Naked Republicans

2007-06-21T09:41:00.000-04:00

Scalia: Just be Glad he’s not a fan of Itchy and Scratchy

Marge: Do you want your son to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Homer: Now who's being naive?

Ah, Nino, if only you watched the Simpsons instead of that other Fox show, 24. You’d see a much truer version of America.
And maybe you’d have an easier time distinguishing fact from fiction.

As you’ve probably read by now, it seems our Justice Scalia, long revered by conservatives for his intellect, has been pointing to the exploits of TV’s own Jack Bauer, to justify torture. “Jack Bauer saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” he exclaimed to a group of judges discussing the issue of torture in Canada.

Actually, I doubt Scalia really is watching 24. If he were, he would know that the anti-terrorist agency CTU, where Jack Bauer works when he isn’t being fired, imprisoned, hunted, or tortured by Chinese/Arab/Russian thugs is:

A. run by incompetent but well meaning nincompoops who can’t even secure their own building from terrorist infiltration through sewer lines and probably the front door,
B. Staffed by computer geniuses who can’t tell when their system is breached, and don’t notice when the terrorists they desperately seek have set up shop just blocks away from them, and
C. constantly letting terrorists escape when the bad guys use techniques like the old, they-got-in-their-SUVs-and-drove-away trick

In short, CTU is a pretty good approximation of FEMA, or the TSA. Or, the Department of Homeland Security.

On the other hand, the people at CTU can be captured and tortured with a power drill in the shoulder one minute, and be back at their work stations the next, without so much as a whimper. Government employees, and no doubt unionized. Also, their cellphones work absolutely everywhere, even in the cargo hold of a jet at 20 thousand feet.

By the way, Judge, Jack Bauer (and by that I mean the fictional character) knows when he’s breaking the law—it’s just that he does it anyway. He’s always willing to face the legal consequences.

It’s shocking to hear a Supreme Court justice utter statements like,
“Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles!. …Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” but you have to admit it is consistent with his world view.

I wonder if he is planning to support Fred Thompson because he’s been such a good district attorney.

On the other hand, it could be worse. We should be grateful that Scalia’s apparently not a fan of the Itchy and Scratchy Show. Imagine:

“Are you going to convict Itchy? He wrapped a lit bomb up with Scratchy’s tongue. Sure he blew Scratchy’s head off just for fun, but Itchy saved Springfield.”

Antonin Scalia gave us George W. Bush as our president in 2001. Maybe, if we’re very, very good, he’ll help Jack Bauer become president in 2008. Although, personally, I’d like to see Chloe get a chance.

2007-06-06T09:10:00.000-04:00

Things I learned from the Republican Debate

Clearly, the candidates are as eager for the end of the Bush/Cheney era as the rest of us, and there was some hating on Bush from time to time. Tancredo, Huckabee and McCain all took direct shots at Their President, and almost everybody took indirect shots when they talked about global warming and energy policy.

Nothing scares Americans more than cancer.
--Sam “Snowflake” Brownback

The islamodemocrats will socialize our medicine and are fighting the Cold War which Ronald Reagan won singlehandedly.
---Guiliani

America is about to turn into the Balkans, or at least is about to be “split apart into a lot of balkanized pieces” so never mind learning Spanish, better brush up on your Croatian or Serbian idioms.
---Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo is bat shit crazy
--everybody else

But at least he said George Bush can never darken the doorstep of a Tancredo White House, unless he’s holding a leaf blower and ready to do the yard work that the deported Mexicans are no longer around to do.

Probably a lot of people died needlessly in Iraq because Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney are total fuck ups. (“Americans have made great sacrifices, some of which were unnecessary because of this management of the war -- mismanagement of this conflict.
---McCain

Mitt Romney believes in God and Jesus Christ is his savior. Sam Brownback knows that God knows and loves him. But no one believes in God more than Mike Huckabee. Still, he is forced to admit he “wasn’t there” when God created the Heavens and the Earth. Also, he doesn’t know that humans actually are primates (“If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.")

John McCain believes that “God loves us,” except Rudy Guiliani, whom He tried to smite with a lightning bolt, but missed

Tuesday was the birthday of Ronald Reagan, the One True God of republicans. Shouldn’t we all have had the day off or something?
--Huckabee

Duncan Hunter hates immigrants, but he loves the cheap Mexican Lipitor for “Grampy.”

Guiliani Time is suspended for poor, overly harshly sentenced Scooter Libby

The reason that Republicans got their asses kicked in 2006 was they spent too much money on prescription drug plans.

The only way the Republican debates could bring more funny is if Curly Sue co-star and fake red pick up driver Fred Thompson gets into the race.

2007-05-29T09:43:00.000-04:00

Cindy Sheehan Calls it Quits

In a Dailykos diary entitled “Good Riddance Attention Whore” Cindy Sheehan announces that she is going home, resigning, as she puts it, from the role of “the face of the American anti-war movement.”

She is obviously exhausted, embittered, frustrated, and angry, saying that being called “an attention whore” is one of the milder rebukes she’s faced. The Iraq funding bill was the last straw for her. Like so many other anti-war activists, she felt betrayed by the Democrats who supported the bill; after the vote she publicly quit the party.

On Memorial Day, (her dead son Casey was born on Memorial day in 1979), she wrote:

I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
And this:

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

For what it’s worth, Cindy, you didn’t fail Casey. We all did—his fellow citizens who didn’t do enough to prevent a shameful, needless war, and the politicians who won’t do what it takes now to stop it.

We owe a huge debt to Cindy Sheehan, who was as brave in her own way as her son Casey was. Even now, as she leaves the fray, she’s demonized by the right wing nutblogs.

Meanwhile, the best way to make certain we Americans get the full story about how well things are going in Iraq is to decree that we don’t see its failures. No photos of bombings, no photos of the wounded (without their prior consent in writing) and, of course, no photos of flag draped coffins.

The war grinds on, and grinds up the lives of so many good people.

2007-04-30T19:04:00.000-04:00

Learning about Gun Control From the Anti-Abortion Advocates

Today was supposed to be OneDayBlogSilence day, in honor of the memories of the 32 students and teachers killed at Virginia Tech two weeks ago. I didn't favor silence when it was announced, and I don't now. We don't talk enough about guns and mental illness in this country. So here's a suggestion. Democrats should go back at gun control, instead of cravenly avoiding any discussion of it to stay away from the wrath of the NRA. But they should go back at it the way the anti-abortion forces have fought against Roe v. Wade. One step at a time. Pick an extreme example, the way anti-abortion activists brought the late term abortion case to the Supreme Court. For gun control advocates there are at least two obvious ones. One is, don't let people with known mental illness, who are declared to be a danger to themselves and/or others, get guns. Period. This is controversial, not because the NRA opposes it--they don't--but because mental health advocates see it as an invasion of the privacy and rights of the mentally ill. Sorry, but nobody has an absolute right to a gun, just as nobody has an absolute right to a driver's license (or, in the case of gay couples, a marriage license).

The second example is an absolute no brainer; people on terrorist watch lists can buy guns. And they do. Why? Why is it I can't get on an airplane with a bottle of Prell, but terrorists can buy guns. This is the kind of crazy gun law that can be overcome.

Of course, it's only a start. Reinstating the assault weapons ban would be the next logical step. But at least it's something.

2007-04-25T15:17:00.000-04:00

Spare Us All Your “Suffering”, Laura

Gosh, it just has to suck to be Laura Bush. Imagine holidays with her mother-in-law, for starters. And then, of course, there’s her husband, the master of disaster himself. I picture her secretly wearing an “I’m with Stupid” t-shirt under her knit suits, just to compensate.

And now it turns out she’s really bummed out about the war in Iraq, way more than you or I, or anybody else except the Fortunate Son himself. She told Ann Curry on the Today Show (h/t americablog):

“No one suffers more than the President and I,” watching the television reports of endless death and misery from Iraq. If only.

