Succinct, wouldn't you agree:
"Republican Operative on Maliki’s statement: 'We’re f*&ked'”
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Post Race
Eric Wattree's diary is a must read:
"The raging controversy over Barack Obama addressing the issue of irresponsible fathers in the Black community, clearly demonstrates that many of the old-school thinkers in the community are living in a time warp. We now have a Black man who is very likely to be the next President of the United States, yet there are those in the community who want him to keep quiet about the fact that we have soiled toilet paper hanging from our inaugural tux. Instead of saying, 'Thanks, let me clean up my act', they're saying, 'Why are you picking on me–I saw a White boy with do-do on him too–why didn't you say something to him?'"
"The raging controversy over Barack Obama addressing the issue of irresponsible fathers in the Black community, clearly demonstrates that many of the old-school thinkers in the community are living in a time warp. We now have a Black man who is very likely to be the next President of the United States, yet there are those in the community who want him to keep quiet about the fact that we have soiled toilet paper hanging from our inaugural tux. Instead of saying, 'Thanks, let me clean up my act', they're saying, 'Why are you picking on me–I saw a White boy with do-do on him too–why didn't you say something to him?'"
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Hillaristas: The Art of Taking Your Ball, and Going Home, or Holding your Country Hostage So That You Can Have Your Way
Christ...here it comes:
"The names of some Hillraiser holdouts will not come as a surprise to those who follow the Democratic money chase. Susie Tompkins Buell, Lynn Forester and Jill Iscol were each cited in background interviews as the key financial workhorses who have yet to start pulling for Obama. In separate conversations with The Huffington Post, the three major donors each described their respective sources of discontent, and talked about what, if anything, can still be done to change their minds.
One area agreement among them, however, rang out loud and clear: the vice presidency should go to Clinton. (Indeed, Iscol already made news earlier this week when she related details of a phone conversation with Obama, in which he appeared to include Clinton on his VP shortlist, to the LA Times.)"
I realize, of course, that they have the right to vote for with their checkbooks, but I would like to think they'd do what's right for the country. We have chance at something new, and bringing a baby booming ideologue like Clinton isn't the way to go. I mean, the baggage Clinton brings, not the mention the disgusting, amoral way she ran her campaign...She and Bill almost burned down the party, fer crissakes, and the country.
These people are selfish. Isn't it bad enough they whored all their cultureal achievements to shill Cadillacs, Investment Advice and Boner Pills, and beat us over the head with their bullshit New Left ideology...the "me" centered universe.
How long does the sixties hangover go on? I've ingested most of the popular substances, grooved to the good tunes from then, and I felt human after a day or so.
Forty Years?
Hate to say I told you so, and I hope I don't have to, but...
This really sucks.
"The names of some Hillraiser holdouts will not come as a surprise to those who follow the Democratic money chase. Susie Tompkins Buell, Lynn Forester and Jill Iscol were each cited in background interviews as the key financial workhorses who have yet to start pulling for Obama. In separate conversations with The Huffington Post, the three major donors each described their respective sources of discontent, and talked about what, if anything, can still be done to change their minds.
One area agreement among them, however, rang out loud and clear: the vice presidency should go to Clinton. (Indeed, Iscol already made news earlier this week when she related details of a phone conversation with Obama, in which he appeared to include Clinton on his VP shortlist, to the LA Times.)"
I realize, of course, that they have the right to vote for with their checkbooks, but I would like to think they'd do what's right for the country. We have chance at something new, and bringing a baby booming ideologue like Clinton isn't the way to go. I mean, the baggage Clinton brings, not the mention the disgusting, amoral way she ran her campaign...She and Bill almost burned down the party, fer crissakes, and the country.
These people are selfish. Isn't it bad enough they whored all their cultureal achievements to shill Cadillacs, Investment Advice and Boner Pills, and beat us over the head with their bullshit New Left ideology...the "me" centered universe.
How long does the sixties hangover go on? I've ingested most of the popular substances, grooved to the good tunes from then, and I felt human after a day or so.
Forty Years?
