When Roger Clemons and Brian McNamee testified yesterday before Congress the real show was the absurd need of the GOPhers to side with Clemons, a Bush family friend.
McNamee is a sleaze of course, and Clemons doth protest too much, but this is supposed to be about getting to the bottom of the steroid thing, not a junior high schoolyard taunting contest.
There was absolutely no need to choose sides, unless of course one viewed the hearings as a forum for political oneupsmanship, tribal hatred or to demonstrate adult child behavior. All politicians in that room were there to put to public scrutiny the criminal behavior of many in baseball. Clemons and McNamee are the current examples of that unlawful behavior.
The irony to me is that the members of Congress who used that forum for political gain are likely just as guilty as Clemons and McNamee when it comes to doing what they believe is necessary to gain the upper hand.
Unfortunately it, like so many events in DC, turned into a Junior High School cafeteria food fight, with the Dems trying to get Clemons into a perjury trap, and the GOPhers trying to defend Bush's friend.
No matter what the voters try to do, those who are elected turn into children sent to do adult's work.
It is positively sickening to watch this stuff.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Friday, February 15, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Another Great Soup to Nuts Progessive Dinner
April 30, 2008 is the date for the next Souper to Nuts Progressive Dinner.
I was a first timer recently and have to tell you that I have met some wonderful folks as a result of submitting five posts from my blog, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness.
We've swapped links and in some cases shared email addresses for sidebar conversations.
I recommend dipping your little finger in the soup. I expect you will enjoy the taste.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
I was a first timer recently and have to tell you that I have met some wonderful folks as a result of submitting five posts from my blog, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness.
We've swapped links and in some cases shared email addresses for sidebar conversations.
I recommend dipping your little finger in the soup. I expect you will enjoy the taste.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Monday, February 11, 2008
Training for the Big Fight
The GOPhers are falling in line, and teaming up to take on Hillary. Right wing evangelicals and numerous Republican politicians have announced support for McCain in the past few days.
George Will said nothing would so unite Republicans as would Hillary being the Dem nominee.
They're spoiling for a fight.
After a Clinton vs McCain campaign, there would be no healing worth talking about, regardless of which one might win. It would be pay back time, big time. The hate runs deep on both sides.
Obama would be more problematical for the GOPher attack machine. Most likely they'd have to focus mostly on his lack of experience and being somewhat untested. But he is popular and not polarizing. In fact he is inclusive in his "Yes We Can" mantra.
The Dems must come to understand, as the Republicans do, that the goal is to win the White House and a bullet proof majority in Congress. Rather than falling in love with one candidate or the other they need to fall in line behind the one who can not only win against McCain, but can relegate the calumny between the House of Bush, McCain now having been adopted into the family, and the House of Clinton, to the history books.
Pass it on.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
George Will said nothing would so unite Republicans as would Hillary being the Dem nominee.
They're spoiling for a fight.
After a Clinton vs McCain campaign, there would be no healing worth talking about, regardless of which one might win. It would be pay back time, big time. The hate runs deep on both sides.
Obama would be more problematical for the GOPher attack machine. Most likely they'd have to focus mostly on his lack of experience and being somewhat untested. But he is popular and not polarizing. In fact he is inclusive in his "Yes We Can" mantra.
The Dems must come to understand, as the Republicans do, that the goal is to win the White House and a bullet proof majority in Congress. Rather than falling in love with one candidate or the other they need to fall in line behind the one who can not only win against McCain, but can relegate the calumny between the House of Bush, McCain now having been adopted into the family, and the House of Clinton, to the history books.
Pass it on.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Go Get 'Em Huck!!
Huckaby smells a rat; something is rotten in Washington State.
The GOPher's machine in that state stopped reporting the results of returns after McCain took a small lead with 87% reporting.
Go get 'em Huck.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
The GOPher's machine in that state stopped reporting the results of returns after McCain took a small lead with 87% reporting.
Go get 'em Huck.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Oy Vey and Good Grief!!!
Paul Krugman published a column in today's New York Times that redefines calumny; defamation, distortion, nastiness and any other negative word one can come up with to describe character assassination.
Believe it or not he is tarring Obama with the same brush used to tar Hillary for years.
Normally and generally he specializes in economic issues , but not today. Today he's the William Kristol of the Liberal set, a print version of Rush Limbaugh.
Ironically, today's column by Kristol is a relatively even handed analysis of the Obama/Clinton competition.
