Stop Social Security Privatization! Bush and the House GOP are warming up to privatize social security and gamble your retirement with their Wall Street Cronies. Sign the Pledge to Protect Social Security! Get this ad for your site. Paid for by the DCCC.

Monday, November 28, 2005



For those who were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief when Scooter Libby got indicted, and Judy Miller was virtually forced out of her job at the New York Times, along comes Bob "Watergate" Woodward, and the revelations of more people involved in the leaking of and uncovering of an undercover CIA Agent.

Karl Rove thought he was soooo off the hook in this matter, he went right back to his old dirty tricks (this time, attempting to slime a highly respected, 37-year Marine Veteran, Democratic war hawk member of Congress, because he said the Iraq war was tanking and America needed to get out.) However, all Rove's machinations did was ensure that the spotlight would stay on his horses' rear end, and that Americans wouldn't forget what's happened; nor would they become distracted with other incidents that the Bush Administration tried to throw at us.

Now, House members are not safe in going to Iraq to see what's going on. As of this writing, it was reported on CNN late last night that two House members, one who is Ike Skelton, was injured when their vehicle was forced into a game of "Chicken" with an insurgent vehicle. Still think the war was worth it? Still think it was worth it to out Valerie Plame, just to embarass her husband, Joe Wilson, who dared to tell the truth about this Administration wanting a was so badly, they were willing to lie to the American people about it? Or better yet, the suspicion of wanting a war so badly, that 9/11 could have been prevented, but wasn't, because this Administration could garner up more sympathy from frightened Americans, by tying Saddam into Osama's attack?

Apparently, Pat Fitzgerald doesn't think it was worth it. And the Bush Adminstration thought they had another partisan hack lackey, who would roll over, rubber-stamp the fabricated explanations from this Administration, and life goes on, as usual. Unfortunately, for GeeDubya, they overplayed their hand and picked the wrong man. For the rest of us long-suffering Americans, Pat Fitzgerald has really become Santa Claus, and the Plamegate affair is probably going to be the gift that keeps on giving.

Hopefully, the gift will keep giving until January 21, 2009, if not sooner.

Sunday, November 27, 2005



Thursday, November 24, 2005


So while I'm recovering from stuffing my face and being thankful about family and friends whom I love, and being in their company while adding another five pounds I don't need, my "cousins" in Memphis sent me the Gadflyer column for entertainment.

As I sat down to read, the one thought I had was to be thankful that everyone's drying up from continual drunkenness off the GOP grog. I am thankful that this Nation is waking up from it's fear-induced stupor and see the Bush Administration for what they are and who they are. Most of all, I am thankful for the fact that going into the 2006 mid-year elections, a good deal of Congress Critters are seeing the light that they will have to flip their scripts or become unemployed in 2006.

The Gadflyer says: "The events of the past week in the U.S. House of Representatives have been rather dramatic. When Congressman John Murtha, from my old home territory of Western Pennsylvania, called for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq “at the earliest practicable date,” it set off a tidal wave in Washington. This wasn't, after all, a wild-eyed liberal, like Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who had previously called for a timetable for withdrawal. This was a blue collar Democrat, with a history of supporting the Pentagon in all of its warmongering activities, including increasing defense budgets, new weapons systems, “star wars” missile defense, and other pet projects so dear to defense hawks. Lest his conservative bona fides be questioned, he even offered a resolution this year seeking an amendment to the Constitution to allow voluntary prayer in public schools.

While it isn't clear whether or not Murtha was an independent contractor in launching his broadside attack, or just the canary in the mine for the Democrat caucus in the House, testing the to see whether there might be support for a rapidly-phased withdrawal, it is clear that Murtha's announcement caught a number of folks by surprise, mostly the members of his own party. Not, however, the members of the majority, who quickly figured out a way to relegate Murtha's proposal to parliamentary oblivion. Murtha's resolution was quickly referred to a committee so it couldn't be promptly considered or voted on by the House.

But the republicans' simultaneously presented their own version of the Murtha resolution, considerably abbreviated from the one Murtha submitted, and notably lacking the qualifying language “at the earliest practicable date,” of Murtha's resolution, substituting instead the word “immediately.” Here's what the GOP resolution says:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

This resolution was submitted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, whose finest moment was undoubtedly when, at a press conference, he served (literally) examples of the culinary delights the prisoners at Guantanamo were being served to contradict the by-then ubiquitous assertions that those prisoners were being abused.

