Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

This blog will pay for itself.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Infrastructure week. at last.

This really is a full service blog.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

“But what about the lurkers?”

Bark louder, little dog.

T R E 4 5 O N

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

A Senator Walker would also be an insult to reason, rationality, and decency.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Open Thread

Reader Interactions

53Comments

  2. 2.

    Andrew

    Democrats are afraid of losing, Republicans are afraid of looking weak.

    Hmmmm.

    Democrats are afraid of looking weak, Republicans are afraid of the gay.

  3. 3.

    Tulkinghorn

    Democrats are afraid of a false-flag set-up.

    Republicans are afraid of imprisonment. In some cases they are afraid of extradition to the Hague.

  4. 4.

    rawshark

    Could democrats gain any traction towards raising taxes back to old rates by referring to it as contributing to the war effort? Wouldn’t it be hard for republicans to vote against that? To speak against that? Would worthless distractions like the Laffer curve still be used by republicans to explain why contributions to the war effort should be low for the well off? Personally I think since the fuckers don’t fight the least the rich could do is cough up some dough.

    Values voters IMO are ‘ends justify the means’ voters.

  5. 5.

    zmulls

    The period between November 2008, when some Democrat is elected to the Presidency (and Democrats gain even more seats in Congress); and January 2009 when Bush and Cheney (supposedly) walk out of the White House, should be Interesting.

    Will Bush blanket pardon everyone a la Nixon (“for anything or everything they may have done or not done”)? Will Cheney get caught shredding thousands of documents he’s not supposed to shred? Will there be any post-inauguration prosecutions? Will there even be discussion of a war crimes commission?

    (Not to mention the question of whether we’ll be in a shooting war with Iran and whether martial law will have been declared at some point…)

  8. 8.

    myiq2xu

    I took a class once that included “Game Theory”

    Game theory says that we pursue different strategies when we are trying to “win” as opposed to trying to “not lose.”

    What’s the difference? Think “prevent defense” in football.

    Last fall, Democrats tried to win, and did, big time.

    Since then, they have been trying to not lose.

  9. 9.

    rawshark

    and January 2009 when Bush and Cheney (supposedly) walk out of the White House,

    I’m also not completely sold on the idea of them giving up office while a war is on. whichever war that will be at that time. And they’ll have lots of support. Not just the losers who supportt them no matter what they say but also the people who voted for Bush in 04 because it was a bad idea to change presidents dring a war. I know it seems obvious that you wouldn’t vote to keep a guy in office during a war of he’s the asshole who started the war but logic will get you nowhere. You’ll get called a brainiac, or teachers pet, ‘why don’t you run for office’. That sort of bullshit.

  10. 10.

    rawshark

    Shortly after the invasion, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, “It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.”

    Paul Wolfowitz. A disciple of Strauss?

  11. 11.

    Zifnab

    Democrats are afraid of losing of their own shadow, Republicans are afraid of looking weak colored people, gays, carbon dating, atheists, conversations you have with your grandmother, the French, Howard Dean, YouTube, teletubies, and common sense.

    Fixed.

  12. 12.

    ThymeZone

    All politicians are afraid of losing. That’s why we heap them with scorn and derision at all times.

    Republicans are more afraid of losing to Democrats than they are of just losing in general. That’s because we are weak appeasers who hate Jesus and want forced abortions especially for white christian women.

    Any straight-up comparison between Dem and GOP must include a reference to the fact that the Republican base is a bunch of goddammed lunatics, many of whom think things like (a) the rapture will take the to heaven, (b) the earth is 6000 years old, (c) Terri could have talked, and (d) Saddam Hussein caused 911.

    Trying to do a sensible comparo with a joker in the deck like that is dangerous and foolish.

  13. 13.

    Zifnab

    Last fall, Democrats tried to win luck the fuck out, and did, big time.

    Since then, they have been trying to not lose.

    Let’s face it. If DeLay and Cunningham weren’t indited, if Foley wasn’t outed for molesting pages, if Allen hadn’t Macaca’d on camera, if the wiretapping scandal hasn’t broken when it did, if they’d found even a hint of a remenant of a smidgeon of WMDs, we’d be staring at – if nothing else – a Republican Senate in ’06. Maybe a Republican Congress to boot.

