IP Nails It . . . .

Idealistic Pragmatist has the definitive post on the US dems, health care "reform" and the sorry condition of the Excited States here.

Go, read and hope the situation doesn't creep across the 49th . . . .

Hollow "Victory," Mr. President . . . .

Check out Matt Taibbi and Robert Kuttner on Bill Moyers Journal Friday night.

They explain the clusterf_ck in Washington for what it is: a sell-out to Corporate America. What a surprise, eh?

It's about 30 minutes, but well worth it. The dems and the "o-team" need to pay attention. S'pecially the comments regarding rahm.

I knew that guy was gonna be trouble, and guess what ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

M & M . . . .

Matt and Michael are getting a bit impatient.

Is there a "movement" stirring?

One can only hope . . . .






(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

LIE-berman: Home At Last . . . .

The whiney, nasal-voiced little creep joe LIE-berman is finally going home.

Per McClatchy today:

Lieberman to speak at Republican convention
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

August 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — Joe Lieberman will be a featured speaker on the opening night of the Republican National Convention, capping an extraordinary political journey for a man who could have been this year's Democratic nominee for president had history taken a different turn.

Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president under Al Gore — a ticket that lost to George W. Bush by 537 votes in Florida and by a 5-4 vote in the U.S. Supreme Court — will get a prime-time slot Sept. 1 at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., party officials announced Wednesday.

The speaking role is the result of the four-term Connecticut senator's loyalty to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Lieberman is often mentioned as a possible vice-presidential running mate for McCain.

_______________


Lieberman's views have infuriated many Democrats. He lost the Democratic senate primary in 2006 to anti-war activist Ned Lamont, but won the general election running as an independent. Lieberman won by 10 points with the support of 70 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents. He got only a third of Democrats in a state he had represented in the Senate for three terms as a Democrat.

After winning re-election, he insisted that he was still a Democrat — a crucial decision, since Democrats needed his vote to form a Senate majority.

He also felt somewhat alienated from the party — and from Obama. Obama was one of the few Senate Democrats who gave Lamont money, and just before the primary he sent an e-mail to about 5,000 Connecticut residents urging them to back Lamont.

_______________


If the Democrats pick up more Senate seats and Lieberman no longer is needed to form a majority, Gary Rose, a professor of political science at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT said "there's a good chance he'll be more ostracized," and perhaps lose the chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

But if McCain wins, Rose noted, Lieberman would be in a coveted position. "I wouldn't be surprised to see him in a McCain administration," he said.

'Ya think maybe now the democratic leadership will begin the process of stripping Holy joe from his position of power in the Senate?

Probably not, as they are not noted for making stands and taking action based on principles. More often than not, it is "what do the polls say" and "how can I get re-elected to my cushy job" that run the decision-making process in Washington.

Where are all the true statesmen and women in US government? There sure won't be many displayed in the two major party's conventions the next couple of weeks . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Goose, Gander, etc., etc., etc. . . . .

Per Reuters:

China spying on Olympics hotel guests: U.S. senator
Tue Jul 29, 2008 - By Richard Cowan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China has installed Internet-spying equipment in all the major hotel chains serving the 2008 Summer Olympics, a U.S. senator charged on Tuesday.

"The Chinese government has put in place a system to spy on and gather information about every guest at hotels where Olympic visitors are staying," said Sen. Sam Brownback.

The conservative Republican from Kansas, citing hotel documents he received, added that journalists, athletes' families and others attending the Olympics next month "will be subjected to invasive intelligence-gathering" by China's Public Security Bureau. He said the agency will be monitoring Internet communications at the hotels.

_______________


The senator called on China to reverse its policy, but said the hotels are advising guests that "your communications and Web site activity are not private" and that e-mails and Web sites being visited are accessible to local law enforcement.

Exactly how is this any different from the US government with the "new and improved" FISA legislation passed by a democratic Congress and signed by gwbush?

What a bunch of hypocrites . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

The More Things "Change You Can Believe In . . . "

And exactly how is a democratic administration going to make things "Change You Can Believe In" any better over there?

Per McClatchy:

Obama talks tough about Iran during visit to Israel
Margaret Talev and Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers

July 23, 2008

SDEROT, Israel — Tough talk on Iran dominated Barack Obama's meetings Wednesday in Israel and the West Bank, as Israeli officials amplified their enemy's threat and the Democratic presidential hopeful declared that a "nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation."

Speaking at an afternoon news conference in Sderot, a city near the Gaza Strip that's long been a target for Palestinian rocket attacks, Obama said that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and that "America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people."

The Illinois senator warned pointedly that no options are "off the table" in confronting a nuclear threat from Iran, though he added that Iran should be offered "big carrots" as well as "big sticks."

