So much for Turdblossom's Legacy

When Karl Rove resigned last week, the media went back into full Bush ass kissing mode and made the guy out to be some sort of incredible genius. A martyr for the cause. They practically anointed the guy a Saint. It was rather nauseating to watch.

But finally after the Right Wing tidal wave of lies about Rove, people are starting to get to the truth. Who knows if there will be enough of these truth telling articles to overcome the Neo-Con Media Manipulation. Once they decide to deify a Right Wing God, they seem to pretty much get away with all of their spin.

Look at Ronald Reagan. His economic policies set us on a course for immense debt and deep recession. He had very little to do with the fall of Communism, or at least certainly less than the softening of Communist policies by Mikhail Gorbachev and the introduction of American commercialism did but he gets credit almost singlehandedly for the fall of the Soviet Union.

After his death many Americans were treated to a funeral that was presented as the passing of one of the greatest Presidents ever. If this was not a complete stretch of the truth, there never has been one.

Still the media has been an absolute tool for Bush in getting through just about every failed policy he has attempted to launch so when some outlets actually buck up and challenge the Administration, it is noteworthy.

So I wanted to include snippets of an article from the Washington Post and a great commentary by one of our few bastions of honest journalism that remains in our propagandizing media, Bill Moyers. Enjoy.

From WaPo's "Permanent Republican Majority? Think Again." column:

Karl Rove dreamed of creating a "permanent Republican majority." But as President Bush's longtime adviser exits the Washington scene, the political landscape he helped chart is already shifting beneath his feet: The era of conservative values -- a tight-fisted approach toward government aid to the poor, traditional positions on social issues and a belief in a muscular foreign policy -- that emerged in the 1990s is coming to a close.

Disenchanted by the failures of the Bush administration, the public is moving away from its policies, values and ideology. This shift is an echo of the late 1960s, when weariness with the Vietnam War and discord at home resulted in a backlash against Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, and the late 1970s, when growing discontent over the stumbling performance of Jimmy Carter's administration opened the door to the Reagan revolution.

This time, though, it appears to be the Democrats' turn to reap the benefits.

-snip-

Leading this nationwide left turn are independents, who've always been the pivotal voting bloc. Rove largely de-emphasized those voters while concentrating on the care and feeding of the GOP base.

Didn't work.

Today, independents are much more in sync with Democrats than with Republicans on both domestic and international issues. One example: We see a striking increase in independents' support for more government help for the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt. Fully 57 percent of independents endorse this idea today; in 1994, just 39 percent did.

And Bill Moyers' commentary is below:



More fun:

-"If he's so smart, why did you lose Congress?" - CBS Reporter Bill Plante to Rove at his resignation announcement.

-"Demythologizing Karl Rove" by The DCeiver

-"Post-Rovian Thinking" by Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post

All fun reads and a nice way to finally cut through the media's orgasm over the greatness of Karl Rove.

My final thought on Karl is this. What Karl did best was politicize everything and divide everybody. He appealed to bigots in attacking John McCain in 2000. Appealed to Christians to abandon actual Christian principles and attack gays and liberals. Used Terrorism as a wedge. Helped steal two Presidential elections thanks to faulty machines set up in his favor and electronic ballot machine makers being politically connected to him. He used every office of Government as tools for the Republican party and conceived much of the President's policies in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were nothing more than 225 year old toilet paper. He leaked a CIA operative's name to Time's Matt Cooper for political revenge.

Most of all because of his election thefts for his guy, our country has never been less respected worldwide, never been in deeper debt, never seen a larger disparity between the rich and the poor, never had more outsourcing of jobs, never seen the housing market collapse this badly, never had less health care and never been less secure. After all we're in a quagmire over there and Bush has had several chances to get Osama Bin Laden and passed.

To say Rove, Bush and Cheney have been an unmitigated disaster the likes our country has never seen before would be a drastic understatement. And yet here we are. With the media in full compliance with the White House spin on a criminal.

Shame on anyone who doesn't think the only place this man should be retiring to should be a prison cell.

-Rp

Tom Tomorrow nails the media again!