    Democrats were in the middle of a Republican Clusterfuck Whirlwind and managed to stumble to victory by default. It wasn’t until after ’06 that any serious majority of Dems started showing anything resembling balls.

  14. 14.

    Tulkinghorn

    I’m also not completely sold on the idea of them giving up office while a war is on. whichever war that will be at that time. And they’ll have lots of support.

    They would gladly give up power in order for a new GOP administration to come in. If there is any ambiguity about the results, look for the entire force of the executive to be rolled out to create a pretense for inserting the GOP into power.

    The Dems do not just need to win the election, they need to win it in a landslide. Since the Dems may already be close to a landslide, thus the extreme ‘not lose’ strategy.

  16. 16.

    Jake

    I’m also not completely sold on the idea of them giving up office while a war is on. whichever war that will be at that time. And they’ll have lots of support.

    Well, it’s been a while since DC had a full-scale riot, I suppose we’re overdue, but it won’t be over this.

    This Admin. won’t remain in power past Jan 09. The only reason they’re still relevant at all is because enough people keep grabbing ankles for the President.

    Worst case, tin-foil hat scenario: Bush declares some sort of emergency and says he’s deciderated to cancel the elections. Everyone laughs and gets on with it. Bush will then … what? Send Cheney out with his blunderbus?

  17. 17.

    Punchy

    Democrats are afraid of losing looking like Meanies

    Thus, they act like weenies.

    As for this:

    I’m also not completely sold on the idea of them giving up office while a war is on. whichever war that will be at that time

    I’m getting tired of this conspiracy talking point. There aint just a law against this, there’s a friggin Constitutional Amendment that forbids this. Not going to happen. Doesn’t mean, of course, that they won’t try to game the elections. But elections will be held.

  18. 18.

    Tulkinghorn

    Punchy:

    It is unthinkable, unprecedented for them to declare a crisis and refuse to give up power. But “unthinkable, unprecedented” has never stopped the Bushies before. I think you are right, but a have very, very little confidence that they are not trying to think of a way to do it as we speak.

  19. 19.

    Andrew

    But elections will be held.

    Unless they can produce a new season of ’24’ that convinces the American people that elections are with the terrorists.

  20. 20.

    Tulkinghorn

    Worst case, tin-foil hat scenario: Bush declares some sort of emergency and says he’s deciderated to cancel the elections. Everyone laughs and gets on with it. Bush will then … what? Send Cheney out with his blunderbus?

    Luckily for us all, the constitution gives the states the power to conduct the elections. Thus, those states inclined to follow the President would postpone elections, while those most opposed would hold them on schedule. That could have the effect of the pro-bush states forfeiting the election, since there is no constitutional basis I know for elections held on days other than that day established in the constitution for elections to be recognized.

  21. 21.

    Face

    Unless they can produce a new season of ‘24’ that convinces the American people that elections are with the terrorists.

    Why doesn’t the left produce a show called “23:56:4.091” and have its tagline be “Because those fucking idiots cant even keep time correctly”.

    It would star (at all times) Jessica Alba in a sportsbra running around saving the Earth from rich old men and Texans. And having abortions.

  22. 22.

    Cain

    I wonder if Democrat advisors/pundits have noticed the newspaper headlines and how the message has been communicated. Did it say something positive about what the Democrats have done? Rather, most headlines have some variations of Democrats giving in to Bush or lost to Bush or some other kind of narratives.

    So all the Democrats got out of this is another black eye with the general public and once again they look like losers. Worse, they’ve also gone and pissed on everyone in their local constituency who gave them money to fight precisely these kind of bills.

    I can at least say that everyone but Smith in Oregon voted against the wire tapping expansion. I have no explanation of what Gordon Smith thinks he’s doing for voting that. But he deserves to have his ass chewed for it. If he wants to get re-elected (I voted for him twice now) he better start changing his tune real quick.

    Lastly, there apparently is a sunset clause to this bill so we can at least say that these powers are temporary for 6 months. Democrats think they’ve got the best of both worlds. But they’ve lost some major mojo with everyone including independents. Bad move.

    cain

  25. 25.

    Zifnab

    Six months is plenty of time to do oppo research on the apparent Democratic nominee and his/her major supporters.