Of course, had she thought for just a moment before emitting Stepford wife-speak, she would have realized how clueless, and how arrogant a statement that was, and how it would sound to the families of the thousands of soldiers killed, wounded, or currently in harm’s way in the endless war in Iraq. But no. Arrogance is the default mode for the entire family. They are entitled to your sympathy and support, because they have feelings, just like regular people, only more so.

No good ever comes of the Bushes trying to demonstrate they’re just like the rest of us, from the robotically delivered “Message: I care,” by GHW Bush in an unguarded moment, to Barbara Bush’s “things are working out very well for them,” as she surveyed Katrina victims in Houston, to The Decider himself, who doesn’t go to soldiers’ funerals, and waited six weeks after the scandal broke to go to Walter Reed (to name just two examples).

Laura Bush wants you to know the burden is heavy on her husband.
Well here’s the deal, Laura: no one should suffer more than he does.
There’s a simple solution—end the damned war.

2007-04-23T11:57:00.000-04:00

Secretly Abandoning A Two Year Old Strategy--When the Iraqis Stand Up, We’ll…Still be There.

When Defense Secretary Gates told the Iraqis last week that they had to get serious about reconciliation, who knew he meant reconciliation between al Maliki’s government and the Bush administration?

Yes, once again, in another painful demonstration of the futility of the American mission, al Maliki countermands the US military’s security plan, this time, for the 3 mile long Great Wall of Adhamiyah, meant to protect a Sunni neighborhood from Shiite thugs. You will recall he also ordered American troops last fall to pull down roadblocks around Sadr City when it pissed off Muqtada al-Sadr.

No matter the intention, it was kind of a no brainer that the Sunnis would feel that they were being caged in by a wall. It’s also a no brainer that al Maliki needs the support of other Arab nations, which are mostly led by Sunnis who want to see more Sunnis in his Shiite majority government.

Speaking of standing down, remember “when the Iraqi army stands up, we’ll stand down”? Sure you do. It was the strategy of the United States since 2005. Bush said it repeatedly. So did Rummy and the generals. They even gave us progress reports, none of them true, about the number of Iraqi divisions who were ready to stand up, as it were, and take over for American troops.

Yeah, well, never mind. The Pentagon’s policy has “shifted,” according to an under-noticed but important story by the McClatchy news service.

“Training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of US policy,” it said. The Abizaid/Casey strategy of transitioning from American troops to Iraqis has been ditched in favor of American troops securing the country, defeating the insurgents and sectarian trouble makers.

In other words, getting in the middle of the civil war.

Gates didn’t even mention training Iraqi soldiers when he was in Iraq Thursday to warn al Maliki that the clock is ticking. You see, it’s ok for Gates to threaten the Iraqis that America’s patience is running out, and that he and Petraeus will be evaluating the situation this summer to see whether to end the surge or keep the soldiers there. It’s okay for Gates to strongly suggest that if they don’t make political progress by June 30, including a plan for sharing oil profits and allowing Saddam era Sunni politicians back into government, bad things could happen to the al Maliki government. Like, al Malilki could be out.

But it’s definitely not okay for Democrats to essentially prove Gates is correct by putting a withdrawal timetable in the Iraq funding bill. That would be failing to support the troops.

Proving that he approves of some of the ways the Bush government operates, al Maliki is denying that there is a civil war in Iraq. Maybe he gets his intelligence from Cheney.

If you can read this story, about the torture and murder of one of Iraq’s most prominent television news anchors, a Shiite who was killed because she refused to be pushed out of her home, and conclude that there isn’t a civil war in Iraq, there’s a press secretary job waiting for you.

2007-04-18T12:51:00.000-04:00

OneDayBlogSilence--A Lovely Gesture, but...

There is a clearly heartfelt movement afoot to create a blogosphere memorial to the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, on April 30, called OneDayBlogSilence.

The goal is to cause everybody who reads and/or writes blogs to stop and think. No words, and no comments, just silent reflection about the dead in Virginia, and, if you like, victims of violence everywhere.

It seems these days that the unexpressed thought has gone the way of the buggy whip, thanks to the web, 24/7 cable, blackberrys, etc. And yet, as much as I admire the OneDayBlogSilence gesture, I don’t think silence is the best way to share our heartbreak and support for the families of these victims.

Because of the Imus situation, there’s been a lot of talk about the “national conversation,” as it relates to race relations. That phrase always makes me roll my eyes. Far too often what passes for a national conversation is no more than we the people watching television as other people speak, presumably, but not necessarily, for us.

Invariably issues that deserve a national conversation are ignored until there’s a fresh incident. Then we watch people talk at each other, or yell at each other, for hours and hours, until the producers and the hosts and the home audience are exhausted, and move on to the next hot issue.

One day it’s race, another day it’s guns. There’s an event, an easily digestible moment, and if there’s video to go with it, yippee. Television coverage, however, does not equal a thoughtful “national conversation,” since it lacks participation by any of the actual people who are the “nation.”

The blogosphere, on the other hand, can do a better job of providing a forum for an honest dialogue. (It often doesn’t, for a variety of reasons, but it certainly can). And as the shootings this week remind us, we need to talk about our country’s fascination with both real and fictional violence. The second amendment and the availability of guns are only part of the equation. Any position you can reduce to a prefix, pro- or anti-, is easy to grasp. This issue isn’t that easy. Conversation is only a start, but it can at least lead to consensus. Democrats have been so afraid to even talk about guns that it’s hard to know exactly what the consensus opinion is.

Senator Harry Reid is quoted as saying that before tackling the issue we should all take a breath. Fair enough. But while we’re waiting to exhale, I would say devoting April 30 to wrestling with the national appetite for violence, that issue and no other, would be an equally fitting memorial to the horror that occurred at Virginia Tech. That’s what I’ll be doing on my blog.

2007-04-11T11:47:00.000-04:00

Wanted: One Scapegoat For New “War Czar” Position

Because some of the generals they’ve approached have begun to talk about it, we’re now hearing about the Bush war machine’s efforts to hire a “War Czar.” The problem is, for some reason, nobody wants the job.

I know, I know, you’re thinking we already have a war czar. It’s the guy who likes to dress up in flight suits and call himself a war president (and who in fact is the Commander in Chief).

The War Czar is supposed to direct the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts, issuing orders to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.

The job, according to the Washington Post, has been offered to at least three 4 star generals, who’ve all turned it down. One of the generals is ret. Marine General Jack Sheehan. He describes a White house torn between delusional Cheney’s hard line “al Qaeda is there and we’ve got to fight them" attitude, and the pragmatists who see a catastrophe for Republicans in 2008, and want to find a way out.

The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan is quoted as saying to the WaPo.

If you’re not sure how you feel about the idea, consider that it’s enthusiastically endorsed by Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, who was the author of the surge plan:

“Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon.” Gosh, that means it's a great idea.

So let’s help them write a want ad.

Wanted: Scapegoat with high threshold for pain, low self-esteem to act as mouthpiece/puppet for Bush war. Must be willing to provide “guidance” to the President on the conduct of the war, in the form of stating to him what he already wants to do so that he can say it was Czar’s idea. Must be able to take responsibility for mistakes and disasters. Must be prepared to leave job suddenly and without warning.

On the other hand, they could just give the job to McCain. He loves the shopping.

2007-04-05T14:25:00.000-04:00

Al Gonzalez and Al Capone--Two of a Kind

As the Washington Post reports today, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, our very own Alberto Gonzalez, has “retreated from public view this week” to rehearse his upcoming testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary committee about the US attorneys purge. They’re planning three days of “rigorous mock testimony.”

The first question, of course, is why do you have to rehearse if you intend to tell the truth? (The second question is, when they rehearse, who plays the role of Senator Orrin Hatch—a cocker spaniel?)

Sure he’ll be asked detailed questions, but it’s not like he can’t refer to notes. So what’s the problem?

Other than the discomfort of having to acknowledge that he lied or was inexplicably able to remember exactly how much he was involved in the purge as it was unfolding, he’s got another hurdle.

