The Republicans blocked the stimulus package from passing because it contained unemployment benefits, a small payment to seniors and some money for disabled veterans.
John McCain didn't show up to vote on this.
...
Guess not ...
The Republicans blocked the stimulus package from passing because it contained unemployment benefits, a small payment to seniors and some money for disabled veterans.
John McCain didn't show up to vote on this.
...
...
Tip O'Neill cut a deal with Charlie Wilson, "an implicit quid pro quo arrangement," Crile writes,"in which he'd agreed, in effect, to sell out the Contras in exchange for leading in the House when it came to funding the Afghan war."
Wilson felt bad about this. His conscience bothered him. But he knew, because O'Neill made it clear, it was either the mujahideen or the Contras, and if Charlie had chosen the Contras that would have pretty much ended any influence he had in Congress over anything. He'd stop being an effective representative of his district. His constituents, a conservative and religious bunch, would very likely stop forgiving him for the sins and indiscretions in his personal life if in his public life he wasn't bringing home the bacon.
All politics is local.
Coelho again:Nicaragua was a bitter, bitter, vicious fight with State, CIA, the military, and the White House against us. If Charlie had gotten caught up in any of those battles he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Reading this stuff has made me nostalgic about Tip O'Neill. More nostalgic. It's often pointed out that Reagan didn't govern like the Right Wing idealogog he ran as and talked like. George W. Bush has out-Reaganed Reagan on most issues. Partly that was because Reagan had a pragmatic streak. He liked to get things done more than he liked to get his way. Mostly though it was because Tip O'Neill stood in his way.
Makes me wish O'Neill had left a manual on how to run a successful opposition for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
...
...
With republicans setting the world record for filibusters in one year (with absolutely no pushback) and the asinine "we need 60 votes for anything" suddenly becoming the new rule, who does Reid stick it to on a filibuster? His own damn party – brave folks and true leaders like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold. When republican Senators put holds on bill after bill, Reid respects the hold. But when one of his own party does the same, he overrides it.
Sad, but true. The Democrats have adopted the "don't make trouble" strategy and this is the result. They got punk'd again today: [my ems]
...
...
Afghans are disillusioned by the failure of real progress in securing and rebuilding their country, again a narco-state as half of the country's GDP is drug-related. The Bush administration promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan it never delivered. Compared to other recent post-conflict countries, Afghanistan receives minimal assistance. This despite the fact that Afghanistan remains the home to much of al Qaeda and has served as the largest terrorist haven in the world.
Like McDonald's dropped Kobe and Pepsi a Madonna, Jackson, and Ludacriss, some are now suggesting it's time to deconflict the GWOT matrix and save what can be saved of an Afghanistan critically foundering in the shadow of an embarrassing and debilitating controversy called Iraq.
...
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) — The tone has changed in e-mails this Vermont town has been receiving on its proposal to issue warrants for the arrests of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Now, more people are supporting the resolution.
Brattleboro's town offices have been flooded with 7,000 e-mails since its selectboard voted Jan. 25 to include the item on its Town Meeting Day agenda.
...
McCain, now the certain GOP frontrunner, will address a major gathering of conservatives in Washington later this week. He'll get as warm a reception as he did in Vietnam.
The real surprise Tuesday was Mike Huckabee making a bigger plash than Mitt Romney; he won Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee. Southern voters clearly responded to his homespun message essentially promising a squirrel in every pot and an old pickup without a carburetor on cinder blocks in every garage.
Earl Butz, former Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon and Ford, died last Saturday. He was fired for making this comment: "The only thing the coloreds are looking for in life are tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to shit." In related news, Trent Lott by now has surely told reporters, "We're proud of Butz. If the rest of the country had followed his lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years."
This is not just the most joyously unpredictable election in US history, writes Michael Tomasky. It is fundamentally about whether America is finally ready to give liberalism another chance.
The grand theme of this contest, to hear the candidates tell it, is "change." That's a shallow buzzword that doesn't say much, and to listen to the candidates strain to persuade the public that "I represent change too!" (Obama was first) is to be reminded of schoolchildren in pursuit of gold stars from teacher.
But amazingly enough, it's not entirely inapt. This election is fundamentally about whether a majority of Americans are prepared to give liberalism another chance. The story goes like this. The modern conservative movement in America was founded in the mid-1950s. We had conservatives before then, Lord knows. But this was something new. This was conservatism as a dedicated project.