    Yes, but after “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”, the right’s oppo research board has lost what thin veneer of credibility it still holds.

    I think the ’06 elections showed how thin Republican credibility has gotten. All the “Speaker Pelosi will mandate abortions and gay marriage for everyone!” research in the world didn’t save them.

  26. 26.

    zmulls

    Yes, but after “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”, the right’s oppo research board has lost what thin veneer of credibility it still holds.

    Plenty of people still think John Kerry made up his war stories, and served far less than honorably. Plenty of people, from what I can see, still feel “Well, the Swift Boat guys exaggerated but there must have been something to it” (not to mention the folks who give John O’Neil awards — he’s treated like a hero on Hannity and similar shows).

    What I expect is not an attack directly on a nominee, but on several prominent supporters — tarnishing the nominee for the company s/he keeps.

  27. 27.

    The Other Steve

    I’m listening to Newt Gingrich on NPR. He’s talking about the french election, and doesn’t seem to realize that it’s the Republicans defending the status quo, not the Democrats. That is, interesting points, but it’s the Democrats who can use them.

  28. 28.

    ThymeZone

    the Democrats got out of this is another black eye with the general public and once again they look like losers.

    It doesn’t matter, that’s the point everybody gets wrong.

    They get a black eye for not sticking it deep enough to Republicans.

    So who are the people going to vote for as a result? More Republicans?

    This is cable-punditry blogorrhea bullshit, all of it.

    Meaningless. The Dems will gain seats on the hill next year. What you hear on tv today means nothing WRT that. What you read in blogovia means even less.

  29. 29.

    Andrew

    It would star (at all times) Jessica Alba in a sportsbra running around saving the Earth from rich old men and Texans. And having abortions.

    I’ll buy that for a dollar.

  30. 30.

    rawshark

    Punchy Says:

    As for this:

    I’m also not completely sold on the idea of them giving up office while a war is on. whichever war that will be at that time

    I’m getting tired of this conspiracy talking point. There aint just a law against this, there’s a friggin Constitutional Amendment that forbids this

    Oh so it would be unconstitutional. Then of course it wouldn’t happen because we all know Bush cares about the constitution.
    Except when it interferes with his job of running the country. And that’s hard work.

  31. 31.

    mrmobi

    I know John thinks that there has been a knee-jerk reaction about the Minnesota bridge collapse, with all kinds of “unreasonable” accusations.

    From “The Smirking Chimp”:

    And Bush, following closely in Reagan’s footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush’s new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

    Since Bush has been president:

    * over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
    * nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
    * median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
    * three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
    * three million American workers have lost their pensions;
    * home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
    * the personal savings rate is below zero – which hasn’t happened since the great depression;
    * the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
    * entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
    * wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

    The debate about whether or not to roll Bush’s tax cuts back to Clinton’s modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It’s time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan’s debt and rebuild this nation.

    Since idiot libertarians who visit here so regularly blame Clinton for everything, I thought I’d jump in and suggest there is another President who is more responsible for our current infrastructure debacle, the beloved Ronnie Rayguns.

    Taxes are necessary.     If you don’t believe that, you have no right to bitch when shit falls down, you get poisoned by food from China, or die from Mad Cow disease. Just shut up and deal.

  32. 32.

    Jake

    Oh so it would be unconstitutional. Then of course it wouldn’t happen because we all know Bush cares about the constitution.
    Except when it interferes with his job of running the country. And that’s hard work.

    If you wouldn’t mind, please outline a hypothetical sequence of events that results in Bush remaining in power past 2009.

  33. 33.

    Cain

    mrmobi Says:

    Taxes are necessary. If you don’t believe that, you have no right to bitch when shit falls down, you get poisoned by food from China, or die from Mad Cow disease. Just shut up and deal.

    If you visit Sullivan there’s a whole conversation about tax cuts and this is fiscal conservatives talking about us over-doing tax cuts. I thought it was an interesting conversation between the 3 guest bloggers.

    cain

  34. 34.

    Shinobi

    Constitutional or not there is no possible way for this administration to retain power after 2009. I am fairly confident that the Bush Administration does not have enough support outside of their party for such a move. If he ordered the police, and national guard to subdue the rioting citizens, do you think they would? I don’t think he would get enough support from the military, and the intelligence groups.

