State of the Disunion

Who wants to be Barack Obama tonight, painting a picture of the State of the Union?

Not me. He has to stand up there and address a nation of angry and scared people. He has to tell them it's going to be OK, when, clearly, it's not. The problem is that everybody's angry about different things, so how do you assuage all fears? You don't.

The Huffington Post is going on about the middle class teetering on the brink of collapse. Is this just another headline to herald in their 15o font size? They seem to be picking up (or creating) a meme that's hotly shooting around the internet, although it's been true for years. Why now?

It's going to be painful, but it's happening, just as it has happened to every empire that preceded the United States. It is collapsing. It got complacent and fat and the chickens have come home to roost. You simply cannot have moronic policy for eight years and bounce back. Wall Street broke it... for America, at least. Of course, they are multinational corporations for whom the success or failure of a particular country does not ruin their prospects. If America enters into a second more painful phase of financial collapse, the big corporations can move their money to safer shores, most likely across the Pacific.

As for the rest of us land-bound moderate- or low- or no-income citizens, we're the ones holding the bag, and the debt and the personal insolvency and mortgage payments and the medical bills will bury us all.

If it gets bad enough for regular Americans who get tired of trying to pay off the Company Store, could there be a bona fide revolt? Do Americans have it in them, and can they consolidate enough issues to create a message? Average Americans are pissed at fat cat bankers, which has led to some interesting action, such as the "fire your bank" movement. Perhaps some pragmatic small-bore movements like this could make the big banks sweat a little bit, but it won't have enough impact unless it is part of a broader action that really creates something beyond superficial change. The big banks clearly don't have enough incentive to change the disastrous financial policies that drove us into this huge pile of shit.

Not that it was entirely their fault. In many cases, they were just the enablers. (Cue "Pusherman," Curtis Mayfield). Yes, many of us willfully accrued devastating debt and mortgages we couldn't pay. Wall Street did have a party, but a lot of us were hitting the the buffet. We cannot blame the freewheeling investors entirely, but they are now the ones conspicuously not changing their tune, while average Americans are starting to practice more sound household economics, by saving and trying to bring down their indebtedness.

At any rate, the Democrats are proving to be ineffectual stewards of real change, leaving the rest of us with... what?

Pederasts on the Hill

Boy does it get steamy in the foggy bottom. Finally, the Democrats have hit home with a full-blown sex scandal instead of boring wonkish policy talk that makes the middle-American eyes glaze over.

Lack of evidence notwithstanding, the breaking Foley story was suspiciously well-timed and suggested that the Democrats might have finally done some homework, reading from the Karl Rove handbook. The usual Republican accusations of an evil Democrat conspiracy are beside the point when the dirty laundry is hung on the line. The elephant in the room is a sexagenarian (sexygenarian?) U.S Congressman diddling kiddies, and whether it was political sandbagging or not, the elephant is still in the room.

I don't know who's behind the coup, but I would go looking behind Larry Flynt's vault door, as one of the only people on the Left that seems to understand that one sordid controversy is worth a thousand policy prescriptions. The swinging electorate says Democrats don't stand for anything; but now they don't have to do anything but stand there. And get elected. If I were interested in getting elected I would spend most of my time looking for skeletons in the other guy's closet. In Washington, you're sure to find something.

Some may think it's a shame that it took a tawdry tale to turn the tide, when Republicans have done so very much more to deserve getting fired. It seems that no amount of hybris, malfeasance, incompetence, miscalculation, pork-barrel feasting, chronic overspending or failed foreign policy has the weight of one semi-erect sex scandal. Foley never even got his hand down a page's pants (as far as we know). Clinton's cigar is far more visual, which might explain why right-wing operatives are still able to blame him for everything from 9/11 to teenage vandalism. Of course, the page scandal has the whole gay thing on it, which is really a dealbreaker for the base.

If it was the Democrats that orchestrated the leak, they kept their fingerprints off it pretty good so far. If it was just the regular old liberal-commie press, Fox News has yet to find a good way to spin it in time for the elections, and that's going to be one hard elephant to kill. At any rate, it's good news for Democrats, bad news for gays and Republicans and real bad news for gay Republicans.

The whole thing stinks up the Capitol, but this is Rove's world: we just live in it.

Letter from Iran

The NY Times offers up the letter sent to Bush from the President of Iran today. It seems to be an unprecedented correspondence from an "axis of evil" world leader. It pokes at Bush, urging him to refect on whether his policies jibe with his Christian beliefs. It seems like an effective gambit, because probably the most effective way to get at Bush is through the filter of his strong religious belief.

Did Bush even read it? Who knows. Maybe his staff gave him a synopsis (it is eight pages, after all.)

