"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, August 13, 2009

Please...just go away already
Posted by Jill | 10:11 PM
I've had enough of this guy too:
Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.

Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, confessed last August to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who served as a videographer on Edwards' 2008 campaign. He has denied fathering her daughter, saying his relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

The name of the girl's father isn't disclosed on her birth certificate.

Andrew Young, a long-time Edwards aide, initially claimed to be the father of Hunter's child, but he is reportedly writing a book in which he will claim Edwards is the father.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.

Hunter spent nine hours last Thursday at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, where the grand jury was meeting. She brought her daughter, Frances, with her.

Young was at the federal courthouse in July when the grand jury was meeting.

Sources said Edwards' public admission could come before the end of the criminal investigation.

Let's lance this boil once and for all and then let John Edwards disappear into private life. For good. Enough already with this.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, July 09, 2009

Sometimes the best part of a post is in the comments
Posted by Jill | 4:12 AM
As "ah-HA!" as this post by Greg Sargent is, debunking Sarah Palin's claim that she resigned to save Alaskans the money to defend her against ethics violations actions, this comment is even more useful for the purpose of showing Palin to be a pathological liar, an idiot, a quitter, or all three:
On a hunch, I reviewed online lists of all the men and women who’ve been elected governor of their state since 1900. Pored over them for a few hours. Over 1200 politicians have taken that first-term oath of office. Some soon died in office. Many resigned to accept other positions in government, including Spiro Agnew who was “tapped” by Nixon after being the Governor of Maryland for about five minutes. On a handful of occasions, a first-termer was dragged off to the slammer or impeached. One was incapacitated by a nervous breakdown and one left just as impeachment came knocking on his door. So—how many out of over 1200 just up and quit before the end of their term?

Three: Jim McGreevy, Eliot Spitzer and Sarah Palin.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

I wish I had time to look into this more thoroughly
Posted by Jill | 7:23 PM
With three 7 AM teleconferences over the next three days, it's going to be kind of light blogging around here. Here's how it works most days: I get up at 5 AM, have coffee and check out what Buzzflash is aggregatiing. Then I take a quick gander at the New York Times and some other sites, then decide what to take on during the slightly-over-an-hour that I have before getting ready to go to work.

I've been reading a bit about this business with Rep. Jane Harman being wiretapped talking to some AIPAC guy who may or may not be an Israeli spy. This whole thing seems to have originated with this article at CQ Politics, and those who have the time in the morning to dig into such things because someone pays them to do so instead of braving New Jersey highways and spending the day as a cube rat have been on the case this week here, here, here, and here.

But what really got my paranoid little brain going was when Greg Sargent, who is well-known in SANE circles as a go-to guy for the straight poop, gave voice to one of the larger implications of this story, which is that Jane Harman may very well have successfully lobbied the New York Times to NOT publish a big expos&eeacute; they had ready about George W. Bush's illegal surveillance program right before the 2004 election -- a story that given how close that election was, may very well have tipped the scales away from Captain Codpiece had more voters known what their president was doing to them.

Sargent explains:
So Dem Rep Harman appears to have worked behind the scenes to dissuade publication of a blockbuster expose about Bush that could have put her own party’s nominee in the White House and changed the history of the last four years. And, according to Keller, she apparently did this at the request of Michael Hayden, Bush’s National Security Agency chief.


My impression is that there's another aspect to this story, having to do with some kind of deal that Harman may have cut with Bush Administration officials to reduce charges against these AIPAC guys in return for support for the Administration's wiretap program.

And did I mention that Jane Harman is a DEMOCRAT? With allies like this, who needs opposition?

Anyway, unfortunately I don't have time to keep up with this, so I'm going to have to kick you over to Greg Sargent for updates.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 07, 2009

More on Howard Dean at HHS
Posted by Jill | 7:55 AM
This topic is too important to leave just as a funny lolphoto and a link to another post.