I just thought I'd repost this which came from Salon.com two days ago. It nails the media head on.

Just a note that either tomorrow or Sunday I will be back with another post. This one talking about the broad new powers Bush decided to claim this past week preventing Congress from legally declaring Contempt of Congress when he breaks the law as well as preparing for martial law against any of his own citizens that may decide to protest his policies. It's very scary stuff, check back this weekend.



-Rp

The Dumbest Man in America?

Yes that's Weekly Standard founder and frequent FOX NEWS contributor William Kristol pretending to shoot a gun. I imagine he likes to pretend he's shooting a gun and playing war, kind of like me and my friends did when we were like Nine.

How else could this guy continually be so wrong and so dumb on issues of war? The man has had pretty much every prediction he has ever made blow up in his face when it comes to Iraq. In fact Glenn Greenwald has about 14 of them right here.

Then, as if that weren't enough, he went out advocating a war with Iran.

Maybe he was trying to get ahead of the curve. After all he and his buddies (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Quayle, etc) have a doctrine for an American Empire as part of their thinktank group, "Project for a New American Century". War with Iran would most obviously take the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and turn them into a Middle Eastern based World War III.

He came out swinging again in an editorial he wrote for next week's edition of The Weekly Standard entitled, get this, "Keep On Surgin'". Yeah it's fun over there didn't you know?

In his column he says the following:

Over the last few months, the United States (finally) surged in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq has now surged against the surge. Iran is surging against the surge. We're pushing them back. Now the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the foreign policy establishment have mounted their own surges against the surge. So far, Bush is beating them back. If Bush can hang tough, and General Petraeus can keep on surging, the Defeatists will fail. And the United States will have a good chance to succeed in Iraq.

This guy has to be the dumbest guy in America. Considering he was Chief of Staff to Dan Quayle and considering the idiocy of Bush and Cheney that's an incredible feat to lay claim to. But while Bush and Cheney wrestle for another title, "Most Dangerous Man in America, Kristol gets dumbest hands down. Luckily his effect on actual policy comes from pundity on television and a magazine rather then direct advisory to the Bush White House. But you would never know it since they have followed his exact words thusfar and been wrong on every single thing they have claimed would happen.

I wish I could get paid making ridiculous bullshit up and just consistently predicting false concepts that would come out of the war.

Week after week he's on FOX NEWS, granted they have no care for or concept of pesky facts anyway, but he's on there commenting on the latest news and predicting the next steps.

This is like getting an NFL handicapper that you're paying for betting advice on going 0-14 every week and even though he hasn't won a single game for you, you're calling him on Week 16 taking his picks again. Apparently you didn't learn a damn thing from the first 15 weeks, and neither has FOX, Kristol or this Administration.

Maybe Kristol can serve a purpose. He can keep predicting what we should do and we can do the opposite. After all, a 100% success rate would be a pretty fantastic thing when we haven't had a single success in Iraq other than deposing of Saddam Hussein (who clearly ran the country better than we have).

-Rp

"They Still Have No Plan"

It's the same old song and dance with Bush and his supporters. Right Wing rag, The Washington Times unveiled a ton of gall today by attacking Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Iraq today. They published a hit piece entitled, "They Still Have No Plan" in their editorial section.

Essentially it's a criticism that Democrats have no plan for post-withdrawal Iraq. I'm not sure what plan they are looking for but it seems to be their go to criticism on Democrats when it comes to their opposition to this war. Ever since 2003 when we went in the media has been carrying this Right Wing meme that 'Democrats have no plan so they have no right to criticize Bush'.

That makes absolutely no sense so let's shoot this one down quick.

1. The Democrats were in the MINORITY all the way up until this year. They couldn't pass a damned thing if they wanted to. Every plan at that point was up to Republicans and Bush to come up with.

2. The Democrats currently do not have a VETO PROOF majority. The obstructionist Republicans who want endless war like Bush are still there shooting down opposition to his war.

3. The Bush Administration hasn't had a plan since day one! Tony Blair knew it. They just thought they could roll in and everyone would throw flowers and chocolates their way.