In stark contrast to Krugman is Frank Rich's piece in this past Sunday's NYTimes. I'm an Obama supporter, but I was also uncomfortable with Rich's level of discourse this time.
Then there's Stanley Fish who writes about the voluminous responses he's received on the topic of Hillary bashing. Clearly he's an apologist for Clinton, the main point of his thesis today being that Hillary haters have even gone so far as to decry the existence of such calumny, then proceed with their own defamatory remarks.
What's especially troubling about the messages from Krugman and Fish is the implication they provide that Obama is behind this Hillary bashing. The Liberals are getting the Swift Boat thing from each other in an internecine warfare of words.
Finally Roger Cohen, in the same rag today, writes not about Hillary or Obama bashing, but about Obama and Israel, supportive or non-supportive, pro Israel, pro Palestinian, both or neither. This piece seems to acknowledge Obama's need for what is called Realpolitik.
He calls Obama a "strong, but not uncritical" supporter of Israel. Talk about careful wording.
He cites Obama's tempering of a statement about Palestinians being oppressed by later adding words about that oppression being self-inflicted. He cites Obama's letter to the UN calling for denouncing Hamas's rocket attacks, and making a speech before AIPAC awhile back in which he didn't mention the settlements.
Cohen acknowledges the unusual power of Jewish Americans who make up 2% of the population but exhibit far more clout than might be expected from that level of minority. He excuses Obama's courting of the Israel lobby as saying, "That's O.K.. Obama has to play hard ball now".
The Times has endorsed Clinton. In just one issue of that paper two of their columnists support Obama, one supports Hillary, and one seems to like Obama's chances to get the nomination. But that's William Kristol, the mother of all Neo-cons, the wolf in sheep's clothing in his piece today.
The Times has endorsed Clinton. At least their columnists are not marching in lock step.
I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Believe it or not he is tarring Obama with the same brush used to tar Hillary for years.
Normally and generally he specializes in economic issues , but not today. Today he's the William Kristol of the Liberal set, a print version of Rush Limbaugh.
Ironically, today's column by Kristol is a relatively even handed analysis of the Obama/Clinton competition.
In stark contrast to Krugman is Frank Rich's piece in this past Sunday's NYTimes. I'm an Obama supporter, but I was also uncomfortable with Rich's level of discourse this time.
Then there's Stanley Fish who writes about the voluminous responses he's received on the topic of Hillary bashing. Clearly he's an apologist for Clinton, the main point of his thesis today being that Hillary haters have even gone so far as to decry the existence of such calumny, then proceed with their own defamatory remarks.
What's especially troubling about the messages from Krugman and Fish is the implication they provide that Obama is behind this Hillary bashing. The Liberals are getting the Swift Boat thing from each other in an internecine warfare of words.
Finally Roger Cohen, in the same rag today, writes not about Hillary or Obama bashing, but about Obama and Israel, supportive or non-supportive, pro Israel, pro Palestinian, both or neither. This piece seems to acknowledge Obama's need for what is called Realpolitik.
He calls Obama a "strong, but not uncritical" supporter of Israel. Talk about careful wording.
He cites Obama's tempering of a statement about Palestinians being oppressed by later adding words about that oppression being self-inflicted. He cites Obama's letter to the UN calling for denouncing Hamas's rocket attacks, and making a speech before AIPAC awhile back in which he didn't mention the settlements.
Cohen acknowledges the unusual power of Jewish Americans who make up 2% of the population but exhibit far more clout than might be expected from that level of minority. He excuses Obama's courting of the Israel lobby as saying, "That's O.K.. Obama has to play hard ball now".
The Times has endorsed Clinton. In just one issue of that paper two of their columnists support Obama, one supports Hillary, and one seems to like Obama's chances to get the nomination. But that's William Kristol, the mother of all Neo-cons, the wolf in sheep's clothing in his piece today.
The Times has endorsed Clinton. At least their columnists are not marching in lock step.
I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Saturday, February 9, 2008
What The Fix!!
I am heartened and encouraged to read today that a respected poll, if there is such a thing, reports that a lot of people think that the best cure for the economy is to get the hell out of Iraq.
I'm often frustrated by how long it takes for the American people to get it. But as one who struggles with many things in life I shouldn't be amazed. Sometimes the struggles consume us so much that we find ourselves up to our ass in alligators and don't have time to drain the swamp.
