Torture and Lawbreaking is OK, if you’re the bush administration Thursday, Jan 31 2008 

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.

Shrum Wednesday, Jun 13 2007 

I figure that a guy that has gone 0 for 8 in presidential elections is enough of a joke that nobody need really talk to or about him. But, funny story here, the Beltway is a world unto itself.  So, Shrum has been doing the rounds, even The Daily Show had the guy on. Of course, Stewart doesn’t suffer fools gladly, so I don’t think that Shrum got as much a free ride as other places. I listened to him on some CNN show (aren’t they all really the same?) And, his responses really focused on why I dislike him so much.

He was commenting on the Democratic debate. He ripped into Edwards for not being nice. I swear to god, his complaint boiled down to that. He felt that all the candidates should be nice to prepare themselves for the national general election. This reminded me that both Gore and Kerry had conventions that didn’t rip into bush. And, both conventions gave neither Gore nor Kerry any bump at all. On the other hand, bush let his people rip without impunity during both conventions. Not only did the networks love it (no surprise there, they’re all in the rightwing pocket) but bush got a huge bump out of both of his conventions.

Clearly, Shrum was the catalyst behind both Democratic candidates being nice. And, just as clearly, the American public had no clue what a disaster bush was. The Beltway media didn’t help. They just tossed the guy softballs and made excuses for him. It was up to Gore and Kerry to highlight in the clearest possible way, the differences between Bush and sanity. They failed. Shrum failed. And, nobody has called Shrum to account. Compare Gore and Kerry’s conventions with Clinton’s convention. Clinton ripped Bush Sr. and Dole BigTime. Even thought the Beltway media ripped him, it made a big difference in the election

I can only pray that the Democrat who wins the primary is aware of the disaster that is the last couple of elections. That’s why when I look for a primary candidate, I look for someone who can fight and who doesn’t mind mixing it up. That immediately rules out Clinton and Obama. Clinton is running this milquetoast campaign, which I hate. And, Obama is afraid to mix it up. Edwards jumped in in the early part of the last debate and ripped both Obama and Clinton, despite having some weaknesses in the area of the war himself. Clinton gave a lame response, something about Edwards being on the outside. *yawn* Obama’s response was on point (you voted for the war and I voted against it) but way out of date and completely irrelevent to the point being made (you just limped up to the vote, waited until the last minute, and said nothing about bush’s illegal war.)

I don’t think that Obama or Clinton will fight, though Clinton with her husband’s help, might. I think that Edwards has learned from his lame responses to the war back in 2003/2004. He is really carving out a path that requires some sharp words. And, as a former trial lawyer, he has that skill set.

I dont’ think that anyone else in the race has a chance.

The Democratic Debate of 6/3/7 Monday, Jun 4 2007 

“Raise your hands”. “How many of you think that Wolf “I am a rightwing tool” Blitzer is a dweeb?”

God, do I hate the raise your hands motif. What possible point could there be to having such a simple black and white question and response? There are no easy answers, except to Wolf and his beltway media pals. For her response to Wolf, I applaud Clinton for telling Wolf to piss off. Although, it was presumptious of her to speak for everyone.

The media, of course, thought that it was presidential and that Clinton took the initiative. Blech.

What is presidential is not saying that ‘we are safer now than we were in 9/11′, which is what Clinton said. It’s clear to me that, aside from her triangulating and trying to have it both ways problem, the bigger problem is that she is a hawk.  Based on that one response alone, I have categorically ruled out voting for Clinton. The fact that she has other issues that I have problems with (see afore-mentioned triangulation and both ways problems.)

I like Obama. But, I’m not ‘in love’ with him. He speaks well, and he’s on the ‘right’ side of most issues, though he’s voted with Clinton on just about every issue.

Another thing that I didn’t like about Clinton was her continuing to say, despite all evidence to the contrary, that all the Democratic candidates agree on all issues and that they’re just disagreeing with bush. That’s not the case. There are plenty of differences between the candidates. This was yet another example of Clinton being very annoying and inaccurate. She did that a few times during the debate.

My favorite candidate, Edwards, did very well, I thought.  He had a nice line, widely quoted, about how Obama and Clinton sneaked up to the voting area and voted against the Iraqi war funding at the last minute. Obama came back with a non-sequitor that Edwards was 4 1/2 years late. Yawn. Try to address the point, dude. And, Clinton made a lame comment about how people on outside (pointing to Edwards) not really having the standing to comment on what people on the inside are doing. It was yet another annoying response by Clinton.

Edwards talked about getting out of Iraq, helping poverty in America, becoming a good ambassador to the world again, working with the world on Global Warming. Edwards talked about getting bold. All of these issues were consistent with what I saw when I saw him in San Jose last week.

Oh, good, I’m listening to Bob Shrum on Chris Matthews show. He doesn’t think that Edwards is doing well. Almost by definition that means that Edwards is doing well.

On the other side, I think that Kucinich and Gravel have used up their 15 minutes. Both are a complete waste. Democrats who call up rightwing spin to attack the entire Democratic party suck.

The other controversial moment in the debate came when Wolf asked Edwards about his ‘bumper sticker’ comment, i.e. the war on terrorism is a bumper sticker phrase. He defended it, not well, IMO for people who don’t know what the subject is. But, Clinton’s response was just scary. She laid into the 9/11 phrasebook and said that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that we’re safer. While a line like that makes the entire beltway media and rightwingers drool, it’s not a true statement. Neither part is true. I’ve already talked about the joke that the we’re safer now than at 9/11. (i.e. terrorist activities are up dramatically since 2001, recruiting is up dramatically since we invaded Iraq, etc.) It’s also not true that we’re fighting a war on terrorism. Where is Osama? Where is the head of the Taliban? Where are we fighting terrorists? Nowhere. Our military is completely tied up in the Iraqi civil war.

Shrum just pissed me off again.  Saying that attacking other Democratic candidates is not a good way to go. That’s a whole new post that I will get to. For now, I’m glad that he’s ‘retired’. What a joke. He’s cost Democrats elections and has not a clue that he’s responsible.