Sunday, September 30, 2007

Rush Limbaugh is an Idiot!

Rush Limbaugh says MSNBC's "content is produced by and!” BWHAHAHA! The company GE owns? Don't think so. I guess that explains Tucker Carlson; never-met-a-GOPHer-he-didn’t-like-supposed-Dem, Chris Matthews; and Joe Scarborough. Yeh, sure.

Rush went on to criticize “Anchorette Contessa Brewer” as if she were a liberal. But she is hardly “liberal.” And she's pretty tough on Dems.

Then Rush says “It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.” Yep and we know why. Rush is an idiot. There may be other reasons why Rush can't entertain honest, logical or truthful thought. But I leave that to others to speculate.

Read more and see the video here:

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Dan Rather's Court Filing Exposes Intertwining of Corporate Media and White House

Here's the brief:

Here's more on the subject from the ever great Jane Hamsher:

Monday, September 24, 2007

More Than Twenty Generals Speak Out Against Bush Conduct of the War

Read about it here.

Friday, September 21, 2007

"Roll Over and Play Dead" Democrats: I am so done with you!

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

Monday, September 17, 2007

Republican Food for Thought

"About the only safe Republican Senate seats in '08 are the ones that aren't on the ballot." -anonymous GOP pollster, Washington Post, September 2, 2007

Friday, September 07, 2007


All I can say thank you, Dave Matthews Band (DMB), John Mayer, Vas and Phil Vasser. I still cannot believe that four major entertainers gave us the night we experienced in the Burg last night. To us! What a privilege! Five amazing hours of music and five hours of community and hope. And one of the most memorable nights I've ever had.

Here's some video from WDBJ7 in Roanoke. Click here.

I am overwhelmed by the wonderful gift from The Dave Matthews Band, John Mayer, Phil Vasser and Nas.


Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Bush Plans Strike Against Iran: 1200 Sites in the Plan

Though Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons, Bush stepped up the rhetoric against Iran last week.

According to the Times of London:

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

The question is is it too late for George Bush to come to his senses? In the same article, The Times also reported that Pentagon plans are drawn for the US to strike Iran. Read about it here.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Surely there is room to resolve this deadlock with Iran over nuclear development without acting too precipitously. Nuclear proliferation is a significant problem. But Bush has lost his way in trying to minimize it. And while castigating Iran, the administration ignores that it was a US B-2 bomber which "erroneously" carried nuclear weapons across the US this very week. Does he not see the irony?

But Bush has been escalating his war of words concerning Iran for some time. It is increasingly clear that Bush is trying to provoke Iran to say or do something so Bush can finally justify going into yet another country. This is madness.

The eagerness of this administration's looking for more and more enemies to attack is putting us at heightened risk. The biggest risk could come if Iran perceives it has nothing to lose. And the news from the Nixon Center suggests that Bush may be cornering them.

Why are not Democrats calling the administration out on such belligerent talk and preparation? Do they really think this is the time for silence on the most important issue before us today? How many wars do they think the US can wage? We have actions in more places than are commonly talked about -- even in the Philipines.

Are the "muscular" Dems so weak that they think there is only bombing Iran to solve the thorny problems surrounding US-Iran relations? Are they so weak that they must fall into line over this too. We need to once again bring the world community together to act on the Iran problem. But Bush is alienating allies quicker than he can say, as he did in Australia, "we're kicking ass." Bush's cowboy "diplomacy" is getting old and getting America into a heap of trouble. Our nation and the world should not be toyed with so recklessly. The time to speak out is now, Democratic officials and leaders. Where are you?

A new book about George Bush is entitled "Dead Certain." What's certain is that George W. Bush is wrong -- about everything.

Bush Does Australia: And Doin' Us Proud (Not!)

I came across this gem from the Sidney Morning Herald:

"We're kicking ass," he told Mark Vaile on the tarmac after the Deputy Prime Minister inquired politely of the President's stopover in Iraq en route to Sydney."

D'oh. He forgot his protocol manual again. My, how he presents on behalf of all America. What a guy!

I am so sick of polls and their endless focus on the "horse race!"  But more than that, I am sick of how people in politics use polls.  It's not that I don't look at the research, mind you.  However, there is a time, a place, and an appropriate use for them.  Unfortunately, in this poll-driven, consultant-controlled political world, polls are substituted for real, thoughtful policy proposals and conscious decision making.  Then, stat-phobia sets in.  It's getting so that candidates look to polls to decide how to think, speak and act. In sulky horse race terms, that's putting the cart before the horse!

It's almost like superstitious behavior.  Political consultants use polls (or other tactics), they win, and then they think they won because of poll use.  So too it is with incessant robo-calls, or calling residents in small towns over and over, till voters feel hassled and harassed.  The use of polls isn't new.  I've used them myself for research.  However, in the early nineties they were elevated to an art form (and I use the term "art" loosely) by both Republicans and Democrats alike. 