He can’t talk to his crew so they can get their stories straight ahead of time. From the Washington Post:

“Justice officials and outside experts said the effort is further hampered by legal conflicts among Gonzales and his senior aides. Top Democrats have also accused department officials of misleading Congress in previous testimony, leading Justice lawyers to insist on limiting contact between key players to avoid allegations of obstructing a congressional investigation, officials said.”

It was put more plainly by former Senator Dan Coats, a Republican who helped prep Justice Alito (and, sadly, Harriet Miers) for their confirmation hearings.

“You don't have the ability to coordinate with other organizations or individuals that are going to be testifying, and there will be a lot of people looking for inconsistencies. It is no small challenge for the attorney general.”

The icing on the cake is the presence of Timothy E. Flanigan as one of the guys who is prepping Gonzalez. Flanigan was a deputy White House counsel who left to become chief counsel at Tyco. When Tyco wanted to kill tax legislation that would have barred them from receiving federal contracts, Flanigan hired Jack Abramoff to lobby for them.

He was nominated to be a deputy attorney general by Bush in 2005 but withdrew his name when it became clear he’d have to talk about Abramoff.

Flanigan also helped Gonzalez write the book on the Bush administration’s torture policy.

Gonzo should stop wasting his time—he’s toast. And when he goes down, it won’t be for helping the Bush administration shred our constitution and moral standing around the world. It will be for an “overblown personnel matter,” to use his own description.

You know, like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud. Fitting, that.

2007-03-29T18:41:00.000-04:00

McCain A Democrat? It almost happened....

Was John McCain on the verge of switching parties in 2001?

There’s a fascinating story in The Hill today, in which they report that according to both Tom Daschle and former Congressman Tom Downey (D-NY), McCain’s close adviser, John Weaver, approached Downey in 2001 to talk about McCain switching parties. Downey, a close friend of Weaver’s, is quoted as saying that Weaver told him McCain would be interested “if the right people asked him.” What followed were two months of talks with Daschle, who says they discussed “committees and his seniority” among many other things.

So what happened? Before a deal could be done, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont quit the Republican party to become an independent, throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats. The talks with McCain (and also Lincoln Chafee, whom the Democrats had approached) broke off.

The McCain people are vehemently denying the story. But the level of detail, and the fact that some of it is already included in Tom Daschle’s 2003 memoir, convince me that it’s true. Besides, what would be the motive for Daschle or Downey to lie? As for the McCain campaign…

How does this story not translate to the end of a short but exceedingly bumpy road for the Straight Talk Express 2008? No wonder Republicans are looking at former senator and “Curly Sue” co-star Fred Thompson so hopefully.

You could shrug it off as just another bad day in a very bad week for John McCain, except for this:

Can you imagine Senate Democrats trying to form a cohesive Iraq exit strategy with McCain in the party, and Lieberman tagging along?

Talk about a nightmare scenario.

2007-03-04T10:43:00.000-05:00

Rummy's Privatized Obsession and the Impact on Walter Reed

The firing of the Army Secretary and removal of the temporary head of Walter Reed may make you wonder what’s going on in Washington. Here’s a hint: This is what accountability looks like. You may have forgotten—after all we’ve never seen it before in the Bush administration. You can’t count finally shoving Rummy out the door as “holding him accountable” for anything, not with the glorious send-off he got and the continuing accolades (“the finest secretary of Defense this nation has ever had”) from Darth Cheney.

So, at least we can say good for Defense Secretary Gates for forcing Army Secretary Francis Harvey out. The last straw, apparently, was Harvey’s appointment of General Kevin Kiley as temporary commander of Walter Reed, replacing General Weightman. Kiley was in charge of Walter Reed before Weightman, and had been told repeatedly of the disgraceful conditions in the outpatient care facilities. Gates wouldn’t have Kiley back, even temporarily.

A key issue to be resolved is how much Rumsfeld’s obsession with privatizing the military contributed to the Walter Reed situation. Fortunately both the House and Senate have hearings scheduled, beginning Monday at Walter Reed.

General Weightman is scheduled to appear before Rep. Henry Waxman’s Oversight committee. It took the threat of a subpoena to make it happen, since the Army was dead set against him testifying, but now he will show up.

The Army Times reports the committee wants to talk to Weightman about the impact of the Army’s decision to award a five year, 120 million dollar contract to IAP World Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, former COO of Halliburton’s KBR, and David Swindle (that’s really his name), also formerly of KBR. The decision to bring in private contractors at Walter Reed led to a virtual mass exodus of experienced career staffers.

Waxman’s committee released a memo from Garrison commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman which:

“describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel.’ ... According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

IAP won the contract under highly suspect circumstances in the first place, and they’re known for having failed to deliver ice to Katrina victims.

Rumsfeld is gone but his impact lives on.

“Finest” defense secretary ever, yessiree.

Gates has his work cut out for him.

2007-02-18T17:24:00.000-05:00

No Scrotums, Please, We're Republicans

It always seems to be two steps forward, one step back in this country. Here I was so relieved that there was no mass right-wing hysteria created when Prince did Shadow Puppet Porn with his guitar at the Superbowl (maybe we’ve matured since the Janet Jackson moment, I thought), only to pick up the paper this morning to learn that the word “scrotum” is too dirty for 10 year old school children. Librarians in a number of states are refusing to order the book, a Newberry Award winner, because of the presence of the word “scrotum.” Gosh, I hope they don’t have to decide on a biography of Tom Vilsack….

By the way, the book is called The Higher Power of Lucky, by Susan Patron. And speaking of books, which I see is Number 20 on the Amazon list, thanks, no doubt, to the controversy.

Don't tell me you still haven't bought Naked Republicans, a Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.

2007-02-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

JUST SAY IT, HILLARY

Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, and her husband remains one of the canniest political analysts ever. So I have to believe they will soon dump the strategy of refusing to admit her Iraq war vote was a mistake. All over New Hampshire this weekend she was asked to renounce her vote, but she wouldn’t do it. If she had, it would be a one day story before the press moved on to something else. Instead, the refusal is itself becoming a big part of the campaign story, and that ain’t good.

Check out the headlines from her weekend in New Hampshire:

In the Washington Post: “Clinton Parries Iraq Question in N.H.”
The New York Times: “In New Hampshire, Clinton Owns Up to her Vote on Iraq” (and today’s front page NYT: “For Clinton and Obama, Different Tests on Iraq”). And here on HuffingtonPost: “Clinton Dodges Iraq Questions, says Bush Incompetent”
“Clinton Cheered in NH: Some war Foes Skeptical” on Politico.com.

NBC Nightly News described it as “The question that won’t go away.” And Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairman and Hillary Clinton adviser, on CNN’s Late Edition Sunday, spent about half the interview defending her decision not to acknowledge her vote was a mistake.

Saturday a voter named Roger Tilton from Nashua New Hampshire challenged her this way:

"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters -- until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."

Her answer? “Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it.”

Now the question is why? Why allow yourself to be dogged by this question, one that is easy to handle and could then be put aside. In a front page NY Times story today Clinton adviser Mark Penn suggests that the term “mistake” should be reserved for Bush. Okay, then find a different way to say it. It's not going away.

Over at Talking Points Memo, they’ve posted Hillary’s full pre-war vote speech. As you’ll see, she did not vote for a pre-emptive war, as she has pointed out frequently while campaigning. Of course you’ll also see that she was a hawk, and you’ll see that in the final paragraphs, her thinking bears a certain resemblence to Bush/Cheney’s when it comes to conflating 9/11 with Saddam:

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."
--SENATE SPEECH Oct 10 2002

It seems the Clinton strategists are thinking ahead to the general election, calculating she has be more centrist to win independents. (Why they feel that way I don’t know, since Independents voted Democratic and anti-war in 2006). But even with her big lead in name recognition and money, it’s difficult to see how she, or any Democrat, is going to get the nomination without being a full throated, anti-war candidate. Senator Clinton is being pulled left by Edwards and Obama (and the other anti-war candidates) and maybe she thinks she’s gone far enough.

She hasn’t. Democrats who’ve been anti-war since day one remember that when Hillary was busy earning her national security cred as a tough, hawkish freshman Democrat, she was pretty sure of her facts about Iraq.

