PSoTD

I wish I could say otherwise, but I am not impressed with Obama:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

Why in the world would you remove an option before facts are known? Again, first you investigate, if the investigation brings out such crimes that are necessary for further action, then you look at impeachment. What's most disappointing about Obama's statement is that it is political, rather than legal, in tone. His approach is about what is expedient rather than keeping an open mind towards what is best for the nation in the long-term. Bleh.

Weird. I get a computer-generated phone call stating to be a survey from freeanncoulter.com, with some BS about trying to find out the attitudes of "true Americans". It asked two questions:

Do I plan to vote in 2008? (Yes)
Do I think the news media is too liberal? (No)

That was it - apparently my "no" answer was the cue to end the computer-driven survey. Or maybe that was all there was to the survey, and it's just a ploy to drive people to her site in an effort to increase readership or show popularity or something.

Regardless... very creepy. What kind of list would have my phone number on it that would be sold to her for her purposes?

Corner kid Rich Lowry peers ahead to 2008 ...

There's really not much more damage that Democrats can do to Bush with this stuff. What are they going to do? Take him from 29% to 27%? But they can further cement their own role in the ongoing saga Inside the Beltway called, "Everything Everyone Hates About Washington." Republicans can hope after another year-and-a-half of this both parties will have unpopular high-profile symbols, Bush for the Republicans and Congress for the Democrats. That will make a little wider the best opening a Republican presidential candidate is likely going to have in '08 ...

Lowry makes a damn good point. Bush is done, toast, kaput. He's already destined to go down in history as the most incompetent, reviled President ever. And he no longer has the support to f*ck up anything else. As satisfying as it might be, it would be counterproductive to spend the next eighteen months kicking his rotting carcass around Washington

Where is the Democratic resume of accomplishments to run on in 2008??

No more masks for professional political pundits on television. If you're going to go on television and give your political "expertise" then no hiding your face behind sunglasses. Eyes are used by humans as they determine the validity of a given message. Unless there's a physical reason to the contrary, if a professional political pundit can't show their eyes while casting their political beliefs, they shouldn't be on television.

To paraphrase Bush's comment about terrorists - if you support hatemongers with your show and associate with hatemongers, then you're just as bad as they are. Ann Coulter has absolutely nothing of value to say to the American public. Let her speak to the shit-for-brains that attend whatever conferences she's invited to speak at all she wants, but quit giving her a public venue to insult the intelligence of the American people.

BTW Ann, nice cowardly approach to wear sunglasses on your interview so the American people can't see your scared eyes.

First let me admit that I'm not all that well-versed on this subject. But could somebody please explain to me how it makes any sense to make it easier for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship? I don't see how that does anything but encourage more illegal immigration. I'm fine with raising the legal quotas but giving the illegals any sort of break is just going to encourage more illegal immigration. Isn't it?

I can't stand finding myself agreeing with Limbaugh and Hannity. Help!

I think there's a lot to digest and appreciate in Senator Richard Lugar's speech from yesterday, and I'd strongly recommend anyone go read it. Essentially, it's a call for Americans to grow up, for partisans to grow up, to realize just how fucked up a situation we're in now, and that we can't rely on partisan battle cries to get us out of it. And if we continue to rely on the binary choices currently discussed about Iraq, we're doomed for even greater disaster. I don't agree with all of it, but I find a lot of useful approach and thought here, and most importantly, the idea of the timeline being NOW to move on from the "surge" to something that actually might make sense for the entire world, including the United States, as opposed to just trying to run out the clock on Bush's failed presidency.

Unfortunately, this speech probably requires another speech for the more appropriate oomph it should get, and probably from a leading Democrat, perhaps someone like Al Gore, and the message, although similar, should be this: the news media has to grow up. The idea that this speech is equal to, or lesser than, the release of Paris Hilton in importance is preposterous, but that is exactly how the amount and focus of news coverage is treating it. And if it wasn't Hilton, it would be the murders in Ohio, or the pro wrestling murder/suicide, or anything else that would keep the news media from presenting the news that would require viewers or readers to actually use some brain cells. We'll never know if we could have averted this disaster in Iraq if we had a functioning news media with a reasonable semblance of professional curiousity and citizen priority. We didn't have enough of that then, and we don't have it enough of it now. America is not going to grow up as long as we have a news media that prefers a viewership state of infantilism.

