The Human Mind Can Only Stand So Much
Just when I thought my outrage meter was pegged and thus no longer operative, we get the U.S. "Senate" tripping over themselves today in pretended furor over the idea that our brush-cutting, AWOL weasel of a president has more exciting poll numbers than they do. Do you think Senate staffers have by now managed to draw their attention to the fact that those "exciting" numbers actually connote highly un-popular?
In case you missed it, that Senate, which at times in past included a few wizened and savvy old farts with a mind of their own (were Proxmire to be reincarnated today it would be a battle I suspect to prevent cults from evolving around him), made time today to censure MoveOn. This is over the Petraeus/Betray-us ad in the NY Times last week.
I kid you not.
That would be the very same body that has, among so many other recent failures of heart, soul, and conscience been unable to extend the right of Habeus Corpus to Guantanamo detainees, link war-funding to a sensible drawdown policy, require the white house to comply with their own conditions for maintaining the expanded occupation ("surge"), or even find a way to subpoena reluctant executive branch testimony. I have numerous wild critters in my back yard with more spine than this, and for that matter critters with no physical spine but far stronger principles.
And it must be stipulated that this latest round of right-wing frenzy follows the pattern of careful orchestration that includes constant pressure to redefine the political coordinates. Simple version: any set of principles that do not incorporate full enshrinement of the likes of Haliburton, Blackwater, AT&T, Verizon, Big Pharmacy, Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco-Phillips et al as inner-circle decisionmakers (i.e., lobbyists, sole-sourced billion-dollar extortionists, and felons in violating privacy laws) in the federal government, with highly-secured and secret access and control, is propagandized as far left-wing. DDE would of course be fully culpable based on his prescient cautions about the military-industrial complex under this set of rules. Doubtless both Prox and Dwight would be on the board of directors of MoveOn.
The bottom line? MoveOn is marginally left of what I would suggest should be considered the centerline in American politics. There's no way MoveOn is a "left-wing" operation. Yes, they're more adventurous and less slavishly pro-corporation than, say, Hilary Clinton (but who, to her credit from what I gather may be the only mainstream Pres candidate to actually treat this MoveOn soap opera appropriately). But it would probably be fair to call them "liberal" (oh, horrors!) or "left-leaning." "Left-wing"? Oh, please. Beware the kool-aid the mainstream media - and the shrieking repube machine - with very few exceptions are addicted to these days and please don't imbibe yourself.
Why is it that I keep hearing about individual repube Senators having the ability by themselves to hold up pieces of legislation yet something like this happens? This is a power limited to only one party?
And why do I keep hearing that "we" do not have the votes to overcome a filibuster, yet I have not heard word one of any actual filibuster activity occurring? If they're so hot to filibuster, I want to see those inflated asses out there and on camera, bloviating about whatever they choose. Suggested options: their drug-and-sex-addled vacations with Rush Clueless, the going rates for selling out a vote, how they go about earmarking some pork for their own state, how scary their personal military service was, and how that embedded depleted-uranium fragment feels late at night. But by all means give them their time on the stage - we could use some full-on eye-contact with these folks who have been such consistent cheerleaders for sacrificing our military to keep george from ever having to admit he made an error. Bring 'em on indeed.
And what about that old "nuclear option" on the filibuster that the pubes threatened a while back?
The good news is that at least in the blogosphere there are far more wonderfully-composed polemics and diatribes than I could possibly compose or link to. There is a good deal of fire on this issue, and rightly so.
Let's start here, sort of at the source, i.e. Eli Pariser (name familiar I hope). And, oh yes, I have indeed signed petition - for that matter, on first reading of ad last week, I made another donation to MoveOn.
Via TPM Election Central, Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org says what needs to be said about today’s posturing in the U.S. Senate:
“No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can’t do what most Americans want — vote to end this war.”
Democratic senator/presidential candidate Chris Dodd gets it right, too:
“It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war.”
(Kudos also to Markos, who knew the right response to this manufactured controversy from the moment it began.)
As Jane noted below, MoveOn.org has a petition you can sign if you want to help get the focus of Congress back where it belongs. Oh, if you want to chip in to help MoveOn send a thank-you gift to Sen. Mitch McConnell — or, more accurately, to the voters of his state — you’ll get a chance to do that right after you sign the petition.
