Sheppard Smith?!

Yeah. Actually.

I've always kinda had a special place for Smith because he always struck me as relatively reasonable... at least compared to some of the twits on FOX News. But after this? Special place! In my heart!



<3 <3 <3

This is amazing. And it really exemplifies the absurdity of the debate we are currently having. When a FOX News talking head blows up because someone is attempting to legally weasel around the issue of torture, then the level of absurdity skyrockets.

I can't believe we're even having this discussion and I can't believe the Obama Administration is sitting on their asses about whether or not to prosecute. If ANYTHING deserves prosecution, it's this.

THIS THIS THIS.

This is the official Democratic response to Rush Limbaugh's assertion that he wanted President Obama to fail. A billboard with some snarky comment on it.

But let me just make a quick point here.

I don't always rush (hahah) to Rush's defense...in fact, I cannot think of a single time I have ever done such a thing. But in this instance, I feel as though I should because I heard Limbaugh further explain his comment. And damned if it doesn't make sense.

Limbaugh explained at CPAC that what the President is doing is in every conceivable way fundamentally against every bit of ideology that the Republican Party stands for, and is his and a lot of other people's minds drives this country closer to socialism than we've been to since FDR.

So his counter was "Why would I want that to succeed?" And he has a point.

To make this more clear, let us look at the past eight years. How many of you more liberally minded folk wanted President Bush to crash and burn? To fail at everything he did to the point of shame and hoping for his non-reelection? It's okay, I was with you on that.

Why, then, is it all of a sudden a terrible thing if some conservative talk show host hopes the President fails at what he and many others consider a dangerous and destructive path for this country? That's all I'm asking.

Double standards are for suckas.

The media for the past few days has been crying foul and running rampant over the news that Wall Street CEOs were given something to the extent of 18.4 Billion dollars, which is contended to be tax payers money due to the bailout passed last year. President Obama has gone so far as to call "shameful". Strong words from someone who voted to give them the money.

Here's the thing. Congress voted against what America wanted. I watched C-SPAN during the debate on this issue and time and time again, Representatives and Senators came up and said something to the extent of "I know most of my constitutents don't want this bill, but I feel as though it is in the best interests of the country, so I'm voting for it anyway." Essentially, that 700 billion bailout bill was something Americans, by and large, did not want. We didn't understand it, we didn't like what we heard about it, and in the end, we told our elected representatives to vote against it. And they didn't. Thanks.

Flash forward to the news about the bailout money being blown. Suddenly, Congress is outraged! Suddenly, Congress has decided something it knew would happen happened. Sen. Claire McCatskill, D-MO, went so far as to say bonuses should have been banned in the original bill, as she was wailing against it.

The nerve of the Congress is that they are pointing the blame on Wall Street. Yes. A bill which Americans, by and large didn't want, goes all screwy and suddenly it's not your fault, it's Wall Street's fault for doing business how they do business. Lets be fair too. Wall Street did show restraint. But you wouldn't know it from how crazy go nuts Sen. McCatskill went or how disappointed sounding President Obama sounded. Wall Street cut down their bonuses by over 44% from 2007 to 2008. Which is ironic, because Mayor Bloomberg of New York City contends that is part of the reason there is such a huge gap in the city's budget for this year. Because there is ove 20 billion less in the economy this year than last year.

So in short, stop giving the GOP such shit for not voting for this even more insane bailout bill. I've started reading it. It's crazy. There are lots of zeros. And unless my taxes get cut in half, you can take your billion dollar advanced battery research and $600,000,000 global climate study and shove it (seriously. We determined it's happening. What more do you want? Oh? A six hundred million dollar program to be sure? Oh, okay)

Oh Bill Richardson. Why can't you answer a straight question? Because it's too hard?

On CNN, Former Gov. Bill Richardson was asked after he touted Obama's foreign policy in regards to the war going on in Georgia right now with Russia, if he thought someone as novice as Senator Obama could possibly tackle someone like Vladamir Putin, who has been a giant in Russian politics for over a decade and a former KBG agent.

