Friday, August 21, 2009

What Digby said..

What Digby said...
But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves.
After 2000, what is it going to take for the Democrats to realize that constantly using their base as a doormat is not a good idea? It only takes a few defections or enough people staying home to make a difference. And there are people on the left who have proven they're willing to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire if they think they don't have to deliver anything at all to their liberal base --- and abandoning the public option, particularly in light of what we already know about the bailouts and the side deals, may be what breaks the bond.
Obama's support in the polls is tanking - among his base. That's me! He and his Wall St finance ministers give the banksters massive bailouts with no controls over further looting. And -- surprise! - they keep looting.

Now we have the Senate Democrats falling all over themselves to try and please Chuck Grassley! Here's an idea, Senate Democrats: stop asking me for money. If you need money, ask your good pal Chuck Grassley. My wallet is closed to you.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Big Hole in Winger Defense of Honduran Military Coup

The right wing blogs are abuzz with the same argument: Zelaya acted illegally in pushing for a referendum to get a 2nd term. (Conservatives reflexively support military coups in Latin America).

Except the referendum would not give him a second term. It was a non-binding referendum to decide on a vote in this November's Presidential election to hold a "National Constituent Assembly" (like a Constitutional Convention)

Yes, the same Presidential election where Zelaya's successor would be elected.

So, how the hell can Zelaya be furthering his stay in office by this referendum? It doesn't make sense. Not plausible.

The wingers are pointing to articles 239 and 42 in the Honduran Constitution. And on the face of it, it seems like a powerful argument. But they refuse to show how this referendum keeps him in power.

Again: He can't run for re-election by the Honduran Constitution and he wouldn't be allowed on the ballot. So, how in blue blazes is he furthering his stay in office?

They cannot and will not address that!

Here's a link to a more lucid argument on articles 239 and 42 (it is creepy how they have replicated this argument so rapidly on the blogosphere):


Wednesday, March 04, 2009

It's the "Republicant Party"

For years, even decades, now Republicans have flaunted their ignorance to flout the Democratic Party by calling it the "Democrat Party". It's bad grammar, it's bad manners and it's a childish thing.

But it does bug many Democrats and lovers of English and civility. We don't have to just take it but we can respond with cutting humor: "The Republicant Party."

There have been some fine pushback as of late. The ever feisty Marcy Kaptur (D-Toledo) took Rep Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) to task for playing the silly name game. She politely and firmly pointed out we don't refer to the Republican Party as the "Republic Party."

Chris Matthews asked Republican Rep Daryl Issa (R-WTF) to "save that for the stump" with the petty name mangling. After Issa's trip to the woodshed, Rep Barney Frank joked he wouldn't hold it against his friend from the "Republicanistical Party."

Others have had fun with ripostes like "Rethugs" and "Repubes" and others. (I've always thought there should be some way to work "Reptilian" in there, as it's very appropriate).

But for my tastes nothing gets the message across like "Republicant Party." Republicant captures the stingy, austere, backward-looking orientation of this party who keeps demanding we follow their economic advice after they ran the country into the ditch.

Whenever I hear "Democrat Party," I will respond with "Republicant Party."

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

A Bipartisan Tale

I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which critter is Republican and which is the Democrat. No prizes.

One day, a traveling scorpion came upon a river that ran wide and swift. He couldn't see any way across, upriver or downriver. The scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation.

He noticed a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over and the scorpion crawled onto the frog's back and the frog slid into the river. The water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the his back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Dear George: Your Presidency is a Warning Beacon for the Ages

There's a neat web site, at, where people can post their heartfelt letters to George Bush. I didn't think I'd have anything to post, but, of course, finally did:

Dear Former President Bush:

I really have little to say to you anymore. It's time to focus on the future and the only thing I care about from you in the future is to resist your inevitable attempts at historical rewrites.

Instead, your Presidency should serve as a warning beacon to future politicians to shun lying the country into war, not to deregulate wildly, to govern by uniting and not dividing, to embrace science over fantasy, to avoid politicizing the Justice Dept (at least), to help the people in their need (Katrina).

If we let you rewrite, gloss over and falsify these last eight years, you turn off the beacon. Your ideological heirs could run us up on the rocks again.

Looking forward, I know you and your operatives will seek to rewrite history to try and etch your false version of events in stone. You're going to find this to be pretty difficult because your record was so bad and those us who had to live through this will not let you succeed at your revisionism.

I do hope you are held to account for the laws you have broken.

I'm very happy our nation is finally free of your reign.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

A national debate about a nation following the law

Glenn Greenwald marshals evidence and logic to show the absurdity of our national debate over investigating, and possibly trying, Bush-Cheney officials for torture. This post has many helpful links for online debate.

Combine press reports of approval of torture techniques at the highest level of government, with US signed and approved treaties binding us to prosecute torture, and it's clear that the law compels us to act.

The default judgment should be that we follow the law and investigate reports of torture. Wouldn't we investigate murder? It speaks poorly of us as a nation that following the law is viewed as a fringe perspective.

We must investigate the torture record and prosecute the wrongdoers.