4. There does not need to be a plan. Withdraw to the outside borders and then pull out completely. The ONLY way Iraq will work is if they come to a solution on their own. Our very presence there makes it impossible for the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to come up with any sort of political solution. One side always views the other with disdain over our presence and many Iraqis of all persuasions are joining in on attacks on us because they don't want our empirical presence. What plan is there to have?

Iraqis have a national pride that is in shambles by our presence. The Iranians won't be able to just swoop in and take over and I'm not even sure Iranian President Ahmenijhad wants to get caught up in this mess currently. If he did the Saudis would become even more involved and the Iraq War would become a full on Middle Eastern civil war. He would have much more to lose in waging a war with the Sunnis than sitting back and waiting to see how things shake out politically in Iraq.

We're pulling out to protect our troops and give Iraqis a chance to decide on their own what future their country will have. As I stated a few days ago, when given the chance after the American Revolution we messed with things a bit and had some uprisings and riots of our own but we got through it. We can't sit there and play babysitter to a country that is uniting behind one cause: us leaving immediately.

Strangely enough Bush's post war plan has been to send in one surge of troops afters another and none of them work. Then those people behind this idiotic surge like John McCain, have no Plan B in case it doesn't work. Since it won't I guess that means the Bush plan is that "We're Fucked".

Finally and I really want to know this. Why are Republicans always asking what our plans are anyway? Every time they get criticized on this war they pull this tired argument out of their ass. They ignore our plans anyway. John Kerry came up with a very comprehensive plan for the Iraq War and eventual redeployment during his 2004 campaign. The media ignored it and continued (with the help of right wing pundits) to claim he had no plan.

I know the Republicans are too stupid to come up with a plan of their own. Using religious faith never really gets you through real life situations after all. But to continually put the failure of Bush's War on the Democrats who really have never had the power to stop this thing and don't currently because they lack the 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, is just a cheap political ploy made by a bunch of desperate hacks.

Republicans have never had a plan for winning the war in Iraq. As my last post details, the only planning they ever did was lining their buddies' pockets.

Speaking of finances, after the last time Republicans got twelve years to run their failure of an economic plan entitled "trickle down economics" they ran up record deficits and put us on the verge of serious recession.

Democrats got into office and eliminated over twelve years of damage in just eight.

Oh, maybe that's it! They have no ideas and nothing they ever come up with works. Democrats are the best at cleaning up their messes. It all makes sense now why we have to do the work they can't do for themselves.

Sort of like an infant that shits in their diaper but can only cry hoping for an adult to change it. We're the adults. And hey, Republicans love their diapers don't they?

-Rp

Manufactured Scandals

So the term "Manfactured Scandal", which Tom DeLay so famously decided to use to describe the real scandal with real legal implications known as the Alberto Gonzales-US Attorney Firing Fiasco, came to mind today.

Republicans have been Manufacturing Scandals pretty well since the Clinton Administration took oath (see Clinton killed Vince Foster and others). This one was a doozy.

Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria to provide a basic function this White House has refused to provide to allies and enemies alike since they took charge in January 2001... Diplomacy.

Syria is not our ally, but when we alienate them and leave them out of the discussion we are asking to create an even more tenuous relationship with them.

So Bush goes out and criticizes her trip and tries to play her off as a traitor for speaking with a country which sponsors terrorists.

Two things to remember here.

1. Republicans made a similar trip to Syria with cooperation from the White House just a few months back and didn't receive an ounce of flack.

2. As soon as she gets over there the Iranians (allies with the Syrians) release 15 British sailors they were holding hostage.

Wow, could it be that diplomacy actually works? Bush is probably irate because this took away one of their reasons for war with Iran.

Either way this is complete egg on the face of the Administration, to have Democrats going to the Middle East and in one fell swoop cleaning up messes they purposely made.

So that term, "Manufactured Scandal" comes completely into play. Republicans will try to make her seem like a traitor even though some of their own made the very same trip. The problem here is she went, soldiers ended up released and low and behold communication was made.