The Republican resolution put the issue in the starkest terms, and eliminated not only the important qualifier on Murtha's resolution (“at the earliest practicable date”), but also eliminated a detailed preamble Murtha had placed in his version which recited all the reasons he had listed during his press conference for his belief it was time for American forces to leave Iraq (e.g., no progress, 2,079 deaths, G.I.'s the target of insurgents, $277 billion appropriated, etc.).

Murtha's resolution reflected the reasoning that had already been expressed by military intelligence experts for prompt withdrawal, and also served to further debunk the notion that withdrawal should be conditioned on the state of preparedness of the Iraqi army, an illusory goal, according to the authoritative piece by James Fallows in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly. And let's not forget that the majority of Americans now favor a short-term withdrawal from Iraq:

But the Republicans couldn't be bothered with such details. They wanted to put the question, down and dirty, to the House, knowing that, reworded as it was, there was no way their resolution would pass, and even more importantly, that they could avoid a debate on the war that wasn't based on phony jingo-patriotism (the American equivalent of “Islamo-fascism”), which is precisely what the “debate” that ensued on the House floor degenerated into.

In other words, the Republicans really weren't interested in debating the wisdom of a withdrawal on the terms, or for the reasons, Murtha suggested; they wanted to rub Murtha's face in the very idea of withdrawing troops at all, in essence saying to the Democrats, “so you want withdrawal, do you; well, we'll give you withdrawal,” or as Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee put it:

Since they [Democrats] have been wanting it [debate], we're going to have it. They're going to take the heat and take the debate.

The same resolution which shoved Murtha's resolution off the House agenda also placed the substitute resolution on that agenda for immediate debate, without the necessity for committee action, one of the privileges of majority rule. The Democrats, realizing they had been outflanked, vociferously protested the substitution of the Republican resolution for Murtha's. “Give us a real debate, don't bring this piece of garbage to the floor,” said Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts.

And, of course, the flashpoint of the debate came when Rep. Jean Schmidt (they don't call her “mean Jean” for nothing) made her now-infamous statement accusing Murtha of being a cut and run coward. Which, to his credit, caused my congressman, Harold Ford, Jr., according to the account in the New York Times, to “charge across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.” Unwarranted! Not exactly “give me liberty or give me death,” but a fighting word nonetheless.

A different account of Ford's outburst appeared in the Washington Times: "Say it to Murtha," Mr. Ford supposedly shouted at Rep. Tancredo while he [Ford] was being restrained by other members. Ford also, by some accounts, supposedly menacingly jabbed a finger at Tancredo during their confrontation, coming dangerously close to kicking some Republican butt (now, that would have been worth the price of basic cable C-Span). Ford, in spite of his willingness to storm the Republican ramparts in support of his fellow congressman, wasn't willing to support him in a much more important way---by co-sponsoring the bill, which 13 of his Democrat colleagues, including Reps. Rangel, Jackson-Lee and the outspoken Rep. McGovern (see above), found the kojones to do. Putting his vote where his mouth was apparently didn't interest Mr. Ford.

And as if to emphasize the point, here's how Congressman “Finger Jabber” Ford, characterized the discussion on the House floor during his appearance on “Hardball:”

The Murtha, or should I say the withdrawal, resolution that J.D. [Hayworth]was a part of bringing was the first time in more than three years that we‘ve had an open, honest and essential debate about Iraq.

Open and honest? Debate? Oh really, Mr. Ford? I guess, despite your theatrics, that scamming the congress into considering a resolution that was not Murtha's in an effort to discredit the resolution that was his, and thereby evading the discussion of a responsible “exit strategy,” was your idea of “open and honest.”

To show how “open and honest” the debate was, J.D. Hayworth, Ford's Republican counterpart on “Hardball,” during his remarks in the well of the house floor displayed the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post from that day (November 18th), both of which led with headlines that characterized Murtha's announcement as calling for “immediate” withdrawal. That the MSM got it wrong is one thing (we're used to that), but the fact that Hayworth didn't have the integrity to refer to the actual wording of the Murtha resolution speaks for itself. (I'm convinced Hayworth and Schmidt have their hair wrapped too tightly---have you seen their “do's”---and that's what makes them so bitter).