Back in the 1980's, the Mets had a player named Gregg Jeffries. Jeffries was picked by the Mets in the 1985 amateur draft and proceeded to tear up the minor leagues. In 1989, the Mets traded the beloved and scrappy second baseman Wally Backman to the Minnesota Twins to make room for Jeffries at second base, where the bonus baby proceeded to hit a mediocre .258 that year.

Jeffries quickly gained a reputation as a whiner among his teammates, and in 1991 he wrote an open letter that was read on WFAN:
"When a pitcher is having trouble getting players out, when a hitter is having trouble hitting, or when a player makes an error, I try to support them in whatever way I can. I don't run to the media to belittle them or to draw more attention to their difficult times. I can only hope that one day those teammates who have found it convenient to criticize me will realize that we are all in this together. If only we can concentrate more on the games than complaining and bickering and pointing fingers, we would all be better off."


Instead of realizing that Gregg Jeffries was a troublemaker, the Mets organization responded to Jeffries' troubles with his teammates, even before the Infamous Letter, by trading away or jettisoning everyone who did not get along with Gregg Jeffries. Gary Carter and Keith Hernandez in 1989, along with the horrific Lenny Dykstra for Juan Samuel bungle. After the 1990 season, Darryl Strawberry was allowed to walk. In 1990-91, tit was Bob Ojeda and Tim Teufel.

By the time Jeffries was 23, his career in New York was already over, his nemeses long since scattered to the four winds. And the Mets were a mess. Jeffries was traded to the Kansas City Royals after the 1991 season for a past-his-prime Bret Saberhagen. Jeffries went on to have a couple of good years with the Cardinals, but retired in 2000 with a .289 batting average -- solid, but hardly the mark of the kind of star that he, his hard-driving father, and the Mets thought they had when they traded an entire team in an effort to make him happy.

I bring up all this because President Obama has his own Gregg Jeffries in the person of Rahm Emanuel. Rahmmy seems to resent having to live on the same planet as Dr. Howard Dean. If Rahm Emanuel had had his way, Barack Obama would have run the same campaign that John Kerry did in 2004, with probably the same result. It was Rahm Emanuel who decided to ditch the well-known Christine Cegelis in Illinois 6th district in 2004, instead moving in Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, whose opponent managed to paint her as a traitor despite her having left both legs in Iraq. Duckworth didn't get much support from Rahmmy either, against these attacks, and he pretty much left her high and dry. Because in the end, for Rahm Emanuel, it's all about Rahm.

So here we are, with the Obama Administration having a chance to at least partially redeem his cabinet choices after throwing the entire netroots that worked tirelessly to get him elected under the bus, by naming Howard Dean to HHS. And there is no way that Obama's Chief of Staff is going to let that happen.

Jonathan Cohn explains why:
Howard Dean is not going to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As best as I can tell, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is not about to let Dean in the same zip code, let alone the same branch of government. That is the political reality.

Still, writers should do more than reflect the political reality. They should try to change it--or, at least, explain why it's flawed. With that in mind, here are two very key assets that Dean would bring to the job--the job, I know, he'll never have.

The first is management ability. Ever since Tom Daschle withdrew his name from consideration for HHS Secretary, most of the discussion hs focused on what it meant for the president's health reform agenda. Daschle was a gifted communicator and deft political operator. Everybody wants to find a replacement who has those skills. Dean doens't have them.

But it's not essential that the HHS secretary be one of the key players, privately or publicly, on health reform. Other advisers and officials can take up that role, as can the president himself.

On the other hand, it is essential that the HHS secretary take charge of an agency with wide-ranging responsibilities, a vast bureacracy, and a recent history of neglect. Head Start is part of HHS. So are the Centers for Disease Control along with the Food and Drug Administration, two agencies that represent our first line of defense against disease. For the last eight years, they've struggled under an administration that, at best, ignored them and, at worst, used them to advance a socially conservative agenda.