Which is entirely appropriate, since the weak, blustering Republicans letting the bloodshed in Iraq go on while playing tough-guy against straw men (or newspaper ads) is exactly the kind of “betrayal of trust” that MoveOn.org is trying to bring to the public’s attention.
And then there is Paul Begala (h/t Firedoglake), who takes no prisoners when it comes to the issue of that snivelling draft-dodging let-others-die-to-save-my-face coward in the white house and his damaged-chromosome history regarding "respect for the military."
Before a single Democrat condemns MoveOn's ad, they should insist that George W. Bush and the Republican Party repudiate the anti-military smears on war heroes that have been the hallmark of Mr. Bush's political career.
Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now.
Mr. Bush is, as he likes to say, a loving guy. But by golly the MoveOn.org ad criticizing Gen. David Petraeus has him madder than Larry Craig in a pay toilet.
When a "reporter" asked him a loaded question about the MoveOn ad (not mentioning, for example, that Petraeus wrote an op-ed in support of the Bush Iraq policy a few weeks before the 2004 election), Bush swung for the fences. But then again, he's always been pretty good at T-Ball - and this was definitely teed up for him.
He slammed MoveOn, repeating language he used Wednesday in a meeting with right-wing columnists, saying that criticizing Petraeus is tantamount to attacking the entire US military, and expressing astonishment that leading Democrats have not attacked MoveOn as courageously as Bush has.
Before Democrats fall all over themselves to agree with a president whose trust and honesty rating from the American people is even lower than his IQ, let's look at the real record of Bush's cowardice when it comes to speaking out against attacks on military heroes:
In the 2000 South Carolina primary, George W. Bush stood next to a man described as a "fringe" figure - a man who had attacked Bush's own father - at a Bush rally. With Bush applauding him, the man said John McCain "abandoned" veterans. McCain, who was tortured in a North Vietnamese POW camp, was incensed. Five U.S. Senators who fought in Vietnam, including Democrats John Kerry, Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey, condemned the attack and called on Bush to repudiate it. When pressed on it at a debate hosted by CNN's Larry King, Bush meekly muttered that he shouldn't be held responsible for what others say. Even when he's standing next to them at a Bush rally.
In the 2002 campaign, draft dodger Saxby Chambliss ran an ad with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then said Sen. Max Cleland lacked courage. Max Cleland left three limbs in Vietnam as an Army captain. Mr. Bush's political aide, Karl Rove, later refused to disavow the ad, saying, "President Bush and the White House don't write the ads for Senate candidates."
Also in the 2002 campaign, the PAC for the Family Research Council, a close Bush ally, ran an ad in South Dakota that pictured Sen. Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein. "What do Saddam Hussein and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle have in common?" the ad asked. Apparently, they both opposed drilling in the Arctic wilderness. First, I had no idea that supporting drilling in the wilderness is a family values issue. Second, I have seen no reporting on the late Iraqi dictator's position on Alaska drilling. But I do know Tom Daschle is an Air Force veteran. Mr. Bush never disavowed the smear.
But perhaps the worst was what was done to John Kerry. Kerry earned five major medals in combat: the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. And yet supporters of Bush and Cheney decided to smear his war record. The despicable, dishonest Swift Boat attacks alleged that Kerry fabricated reports that earned him the Bronze Star. The Swifties also suggested that Kerry's wounds were insignificant - and that one was even self-inflicted. Kerry's wounds were certainly more serious than Mr. Bush's, who suffered a cut on his finger from popping a beer can while avoiding his duty in the Alabama National Guard. At the 2000 GOP convention, rich, white Republicans were photographed gleefully putting Band-Aids with purple hearts on their chubby cheeks. Mr. Bush refused to condemn the attack - blandly noting he didn't like 527 groups generally - and later nominated one of the men who financed the smear to be Ambassador to Belgium.
Mr. Bush is a coward and a bully. He knows he'll never be the kind of hero his father was. He knows he lacks the heroism of John Kerry or Max Cleland, so he overcompensates with bluster and bravado. In fact, he told bloggers recently that he wishes he were fighting in Iraq. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin reported that Bush told a blogger in Iraq that he'd like to be carrying a 50-pound pack and an M-16, but, "One, I'm too old to be out there. And, two, they'd notice me."