Ford's remark may be why one of Matthews' other guests on the program, Stuart Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report, said of Ford's appearance:

T]hey [Democrats) are divided. When you listen to Harold Ford and compare that to Ted Kennedy or something, how many parties do we have here? Their problem is that they don‘t have a single message.

And pay attention to the following, because it accurately diagnosed why the Democrats continue to get handed their lunch by the Thuglican Party:

"Ford 's statement undercut his party's righteous position on the Murtha withdrawal proposal, and worse, contradicted his party's leaders on the floor, none of whom wanted a bogus debate on the bogus Hunter resolution."

Nonetheless, when it came time for a vote, only three of the over 400 who voted on the Hunter resolution voted in its favor. The rest of the Democrats ran for cover, fearing that in the war against un-patriotism being waged so much more successfully by the GOP than the war against terror, they would be the victims, when they could (and should) have maintained their righteousness on the Murtha proposal and refused to vote at all on Hunter's. Six representatives (including New York's Jerry Nadler) did precisely that, bless their hearts (as we say down here).

I can guarantee you that McKinney, Nadler and Wexler are going to catch hell from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for that one.

Sadly, as fractious and fractionated as the Republicans have become, as low as the president's poll numbers may be (or may be likely to go), and as graphic as the picture of the party in power's corruption is becoming, the Democrats still haven't figured out how to capitalize on their adversaries' weaknesses. And if Rep. Ford's performance on “Hardball,” is any indication, they won't be ready to do so until they've figured out how to minimize their own.

I couldn't agree with the author any more than I have. So, I'm particularly thankful to give the hat tip to Marty Aussenberg, aka "The Gadflyer".

Tuesday, November 22, 2005



I honestly thought that Nancy Pelosi would make a better Minority Leader than Harold Ford. I remember how critics ripped Ford for daring to challenge her for the position because at the time, it was thought that the Tennessee Congressman hadn't paid his dues.

Well, that's true, but in days of late, Ms. Pelosi is not showing me anything either, as Minority Leader. While she may put wayward members on an embarrasing "shout-out" about voting against social programs, or legislation like the BK bill, she is also facilitating and encouraging unanimity on issues that serve to further weaken the Democrats's position as the opposition party.

The failure of the Democrats to support Rep. Jack Murtha's call on withdrawal from Iraq is egregious and one that the GOP will surely spin to their advantage in the 2006 elections. While I may detest how the GOP operates, the reality is, those thugs know how to unite when engaging in battle. Detractors are PUNISHED (as in stripped of committee assignments, or not given any campaign cash from the coiffers when they are needed).

Pelosi has facilitated the Democratic strategy of "shoot down your own man" and it cannot help the party; most likely it hands the GOP another weapon of mass destruction to use against them.

She's drinking too much of DLC Kool-Aid. Additionally, she's into punishing those in the party who would oppose her on moral and ethical grounds, such as Representative Cynthia McKinney. While McKinney is a five-term Representative, she is treated like a freshman and Pelosi will not restore her previous seniority she had before her rigged defeat against Denise Majette in 2002. What she's punishing McKinney for is her attendance at the Katrina hearings. Pelosi believes those hearings are a GOP stunt and has ordered the Democratic side not to participate.

McKinney, on the other hand, while she's aware of the GOP's penchant for posturing, she also knows it's best to be in the presence of the enemy, so you can know what's the next move. If the GOP pulls something to outflank the Democrats on the Katrina response, McKinney will be able to warn the Caucus before they are caught off-guard.
Pelosi shows her appreciation by continuing to isolate McKinney every chance she gets. I think she would engage in this against my rep, Barbara Lee, but since Lee and Pelosi are both from Northern Cal, she couldn't get away with such tactics; the leftists in Oakland and Berkeley would be gunning for her like the NRA goes gunning for anyone threatening the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

So my question is this: would Harold Ford been a better choice for Minority Leader? Probably not, because his basic reason for wanting the post was to elevate his stature on the National Level in positioning his Senate run. He would probably have engaged in the same strategies as Pelosi, with the same "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" results, courtesy of the DLC.