The next HHS Secretary must do better. And one way (albeit not the only way) to guarantee that is to find somebody with a proven track record of managing organizations that work on health care. As the five-term governor of Vermont, Dean did exactly that. And while Vermont is a tiny state, the record he complied there was exemplary, not just on health insurance but on the whole range of issues dealing with human welfare.

Don't forget, too, that Dean showed pretty good management skills--not to mention judgment--at the Democratic National Commitee. With virtually no support from the political establishment, which held him in nearly universal disdain, Dean was true to his vision and--because of that--helped build a grassroots network that's paying real political dividends today. (Anybody laughing about the 50-state strategy now?)


Yes. Rahm Emanuel is. Because as far as he's concerned, anything good that happens is his doing. I hope Barack Obama realizes this over time. Because if he has to, Rahmmy will be the first in line to throw HIM under the bus if it's to Rahmmy's advantage.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 06, 2009

In case you needed YET ANOTHER reason to avoid Wal-Mart
Posted by Jill | 7:34 PM
...especially if you have/use an American Express card. Because if you use your AmEx card at Wal-Mart, or at other businesses that your credit card company doesn't like, it can lower your credit score.

Yes, you heard me.


Shopping at Wal-Mart and other low-end businesses lowers your credit score
:
In recent months, American Express has gone far beyond simply checking your credit score and making sure you pay on time. The company has been looking at home prices in your area, the type of mortgage lender you’re using and whether small-business card customers work in an industry under siege. It has also been looking at how you spend your money, searching for patterns or similarities to other customers who have trouble paying their bills.

In some instances, if it didn’t like what it was seeing, the company has cut customer credit lines. It laid out this logic in letters that infuriated many of the cardholders who received them. “Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped,” one of those letters said, “have a poor repayment history with American Express.”

It sure sounded as if American Express had developed a blacklist of merchants patronized by troubled cardholders. But late this week, American Express told me that wasn’t the case. The company said it had also decided to stop using what it has called “spending patterns” as a criteria in its credit line reductions.

“The letters were wrong to imply we were looking at specific merchants,” said Susan Korchak, a company spokeswoman. The company uses hundreds of data points in making its decisions, she said, adding that the main factor in determining credit lines “has always been and still is the overall level of debt, relative to the card member’s financial resources.”

The company will still have plenty of other data to judge your creditworthiness, though. American Express executives have spoken candidly to investors and analysts about its deep dives into your data.


It no longer matters if you pay your bills on time, or if you are careful with your credit cards. If you don't use your cards, your score is lowered. If you use your cards, your score is lowered. If you pay in full, your score is lowered. If you cary a balance, your score is lowered. Oh, and by the way? Don't cancel too many cards that you don't use at once. That's a red flag too.

(h/t)

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
Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Here we go again....
Posted by Jill | 9:33 PM
=Sigh=

That didn't take long.

Suddenly it's December 1992 once again -- a newly-elected Democratic President, a scandal involving corrupt home-state politics, and a right wing which was already bound and determined to have the election declared null and void, and is now poised to let us enjoy the Clinton years once again -- only instead of manufacturing charges during a time of peace and prosperity, we have two botched wars and an economy on the verge of a second Great Depression.

I'm not defending Rod Blagojevic -- far from it. We liberal bloggers don't do that. We don't applaud giving our convicted felons standing ovations on the floor of the Senate or demand pardons for them. We hang them out to dry as they well deserve. Even as I write, Rachel Maddow is on as big a tear about Roddy B. as she was about Scooter Libby.

But even though it seems that Blagojevic absolutely hates Barack Obama, watch for a four to eight year witch hunt in which Republicans will demand a special prosecutor to "examine" Obama's relationship with Blagojevic -- despite the fact that Patrick Fitzgerald, a straight arrow who used to be persona non grata with Republicans but all of a sudden they think he's an OK guy, made clear that there is zero connection between this case and the President-elect.

But since when did reality have anything to do with it. The right wing smells blood in the water, and if it means that another president has to spend his term defending himself against scurrilous allegations through guilt-by-association instead of oh, say, working to keep us from eddying down into total global economic collapse, or keeping the recent prediction that there will be a biological or nuclear weapon deployed in the next five years from becoming a reality, well, what is the future of the world when compared with made-up associations and shadowy allegations?

