VIDEO RELEASE: Sometimes Even The Other Party Notices

Republicans Noonan and Murphy Agree that Palin Pick Sucks

Noted conservatives Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught trashing Palin on a hot mic after a segment on NBC.

Noonan: "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Murphy: "The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical."

Watch for yourselves (it starts to get juicy at 42 sec):

The Republicans might appear to be putting up a unified front for the public, but it's now obvious that at least some of them are as shocked and confounded by this pick as we are.

Best Buds: A Story Of Betrayal By A U.S. Senator.

I believe it was Yogi Berra that once said, "When you're part of a team you stand up for your teammates. Your loyalty is to them." I'm not sure Senator Lieberman really knows what loyalty is anymore. He seems to be promiscuously perusing the streets of Washington looking for someone or some group that will embrace him. I think he's found someone:

c

The announcement today that Senator Lieberman will speak at the Republican National Convention only eight years after he received the Democratic VP nomination is a bit troubling and perhaps telling of his character and motivations. Depending on the number of Senate seats that we pick up in November there has to be serious talk about moving this individual's office to the capitol dumpster and then going to bat against him in 2012.

Why I'm (not) Voting Republican

Here's hoping I remember how to embed YouTubes properly...

www.ImVotingRepublican.com

Also, register to vote! Just follow the link in the right hand bar!

In case you didn't believe in karma...

Today it emerged that Christopher Ward, a former treasurer of the National Republican Congressional Committee, embezzled $725,000 and covered for it by faking five years' worth of audit reports. It took until January for some bright person on the audit committee to notice that there had not, in fact, been any audits. The Times reports that "an external audit has finally been performed" (emphasis is mine, but I hear that sighing italicized tone in my head when I read that sentence, and I thought I'd share), the results of which were released today. Oops!

Maybe now they'll finally realize that aimless deregulation isn't always the best policy.

Spread the Word - with Jarret!

Republicans Vote Against Motherhood (Apple Pie Next on Agenda)

This is just too good. The Republicans, led by the Congressman I have the privilege of voting against every two years, Todd Tiahrt, voted against mothers. Not only that, they also voted for it before they voted against it:

It was already shaping up to be a difficult year for congressional Republicans. Now, on the cusp of Mother's Day, comes this: A majority of the House GOP has voted against motherhood.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.

It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard.

Things are getting desperate down there in the Republican caucus, it seems, because people are losing it. And if voting against Mother's Day to stall for time wasn't enough, this is perhaps even more pathetic:

...after one of the motions to adjourn, 61 members lined up to change their votes, one by one. Forty-six went from aye to no, while 15 changed from no to aye. The maneuver ate up 28 minutes in all -- and caused an eruption by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who accused the minority of a "filibuster by vote changing." 

Right now this sort of thing is an annoyance, sure, but in the long run it's a recipe for self-destruction. Todd Tiahrt faces a credible opponent in the 2008 election (one who I'll probably volunteer for this summer), and I don't think that this vote is going to help him any--not just the vote in itself, but the whole debacle gives Democrats an incredibly useful way to frame Republican obstructionism. 

deceptacon

so last night sometime this morning, as i was preparing for bed, my eyes happened upon a little-read development that negatively effects more than half of the united states. the title of the article says it all: "senate republicans block unequal pay bill." and i was so furious, so OUTRAGED, that i had to put on some le tigre to get in the mood to break shit---namely, the backs of every republican (and democratic) senator who voted to enshrine unequal pay for equal work.

 even more grating? the article is nowhere to be seen on cnn's politics page, even though it was published yesterday. (articles on tuesday's primary are still up.) the new york times didn't cover it, though they did write about barack obama's abercrombie boys. for what it's worth, the washington post did publish an article, and it's on the main page.

the point? gender discrimination is so rarely talked about. and it's so omnipresent.

i decided to search for videos tagged as "feminist" on youtube, and i found a pro-feminist video entitled "this is what a feminist looks like." and then i read the comments. 

IndianObserver writes,

Something Must Be Wrong With Me...

Because I'm agreeing with "The American Conservative" magazine.  Their January 2008 cover:

The article, Declaring Forever War is an interesting analysis of Rudy's advisers.  It points out the extremely troubling fact that Rudy's foreign policy could be even worse than Dubya's.  Bush came in with virtually no views on foreign policy and was won over by the neocons, over other, more sensible advisers such as Colin Powell.  Rudy, on the other hand, is starting out with a strong neocon outlook, and has surrounded himself with even more extreme advisers.

As fun as it would have been to destroy this guy in the general election, I've gotta be happy for his recent drop in the polls and all-but-insignificance in the early primary states, because he's gotten far too close to the White House already.

How we ended up with the Republicans' FISA bill

Everybody pretty much guessed that the White House put out a bunch of really scary, frightening 'intelligence' to try and manipulate the Democrats who are still (ridiculously) afraid that if they don't give the White House unlimited power, they'll be blamed for a future terrorist attack.