In addition to being used as a self-fulfilling prophesy, they are also used to grease the palms of expensive consultants who'll show how to raise a candidate's number in this or that poll.  Then, of course, they'll have their handy bag of tricks they think has worked before.  And so they keep doing the same thing over and over.  That's superstitious behavior.  Throw money at pollsters, hire media consultants, buy expensive TV time.  Keep on keeping on. 

Over at (an excellent website, albeit with some pesky trolls), there is so much discussion of who leads in this or that poll.  Will Clinton poll too negatively?  Will Edwards peak by Sept?  Will Obama overtake Hillary?  How can either Edwards or Obama overtake "frontrunner" Hillary's lead?  It goes on and on.  We do it here, but to a considerably lesser extent.

To be sure, there is able discussion on the issues there too, as on other excellent blogs like  But I have to ask, what are we doing here? Are we not falling prey to the so-called MSMs obsession with the horse race?

Though we should be spending this is the time deciding who best fits our mental proto-typical leader, many of us are looking at the "numbers," as if they could possibly tell us what we need to know at this point.  And I say this as a person who loves statistics. 

Seriously, what are we talking about here?  Do we let others tell us what to think, or are we the decision makers of our most personal political choices?  In recent years, my biggest letdown/political disappointment is not the leaders who let me down (and there are plenty of them right now who do), but rather the facile unsteadiness of those who would rather consult their bookie than their minds and hearts.

It takes effort to overcome all the cognitive biases and heuristics we employ to make normal decisions.  Unfortunately, too many of us are surrendering the process to Pew (funded by the heirs of Sun Oil!!!!!!!), Gallup (founded by George Gallup, who wants to establish a Christian nation and use polls to do it), and the rest.

Today, every Democratic candidate fears being equated with John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, and even Howard Dean.  The latter is amusing because Dean has, so far, been a very successful DNC chair.  But, with his fifty-state strategy, he bucks the McAuliffe all-consultancy, all-the-time, political operative system.  And so, he's still on the "list."  The others, well, Kerry in particular was too timid and too poll driven.  He wouldn't even defend himself soon enough.  Dukakis and McGovern lost, not because of their being liberals, but because they were horrible campaigners.  They played it safe.  They didn't connect.  And they listened too much to the consultancy.  Otherwise, Dukakis would never have dreamed up that stupid ride in the tank himself.  McGovern didn't even look voters in the eye as he shook their hand.  I know because that's what he was like when I met him. A more apathetic candidate would be hard to find. McGovern suffered from being not-RFK--or one who had any charisma whatsoever.  And as a result, he was insufferable.  But the ghosts of Dukakis and McGovern unjustifiably haunt current candidates who keep tacking further and further right, even in the primary.  As we speak, they are falling for the "surge worked" claptrap.

Meanwhile, voters fail to grasp that various Democratic candidates lost more recently because, in several cases Americans were duped by fear and manipulated by fear mongers.  So they flocked in droves, like a nation of sheep.  They elected the sheep-herder-in-chief, who's still, even this week, wandering the desert looking for a miracle.

We've got to talk our party's so-far leading candidates off their no-policy, poll-driven perches.  In particular, Hillary and Obama are so risk averse that they haven't made a courageous criticism or daring proposal to meaningfully change the status quo in quite a while.  Since their consultants wont, it's our job to push them to do it.  Are we up to the task?

Our candidates need to stop answering to witless Soledad O'Brien about their "sins," as she had the gall to probe in the recent CNN "debate."

The words of Molly Ivins are relevant to the timid, downright stagnant policy prognostications of the two "front runners," 

"We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders.  And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell."

May her words inspire us to right other administration wrongs as well.

Olbermann Does It Again!

Keith Olbermann is almost alone among media pundits. He speaks truth to power. And he did it again last night. Too bad, GWB isn't listening.

Here's the link to his special comment.

Media Watch: With Fawning Coverage from Iraq, Katie Couric Greases Administration Palms

Katie Couric should be ashamed of herself (again). She has turned CBS Evening News into a features-rich skirt-around the news. That is, when there is "hard" news, you probably won’t find it on her broadcast. The news has to feel good, she thinks, and she announced before her debut that she planned to tell good news. (For inexplicable reasons, Brian Williams has gone down that path too lately. Maybe he wants to tie with Katie for last place in the ratings.) Unfortunately, the news isn’t always sugar-coated and the delivery of it shouldn’t be either. The big four networks have downgraded news to its most simplistic terms, stripped raw of any detail, depth, and context.

In Iraq, flack-jacketed Katie tried to look sporty and one-of-the-guys, as if that’s they key to moving up in the ratings game. By her prior newscasts, and her interviews of military leaders on the ground in Iraq, it was clear she was selected/cleared for this highly escorted tour (she rode in military aircraft and was protected by them) for her positive war-spinning—both previously and yet to come. The news is so good, we should all just fall in line and give Bush what he wants, you’d think from her gushings. Not so fast!

One thing is clear, though, this is “war made easy,” a fabrication of the spinners, who’ll tell the public anything to advance themselves and the bosses they serve. By contrast to all the truth-tellers --security experts, weapons inspectors (past and present), such as Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, Karen Kwiatowski, and many more, heroes all--Katie is the antithesis of the courage and bravado she feins.