If Obama is involved with any of Blagojevic's schemes (and I don't think he's that dumb), we will find out soon enough. But since when did the current and pressing needs of the nation ever take priority over Republican lust for power?

Let the prosecution proceed. Let Blagojevic rot in prison. Clean up the mess in Illinois. But can we please not put a new administration on hold while Republicans attempt to regain power by any means necessary?

Meanwhile, I'm going to sit here in New Jersey and chuckle over the fact that there's a state even more corrupt than the one I live in. Well, that one and Alaska.

UPDATE: Digby has more on how happy the media seem to be that they can live the 1990's all over again. So does Bob Cesca.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, October 18, 2008

I'm not nuts about Cindy McCain either, but really....
Posted by Jill | 7:06 PM
I can never decide whether I find Cindy McCain appalling or pathetic. On the rare occasions when she's opened her mouth during this campaign, it's been to say something nasty about her opponents. On the other hand, when I see her up there with her husband and Sarahcuda, with that little rictus of a stiff smile, I wonder what she thinks of her husband traveling around the country with this year's conservative pinup girl, especially given his past as a womanizer with a wandering eye.

I also wonder what's happened to her sense of style. I remember back in 2000, when her face was mobile, she used to dress in those smart tailored suits so favored by Republican women. Her hair was short, frosted, and pixieish, and her face was animated. Now she wears her hair unflatteringly long, it looks dried out, and the little puffy sleeved dresses she seems to favor these days all too often don't flatter a woman in her fifties, even an attractive one with good facial bone structure.

Cindy McCain always seems unhappy to me; a woman playing a role she really doesn't like. On the whole, though, she seems far less sanctimonious than most Republican political wives and aside from the quarter of a million dollars in bling she wore to the Republican National Convention, doesn't seem to flaunt her wealth.

Yes, she had her little problem with painkillers and her charity, but I don't see her running all over the country demanding stiffer sentences for drug users either. And when all's said and done, she may be married to one of the most venal political hacks in the country, but she is a woman who at least tries through philanthropy to do some good in the world.

I'd much rather see Michelle Obama greeting the dignitaries at state dinners, but Cindy McCain usually makes me feel more pity than outrage.

It is in that context that I say that I really don't understand, other than the fact that this is typical Jodi Kantor territory, why this article in today's New York Times was even necessary. It doesn't shed any light on Cindy McCain that we haven't already seen, and it feels like as much of a hatchet job as Kantor pieces on Chelsea Clinton, Barack Obama's religious journey, and Michelle Obama have been. Kantor's articles tend to tread on territory many times already trod, and add nothing new to the political dialogue.

Glenn Greenwald raises the point that there no longer seem to be any journalistic standards about what in a public figure's private life is off-limits anymore. Perhaps in a world of TMZ and OK! and Perez Hilton, there aren't any limits anymore. But Greenwald is right that this article about Cindy McCain, with its innuendo about the state of the McCains' marriage that echoes Patrick Healy's earlier Times piece on the Clintons' marriage, uses the same loose standards that have resulted in a kind of journalistic One Percent Doctrine, in which if there is a one percent chance that a story, or a rumor, or gossip, might be true, journalists proceed as if it were 100 percent true, and what's more, as if it were relevant. This is how the e-mails about Barack Obama being a secret Muslim, or not born in the U.S., or a terrorist sympathizer, came to be accepted as fact -- because if Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson reports them, even as rumors, they are given credibility.

