"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Tuesday, January 29, 2013

What part of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." does Lindsey Graham not remember or understand?
Posted by Jill | 8:31 PM
The biggest drama queen in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, went full-frontal Dan Burton on Hillary Clinton today, claiming that she got away with murdering four people in Benghazi:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has upped his already harsh rhetoric against outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming that she "got away with murder" in the Benghazi, Libya, attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. "I haven't forgotten about Benghazi. Hillary Clinton got away with murder, in my view," Graham said on Fox News Monday evening, speaking to Greta Van Susteren. "She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn't know about the ambassador's cable coming back from Libya?"
How this man can make such a claim when he was one of George W. Bush's biggest warfloggers is beyond me.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Where are the documentation kook birthers on this one?
Posted by Jill | 5:14 AM
While the "birthers" are insisting that they won't believe Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. even if the Archangel Gabriel himself comes down from heaven with an army of winged cherubs playing trumpets and hands it to them, they are peculiarly silent on another set of documentation that really IS actually missing:
There's a Mike Huckabee mystery that won't go away.

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.


In 2007, during Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee's governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas' political scene—including one of Huckabee's former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

In February, Mother Jones wrote to the office of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe seeking access to a variety of records concerning his predecessor's tenure, including Huckabee's travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails. Beebe's chief legal counsel, Tim Gauger, replied in a letter that "former Governor Huckabee did not leave behind any hard-copies of the types of documents you seek. Moreover, at that time, all of the computers used by former Governor Huckabee and his staff had already been removed from the office and, as we understand it, the hard-drives in those computers had already been 'cleaned' and physically destroyed."

He added, "In short, our office does not possess, does not have access to, and is not the custodian of any of the records you seek."

"Huckabee just absolutely doesn’t trust anybody," says one former high-ranking Arkansas Republican. "In my experience, if you don't trust people, it's because you're not trustworthy."


Perhaps focusing on Huckabee is as pointless as focusing on the suddenly-invisible Sarah Palin, or the media's latest favorite MILF, that crazy-ass Michele Bachmann, under the doctrine of These Nutjobs Cannot Get Elected. However, if you think that a mean bastard with Gomer Pyle's aw-shucks manner like Huckabee can't get elected, or an aging high school mean girl like Palin who can't accept that she's not the prettiest girl at the prom anymore can't get elected, or a crazy bitch like Bachmann who wants Congresspeople investigated for un-American activities can't get elected; you're forgetting two things. One is the power of the media, which cares more about who makes the best copy to fill the giant maw of the 24-hour newsotainment cycle than who is capable of running the country. The other is this: that Republican state houses nationwide are rushing to pass laws to address the NONEXISTENT issue of "voter fraud" that would essentially disenfranchise three groups that are most likely to vote Democratic: students, minorities and the elderly:
According to data from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, at least 27 state-level voter ID bills -- from Alaska and Arizona to Wisconsin and West Virginia -- have been proposed in recent months.

"It's unbelievable, probably half the states in the country have bills in play and more than a dozen are seriously in the pipeline," Tova Wang of the left-leaning think tank Demos told TPM in an interview. "It's really unprecedented in terms of geographic scope. I've never seen anything like it certainly since I've been working on voting rights issues that voter suppression bills would be introduced in so many places at the same time."

"Definitely students are a target here. It's totally clear to me that you saw in 2008 this unprecedented historic turnout among African-Americans, Latinos and young people -- and those happen to be the exact groups of people that are being targeted by these laws to disenfranchise them, and that's really sad," Wang said.

Wang said the most restrictive bills are in Ohio and Wisconsin, which Wang said require identification issued by the DMV. "Perhaps most interestingly, it doesn't even include student ID even from schools that are public universities," she said.

"This apparently concerted effort on the part of Republicans in state legislatures nationwide to effectively suppress voting is as disturbing as it is un-democratic," said Carolyn Fiddler, spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, an arm of the Democratic Party charged with boosting the number of Democrats in state governments. "Additionally, these restrictive measures are often costly and do nothing to balance state budgets and create jobs, which are the top priorities in statehouses across the country right now."

