Thoughts On The GOP Gameplan : As Of Today

So here's a list of what the incoming GOP majority in the Lower Chamber is planning.

1 - Read the Constitution aloud in order to pretend like they understand, accept, and have lived by it's very word, even though they only really became interested in it within the last two years.

2 - Investigations. Darrell Issa seems to be hell-bent on investigating as much of Obama's actions, legislative accomplishments, and his entire administration as possible. This was easily a predictable position for the modern conservative movement, as they have a far greater desire to smear Obama than to ensure our country continues to move forward.

3 - Repeal. Everything. Not content with looking at the far reaching ramification of repeal of the Affordable Care Act, conservatives are going to go full tilt in trying to repeal all of the accomplishments of the Obama administration, regardless of how they will affect the national debt, the deficit, or the future of our country. And if you think they have alternate ideas, you're fooling yourself.

4 - And speaking of the financial stability of our country, conservatives are none too concerned with default as they are in pushing the narrative that the Obama is responsible for the entire $14 trillion dollars in debt - or at least pretending that they ( Republicans like Reagan and both Bush's ) had absolutely nothing to do with it.

5 - Here's one that's really just starting to simmer - the "forever war" in Iraq and ultimately more of the Middle East. With a ramped-up "Christian Genocide" meme that has been threading its way through conservative media outlets, the "We Won In Iraq" storyline has all but disappeared. At this point, it appears that the war-hawks are getting that taste for blood again.

America, Educate Thyself

I tend to agree and disagree with Bill Maher on many issues. On the notion that many Americans "aren't bright enough" to understand the issues that the Democrats and Republicans are taking on, I am in full agreement.

*click image to play clip*



Maher's portrayal of how Democrats act when the pressure is on is pretty much accurate, as we saw more than once last year. But that's not what this post is about.

The reason that so many in the country are ignorant of what is going on politically is that most of them are lazy. Not in the sense that they refuse to go to work, do household chores, or keep up with their personal hygiene, it's that they want their information spoon-fed to them. They lack the drive to verify the information that they are absorbing.

I'm reminded of how many times during the day the employees at Fox"News" keep repeating that they have this massive ratings share that no other network does. How many of those people only watch that network, never fact check anything the Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, or anything anyone else says? People that look to one news source and don't exercise their ability to ask questions, research, and dig deeper are only punishing themselves.

The willfully ignorant need to either be shown the error of their ways or they will be and should be openly mocked.

We Don't Need No Education

Leave it to a Republican to propose cutting an entire year of high-school in order to save money.

The proposal comes as the state faces a $700-million shortfall and reflects the creativity -- or desperation -- of lawmakers.

"You're looking at these budget gaps where lawmakers have to use everything and anything to try to resolve them," said Todd Haggerty, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It's left lawmakers with very unpopular decisions."

In Utah, the opt-out proposal could prove more politically feasible.

"The bottom line is saving taxpayer dollars while improving options for students," said state Sen. Howard A. Stephenson, a Republican and co-chairman of the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee. "The more options we give to students to accelerate, the more beneficial it is to students and taxpayers."

Because if there's one thing that is expendable, it's education. This certainly shows where the priorities of Utah's elected officials lie, doesn't it.

Republicans are so against raising taxes, that they are willing to literally shove the children of their state into a higher educational system ( if they can afford it ) that they are ill prepared for, or dumping them into the "real world" which isn't so kind in and of itself to a high-school grad of 17.

Political Colors

I'm with Markos on this - how does this translate to the US being a "center-right" nation?



It's a favored talking-point of the conservative movement, but the reality is that it simply isn't true. So what makes people vote for Republicans then? Is it the nature of the political process? I think it has to do with people's cosumerist nature - they act reflexively and don't realize what they've done until it's too late.

State Of The Speech

If there had to be one take-away from last night's speech, it would be this - no matter what was said, proposed, admitted, revealed, rejected, or renewed, Republicans would say that this was an abject failure for Obama. But, as always, they are letting the world know that they are on the wrong side of the issues.

Even though Obama made the economy and recovery and creation of jobs a pivotal portion of the SOTU, Republicans have immediately took to their trusted venues of supplication ( Fox"News", conservative bloggers, talk radio ) to claim that there were no new ideas, or that plans would essentially "grow government" and provide little to no help.