Sarah Palin's personal life is fair game because she has set herself, and her family, up as paragons of the Real American Christian Family Ideal. Sara Robinson, who probably wishes her name was anything else these days, wrote about the pattern of family problems in the Palin family, from the son who went into the military to avoid a coke dealing rap, to the pregnant teenaged daughter, to a younger daughter who isn't always the cutie-pie we've been shown on television, to a special needs baby whose mother and father never even look at him in public, instead shunting him off to the pregnant teen as a kind of scarlet letter. Sarah Palin jetting around the country running for office when her children are so clearly screaming for help and attention IS valid for questioning. Cindy McCain's problems of a decade ago aren't, particularly when for all that I dislike the McCains, their kids seem to have turned out relatively OK, son Andrew's failed bank notwithstanding.

There are enough real reasons to oppose the election of John McCain. The points brought up by this article aren't among them.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 06, 2008

OK, Senator McCain, you want to fight on this turf, you get your wish
Posted by Jill | 5:06 AM
If the McCain camp wants to play guilt-by-association, then Barack Obama is ready:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Monday will launch a multimedia campaign to draw attention to the involvement of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the “Keating Five” savings-and-loan scandal of 1989-91, which blemished McCain’s public image and set him on his course as a self-styled reformer.

Retaliating for what it calls McCain's “guilt-by-association” tactics, the Obama campaign is e-mailing millions of supporters a link to a website, KeatingEconomics.com, which will have a 13-minute documentary on the scandal beginning at noon Eastern time on Monday. The overnight e-mails urge recipients to pass the link on to friends.

The Obama campaign, including its surrogates appearing on radio and television, will argue that the deregulatory fervor that caused massive, cascading savings-and-loan collapses in the late ‘80s was pursued by McCain throughout his career, and helped cause the current credit crisis.

Obama-Biden communications director Dan Pfeiffer said: “While John McCain may want to turn the page on his erratic response to the current economic crisis, we think voters will find his involvement in a similar crisis to be particularly interesting. His involvement with Keating is a window into McCain’s economic past, present, and future.”


And while we're at it, let's dig up this again as well.

Hey, Maverick Johnny -- you made the decision to go to the gutter, Obama didn't. Sauce for the goose, baby.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, October 04, 2008

Because there's nothing left in the Republican deck but the fear and loathing cards
Posted by Jill | 9:43 AM
Playing on fear and loathing is the only thing that the Republicans have left in their arsenal. A party that is morally and ethically bankrupt, as well as having been dead wrong on policy so long that there is nothing left but the smoking ruins of what they believed was Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill, they have nothing left but their lust for continued power, the better to stuff more lucre into their pockets before the peasants come with their torches and pitchforks.

So the royalists at Camp Maverick plans to spend the next month picking up horse manure from the cobblestone streets and throwing it at Barack Obama in the hope that enough of it will stick to allow them to continue to pillage the country:
Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do. That could be especially true this year, when frustration with Washington politics is acute and a desire for specifics on how to fix the economy and fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is strong.

Robert Gibbs, a top Obama adviser, dismissed the new McCain strategy. "This isn't 1988," he said. "I don't think the country is going to be distracted by the trivial." He added that Obama will continue to focus on the economy, saying that Americans will remain concerned about the country's economic troubles even as the Wall Street crisis eases somewhat.


I'd love to believe that it won't be enough. I'd love to believe that there are enough Americans who recognize that John McCain is up to his eyeballs in the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to those who already have more than they can spend in a lifetime. I'd love to believe that there are people in this country who are unwilling to sacrifice their children's future on the altar of racial prejudice. I'd love to believe that the woman on this morning's Good Morning America who said that she likes Sarah Palin because "she seems like someone you could sit at the kitchen table with and have a conversation" is an anomaly. I'd love to believe that there are enough Americans who aren't so narcissistic that they need a president who looks like them or who can pretend they are middle class when they have ten houses, or are as ignorant as they; that they want a president who is gifted and has leadership skills.

But American history since 1980 shows us that in a twist of the words of the Gordon Gekko character in Wall Street, fear is good. Fear works.

I hope to God it doesn't work this year. Because this country will not survive the Palin/McCain (sic) administration.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, September 14, 2008

Why Republicans Can't Govern
Posted by Jill | 11:41 AM
Want to know why Republicans are so inept at actually governing, once they get elected?