His only response was something like how Bush doesn't have a good relationship. His point might have been that Obama couldn't be any worse than Bush or McCain, but it came across as an awful dodge. And the reporter tried to pin him again on the question, and Richardson just balked. So he was let off the hook.

Let us hope the debates will have stronger spined moderators.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5504708

I have sooo much disdain for Nancy Pelosi.

Essentially, Pelosi can't answer a question. Here is my paraphrasing...

"Why won't you let offshore drilling come up for a vote?" - George Stephanopoulos

"Because it's not a good tactic or solution." - Nancy Pelosi

"But you have the better arguement, so why not let it come to a vote? " - GS

"Because the oil companies make lots of money." - NP

WHAT?!

Then George asked her if she thought that her prior quotes regarding the minority being allowed to have a voice regarding amendments to bills were contrary to her not allowing a vote on offshore drilling. Her answer was something to the extent of them having to use their imagination on how to bring it up to a vote.

Keep in mind, that the Speaker of the House has the sole choice of allowing bills to come up to a vote in the House.

AND YET SHE ALLOWS EVERY SINGLE IRAQ FUNDING BILL TO COME TO A VOTE IN THE HOUSE WTF?!

Apparently, bad policy is only worth voting on when you know that you will lose. Because Pelosi knows Iraq funding will pass, she allows the vote on the issue, DESPITE being so vehemently opposed to it. Because allowing it to pass allows her to then criticize the GOP for voting for it. Conflicts like Iraq or Viet'nam end when the funding is cut off. But Pelosi has so far refused to block a funding bill from coming to the House for a vote. Yet with offshore drilling, she somehow decides that she block every attempt to bring it up for a vote.

Essentially Pelosi is playing the worst form of politics. She refuses to exercise her power in something so vitally important while exercising it in an issue that the vast majority if Americans supporting, such as more drilling in America.

But she can't stop a military conflict most Americans do not support.

Dear Pelosi. Please get off the fail boat.

This is a banner taken from McCain's own website.

It's funny looking at the few internet banners I've seen from the two presumptive candidates so far. Obama's ads are of him smiling, with that sunrise over America "O" of his, in red white and blue. Kinda nice. This one of McCain's? Kinda...sleazy.

It goes back fear. FEAAAAAR. Patriotism. Or whatever it's called when you refuse diplomacy in hard situations.

But the allegations of appropriateness is simply absurd.



Why, here's plucky young Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein himself!

Or...



Nixon meeting with Mao? Really? That guy was AWFUL. Say what you will of Ahmadinejad, but Mao actually murdered scores of millions of his own people. And we still sat down with him.

And to give a better example of someone who was by default Anti-American...



We have President Kennedy meeting with Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev.

Above and beyond diplomacy with nations which obviously didn't share our human rights values, our political values, or even our economic values, we talked. Not just citizens, like Mr. Rumsfeld when he met Hussein, but Presidents. And with folks such as Ahmadinejad or Kim Jon-Il or Raul Castro, having pre-conditions might not allow for talks. But having talks is more important than fist pounding and saber rattling or whatever overused gimmick word you'd like to use.

As much as Obama is wishy washy in my opinion, at least he can recognize the importance of talking, sitting down and being civilized before rushing to lock and load.

---------------

Speaking of Obama... I was surprised to hear that he disagreed with the Supreme Court's ban on the death penalty for child rapists. Not child killers, child rapists. The Supreme Court struck down the laws in five states which allowed for capital punishment to be used against child rapists, citing 'cruel and unusual punishment' which is forbidden by the US Constitution.

Obama had said he strongly disagreed with the court's decision, citing state rights, which again was odd to me, considering he isn't really that much of a state rights kinda guy.