Finally, after more years campaigning than governing, talking more than doing, pontificating more than connecting, the candidates are having to deal with that world of reality, coming into that world of personal struggles, and having to tell the folks on Main Street what they will do in office.
It's not to be assumed that the folks on Main Street will be consistently swayed by a candidate who promises a quick fix for his or her problems. That would be selling the American electorate woefully short.
What encourages me about today's news, if a poll qualifies as news, is that most people think that getting out of Iraq is what's needed to solve the problems of the economy.
I'm often frustrated by how long it takes for the American people to get it. But as one who struggles with many things in life I shouldn't be amazed. Sometimes the struggles consume us so much that we find ourselves up to our ass in alligators and don't have time to drain the swamp.
Finally, after more years campaigning than governing, talking more than doing, pontificating more than connecting, the candidates are having to deal with that world of reality, coming into that world of personal struggles, and having to tell the folks on Main Street what they will do in office.
It's not to be assumed that the folks on Main Street will be consistently swayed by a candidate who promises a quick fix for his or her problems. That would be selling the American electorate woefully short.
What encourages me about today's news, if a poll qualifies as news, is that most people think that getting out of Iraq is what's needed to solve the problems of the economy.
The Washington Monthly
The Washington Monthly
I found this Kevin Drum piece interesting. He speculates that Obama might win the Dem nomination only if the super delegates defect from Clinton, thinking they would do better in an Obama administration.
That is of course pure speculation, and who really knows what the super delegates are likely to do.
It seems that super delegates are current and former politicians, elected officials, senators, representatives, governors, and who knows what else. These are people with government credentials who likely want to stay in government, keep their job or find a new one in a new administration.
They can be motivated by any number of things. Some might be exemplary, as in a desire to continue as a public servant, with a genuine and open agenda. Some might be motivated by a wish, even a need, to keep or find another government job.
Many government jobs have great benefits, as in health care available to them, and not to the rest of us. Also, if I remember correctly, government employees do not contribute to Social Security, and so to the extent that their working lives are in government, they will receive reduced, if any, Social Security monthly payments upon retirement. Another retirement program exists for people in government jobs, and it is the interest of government employees to stay in that program or system in order to maximize their retirement benefits.
Clearly the motivation or agenda of so-called super delegates is different from that of the public electorate, made up of millions of us individuals who, on one part of a day, show up at a voting place, vote for someone they believe in , hope he or she wins, and then leave the voting place to return to the challenges of their day.
What interests me is that the awareness of the existence of super delegates has emerged from the shadows of political ignorance on the part of most of us who naively assumed that the will of the voters would determine the choice of the Dem nominee.
Like so many things in politics, the questions are the same; who knew about this and when did they know it? I don't remember it coming up in 2004. Has it only come up because the voters seem to be split almost evenly?
Are there superdelegates on the GOPher side?
Curious minds want to know.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
I found this Kevin Drum piece interesting. He speculates that Obama might win the Dem nomination only if the super delegates defect from Clinton, thinking they would do better in an Obama administration.
That is of course pure speculation, and who really knows what the super delegates are likely to do.
It seems that super delegates are current and former politicians, elected officials, senators, representatives, governors, and who knows what else. These are people with government credentials who likely want to stay in government, keep their job or find a new one in a new administration.
They can be motivated by any number of things. Some might be exemplary, as in a desire to continue as a public servant, with a genuine and open agenda. Some might be motivated by a wish, even a need, to keep or find another government job.
Many government jobs have great benefits, as in health care available to them, and not to the rest of us. Also, if I remember correctly, government employees do not contribute to Social Security, and so to the extent that their working lives are in government, they will receive reduced, if any, Social Security monthly payments upon retirement. Another retirement program exists for people in government jobs, and it is the interest of government employees to stay in that program or system in order to maximize their retirement benefits.
Clearly the motivation or agenda of so-called super delegates is different from that of the public electorate, made up of millions of us individuals who, on one part of a day, show up at a voting place, vote for someone they believe in , hope he or she wins, and then leave the voting place to return to the challenges of their day.
What interests me is that the awareness of the existence of super delegates has emerged from the shadows of political ignorance on the part of most of us who naively assumed that the will of the voters would determine the choice of the Dem nominee.
Like so many things in politics, the questions are the same; who knew about this and when did they know it? I don't remember it coming up in 2004. Has it only come up because the voters seem to be split almost evenly?
Are there superdelegates on the GOPher side?
Curious minds want to know.
Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)