Of course these measures do nothing to balance state budgets or create jobs, because that's not what Republican legislators are about. From the lowest councilman in a town like mine that has been Republican for thirty years in elections that are almost always uncontested to the Presidency, Republicans are about one thing -- gaining and keeping power, and rigging the system so that no one who disagrees with them can ever be elected again.

Right now there is a voter ID bill winding through Scott Walker's legislature in Wisconsin. It would require anyone wishing to vote to present one of three types of identification: a driver's license, a military or state identification card or a certificate issued by (for some reason) the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. A passport would not suffice, even though it is a better proof of citizenship than a driver's license, which can be obtained by non-citizens as well. Consider this while pondering such a law: Yesterday there was an election for the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin. With 98% of precincts reporting, the race is too close to call, with the Democratic challenger, Joanne Kloppenburg, having been given no chance until Scott Walker turned his state into a dictatorship, within 1900 votes of Teabag Republican David Prosser. A recount is likely, and the election could still go either way. What do you think happens to an election like this when the young, the elderly, and minorities are blocked from voting?

Still think Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, or God Help Us even Donald Trump can't get elected?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, February 28, 2011

I guess Jesus has forgiven him for helping to drive the U.S. economy off a cliff
Posted by Jill | 5:22 AM
When a Democrat runs for office, everything he did in his entire life is up for minute scrutiny at the hands of a voracious media and equally voracious Republicans. But when a Republican runs for office, we're supposed to forget his entire record, his entire life, and just trust him.

Last week we had the appalling spectacle of Newt Gingrich, a convert to Catholicism who seems to have forgotten the repentance part of the confession/repentance/forgiveness model, embody the worst aspects of "Clean Slate Christianity" when he was confronted by a student about his marital history. For the uninitiated, Gingrich's history consists of fucking his second wife while married to his first, presenting said first wife with divorce papers while she was recoverning from cancer surgery, then fucking his third wife while married to his second -- and working very, very hard to impeach Bill Clinton for an extramarital affair while doing so.

Gingrich's response
:

"I've had a life which, on occasion, has had problems," Gingrich said. "I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future... that's a debate I'll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run."

If you want to know why I talk about the Christofascist Zombie Brigade, and while I knock Christianity in a way I don't knock others, it's because of people like Newt Gingrich -- arrogant, self-important assholes who think THEY know the mind of God.

Now we have another Republican asshole, who may lack the religious hubris of Newt Gingrich, but who is blatantly playing a similar game of "Don't look over there, look over HERE, where I tell you to look. It's Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who has realized that he's going to have a tough time running as a fiscally responsible conservative after having been George W. Bush's first budget director:
Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) is known as a strong fiscal conservative, a top selling point for a potential presidential run. But before he was governor, Daniels was the first budget director for President Bush during a time when the country went from a budget surplus to a budget deficit, and it's likely that he'll have to explain how that fits with the philosophy he touts should he decide to jump into the Republican field in 2012.

On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Daniels on this point. "When you came in, this country had an annual surplus for the first time in 30 years of $236 billion. When you left, two and a half years later, the deficit was $400 billion. You were also there when President Bush launched his Medicaid drug benefit plan that now cost $60 billion a year. I know there was a recession, but do you think it was wise -- at a time when we were fighting two wars -- to have two tax cuts and launch a huge new entitlement?"

Daniels said deficits during that time were inevitable. "It was a recession, two wars and a terrorist attack that led to a whole new category called homeland security," he said. "So nobody was less happy than I to see the surplus go away, but it was going away."

Click over to get to the link to the full article at the $40 Million Woman's site, including the order for diverted attention from Mr. Daniels.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to
Posted by Jill | 4:51 AM
Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 18, 2011

GOP: The party of taking no responsibility
Posted by Jill | 5:48 AM
I'm not enough of a glutton for punishment to sit through Sarah Palin fielding softballs lobbed by Sean Hannity, but if you're interested in Madame It's All About Me's latest chapter in, well, It's All About Her, you can read about it here. For those who have forgotten, we had a president for eight years who never, ever, acknowledged a mistake, and look where that got us. If being as much of a dunderhead as Snowflake Nasnooki of the North (or the Texas Tool, for that matter) makes you infallible, then the Great White Alpha Male in the Sky either has a really sick sense of humor or doesn't warrant worship. Take responsibility for your words? Admit inappropriateness? Even if that would let you put it behind you? Nope. Being a Republican means never taking responsibility for your actions.