It's because for them, it's ONLY about being elected:
McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.

“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”


Translation: We will lie, we will smear, we will do whatever we have to do in order to win, no matter how sleazy or underhand. As for what we're going to do afterwards, well, that's not the point. The point is to WIN. Because power is its own reward.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, September 13, 2008

Gentlemen, why not call them what they are: LIES
Posted by Jill | 6:02 AM
Why can't the press use the "L" word? Is it because John McCain was a POW and therefore gets a pass on being a baldfaced, craven, pandering liar? Because if that's not the reason, if they're just being too "delicate" to say that perhaps the Senator from Arizona is "confused" or "muddy in the memory", they might have to say he's too senile to be president.

But in today's New York Times, two of the papers hacks di tutti hacks, Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg, write about the "outcry" over the McCain campaign's "distortions" -- as if defending yourself against outright lies and attacks were, to use Phil Gramm's favorite word, "whining", while holding Sarah Palin up like a human shield the way Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson character in The Dead Zone held up a baby and screaming "SEXISM!!" any time anyone criticizes her for any of her ignorance and hypocrisy:
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.


No, you morons, it's not "stretching the truth." Stretching the truth means there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. It's called lying. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "lie" as:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

So, Messrs. Cooper, and Rutenberg, why is this so difficult for you to understand? And why not use the word?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

If she's tough enough to be president, why treat her like a fragile flower?
Posted by Jill | 4:36 PM
Ah, the big strong military hero protecting the flower of white wimminhood against the Evil Black Man:




Wait a minute...haven't the Republicans used this kind of wolf imagery and footage before, in a different context?




I didn't even have to read the whole post at TPM, where the new ad was posted, to remember the wolf imagery used to represent Islamic terrorists in 2004. Nice dogwhistling, Mr. Rove. You get to evoke the earlier ad and reinforce the notion of Barack Obama as a Muslim Terrorist AND a Big Black Buck out to Debase Our White Women.

If the McCain campaign wants to use wolf imagery, why not just cut to the chase and run this as an ad:



I'm not sure how you fight this kind of thing, these lies and innuendo that play to people's most base fears; the things that keep them up at night, the notions they don't dare talk about. It's long past time for Obama to take the gloves off, but with the McCain campaign tapping the reptilian brain like this, I'm not sure what would work.

It's pretty much all up to the press at this point, and since the press has latched onto the "lipstick on a pig" thing and taken the McCain line that it's a slur against Palin, I guess we're pretty much screwed seven ways to Sunday.

Enjoy your new Christian Dominionist overlords, and enjoy yourself when they get the Battle of Armageddon they so desperately want.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The Daily Outrage: A Compendium of Sarah Palin Hypocrisy, Sleaze, and General Wingnuttia
Posted by Jill | 6:12 AM
Sarah Palin looks more like George W. Bush on steroids every day.

TPM: The Alaskan Independence Party, whose secession work Sarah Palin has cheered for years and of which Todd Palin has been a long-standing member, has ties not just to white supremacists, but also to the Chechen separatists who in turn have ties to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. I wonder what Jim Inhofe, who demands that Barack Obama prove that he loves his country thinks of this?

Washington Post: The alleged "reformer", Sarah Palin, "has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business."
The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show.


HuffPo: The McCain campaign's efforts to squelch the abuse of power investigation into Sarah Palin in regard to the firing of the state's public safety commissioner for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law have failed. For now.


AP: Sarah Palin's church preaches that you can "pray away the gay." Will Charlie Gibson ask if she believes that gays can be made straight through prayer? Don't bet on it.

Telegraph U.K.: John McCain plans to make Sarah Palin the public face of energy independence. So what does that mean? Does that mean that he doesn't have to show that he has any energy or stamina because Palin is like Bart Simpson on speed? Or is Palin the latest face of American energy policy being the private fiefdom for the enrichment of Administration members' family and friends, and in Palin's case, entire home state?