I had an interesting conversation regarding this last night with Tori. I personally agree with the Supreme Court. Because I'd rather a child rapist go to prison for most or all of their life. Because Lord knows child molesters get treated really really awfully in prison. Guards turn away, and prison justice takes its toll. Which, to me, is far more of a punishment than being killed.

Plus I've maintained an anti-death penalty stance after learning that it costs the state (ie, tax payers) less money to imprison someone for the rest of their life than it does to send them to the electric chair (or gas chamber, or firing squad...) I also personally maintain the strong belief that IF in the unlikely event that someone innocent has been sentenced and found guilty of murder, rape, murder-rape, at least imprisonment can be reversed. You cannot use a necromancer to bring someone back from the dead and say sorry.

Plus, it's less money out of my pocket :D

At least Obama recognized that the death penalty doesn't deter crime, which again leads me to believe that if faced with facts, the man will maybe not change his mind, but at least RECOGNIZE.

A few weeks ago, President Bush gave a speech at the Israeli parliament. He stated that treats to Israeli and America were comparable to that of Nazi Germany, and Hitler, and then he listed Iran, and a few terrorists groups, stating appeasement cannot be used with them.

Now, the problem with this is his comparison with of terrorists groups to a nation state, stating a certain type of diplomacy that Obama suggests, called TALKING WITHOUT ANY PROMISES OF RESOLVE, is somehow appeasement. And this is BAD.

However, Bush also doesn't want people to confuse terrorists with POWs or any type of comparison with a group of people in an armed conflict that might be subject to the Geneva Conventions. In other words, those which would be born from a Nation State in an armed conflict.

-------

Speaking of Obama and his lack of change... ISRAEL... His policy on Israel is essential the same policy as McCain, Bush and every other President SINCE RICHARD NIXON. Give them guns and money. Don't bother to care what it's used for. Support them no matter what. NO. MATTER. WHAT.

Also in Obama's plan is to add 30,000+ Army troops and 20,000 Marine Corps troops to the armed forces. Which would bolster the Pentagon's budget. Which would add more to our military industrial complex. Which is exactly what we don't need right now. We need, you know... downsizing. Thanks a lot.

I won't even go into McCain because that would be you know... hard to stop typing. Because he's pretty much that awful.

I mean, what really really hurts me this election, as it did last election, is that EVERYONE IS DUMB WHO IS RUNNING. The only difference is that Obama, unlike Kerry, can speak well and light up a crowd. He can compose eloquence at a moment's notice. However, he kind of blows in a debate. McCain is a sharper man debate wise. He's more calm and composed. While the policy differences will be fun to watch as the debates play out, it'll be interesting to see if Obama can outdodge tough questions and pointed questions. He's not good with them.

McCain has shittier policy. So we'll see if he can overcome that at all.

I have my doubts.

One of these years, I'm sure I can have an election where there is a candidate I will actually like,

Dear Senate Democrats,

It's not considered a 'victory' just because you got a bunch of Republicans to sign on to adding even more spending to the Iraq spending bill. It's called you failing at doing what you were elected to do, which is to end the war in Iraq.

However, you have continuiously funded the war every step of the way. Even as two Senators vie for the nomination, vowing to end the conflict over there, you still vote for the war. Every time you vote to spend money in Iraq, you are voting for the war, again and again and again. Every time to authorize the Administration to use more and more of our tax dollars over there, you are simply saying that you agree that we should stay there and continue fighting.

Just because you increased Veteran benefits and threw in domestic spending into an 'emergency war funding' bill doesn't make you some big god damned heroes. It makes you exactly like the neo-con wing of the GOP; a bunch of war mongers content with keeping our troops in a fight they should never have been asked to wage.

So Senate Democrats, I hope you feel good about keeping the war machine rolling. I hope you grease your hair with the same grease you've put into the wheels. Thanks for being no different. Thanks for voting for war again. Next time a democrat tell me the democrat party is that of peace, I hope a little part of them laughs inside, knowing it's really not true.