Now it applies to Congress as well. As Keith Olbermann pointed out, barely two months after crowing about how they now run Washington, the Republicans are now trying to back out of the kind of draconian spending cuts they claim to want -- by claiming they don't know nothin' about birthin' babies, Miz Scarlett -- that they have no power at all and have to wait for the president:




Meanwhile, here in the reality-based community, it's the Republicans who have largely been responsible for running up the debts we face today.

James Kwak:
I know this is a bit early, but I wanted to get some facts out there in advance of the debate. I picked five major bills in the past decade that have significantly increased the national debt: the 2001 tax cut, the 2003 tax cut, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, the 2009 stimulus, and the 2010 tax cut. (I left out the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars because it’s hard to pin down Congressional votes specifically authorizing their costs, in part because the famous Senate vote wasn’t actually a vote to go to war, in part because of the peculiar way the costs of the wars were budgeted.)

Then, for each of those bills, I looked up the CBO budget impact estimate made at the time. (Sources are at the bottom of this post.) Their costs, as projected at the time (and hence as knowable by members of Congress), were as follows. The first number is the ten-year cost; the number in parentheses is the portion of that cost through fiscal year 2011. Numbers are in billions.

* 2001 tax cut: $1,346 ($1,346)
* 2003 tax cut: $350 ($354 — the cut has a tiny deficit-reducing impact in its final years)
* Medicare Part D: $395 ($271). Note that I am not including the fact that the cost of this bill was almost immediately reestimated after it passed to be significantly higher, since that was not knowable to members of Congress when they voted.
* 2009 stimulus: $838 ($793)
* 2010 tax cut: $858 ($374)

That’s a total of $3.8 trillion — $3.1 trillion of it hitting the national debt by this year, and hence contributing directly to the need to raise the debt ceiling.

Then I looked up how current senators voted on these bills, whether they were in the Senate or the House at the time. For each senator, I added up how much of the current (2011) debt he could have voted for, and how many he did vote for. So, for example, Daniel Akaka (D-HI) was in the Senate for all five votes, so he was on the floor for $3.1 trillion in budget-busting bills; he voted for the last two, so he voted for $1.2 trillion, or 37 percent of what he could have voted for.

The results are predictable, but I still think worthy of noting, especially with all of the grandstanding that is going to happen.

Overall, current Democratic senators (including Sanders and Lieberman) had the opportunity to vote on $127 trillion of additional debt, and voted for $64 trillion, or 50 percent; current Republican senators had the opportunity to vote on $104 trillion of debt and voted for $70 trillion, or 67 percent.

The difference would have been greater except for trends in the composition of the Senate. Of current senators, the proportion in each party voting for each bill is as follows:

* 2001 tax cut: Democrats 18%, Republicans 93%
* 2003 tax cut: D 3%, R 94%
* Medicare Part D: D 17%, R 88%
* 2009 stimulus: D 100%, R 5%
* 2010 tax cut: D 77%, R 87%

So the typical Democratic vote pattern is N-N-N-Y-Y (I counted “present” and not voting as no votes — there were very few of these, anyway), which would mean voting for 37 percent of the total debt produced by these bills (just like Daniel Akaka). In fact, thirty-four Democrats were able to vote on all five bills, and twenty of them voted that way.

The typical Republican vote pattern is Y-Y-Y-N-Y, which means voting for 75 percent of the total debt. And, of the twenty-seven Republicans around for all five bills, eighteen of them voted that way.

The reason that the Republican-Democratic “debt responsibility” percentages are 67-50 instead of 75-37 is that not all senators have been in Congress for the past decade, and most of the ones who have only been there for a few years are Democrats. So there are many Democrats who were only in Congress for the last two votes, on which they typically voted Y-Y (100%), and a few Republicans who were only there for the last two votes, on which they typically voted N-Y (32%). So the facts that the Democrats’ budget-busting bills came later, and that I’m only looking at current senators, make the Democrats seem more profligate than their party has been as a whole, and vice-versa for Republicans.

The bottom line: As a party, the Republicans who will be railing against fiscal irresponsibility and threatening to block a raise in the debt limit are the irresponsible ones themselves who created the need to raise that debt limit. The Democrats can claim to be somewhat less irresponsible; more to the point, perhaps, insofar as they did vote to raise the debt, at least their current behavior (assuming that most support the administration and vote to raise the debt limit) is at least consistent with their past votes.


To the extent that Republicans are associated with "fiscal responsiblity", it's because the Democrats, in their inimitable way, have been too lazy, or too afraid, or too SOMETHING, to point this out. The Republicans are not, and have never been, the party of fiscal responsibility. They just scream that they are, and no one screams back. But then, Republicans never take responsibility for what they say, or what they do. Like the Pope, they regard themselves as infallible. Sarah Palin puts human beings in her crosshair metaphor and someone shoots them? Nothing wrong with what she did. John Ensign pays off the parents of his paramour while running as a family values Republican? Nothing wrong. Tom Delay is convicted of money-laundering? It's a political conviction. Republicans never, ever, ever admit to doing anything wrong. Instead they deflect blame to others: Liberals. Illegal immigrants. "The Lamestream Media." Markos Moulitsas (who very conveniently has a "foreign-sounding" name). Liquor. "Soulmates." Nothing they do is ever wrong, nothing they do is ever inappropriate. In the eyes of the GOP, well, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, if a Republican does it, then it is not wrong.

And yet this country continues to hand the car keys to the very same petulant drunk teenager who wraps the car around a tree and blames it on the kid who brought the beer.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, January 08, 2011

Yeah, I already know the answer: "When the Jets beat the Colts tonight"
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
When the hell are the Democrats going to start hammering in "Deficit-Exploding Tax Cuts" or "Budget-Busting Tax Cuts" the way the Republicans are hammering "Job-Killing Health Care Bill" (and everything else, despite the fact that however meager it is, and however low-paid, there is actually some job growth going on in the private sector, which is more than could be said about the Bush Administration, which left us this mess)?

Yes, I know, the answer is "When hell freezes over", but when the Republicans are this ripe for the picking, a party with the political savvy of your average high school student council president would know to make hay of this:
U.S. House Republicans, who swept into power promising to rein in the federal deficit, have proposed policies in their first week that would make the shortfall worse.

Moves to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care law and promises to extend Bush-era tax cuts and offer other breaks would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, based on reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

In one of their first votes, Republicans changed anti- deficit rules to allow for tax cuts that aren’t paid for by savings elsewhere in the budget. New spending would have to be offset with cuts elsewhere, though tax increases to fund new programs would be prohibited.

“They are willing to increase the deficit if it comes as a result of things they want to do, specifically tax cuts,” said Stan Collender, a former congressional budget aide and now managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. “It’s a little disingenuous at best.”

The new Republican exemptions to the so-called pay-go budget rules will be “dead on arrival in the Senate,” Senator Charles Schumer a New York Democrat, told reporters yesterday.

Extending tax cuts for the highest-income Americans for just two years, as Congress did last month, will cost about $81.5 billion, according to a December report by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Extending lower rates on most capital gains and dividends will cost $53.1 billion over two years. A reduced estate tax rate will cost $68.1 billion. Over a period of 10 years, the cuts would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit, combined with a repeal of the health-care law.


The Republican mantle of "deficit hawks" simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Here is a chart showing the relationship of revenue to spending under administrations from Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush:




(A larger version of this chart, and an analysis of the U.S. national debt over this time, can be found here.)

Republicans have succeeded in convincing Idiot America that the deficits we now face are caused solely by the stimulus and by the health care reform law, not by the fact that George W. Bush started two wars and instead of paying for them, told people to go shopping and gave huge tax cuts to "the haves and the have mores", silencing Idiot America with a few hundred extra bucks in their pockets.

The Republicans' triumphant reign over the House of Representative is off to as rocky a start as George W. Bush's was. If you recall, until the 9/11 attacks saved his bacon, the story of Bush II: Electric Bugaloo, was one of continuing controversy over the Florida recount, the U.S. spy plane that was taken in China, and when a military submarine containing moneybag Bush campaign donors, one of whom may have been at the controls, struck a Japanese fishing vessel. House Republicans may be marching in lockstep to the "job-killing' talking point, and they may believe that THEIR members don't have to adhere to House rules, but anyone who still thinks that this nation hasnt' just handed the keys to the legislative equivalent of an unrepentant angry drunk should wake the hell up.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, August 21, 2009

Why not just say "It's OK If You're a Republican" and be done with it?
Posted by Jill | 6:50 PM
John Ensign -- The Biggest Fucking Hypocrite in the Country Not Named 'Mark Sanford':
When President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern erupted a decade ago, Sen. John Ensign called for his resignation.

But the Nevada Republican says that situation is different from one he faces after admitting to an extramarital affair with a former campaign aide. Ensign told The Associated Press that he didn't lie under oath like Clinton did and that he hasn't "done anything legally wrong."

"President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. "You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus the fact I thought he suborned perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment."

Ensign made the remarks Wednesday before speaking at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in rural Fernley.

The event was Ensign's first public appearance in his home state since acknowledging in June that he had an affair with his friend's wife, former campaign aide Cynthia Hampton.

"I think it would be inappropriate to start any other way than to say I'm sorry," Ensign said. "I've said I'm sorry. I can't say I'm sorry enough. I made a big mistake in my life and I apologize once again to all of you."

Coming next week: John Ensign explains how a Jewish carpenter who said we should be nice to each other and take care of the poor got nailed to a cross 2000 years ago and that means he can do whatever the hell he want because he believes when that Jewish carpenter was murdered, he somehow absorbed all the sins of all who believe this for all eternity.

And the week after that he'll explain how he was specifically targeted by Satan because Satan and God are engaged in this perpetual game of Skee-Ball at an arcade in Keansburg, NJ and Satan gets extra bonus points for tempting believing Christians and getting them to stray from their spouses.

Grab the popcorn.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 09, 2009

One man's earmark is another man's vital project
Posted by Jill | 7:32 AM
In which John McCain's Mini-Me clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of Republicans regarding earmarks: When it's YOUR state it's pork. When it's HIS state it's an important project:


Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, December 26, 2008

Since when do machetunim of Vice-Presidential candidates get Secret Service protection??
Posted by Jill | 2:56 PM
Why was Sherry Johnston, Sarah Palin's supposed future mother-in-law, under Secret Service protection during the election campaign?
The mother of Bristol Palin's boyfriend sent text messages discussing drug transactions less than a month after the young woman's mother, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate, according to court documents filed this week.

[snip]

Authorities say the case against Sherry Johnston began in the second week of September, when drug investigators intercepted a package containing 179 OxyContin pills. That led to the arrest of the suspects, who agreed to be informants.

According to the affidavit, Johnston sent a text message to one informant Oct. 1, writing: "Hey, my phones are tapped and reporters and god knows who else is always following me and the family so no privacy. I will let u no when I can go for cof."

The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation, with state officials delaying execution of a search warrant until this month, when Johnston was "no longer under the protection or surveillance of the Secret Service."


It is not normal procedure for people beyond a candidate's immediate family to receive Secret Service protection. Here's who the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
* The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
* The immediate families of the above individuals
* Former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former president leaves office
* Children of former presidents until age 16
* Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
* Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
* Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President
* National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security


It says nothing there about "the mother of your daughter's boyfriend." So why was Sherry Johnson under the protection and/or surveillance of the Secret Service? Did George W. Bush authorize her to receive this protection? And why would this unusual Secret Service protection prevent issuing of a warrant if the Alaska state troopers had reason to believe a crime was being committed?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share