Clarence "Pat" Manion, a dean at the University of Notre Dame and a founder of the movement, convened groups of conservatives to get together and start infiltrating (legally and above board - by winning elections) their local Republican parties. Rich conservatives in various walks of life started putting massive amounts of money into conservative-movement politics - financing candidates, starting ideological magazines, publishing rightwing books. If you drink Coors beer or have ever visited the California theme park called Knott's Berry Farm, you've pitched in yourself.
The Republican party of the day, I should note, was a mostly moderate amalgam. Dwight Eisenhower as president embraced the New Deal. There is a quote of Ike's, famous now in the era of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and piquant enough in light of current circumstances to warrant reproducing here in full:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labour laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid."
Ah well. By 1964, this faction had taken over the Republican party. It nominated Barry Goldwater. But he was massacred that November by Lyndon Johnson, and the wise observers of the day declared this strange conservative thing, this malformed aberration, mercifully deceased.
But it turned out that that was liberalism's high-water mark. The changes, political and cultural, set in train that year - the House of Representatives passed the historic civil rights bill the very day after we Americans first saw the Beatles, on Ed Sullivan's TV show - had, within four or five years' time, unleashed uncontrollable forces.
So another interesting question: will the Democrats finally understand that a campaign isn't a college debate but is an obstacle course that must be negotiated with a velvet glove on one hand and a switchblade in the other?
... Politics as I now perceive it isn't merely a sport; it's our national pastime. I now understand why Vince Foster committed suicide...
... In any event, today is the day that Democrats pick the president for the next four years. The Democrats are lucky; they get to choose between people who are competent, sane, and mostly honest ...
...
This is not sour grapes. This is the way it's been going on for fifteen years now. And those of you who think that this is a good reason not to support her, so we can get away from this, those of you who think that Obama will somehow be able, through the sheer force of his personality or the beauty of his rhetoric or the wonderfulness that is him or through the plain fact that he is not a Clinton need to consider this very real possibility:
The reason he's a media darling now is because he's not a Clinton. He gives them a way to dump on the Clintons while congratulating themselves on how cool and post-partisan they are.
If and when Hillary's beaten and Obama's the nominee he becomes the Democrat running for President.
And you watch.
...
super tuesday has come and gone, and about the only thing that has been decided is what a loser mitt romney is.
AMMAN (AFP) - When Saad Tawfiq watched Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations on February 5 2003 he shed bitter tears as he realised he had risked his life and those of his loved ones for nothing.
As one of Saddam Hussein's most gifted engineers, Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995 -- and he had told his handlers in US intelligence just that.
Starting tonight, former top Bush aide Karl Rove will be a regular contributor on FOX News. In related news, Satan has been hired as a lifestyle reporter on "FOX & Friends" and his ongoing new segment is called "Ask Beelzebub."
Some people say they're against McCain because they don't want him picking the next three Supreme Court judges. I don't want him picking the next three "American Idol" judges.
In a move that surprised longtime political observers, the White House erased all videos related to the George W. Bush presidency.
A new book says the Sept. 11 commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, had closer ties with the White House than publicly disclosed. He tried to influence the final report in ways that limited the Bush Administration's responsibility, You know those mobsters -- Santo Trafficante Jr. and Carlos Marcello -- who supposedly had JFK killed? This is like having one of them on the Warren Commission.
Once you crack the media myths surrounding him, it's unlikely voters are going to go for an angry, unstable, hypocritical warmonger.
This means that Democrats are not so much running against McCain, the candidate, as McCain, the myth. The Republican Party will be a serious obstacle for the Democratic nominee, but ultimately election 2008 will be as much a battle to overturn the conventional wisdom as it will be a fight with the senator from Arizona. It should be a source of some encouragement then that the progressive movement, with its blogs, social-networking space and alternative media outlets, is far better prepared to fight and win that kind of battle than it has been at any other time in recent memory.
The popular "straight-talking" McCain? Bring him on. We have eight months to chip away at a leviathan of spin.