I'm no fan Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's one of the world's prominent Holocaust deniers and he refuses to aknowledge the state of Israel, which doesn't leave a lot of room for developing a peace program. He is hardly one to be lecturing about war-mongering. But the letter offers insight into the question Americans always seem to ask: "Why do they hate us?"

Well, here's some answers from a national leader. We support the oppression of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel. We prop up dictators (most prominently Saddam Hussein). We claim to encourage democracy around the world and then oppose or ignore the popularly-elected governments of the Middle East and Latin America. We have an ongoing double-standard about technological (and specifically nuclear) innovation in developing countries we don't like.

America is the Empire, and the countries that are effected adversly by the Empire don't like it. Unfortunately, that list is growing as The Bush Administration's insular and arrogant foreign policies breeds resentment rather than allies. The hard right thinks we can just force our will on all nations, but this isn't the 2nd Century. America can't really operate as an empire -- it can't last. Democracies don't make good empires, and empires always overextend themselves. If Bush had cracked a history book instead of many cold tall ones, he might be aware of the thin ice America is skating on.

Pew

The waters of the stinking cesspool of Washington are getting churned up by the Jack Abramoff scandal and nobody appears to be immune. Even the usually insulated Bush has to give up the grease, poor guy. But the Democrats aren't too happy about it either. Minority Leader Harry Reid enjoyed some of that filthy lucre, and, unlike Bushie, he has no intention of giving it back. But, you have to cut him some slack -- he's a Democrat and they don't have as much money as the Republicans.

Assuredly, the average American has become some ill about the contaminated waters of the Foggy Bottom (if they are fortunate enough not be ill from the water in New Orleans). Each fresh influence-peddling scandal shows that very few of those Congressional porkers can keep their hands out of the cookie jar, even if it means throwing a few votes one way or another. Many of these bought... er, elected indivdiduals assume they are being pragmatic by cutting a couple of favors to store up the mighty reserves of cash it takes to get elected and stay in office. By their way of thinking, a few deals in the "favor factory" means they can get re-elected so that they can pass legislation to help... other lobbyists.

It runs deep, gang, and no well-intentioned John McCain can single-handedly repair the Washington machine. Tom Delay and friends have rigged up K street for their interests, and even if DeLay is run out of town on a rail, as he should be, the machine moves on without him. If you start asking the question "how deep does it go?" you start to find that the Foggy Bottom might actually be bottomless.

It will be hard for the Democrats to paint this as a purely Republican scandal -- even if it turns out to be a mostly Republican scandal -- but they will try. In the end, we here on the taxpayer end can all hope that the Democrats won't simply use the Republicans' malfeasance for political advantage and instead use the national embarrassment to truly try to instigate some substantive changes in campaign finance.

DeLay may represent Sugarland, Texas, but his real SugarLand is the abundant Washington cornucopia of delicious lobbyist payouts. Bon appetit on those just desserts, Tom.

Democrats: Get Busy

Salon beats on Bush with the rest of the crowd. That's no surprise. My contrarian impulse moves me almost to support Bush when everybody else is piling on, including many who fought hard to make sure he had another four years to flail and obfuscate. But, of course, even if I wanted to play devil's advocate as some sort of masochistic parlor game, I couldn't hold out for very long. I suppose I could make some flimsy argument about the spread of democracy in the Middle East, or making the US safe from terrorism by engaging the terrorists abroad. It would be an argument mercifully much shorter than this nightmarish presidency we can't seem to wake up from.

But let us repeat our mantra, Democrats. Yes, you should keep the heat on Bush and eventually -- through diligent and dogged exposure of the facts -- show him to be the worst president in modern history, or, arguably, the history of the United States. See how long this famously resilient and reality-defying presidency can bob and weave while facing a beating of Katrina proportions. Can they talking points their way out of the multiple beams of damning evidence drilling into the White House? Only time will tell..

But that's just the beginning, Democrats. Do you really have some answers to fill the void the White House, and Republican party as a whole, is creating in American leadership? Have you finally found a way to account for why you supported this Iraqi war for so long? Did you not suspect some cooked intelligence? Are you that easily duped? Why was Senator Robert Byrd the only crank making any noise on the eve of war? And what prescription do you have for a flagging economy, the energy crisis and skyrocketing health care costs?

In short, what's to keep the American people from saying Washington should just sink into the swamp from which it was born and we should start over? You need an agenda. You need to have a positive, forward-thinking program after the smoke clears from the Republican implosion. Sure, it's fun to watch the sleazy exterminator take his lumps or watch members of the Bush adminstration take turns in the hot seat of the Plame investigation. But that's just watching. If you really want to win back the presidency and (wouldn't it be nice) Congress, you're the ones who are going to have to clean up this stinkin' mess.

How are you going to do it?

O'Reilly is (Not) Going to Kick Your Ass!

This O'Reilly one is really losing it.