From talk of the economy, to healthcare, and even vowing to repeal DADT, conservative Republicans went to their pitiful grammatical analysis tools: counting how many times Obama said "I" or "me", as if pronoun usage by the President shows that he cares little for the country he was charged to lead. But isn't that what was expected of Obama last night - that he align himself with the failures of his first year and to own up to why things had to be done a certain way? It was, but you can't tell conservatives that. After all, they tend to forget what they say after a few hours if it's politically expedient.

And while there were some jokes, some laughter, and some visible disapproval by many ( including Justice Sam Alito who is allegedly some non-partisan Judge ) this was a very powerful SOTU speech. But now, it is the task of Republicans to tear each and every component apart, inserting their own version of context and removing the facts that stand in their way.

Revisionist history isn't reserved solely for decades past. After all, in the soundbite culture that 24hr news networks operate in, it in imperative to get your message out quickly and repeat it as often as you are able. Fox"News" is masterful in this regard, and I am sure that tonights opinion programs will be rife with distortions of Obama's speech, complete with analysis from those that are employed as nothing more than "yes men".

It was stated on NPR recently that Obama needed to be more pedagogical with his first SOTU, that he needed to be detailed and cite examples and give anecdotal reasoning in order to educate not just the American people, but the Congressional body that has become mired in the legislative process. I, at least, believe he was more successful in meeting that challenge than most will give him credit for.

The unfortunate aspect of the modern political process is that conservative Republicans will now be so hell-bent on shouting down everything Obama had to say last night that their rhetoric will dominate much of the remaining 48hrs of this weeks news cycle. Pundits and commentators will be called upon to respond to specious allegations made by prominent voices like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Rove, and others. And while the networks will be so focused on parsing the language they use, the speech will be forgotten by many, replaced with the dizzying task of dealing with the conservative noise machine. This is, thankfully, not true for us all.

It is a new year for America and for Obama. He has laid before us a plan that is what this country needs, though there are some aspects that will continue to need mending and care. Last year was no picnic for sure, but this is no excuse to forget was was done. This is what separates Republicans from Democrats - we ( be we liberal or progressive or moderate ) are willing to look back and take stock in what has happened in order to rethink and reshape our strategies. Republicans of all stripes despise the fact that we have hindsight as well as a vision for the future. It is those two attributes that Obama displayed last night.

There's lots to be done this year, for both parties. It's time to not just "wait and see" what happens, but to get active and remain that way.

South Carolina Can't Catch A Break

.....when it comes to their politicians that is.

I'll let the audio speak for itself.



What is it about Republican politicians and the less fortunate in our nation? Hell, it's not even the politicians, it's Republicans en masse.

From degrading returning vets that end up homeless, to those trapped in New Orleans after Katrina, to this asshat that thinks that he can replace Mark Sanford. No wonder people often fall to stereotyping Republicans, because far too often it's true.

Smart Move Or Fueling The Fires Of Paranoia

According to two unnamed sources from both houses of Congress, Democrats are very likely to ignore a traditional "conference" when blending the House and Senate versions of healthcare legislation so that Republicans can't use parliamentary procedure to slow the process.

Johnathan Cohn of The New Republic writes on how this is possible without breaking Congressional rules:

“Ping pong” is a reference to one way the House and Senate could proceed. With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.

Whatever form the final discussions take place, a decision to bypass conference would undoubtedly expedite the debate, clearing the way for final passage (if not signing) by the end of January. And, as long as both chambers still get their say, that's a good thing.

Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they're being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it's not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.

From my perspective, this is the best way to move forward. However, there won't just be simple complaints lodged by the Republicans, there will be a massive, conservative, push within Washington and the media that provide the supplication to claim that this is yet another step towards Fascist, Communist, Stalinist, Totalitarian, Marxist, rule the likes of which no one has ever seen. To put it more plainly, this will be like tossing jet-fuel onto the already raging fire within the conservative movement. The tea-baggers are likely to soil themselves with abject rage and make even bigger fools of themselves.

One has to ask thought - given all the chances that Republicans within the Senate and Congress have had to not only be part of the discussion but to actually contribute amendments, is this a shocking and illogical step for Democrats to make? Absolutely not.

Conservatives Wet Their Collective Pantaloons

I have one question for Ed Morrissey as he fervently strokes his flaccid thesis - this matters how, exactly?

Since he has been marching in lockstep with the Republicans since his start, I don't see this as being anything more than a poor career decision on his part.

No Sense Of Direction

There’s lots of talk amongst conservatives about who/whom are Left, Right, Centrist, Independent, Radical, or even Moderate. But one thing is sure – none of them have any real sense of who they are at any given moment in history. Take for example one of the teabaggers favorite Senators, Jim DeMint



To the left? The left of whom? Micheal Savage maybe? Perhaps McCarthy?