Here’s what she told Code Pink in March 2003, before the war:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm". "I have absolutely no belief he will. I have to say this is something I've followed for more than a decade."

That was then. Now, to say, “I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistake was by this President who misled the Congress,” isn’t going to cut it.

Yes, Bush did lie and mislead Congress. But 23 of your Senate colleagues were not taken in by the deceptions; they voted against the war. What does it mean to “take responsibility” for your vote, anyway? You were misled, and it was a mistake to trust the President to use war as a last resort. Oh, and you're sorry.

Just say it, will ya?

It's not too late to buy Naked Republicans, A Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.

2007-02-07T18:46:00.000-05:00

363 Tons (of dollars) And What Do You Get?

363 tons of cash were shipped to Iraq on wooden pallets just before the “hand over” of the government—that’s about 4 billion for those of you who don’t usually weigh your hundred dollar bills. This news was first revealed in the summer of 2005, but more details were provided yesterday in oversight hearings chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, who asked, “Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?”

Paul Bremer, the guy who was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority back when the Bush Administration thought the Mission Was Accomplished, told the committee that the Iraqi finance minister asked for the cash.

Almost nine billion of that money was never accounted for, you’ll be surprised to learn.

Hey, they were in the middle of a war, and there was no banking system, he said.

"I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently," Bremer said.

Ya think?

The timing of this vivid war story is especially bad, coming as it does on the heels of the President’s just submitted budget for 2008.

Oh, and guess who’ll be paying for Bush’s War?

If you guessed grannies, kids and the working poor, you’ve obviously been paying attention to how things work in the Bush Administration. Finally, the President is asking Americans to share the sacrifice for his war. Not all Americans, mind you—just the ones who are needy.

To pay for the Bush/Cheney war machine, and, of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, the President suggests cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and that’s just for starters. Because our eyes glaze over at the word “budget” most of us can’t even imagine how to convert the numbers into real human costs, which, of course, the White House is counting on. But Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont breaks it down. (So did Diane Feinstein and others, by the way).

Eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is a vital nutrition program primarily for low-income seniors but also serving mothers, infants and children across the country.

A $379 million cut to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps senior citizens and low income families pay for home heating.

A $100 million cut for Head Start, at a time when only about one-half of the children eligible for this program actually participate due to a lack of funding.. A complete elimination of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Program even though each and every year more people are diagnosed with TBI than those who suffer from breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Spinal Cord Injury and Multiple Sclerosis combined.

A $310 million cut in the National Institutes of Health, including a big cut for the National Cancer Institute. A $172 million cut in elderly housing and a $115 million cut in housing for persons with disabilities.

Fortunately, with a Democratic majority, much of this is DOA.

Speaking of DOA, how about that Joe Lieberman (R-I-D Conn.) terror tax? As leader of the one man R-I-D Joe party, he proved that he can piss off both Republicans and Democrats at exactly the same time by proposing that Americans support the Bush war with a war on terrorism tax. (Doesn’t he know that to Republicans, every tax increase is like terrorism?) Good luck with your new friends, Joe.

Of course, I can't talk about numbers and Iraq without mentioning the numbers that matter most of all--3110 American soldiers killed, more than 22,800 wounded, and who even knows exactly how many Iraqis killed and wounded.

Some costs cannot be recouped, ever.

2007-01-16T00:21:00.000-05:00

Dick Cheney's "Stomach for War"

Nothing like getting lectured about guts from a guy whose idea of hunting is to go to a private club and shoot cage-raised birds. And yet that’s what we got Sunday, when Dick Cheney was brought above ground, re-animated and rolled into Fox News, to tell America we need to have the “stomach to finish the task in Iraq.”

It was especially interesting to compare and contrast Darth Cheney’s gut check with the president’s comments later on 60 Minutes, when he said he didn’t watch the entire Saddam hanging video. Didn’t stay for the icky part—you know, the part when the guy he spent billions of dollars to have killed actually was killed. “They could have handled it a lot better,” Mr. Bush said.

Odds are the warrior in chief won’t be watching the video of Monday’s hangings, either, especially the part where Saddam’s half brother was accidentally decapitated by the ineptitude of the local hangman. (Or at least, the Iraqi officials said it was an accident.)

Let’s see…what exactly are we supposed to have “the stomach” for?
Three thousand dead Americans, 22 thousand injured Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and as part of an “important milestone” for the new Iraqi nation, three truly horrific, brutal execution that cannot help but bring shame by association to the people of the United States.

The question is not whether America has the stomach to keep fighting, but whether our leaders have the stomach to stop fighting. The Democrats, as usual, cannot agree on an anti-war strategy, perhaps because the Mainstream Media’s conventional wisdom still maintains that it is politically risky to vote to cut off funding for the escalation. But why? How is it that it requires courage to do what two thirds of the people want you to do? If you believe that, you are conceding that it’s impossible to beat Karl Rove, or his stand-ins, in 2008, when they try to paint anti-war candidates as “abandoning the troops.” Why are so many Democrats afraid that the American people, who have led the anti-war movement all along, will suddenly turn on them?

John Edwards had it right at the Riverside Church Sunday.

“Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq.” Your move, Democrats.

On the other hand, maybe I’m making too much of this whole Iraq nightmare. After all, Cheney did tell us just this Sunday that “we have, in fact, made enormous progress.”

Which reminds me, when Cheney testifies in the Scooter Libby trial, will they even bother to swear him in? Will anybody on a jury believe that he’s capable of telling the truth?

2007-01-14T11:59:00.000-05:00

CONDI'S DIARY: "NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN'T MAKE ME TURN AWAY FROM MY GUYS"

Dear Diary,

What drama! First there was the awkward overshare when I was caught on an open mike saying “my Fox guys, I love every single one of them.” (It was almost as bad as the time I slipped and referred to the president as “my husb—“ at a cocktail party. Remember that one, Diary? Ugh!) Then there was the whole dust up with Barbara Boxer over my Family of One…me.

At first blush, the “Fox guys” gush made me sound a little trampy, I suppose, especially that “I love every single one of them” part, but let’s face it, Brit, and Gibby, and Billy O, and of course, my honey Hanny, they’re all so dreamy. And more than that, they are dependable and reliable—they are there for me whenever I need them. Unlike so many, many men I know. (Robert Novak, I’m looking at you).

Like Thursday, when we needed a good distraction from the steaming heap of warmed over crap we call the New Way Forward, or, whatever. There I was, getting hammered from both sides at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing. I had nothing—they just totally crushed me. But then, my Fox Guys rescued me. It was beautiful, the way they stirred up a feminist fracas over Senator Boxer’s remark that I wouldn’t have to personally pay the price for all of our war mistakes because I have no immediate family involved.

Just between you and me, Diary, I know that Boxer, who is the original Mean Girl on campus (remember how she called me a liar?) never did say that it was because I’m single and have no children, not even a Snowflake baby, to groom for the Perpetual War Machine. When she went on about who pays the price for our Glorious War, I thought it was annoying, but I didn’t take it personally. Not like when Laura Bush told People Magazine I wouldn’t run for president because I’m single.

Thank God the Fox guys and the ever-vigilant patriots of the blogosphere were there to leap into battle. They drummed up a fake war even faster than Karen Hughes and the White House Iraq Group did. And all for me, me, me.

Honestly, diary, it was exactly like the time cute but communist John Edwards mentioned that Mary Cheney is a lesbian during the VP debates, and Dick didn’t bat a lizardy eye about it until Karl and Lynne C. made it the PC crime of the century.

And to think that Rush Limbaugh would suddenly make a case for feminists! Tee hee! (Didn’t he coin the term “femi-nazis” to describe Hillary Clinton and others?) I might even be offended that he made it a thing about race if it weren’t so funny, coming from him. How many times has he made racist comments on his radio show?

Between you and me, Diary, I don’t need any of those hunky Fox blowhards to defend me. I’m smarter, better educated, and more powerful than all of them put together.