Obama's aggressive rhetoric on Iran followed his emphasis earlier this week on his plan to send more U.S. troops to fight terrorism in Afghanistan should he defeat Republican John McCain in November. Obama also has made clear that he remains committed to withdrawing combat troops from Iraq over 16 months, and that he still sees merit in talking to enemy nations including Iran. But his rhetoric has taken on a more militaristic tone in recent days than was typical in his primary election campaign.

_______________


Obama did, however, weigh in on another contentious issue — saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. He added that whether it should be all under Israeli control or divided with Palestinians should be settled by negotiation, and that it's not up to the United States to determine.

Obama's general election rival, Republican John McCain, who visited Israel earlier this year, also visited Sderot, but unlike Obama, McCain did not meet with the Palestinians.

While Obama leads McCain in national polls back home, polls show that he may not be able to count on as wide a majority of Jewish supporters as is typical for Democrats. Polls also indicate that Israelis favor McCain over Obama on issues of Israel's security.

No matter who gets elected in the US this fall any change in the Mideast situation will be minimal. There are way too many monied interests with major fingers in that pie. It's doubtful the major defense contractors will allow a substantial deviation in the war machine's juggernaut toward corporate profits.

Slogans are one thing, concrete results are quite another - Witness Mr. Obama's "change" on FISA legislation. His refusal to stand up for the 4th Amendment and protect The Constitution as he swore he would is a major disappointment for someone who aspires to be the leader of the US.

The difference between the repugs and the dems:

Pocket "Change You Can Believe In . . . ."

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Votes Are In . . . .

And, as expected, bush gets the FISA bill he wanted.

democratic red votes below are the "Good Ones".

democratic blue votes below are the "bush Enablers".

republican votes are in black and they all voted as expected.



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number:	168	Vote Date:	July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )
Measure Title:	A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	69
	NAYs	28
	Not Voting	3

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Note especially the large blue vote. Disappointing, isn't it?

Again, remind me why the democrats should get my vote.

Somehow, I'm not clear on that . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)


UPDATE: At least my favourite organization - the ACLU - is still on the job.

Good job!

Dithering democrats ! ! ! !

Per Reuters today:

Spy, phone protection bill clears Senate hurdle

Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:43pm EDT - WASHINGTON
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro)

(Reuters) - A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.

_______________


"This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.

Feingold has offered an amendment to strip out protection for telecommunication companies. But both Democrats and Republicans predict the amendment will be rejected.

Anti-democratic legislation supported by an idiot President with approval ratings hovering in the 30% range, and he gets everything he asked for! At least Feingold still has the right idea, but he's pretty much a lone voice in a sea of weaklings.

Knowing how enamoured harperco is with all things bushco, how many weeks, months or year's time will elapse 'til this little bit of crapola makes it up here?

And the dems would have you believe that things will be different when they have control of Congress and the White House. (If you buy into that, we've still got some Florida swampland we'll sell you.) They can't even muster the votes to protect the liberties and civil rights of US citizens that the Constitution mandates.

As "drf" continues to remind me: "It's just politics, Bob!"

Yup, looks like it is, and it ain't a'changin' anytime soon, no matter what "fairy" tales the DNC tries to feed you.

As Dana says: "Get drunk and stay drunk!" . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Dems Fold on FISA . . . .

Nicolle Belle, John Amato and the crew at Crooks and Liars have been warning about Hoyer's behind-the-scenes backstabbing on FISA.

Today the knife was twisted.


From Congressional Quarterly:

House Passes Overhaul of Electronic Surveillance Rules

The House Friday passed an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules stemming from a bipartisan compromise that left Democrats divided.

The legislation, which would almost certainly lead to the dismissal of lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of aiding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program, won the support of 105 Democrats and 188 Republicans to pass by a margin of 293-129.

Senators agreed to place the bill on the calendar for next week and could clear it as early as Monday, delivering to President Bush legislation that gives him much of what he wants but with some restrictions he hoped to avoid. He placed a priority on the lawsuits’ dismissal, and on getting executive branch authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign targets, even when they are communicating with people in the United States.

House members who voted against the bill said its expansion of executive branch surveillance powers would gut Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“This bill scares me to death,” said Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif.

Supporters, on the other hand, said it was an improvement over a Senate-passed, White House-backed bill, which contained less court and congressional oversight. Some conservative Democrats have been pressing House leaders to take up that legislation all year long, and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said this week their support for that bill forced Democratic negotiators into a reluctant compromise.

“It’s not a happy occasion, but it’s the work we have to do,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. She said the debate on the legislation was “valuable for making the bill better if not good enough but certainly preferable to the alternative we have.”

Republicans, including Bush himself, praised the legislation.

That last line sums it up pretty well.

Remind me again why someone should vote for a democrat vs. a reguglican ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Surprise! House dems Grow Spine . . . .

Well, it's a start, anyway.

From Reuter's today:

House passes spy bill and rejects phone immunity
Fri Mar 14, 2008 - By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defied President George W. Bush on Friday and passed an anti-terrorism spy bill that permits lawsuits against phone companies.