Today's NY Times article confirms that that's what happened:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — At a closed-door briefing in mid-July, senior intelligence officials startled lawmakers with some troubling news. American eavesdroppers were collecting just 25 percent of the foreign-based communications they had been receiving a few months earlier.

Congress needed to act quickly, intelligence officials said, to repair a dangerous situation.

Some lawmakers were alarmed. Others, jaded by past intelligence warnings, were skeptical.

The report helped set off a furious legislative rush last week that, improbably, broadened the administration’s authority to wiretap terrorism suspects without court oversight.

...

“There was an intentional manipulation of the facts to get this legislation through,” said Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat on the Intelligence Committee who voted against the plan.

The White House, Mr. Feingold said Friday in an interview, “has identified the one major remaining weakness in the Democratic Party, and that’s its unwillingness to stand up to the administration when it’s making a power grab regarding terrorism and national security.”

...

Democratic leaders did not demand that the security agency seek individual court warrants for eavesdropping. But they did want the court to review and approve the agency procedures soon after surveillance began.

The administration, however, wanted the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to approve the surveillance, with the court weighing in just to certify that no abuses occurred, and only long after the surveillance had been conducted.

The talks intensified in the days before the recess last weekend, highlighted by proposals and counterproposals in calls between Mr. McConnell and the Democratic leadership.

By Aug. 2, the two sides seemed relatively close to a deal. Mr. McConnell had agreed to some increased role for the secret court, a step that the administration considered a major concession, the White House and Congressional leaders said.

But that night, the talks broke down. With time running out, the Senate approved a Republican bill that omitted the stronger court oversight. The next day, the House passed the bill.

If the White House was really so concerned about this gap in the FISA law, they should've been sharing this intelligence consistently instead of doling it out in driblets, and only the bits likely to get the Democrats to do what they want. Any Democrat in Congress who honestly thinks that this was an emergency that just happened to come up right before the August recess doesn't deserve to be in the Congress.

It isn't the Democrats that were endangering national security, it was Republicans who were willing to risk the non-passage of changes to the FISA bill that both sides agreed were necessary, for the sake of grabbing more power for the President.

And tell me, how in the hell did these Democrats decide that it was a good idea to give oversight privileges to Alberto Gonzales, instead of a court?

The Democrats that voted to continue Bush's reign of fear were played for fools. And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid showed a distinct lack of leadership. If they'd wanted to, they could've stopped this; but obviously the continuing erosion of our Constitutional rights wasn't a big enough deal to inconvenience anyone with.

Gyah.

Kansas' Grand Old Politburo

I thought I'd just add a comment on the hilarious news out of the Kansas Republic Politburo, err, Party. A lot of people that would otherwise probably be Democrats have signed on with the Republicans because for a long time the Republicans have been the only show in town; when you're almost sure that the Republicans are going to be the ones dispensing jobs and patronage, it makes sense to be on the winning team, whether or not your beliefs actually line up.

Kathleen Sebelius's election was facilitated by a split between moderates and hard-liners during the Republican primary. Now that Sebelius is one of the most popular governors in the country, and now that she's easily won re-election,  the Republicans aren't looking like the only show in town anymore. 

Obviously the move to shun Republicans who support Democrats is intended to keep people on the reservation, but I think it'll probably backfire and have the opposite effect. More Democrats are being elected at all level--we also kicked out Phill Kline, who used the Kansas AG's office to harass innocent women.

Not only did Nancy Boyda (whose been great so far this Congressional term, by the way) win an encouraging victory, but Todd Tiahrt, the Congressman for the Wichita area, is more vulnerable than he gets credit for.

In the last election, a no-name with no credentials and no campaign ended up with about 35% of the vote. It shouldn't be impossible to get that next 16% with a real candidate, plus an organization on the ground. Places like Wichita are where the 'Fifty State Strategy' can pay off, and of course it did pay off in Topeka/Lawrence in 2006. 

The Topeka Catch-22

This story should probably be Sam's turf, but I can't resist. Apparently the Kansas Republican Party, which is in tremendous electoral pain (not only is Kathleen Sebelius one of the best Democratic governors in the country, but they unexpectedly lost Jim Ryun in the '06 landslide and their moderates are jumping like rats from a sinking ship), has gone Soviet:

The state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

The GOP's conservative-dominated state committee also is accusing a prominent moderate of trying to undermine the party's fundraising. It has adopted a resolution criticizing Steve Cloud, a Lenexa businessman and former legislator who represents Kansas on the Republican National Committee. [...]

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

[political scientist Bob] Beatty said forming such a committee could be seen as an attempt to purge moderates from the party -- something Kobach said isn't true.

But Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

Now, leaving aside the hilarious image of the Kansas Republican Party having a "grand high inquisitor", there's a lesson here on the position of today's conservative politics. From the left, Kos laughs at how obviously they're shooting themselves in the foot:

I won't pretend to be distressed at the Kansas GOP's abandonment of the moderate center. I think it's fantastic -- their rightward tilt has had an objectively negative impact on their electoral viability (unlike our own efforts to create a strong, proud, and unified Democratic Party).