Meanwhile, the fiscal demands facing a new Democratic president in 2009 are far greater than when Bill Clinton took office in 1993. Clinton's investment agenda in schools, job-training, health care, and infrastructure was badly needed then. Today, it's urgent. Inequality of income and wealth is wider and upward mobility has slowed. Our schools are worse than they were when Clinton became president, classrooms more overcrowded, and school buildings, falling apart. Job-training is almost nonexistent. At least 10 million more Americans lack health insurance than they did in 1993. Among the 13 wealthiest nations, America now ranks last or nearly last in infant mortality, low birth weight, and life expectancy. Some 5.3 million more Americans are living in poverty than when Bush became president. America's infrastructure is older and even more prone to breakage. From New Orleans levees to Minneapolis bridges to New York City's water lines, the nation is literally falling apart.
[...] The Bushies will vanish into history. But the stench they have created will remain.
In this way, the administration of George W. Bush has exploited the asymmetry in American politics. By trashing the institutions of government, the younger Bush personified his central thesis that government cannot be trusted to do anything well. He has shown that Republicans cannot lose at this game. There is no downside in treating government like a sewer. To the extent they have been careless or negligent with it, or crassly mendacious, illegally rewarding cronies and punishing opponents, splurging and plundering at every turn, they still come out on top. If, against all odds, a program or initiative somehow succeeds, they can show how wise they were all along. If programs or initiatives fail, as has been more likely, the failures only illustrate why citizens and taxpayers should not rely on government in the first place. Bush has thus enlarged upon the Reagan-era fiscal tactic of "starving the beast" of revenues into a more insidious strategy of starving the beast of public trust.
In everything you do, emphasize and illustrate competence. Appoint people who palpably take government seriously. Avoid even the suggestion of cronyism. Give the public specific benchmarks for how you, and the public, will be able to judge whether an initiative is succeeding and, hence, whether tax dollars are being spent wisely. If a program or an initiative fails to meet the benchmark, end it.
You won't raise nearly enough revenues merely by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Responding to all the deferred needs of the nation will cost several hundred-billion dollars more. Where to get the additional money? Three sources: The peace dividend from ending the Iraq War, a more progressive tax, and modest deficit spending. Because many of America's deferred needs are felt so directly by a large majority of citizens -- health care, early education, child care, training for good jobs, better public transit, and so on -- you can gain support for additional revenue if you educate the public about what you're doing and why.
Under the other model, presidents decide what's good for the public and then try to sell, cajole, intimidate, or lie their way toward gaining public support. George W. Bush didn't waiver in any of his beliefs, including the wisdom of his supply-side tax cuts for the rich and of invading Iraq. But leading by fiat isn't leading, either; it's bullying. It's also profoundly anti-democratic. Worse yet, it leads to large errors because a president who's dogged in pursuit of his goals is often incapable of hearing evidence that shows those beliefs to be mistaken. If you choose this model of leadership, you subject the nation to grave danger.
[...] In other words, enter into an ongoing dialogue with your public. Educate them, but be humble enough to be educated in turn. That's the only way to preserve and build the trust in your leadership.
Given the difficult hand you've been dealt, it's your only hope for success.
These have been dark days for American democracy and the American dream. We have lost trust in one another, trust in our inalienable rights and trust in the principles upon which this nation was founded.
Where once we dreamed beyond the boundaries of oceans and stars, we now huddle in apprehension and frame our fears within fences and borders and walls that limit our imagination and our compassion. Where once we embraced the magic of diversity, we now seek shelter in the mold of sameness, hesitant to break that mold. Where once we embraced the right to assemble and dissent, we now corral and censor. We now legislate corporate protection, regardless of the crimes of those corporations against our citizens. Where once we understood that freedom of religion also included freedom from religion, we now administer spirituality litmus tests for any and all citizens and political candidates. Where once we understood that majority rule must be balanced with inclusion and protection of the minority, we now seek to empower select elite minorities to override the rights and well-being of the majority. And that was never the American way.
In America, we dream; not from gluttony and greed, but from our natural-born desire for betterment, from the longing to improve our lot in life and that of our children and neighbors and fellow citizens. Ours is not a dream of empire, but of empathy for those who suffer and those who struggle to provide even the barest of necessities; a dream not of wealth, but of health for every child and adult so that they may live their American dream. It is a dream of inclusion, not exclusion. Ours is the dream of the angels.
What will you do if we wake up in November to find our next president is John McCain?
...
On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.
...
This year’s fifth anniversary coincides with a Super Tuesday primary like no other. As Americans across the country go to the polls, a couple of hundred thousand American troops, contractors, and mercenaries are still stewing in America’s longest and most ill-conceived war.
...