And so, someone has to bullypulpit the news media to grow up, do its job and report the news that is important, discuss the future that is important, and reduce the mindboggling crap they've become addicted to pushing. Linking it to the piss poor coverage so far of Lugar's speech would be a good idea.

Can I say that? Gay conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan can! Sounds like it should have been the title of Warren Zevon's follow-up to "Werewolves of London". Aaah-oooooooo!

PS - The blog entry had something to do with a rather tepid incident at a mostly gay fundraising event for Hillary in Leftcoastia. Excitable Andrew.

So he finally says it's time for the U.S. to change course away from the "surge" and to a different approach in Iraq and the Middle East. I'm waiting for the first conservative blogger to begin the demonization of Lugar. I see that Instapundit is tiptoeing to the line, with a faint brush casting Lugar as unhelpful in the least, tossing the line that "Our political class isn't known for bravery or discipline."

Not that I really disagree with that sentiment - if our political class was known for bravery or discipline, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

I don't understand the obsession about polls about Congress. Congress was not constructed to be a popular place, Congress was constructed to provide a place for compromise between conflicting political opinions, and in the case of where opinion is very conflicted, nobody is going to be very happy with the results. This article points out the history. So why is this news?

Conservatives are unhappy because they're not in power. Republicans are unhappy because we've finally reached a time where Congress will do its job and investigate the activities of an executive branch run amok. Those against the Iraq War are unhappy because Congress hasn't been able to do anything. Those who support the War are unhappy because Congress keeps hinting it will do something. The state of the nation is still screwed, frankly, and will be until the worst President in history is removed from office and replaced with something smarter than a hammer, and there doesn't seem to be anything Congress can or will do about that, either.

So, what is there to be happy about with the Congress? It is an institution basically following its constructed design, and not showing the ability to go beyond that construction. Are we going to change the design? No. So, why are we polling about design? It's an incredible waste of time.

What polls should be about - that is, if they want to provide some content that is actually useful to Americans - is about the American situation and policies going forward. Please, please, let's stop with the popularity contest polling - in normal times, it would just statistical masturbation for psuedowonks. But in these very troubled times, it also serves as news noise for Bush apologists - they use it as a jumping point to blame "government", not the policies that the current Administration is pursuing. Can't Gallup see that?

I tend to agree with upyernoz that a Bloomberg independent run for President is DOA, at least as far as putting him in the White House.

What's worse, I tend to agree with this assessment:

Several analysts argued that a three-way race with Mr. Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate could ultimately prove more of a threat to Democrats than to Republicans. Until he ran for mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes: he is for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

I really see no benefit to America by having Bloomberg run. He can't win, he has no plank I can see that he can (or will) uniquely push, and he will only serve to dilute the actual choice we have for the office. I hope he is just stirring the pot for attention and has no real intention of running.

If you wondered about the point of the Barna Group's "survey" about atheists and agnostic believing people, just look at how easily the followers are riled up against the atheists and agnostics.

That's the Barna Group, doing their job, agitatin' society's most agitatable.

Who knew that Nouri Al-Maliki could be so deft with irony?

America had its civil war. Why expect freedom to come easy to Iraq?

Actually, that was a question that should have been asked of Mr. Bush several years ago. He's the one that acted like it would be easy.

BTW, do you remember how the British invaded the U.S. during the Civil War and installed troops to keep the peace?

Yeah, me neither. Bad comparison, bud.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty.

Neat, Bush's guy is lecturing Americans about liberty. Does this mean that the folks hidden in Guantanamo know more about liberty than the average American citizen? Should we be listening to their declarations about "liberty", instead of guys like George W. Bush, who has been the recipient of a gifted lifestyle most Americans can't imagine, either?

Our message has been the same to one and all: We will not permit Iraq to be a battleground for other powers.

Oh yeah, he's from the Bush mold. Deny an unfortunate reality at every turn.

Oh, poor Stockton, California.

Will this be the only school in America named after our current Presider of the White House?

Unless it is in Crawford, Texas, it seems like a school district would be asking for trouble if they recommended naming the school after George W. Bush. There are plenty of less disgraced Presidents to name a school after, many many worthy non-Presidents to commemorate. So why go out on a limb and name a school after the most reviled President since Nixon?