Andrew Halco (Alaskan blogger): In an eerie echo of Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin has requested a conference call with oil company CEOs to try to get a natural gas pipeline project that's gone nowhere jump-started. After all, she crowed about this pipeline during her speech last week; it kind of looks bad that the project has been languishing. This also gives Palin the framework she needs to put on a big show of being "tough on the oil companies.

Michael Kinsley: Separating the myth (or as they say in common parlance, LIES) told by the McCain camp and by Palin herself from the facts (or as they say in common parlance, TRUTH).

Juan Cole: Sarah Palin's values are not much different from those of the Islamic fundamentalists against whom John McCain claims are our "transcendent challenge.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, August 21, 2008

Is this what it's come to?
Posted by Jill | 7:24 AM
Is this the depths to which we've sunk? That I'm actually applauding Andrew Sullivan?

In all the discussion of John McCain's recently recovered memory of a religious epiphany in Vietnam, one thing has been missing. The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?



According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.



Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."


No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information. And so the false confessions that McCain was forced to make were, according to the logic of the Bush administration, as accurate as the "intelligence" we have procured from "interrogating" terror suspects.



My guess is that just as it isn't pandering when John McCain does it, and it isn't adultery when John McCain does it (h/t)...





...and it isn't flip-flopping when John McCain does it, and it isn't elitism when John McCain does it...

...I guess it isn't torture when John McCain says it isn't. Even it's when it's exactly what was done to him, and for which he feels the presidency is his rightful payment.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, August 18, 2008

Monday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 9:31 PM
Today's honoree: Dr. Philip Butler, at Military.com, on why he won't vote for John McCain.

Money quote (emphases mine):


Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.


Tell all your friends and relatives who think that John McCain deserves a free pass on his lies, on his sweetheart deals with campaign contributors, on his ignorance, on his hypocritical personal morality, on his belief that it's perfectly OK to have a foreign policy adviser who is a paid agent for a foreign government and a potential treasury secretary who calls Americans "whiners" solely because he was a POW 40 years ago to read what Dr. Butler, a man who knows him, has to say. Because Dr. Butler still respects the man, but does not believe he should be president, and certainly doesn't believe that the presidency is somehow payment for being a POW.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Excuse me, Senator McCain, but your pants on fire -- and your having been a POW is immaterial
Posted by Jill | 10:51 AM
I sometimes wonder how other Vietnam veterans who were prisoners of war feel about John McCain's view that he is entitled to a free pass on every sleazy thing he's ever done just because he was a POW.

So it turns out that rather than being in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Church on Saturday night while Barack Obama was being asked the same questions that would soon be posed to him, John McCain was in his motorcade, in all likelihood listening to said questions:

Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.


Uh, Ms. Wallace? Can you please explain what John McCain having been a prisoner of war has to do with whether he had advance notification of the questions? And don't you think that the word "cheated" is kind of a peculiar one about which to be outraged, given the Senator's marital history?

And as for the "insinuation" that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated, well, then, how do you explain your campaign's hysterical response to the idea that the Senator may have heard the questions in advance? Don't you think you're overreacting just a bit?

Perhaps you're a touch hypersensitive because your guy has already been busted for plagiarizing Alexander Solzhenytsin, in addition to his various lies about his record.

So yes, Ms. Wallace, we are accusing John McCain of cheating. And lying, and of being corrupt. Go prove us wrong.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, August 14, 2008

Nice work, Joe, but then, you helped create this environment
Posted by Jill | 11:39 AM
Joe Klein, who had as much to do with the obsession with the Clenis™ as anyone, has finally realized what he hath wrought -- now that it's too late and no one will go along with him:

Back in the day, John McCain was the sort of politician who would stand first in line to call out this sort of swill. (As, I'm sure Barack Obama or John Kerry would do, if some hate-crazed, money-grubbing left-winger published a book claiming that McCain had been successfully brainwashed in Vietnam--as Kerry did indeed do when a group of spurious Bush-backing Vietnam vets tried to claim exactly that about McCain during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina.)