But we did need a distraction from what I was actually talking about (“It’s not an escalation, it’s an augmentation”—ouch.) And these guys gave me enough cover to get the hell out of town and over to the Middle East, where everybody hates us but at least they have good reason to.

Note to self, Diary: when we send soldiers into Iran, point out to Rosie O’Donnell that Donald Trump thought it was a good idea. That’ll give us cover for weeks.

G'nite Diary.
xoxo
Condi

2006-11-22T10:39:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich Says He'll Be President "If the American people say I have to be"

Newt Gingrich has always been a man with a plan, whether as a high school student planning to marry Miss Battley, his geometry teacher (which he did—she’s the one he later dumped while she was recovering from cancer), or as a college student plotting new ways to get deferments to avoid Vietnam, or as the architect of the Contract With America. Of course, that one ended rather badly for him in the Republican debacle of 1998, when he lost the Speakership and went home to reinvent himself and dump his second wife, Marianne.

Now Newt’s back, with a plan to become president almost by magic. Here’s what he told Fortune magazine:

"I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Wow, I’m picturing David Blaine, only chubbier, older and even more full of himself. So…if he’s not running, but he’s waiting for a sign that Americans want him to be president, what do we do, text message in our votes, like on American Idol, or something?

If only. Just to hedge his bets, Newt’s all over Iowa and New Hampshire, and he’s creating a 527 group that he hopes will be a campaign cash cow, should he ever deign to campaign. He is a guy with big ideas. He’s also a guy with a big past—and not just the three marriages. (You can read much more about Newt in Naked Republicans, a Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed.) We can’t forget the ethics issues, the creation of the sleazy, bullying Republican revolving-door lobbyist system now known as the K street project, the ill-fated, pouty government shutdown in a battle with Bill Clinton that he lost, just to name a few.

And speaking of pouty, who can forget that Gingrich is the co-author of many books, including this passage in “1945:”

Suddenly the pouting sex kitten gave way to Diana the Huntress. She rolled onto to him and somehow was sitting athwart his chest, her knees pinning his shoulders. 'Tell me, or I will make you do terrible things,' she hissed.'

Like writing really bad historical novels, presumably. Come to think of it, he writes historical fiction, and he’s trying to fictionalize his history.

The mainstream media have short attention spans and even shorter memories, so Newt will get more than his share of uncritical free media as he launches his magical mystery tour.
When he launches is 527 for example, he’ll be all over television, no doubt.

Like the new Nixon in 1968, he’s trying to be the new Newt, but the old Newt can’t be shaken off as easily as an ex-wife.

2006-11-16T08:07:00.000-05:00

OJ Auditions for the Bush Administration

Fox schedules a Very Special OJ--See the Show, Read the Book

Like most people, when I first heard the news that OJ was back, yet again, I couldn't help but cover my ears to muffle the painful sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped. But it shouldn't have been a surprise. After all, OJ has proven for more than ten years that he literally has no shame, and as for his publisher and no doubt hard-hitting interviewer in the TV special, Judith Regan, well, she did have an affair with Bernard Kerik, so what does that tell you about her judgment?

Then it dawned on me that he's just auditioning for a gig in the Bush administration.

As we know, being a criminal is no barrier to entry in the Republican party. Roughing up a woman won't necessarily cost you your job either, although Don Sherwood learned in Pennsylvania that even if your party supports you with money and a Presidential campaign stop, the voters may not forgive you (or believe your claim that you're merely a cheater, not a beater).

We've also seen that like many Republicans, OJ will do anything for money, and will blithely ignore a court ruling that doesn't suit him (like, paying the 33 million dollar judgment in the civil case he lost to the Goldman and Brown families). And now, with a couple of blocks thrown by the News Corps., he's showing Republicans with pending law enforcement issues just how to dart and weave through the legal minefield, dodging responsibility while still cashing in. He's a role model for all of them.

"If I Did it, Here's How it Happened" is the perfect construct for almost anybody in the administration. Take Dick Cheney. "If I did let my buddies in the energy industry write our energy policy, here's how it happened," he might say. Or, "If I did insist on using torture tactics on prisoners, Here's How it Happened."

You get the picture. The possibilities are endless. Katherine Harris on "If I did suppress thousands of votes in the 2000 election, Here's How it Happened." Condi Rice: "If I did say no one could have anticipated that terrorists would hijack planes and use them as weapons against us, Here's how it happened."

For the president, the list might begin with, "If I did say no strings were pulled for me to stay out of Vietnam, Here's how it happened," and end (so far) with "If I did say Rumsfeld would stay until 2008, Here's How it Happened."

I've always thought OJ was a Republican. Now I'm sure.

Have you checked out Naked Republicans, A Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed yet? It'll make your Holiday season so much more fun.

2006-11-02T14:54:00.000-05:00

No Sex Please, We’re Single
What Every Twenty-Something Should Know

If you have one chance to convince an independent or a Republican to vote Democratic this year, I’d like to suggest the following:

The Bush administration would like to spend your taxpayer dollars on convincing unmarried men and women not to have sex before age 30.

Yes, Abstinence Only—it’s not just for teens anymore. The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the 50 million dollar program, has issued new guidelines telling the states that they can get funding to teach abstinence to anybody up to age 29.

The party that covered up Mark Foley’s stalking of teenagers, and the president who campaigned for a Congressman who admitted an affair with a 29 year old woman, would like to ask all you singles out there to just say no to sex, at least until you’re 30. (No telling whether there’s an exemption for members of Congress).

I know, I know, Iraq. Katrina. Health care. Social Security. Minimum Wage. Habeas corpus. Torture. Privacy rights.

Any and all of them should be reason enough to kick these clowns out of Washington.

But let’s face it, sex gets people’s attention, and for a simple, breath-taking example of over-bearing, self-righteous, intrusive, government over-reach, you really can’t do much better than funding abstinence only programs for unmarried adults.

By the way, where do you hold the classes? The party room at Applebee’s right before Happy Hour? Or maybe you recruit in the parking lot outside your local Speed Dating venue.

Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen. Now have you had enough?

Don't forget Naked Republicans, A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed.
Available wherever snarky but painfully true political observations are sold.

2006-10-23T16:55:00.000-04:00

Lying About “Abortion Hurts Women”

Last time I checked in on the South Dakota abortion ban legislation, opponents (the pro-choice side) had easily gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot this November. If it’s approved by voters, the law would ban all abortions, including for rape and incest victims. The only exception is to save the life of the mother. Oh, and maybe for a young woman who was a raped and sodomized virgin. Surely you remember State Senator Bill Napoli’s creepy description of a possible exception, during an interview on the NewsHour:

“ A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

Makes you pray that the guy doesn’t IM anybody, doesn’t it?

But it turns out to be more than a window into a disturbed imagination. It was also a window into the tactics and philosophy used by the bill’s supporters.

They’re making it all about "protecting" women. Yes, women who, according to their one-sided task force report, would never choose to have an abortion if they weren’t being unfairly pressured by forces beyond their control. Choosing on their own to have an abortion would violate “the mother’s fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child.” Yes, they really said that. They really are claiming that women are just poor, dumb vessels whose maternal instincts override all else.

This is a tactic they’ve chosen because they think it resonates with women. Another tactic they’ve chosen is lying—they claim the bill does make exceptions for rape or incest, but the only provision is the morning after pill, which is available in about half of the pharmacies in South Dakota. Pharmacists are not required to prescribe it or even refer a woman to a drug store where she could get it.

There’s evidence that the anti-abortion side is making headway—polls last summer had the bill being defeated easily, but now it’s very close.

Wanna help defeat this bill? South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families is a good place to start.

And by the way…It looks like Bob Casey Junior will defeat Senator Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum in Pennsylvania. That’s a good thing, relatively speaking. But when you speak of it, and you will, please remember: Casey is anti-choice, or anti-abortion rights, or anti-abortion. He is routinely referred to in the press as a “pro-life Democrat”, sometimes even on liberal blogs. But adopting the anti-abortion movement’s term “pro-life” is like adopting the Dixiecrats’ phrase “states’ rights” in the 1950s and ‘60s. It’s lazy at best, and biased framing at worst. And, as we have seen in South Dakota, the words do matter.