But what DeMint really means is that he just doesn’t agree with true Republican theory and ideology. The bedrock principles of the Republican party are fiscal responsibility, a strong family unit, and national defense. To people like DeMint, claiming that someone is to the left of you really means that they just don’t like you, your ideas, or even the fact that those ideas have benefited the country. It’s more of a catch-all statement designed distract from the fact that conservatives have no plan, no ideas, and therefore, no relevance in the national discussion.

Weaver's Wise Words

Sorry for the blatantly silly alliterative title, but it's true.

If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout...That's just the truth.

That's what John Weaver, a top adviser to John Huntsman, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner that Cheney, Limbaugh, and Palin are pretty much poison to the Republican/Conservative brand.

No! Surely not!

Seriously, if Republicans think they are going to see big gains in 2010 when you have these people as the "leaders" of the party, then the Republican party is more out of touch with reality than we might first think.

Rush said this today on his radio show:

By the way, I hate this whole concept of giving back anyway. That somehow it is the duty of the successful to give back.

So I guess I was right in thinking that Rush's intentions when doing this was predicated more on the fact that he could write it off on his tax return. Sure, the tainted money went to a worthy cause, but do you honestl believe that Limbaugh cares about the military? Aside from them being one of his favorite weapons to beat people with, he has no use for them.

Cheney, Limbaugh, and Palin can do as much for the Republican party's resurgance as a barber can do to cure Parkinsons.

Minute Number 2043.78787878

From Time Magazine

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience.

Something tells me that he's not gone for good.

Even though Joe "The Gimmick" claims to be outraged with excessive GOP spending, there's this little nugget of joy:

...he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.

As we all now by now, Mr. Wurzelbacher was once one of those "welfare queens" that he and his fringe-conservative types love to rail against.



Since he's "leaving" the GOP, where will he end up next? I rather doubt that he and Sarah Palin will be all buddy-buddy now. The only place he's got left is the fringe element that embraced him for the theatrical set-piece that he was. Look for him to have an interview spot on Hannity's America and various wingnutia-style talk-radio prattle-fests like Limbaugh's program. Joe hasn't tred into Micheal Weiner ( Savage ) territory yet, but if the electric bill gets too big, I wouldn't put it past him.

Meghan McCain Is Interesting

In a speech before the Log Cabin Republicans, Meghan McCain had this to say:

So tonight, I am proud to join you in challenging the mold and the notions of what being a Republican means. I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.

Nevermind the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are about supporting gays within the Republican party, Meghan doesn't seem to be able to see past the "I'm not bad because I have gay friends" meme. This isn't to say that she doesn't advocate on their part in private, but if you're going to call yourself a "progressive republican", you need to prove it. By their very nature, Republicans - particularly within the conservative realm - are regressive.

And her placing tattoos, punk rock, and black coture on the same playing field as national defense and the size of governmnent intrusion into the private lives of the citizenry seems smell a bit off. Not because Republicans haven't frowned on counter-culture, because they have. But, if Meghan has a desire to be taken seriously, she needs to show it in what she says.

On that point, I'm guessing "tramp-stamp" for the tattoo and I'm hoping she's speaking more about The Ramones than Good Charlotte.

A Plurality Of Ignorance: Teabaggers Think They Know It All

*cross posted at Daily Kos *

Michelle Malkin, and many other bloggers, have extensively covered the "tea-parties".

Malkin, in her latest piece, makes this statement:

no national wire coverage of these thousands of protesters across the country, but AP covers measly anti-war protest turnout in Washington…

That's a bit like asking someone who you've publicly ridiculed numerous times to pay attention to you and give you some type of priority coverage.

Oh, wait. That's EXACTLY what that is.

Malkin's new bit of "please-feel-sorry-for-us" nonsense aside, one has to ask the question - do any of these people that are attending and praising the "sucess" of their tea-parties know anything about economics?

First, you have to look at where these people are getting their information.

Rush Limbaugh, the aforementioned Michelle Malkin, andb blogs such as FreeRepublic, RedState, and HotAir.

So, what is the one thing that none of these people are giving their audience - an alternative, economic, plan.

Rush does offer somewhat of a plan, though it is filled with information that is either false or has been proven to not work:

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half.

Limbaugh's getting his "facts" on the corporate tax rate wrong.