The problem is Bush is too focused on an Iranian war to want what's best for either side. We mentioned that state sponsor of terrorism label he put on Syria. Turns out Bush and Cheney have been funding Pakistani terrorists in an attempt to wreak havoc in Iran. It was one of the focuses of Cheney's recent visit with Musharraf.

Not to mention the magical word from right wingers that Iran is closer than ever to having Nuclear Capabilities. Of course the right and Israel has made this claim several times...

I just don't buy it. We're pressing this war. We're the ones funding terrorists to attack a country we don't like. We're the ones refusing to talk with them. We're the ones who bullshitted all of our intelligence to make the same exact case about Iraq before we invaded them.

It's interesting to me that any media outlet would take the Bush Administration and their Iranian Nuclear claims with any sort of legitimacy as if they have credibility at this point. Name a single topic since the beginning of this administration and there is likely a lie and a scandal behind each and every one.

Either way Pelosi going over there shows the difference in results between diplomacy and iron fisted ultimatums. Us versus Them doesn't work. It's too bad we've spent the past 6+ years with a President that seems deadset on setting the World's diplomacy tactics back to the dark ages (not to mention setting back science and other sectors of American life).

What a nice glimpse this gives of 2008 and the options on the ballot. The Bush World where nothing gets accomplished and America is hated universally, or the Democratic World where people of all nations can live peacibly and in agreement with one another on key points of life and security.

Time for a change indeed.

-Rp

Katie Couric Needs Journalism School

From the Milwaukee Journal yesterday, Tim Culprisin's Entertainment blog:

C'mon, Couric had job to do, and Edwardses handled themselves well

Katie Couric is taking heat for her grilling of John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, over the announcement last week that her cancer has returned.

Among the things that have set some people off in Couric's "60 Minutes" interview was the fact that she repeated questions, seemingly badgering a guy who wants to be president, and his ailing wife.

You can find some of the criticisms along with the transcript posted at cbsnews.com, where Couric is variously described as "cold," "rude," "mean," "insensitive," "a hypocrite," "calculating," and "a disgrace to journalism."

Some point to Couric's husband, Jay Monahan, dying of cancer and Couric's own on-camera colonoscopy, to suggest she should have been more sensitive.

But focusing on the anchor's questions misses their point. Reporters frequently ask the same question many times.

Journalism isn't a polite business. And we shouldn't feel too sorry for Couric: Taking heat is part of her job.

But when you're talking about a very public couple like the Edwardses, there's always a well-planned first response. Getting through all that was the point of Couric's grilling.

The Edwardses have put themselves out there, volunteering to go on "60 Minutes" to take whatever questions come their way. This was no surprise for either of them.

More: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=582220

Tim does spend time praising the Edwards' on their appearance and poise but he fails to see why there is outrage.

So I responded with why I felt people had a right to be mad in an email this afternoon....

----------

Tim,

What you're missing in your defense of Katie Couric's interview of the Edwards was that she didn't just grill them as you suggested. Rather she took her questions directly from a political foe that is known for using slanderous comments to assault his enemies. Even Laura Ingraham, usually a bitter partisan foe, was willing to speak well of Elizabeth Edwards while being interviewed on television on the topic.

Rush Limbaugh though takes glee in mocking the sick and assaulting their character. For Katie Couric to be using his questions with the false journalism premise of "some people say" (a dirty Fox News trick to interject their own personal opinions into an interview) gives credibility to insults rather than bringing up legitimate points.

People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter insult and name call to get attention and sell their media. At no time ever should legitimate news journalists be using their framework to ask real questions in interviews as that gives them more credibility than their entertainment schtick deserves.

I agree the Edwards made an uncomfortable situation work and handled the interview well enough, but Katie should know better. She should be citing sources and try her best to make those legitimate ones, not just those who scream "FIRE!" the loudest to garner undeserved attention.

Katie Couric's credibility as a serious journalist already is lacking because she and her producers tried to make their newscasts feel more like Entertainment Tonight with a couple of news pieces rather than a real newscast with teeth. Ripping into John and Elizabeth Edwards for choosing to campaign on at a time of tragic news doesn't make her a tough journalist.

It makes her a Republican lap dog.

-Rp