14 March, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public.

Pi Day almost passed me by. Thanks to Steve Benen and Rachel Maddow, I can still wish you a happy Pi Day!

By the way, if you're curious about the roll-call vote that Rachel mentioned on the Pi Day resolution, it's right here. "Who votes no on Pi Day?" As it turns out, 10 Republicans do.
What a shocker, eh?

On to shocks that aren't shocking, Cons are busily trying to paint over reality again. Those who can't hide from their shenanigans in the Bush years would like to pretend certain things never happen. It leads to just one question: Does Karl Rove really expect us to believe him?

Last night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, former Bush adviser Karl Rove brazenly claimed that he never used his White House position to threaten anyone.

Host Bill O’Reilly caught Rove off-guard with this question: “Now in the Bush White House, did you guys ever threaten anybody who disagreed with you?” Rove hesitated, sputtered, and responded, “Not that — not that — you know — not that I recall.” O’Reilly pressed the point:

O’REILLY: So you never threatened?


The smirk on Rove’s face suggested that even he had a hard time believing his own answer.


Rove — the political architect of dirty tricks — clearly did use his position in the White House to engage in vindictive political attacks against his perceived enemies:

– Punished Iraq war whistleblower Joe Wilson by outing his wife Valerie Plame, who was an undercover intelligence agent

– Drove a politically-charged prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman

– Orchestrated the political firings of U.S. attorneys

– Threatened the late Michael Connell and demanded he “take the fall” for election fraud in Ohio

– Pressured the Texas Secretary of State to fire an attorney in his office for making comments that reflected poorly on him

Yeah, I kinda suspect he knows we know he's lying like a rug. None of us expect him to stop playing to type anytime soon. Perhaps he's worried about sparking a wave of cardiac arrests if he ever allows the truth to pass through his lips. Nice of him to be so considerate of our health.

At least no one's likely to have a heart attack discovering that, once again, Sarah Palin's a big ol' fucking hypocrite:
Sarah Palin loves reform and hates earmarks. I know this, of course, because Sarah Palin insisted, over and over again, that this was the case during her recent national campaign. After the claim was exposed as a lie, Palin even repeated the notion that she rejected federal funding for the Bridge to Nowhere. If Alaskans wanted to take on an infrastructure project, they'd build it themselves, thank you very much.

So, should we assume Palin is going to reject a new round of earmarks for her state? Jonathan Stein and David Corn decided to look into it.

The omnibus spending bill that President Barack Obama signed on Wednesday includes earmarks that Palin sought.


Asked by Mother Jones about the Alaska earmarks, Bill McAllister, Palin's communications director, pointed to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) as responsible for these provisions. But in an email, he noted that a "few of [the Alaska earmarks] were requested directly" by Palin. But how many? And which ones? McAllister declined to say. Mother Jones also asked McAllister if Palin believes it was appropriate for Murkowski and Young to insert these earmarks into the legislation and whether she will reject any earmarked funds. He did not answer those queries either.

It seems like just seven months ago Palin told the nation that she had "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." Wait, that was just seven months ago.


Are any of these projects wasteful? I haven't the foggiest idea. But I can't help but notice that John McCain put together a list of easily-defensible expenditures, but overlooked money headed to his former running mate.

John McCain? A two-faced son of a bitch who cherrypicks the earmarks he makes fun of? Never! Okay, well, always. But surely, he'd never do to Dems what he wouldn't do to Cons, would he?

President Obama has nominated Christopher Hill to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and by all appearances, there's nothing even remotely controversial about the choice. And yet, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are raising a fuss.

The problem, apparently, is that McCain and Graham, while acknowledging Hill's extensive diplomatic experience, believe Hill doesn't have a strong enough background in the Middle East. Matt Cooper thinks this is "odd."

McCain and Graham had no problem voting for Hill to be come George W. Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs even thought his previous experience was overwhelmingly European with one tour in Seoul. In general the country's supported the idea that senior State Department officials can move around the world and not have to prove their credentials each time they're assigned to a new region. McCain and Graham are imposing a new standard that seems odd. It's not wildly irrational to want an Iraq ambassador with Mideast experience but it's a bar that I've never heard Senators ask of any other career diplomat before.

Indeed, George W. Bush chose John Negroponte to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, based on his lengthy diplomatic career. Negroponte's background in the Middle East, however, was non-existent. McCain and Graham, at the time, not only supported Negroponte's nomination, they never raised any concerns about his relevant experience.

Well, of course he would. He's John McCain. QED. The people who expected him to become the great mavericky hero once again after giving a gracious concession speech were being hopelessly naive.

At least it's still very safe to say that if the Cons are all excited and bleating over something, there's an excellent chance they've got it ass backwards:

For the past couple of days, FOX News and Lou Dobbs have been bleating nonstop about President Obama's 'broken' campaign promise to ban all earmarks.

Only one problem -- he never made any such promise. That was John McCain, as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night on Wednesday..

Heh heh heh whoops. Not that they care about little details like factual accuracy. Or the existence of about ten billion debate tapes that prove them completely wrong. Or the fact that the vast majority of the American people don't give two shits about what they think anymore.

Someone needs to explain this to DemiCon Evan Bayh. He and his DemiCon buddies in the Senate seem confused:

After having been amended in the House by the Tauscher gang, H.R. 1106 moves to the Senate, and there are already indications that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) will be seeking the spotlight again, as he sets himself up as the chief obstacle to Democrats actually doing anything in Congress.

But check out where opposition to cramdown (and some other recent policy decisions) leaves this self-styled "moderate" and his would-be gang:


64% [of Americans] favor giving aid to homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. Evan Bayh's position? Oppose.

58% oppose giving aid to U.S. automakers who are in danger of going bankrupt. Evan Bayh's position? Favor.

59% oppose giving aid to U.S. banks and financial companies in danger of failing. Evan Bayh's position? Favor.

67% favor giving aid to state governments in serious financial trouble. Evan Bayh's position? Cut that aid.

Y'know, Evan. There's a party for people who can't get reality straight and believe Americans want the opposite of what they actually want, where obstructionist grandstanding is considered teh awesome and consistently favoring corporations to the detriment of citizens is called taking a principled stand. I'll give you a little hint: it's not the Democratic party.

It's too bad we haven't learned how to terraform asteroids yet. These people spend so much time in outer space that it would be nice if they could live there permanently.

1 comment:

Efrique said...

But, but, but ... it's not π day until the 3rd of Dodecember!