Speaking of words that matter, have you got Naked Republicans, A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed yet?

2006-10-04T18:35:00.000-04:00

From Packwood to Foley: When “No” Means “Ewwww”

If you’re shocked by the Mark Foley affair, the nauseating sexual advances, the cover-up by the GOP leadership, you need a refresher course in Packwood 101. It’s deja vu all over (and over) again, from the covered up allegations of serial sexual harassment to the obligatory trip to rehab.

Bob Packwood, of course, was a powerful Republican senator from Oregon, from 1968 until he resigned in disgrace in 1995. Like Mark Foley, he was a vocal advocate for precisely the people he was victimizing—women, in Packwood’s case. He was a strong supporter of abortion rights, and women’s groups seemed to look the other way, at least at first, when persistent complaints about his groping, grabbing and slobbering began to surface. (His signature move was to come up behind a victim, spin her around and thrust his tongue down her throat.)

Like Mark Foley, at least one of Packwood’s victims was a teenager, a 17 year old intern.

And, like Mark Foley, Mr. Packwood enjoyed writing about his sexual adventures. This was the early ‘90s and there was no IM system, so he kept old fashioned diaries. Here’s an excerpt:

“About 4:30 we had a staff party. It started slow and got bigger. None of the professional Finance Committee came but the clericals came. We drank for about an hour and a half and played charades. At about 7:00 we began to dwindle and drift except for finally (name omitted). And we sat in the office. She is a very sexy thing. Bright-eyes and hair and that ability to shift her hips. . . . Well, I won't bore you with all the details of the evening. (Name Omitted) and I made love. . . . Now bear in mind this is an hour and a half after we've made love and we're both still nude and lying on the rug. What I didn't know until later -- get this -- is that (two names omitted) were still there in the outer office and they left us alone.”

Hold on a second, I just vomited in my own mouth. Let’s find something a little tamer. Here’s one, about styling his hair:

“I just blew it until it was about dry, combed it, and if it didn’t come out looking just right! It had just the right amount of bounce to it, and wave to it. I came back rather confident.”

You see, Foley fans? Straight guys care about their appearances, too!

As with the Foley case, a news organization got hold of the Packwood story weeks before the 1992 elections. But when Packwood vehemently denied (lied about) the accusations, the Washington Post held it until after the election. Once he was safely re-elected the story broke.

When his pattern of sexually assaulting staffers, lobbyists, elevator operators, and others came to light, Packwood did what any honorable Republican would do—he blamed it on booze, and went to rehab. Sound familiar?

In the Packwood case, there were similar calls for an immediate ethics investigation, and the Senate ethics committee began its probe of Packwood just weeks after the story broke. The investigation dragged on for oh, about two years. Today we learned that the GOP leadership had been warned about Foley three years ago. Republicans on the Senate Ethics committee protected Packwood by blocking repeated efforts by the Democrats to hold public hearings.

Packwood went about his daily Senate business until 1995, when the Ethics committee finally voted to expel him from the Senate, and he quit.

The Justice Department investigated allegations that he obstructed justice by altering his diaries to remove incriminating evidence, and shook down lobbyists to put his ex-wife on their payrolls so that he could stop paying her alimony. In the end, though, the government didn’t prosecute him.

Since he’d already been to rehab, there was nothing else for Mr. Packwood to do except set up shop as a lobbyist in Washington. You’ll find him, hanging with his old buddies, as if nothing happened.

(You can learn more—way more—about your favorite Republicans in Naked Republicans, A full Frontal exposure of Right-Wing hypocrisy and Greed.)

2006-10-01T17:59:00.000-04:00

The Do-EVERYTHING Congress Gets Caught Again

It's impossible (almost!) to keep up with the Naked Republicans.

When the White House and the GOP congressional leadership look at their poll numbers and ask their advisers, “why do they hate us?” here’s a clue: they don’t hate you for your freedom (except for Tom DeLay, and Bob Ney, of course. But the courts should take care of that).

No, it’s not your freedom—it’s your arrogance and hypocrisy. You guys weren’t the Do-Nothing Congress, you were the Do-Everything Congress. Everything you could get away with.

We’ve all had a chance to digest the spectacular hypocrisy of discovering that ex-Representative Mark Foley, chairman of the House caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, was a cyber-stalker of young men, and kept that post even after his activities became known to the House leadership.

That was bad enough. But what’s even more galling is to watch the arrogance of the House leadership, who thought that the remedy for a scandal was a cover-up, and the remedy for being caught in a coverup was to lie about it. But this time, they’re busted.

Let’s say you’re Denny Hastert. (Right, I know it’s unpleasant, but go with me here). Some of your closest lieutenants come to you and tell you that another member of your crew is sending creepy/dirty/cybersexual IMs to high school pages.

Would you forget that conversation?

Neither would Denny, I’m sure, but that’s what he wants us to believe. He pretended to be surprised by the whole story, until Rep. Thomas Reynolds refused to take the fall for him. Reynolds told reporters that he had talked to Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner about Foley’s emails last year. Hastert then said he didn’t recall the conversation but hey, if Reynolds says it happened, then maybe it did. Boehner, too, barely remembered discussing the matter with the kid’s Congressman, Rodney Alexander of Louisiana.

No kidding? The old Sergeant Schultz (I know nnnnothing) defense worked on Hogan’s Heroes, but my guess is that the public ain’t going to buy it this time.

I’m assuming that the Republican congress did virtually nothing to clean up the lobbying rules after the Abramoff scandal because they thought the voters couldn’t understand the details of that one.

Guess what? We all understand, “what are you wearing? Wish I could slip those off of you and grab the one eyed trouser snake.”

"I don't think it will be just conservative voters that will shake their heads when they hear about this," Rep. Jim McCrery told the Washington Post.

Ya think?

The fact is, the Republican leadership doesn’t care much about the sexual behavior of its members (no pun intended), or they wouldn’t have poured big bucks into the campaign of Don Sherwood. As chronicled in detail in Naked Republicans, A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed, he’s the Pennsylvania congressman whose most recent term was highlighted by an out of court settlement with a former girlfriend who had accused him of choking her during their five year extramarital affair. Rick Santorum, Mr. “It takes a Family” has campaigned for Sherwood, too.

A Vermont Republican candidate for the House had the decency to return a one thousand dollar campaign check from Sherwood, citing her commitment to ending domestic violence against women. Her name is Martha Rainville. She’s currently trailing Democrat Peter Welch in the polls. It’s just as well for her if she loses. She’d obviously never fit in.

For those of you keeping score at home, that’s three Republican members of congress who’ve resigned in disgrace this year, and one who remained in office while disgraced, Bob Ney, confessed Abramoff bribe taker.

The House leadership is braying now about Foley’s “obscene breach of trust,” which might be a perfect way to characterize the corrupted Congress.

Fits pretty well on a bumper sticker, too.

2006-09-29T17:11:00.000-04:00

Jeanine Pirro’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Year

You know a campaign is going really badly when freezing up like a deer in the headlights for 32 seconds because you lost a page of your speech is only the second worst thing you’ve done. And yet, that’s where Jeanine Pirro, Republican candidate for New York attorney general, finds herself today. If only she had been rendered as speechless when the government was taping her friend, disgraced ex-New York police commissioner Bernie Kerik. Then she wouldn’t have been accidentally overheard asking Kerik to bug her husband’s boat when she thought he was cheating on her. (Hey, did you and Bernie talk at his secret love pad overlooking Ground Zero? Just wondering). And there would have been no reason to launch a federal investigation into whether she actually did illegally bug her husband. (She and Kerik both say it was just talk).

Fortunately for those of us who enjoy a little politics with our soap operas, she won’t let a federal investigation force her to drop out of the race for the state’s top law enforcement job.

“I’m standing up for myself and I’m standing up for women,” the plucky Ms Pirro declared.

