Wolf! Wolf!

Shutup, bitches:

Appearing on FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, CBS chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer accurately pointed out that his program, Face the Nation, has featured more Republicans than Democrats since the November 2 presidential election. Schieffer was responding to co-host Sean Hannity, who echoed numerous conservatives' complaints that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) appeared on the January 16 edition of Face the Nation without a Republican counterpart.

Indeed, since the November 2 presidential election, Face the Nation has featured eleven appearances by current or former Republican officials, seven appearances by current or former Democratic officials, and one appearance by a former official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Thought of the Day

Aim for goals which are unattainable, so when you fail again you won't be blamed, since no one ever believed you could reach those goals, or would actually care to.

In the end someone else will try to reach those goals and we can look back to you and think, "What a visionary."

Then we build the statue.

Uber-Dick

Think about our Iraq policy, then read about our Iran policy.

It'd be funny if people weren't being killed daily, and there was no end in sight.

That Don Imus, he really gets the dicks.

Golden Globes

Apparently they're giving them out to anyone these days, and not anyone who deserves one.

I repeat, Million Dollar Baby SUCKED, and Hotel Rwanda was great. I saw the Aviator, and it's good, but it's not HR.

Also, Hillary Swank won as an actress, which I find unfair.

Don Cheadle was treated like Abner Louima!

Bitch Slapped

I can't believe my eyes and ears but Peggy Noonan is backing me up:

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars...

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

I love how she tries to cover-up her own work with all the b.s. in the first 5-7 paragraphs. If you won't have time to read her garbage you can listen to her shielded disappointment on HANITY AND COLMES!!! This is worth watching just to hear Hanity PUSH HIS BOOK!

She even admits to the grandiosity of it all, and how it will be used to raise Bush's future standing!

George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

These people are too predictable, even when they critique.

What a Bork

And this guy wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice?

Shorter Robert Bork: President needs a rubber stamp.

This part really sticks out:

Thus, in addition to fighting legal battles in court, the administration would be well-advised to make a far stronger public case for its detention policies, which are designed not only to prevent enemy combatants from returning to fight against us but also to obtain intelligence that might save the lives of American soldiers and civilians as well as shorten the war.

In other words, scare Americans into thinking what you've done, and want to do, is only serving to protect Americans. Along the way we can kill, detain, or mame anyone with dark skin on the battle field since just being darker practically makes you an "enemy combatant."

Ask yourself, with all the detentions and killings that have taken place how much intelligence have we obtained, and has it made us safer?

Details, Details, Who Needs Em?

WaPo:

More plausibly, most of the president's supporters maintained, he was intending not so much to describe a road map for the next four years as to make a provocative statement about the nation's long-term mission over the next several decades -- the "concentrated work of generations," as Bush put it.

The implications of the speech were uncertain because the celebration of democratic values was harnessed to almost no specifics. Though dominated by foreign affairs, the address did not mention Iraq, Iran, North Korea -- or indeed any country, friend or foe, occupying his second-term agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, was mentioned once obliquely as a "day of fire," but the word "terrorism" did not appear, nor was there mention of the al Qaeda terrorists whose attack altered history and transformed Bush's presidency.

In other words, he'll do everything he can to cut taxes, won't create jobs, doesn't care what happens in the rest of the world unless of course he can justify bombing a nation by praying.

This guy loves being the president. He has no clue, but oh does he love it.

He has no real agenda. Yes, he'll say, 'people need to make choices on their own...' but to him that means, 'we need to cut taxes' which will be the only thing he tries to do, and of course scale back programs for the less fortunate (and science, of course). The best part about the 'people need to make choices...' is he cuts taxes for those who already can make their own choices. For those people who are poor, or not-so-well-off, I think making 'their own choices' was something they couldn't do well initially, which is why their in this position to begin with!

Expect a strong effort to make the tax code as similar as possible to a flat/consumption tax.