Note to Stockton School District: there used to be a public school named after Nixon - but they tore it down.

Perfect description of why we're still in Iraq.

Would you suggest just a fine for the first time offender of espionage if it is a nonviolent and non-drug-related crime?

This kind of bullshit analysis fails to recognize a simple truth: time is relatively equal in accessibility to all people, but money is not. Require just a fine that would no doubt be paid by the Friends of Scooter Defense Fund? That's dipshittery.

Is James Carville a Democratic Strategist?

The news media reports that he is, over and over and over.

Of course, if Carville was out promoting himself as a Business Strategist, or a Medical Facility Strategist, or a Hershey Chocolate Strategist, whatever any of that means, he'd have to have somebody vouching that he was truly such a professional, to back him up that he is was he is saying he is. But who gives Carville the official, or semi-official, stamp of Democratic Strategist? Is it the National Democratic Party, is it the House or the Senate Campaign Committees? Who gives Carville the credibility to claim that he is a DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST so that the news media can report it as practically part of his name?

I can even understand saying he WAS a Democratic Strategist. Past tense. Or a former Democratic Strategist. But current tense?

This is not an idle question. On Carville's own website, he declares:

Political Consulting:
We no longer handle domestic races and have not taken a new domestic client since President Clinton in 1992. We do handle all international and corporate consulting...

See? Nothing about being a Democratic Strategist. In his own words, he's a political consultant, period. Worldwide. So why doesn't the news media refer to him as a Political Consultant, rather than branding him with a political party?

Ron Paul. RON PAUL. RON PAULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

After all, Bush appears to be well below the Mendoza line for being correct on international issues...

The War on Terrorism began in earnest in 1977, supposedly.

Why did Bush change it to the "War on Terror"?

Although getting harder and harder to do, the liberal/progressive blogosphere distrusts you more today than yesterday...

Oliver Willis:

I'm honestly asking - is it appropriate for Gen. Peter Pace to be vouching for the character of Scooter Libby? Scoundrels like Wolfowitz and Matalin (as well as the increasingly clueless James Carville) I get, but Pace?

Booman Tribune:

But I have a little surprise for you. He may not have anticipated that his letter would become public, but none other than Corporal Cueball, Mr. James Carville himself, urged the Judge to consider "what further justice would be served by additional devastation to [Libby's family] and the many other children that love Scooter."

Now...it might not be fair, but I see this kind of betrayal by James Carville to be a metaphor for everything that is wrong about the Clintons.

Ixian Heresy:

I can understand why his wife Mary Matalin would write one - she's a neocon from the word go.

But Carville co-signed the letter praying for leniency. And the letter wasn't merely sympathetic or full of pity. It was a sanctification piece.

It must all just be a game to most of them. This isn't like simply allying oneself with an opponent for a single bill odious to both. Why would someone sign a letter like this, to plead for mercy for a criminal of this magnitude? Only because he apparently doesn't think it was a crime. Just "part of the game."

The Sideshow:

Can we start putting an (R) after his name, yet?

And my favorite, succinct and heartfelt, from BlueGrassRoots:

Up Yours Carville

That's my camp, too.

The Washington Elite loveletters for Scooter.

We can't kick Carville out of Democratic Party leadership - or the appearance that he's part of it - fast enough.

Chris Dodd's web team has a cool little app here...

Schools Yes, Taxes No
Time Magazine, June 2, 1967

Across the U.S., a growing number of taxpayers are rebelling against the mounting costs of public education by voting down new levies and rejecting bond issues. In 1960, according to the U.S. Office of Education, only 11% of the nation's school bond issues went down to defeat; last year, 25.5% were rejected by voters, while countless others were approved by whisker-thin margins. Southern California, where public school expenditures have risen 345% since 1950, is a major center of the revolt: in the past two years, exactly half of the state's 202 school bond issues have been voted down.

They're bemoaning that Bush is destroying the Republican Party because he's so damaging to the United States.

Again, their complaint isn't how much he's hurt the United States, but about how that damage is now impacting the Republican Party. And their complaints only started in earnest when the damage to the Party became evident.