Calling down the wrath of Al Queda upon the lovely city of San Francisco, O'Reilly says that "we won't do anything" in case the city is attacked by Al Queda, responding to an initiative passed in the city to bar recruitment in high schools and on college campuses. Apparently, Fox News' most famous spinmeister is now in charge of the American military.

During the course of his argument with Todd Chretien, who authored the proposition, it becomes clear that O'Reilly hasn't even read the proposition, and apparently has no idea that it was initiated in response to the war in Iraq. This it no surprising.

Finally, Chretien invites him to come to San Francisco to debate the proposition in a 60-minute mediated debate. O'Reilly promises he would "kick [Chretien's] butt up and down the street..." and then refuses the offer to join in the debate, most likely spooked by the idea that a "neutral" facilitator would be running it.

ASSuredly, what O'Reilly was ACTUALLY offering is to just come and kick the guy's butt in a street brawl, and I'd put odds on O'Reilly to win that one. O'Reilly, in fact, with his imposing physical stature, belongs more in the ring of the WWF, and not a commentator on television, struggling to make coherent political arguments against intellectual superiors. Fortunately for him, he has the power to cut people off when they are in danger of exposing his flabby reasoning. Probably the smartest thing O'Reilly does is avoid putting himself in a position where he might actually have to go mano-a-mano in an actual debate -- a favored tactic of the Bush administration -- and one that clearly works for Bill. The old finger on the off-button is a time-honored "debate" tactic, and a much easier way to avoid sticky issues brought up by logic and facts. But, despite all the bluster -- is O'Reilly, in fact, a PUSSY when the chips are down? Indications are...

Really, O'Reilly actually belongs at the end of an Irish bar, menacing other patrons for eating too many of the snacks. That's where we might find him in a few years, when he finally comes to grips with the fact that he doesn't control the military and can't withold American forces at will. A stale-smelling dive bar is the best place for "I'm right, you're wrong" arguments unsupported by research or facts.

It seems bizarre that this commentator who likes to fly American imagery all over his show would call for a terrorist attack on an American city. It seems, like, what's that word that ranter-in-arms Anne Coulter likes to use? Oh yes -- "treason". I guess treason is in the eye of the beholder. Some would call it irresponsible. Others would call it "satirical." Either way, calling for O'Reilly's head is a non-starter. His rating are too high and the Fox crowd loves him.

Anyway, we're all hoping to be included on O'Reilly's shit list of left-wing blogs that he promised. I'd be in good company and could use the traffic. Is there a submission form? And what does it take to get on there?

Let me try again: O'Reilly -- you're a pussy.

Is Rove Back? It's On!

Well, looks like the Bush circle is finally feeling some heat about all the bad news coming down at the same time. Never has the inner sanctum been so bedeviled by a host of accusations about malfeasance, incompetence and lack of vision from just about all quarters. I really feel sorry for the guys.

Of course I don't feel sorry for the Bush Administration -- they're reaping what they sowed. The chickens have come home to roost.

But judging from the administration's new aggressive posture, I suspect that Karl Rove is feeling clear of the Plame affair and is once again whipping up the team with his old tricks. That which does not kill you makes you stronger, and Rove is feeling mighty mighty.

So the new approach it thus: Are they blaming you? Blame them! Plenty of Democrats authorized this war as well, now they're offering critiques... well, it was your fault too! You can't have it both ways.

This is Classic Rove. Never mind that the Democrats acted on "intelligence" coming primarily out of Cheney's special department outside the CIA. Rove will put the Democrats on the defensive yet again, using the actual fact that they DID vote for the war, most of them, although I have to believe that some of them could smell this stinky dish of cooked intelligence; nonetheless, they still thought it politically expedient to vote for the war anyway, responding to some childish "Don't-Look-Like-a-Pussy" perceived political pressure, remniscent of schoolyards.

During the Plame inquiry, notice how the White House sat strangely silent as the damning evidence of incompetence and malfeasance was heaped upon it. Rove was tied up in in the Plame affair... he had his hands full.. and it really seems that nothing gets done without Karl directing traffic. Bush was left to get a taste of the south at the Latin American Conference. Beloved Argentinian soccer star Maradonna called him a murderer and other not nice things.

With Rove kicking the administration back into offense (NY Times subscription) -- pointing out that the Democrats supported the war too -- the Democratic critics will either come off looking like backpedalers or dupes, with neither one likely to help their image. Once again, a prime opportunity to seize the initiative will be subverted by a Rovian end run, while the Democrats dither about what to do about the Iraqi overseas morass. This particular form of political ju jistu is Rove's specialty, bolstered, of course, by the daily talking points dutifully repeated ad nauseum by Fox News commentator flaks. Never mind the fact they created this mess, now they challenge the opposition: "how you gonna clean it up, tough guys?"