Republicans are in the strange position of having to show their cards, and they don't have a communicator strong enough to detail why their plans are good. Bush's words now ring hollow on almost every subject he speaks about, so he offers no details. He may claim he has a "mandate" (he doesn't) but what he is losing by the day is the sense that he's a "straight shooter" (he isn't). Considering the Republicans are in full control there are not too many of them, aside from those wanting to be President, i.e., Bill Frist, who want to take to the airwaves for the President. No one is going to want to tbe the person seemingly holding the cards for these people in 2 years (midterms), and then 4.

Since this administration shows zero accountability when things fail other Republicans don't want to be accountable for them. Therefore, we are going to watch how Bush never gives us details (because he can't), and how others are too scared to put their stakes in the ground. You may get your wingnuts who recently won elections stepping up to the plate since they have a few years to burn, but the Hasterts, Bush Co., etc., they won't be around. Prepare yourself for the Republican moderates coming to the table with scaled down versions of Bush's plans every time.

The next 4 years are all Bush has politically yet he's still unwilling, and unable, to give details. He's still afraid to look like an idiot during a press conference. He still doesn't have the talent, or intelligence, to answer questions from a press corps who is just waiting to take a shot. Once again proving himself to be the huge wimp we all know he is.

But he loves being President, oh lordy does he ever.

Lets just look at what strain of his "idealist" speech from the inauguration. He is claiming the US will spread democracy around the world. Does anyone think this is happening? Do you think he's willing to send troops to Somalia, like his father did, to spread democracy? Of course Clinton took the hit when Marines were killed, but it was his dad who sent them, and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Afterwards, Republicans were quite unwilling to send troops anywhere, hence why Bush ran on the platform of "We're Not Nation Builders."

Is he to be believed now having taken the completely opposite track? Is spreading democracy somehow different than nation-building? If so, how are they different? Do you bomb a country until they accept democracy? Does that work? Of course not. Yet he is vowing to "end tyranny" and "spread democracy."

One has to wonder why he's saying all these things since none of these things will happen? Well, consider how many idiots actually voted for this guy. He needs to make them feel good about it, so when people whose brains are in their skulls and not their asses ask them about Bush they can give you the "idealist" answer that "Bush is spreading democracy and ending tryanny!" I mean, HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH SUCH IDEALS? Coincidentally, the Conservatives have been telling Liberals for years their ideas are too "idealistic" and "we must live in the real world." Now they have their own idealist, so it's all good. Hopefully they can all feel great in their delusional worlds.

Another reason he makes these grandiose speeches is for the future. Years later when people with guts and vision take control of this country again, and those leaders make the right choices that benefit Americans and the world alike, you'll have Conservatives in the press saying, "It's a great plan. It's exactly what George W. Bush spoke about on that great day in January during his second inauguration. We're seeing the fruits of his labor." The immortalizing of George W. Bush has already begun.

Conservatives like Grover Norquist have pledged to have a street name, or monument, in every town in America named after Ronald Reagan. Of course they've already tried to put him on currency until Nancy said it was a bad idea. When she dies they'll try again. The point is they are creating a mythical Bush now so they can use him again in the future. Their biggest fear, which is unavoidable, is he'll be seen as the biggest two term failure in history, so now they are still crafting him so he seems like he's doing big things. They'll place his speeches back ad nauseum.

Just think about what you're hearing on TV today: "Idealist" and "Tyranny" then think about how cozy the nation, and especially the Bush family, is with tyrannical regimes and dictators.

Our Fearless Leader

Dancing the War Away by Bob Herbert:

Watching the inaugural ceremonies yesterday reminded me of the scenes near the end of "The Godfather" in which a solemn occasion (a baptism in the movie) is interspersed with a series of spectacularly violent murders.

Even as President Bush was taking the oath of office and delivering his Inaugural Address beneath the clear, cold skies of Washington, the news wires were churning out stories about the tragic mayhem in Iraq. There is no end in sight to the carnage, which was unleashed nearly two years ago by President Bush's decision to launch this wholly unnecessary war, one of the worst presidential decisions in American history.

Incredibly, with more than 1,360 American troops dead and more than 10,000 wounded, and with scores of thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded, the president never once mentioned the word Iraq in his Inaugural Address. He avoided all but the most general references to the war. Lyndon Johnson used to agonize over the war that unraveled his presidency. Mr. Bush, riding the crest of his re-election wave, seems not to be similarly bothered.

