Open thread

Disco Saturday night. Read More......

Midwestern towns sour on the war as death toll mounts

I hate to say 'I told you so' when the stakes are so grave, but when is a better time to do so? Anyone who voted for Bush the second time, and continued to support this disaster of a war, has to accept the consequences of their actions. You supported an idiot, you supported a disaster, and you supported a political party that is nothing more than patriotic slogans surrounded by death. Actions have consequences. More from the Wash Post. Read More......

Open Thread and Editorial Cartoons

Check out this week's editorial cartoons over at Bob Geiger's site. There was just so much material this week including our new favorite hypocrite, David Vitter. Bush and McCain get their fair share too. These are good times for cartoonists.

What's buzzing around out there? Read More......

Massachusetts governor vetoes abstinence funding

The GOP favorite pet project that has failed miserably around the world should have been cut in Washington as well, but at least someone is introducing reality into budgets. Let the GOP experiment with themselves before they waste everyone else's money on these silly programs. Read More......

Any plan that expects Bush to change the course on Iraq voluntarily just won't work

News from Capitol Hill yesterday afternoon was that Senators Lugar and Warner have a new proposal to deal with the Iraq war:

Anticipation for the Warner-Lugar plan had been quietly building all week, particularly among the Republicans who have called for a new course in Iraq. The senators said lawmakers from both parties had expressed an interest in endorsing the plan, although it remained an open question whether it went far enough for Democratic critics of the war.

The proposal would require Mr. Bush to present to Congress by Oct. 16 contingency plans to switch to a narrower mission in Iraq, including the protection of Iraqi borders, training Iraqi forces, protecting American military personnel and going after terrorists. The senators said the plan should begin by Dec. 31.

Oh boy. The two Republicans, who both chaired key committees, are clearly not happy with Bush's Iraq policies. That's good. So what's the catch? Based on what CNN's Dana Bash just reported, their proposal "would not mandate" that Bush implement the new plan. AP reports the same thing via Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid balked at the proposal because it would not require Bush to implement the strategy. He said he prefers legislation the Senate will vote on next week that would order combat troops to be out of Iraq by next spring.

Warner and Lugar "put a lot of faith in the president - that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley in a statement.

So while Bush would have to come up with "a contingency plan" under the Lugar/Warner bill, he would not be required to put that plan into effect. Come on. Have these Republicans learned nothing? What makes them think that Bush will somehow own up to the crisis he's created and and that he'll understand the need to change the course? Thursday's bizarro "stay the course" press conference should disabuse everyone of that notion.

The media and the moderates will probably rally around the Lugar/Warner bill, but unless it has real teeth and precise, explicit mandates, it gets us nowhere. We need strong legislation that forces Bush to change course if we're ever going to get closer to ending this disastrous war. The only legislation currently on the Senate docket to accomplish that goal is the bill offered by Senators Jack Reed and Carl Levin. They have written binding legislation, and that is the only thing that will force Bush's hand -- or as they note, their bill "gives the President no choice."

I keep saying this, but it's like an intervention. Bush keeps saying he doesn't have a problem and all the GOP enablers keep coming up with new ways to deal with the problem that Bush doesn't think he has. Therein lies the major fault with all of the so-called moderate solutions. Any reliance on Bush to change the course is just plain futile.

And, in case we need any reminding why Congress needs to act now and not wait, consider this line from an AP article posted yesterday on Think Progress:

Between now and September the battle for Baghdad will intensify, likely costing hundreds of American troops’ lives.

Enough already. It's not worth it anymore. Read More......

Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 7/13/07

Another Week. More preposterousness to report.

To be loved. That’s all David Vitter wanted. Why, a staunch supporter of “family values” like Mr. Vitter can only do what one would expect of him, and share those cherished values with the lovely ladies of DC. He couldn’t help it, Katrina chased all the good tail out of New Orleans and Lucianne Goldberg wasn’t reachable by cell that night. I mean, give the guy a break! What’s a man of such “bedrock” principles to do?

Yes, Republicans and prostitutes. They go together like Ben and Jerry. Butch and Sundance. Norm Coleman and a roach clip. But there are many other of our species Republicans don’t react so well to — and I’m not just talking about people who don’t require greenbacks for copulation in general. Specific groups of people, like veterans, firefighters and pretty much anyone not whiter than a Klan rally in Utah during a snowstorm.

