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?"