From Media Matters

In its August 2008 report, the GAO estimated that "[t]he average U.S. effective tax rate on the domestic income of large corporations with positive domestic income in 2004 was an estimated 25.2 percent." Further, in its Paying Taxes 2009 publication, based on its 2009 Doing Business report, the World Bank-International Finance Corporation estimated that the United States has a lower effective rate of current corporate tax than several developed economies, including Germany and Italy. Moreover, in June 2007, the Treasury Department concluded: "If special provisions were eliminated, the top corporate tax rate could be lowered to 27 percent or more than 40 percent expensing could be provided to all businesses for new the cost of tangible investments, and the tax system would produce the same level of revenue."

In Paying Taxes 2009: The Global Picture, the World Bank noted that "reducing the statutory rate of corporate income tax has been the most popular government tax reform in the period. However in most of the economies, the case study company does not pay corporate income tax at the statutory rate on its profit before tax, since the tax rules require adjustments to be made to this in order to calculate taxable profits."

DeocracyNow's Amy Goodman interviews Pulizter Prize winning investigative Journalist David Cy Johnston about the stimulus and specifically references further tax-breaks for corporations

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON:....spending—tax cuts have not worked. The Bush tax cuts, all of them were financed with borrowed money. And where did we end up at the end of the Bush administration? If you add up all of the bailouts that the Bush administration did in the fall, the investments, the spending and the guarantees, it’s over $8 trillion. How much money is that? It is more than all of the income taxes paid by all Americans for the entire eight years of the Bush administration.


The fact is that if you don’t fix and maintain roads, you can’t move goods around efficiently, the economy suffers. If you don’t spend money on higher education, on research and development, the economy suffers. This notion that government money is, as a student once said to me, taken out in the ocean and just dumped has to go away. We need to recognize that government, which is the biggest single part of our economy, is absolutely vital, if we’re going have a robust economy. That doesn’t mean there isn’t waste and stupidity. And corporate America has plenty of waste and stupidity, too.

Rush then goes on to state:

Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%.

But who pays Capital Gains taxes?

Fewer than one in seven individual taxpayers report taxable capital gains in any year. In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains (net long-term gains in excess of net short-term capital losses and capital gains distributions, which are taxed at favorable capital gains rates) on Schedule D, and another 4.6 million reported capital gains distributions from mutual funds on their Forms 1040. Many taxpayers with gains had modest incomes ? more than half (52 percent) of those with taxable net gains or capital gains distributions had incomes below $75,000. But high-income taxpayers accounted for the overwhelming share of capital gains (Table 1). The 3 percent of tax returns with adjusted gross income exceeding $200,000 reported 31 percent of AGI and 83 percent of capital gains. The 0.3 percent of returns with AGI exceeding $1 million reported 15 percent of AGI and 61 percent of capital gains. Capital gains represented less than 4 percent of AGI for gains recipients with income less than $200,000, but about 40 percent of AGI for those with income exceeding $1 million.

Many more Americans accrue capital gains on corporate shares they hold within tax-deferred employersponsored retirement saving plans or individual retirement accounts. But capital gains from stock sales within those accounts are not subject to capital gains tax. Accruals within those accounts are tax free until distributed and then are taxed as ordinary income.

Newt Gingrich had the same idea for Capital Gains. Turns out Rush is just as wrong about the idea as Newt was:

Here are a few examples of why Newt and Rush's plans for Capital Gains won't work.

Capital Gains Cuts Mostly Benefit The Wealthy:

If you care about who benefits from tax cuts, and don’t think it should mainly be the rich, and in particular if right now you’re not so crazy about cutting taxes on the people on Wall Street who are responsible for getting the country into the huge financial mess it’s in, this probably isn’t your favorite tax change. The benefits of capital gains tax cuts overwhelmingly go to those who own capital assets outside of retirement and other tax-protected accounts. By definition it is the rich who own most capital assets.

The Incentive Will Be To Sell:

A 0% capital gains rate would in fact be a disaster for the market. One virtue of having a tax on capital gains is that it dampens volatility and promotes longer-term investing. That is, if you pay tax on profitable trades, you’re less likely to make moves based on short term movements on the market. Given the uncertain times we face, it’s far more likely that a zero rate on capital gains would prompt a massive exodus from the market than a massive entry into it. In fact, if you think about it, the immediate motivation of a 0% capital gains tax rate is to sell - not buy.

There Will Be No Incentive To Save:

We worry all the time about insufficient savings in this country for retirement and education. One of the ways in which we encourage saving is to create no-tax retirement and education accounts. If all accounts are no-tax, money will likely not be put into these forms, which it’s much harder to pull out of.