One word of advice, though -- skip the creepy loyalty oaths and stick to the democratic process -- elections. It makes for much better optics and really, it's the right thing to do.

And then keep ousting your moderates until you deliver to us Democrats your state on a platter.

But over on the right wing, at RedState, diarist MartinAKnights points out quite rightly that having moderates doesn't really seem to help them either:

"Moderate" and/or Rockefeller Republicans (I exclude proper Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and William Weld) may win elections here and there, but at the end of the day, they are basically slow acting poison...

It is extremely rare to find a Rockefeller Republican as either an elected or party official who leaves office with the party in his district or state stronger than when he/she met it. It is far more common to find the exact opposite, e.g. Bob Taft in OH, George Pataki in NY, Christie Whitman in NJ. I have looked for instances where it is proven otherwise but those instances are very few and far between. In fact, in recent times, the immediate after-effect of electing a "moderate" Republican into any public office is an increase in Democratic strength in the area affected.

Witness Kansas - a state which has long had a traditional strong preference to the Republican Party; the state GOP long ago decided to cater to "moderates", in the process essentially violating post-Watergate Reagan's admonition that a party must have certain principles and beliefs that must remain inviolate. Worse is that after having crippled the GOP by basically cutting it free of its philosophical moorings and rendering it without purpose or direction, these "moderates" are switching over to the Democrats i.e. the Kansas Republican Party State Chairman from 1999 to 2003 switched parties (to Democrat) last year.

Let's be honest; how often do "moderate" Republicans have coat-tails? How many actually hand over to another Republican after their terms are over? Usually they hand over to a Democrat (often they do so more gladly than they would have to another Republican) because during their terms they would have conceded so much of the basic premises that define what it means to be a Republican that they basically render the average Republican unelectable for being "extreme." i.e. does anybody honestly believe that any Republican would be able to win a statewide race in CA for a long while after Arnold steps down?

This is one of the reasons why I have become convinced that allowing Republican "moderates" to achieve high positions in the GOP is basically slitting our own throats, trading in short-term gain (if any) for very long-term pain. To be blunt, I personally consider Christie Todd Whitman's (who ironically won her first Governor's race in New Jersey by running as a strong fiscal, law and order conservative) particular off-shoot of Republicanism to be akin to streptococcus on the body of the GOP. It's basically guaranteeing sabotage from within until the Jeffords' moment when they switch.

(Frontpager Erick concurs with a post wonderfully titled "Snakes in the Kansas Grass".) This is all, frankly, true; while of course I despise everything the RedStaters believe, I quite agree that their party (like ours) requires a clear and vigorous message in order to win. It's political common sense.

Problem being, that message sucks. These days, with resentment of Republicans and conservatism at all-time highs, you have to have a hell of a song-and-dance routine in order to make these ridiculous ideas look palatable, and right now that means showing your moderate side. So the Kansas GOP, like its compatriots across the country, is in what I propose to call the Topeka Catch-22: either they stick to their beliefs and look psycho, or they compromise their beliefs and look weak and gutless. Neither of these situations, one might add, is particularly conducive to winning elections.

...This problem is going to break national as the GOP primaries heat up; we're already seeing cries of "Real Conservative!" behind pretty much everyone that isn't Rudy Giuliani, and if the right can coalesce around someone to focus their rage on him, LOOK OUT. For decades, and especially post-Gingrich, this festering rage between far-right fundies and pragmatic Republican "moderates" has been more or less hidden because their coalition worked politically; but apparently it doesn't play in Peoria anymore, and from there it's only a couple steps to outright GOP cannibalism. (Which, considering how conservative the party is anyway, amounts to a snake eating its own tail, but whatever.)

This can only mean good things for Democrats; plus, intellectually it'll be interesting to watch this paradox play out. As they often say in the pages of RedState when our party is infighting: folks, get the popcorn.

Communiqué from Planet Zoot

Beep-zip! This is cjm13, beaming down from Planet Zoot! Just wanted to let you know that, up here, Iraq's political leaders are the only people in Iraq! And the ordinary people in Iraq are made out of rock candy!

Broop! cjm13 out!

Frank Rich tears the GOP a new one

Frank Rich's latest column in the times is great. I haven't been a huge fan in the past, but this is making me a believer. This caught my eye, but read the whole thing.

"By my rough, conservative calculation — feel free to add — there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. I am not counting State, whose deputy secretary, a champion of abstinence-based international AIDS funding, resigned last month in a prostitution scandal, or the General Services Administration, now being investigated for possibly steering federal favors to Republican Congressional candidates in 2006. Or the Office of Management and Budget, whose chief procurement officer was sentenced to prison in the Abramoff fallout. I will, however, toss in a figure that reveals the sheer depth of the overall malfeasance: no fewer than four inspectors general, the official watchdogs charged with investigating improprieties in each department, are themselves under investigation simultaneously — an all-time record."

(http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/opinion/13rich.html)

The flying spaghetti monster is going to be EXCITED

Finally, people are warming up to His speaking truth to power.