Wolf Blitzer asked the Vice President if he wanted to respond to these anti-gay critics. After prefacing his question with friendly and supportive comments about Mary, including “all of us are happy she’s going to have a baby,” Blitzer asked the Vice President if he wanted to respond to these attacks on his daughter.
Here’s the Vice President’s reaction. In Dick Cheney’s view, the offense is asking a question about his daughter, not the attack issued by the Administration’s anti-gay allies over at Focus on the Family:
Yes, the President has already tried the surge/escalation tactic in Iraq more than once. And yes, the tactic failed in the past. But he wants another chance.
Jon Stewart summed it up pretty well in this seventeen second clip from the Daily Show:
UPDATE (3/30/2007): Unfortunately, the video was removed from YouTube. Sorry!
You know who I’m talking about.
I don’t hate Hillary Clinton. I’m glad she’s in the Senate, and I hope she stays safely in the Senate for decades to come.
For a dozen years Hillary Clinton has been unfairly vilified by the right wing. Unfortunately, she’s tried a little too hard to repair her image — she tries too hard to be all things to all people. The two videos below capture the problem.
The first video is Clinton’s video announcement of her candidacy. Watch a few seconds. Warning: It’s painful. The words “wooden” and “cliché” come to mind.
After that, scroll down to the second clip. It’s a sketch from this weekend’s Saturday Night Live. It pretty much captures the essence of what I think is wrong with Senator Clinton’s approach to national politics.
Clinton’s announcement:
SNL Clip:
George Bush recently described his diagnosis for our broken health care system. In his radio address this weekend, Bush said that the current system “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans,” driving up the overall cost of coverage and care. Bush is proposing that, if an employer-provided health care plan is too generous, employees should pay income taxes on these health benefits.
Question: Do you know anyone with a “gold-plated” health plan? I don’t. Have you ever heard of anyone with a serious medical condition having a good experience with their private health insurance?
The president’s horrible proposal is based on an old conservative myth. The conservative myth is that the problem with health insurance is that it encourages people to use too much health care. Conservatives believe that the problem is too much insurance, raising overall costs.
Whatever grain of truth there is in this conservative myth, it is clearly not the problem America faces. The real problem is that millions of people in this country have no insurance coverage at all. Lives are ruined every day because of this. And those of us lucky enough to have insurance live at the mercy of a horrible system that gives us measurably worse care than citizens receive in most other industrialized countries. We need universal health care.
Aren’t conservatives supposed to be against taxes and against government regulation and for personal freedom? Don’t you think it’s odd that Bush wants to try to use government regulation to discourage you from buying an insurance plan he doesn’t like? Don’t you think it’s odd that, after cutting taxes in a time of war (so that the wealthiest few could lower their tax burden), Bush is demanding a tax on “overly expensive” and “gold-plated” employer-provided insurance?
President Bush on June 28, 2005:
“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.”
For years, Bush attacked those who said there were not enough American troops in Iraq. Now, after a full civil war has erupted and Iraq is in chaos, Bush would have us believe that his Too-Little-Too-Late strategy is our only hope.
Surprise, yet another flip flop. Is there any reason we should keep listening to this guy?
Remember the war skeptics? Before the war, they were ridiculed by windbag neoconservatives like Bill Kristol. Bush and his supporters wanted us to believe that the war skeptics were merely a bunch of unpatriotic flower children.
Of course we now know the skeptics were right. Who were they? Paul Krugman names a few:
Al Gore said this in September 2002:
“I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”
Barack Obama in September 2002:
“What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
Nancy Pelosi in October 2002:
“When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”
Russ Feingold in October 2002:
“I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. … When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency.”
Howard Dean in February 2003:
“I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. … Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”
Republican Senator John Sununu said this recently to a group of business leaders:
“I’m not saying it’s not an issue or it’s not important, but proportionally speaking, stop complaining about health care.”
Sununu is wrong. Employers and employees should continue to tell government leaders how big of a problem this is.
Even if you’re lucky enough to have employer-sponsored health care, you are already spending many thousands of dollars per year on health care premiums. Much of this cost is not directly visible the the employee because it is made on their behalf by the employer.