No, the only difference between Ford and Pelosi is; Ford was open about his ambition, which is the only factor of his character that I can respect, even though I don't like it. Pelosi, on the other hand, has engaged in her own form of Bait and Switch, and that I like even less than an overly-ambitious, self-seeking capricious Senate candidate.

Has San Franciscans been sold a false bill of goods with Nancy Pelosi?



CNN is apparently crying for help. For what, we're not sure, since they have aided and abetted this Administration by not doing what they were supposed to do as bonafied MSM - report the news without bias or prejudice.

This ship has beached itself and compromised its' reputation since Ted Turner left. Back in the day, when he was running things, if it was reported on CNN, you knew it was not only newsworthy, but true, and the journalists were real journalists.

Someone in the newsroom apparently had a flashback of those days. Which probably accounts for that "X" across Cheney's face, instead of that lame spin of explanation they are trying to pass off on us like we're plants that need to be fed in the dark.

Personally, that "X" is lame. I was hoping for the horns coming out of Cheney's forehead, because everytime I see the man, he gives me the sense I'm seeing Satan in the flesh...

Monday, November 21, 2005


DEVOLUTION, ya think?

The "prophet" Rev. Jim Jones, had a sign above the camp at Jonestown that read:


How well we unlearned the lessons of Watergate. Bob Woodward unlearned them so well that he allowed himself to become a willing co-conspirator in the outing of CIA Undercover Agent Valerie Plame Wilson. And if you've read the Washington Post, that paper shoved away any last vestiges of credibility by their clumsy attempts to continue trying to sell the Mess'o'Potmia which is the Iraq war, and excuse Woodward's act of treason.

Not that the journalistic troll, Robert Novak is off the hook - he was just the only, ahem, journalist, idiotic enough to take the bait of outing a CIA undercover agent to help the Bush Administration in it's smear and discredit campaign against her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Simply because he told the truth.

So we should not be surprised that Bush is devolving into the ghost of Richard Milhous "Tricky Dick" Nixon, with the quest for dominance and lies spread so thick that you can't help but walk in Bush's path and effectively STEP IN IT.

Nixon = Watergate.
Bush = Iraq War.

The quack preacher who led 900 people to their deaths in Jonestown back in 1978 had no idea how prophetic his words would be almost 30 years later. The difference is: we're not following Bush like sheeple.

So, let the devolution begin. Hopefully, Americans will have our country back when it's over.

Thursday, November 17, 2005


If you heard excerpts from Dick Cheney's speech where he's basically telling Americans that to question the President's handling of Iraq is basically "irresponsible", you may have missed him telling you the same thing he told Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont earlier this year.

Cheney basically told Americans to do the same thing he told Sen. Leahy.

When "Christians" start telling people to go and f--- themselves, that kind of talk make me want to challenge Cheney to make me do that thing. Knowing doggone well that he can't.

Read more about Cheney's rant here :

We know Bush is losing it. But when Cheney starts down the same shame spiral, we need to tell him what he's just told America with that speech.

In the nicest way possible, of course.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005



"9th District U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., one of two Democratic candidates for the Senate, threw down the gauntlet this week to “all” his opponents, challenging them to “declare publicly how they would vote on the federal budget bill before Congress.”

Ford’s challenge stands in some contrast to his position last spring when his only declared Democratic rival, state Senator Rosalind Kurita of Clarksville, sharply criticized the congressman for not being on hand to vote on a prior budget measure favored by the Bush administration.

At the time of that budget vote, Rep. Ford was on a campaign swing through Tennessee and was attending state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh’s annual “Coon Supper” in Covington.

In the news release which conveyed his current challenge, the congressman took the administration’s latest budget proposal to task on several grounds – including cuts in Medicaid, in educational support funds, and in food stamps..."

Rep. Ford is engaging in triangulation again. It would be worth something if he were good at it.

Before he throws out challenges to his opponents for that Senate seat, I'd like to recommend that he get his own house in order. Like explaining why he was conveniently absent from voting on the Federal Budget last year because he was slurping down a plate of racoon at Jimmy Naifeh's "Coon Supper".

As I said before, no self-respecting African-American goes to any event that makes a reference to "coon"; especially if they know their history of African-Americans and racial epithets. Additionally, I'd like to know how he feels about his good friend, Don Imus, refusing to refer to African-Americans as African-Americans. To me, that's saying the I-Man is looking for a way to use the N-word and not get penalized by the FCC.