In January 1945, with World War II still raging, Franklin Roosevelt insisted on a low-key inauguration. Already gravely ill, he began his address by saying, "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief."

Times have changed. President Bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the past few days partying hard while Americans, Iraqis and others continued to suffer and die in the Iraq conflagration. Nothing was too good for the princes and princesses of the new American plutocracy. Tens of millions of dollars were spent on fireworks, cocktail receptions, gala dinners and sumptuous balls.

Ten thousand people, including the president and Laura Bush, turned out Wednesday night for the Black Tie and Boots Ball. According to The Associated Press, one of the guests, Lorian Sessions of San Antonio, "donned a new pair of black kangaroo boots, decorated with a white star and embroidery, with an aqua-colored mink wrap she bought on sale at Saks."

An article in The Washington Post mentioned a peace activist who complained that the money lavished on the balls would have been better spent on body armor for under-equipped troops in Iraq.

As the well-heeled Bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos and designer gowns, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating to new levels of horror. The Black Tie and Boots Ball was held on the same day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in Baghdad. With the elections just a week and a half away, American commanders, according to John F. Burns of The Times, are seeking "to prepare public opinion in Iraq and abroad for one of the bloodiest chapters in the war so far."

A photo at the end of Mr. Burns's article showed an Iraqi National Guard member carrying the remains of a suicide bomber in a garbage bag.

The disconnect between the over-the-top celebrations in Washington and the hideous reality of Iraq does not in any way surprise me. It's exactly what we should expect from the president and his supporters, who seem always to exist in a fantasy realm far removed from such ugly realities as war and suffering. In that realm you can start wars without having to deal with the consequences of them. You don't even have to pay for them. You can put them on a credit card.

People traveling in the real world may see Iraq as a place where bombings, kidnappings and assassinations are an integral part of daily life; where police officers are blown to pieces as they line up for their pay; where innocent men, women and children are slain by the thousands for no good reason; where cities like Falluja are leveled in order to save them; where America's overwhelming superiority in firepower has not been enough to win the war; and where the upcoming elections seem very much like a joke since many of the candidates have to keep their identities secret and the locations of many polling places remain undisclosed.

People traveling in the real world may see Iraq that way. But in the fantasy-laden Bush realm, Iraq is a place where freedom is on the march. So why not raise a toast to freedom, and dance the night away.

lmfao

AP:

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) embarked on his second term Thursday, telling a world anxious about war and terrorism that the United States would not shrink from new confrontations across the globe with "the great objective of ending tyranny."

Hopefully he starts domestically.

File this with "Drugs", "Poverty", "Terror", and of course "Social Security."

Zactly

In Florida the state democrats support Dean.

Choosing Martin Frost would be a diZZZZASTER.

Can You Define "Liberalism"?

The American Prospect is having a contest.

I don't know that "liberalism" needs to be defined since we all know what it is, generally. I think it's cute TAP is doing this, and if you can win something, even better. What the word "liberal" needs is reclassification.

Somehow the word "liberal" has become a bad word while "conservative" has become almost good! It's incredible being that this country is founded on "liberal" principles, and not the idea of being "conservative."

Liberal to me is being tolerant, giving, crafting new ideas, being progressive, free from racism, bigotry, chauvinism, etc., growing, accepting, etc.

Being "conservative" to me is mostly opposite of that, give or take some things.

Of course we have our Social Liberal/Economic Conservative types out there, who want to put on display their wholesome view of things, but yet it's usually the money that casts their vote in the end, giving power to those who do not have a socially liberal view. In other words: BeLOW ME.

To announce you are liberal is almost dangerous these days, and that's a problem.

George W. Bush won this election on false promises, lies, and faith. He received the most votes in history. However, John Kerry, who didn't lie and deceive, received the second most votes. If the country continues down the path Bush and Co. are taking us it's unlikely they will be sitting in power for very long, and by long I mean at least 12-15 more years. By that point we may be in a much worse situation (I assume so). It seems things will have to get worse before they get better, which is a dangerous game to play.