So Mr. Bush is too old to fight in Iraq, and he was too rich and well-connected to fight in Vietnam. But he's itchin' for a fight with a progressive interest group. Does anyone believe he'd have the same outrage if a right-wing group were attacking war heroes? Of course not.
In case you missed it, that Senate, which at times in past included a few wizened and savvy old farts with a mind of their own (were Proxmire to be reincarnated today it would be a battle I suspect to prevent cults from evolving around him), made time today to censure MoveOn. This is over the Petraeus/Betray-us ad in the NY Times last week.
I kid you not.
That would be the very same body that has, among so many other recent failures of heart, soul, and conscience been unable to extend the right of Habeus Corpus to Guantanamo detainees, link war-funding to a sensible drawdown policy, require the white house to comply with their own conditions for maintaining the expanded occupation ("surge"), or even find a way to subpoena reluctant executive branch testimony. I have numerous wild critters in my back yard with more spine than this, and for that matter critters with no physical spine but far stronger principles.
And it must be stipulated that this latest round of right-wing frenzy follows the pattern of careful orchestration that includes constant pressure to redefine the political coordinates. Simple version: any set of principles that do not incorporate full enshrinement of the likes of Haliburton, Blackwater, AT&T, Verizon, Big Pharmacy, Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco-Phillips et al as inner-circle decisionmakers (i.e., lobbyists, sole-sourced billion-dollar extortionists, and felons in violating privacy laws) in the federal government, with highly-secured and secret access and control, is propagandized as far left-wing. DDE would of course be fully culpable based on his prescient cautions about the military-industrial complex under this set of rules. Doubtless both Prox and Dwight would be on the board of directors of MoveOn.
The bottom line? MoveOn is marginally left of what I would suggest should be considered the centerline in American politics. There's no way MoveOn is a "left-wing" operation. Yes, they're more adventurous and less slavishly pro-corporation than, say, Hilary Clinton (but who, to her credit from what I gather may be the only mainstream Pres candidate to actually treat this MoveOn soap opera appropriately). But it would probably be fair to call them "liberal" (oh, horrors!) or "left-leaning." "Left-wing"? Oh, please. Beware the kool-aid the mainstream media - and the shrieking repube machine - with very few exceptions are addicted to these days and please don't imbibe yourself.
Why is it that I keep hearing about individual repube Senators having the ability by themselves to hold up pieces of legislation yet something like this happens? This is a power limited to only one party?
And why do I keep hearing that "we" do not have the votes to overcome a filibuster, yet I have not heard word one of any actual filibuster activity occurring? If they're so hot to filibuster, I want to see those inflated asses out there and on camera, bloviating about whatever they choose. Suggested options: their drug-and-sex-addled vacations with Rush Clueless, the going rates for selling out a vote, how they go about earmarking some pork for their own state, how scary their personal military service was, and how that embedded depleted-uranium fragment feels late at night. But by all means give them their time on the stage - we could use some full-on eye-contact with these folks who have been such consistent cheerleaders for sacrificing our military to keep george from ever having to admit he made an error. Bring 'em on indeed.
And what about that old "nuclear option" on the filibuster that the pubes threatened a while back?
The good news is that at least in the blogosphere there are far more wonderfully-composed polemics and diatribes than I could possibly compose or link to. There is a good deal of fire on this issue, and rightly so.
Let's start here, sort of at the source, i.e. Eli Pariser (name familiar I hope). And, oh yes, I have indeed signed petition - for that matter, on first reading of ad last week, I made another donation to MoveOn.
Via TPM Election Central, Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org says what needs to be said about today’s posturing in the U.S. Senate:
“No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can’t do what most Americans want — vote to end this war.”
Democratic senator/presidential candidate Chris Dodd gets it right, too:
“It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war.”
(Kudos also to Markos, who knew the right response to this manufactured controversy from the moment it began.)
As Jane noted below, MoveOn.org has a petition you can sign if you want to help get the focus of Congress back where it belongs. Oh, if you want to chip in to help MoveOn send a thank-you gift to Sen. Mitch McConnell — or, more accurately, to the voters of his state — you’ll get a chance to do that right after you sign the petition.
Which is entirely appropriate, since the weak, blustering Republicans letting the bloodshed in Iraq go on while playing tough-guy against straw men (or newspaper ads) is exactly the kind of “betrayal of trust” that MoveOn.org is trying to bring to the public’s attention.