But we're not seeing those sorts of claims being made about McCain this year...because Democrats tend not to do that sort of thing. They are the sorts of claims that Republicans--Bush Republicans--make. They range from the blatantly extra-curricular, like Corsi's book, to the official McCain-sanctioned introduction made by Joe Lieberman--of all people--yesterday: that Obama doesn't "put America first."

I know that people like me are supposed to try to be fair...and balanced. (The Fox mockery of our sappy professional standards seems more brutally appropriate with each passing year.) In the past, I would achieve a semblance--or an illusion--of balance by criticizing Democrats for not responding effectively when right-wing sludge merchants poisoned our national elections with their filth and lies. And it is true, as John Kerry knows, that a more effective response--and a bolder campaign--might have neutralized the Swiftboat assault four years ago. It is also true that Corsi's book this time is far less effective than his Swiftboat venture, since it doesn't come equipped with veterans willing to defile their service by telling lies to camera.

But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce.


We already know, because we've had it for the last eight years. Now if the Obama campaign had a freaking clue and wasn't determined to travel merrily down the John Kerry Let's Be Nice Road, we would see an ad that looks like this one (h/t):





The difference between an ad like this and Jerome Corsi's book? There is NOTHING in this ad that is not a documented fact -- unlike the lunatic ravings of Mr. Corsi.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

How a Republican Dirty Trickster nailed Eliot Spitzer
Posted by Jill | 6:21 AM
I'm not defending Eliot Spitzer, not by a long shot. Bill Maher can talk all he wants to about how it's perfectly OK for a married guy to fuck whoever he wants to because everyone needs sex, and if a guy doesn't want to fuck his wife anymore because she's not 22, there's no reason for him to "suffer" -- it's still a really sleazy, hurtful thing to do. That Maher is a raging misogynist isn't news, but hearing him last Friday vocalize his view that women are just holes for men to put their dicks into made me wonder if having him on our side is worth it.

But all that notwithstanding, Spitzer, as another one of those holier-than-thou virtuemongers isn't at all a sympathetic figure.

Until you find out that known Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone seems to be the one who tipped off the FBI about him:

Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ''used the services of high-priced call girls'' while in Florida.

The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ''a social contact in an adult-themed club.'' It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn't taken off his calf-length black socks ``during the sex act.''

Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton's presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.

''Mr. Stone respectfully declines to meet with you at this time,'' the letter states, before going on to offer ''certain information'' about Spitzer.

''The governor has paid literally tens of thousands of dollars for these services. It is Mr. Stone's understanding that the governor paid not with credit cards or cash but through some pre-arranged transfer,'' the letter said.

''It is also my client's understanding from the same source that Gov. Spitzer did not remove his mid-calf length black socks during the sex act. Perhaps you can use this detail to corroborate Mr. Stone's information,'' the letter said. It was signed by attorney Paul Rolf Jensen of Costa Mesa, Calif.

The letter also notes that while Stone believes the information is true, he ''cannot swear to its accuracy'' because it is second-hand.

James Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI's New York office, would not say whether the bureau had received the letter. A spokeswoman for Spitzer also had no comment.

The letter was written several months after allegations were leveled at Stone that he had left a threatening phone message at the office of Bernard Spitzer, the ex-governor's father, regarding ''phony'' campaign loans involving his son's unsuccessful 1994 bid for attorney general. Stone denied making the call but resigned as a consultant for state Senate Republicans in Albany.


So does anyone actually still believe that the IRS just "happened" to find Spitzer moving money around in a suspicious manner?

Right now the national polls are showing either Democratic candidate running neck-and-neck against John McCain. With Roger Stone still up to his old tricks from 2000, they'd better wrap this up soon and set about building a lead that not even Roger Stone can steal.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, March 02, 2008

What is this happy horseshit?
Posted by Jill | 8:37 PM




"There's nothing to base that on...as far as I know"????

Learned well from the dark side, you have, young Skywalker.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share