Hate to say I told you so, and I hope I don't have to, but...
This really sucks.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Speaking of Iran
Isn't it crazy we need these two (another weird dynamic duo) to remind us, and codify (again) what is already in the Constitution: The President just can't go to war.
Iran
While I have been disappointment with the "centering" of Barack Obama (which has seemed a little bit more like the "righting" of Barack Obama), it is to be expected.
When you build up a grassroots coalition like this, people become seriously invested in you, and when there is a disagreement, they feel betrayed. I felt betrayed.
This does not, however, mean that I do not recognize the importance of this man, and his unique qualifications to tackle the monumental clean up work left by these NeoCons and their doctrine of Apocalypse.
Witness the difference : Iran. You want a sensible dialogue with government who's people are ready to resume a sane relationship with this world, or do you want another fine edition of Reagan's Star Wars bullshit, with a helping provoking the Russians into a war? Afterall, weren't we all depressed when that showdown never took place. McCain seems to be.
He's the deal. You send a Cold Warrior into this, and you get the last eight years, magnified in intensity. McCain has shown he is incapable of dealing with the new paradigm, the new international reality. The real politik has changed. The binarism of the Cold War is over.
This is the man for our times.
When you build up a grassroots coalition like this, people become seriously invested in you, and when there is a disagreement, they feel betrayed. I felt betrayed.
This does not, however, mean that I do not recognize the importance of this man, and his unique qualifications to tackle the monumental clean up work left by these NeoCons and their doctrine of Apocalypse.
Witness the difference : Iran. You want a sensible dialogue with government who's people are ready to resume a sane relationship with this world, or do you want another fine edition of Reagan's Star Wars bullshit, with a helping provoking the Russians into a war? Afterall, weren't we all depressed when that showdown never took place. McCain seems to be.
He's the deal. You send a Cold Warrior into this, and you get the last eight years, magnified in intensity. McCain has shown he is incapable of dealing with the new paradigm, the new international reality. The real politik has changed. The binarism of the Cold War is over.
This is the man for our times.
Can You Imagine The Demon Spawn of These Two?
Two "great" tastes that taste like a fecund shit sandwhich:
"Mark Penn, Karen Hughes Team Up On Corporate Crisis Group"
You know, that's exactly who I'd call if my business were tanking and the stockholders were screaming-the two slimiest fuck-ups in Washington. Do you see how well their respective last clients did?
"'Mark and I share a vision that communications people should be strategic advisers ... and an understanding of the realities of the political process'," Ms. Hughes said.
I have to wonder about what reality these two understand, since both are so thoroughly drowning in their own ideological excrement that "reality" is spun to the point that something verifiable through the scientific method, like climate change, can be spun into some capricious definition of theory.
"And we also share the same lawyer."
'Nuff said.
"Mark Penn, Karen Hughes Team Up On Corporate Crisis Group"
You know, that's exactly who I'd call if my business were tanking and the stockholders were screaming-the two slimiest fuck-ups in Washington. Do you see how well their respective last clients did?
"'Mark and I share a vision that communications people should be strategic advisers ... and an understanding of the realities of the political process'," Ms. Hughes said.
I have to wonder about what reality these two understand, since both are so thoroughly drowning in their own ideological excrement that "reality" is spun to the point that something verifiable through the scientific method, like climate change, can be spun into some capricious definition of theory.
"And we also share the same lawyer."
'Nuff said.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
FISA
Obama posted the following today on the website:
"I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do."
While this changes very little (I'm wondering about his intentions in regard to criminal prosecution, since this bill provides no protection against it) in terms of my feelings on this matter, I am nonetheless impressed his willingness to speak candidly on these issues-even if this decision is craven.
I suppose its childish to expect the transformation to begin before the guy is elected, no?
"I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do."
While this changes very little (I'm wondering about his intentions in regard to criminal prosecution, since this bill provides no protection against it) in terms of my feelings on this matter, I am nonetheless impressed his willingness to speak candidly on these issues-even if this decision is craven.
I suppose its childish to expect the transformation to begin before the guy is elected, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)