    I think he could try, but I really doubt he could succeed, he simply doesn’t have enough support, political or military. In order for him to gain it we get into seriously crazy conspiracy theories about engineering terrorist attacks etc.

  36. 36.

    Tax Analyst

    Well, if he could, Cheney almost certainly would attempt retain power by any means necessary. I’m not sure about Dubyah anymore. At one time I’d say the same for him, but he might just be willing to run out the clock on his miserable 8 years and let his successor untangle all the shit he’s fucked up.

    But since I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere on the site yet and this IS an “Open Thread” –

    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Paris-Hilton-s-Organ-Repossession-And-Opera-5927.html

    I didn’t post it as a link because I’ve had no luck trying to do that yet. Maybe when I get a little older I’ll be able to figure it out.

  37. 37.

    Tax Analyst

    Well, if he could, Cheney almost certainly would attempt retain power by any means necessary. I’m not sure about Dubyah anymore. At one time I’d say the same for him, but he might just be willing to run out the clock on his miserable 8 years and let his successor untangle all the shit he’s fucked up.

    But since I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere on the site yet and this IS an “Open Thread” –

    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Paris-Hilton-s-Organ-Repossession-And-Opera-5927.html

    I didn’t post it as a link because I’ve had no luck trying to do that yet. Maybe when I get a little older I’ll be able to figure it out.

  38. 38.

    David

    mrmobi Says:

    Taxes are necessary. If you don’t believe that, you have no right to bitch when shit falls down, you get poisoned by food from China, or die from Mad Cow disease. Just shut up and deal.

    Yes, and the feds will take in a projected 2.720 trillion dollars next year (and that doesn’t take into account state and local tax revenues). But if YOU don’t think that’s enough, feel free to send in more. There’s no law that says you can’t volunteer extra funds above and beyond what your tax return says you owe…

  39. 39.

    Tulkinghorn

    2.7 trillion here, 2.7 trillion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.

    The gross receipts are not relevant, you boob. We receive a lot less than we spend, and the obligations we have taken on as a result of this foolish adventure in Iraq have turned a long term issue into a short-to-medium term crisis.

    The moral? don’t support a war unless you are willing to pay for it. As for democracies, one that will undertake a war of choice without raising the revenue in advance, or contemporaneously with the war, in order to pay for it, that democracy is a leading candidate for a Darwin award.

    As for me and mine, we now have Canadian and European citizenship lined up in case the damn fools manage to irreperably ruin what once was the finest nation in human history. My ancestors left Europe to seek freedom and opportunity, and children may have to reverse the process. And I blame jerks like you for making it necessary and prudent to do so.

  40. 40.

    grandpa john

    Given the indifference the shrub has shown to actually performing the job of president that he was elected? to fulfill,I expect that he is counting the days until he can become a bush cutter again. And unless he can show more proficiency at cutting brush than he did at being president, we can expect the ranch to become a vast shrubland.

  41. 41.

    David

    Tulkinghorn Says:
    As for me and mine, we now have Canadian and European citizenship lined up in case the damn fools manage to irreperably ruin what once was the finest nation in human history. My ancestors left Europe to seek freedom and opportunity, and children may have to reverse the process. And I blame jerks like you for making it necessary and prudent to do so.

    You leaving? Well, my positive contribution to US society!

    :)

  42. 42.

    rawshark

    Tulkinghorn Says:
    The moral? don’t support a war unless you are willing to pay for it.

    That’s kind of what I was getting at with my first post in this thread.

    Jake Says:

    Oh so it would be unconstitutional. Then of course it wouldn’t happen because we all know Bush cares about the constitution.
    Except when it interferes with his job of running the country. And that’s hard work.

    If you wouldn’t mind, please outline a hypothetical sequence of events that results in Bush remaining in power past 2009.

    I can’t. I’m not insane. I understand that there is no way in hell he could pull it off.
    Unless he had help from his media enablers, the screeching 26%, and possibly an outside actor or two. OBL would play along. He’s benefitting from Bushiality more than most of us.

    If Bush doesn’t start a war with Iran during the congressional recess this month I’ll have much more faith he won’t try to stay in office.