That's the meat of Limbaugh's plan - a plan that won't work.

The remainder of those touting the tea-parties have nothing real to offer to the discussion. It's all "red-meat" prattling that amounts to nothing more than delusional speculation.

Malkin has all sorts of paranoid theories about the stimulus.

She went on Cavuto's "business" program on Fox"News" to discuss her theory that Robert Reich was advocating that stimulus money be kept away from experienced workers and "white-male" construction workers.



Reich even responded.

In a time like this, when tempers are riding high and many Americans are close to panic about their jobs and finances, you have a special responsibility to consider the accuracy of what you say and the consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements. In the last few days, manifestly distorting my words and pulling them out of context, you have accused me of wanting to exclude white males from jobs generated by the stimulus package. Anyone who takes a moment to examine what I actually said and wrote knows this to be an absurd misrepresentation of my position (see this). My goal is and has always been to create as many opportunities for as wide a group as possible, and not exclude anyone from access. There is and has never been any ambiguity about this. The hate mail I have received since your broadcast suggests that the mischievous consequences of your demagoguery are potentially dangerous, in addition to being destructive of rational and constructive political discourse. I urge you to take responsibility for your words. Words and ideas have real world consequences, and you have demonstrated a cavalier disregard for both.

People like Malkin, Limbaugh, conservative bloggers ( et al ) refuse to listen to anyone with any type of economic background.

Perhaps it's because it's too difficult for them to understand?

I'm guessing yes on that one.

It's far easier to digest and then vomit up neatly packaged "sound-bites". Couple that with buzz-words like "socialism" and "communism" and even "totalitarianism" and you'll have a crowd of people ready and willing to follow you. And they will follow you out of fear, even if it is a fear that is grounded in lies.

And what of those that attend the "te-parties".

What knowledge of the economy do they have?

It's a fairly safe bet that some of them may have some knowledge of economics, but are they attending these rallies out of anything more than a reflexive fear that Obama and the government are "out to get them"?





Nothing but catch-phrases.

Then there are the governors of states that are lambasting the stimulus. Then they turn around and say they will only accept certain portions. Sarah Palin is part of this gang.

The biggest single chunk of stimulus money that Palin is turning down is $160 million for education. There’s also $17 million in Department of Labor funds (vocational rehabilitation services, unemployment services, etc.), about $9 million for Health and Social Services and about $7 million for Public Safety.

Then there's South Carolina Governor Mark Sandford.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

These three, to me, are examples of Republicans that are showing a complete lack of interest in the people within their own states. Why are they only rejecting those speicific portions of the stimulus. Why aren't the "tea-baggers" asking that question?

People are actually dumping teabags into rivers and think that this act is somehow going to help the economy. Actions do often speak truth to power, but what "truth" are they expressing? Are they buying these tea bags? When people started protesting France, they were actually buying the wine they were pouring into storm drains.

Of course, I don't have all the answers either.

Truth of the matter is, I'm willing to admit that I don't know enough about economics. But I'm willing to learn the truth behind something before simply reacting.

It amazes me how so many people who aren't going to have their taxes raised - whether they are self-employed or not - are so willing to be part of the stimulus in the first place.

Perhaps it's a part of their nature. Maybe they have such a strong desire to be a part of something that they give up the ability to think for themselves. Maybe for them, being part of "the crowd" is more important than being informed.

John Stewart Takes On Republican Governors

Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - GOP Govs at Odds

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Here's something to ponder.

Why are they taking such issue with "unemployment insurance" money? I may be wrong, but the keystone in unemployment money in Kentucky is that it will only work for 6 months and that's predicated on the fact that you are actively looking for a job.

Quote Of The Day

And now, Rick "Man-On-Dog" Santorum

The Quran is perfect just the way it is, that’s why it is only written in Islamic

Oh, This Is Just Precious

What's a sign that you have run out of things to talk about?

You do an interview with "Joe The Plumber"

The Tufts Daily ( the student paper of Tufts University ) recently did an interview with the man least likely to be plumbing anything in the near future, Sam Wurzelbacher - ne: Joe The Plumbing Afficianado.

In it, however, we get a glimpse of Joe that we knew would be coming around sooner rather than later:

Question: There has been some confusion amongst the media with regards to your name and occupation. Could you provide some clarification?


Answer: All right. Well, my name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. I go by [my] middle name Joseph and shorten it to Joe and have gone by that since I was born and have always been called Joe. With regards to my occupation, I was a plumber in the military for the United States Air Force. I used to teach plumbing in the military. A lot of times the licenses that are obtained in the military world do not transfer over into the civilian world.

