RantDuJour

I cannot get over the disgust that I feel for people defending the idea of keeping Lieberman chair of anything. The guy is scum. He has no redeeming values. He will not vote with Democrats in the majority of cases. I don’t care if he takes his ball and goes home. What’s the point of having a large majority if you have to let weasels like Lieberman blackmail you? WTF?
I mean, really, WTF?
He leaves and then he becomes a member of an intolerant minority party where they don’t like 1/2 of what he stands for.
He stays and he can vote with the majority on a number of valuable bills.
Lieberman is scum. He must be bounced.

No Responses »

Reading Glenn Greenwald is like catching a breath of fresh air after the stinking, putrid stench of listening to people like Limbaugh and reading the Washington Post. This is a must read. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/index.html

[…]

I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration — at least exclusively — for what has happened to our political system. They were responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country’s institutions — its media, its Congress, the “opposition” party, even the courts — all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing — or to endorse it — once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn’t have surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.

[…] 

We have allowed it to continue, and now these “theories” are ones which people who are considered to be “reasonable,” squarely within our political mainstream, can openly espouse — just as Mukasey repeatedly pointed out yesterday. We live in a system of government where the President seized the power to act without restraints and we allowed that to happen, and so Bush’s signing statement and Mukasey’s defiant posture are all now normal.

Pathetic. Feinstein. Pathetic. Rockefeller. Pathetic. Reid. Pathetic. Pelosi. Pathetic. And, yet, in my heart still beats optimism. If Democrats increase their control on Congress. If a Democrat wins the presidency. Perhaps, then, the broken laws can be fixed. Perhaps then the lawbreakers can be punished. Perhaps then the massive illegalities that have been foisted on the American People for the last 7 years can be exposed.

Sigh. Not very likely.

No Responses »

I’m not sure what is more appalling to me about her; that she continues to ignore the will of the 75% of the voters of her home state or that she casts the most stupid and harmful votes that only that pathetic weasel Lieberman could love.

Her latest vote to condem a f’ing advertisement in the NYTimes is so unbelievably appalling that I cannot stand it. In the first place, I’d be willing to bet that 95% of her constituents had not even heard of the ad. In the 2nd place considering that 75% of Californians want this war over and cannot stand bush and his latest minion, they’d (we’d) be in favor of the sentiments of the ad. So, as if wasting Congress’ time debating and voting in favor of a resolution condemning an _AD_ wasn’t bad enough, it went against the sentiments of the people of that she is supposed to represent.

It’s the logic of her ‘compromising’ that escapes me and pisses me off. She votes in favor of condemning an ad. She votes in favor of bush’s spying on Americans (again despite the fact that 70-80% of her constituents are opposed). She votes in favor of funding this war. (See above about the wishes of her constituents). She votes in favor of bush’s appointees (see above.)

Her votes make no sense to me. Her votes make no sense in the context of her constiuents, i.e. the people that she is supposed to represent. Her votes make no sense in the context of logic.

Not surprisingly, she ignores calls and emails to her office condemning her actions.

Diane Feinstein just makes me sick. I’d almost rather a republican in that seat than her. At least a republican’s vote choices would make sense in a bizarro sort of way. Her decisions make no sense at all. And, she doesn’t feel that she needs to explain herself either. It’s time for Feinstein to sink back into the abyss from which she came.

No Responses »

Let me see if I can count the number of ways this is stupid.

For one thing, Pelosi won with 80% of the vote in her last election. While there may be a larger than normal number of morons living in SF, it’s unlikely there are that many.

But, hey, let’s say that Sheehan does beat Pelosi. Let’s count what has been lost and try to figure out any possible gain at all. The Leader of the House of Representives will  have been replaced to by a 1st term representiave. What that means is that the Leader of the House of Representatives no longer resides from SF. That means that all the power that Pelosi currently has to steer things to SF will be gone. That means that all the power that Pelosi has to steer things to CA will have been lost. That’s not just projects like highway funds or reconstruction for, say, earthquake preparedness, but it’s attention to SF and CA’s priorities for Global Warming or off-shore drilling. While we’ll have some say with 10% of all  Representatives coming from CA, it’s a bit harder to get Repubs and Democrats to agree on priorities, even for CA.