But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.

The battle over whether to shield companies has been a key reason why the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill to replace a law that expired last month that expanded U.S. authority to track enemy targets without a court order.

'Course, georgie will veto it, but what the hell.

At least the x-ray of the dems will show a shadow of a spine . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

This is Gonna Get Ugly . . . .

I've made an effort to keep out of the US primary season shenanigans.

Now that the dems have narrowed down the field, it appears that things will get even more ugly soon.

From AlterNet today, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor:

Will Hillary Clinton Spoil the Party?
By Robert B. Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on March 7, 2008

I'm thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats' two candidates. But I'm also becoming anxious at the prospect of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of them entering the White House in January of 2009.

Is Hillary Clinton’s willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had Hillary Clinton's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't.

This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.

_______________


I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign. (emphasis mine)

_______________


The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.

It will take some time for this circus to play out.

At this point, it would not be surprising if the dems blow what should be a shoe-in election and end up handing the executive branch to the repugs again.

The more things change, . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Permanent bases? Oh those permanent bases.

As Jill asks what the congressional democrats plan on doing about it.

President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

[...]

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

"Every time a senior administration official is asked about permanent US military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities," said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in a Senate speech yesterday. "Yet this signing statement issued by the president yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration wants to hold this option in reserve."

And that's it? Is impeachment still off the table?

Perhaps the congressional Democrats could rent out the US constitution to a country that can make use of it.

The US Senate Democrats go into a watchkeeping routine

There is nothing I like better than to witness people who are unused to duty watches go into, well, duty watches. That's exactly what the Democratic senators did this past US holiday season.
Instead of calling the Senate into recess for the Thanksgiving holiday break, the Democrats kept the Senate alive. And it didn't make the self-important little prick in the Oval Office very happy.

President Bush Monday welcomed back Congress by criticizing Democrats for their priorities and blasting the Senate for using a procedural maneuver to prevent him from making recess appointments.

Procedural maneuver?

“In a political maneuver designed to block my ability to make recess appointments, congressional leaders arranged for a senator to come in every three days or so, bang a gavel, wait for about 30 seconds, bang a gavel again, and then leave,” Bush said. “Under the Senate rules, this counts as a full day. If 30 seconds is a full day, no wonder Congress has got a lot of work to do.”

Ahem! Yeah, well, this is coming from a president who now holds the record for more vacation days than any US president, evah! Tell us all about the workload Mr. "War President".

Bush is pissed-off that his ability to make recess appointments was blocked. Hmmm. Libby gathers that one up and lays it out.

Clearly, if he's so unhappy about it, Bush had intended to circumvent the confirmation process again with some sneaky recess appointments. I'd suggest the Democrats use that trick again during the Christmas break. It seems to have worked rather well.

Geez, George. Sucks, doesn't it? Democracy, I mean.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone ? ? ? ?

Earlier I noted there was nothing to blog about today, and then I found this on yesterday's New York Times editorial page:

Editorial - September 21, 2007
In Search of a Congress

If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: “Nevermind.” The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

The Democrats don’t have, or can’t summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush’s increasingly narrow agenda.

_______________


We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.













The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq’s chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush’s declared war on terrorism. Voters are capable of deciding whether Republicans are holding up the Senate out of principle or political tactics.

_______________


Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.

Congress is the first place for this kind of work. Right now, it seems like the last place it will happen.

(Emphasis above mine.)

That's our Congress: Workin' hard to accomplish zilch, nada, zero, absolutely nuthin' . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Are the Dems Up to the Task ? ? ? ?

From AlterNet today:

Five Things for Dems to Keep in Mind When Gen. Petraeus Testifies on Iraq

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times - Posted on September 7, 2007

Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq -- as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that "if a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the front, it's criminal." So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

_______________

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate -- but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters -- political cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left .on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a "khaki election" in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can't make up their minds.

The other four points Krugman makes are here.

My bet is the Dems will fold - as usual - and bushco will continue the clusterf_ck in Iraq until they can hand it off to another administration to "lose".

The odds are in my favour.

Any takers ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Democrat's Descent ? ? ? ?

Excellent piece by Alexander Cockburn at The Nation in today's AlterNet:

How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months

By Alexander Cockburn, The Nation
Posted on August 10, 2007

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

One of my favourite sections is the reference made to my man Russ Feingold:

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.


Those heady, euphoric days immediately after last November's election are becoming a memory, eh, Democrats? Perhaps it's time the Democratic leaders stopped monkeying around and get on with the policies the people elected them to do . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Food for Thought . . . .

As a follow up to this previous post, Catnip over at Liberal Catnip has an excellent analysis on the Democrats' current stand on the Iraq debacle.

As a MoveOn supporter it has definitely given me pause.














Read it and see what you think . . . .

(Cross-Posted from Moving to Vancouver)