  44. 44.

    Tulkinghorn

    You leaving? Well, my positive contribution to US society!

    At this point there are more monarchist toadies in this country than there are in Europe. If you consider that a triumph, there is not much anyone can do for you.

  48. 48.

    MoonBatman

    Yes, but after “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”, the right’s oppo research board has lost what thin veneer of credibility it still holds.

    At least they did not forge documents and leak them to 60 minutes.

    Or course you still ignore Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia
    and Winter Soldier testimony.
    Finally… Proof of John F. Kerry’s Useful Idiocy

  49. 49.

    mrmobi

    Since this is an open thread, and since the Obama/Clinton dust up about Pakistan is in the news, and it’s the anniversary of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, here’s some excerpts from a piece by Robert Scheer from Truthdig which is relevant to those issues:

    The victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were available soft targets, much like the children playing in Iraq, suddenly caught in the crossfire of battles waged beyond their control. In “White Light/Black Rain,” a devastating HBO documentary released this week, there is an interview with the sole survivor of a Japanese elementary school of 620 students. The murder of the other 619, and the 370,000 overall deaths attributed to the bombings, 85 percent of which were civilian deaths, has never compelled a widespread examination of the “end justifies the means” morality of our own state-sanctioned acts of terror. Indeed, the horrifying footage taken by Japanese and American cameramen soon after the devastation, and shown in the HBO film, was long kept secret by the U.S. government for fear that an informed American public might question this nation’s incipient nuclear arms race.

    Just exactly what distinguishes the United States’ use of the ever-so-cutely-named “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” atomic bombs on cities in Japan from the car bombs of Baghdad or the planes that smashed into the World Trade Center? To even raise the question, as was found in one recent university case, can be a career-ending move.

    Of course, we had our justifications, as terrorists always do. Truman defended his decision to drop the atomic bombs on civilians over the objection of leading atomic scientists on the grounds that it was a necessary military action to save lives by forcing a quick Japanese surrender. He insisted on that imperative despite the objections of top military figures, including Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who contended that the war would end quickly without dropping the bomb.

    The subsequent release of formerly secret documents makes a hash of Truman’s rationalization. His White House was fully informed that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, and their surrender was made all the more likely by the Soviets’ imminent entry into the fight.

    At most, the Japanese were asking for the face-saving gesture of retaining their emperor, and even that modest demand would likely have been abandoned with the shift of massive numbers of Allied troops and firepower from the battlefront of a defeated Germany to a confrontation with its deeply wounded Asian ally. Instead, the U.S. played midwife to the birth of the nuclear monster, the ultimate terrorist weapon that presents a continuing and growing threat to the survival of human life on Earth.

    This is a lesson to be pondered at a time when President Bush plays power games with a nuclear-equipped Russia while coddling Pakistan, the main proliferator of nuclear weapons to rogue regimes, and Congress authorizes an expansion of the U.S. nuclear program to better fight the war on terror by “improving” the ultimate weapon of terror, which the U.S. alone stands guilty of using.

    Emphasis mine.
    Two things, first, the more I learn about Dwight Eisenhower, the more I like the guy. Second, I’m quite proud of Obama taking the position that “nuclear weapons are off the table.” It may not be politically smart, but it’s human, and it strikes a note of real change in our foreign policy.

  50. 50.

    The Other Steve

    mrmobi – Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

    The Japanese at Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa, fought to the death. The Japanese fought with great honor. They were not about to give up so easily, most definately not on their own island.

  51. 51.

    mrmobi

    The Japanese at Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa, fought to the death.

    No argument from me about that. So you’re cool with deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women and children, as a demonstration, right? I mean, instead of hitting a military target or making an actual demonstration, as was supported by many, including Eisenhower.

    I’ve always been a fan of Harry Truman, and believe we were very lucky as a nation to have him. No one will ever know how many our our soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan, or whether there even would have been one, but we do know that we took our righteous anger out on the civilian population of two Japanese cities, three days apart. We also know that nuclear weapons have never been used in war since. That’s not bullshit, it’s the truth.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. […] As I pointed out before Republicans are afraid of looking weak, Democrats are afraid of losing. There’s no joy in events proving me right. […]