Um, that’s ok, girlfriend, no need to stand up for women. Your marriage, like your candidacy, is not going to be remembered as a feminist cause. A lot of women can empathize with the rage and pain you felt last year when you suspected your husband, Big So-Not-Gay Al of cheating on you (again).

But spare us your righteous indignation, the claims that you’re a victim of a political witch hunt, that the rules are different for women. True, sealed documents shouldn’t be leaked to reporters. But if you’re looking around to see who is victimizing you, perhaps you should look a little closer to home.

Your marriage is your personal business and you don’t have to explain it to anyone. If you want to stay with a guy who a) fathered a child out of wedlock, b) went to prison for tax evasion c) has been suspected of doing business deals with mob figures and d) was twice ticketed for speeding this summer, that’s your call. Still, you have to understand why the public finds it interesting, to say the least.

In fact, a new Marist/WNBC-TV poll finds that most New Yorkers think Pirro is being treated fairly, (66%), and more than half said they have a right to know whether she’s the target of an investigation.

My absolute favorite part of this tawdry tale is the comment an anonymous Republican Party official made to the New York Times Thursday:

“This was one of the reasons we wanted her to run for Senate—all this awful Al Pirro stuff would cloud her credentials to be the top law enforcement officer.”

Right, because you don’t need “unclouded” credentials to be a Republican Senator, is that it? Being ethically challenged is apparently no barrier to entry.

In an interview with WCBS-TV, Ms. Pirro said she doubted law enforcement agents would go after a male candidate because of his wife’s actions. But the investigation was prompted by Jeanine’s actions, not Albert’s. She was the one caught on tape discussing how to bug her husband.

When I wrote Naked Republicans, A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed, I thought Katherine Harris was the Republican party’s Worst Candidate Ever. Now, it seems Jeanine Pirro is giving Ms. Harris a real run for her money. They’ll both lose, but here’s hoping we get to watch them campaign again soon.

You can buy the book here

2006-09-26T22:56:00.000-04:00

EXPOSE YOURSELF TO:

Ted Stevens Loads Up the Big Internet Truck
For Another Campaign

Good news, everybody—Alaska’s own Senator Ted Stevens is planning to run for re-election in 2008. (Why not? He’ll only be 84).

"I intend to stay as long as God and the people of Alaska allow me to secure these projects for Alaska," he told The Hill newspaper.

While that sounds more like a threat than a promise to wary taxpayers, the antediluvian Senator has many more “projects” to secure for the folks back home before he hangs up his cranky pants and calls it a career. Much has been made of his Bridge to Nowhere (estimated cost: 223 million dollars), but for the true fans of pork, what inspires admiration most is not the showy, spectacular waste; it’s the quiet heroism of the workaday porker. And nobody does it better than Ted.

Citizens Against Government Waste reports that last year Stevens’ “projects” included a million dollars for “alternative salmon products” (a disturbing image), 1.3 million for “berry research,” and 98 thousand dollars for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission. (What do sea otter commissioners do, exactly?)

My own favorite however, is detailed in my book, Naked Republicans, A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed. It’s nowhere near the biggest slab of bacon, but it’s arguably the most colorful.

In 2005, Alaska Airlines rolled out what it called a Salmon-Thirty-Salmon, a jet painted to look like a fish. The paint job cost a half million dollars, and the tab was picked up by the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? Except that the Marketing Board gets its funding from the federal government---thirty million dollars so far. And how does the Chairman of the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board express his gratitude? Probably by saying:

“Thanks, Dad.”

Yep, the Chairman is Ben Stevens, son of Ted. Given the Senator’s understanding of the internet, let’s hope they don’t communicate via email. You know how clogged those tubes can get.

Senator Stevens is too modest to remind us that he is president pro tempore of the Senate, making him third in line for the presidency, in case, you know... And when you consider Mr. Bush’s propensity for pitching off his bike (to say nothing of choking on pretzels), and Dick Cheney’s heart, we’d better all pray that Denny Hastert starts using the House gym real soon.

2006-09-25T09:35:00.000-04:00

HEY THERE LONELYGIRL

There are lots of ways to sell your book. Sometimes you have to get a South American dictator to give you a big shout out at the UN. Sometimes you have to make a fool of yourself doing a parody of the whole Lonelygirl phenomenon on Youtube. While I wait for Hugo Chavez to do the right thing, you can watch the video here.

And remember, Naked Republicans: A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed is on sale wherever hilarious and snarky books are sold.

2006-09-25T09:33:00.000-04:00

Lonelygirl51

Even Lonely Girl is reading Naked Republicans!

2006-09-20T16:50:00.000-04:00

MOST CORRUPT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INCLUDE OH, SO MANY NAKED REPUBLICANS

If you haven't checked out NAKED REPUBLICANS: A FULL FRONTAL EXPOSURE OF RIGHT-WING HYPOCRISY AND GREED yet, what are you waiting for? Join the stampede to buy this book.

Seven Naked Republicans make the top 20 list of most corrupt Congress members (plus Rep Don Sherwood in the Dishonorable Mention category). This is a list compiled by the fine folks at Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, whose website is beyonddelay.org.

The Seven who made the list include no real surprises: Burns, Frist, Santorum, Blunt, Ken Calvert of California, and John Doolittle, from the Sacramento area. I was glad to see Rep. Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania get a dishonorable mention. He was involved in a domestic violence situation with a young woman who was not his wife, and while he denied choking her and assaulting her, as she alleged in an official complaint, he did settle out of court for an undisclosed sum of money. Just one look at his dancing eyes (right) and you can see why a 29 year old woman would fall for him, can't you? Me, neither.

Sherwood's Republican friends have rallied around him, of course, sending him campaign funds to make sure that a fine, upstanding citizen such as himself manages to hold on to his seat in Congress.

2006-09-19T23:01:00.000-04:00

PLEASE, BOYCHIK GEORGE, DENY ANY JEWISH ROOTS

Well, that was a close one. During a debate Monday with Democratic opponent James Webb, Senator George Allen was asked whether he could confirm a report in The Forward that his mother, Etty Lumbroso Allen, came from a prominent Sephardic Jewish family. Outraged by the question, Allen spluttered on about freedom of religion, and then denied the assertion.

Does anybody really care whether Senator George Allen’s mother came from a prominent Jewish family? Well, yeah. I do.

Haven’t we Jews suffered enough this year? Everywhere we turn there’s another shonda (embarrassment), from Jack Abramoff to Joe Lieberman. We learn that Rep. Eric Cantor had a sandwich named after himself at a fundraiser at Abramoff’s deli. We’ve got Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle. Do we really need a Jewish George Allen?

Fortunately, Allen seemed outraged by the question. As his supporters booed, (suddenly, the very mention of religion is off limits to these guys-- or is it the horrifying possibility that he could be Jewish?) Allen delivered his lecture on religious rights and then characterized the reporter’s question as “casting aspersions.”

Finally, he said “as far as he knew,” his mother was raised as a Christian.

As far as he knows? If you have a Jewish mother, you know it. A Jewish mother doesn’t let you wear a Confederate flag lapel pin in your high school yearbook picture, or pimp your pickup truck with rebel flag bumper stickers. She might mention her religious heritage when you have your picture taken with white supremacist members of the Council of Concerned Citizens. And I don’t think a Jewish mother visiting her son’s law office would remain silent about the noose he kept hanging there, or that she’d fail to ask her daughter in law if hanging a Confederate flag in her son George’s home was really the best interior decorating idea she could come up with. (There’s much more juice on Allen—and not the kind that dribbles from his tobacco chaw--in my book Naked Republicans: A Full Frontal Exposure of Right Wing Hypocrisy and Greed).

I believe you, George. Besides, The Forward’s story says the family was forced to convert to Christianity long ago, so it’s entirely possible that his mother was raised a Christian.

Senator Allen mentioned several times that his grandfather was “incarcerated by the Nazis” but for political reasons, not because he was Jewish. Maybe the Nazis just hated him for his freedom.

Remember when Boychik George was a front-runner for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination?

Now, it looks like he won’t be our first almost-Jewish President.

Such suffering we do.