Or challenged on it by the representative of Memphis' 9th District. So, Rep. Ford,
pick up that gauntlet and get your own house in order before you start challenging your opponents to clean their houses. You're not ready to take that licking and keep on tickin' like Timex when you don't.

Monday, November 14, 2005



Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele just doesn't seem to get it.

First, African-Americans are supposed to be so dang happy he's in the job, while he stands up and supports policies to shaft the same group of African-Americans in the you-know-what.

Then, when African-Americans calls him on his stuff as blogger Steve Gillard did, he gets Governor Bob Ehrlich to call those who dare to criticize Steele, racist. Even GOP Wanker Ken Mehlman has picked up on this diatribe.

Don Imus decides he doesn't want to call African-Americans, well, AFRICAN-AMERICANS anymore. He's wondering how to find ways to call African-Americans the N-word and hopes no one will notice.

Wonder how Harold Ford, Jr., feels about the I-Man really wanting to call him the "N-Word."

The Black Commentator says it best: "When white folks have the final say on what is and is not racist, we are in deep trouble. And when whites are allowed to referee an intra-Black argument, the cuckoo has flown."

If Michael Steele wants to be taken seriously, he needs to quit being a victim, and start fighting his own battles, instead of hiding behind the GOP's hoods. Otherwise, as long as he wants to tote water for a group that would as soon lynch him rather than praise him, he needs to drink his glass of STHU and quit picking fights with bloggers like Steve Gillard, because he can't win.

MARYLAND: Is this who you want as your next U. S. Senator? A man who is too weak to fight his own battles?

Thursday, November 10, 2005


This is how Bush should be feeling right now. That is, if the bubble has burst.

It's been a long week. But there have been some noticeable indications that people are sobering up off that Kool-Aid they have been swilling for five years.

Democrats retained the Governor's Mansions in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Boobengrabber got terminated; or rather, his initiatives did. Must be because Californians told him time and time again, they didn't want a special election that cost $70 million dollars that the state doesn't have.

Bush turned into Kryptonite for Jerry Kilgore. And you know things are bad when Senator Wingnut "Lil' Ricky" Santorum, is not willing to be seen with him.

Maybe the tide is finally turning, but Democrats shouldn't rest on their laurels, says the Rude Pundit.

Finish this party, then we can tackle the DLC.

Monday, November 07, 2005



So he says in today's Washington Times, a rag I don't really read, but the headlines caught my attention.

As far as I'm concerned, the Lt. Governor of Maryland is so drunk on the Thug life kool-aid, any African-American who dares to criticize his affiliations (especially if those he affiliates with have demonstrated more than openly, their contempt for people of color, and his failure to condemn those attitudes)is WRONG for criticizing him.

The Black Commentator has already discussed the harm that failing to hold elected Black leaders accountable has, and continues to have.
Michael Steele can't take the heat and needs to get out of the kitchen before he makes a bigger Stepin' Fechit fool of himself than he already has.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005



The following is an excerpt from Buzz Flash:

"...It's hard to imagine how the Democratic leadership in Congress also gets diverted and loses their sense of context, along with the media, but they do. Except for some outspoken members of the House and a couple of senators, the Democratic leadership still enables Bush and makes him appear legitimate, despite the fact that he, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove are a continuing threat to the national security of our nation and to our own personal lives. That is because the Busheviks are hideous failures at virtually everything they undertake, except enriching the already wealthy. They haven't conducted a war on terror; they've conducted a propaganda war. It is the only thing that they do half efficiently..."

If there was ever a time Congress and Americans need to pay attention, it's now. Considering the past week Bush had, this was not a time to rest on one's laurels about how he was down and defeated.

Down. But not out.

How dare we allow Karl Rove to besmirch Stella (Terry McMillan's heroine) by getting his grove back in the form of the spin and using the weapons of mass distraction in the form of Harriet Miers' withdrawal, Rosa Parks' memorial and the announcement of a new nominee who has the approval of the Religious Reich-Wing?

We need to stay focused on the lies perpetrated by this Administration, and the treason it engages in on a daily basis. Our very lives depend on it.