Digby provides us this nugget from last night's GOP debate coverage on MSNBC:
FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.
-----------------------------------------
Does anyone even know what this means?
Friday, May 04, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I Really Don't Know Why
Democrats Back Down on (non-binding) Timetable
Yet, the article goes on to insist that Democrats want to insist that the supplemental spending bill still include "benchmarks" and other language that "influences war policy".
Huh?
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that any of these so-called "benchmarks" can be enforced, please raise your hands.
Does anyone think the President would allow, or this Congress would agree to cut-off financial aid of any kind, let alone non-military aid to Iraq in the event that violence in the capital and throughout the country continues to escalate, just because Iraq didn't come through on some "benchmarks", which the president would most likely ignore or disallow through a signing statement (yeah, remember those?)?
If I was an optimistic sort, I might think about how the president's veto actually represents an opportunity of sorts to skuddle the whole supplemental war funding bill. It would, that is, if enough Democrats who weren't particularly thrilled with the continued funding request to begin with, decide that the lack of a timetable, however symbolic and meaningless it ever was, is an invitation to oppose the process and intent of a permanent war and eternal occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Yet, the article goes on to insist that Democrats want to insist that the supplemental spending bill still include "benchmarks" and other language that "influences war policy".
Huh?
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.
Anyone who thinks that any of these so-called "benchmarks" can be enforced, please raise your hands.
Does anyone think the President would allow, or this Congress would agree to cut-off financial aid of any kind, let alone non-military aid to Iraq in the event that violence in the capital and throughout the country continues to escalate, just because Iraq didn't come through on some "benchmarks", which the president would most likely ignore or disallow through a signing statement (yeah, remember those?)?
If I was an optimistic sort, I might think about how the president's veto actually represents an opportunity of sorts to skuddle the whole supplemental war funding bill. It would, that is, if enough Democrats who weren't particularly thrilled with the continued funding request to begin with, decide that the lack of a timetable, however symbolic and meaningless it ever was, is an invitation to oppose the process and intent of a permanent war and eternal occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I Know It's Been Said Before, But...
Glenn Greenwald on Harvey Mansfield's plea for establishing "One Man Rule":
I just want to add one related point here. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.
They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating the most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to take note of that failure is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.
And Kevin Drum finds NRO's Thomas Sowell pining for a military coup--here:
BANANA REPUBLICANISM, CONT'D....Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it? I wonder what Buckley thinks of NRO publishing stuff like this?
(And in case you're wondering, there's no further context. That's the whole quote. It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.)
I just want to add one related point here. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
While the Bush administration expressly adopts these theories to detain American citizens without charges, engage in domestic surveillance on Americans in clear violation of the laws we enacted to limit that power, and asserts a general right to disregard laws which interfere with the President's will, our media still barely discusses those issues.
They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating the most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to take note of that failure is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.
And Kevin Drum finds NRO's Thomas Sowell pining for a military coup--here:
BANANA REPUBLICANISM, CONT'D....Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it? I wonder what Buckley thinks of NRO publishing stuff like this?
(And in case you're wondering, there's no further context. That's the whole quote. It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)