Employers should be required to regularly disclose their per-employee health care costs. Employees should know how much their health insurance costs overall, and how much they would save if there was taxpayer-funded universal health care.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has introduced a health care plan would go one step further. His bill would require that employers “cash out” their existing employee health plans by terminating coverage and paying the amount saved directly to workers as increased wages. Workers then would be required to buy health insurance from a large pool of private plans. [source]
I don’t know if that’s the best plan or not. I’m inclined to think that we should extend Medicare to cover infants and children, and then slowly expand Medicare over the years to cover more people until we have universal coverage. But something’s gotta give. Across the developed world, it is an established fact that universal single-payer health care is cheaper per-person, and gets better health care results.
Bush’s Iraq policy is less popular than gay marriage, legalizing pot, banning handguns, and rescinding the death penalty.
Remember this TV commercial from the 1980’s mocking the Soviet Union?
My favorite part is “eveningwear,” where the model continues to wear the same sack dress, but now is holding a flashlight.
“What’s the Democrat’s plan for Iraq?”
When asked this question today, Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel said:
“I never understand that question, you have a President that’s in deep shit. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?’”
[H/T: Talking Points Memo]
Rangel is right. The President is in it deep. Even he knows it. Just two weeks ago, the President said this about the Iraq war: “This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all.” Ugh. See? Even the President knows it’s a quagmire.
And so he’s desperate to point fingers. Today he referred to the war as “a war that we now find ourselves in.” As if it was thrust upon him, and not something he chose to thrust on the world.
Tom Delay is now one of several prominent conservatives putting forth twisted arguments that the reason the war is going poorly is because the American people lack resolve. Why do they lack resolve? Democrats are to blame, of course. He said recently: “It’s the fault of the liberals and the media and the Democrats, that from the very beginning have tried to undermine the will of the American people to fight this.”
But any lack of “resolve” stems from the fact that the Bush Administration lied about the war.
Three years ago, Administration official Andrew Natsios insisted (to an incredulous Ted Koppel) that the total cost of the Iraq war would be limited to $1.7 billion. He said that amounts any over $1.7 billion would be paid with international contributions and from Iraq’s oil wealth. “We have no plans for any further-on funding for this,” he said.
Total actual cost? $348 Billion dollars. Much more since you started reading this sentence. More still. Click HERE to see a running count of the cost to taxpayers.
Three years ago, while speaking to US troops stationed in Italy, Donald Rumsfeld said this about the Iraq war: “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
And a mere three months after Rumsfeld’s rosy predictions about a short war, President Bush staged a dramatic landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stood below a huge “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner, and told us that the war was over. Watch these 38 seconds to remind yourself just how delusional he was:
(Sorry — the sound is out of synch with the video.) To see the full speech, click here to view the speech at the white house’s official website.
Here’s a cute political parody of those Apple ads featuring a conversation between the ‘mac’ and ‘pc’.
It’s reconfigured as a conversation between a Republican and a Democrat:
If you lack context, here’s the original, unaltered Apple advertisement:
Remember back before the last election, when Bush political adviser Karl Rove and his team kept implying that criticizing Bush’s war “strategy” is akin to treason?
Here we go again.
According to U.S. News & World Report, Karl Rove is once again trying to scare Bush’s critics. He warned that Democrats need to be careful that they don’t resort “attacking the government in a time of war.” Rove also said that if the Democrats truly want to win the war, they should unite behind the president.
The debate rages between Bush critics who insist that he is the worst president in US history, and the pro-Bush people, vigorously defending their hero by insisting that he’s merely the fifth worst president in US history.
That’s a just a highlight of the Outlook (opinion) section of the Washington Post this weekend, which included a number of articles on the question of how history will view George W. Bush. Some of the articles included:
“Move Over, Hoover”
“He’s The Worst Ever”
“He’s Only Fifth Worst”
“At Least He’s Not Nixon”
Wow. When “at least he’s not Nixon” and “he’s only the fifth worst” are the pro-Bush columns, you know Bush is in trouble. If Bush could run again, I would recommend this campaign sign:
