"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
Thursday, October 17, 2013

Perhaps if President Obama saw more movies we would not have had to go through this
Posted by Jill | 6:17 AM
All he would have had to do is watch The Godfather Part 2:

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, January 24, 2013

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature...and you will atone
Posted by Jill | 6:25 AM
We Can Has Two Preznits in 2016? Is there any way we can elect BOTH Joe Biden AND Hillary Clinton next time? Think about Hillary's ferocity combined with Joe Biden's ability to charm everyone in the room.

We've had some interesting speculative 2016 imagery in the last few days. On Monday we had Joe Biden doing his interpretive Full of Vim Vigor and Vitality At Seventy dance, which consisted of careening all over Pennsylvania Avenue like a cat chasing a laser pointer, grinning and glad-handing and hugging and just being the affable if slightly nutty uncle that is his public persona. This is Biden's schtick, and it's allowed him to be an extremely effective and busy Vice President, even in the face of the screaming infants that constitute today's Republican Congress.

Then yesterday we saw something that I've been waiting forever to see from a Democrat -- Hillary Clinton in full Bullshit Detector mode, calling out the clowns of the Republican Party on their Benghazi witch hunt.

Oh, the hell with it. Let's let Rachel Maddow put Benghazi in context, shall we?:



Let's not pretend here that this panel full of howler monkeys is about anything other than a) trying desperately to find something to latch onto in order to annul the 2012 election by impeaching Barack Obama; and b) trying desperately to find something they can use in 2016 Republican campaign videos to prop up whichever GOP howler monkey gets that party's nomination in 2016.

Does anyone believe for one moment that Marco Rubio loses even one minute of sleep about Chris Stevens or the others killed in the Benghazi attack while serving in a conflict zone? Does anyone honestly believe that these Republicans give a shit about loss of life, especially when these very same Republicans refuse to allow discussion of guns in this country even in the face of the corpses of twenty dead children?

Congressional Republicans have latched onto Benghazi in a way they didn't latch onto Lebanon, or any of the many other consulate attacks that took place during the terms of presidents of THEIR party. This is not about Benghazi, particularly when it is the House that has the power to allocate funds for consulate security. This is the Washington hearing equivalent of the move in Virginia to apportion that state's electoral votes in future elections so that no Democrat can ever win that state. Ever. Americans rejected the cruel, harsh, greedy Republican vision for this country last November. They can't win on the merits of their policies, so they're going to win by rigging the electoral system, or by attempting to destroy ANYONE who might stand in their path.

Hillary Clinton has been a favorite punching bag of the Republicans since 1992. Back then she was a prospective, and then an actual, First Lady who didn't "know her place". She was regarded by Republicans as just as "uppity" as Barack Obama was in 2008. Clinton spent years in the Senate trying to be Joe Biden, charming and glad-handing and working with some of the very same people (***cough*** John McCain ***cough***) who attempted to rake her over the coals yesterday. The only reason she wasn't AS savaged in 2008 was because the racist bigots in the Republican Party had a better target for their bigotry and their hatred in Barack Obama. This woman knew damn well what she was going to be presented with yesterday, and she wasn't going to let a lightweight legacy fratboy named Rand Paul, or a smarmy pathological liar like Marco Rubio get the best of her. This woman, more than anyone else in America, knows that walking into a room full of Republicans is like being Indiana Jones in the snake pit. Yesterday she showed them just who's brandishing the whip.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, September 07, 2012

Nation of Four-Year-Olds
Posted by Jill | 8:45 PM
After being up late every night this week working and watching the speechifying at the DC, I woke up this morning, turned on the local TV news, and was greeted by the image of Willard Rmoney saying "He's going to have to explain to the American people why he didn't keep his promises."

"He didn't keep his promises" is emerging as the major theme of this year's GOP campaign. Give the Rmoney camp credit for this much: they know with whom they're dealing.

On the radio last night, Brian Lehrer was talking to self-declared "undecided" voters, asking them why they were undecided. I'm skeptical that any of these people were actually undecided, because they all seemed pretty much in the tank for Rmoney already (as did Lehrer, which was a bit of a surprise), but more than a few of them cited this "He didn't keep his promises" meme as a reason why they might have been leaning towards Willard -- a man who's out on the campaign trail, making promises.

To be sure, Rmoney's promises are vague, and perhaps when he manages to steal a close election via vote suppression and questionable voting machines, it will provide him cover. Perhaps the fact that the groundwork has been laid for an improving economy by what little the current president has been able to get past the conclave of morons that is the United States House of Representatives will provide him cover. But what's troublesome is that the idea of a politician not keeping his promises is a surprise to anyone, and why THIS particilar president is being blasted for not being able to do everything he spoke about.

I managed to find this chart at the Washington Post web site that has a scorecard of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign promises and which ones "were not kept." Let's look at a few of these "broken promises" and their status, shall we?

Enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to American families.

The promise that candidate Obama made to provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate for families was a powerful one when he made it, with gas going for more than $4 a gallon and heating oil making it costly to keep homes warm.
But the economy shifted quickly, and by the time he took office, energy prices had dropped, in some cases by more than half. The president never moved forward to fulfill the promise, providing an example of how much the context of a promise matters.


Ensure 10 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. Establish a low national carbon-fuel standard.

None of the these goals has been achieved, though the House-passed climate bill includes a provision that would help attain Obama’s renewable electricity goal.
That bill calls for the nation’s utilities to use renewable sources for 20 percent of their electricity supply by 2020, though 5 percent of the goal could be met through efficiency. A bill passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has a much more modest renewable electricity goal of 12 percent by 2020. The House-passed bill has a 6 percent target for 2012, compared with the Senate committee’s goal of 3 percent.


Ensure freedom to unionize and fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Now this is a legitimate blunder by the Obama Administration, though I hardly think that the right to unionize is a promise that Willard Rmoney cares much about himself. In this case, Rahm Emanuel recommended holding off on pushing EFCA until after health care reform had been done and by then the 2010 elections had taken place.

So what promises were kept?

1. Closing the lobbyist/government position revolving door.

2. In the early years, convened regular foreign-policy sessions with a bipartisan group from Congress.

3. Moved to limit earmarks (with mixed results).

4. Expanded hate crimes statutes.

5. Got the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan passed.

6. Established the Credit Card Bill of Rights.

7. Passed a stimulus package that if anything wasn't large enough but was very probably responsible for what economic improvement we have seen.

8. Health care reform.

9. Ending the active war in Iraq.

Now I'm not an O-bot. The health care reform we got is not what I would have wanted. The Obama Administration's record on torture and rendition is appalling. If anything, he hasn't looked out enough for the interests of the middle class. But I'm quite certain that when Willard Rmoney bashes Obama for "not keeping his promises", he's not talking about card check or closing Guantanamo; he's talking about Making All The Bad Stuff Go Away so that no one is poor, no one is unemployed, and Willard doesn't have to pay a penny more in taxes.

I've been largely AWOL during these conventions, largely due to workload. But I've been reading what my noble compatriot jurassicpork has written here, and while I don't 100% agree with him that there is absolutely no difference, I do agree with him that it's important not to get swept up in stagecraft, or if you do, to recognize that it's stagecraft and not take it too seriously. Ultimately it comes down to whether we're going to be driven off a cliff slowly or at full speed; whether the American Christian Theocracy can be delayed long enough for me to do my fourscore and ten (if earlier members of my family are any indication, though job stress, lack of exercise and general life in the 21st century will probably mean that won't happen) and check out; or if people like me will end up in reprogramming camp learning how to love Jesus instead of Big Brother. But if you still believe in the process at all, you have to wonder what kind of people we're living alongside, these so-called adult voters who are still looking for daddy to make it go away NOW.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Where's Woman?
Posted by Jill | 5:32 AM
Despite spending much of the last month looking at a glowing screen into the wee hours, I have been able to keep up with the Todd Akin fracas. Coming this late to the game, there's not a whole lot more I can add to what's already been said, except for one thing: Where is the woman in the equation of parsing the definition of rape? Where is the woman in the sanctity of human life definition?

When Akin made his now-infamous statement about "legitimate rape" over the weekend, he said "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

This was perhaps the most important part of Akin's words; far more important than the talk of "legitimate rape." We already know how right-wing men love to spend hours thinking about rape in an attempt to determine which rapes make it OK to have an abortion. My own personal favorite is this one from 2006, forever known as the "Sodomized Virgin Exception":
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.


This is how the middle-aged white men (and it's disproportionately middle-aged white men) who hold the well-being of women in their hands via the state houses across the country and in Washington DC, think. This is how they spend their time, coming up with some perfect specimen of Virtuous Virginal Womanhood that whose life would be previous enough to make ending that of a blastocyst acceptable. This is how they spend their time, discussing with bogus doctors ways that the female body somehow magically shuts down when sperm from a rape is deposited in her. The most important thing to these men is to come up with a way to stigmatize and demonize not just the sluts and whores who dare to have sex and defy the rules these men have set down, but also women who become pregnant through no will of their own. It's so important to these men that women who would seek an abortion be branded as whores that they have invented the Magical Shut-Down Valve, just to assuage any pangs they might feel about forcing a woman to carry for nine months the product of the most traumatic experience of her life. Because for them, the woman is just an incubator and completely unworthy of their consideration, especially if they can invent some biological way that they can use to reassure themselves that "she really wanted it or her body wouldn't have let it happen."

Roe v. Wade was decided the year I graduated high school. Even when I was in college, the clinics that would later help to make women full-fledged recognized human beings in this country by giving them full control over their bodies had not yet fully materialized. Girls were still making bargains with God to please, please, please not let them be pregnant. Back in high school, girls who had gotten a little thick through the waist were still sent off to "stay with their sick grandma" for a while (sick grandmas being the All-Purpose Pretext of Choice in those days, including the one John List used to throw everyone off his trail after murdering his family in 1971), returning with their waistlines restored in just shy of a year. But even in those early post-Roe days, yes, there were always people standing outside of clinics, but you didn't hear men who held national political offices parsing out the intricacies of sexual assault. Perhaps they did in the porn houses of 42nd Street, but not in the halls of government.

And yet, here we are in 2012. We live in a country increasingly dominated by religious fanatics who are attempting to work out their own sick, twisted sexual issues and fantasies in the legal space of America. These man can't afford to give the woman in question any humanity; that is reserved for the rapist (who in their fantasies is probably themselves) and the "child" (which is what they no doubt believe vindicates their sick proclivities). To them, the woman is not at all human, but simply a vessel -- a vessel for something that they can regard as the only kind of life that's "pure" and a symbolic vessel into which they can pour their own hideous minds and self-loathing.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, April 20, 2012

Meet Mr. Romney's new BFF
Posted by Jill | 6:43 AM
For those of you who are not familiar with the Ted Nugent oeuvre, let me give you a brief introduction:

Ive got no inhibitions
So keep your keys out of your ignition
I steal a car like I got the curse
I cant resist the old lady's purse
Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know Ive got to have you in a matter of time

Well I dont care if youre just thirteen
You look too good to be true
I just know that youre probably clean
Theres one lil' thing I got do to you

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know Ive got to have you in a matter of time

So tell your mama that Im back in town
She likes us boys when its time to get down
Shes got this craving for the underage
I just might be your mama's brand new rage

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait wont you set me free
Jailbait you look fine fine fine
I know I got to have you in a matter of time

Honey you you you look so nice
Shes young shes tender
Wont you please surrender
She's so fine shes mine
All the time, all mine mine
Its all right baby
Its quite all right I asked your mama
Wait a minute officer
Dont put those handcuffs on me
Put them on her and Ill share her with you

Nice, huh? Just for the record, Ted Nugent was thirty-three years old when this song was released in 1981. Just another good Christian family-values Republican, right?

(Hell yeah, there's plenty more here.)

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, March 08, 2012

She's ready for her close-up, Mr. DeMille
Posted by Jill | 6:10 AM
Now that the spotlight has shifted entirely away from Sarah Palin, except in the minds of those Republican males who are still heading off to the bathroom with a bottle of lotion and an old 2008 copy of The Weekly Standard, it's almost enough to make you feel sorry for her sad attempts to recapture the magic of that year when she was practically America's Evita Perón without portfolio.

Perhaps Palin is thinking that she can be the shining vehicle to defuse the fact that Republicans have decided that the way to win an election is to declare war on women who are in any way sexual -- to join the war they've been waging for decades on any woman who DOESN'T pretty herself up for the male gaze. Of course for Republicans to do that, they'd have to address the incongruity between having as their feminine icon a woman who preened and winked and flirted her way through the 2008 campaign and bombastically declaring the sexuality of women to be something terrible. Not that such dichotomies have ever stopped Republicans before.

But the Quitta from Wasilla wants the GOP to know that she's ready to answer the call if they beg and plead and buy her enough candy, roses, and designer dresses to prove to Her Highness that they are worthy of her deigning to become the Leader of the Free World:
Although it would be an unlikely scenario, Palin said she might consider throwing her hat into the ring if pressed.

She was asked specifically what she would do if the Republican party faced an open convention this August -- meaning none of the current candidates would have sewn up the nomination by then -- and someone asked her to stand.

"Anything is possible. I don't close any doors that perhaps would be open out there, so no, I wouldn't close that door. My plan is to be at that convention," she told CNN in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.

Because the prettiest girl at the high school prom shouldn't have to actually WORK for anything...not even the presidency.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, September 23, 2011

Proof that Republicans simply cannot check their own impulses
Posted by Jill | 6:46 AM
This answer from Rick Santorum to a question from a gay soldier serving in Iraq tells us more about Rick Santorum than he realizes:



Most bloggers are emphasizing how the audience boos a man who is SERVING HIS COUNTRY, but for me the more interesting part of this exchange is that the soldier is talking about sexual orientation, but Santorum answers a question that wasn't even asked about sexual activity.

I'm straight. That is my sexual orientation. That doesn't mean I'm having sex all the time. I have friends who are gay. They have jobs, kids, hobbies, pets, they participate in their communities, they work for a living. Some gay people in America are soldiers. This does not mean that THEY are having sex constantly either.

That Rick Santorum can't seem to get that through his head tells us a lot about Republican sex scandals, and about why they feel they have to control the behavior of everyone else. It's because they are simply unable to control their own impulsivity, and they can't imagine how anyone else can.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get
Posted by Jill | 11:03 AM
And teabagger "family values" representative Joe Walsh (Hypocrite - IL) is quite the player...so much that he's forgotten he has kids to support:

Tea party hero Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) wants to wipe out the nation’s debt, but he’s got some major personal debt that his ex-wife is demanding he take care of — $117,437 in child support, according to a lawsuit reported by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The suit charges that Walsh enjoyed foreign vacations with his new girlfriend while claiming he couldn’t pay support for his three kids because he was out of work.

[snip]


Walsh’s attorney, R. Steven Polachek, told the Sun-Times the claim of unpaid child support is unfounded.

“I dispute that he owes the child support that she’s claiming or anywhere near that amount,” he said. “Joe Walsh hasn’t been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he’s had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”


In other words, so-called anti-government deficit hawk Joe Walsh was just another unemployed loser until he lucked into a nice fat government-issued paycheck, augmented by nice campaign contributions from the companies at whose beck and call he serves.

And now, Joe Walsh's theme song, sung by the OTHER Joe Walsh -- you know, the one who ISN'T a useless hypocritical POS:




UPDATE: Great minds think alike.

Labels: , , ,

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, September 04, 2010

Sorry, ladies, but you only get a free pass if the media thinks you're hot
Posted by Jill | 6:33 AM
I guess people are supposed to just vote blindly for Jan Brewer and Sharron Angle because of what they blather. Because being asked questions seems somehow "unfair" to stupid, moronic, ignorant candidates who might have to actually talk about their policies on the spur of the moment rather than just spout babbling talking points.

First it was Sharron Angle saying that reporters should only ask the questions her campaign wants them to:



Now, after her meltdown during her most recent debate where she couldn't talk about her own policies, Arizona governor Jan Brewer says she won't do any more debates:

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Brewer said she has been in elective office for 28 years, and Goddard has held office for nearly that long. "I think it's pretty defined what he stands for and what I stand for."

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

The subject came up during an exchange in which Brewer said unions are to blame for financial fallout over illegal immigration, calling on Goddard to disavow unions' support because they have called for boycotts of the state.

Goddard responded that it is actually Brewer scaring off tourists with comments about headless bodies being found in the desert, for which there is no supporting evidence.

Brewer insisted later that she has been misquoted. "I never said 'Arizona,' and it's unfortunate that it was construed as 'Arizona.' "

It's hardly surprising that Angle and Brewer would be baffled that they don't get a free pass when they show that they don't know a damn thing. These people want to be able to just spout whatever horsepuckey pops into their heads -- spoiled Americans....beheadings....unemployment is useless....with absolutely no consequences. After all, Sarah Palin gets away with spouting meaningless babble composed entirely of disjointed talking points, why shouldn't they?

And indeed, that's an interesting question. There's no quantifiable difference between the kind of dangerous, ridiculous nonsense spouted by Angle and Brewer and that spouted by Palin -- except that Palin's comes out of a younger, more physically attractive package. You'd think that two women who have reached middle age in our society would have recognized that double standard already.

But the larger picture is that these Tea Party candidates are all about the sloganeering. It's like their minions who talk about wanting to vote for someone who "loves the Constitution" or "will govern by the Constitution" -- when most of them don't even know what's in it. They don't feel they should have to be coherent, or defend their policy plans. After all, Sarah doesn't have to, and she gets LOTS of fawning attention.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, July 23, 2010

Because there are no more pressing problems
Posted by Jill | 6:03 AM
If you need further proof that Republicanism is completely bankrupt of policy ideas, here's Michele Bachmann's plan for Republican governance:
According to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the House Republicans should exercise their power to subpoena and hold continuous hearings. Speaking to a gathering for the GOP Youth Convention on July 22 in Washington, D.C., she emphasized this point.

“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”

Sort of like Michele Bachmann's brain. But there you have it, folks, as your wingnut relatives march off to the polls this November bound and determined to teach that Kenyan a lesson. No plans to revive the economy. No plans for how to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. No plans for dealing with climate change (which they don't believe exists). No plans for anything, except trying once again to destroy a Democratic presidency. There's an Ahab and the Great White Whale joke in there somewhere, but I'm too dispirited to try and find it.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, May 04, 2010

It's only big government when some other state gets the largesse
Posted by Jill | 5:30 AM
Some things are too hypocritical for even that hack Dana Milbank to ignore:
About 10:30 Monday morning, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an ardent foe of big government, posted a blog item on his campaign Web site about the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "I strongly believe BP is spread too thin," he wrote.

The poor dears. He thinks it would be a better arrangement if "federal and state officials" would do the dirty work of "protecting and cleaning up the coast" instead of BP.

About an hour later came word from the Pentagon that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi -- all three governed by men who once considered themselves limited-government conservatives -- want the federal government to mobilize (at taxpayer expense, of course) more National Guard troops to aid in the cleanup.

That followed an earlier request by the small-government governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R), who issued a statement saying he had called the Obama administration "to outline the state's needs" and to ask "for additional resources." Said Jindal: "These resources are critical."

About the time that Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were asking for more federal help, three small-government Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama and George LeMieux of Florida, were flying over the gulf on a U.S. government aircraft with small-government Republican Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.).

"We're here to send the message that we're going to do everything we can from a federal level to mitigate this," Sessions said after the flight, "to protect the people and make sure when people are damaged that they're made whole."

Sessions, probably the Senate's most ardent supporter of tort reform, found himself extolling the virtues of litigation -- against BP. "They're not limited in liability on damage, so if you've suffered a damage, they are the responsible party," said Sessions, sounding very much like the trial lawyers he usually maligns.

All these limited-government guys expressed their belief that the British oil company would ultimately cover all the costs of the cleanup. "They're not too big to fail," Sessions said. "If they can't pay and they've given it everything they've got, then they should cease to exist." But if you believe that the federal government won't be on the hook for a major part of the costs, perhaps you'd like to buy a leaky oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

It may have taken an ecological disaster, but the gulf-state conservatives' newfound respect for the powers and purse of the federal government is a timely reminder for them. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents.

Read on...it's definitely worth your time, as it points out how residents of the states which send these small-government demagogues receive a disproportionate amount of federal funds even when all is well. But don't think for one minute that the money we in the states that don't vote for these teabagger-coddling loons is going to change anything. The minute they get their hands on the cash, they'll be back to screaming that Obama is a socialist and we in the Godless heathen Jewish homosexual Communist northeast aren't "real" Americans.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Funny how no one's talking about the "Arnold Amendment" anymore
Posted by Jill | 5:50 AM
Remember when there was a big push among Republicans to introduce and pass a Constitutional Amendment that would allow non-native-born Americans to be President. It was all because back then, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a big hero to Republicans, so why NOT change the Constitution to allow it? In 2003, none other than Orrin Hatch introduced legislation to amend the Constitution to allow anyone who's lived in the U.S. for twenty years to be President. It seems almost quaint now, in an age when Republicans are joining the "birther" chorus, led by the unhinged Orly Taitz, that somehow Barack Obama is a fearsome "Other" who seized his office unlawfully. What's even more quaint is that in 2004, the Amendment was branded the "Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment" and the Hatch-led Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into such an Amendment was branded "Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans."

Heh. Republicans interested in maximizing voter choice? I guess that's why only a month after this article ran, Republicans in Ohio made damn sure that there would not be enough voting machines in Democratic districts. But once the apparatus was in place for making sure George W. Bush could be re-elected, it was all about looking ahead to clear a path for Ah-nuld.

How times change:
he California Republican Party will hold its state convention this weekend, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be lending his star power to the event.

The Republican governor told reporters Tuesday he would not be attending the three-day convention in Santa Clara because he "can't be in two places at the same time."

Schwarzenegger declined to say where he would be. His spokesman said only that the governor had a prior commitment.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 08, 2010

Did someone call her schnorrer? Hooray hooray hooray*
Posted by Jill | 7:52 PM
If Sarah Palin ever becomes president, they'd better count the plates in the White House china:
Sarah Palin and her entourage descended "like locusts" on the Oscar swag suite, scarfing up freebies in a binge that "practically cleaned the place out," celebrity gossips reported Thursday.

The former Alaska Gov's Wednesday pigout included jewels from Pascal Mouawad, watches by Skagen and a fancy new hairdo for her daughter Willow. The new coiffure came courtesy of Erick Orellana, Jennifer Aniston's longtime hairstylist, witnesses said.

The Los Angeles Times reported Palin was supposed to donate all of her gift items back to the Silver Spoon Oscar Suite for auction, as well as $1,700 of her own cash, in support of Red Cross efforts in Haiti and Chile.

But E! Online insisted, "we can assure you she did not give up any of her swag."


She's the perfect Republican -- opportunistic, heartless, and greedy.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, February 28, 2010

It isn't even the tyranny of the minority anymore
Posted by Jill | 7:26 AM
The dysfunction of the Senate isn't even about the tyranny of the 42-seat Republican minority anymore. Now a single Republican Senator for whom ideology and the desire to topple Barack Obama trumps everything can send hundreds of thousands of the unemployed a step further down a road to ruin from which they may never be able to return:
Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, is single-handedly blocking Senate action needed to prevent an estimated 1.2 million American workers from prematurely losing their unemployment benefits next month.

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension Thursday night, Bunning refused to go along.

And when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough shit."

Bunning says he doesn't oppose extending benefits -- he just doesn't want the money that's required added to the deficit. He proposes paying for the 30-day extension with stimulus funds. The Senate's GOP leadership did not support him in his objections.

And at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.

"I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00," he said,
"and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.

Poor Jim Bunning. He had to miss a college basketball game rather than debate whether hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs can continue to pay their bills and put food on the table.

Funny how Jim Bunning didn't care about deficits when he introduced a bill authorizing George W. Bush to invade Iraq based on a bunch of trumped-up horseshit. He didn't care about deficits when voting for the Bush tax cuts. But when it comes to help for Americans who need it, he's on the wrong side every single time:
* 2005 -- Voted WITH the credit-card industry on the bankruptcy bill.

* 2005 -- Voted WITH oil companies by giving them more tax breaks.

* 2006 -- Voted FOR higher deficits by extending the Bush Tax Cuts.

* 2007 -- Voted AGAINST children by opposing S-CHIP.

* 2008 -- Voted AGAINST helping people facing foreclosure.

* 2009 -- Voted AGAINST women by opposing the Ledbetter Act.

* 2009 -- Voted AGAINST children again by opposing S-CHIP.

* 2010 -- Voted AGAINST reducing the debt by opposing the Debt Commission.

Kentucky, the state which for some bizarre reason sends this guy back to the Senate every six years, has the 4th lowest per capita income. Only Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas are worse off. More than one in ten Kentucky workers is unemployed. And yet Jim Bunning opposes help for his own constituents (if you want to assume that the citizens of Kentucky are still his constituents, which is doubtful).

As the New York Times noted yesterday, Bunning didn't care about the impact of unemployment compensation on deficits while George W. Bush was in the White House. His "come to Jesus" moment on deficits seems to have miraculously coincided with the inauguration of a Democratic President:
Senator Bunning once cared about the unemployed. When the benefit was due to expire in November, he joined a unanimous vote to extend it until the end of February. “Kentucky has been hit hard by the current economic downturn,” he said at the time. It still is, but Mr. Bunning refused to consider the extension unless it was paid for with funds from the fiscal stimulus plan. For years, Mr. Bunning didn’t seem to have a problem with blowing up the deficit for the Iraq war and tax cuts. Now he’s a deficit hawk when it comes to average Americans.

This is the cancer that has infected the Republican Party. For them ideology trumps everything. If it takes destroying the country to regain power, they're perfectly willing to do so, even if what they end up presiding over is a hollowed-out, burnt-out shell of a nation. It's ALL about ideology. It's ALL about power.

I'd be tempted to say that if the citizens of Kentucky are stupid enough to bote for guys like Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell, then they deserve to be put out of their homes and hungry. But I live in a district with a Congressman, Scott Garrett, who was an "Udeology Über Alles" adherent long before it was fashionable -- and this district keeps sending him back to Congress because they either still think Marge Roukema is their representative, they aren't paying attention and reading the truth behind his "I'm working for you" mailings sent every month at our expense, or they are registered Republicans and here in New Jersey, our ballots encourage party-line voting. This year it looks like the Democrats aren't even going to bother to field a candidate.

Once a government official becomes entrenched, he controls his own message, because voters simply do not pay attention to what their so-called representatives in Washington are actually doing. We can shrug our shoulders at the Kentuckyans who seem to think that electing someone who votes against their interests every time won't be relevant once they get invited into the Club of the Rich that Ronnie Reagan told them they could get into if they Just Work Hard Enough (never noting that most of those in the Club of the Rich got there through inherited money or by being nothing but middlemen), or at the New Jerseyans who still think they're voting for Marge Roukema even though it says "Scott Garrett" on the ballot -- except that their delusion affects us all.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, February 08, 2010

What part of They Want Him to Fail does Obama not understand?
Posted by Jill | 5:08 AM
Either Barack Obama really enjoys being kicked in the teeth, or he wants to make sure Republicans share the blame when health care reform fails. Those are the only two explanations for this:
President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.

Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do.

Politically it may benefit Obama for the Republicans to be seen as simply obstructionist. But the longing for bipartisanship is something that does not exist in the American public, or at least it didn't until he started looking like a complete wuss for continuing to seek common ground with people who want him impeached as ineligible to be president, jailed for being a terrorist, or dead -- and that's the Republicoteabag party in a nutshell. Bipartisanship is a longing by the talking heads of the media, not by people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by ever-spiraling health care costs. Like calling for a three-year freeze in spending that would be the WORST thing to do for a still-sputtering economy, this has the smell of utter, abject, bullshit fear about it. And we all know that when Republicans smell fear, they go into a feeding frenzy.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 05, 2010

Let's not hear any more about fiscally responsible Republicans, shall we?
Posted by Jill | 6:48 AM
Republicans always like to talk about how they are the party of fiscal responsibility, and how opposed they are to earmarks. Perhaps, then, one of them would like to explain how holding up the President's nominations until you get the earmarks you want is fiscal conservatism:
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

"While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal."

The Mobile Press-Register picked up the story early this afternoon. The paper confirmed Reid's account of the hold, and reported that a Shelby spokesperson "did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking confirmation of the senator's action or his reason for doing so."

Shelby has been tight-lipped about the holds, offering only an unnamed spokesperson to reporters today to explain them. Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the news of the blanket hold this afternoon. Reid aides told CongressDaily the hold extends to "all executive nominations on the Senate calendar."

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:

- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.

- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal."

Though a Shelby spokesperson would not confirm that these programs were behind the blanket hold, the Senator expressed his frustration about the progress on both through a spokesperson to both CongressDaily and the Federal Times.

A San Diego State University professor and Congressional expert told the Mobile paper "he knew of no previous use of a blanket hold" in recent history.

I guess a corollary of the IOKIYAR rule is "It's not an earmark, it's a vital program, if you're a Republican."

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, December 21, 2009

Tom Coburn gets an early start on celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace....
Posted by Jill | 5:37 AM
...by praying for Sen. Robert Byrd to die so that the Harry Reid's manager's amendment to health care bill would fail:

Going into Monday morning's crucial Senate vote on health-care legislation, Republican chances for defeating the bill had come down to a last, macabre hope. They needed one Democratic senator to die -- or at least become incapacitated.

At 4 p.m. Sunday afternoon -- nine hours before the 1 a.m. vote that would effectively clinch the legislation's passage -- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) went to the Senate floor to propose a prayer. "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," he said. "That's what they ought to pray."

It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) who has been in and out of hospitals and lay at home ailing. It would not be easy for Byrd to get out of bed in the wee hours with deep snow on the ground and ice on the roads -- but without his vote, Democrats wouldn't have the 60 they needed.

Nice. But then, Coburn is a C Street House frat boy and "Family" member, and their perversion of Christianity is all about their own wealth and power, and has nothing to do with the teachings of Joshua of Nazareth.

Now I don't much care for this health care bill in its current form. I don't like purchase mandates without industry price regulation. I don't like throwing women's health care under the bus. And I don't like that there's no requirement that insurance companies actually pay claims. But when people who make their reputations on preaching about morality are praying for others to die, I think we have to call them out for the beasts that they are.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, November 07, 2009

The Great Orange Satan takes down Tom Tancredo
Posted by Jill | 8:50 AM
While I respect what the Great Orange Satan has done, I have to admit that I think he's a bit of a jerk. I met him at a book signing a few years ago and he couldn't wrap his mind around the idea that this pudgy middle-aged Jewish lady was a blogger instead of, as he insisted, the keeper of a bed & breakfast (which is what he thought the name of this blog meant.)

That said, dweeby little Markos Moulitsas deserves applause for so effectively eviscerating faux tough-guy Tom Tancredo on The Ed Show yesterday without even breaking a sweat:



Mr. President, THAT is how it's done.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, October 07, 2009

If the Republicans keep this up there won't be anyone left to support them
Posted by Jill | 9:28 PM
Let's see, they've alienated Black and Latino Americans already, and today they may have just eliminated the women:
“General Pelosi has no problem sacrificing her own credibility as the Obama administration and liberals in Congress attempt to walk back a strategy they strongly advocated just months ago,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Nancy Pelosi continues to make party politics a higher priority than our national security. Rather than listening to a four-star general’s assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country’s military policy.”

If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.

Yes, folks, this is the Republicans' new theme song for its female outreach:


Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share