For many hardline lunatic-fringe conservatives, this just might become a bit of a stick with which to beat people with. He's not just Joe "The Plumber", he's Joe "The Fucking Military Plumbing Teacher".

Please, do continue:

Q: Why do you and so many other Americans find the words “spread the wealth around” so troubling?


A: Well, I am fairly well read and have read Karl Marx’s work, and spread the wealth around is something that he mentions quite often. If you look up the word [socialism] in [Webster’s] Dictionary, the definition may not mention “spread the wealth,” but community work and sharing of goods all plays into it. Obama’s health-care plan is a very socialist experiment. [Obama’s plans] all revolve around socialism, and that’s what scares me about it.

As I try to hold back my laughter at the thought of Joe/Sam/Plumber's Putty actually trying to conivnce the Tufts' readership that he is "well read", I would like to have Joe give a brief speech on Marxism and what he thought of struggle of the Proliteriat.

Q: How did you feel when you became such an important factor in the final presidential debate and the campaign as a whole?


A: Initially, I thought it was completely absurd. I was glad that I could be used as a focal point to possibly bandy around some ideas, and maybe people would open their eyes to Obama’s socialist ideology. However, there were so many important issues to be discussed other than the “Joe the Plumber, Joe the Plumber.” [The debate] was absolutely ridiculous. After a while, I actually got tired of it. Not so much the “Joe the Plumber” I am tired of, but there are other issues that need to be discussed.

Right.

Completely absurd until he started being asked to appear on television, make speaking engagements with McCain, a book deal. Yeah, it was absurd until he realized, "hey, I've got a publicist now"

There is so much more, but this is where the money shot comes in:

Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election?


A: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans — that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they’re middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you’re a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative.

Boby Jindal just lost the 2012 primary.

Worst In The World v 2.0

From Friday night's edition of Countdown:

Are The Republicans Afraid It Might Collapse, Again?

Michelle Malkin wrote about this on her blog. Trying, in the ham-fisted style that she is so proud of, to blame this tragedy on "illegal-immigrants" is just further proof that she is - for lack of a more appropriate term - bat-shit crazy.

But now, the GOP is probaby going to just forget that this ever happened. Even though they are having their convention just 10 miles away from it next month.

It’s a year today since the Minneapolis bridge collapse that killed 13 people, but don’t expect Gov. Tim Pawlenty to showcase the reconstruction.

Indeed, with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul just a month away and Pawlenty reported to be high on John McCain’s running mate list, Republicans want to drive attention away from the infrastructure disaster that spotlighted the nation’s crumbling bridges and from the criticism the governor faced for what some critics said was a slow response.

The governor’s staff reports there are no plans to hold any events near the site of the bridge collapse, about 10 miles from the convention hall. And GOP convention planners have organized hundreds of buses to ease the congestion expected when some 45,000 conventioneers, guests and media commute to the hall.

More here.

What Is It About Birth Control That Republicans Have Issues With?

It looks as if the Bush administration is attempting to just completely remove choice from the women of America when it comes to their own body. Are they really wanting to equated contraception and abortion? It looks that way.

The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is drafting a rule that would place new restrictions on domestic family planning programs. While current law allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control and defines abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control, including oral contraception.

Read more here.


John McCain recently fumbled like a freshman with a panty-girdle when asked about birth control:




It appears that the "adstinence only" eduction isn't working, as teen pregnancy has risen - again - this year.

From CN.com, some interesting info from previous years:

In 2005, the number of births for girls aged 15 to 17 was about 133,000, or 21 for every 1,000 girls. That number rose to nearly 139,000, or 22 for every 1,000 girls, in 2006.

Along the same lines, 1/3 of girls in the United States got pregnant before age 20, and more than 435,000 babies were born to teens between 15 and 19 years in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A cutback in community resources for youth over the last eight years could help explain the increase in teen pregnancies, said Michele Ozumba, director of the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention.

A Terrorist Attack Is Good For The Republicans? Really?

Apparently, Charlie Black - John McCain's top adviser - thinks that another terrorist attack on America would be quite beneficial to the Republican cause.

From Fortune magazine:

On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain’s chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

But, this isn't the first time this has happened. Everytime September 11th comes around, there's likely to be another op-ed that's written about how "another 9/11 will bring the country together".

America’s fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

So, how does this rationale work? How can a terrorist attack equal something 'good' for the Republicans? John Stewart has the answer.

Download Stewarts mathmatical hypothesis.