Considering how WELL Kerry did, even as such a bad campaigner, I'm not sure "liberalism" or "liberals" need to redefine themselves. Rather, things just have to play themselves out. But if I were a liberal in the Congress, or the media, I would stressing what is right with "liberalism" and wrong with "conservatism" on a daily basis. If you let others paint and craft the message you will always be on the defensive. You have to step up first, and there has never been an easier time to throw a can of paint.

Besides, aren't us fag liberals supposed to be the artists? ;)

The Disconnect

Still amazed this guy won:

On the eve of President Bush's second inauguration, most Americans say they do not expect the economy to improve or American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, and many have reservations about his signature plan to overhaul Social Security, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Seventy percent, however, said they thought Mr. Bush would succeed in changing the Social Security system. The poll found that 43 percent of respondents expect most forms of abortion to be illegal by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, given Mr. Bush's expected appointments to the Supreme Court.

The Times/CBS News Poll offered the kind of conflicting portrait of the nation's view of Mr. Bush that was evident throughout last year's presidential campaign. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they were generally optimistic on the eve of Mr. Bush's swearing-in about the next four years, but clear majorities disapproved of Mr. Bush's management of the economy and the war in Iraq.

Nearly two-thirds said a second Bush term would leave the country with a larger deficit, while 47 percent said that a second Bush term would divide Americans. A majority of those surveyed said that they did not expect any improvement in health care, education, or in reducing the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly by January 2009.

Just under 80 percent, including a majority of those who said they voted for Mr. Bush in November, said it would not be possible to overhaul Social Security, cut taxes, and finance the war in Iraq without increasing the budget deficit, despite Mr. Bush's promises to the contrary.

Okay, lets backup here.

So a majority believes the economy will not improve, Iraq will not be a success, health care costs will go up, deficits will grow, and so on, an so forth. However, 60% are optimistic! Do you know why? Well, it's obvious: they have faith!

You better!

I'm starting to understand exactly why Bush has so much faith, as do those who voted for him since the facts point to BAD NEWS. Of course, there are those who are well off who voted for Bush because these factors aren't relevant to them. They just want more money for themselves.

The wealthy who voted for Bush don't have to worry about their kids in Iraq, don't worry about deficits too much, don't worry about health care costs, social security, etc., so they voted for Bush regardless. They live for today only, hence no care for the environment, our other childrens' futures.

Seriously, you better have faith because in the end that's all you're going to be left with, and when that doesn't save you you'll be wondering where the Democrats are.

Hey Momma

That's a good Fucking Meatball!

Trying to Soak This Up

For years they've attacked the female sponge, and now Bob:

On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

If anyone says "yes" then I assume they watch. I mean, they are the greatest hypocrites on Earth, so I'm sure they never miss it.

I'm Still Laughing

At how dumb the title of this article is.

Is it me?

The S.S. Bullshit

Looks like the S.S. Bullshit is sinking at sea. Hopefully those in the media don't just let it sink without dropping a few more bombs on Bush's plans, unless they want the plans to resurface.

If Bush takes no flack for floating this idea, and making absurd claims about Social Security then the situation is even worse than first thought. His first term he was given this free pass, and bad ideas stayed, came, and went, but rarely to bad lighting remain on him. Now he's in the second term, so he should certainly be held to account for his bad plans. For if he's not held to account and pressed to explain his plans (which he has NEVER done in detail) then you can be sure his plans will be floated again, either by him, or those just like him.

It's time to expose his bad ideas, and those who control the strings in his head.

My friend's dad said this to me last night: Putting aside all the people who would make money in private accounts, and a lot would, what do we do about all the people who will lose money? Is there ever a discussion about them? Certainly a lot of people will lose money when they invest.

Atta Girl

My good friend from EB.

Pfff

That took long:

One university dean called the aftermath an "intellectual tsunami," and some Harvard alumnae said they would suspend donations to the university.

Ho Hum

Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders want to exempt members of Congress from laws against discrimination that apply to private employers, despite the Republicans' Contract With America pledge that ''all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress" and a decade-old law that placed Congress under antidiscrimination statutes.

Go away for a few days and nothing changes!