And those wily Republicans sure did have their trouble with many of these folks this past week. For example:

1) Rudy Giuliani must be one of the dumbest human beings to ever run for president. Which of course means he has an advantage among those who tend to vote Republican, who see holy matrimony between cousins and building a counter-terrorism center in the only place in New York to ever have previously been hit by a foreign terrorist as a crafty plan (is that terrorists that never strike the same place twice?).

As you may know, the firefighters of New York are much smarter than that, so they put together a short video showing how Rudy was not only not the hero of 9/11, but just a guy with a comb-over that began in Newark and ended in Oswego, whose stupidity got many New Yorkers killed. One could see why a Republican would currently see that as a qualification for becoming their next Decider.

2) Then there’s McCain. Was it the gay sweater that did you in? The campaign manager who likes to jam phones in New Hampshire, hang out with Jack Abramoff and illegally funnel corporate money to Texas? Or perhaps was it the flip-flopping on everything and embracing Christian preacher-fascists as guys to drink tea with and discuss how to navigate around this compact-disc shaped Earth of ours?

3) Don’t forget Iraq. How many Republicans have spent the week literally running away from cameras like they were their constituents, or abstinence education chasing David Vitter? What gutless cowards. Well they don’t call it Iraq Summer for nothing. Get ready for a summer of love guys.

4) Finally, let’s never forget the NRA. They think it’s just swell for Ayman al-Zwahiri to walk into a local gathering of yokels near you and buy himself some AKs to provide the lead holes our bodies are so desperately craving.

No need to check and make sure terrorists, criminals and children don’t get their hands on high-caliber weaponry.

These gun nuts are to reason what Lindsay Lohan is to driving or Dick Cheney is to lipid-free arteries. It’s time to put the extremist NRA in its place. Read More......

Thank God Mike Gravel is safe

For a few days there, Mike Gravel's race to become the Democratic presidential nominee was in mortal danger. You see, Gravel wasn't invited to the upcoming gay-issue presidential debate hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, and he was hopping mad. HRC argued that the debate, initially, was only one hour long, and they wanted to limit it to serious candidates - as Gravel hadn't raised much money, he didn't make the cut. A number of gay bloggers jumped in to the fray in Gravel's defense, and the HRC relented (it didn't hurt that the debate is now 1.5 hours, giving more time for the major candidates to be pressed on their gay views).

What do I think of all this? I honestly don't care. Gravel is a nut. A very pro-gay nut, and that's nice. But he's still a nut. And so are Kucinich and Ron Paul. Their presence at the debates is entertaining, but they're not going to be the presidential candidates or the vice presidential candidates and, while I know it's a tradition in our country to always have a few goofballs thrown into presidential debate the mix, I tire of wasting what are already pretty lame debates on candidates who simply don't matter.

As for the fairness of excluding someone as pro-gay as Gravel, can't we come up with anyone better than Gravel to present to America as the Democratic party's standard bearer on gay rights? While some argue that Gravel could pull the other candidates the right way (the left way) on gay issues, I worry that he shows Democratic candidates and the country the kooky face of gay politics. The man simply comes off as a bit goofy - why would any Democratic candidate want to align themselves with his remarks in front of millions of Americans? If anything, he gives the Dems covers NOT to embrace the gay cause - i.e., see, I'm not as goofy as HIM. I think he hurts our presidential cause more than helps it.

Yes, pushing HRC to include Gravel in the debate was a victory for the gay blogosphere. Not our first or our largest victory by any means (beating Ford and Microsoft and Snickers, campaigns that involved Andy Towle, Pam Spaulding, this blog and more come to mind). And not exactly a victory that I endorsed. But it was a victory nonetheless, and that's important for the growths of the blogs. Read More......

Poll: 64% believe "surge" a failure

Once again, the public is way ahead of Washington.

Nearly seven in 10 (68 percent) Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling the war in Iraq. Public approval of the president's handling of Iraq has remained below the 30 percent mark since January, when he announced his plans to increase the number of troops deployed there. (The public's approval of Bush's overall handling of the war has been below the 50 percent mark since February of 2004).

Sixty-four percent of Americans feel the surge in troops has been a failure, while less than a quarter (22 percent) deem it a success. Nearly a third of Republicans surveyed (31 percent) declare the surge a failure, which may help to explain why several high-profile senior Republicans have defected from the White House on support for the war. While Bush's overall approval rating remains low—just 29 percent—it is up 3 points from another NEWSWEEK sounding earlier this month.

Read More......