2006-09-18T12:39:00.000-04:00

GEORGE ALLEN, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN

Dogged by protestors out to make a monkey out of him

KEEPING UP WITH SENATOR MACACA

As seen in NAKED REPUBLICANS: A Full Frontal Exposure of Right Wing Hypocrisy and Greed
ON SALE NOW!

When last we left our old friend George Allen, he was trying to pull his macaca covered cowboy boot out of his mouth. After predicting in Naked Republicans that the best way to stop him would be simply to let him talk, we can’t say we were surprised.

Still, credit where it’s due, we have been entertained beyond our wildest dreams. (It began when he hired Dick Wadham, aka Dick Wad) as his campaign manager. Wad(ham) worked on the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle in South Dakota, enlisting the journalistic skills of one Jeff “Callboy” Gannon to help smear Daschle.

Unfortunately, not even Dick Wadham can protect George Allen from himself.

Favorite move this month has to be stealing a piece of legislation from Senator Dick Durbin and introducing it as his own right before Durbin can do it, (Dad, did you see that? I intercepted that guy’s bill. I did good, right? Dad? Sir? Coach?).

We also enjoyed watching him get outed in The Nation for meeting with the Council of Conservative Citizens, nee the KKK. And that’s after the “Welcome to America, Macaca.”

Now we get to watch a United States Senator hounded by protestors dressed a giant banana and monkey.

Tim Russert asked him on MTP yesterday if he would pledge to serve a full six year term if re-elected to the Senate, and he wouldn’t.

MR. RUSSERT: We are out of time. Before we go, Senator Allen, you have said, “The Senate is too slow for me.” Would you pledge to serve a full six-year term if re-elected to the Senate? SEN. ALLEN: The Senate does move too slowly. Having been governor I like action and I wish the Senate would move faster. But my focus is to keep fighting in the Senate for these ideas. MR. RUSSERT: For six—will you serve a six-year term? SEN. ALLEN: I’m the only candidate running on ideas on education... MR. RUSSERT: OK. SEN. ALLEN: ...and on energy independence. And I am focused... MR. RUSSERT: I, I, I’ve read the—I’ve read the brochure. I’ve read the brochure. SEN. ALLEN: ...and I want—I will... MR. RUSSERT: But will you serve... SEN. ALLEN: Sure, and you can put it in as a...(unintelligible)...of my family. MR. RUSSERT: ...will you pledge to serve a full six-year term? SEN. ALLEN: I pledge that I’m going to fight as hard as I can for our shared values and vision for Virginia for the next six years in Washington. (emphasis added)

But he doesn’t have to take the pledge. Ain’t gonna happen.

FOR MORE ON GEORGE ALLEN AND OH, SO MANY OTHERS, CHECK OUT
NAKED REPUBLICANS: A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed

2006-09-17T12:43:00.000-04:00

We’ll always have Freedom Fries

Once Bob Ney was the Mayor of Capitol Hill, wielding his influence as chairman of the House Administration committee to assign parking spaces and order French fries to be renamed “freedom fries” in the House cafeteria. Now, he’ll be trading cigarettes for extra cans of Pringles in prison. It’s an American tragedy, don’t you think?

I don’t mean to be melodramatic, it’s just that I’m reeling from the stunning news of Ney’s guilty plea to fraud and conspiracy in the Abramoff scandal. Next thing you know, we’ll find out he wears a toupee. He’s admitting to taking about 170 thousand dollars worth of goodies from Abramoff and his associates. Who could have seen that coming? After all, for more than a year he denied any wrongdoing. “I was duped,” he said, and we believed him, didn’t we? Even when we read emails like this one:

“Just met with Ney! We’re f’ing gold! He’s going to do Tigua…”
---Jack Abramoff, March 2002

Now Ney says he has a drinking problem and has checked himself in for rehab. He didn’t take the Mel Gibson defense until he learned that unlike Mel, they can take away his freedom. And they will. The prosecutors are asking for 27 months.

Actually, my favorite corruption charge doesn’t involve Abramoff at all. It involves Elvis. Well, at least indirectly. In 2003, Ney was flown to London by a guy named Nigel Winfield, who wanted to sell American-made airplane parts to Iran. In exchange for the trip, Ney lobbied the State department to get the sanctions against Iran lifted. Winfield was a convicted felon who had once tried to screw Elvis Presley on an airplane deal. Ney, of course, says he didn’t know Winfield was a criminal.

Which does lead to the question, could anybody call up Bob Ney, invite him on an all expenses paid trip to Europe, and ask him to lobby the Secretary of State…without Ney’s staff doing so much as a five minute background check on Google before handing their boss his passport and airplane tickets?

As Ney was heading for rehab, his House Republican buddies were passing a tiny, toothless “reform” bill that does nothing to clean up the corrupting influence of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff. It requires House members to identify themselves as they stuff earmarks into legislation; they can still rip off taxpayers, as long as they tell us they’re ripping us off.

“We’re blowing away the fog of anonymity,” Rep. David Dreier announced.

Something definitely blows, that’s for sure.

As for good old Bob Ney, We’re going to miss you, Mr. Disgraced ex-Congressman, but we’ll always have freedom fries.

Don't Forget!
Naked Republicans: A Full Frontal Exposure of Right-Wing Hypocrisy and Greed (wherever fine books are sold)
Order Now!

and thank you for your patronage

2006-09-07T11:38:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay Is Dancing As Fast as He Can
It must suck to be Tom DeLay, ex-Hammer. No longer able to threaten to cut off campaign funds from independent-minded fellow Republicans, or the balls of Democrats, he’s reduced to writing emails like this one, which can be found in its entirety at Jake Tapper’s blog at abcnews.com.

"Dear Friend,

"I am writing to you today in an effort to help a good friend of mine, country music singer and GOP supporter Sara Evans. Sara will be competing this year on ABC’s smash hit "Dancing with the Stars" beginning Tuesday, September 12, at 8 pm Eastern/ 7pm Central. Sara has recently launched a new website www.DancingWithSara.com that will connect her fans to exclusive behind the scenes material from the show. Register with this website for free today and then watch Sara compete starting September 12 – and don’t forget that YOUR VOTE HELPS DETERMINE THE WINNER!

"Sara Evans has been a strong supporter of the Republican Party and represents good American values in the media. From singing at the 2004 Republican Convention to appearing with candidates in the last several election cycles, we have always been able to count on Sara for her support of the things we all believe in. Let’s show Sara that same support by watching and voting for her each week to help her win this competition. One of her opponents on the show is ultra liberal talk show host Jerry Springer. We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans.

Do they let you watch “Dancing With the Stars” in jail? Just asking…

And Now They're Going After Poor Christine DeLay
The Houston Chronicle reports today that the FBI is investigating whether Mrs ex Hammer earned thousands of dollars from The Alexander Strategy Group without actually doing any work. The lobbying firm was run by DeLay cronies until they were swamped by the slime of the Abramoff scandal and forced to close, but the FBI apparently isn't finished digging into the Abramoff muck, and the DeLays may have issues.

We're sure there's a logical explanation for everything.

2006-09-04T18:40:00.000-04:00

Hey kids, welcome to Naked Republicans, the blog. If you dropped in through website for Nakedrepublicansthebook.com, thanks for visiting. It's not quite completed, but the key part, the one where you get to buy the book, works just fine. I'm sure you bought several copies, right?

What I will do on this blog is pick up where the book left off when I had to send it to be printed. The website currently features a charming little update on Katherine Harris, who is the odds on favorite to win the Russell Crowe phone toss event at the Anger Management Olympics.

Meanwhile, the First Pinhead, with no apparent irony, points out that America is too dependent on foreign oil, from countries where "they simply don't like us." Not sure if that includes Canada.

So does that mean, at long last, his administration will support increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, or invested in alternative energy sources? What are you, stupid? Two words, my friends: nuclear power. Make that, nucular, as in, "Nucular power is safe, nucular power is clean, nucular power is renewable."

And, not unlike your presidency, it leaves behind a giant waste heap that will last for generations.