Along the same lines as losing the Speaker of the House, if Sheehan does win, you kick off a Representative with very long tenure at the House of Representatives. (I don’t know how long off-hand and I’m too lazy to go look it up, but it’s not that important _how_ long, what is important is that it’s long.) The longer a rep has been in the House the more things get done and the more stuff can be brought home. One doesn’t have to be Speaker to get highway construction funds. Knowing how to work the system and/or being on the right subcommittees helps as well. Anyone remember that TV show? God, I can’t remember Jack this morning. It was about an “Independent” winning a Senate seat from CA. It was written by Lawrence O’Donnell. He’s big on ‘independence’ and non-partisanship. So, anyway, our hero needs to get some project for CA funded. But, because he’s not on the right committee, he gets shut out. He tries to do an end-run, but I forget whether he was succesful or not. It was an interesting look at the sausage-making that goes on in Congress.

Anyway, let’s look at what else will happen is Sheehan beats Pelosi. Will impeachment be on the table in Jan 2009? Well, gee, no, it won’t be. Bush will, finally, thank god, be out of office. But, let’s use the wayback machine and ask if Sheehan beat Pelosi in ‘06 would a 1st term congressperson be able to get impeachment on the table. Don’t make me laugh…ha, ha, ha. Not a chance in hell.

I’m in favor of impeachment, frankly. But, I’m also a realist. If there aren’t enough votes to stop funding bush’s war, there really arent’ enough votes to impeach bush and cheney. Chris Matthews, I think, voiced the views of the rightwing mainstream media on impeachment. It’s only valid if the president has committed a crime. While I need to think about that some more, it’s clear to me that bush and cheney have committed dozens of crimes. From illegally spying on Americans to illegally torturing Americans and non-Americans, to illegally rendering innocent people back to states that sponser torture, to illegally hiding information from Congress, to illegally firing Attorneys and policizing the entire Department of Justice a place that should be as non-partisan as they come.

Sheehan’s comments and complaints are pretty pathetic and show her to be not that very bright a person. While I admire her patriotism and her energies against this president and this war, she does show a failure to think through issues. It’s not Pelosi’s fault that things didn’t pass the way that Sheehan wants. There are Democrats, let alone Republicans, who aren’t supporting these issues. Those are the people to work on.

Go work on those people, Cindy. And, stop beating up on the people who support most of your cause.

No Responses »

I am completely opposed to the current bill to fund the war. I am completely opposed to the official reasons given for presenting the bill to the Congress for a vote, i.e. top Dems were worried about getting ripped by the big bad gop over the memorial day weekend. Oh, boo-f’ing-hoo! Grow up. I’m not usually crass, but jeezz, Reid and Pelosi grow some balls. These guys have approval ratings in the 20s! Nobody gives a damm what they say. They have no credibility.

However, that rant having been said, let me add this. It’s clear that Congress could never pass again the same bill that they just passed that got vetoed. They could never do what my favorite candidate for president (Edwards) said that they should do; i.e. keep on passing the same bill and presenting it to bush. It was a hellof a job getting enough Dems in the House and the Senate to pass it once. It wasn’t going to happen again.

So, given that reality, what to the top Dems do? Do they pass nothing and let the pressure build? Or, do they cut as good as deal as they can now and vow to revisit the issue when bush needs another fix in 4 months. Does anyone have any doubt that the situation will be even worse in 4 months?  So, what will the political pressure be like in 4 more months? Even some of the rabid gopers have been saying that if the situation isn’t better by the fall, they might be willing to back an exit strategy. One more thing to think about, the gop knows very well that they are in big trouble and that bush is dragging them down. They want to drop him as soon as they can. The fall will be their last chance. If they drop him in ‘08, nobody will take them seriously. It’s not clear that anyone will take them seriously anytime in the next decade, but they have to believe that if they dump bush in the fall they have one last chance to prevent yet another landslide loss in Nov ‘08. Americans do not have a long memory. And, their short memory is exacerbated by beltway media that parrots the rightwing mantras.

So, in conclusion, my point is that there were not enough votes to do anything substantial with this bill right now. However, in 4 months, the oppositie will be true. There won’t be any (meaningful) opposition to a bill that starts pulling troops out. It’ll probably be a veto-proof majority. And, even if it’s not, there will be enough continuing sustaining support to continue to pass the same bill.

Dems will be hearing from their base over the next 4 months. They can’t afford to let the base get rabid on them leading up to the ‘08 elections. The only incumbent Democrat who will be immune and will continue down this deathy path will be Lieberman. But, after Jan ‘09, he will truly become irrelevant.

No Responses »