And then there is Paul Begala (h/t Firedoglake), who takes no prisoners when it comes to the issue of that snivelling draft-dodging let-others-die-to-save-my-face coward in the white house and his damaged-chromosome history regarding "respect for the military."
Before a single Democrat condemns MoveOn's ad, they should insist that George W. Bush and the Republican Party repudiate the anti-military smears on war heroes that have been the hallmark of Mr. Bush's political career.
Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now.
Mr. Bush is, as he likes to say, a loving guy. But by golly the MoveOn.org ad criticizing Gen. David Petraeus has him madder than Larry Craig in a pay toilet.
When a "reporter" asked him a loaded question about the MoveOn ad (not mentioning, for example, that Petraeus wrote an op-ed in support of the Bush Iraq policy a few weeks before the 2004 election), Bush swung for the fences. But then again, he's always been pretty good at T-Ball - and this was definitely teed up for him.
He slammed MoveOn, repeating language he used Wednesday in a meeting with right-wing columnists, saying that criticizing Petraeus is tantamount to attacking the entire US military, and expressing astonishment that leading Democrats have not attacked MoveOn as courageously as Bush has.
Before Democrats fall all over themselves to agree with a president whose trust and honesty rating from the American people is even lower than his IQ, let's look at the real record of Bush's cowardice when it comes to speaking out against attacks on military heroes:
In the 2000 South Carolina primary, George W. Bush stood next to a man described as a "fringe" figure - a man who had attacked Bush's own father - at a Bush rally. With Bush applauding him, the man said John McCain "abandoned" veterans. McCain, who was tortured in a North Vietnamese POW camp, was incensed. Five U.S. Senators who fought in Vietnam, including Democrats John Kerry, Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey, condemned the attack and called on Bush to repudiate it. When pressed on it at a debate hosted by CNN's Larry King, Bush meekly muttered that he shouldn't be held responsible for what others say. Even when he's standing next to them at a Bush rally.
In the 2002 campaign, draft dodger Saxby Chambliss ran an ad with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then said Sen. Max Cleland lacked courage. Max Cleland left three limbs in Vietnam as an Army captain. Mr. Bush's political aide, Karl Rove, later refused to disavow the ad, saying, "President Bush and the White House don't write the ads for Senate candidates."
Also in the 2002 campaign, the PAC for the Family Research Council, a close Bush ally, ran an ad in South Dakota that pictured Sen. Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein. "What do Saddam Hussein and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle have in common?" the ad asked. Apparently, they both opposed drilling in the Arctic wilderness. First, I had no idea that supporting drilling in the wilderness is a family values issue. Second, I have seen no reporting on the late Iraqi dictator's position on Alaska drilling. But I do know Tom Daschle is an Air Force veteran. Mr. Bush never disavowed the smear.
But perhaps the worst was what was done to John Kerry. Kerry earned five major medals in combat: the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. And yet supporters of Bush and Cheney decided to smear his war record. The despicable, dishonest Swift Boat attacks alleged that Kerry fabricated reports that earned him the Bronze Star. The Swifties also suggested that Kerry's wounds were insignificant - and that one was even self-inflicted. Kerry's wounds were certainly more serious than Mr. Bush's, who suffered a cut on his finger from popping a beer can while avoiding his duty in the Alabama National Guard. At the 2000 GOP convention, rich, white Republicans were photographed gleefully putting Band-Aids with purple hearts on their chubby cheeks. Mr. Bush refused to condemn the attack - blandly noting he didn't like 527 groups generally - and later nominated one of the men who financed the smear to be Ambassador to Belgium.
Mr. Bush is a coward and a bully. He knows he'll never be the kind of hero his father was. He knows he lacks the heroism of John Kerry or Max Cleland, so he overcompensates with bluster and bravado. In fact, he told bloggers recently that he wishes he were fighting in Iraq. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin reported that Bush told a blogger in Iraq that he'd like to be carrying a 50-pound pack and an M-16, but, "One, I'm too old to be out there. And, two, they'd notice me."
So Mr. Bush is too old to fight in Iraq, and he was too rich and well-connected to fight in Vietnam. But he's itchin' for a fight with a progressive interest group. Does anyone believe he'd have the same outrage if a right-wing group were attacking war heroes? Of course not.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home