Move over, George W. Bush, there's a new smirking fratboy in town

This is priceless. Watch Dylan Ratigan take that smirking punk Luke Russert to the woodshed:

You can bet your next paycheck that Ratigan got a good hard dressing down from the NBC suits for daring to question the Spawn of Timmeh.

(I guess now I have to start a new blog, "Sweet Jesus I Hate Luke Russert." =sigh=)

(via)

When do we start demonstrating for real democracy here?

This is what democracy looks like

Randi Rhodes had an interesting phone call yesterday, from a woman who started out asking why "we" let it get so bad in Egypt, and then under pressure from Randi, decided that what she wants is "a good election", by which she clearly meant 'ZOMG NO MUSLIMS!!" It was so painfully obvious, and yet this woman insisted in couching the fear that the Talking Heads of Television have been whipping up into concern trolling about elections.

When you take out of the equation this business about how the U.S. has a right to demand that someone we like lead Egypt because Israel needs it this way, the only conclusion you can come to is that people in Egypt have had enough of a government that only represents he oligarchs and the moneyed and have discovered that there really IS people power when there is common cause. Egypt differs from the U.S. in that here, Fox News has managed to convince a smallish but vocal group of people that giving more power to corporations, and allowing corporations to buy politicians in the government, and to have government be for sale, is a GOOD thing. Remember, this is a country where guys who have seen their jobs disappear are sending death threats to a 78-year-old academic who only "crime" is telling them to organize. That's the power of media in the United States.

So here we are with a two-party system that consists of a party of gutless whores and a party of batshit crazy lunatics. We have a car thief and possible arsonist collecting dossiers on anyone who questions the government, presumably so he can both monitor the American citizenry AND the Democratic (presumably only Democratic) administration they might petition. We have a Republican Congress whose first priority is redefining rape. And then we have so-called "Democrats" like Stephen Lynch, who thinks that conservodems like himself are the future and the rest of us should shut the hell up and get with the program:

Liberal groups need to stay out of Democratic primaries if the party is going to retake the House majority, according to a conservative Massachusetts Democrat.

Rep. Stephen Lynch was one of several Democrats who faced an aggressive primary challenge from the left in 2010. His challenger Mac D'Alessandro, a former top official with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), received almost $300,000 from labor groups for his campaign.

[snip]

Clearing primaries for members and discouraging liberal groups from spending against incumbents should be a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said. “It would definitely help, I think. You need to talk to those groups.”

(via)

And having money-grubbing politicians tell us to go away, to shut up, to not have a right to air OUR grievances differs from a despotic government, how? Don't talk to me about dictators and how this is just a Congressman and how we can still vote for other candidates in primaries. The minute party politics, whether Democrat or Republican, trumps the right of the citizens to gather peacably in the form of grassroots campaigns for election challengers, and when the party makes the rules and controls the money, we HAVE lost democracy.

The teabaggers have one advantage that the progressive side of the fence does not -- a corporate media and corporate astroturfers plowing money into their efforts. This works as long as the teabaggers continue to put their energies into defense of the corporate state under the false doctrine of Rich People Create Jobs® On our side of the fence, we have blogs and what's left of MSNBC in the evening (where ratings have fallen since the Olbermann sacking, largely because MSNBC alienated much of its audience with this move...probably deliberately, so they can return to the golden age of Savage Nation and Alan Keyes is Making Sense). The teabaggers are dancing to the tune of their corporate masters. The left is still cats resisting being herded. And the party that's supposed to be a counterbalance to the likes of John Boehner being the guest of honor at insurance company dinners and passing out checks on the House floor is telling us to suck it up and stick with the status quo.

We ought to be taking a really good, close look at Egypt. Because what's going on there is what happens when people get their act together and realize that it is their own government that's working against them.

Somehow I don't think we'll see Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, or the militia types detained under this

Somehow I don't think that abortion clinic bombers, the murderers of doctors at those clinics, old Nazi sympathizers who shoot people at the Holocaust museum, people who go to Obama appearances carrying guns and wearing T-shirts proclaiming that the "the tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (except that Thomas Jefferson has just been expunged from Texas textbooks), Michele Bachmann, and Glenn Beck aren't what John McCain has in mind when he introduced this bill this month:

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enemy Belligerent In5
terrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010’’.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY
2 BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) MILITARY CUSTODY REQUIREMENT.—Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

I wonder who's going to be classified as an "unprivileged enemy belligerent"? I suspect that John McCain will continue to regard people advocating that the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and the President be killed as patriots, and this bill won't kick in against Americans until a Republican is in the White House. Then we can go back to the good old days of arresting PEACEFUL, UNARMED protesters and kids in T-shirts reading "BU$HIT."

Oh yeah, and the bill also niftily defines "high-value detainee" and codifies in law that these individuals, presumably including the kids in T-shirts after a Republican is in iffice, NOT be subject to the Miranda decision.

And you wonder why we think John McCain is nothing but a craven political opportunist whose reputation for being a "mavericky" sensible pragmatic patriot is completely undeserved? We wonder why he's so regularly fellated on the air by David Gregory and his ilk. Because this piece of "legislation" screams only "I HAVE A TEABAGGER PRIMARY OPPONENT AND I HAVE TO SHOW HOW TOUGH I AM...BECAUSE RETAINING MY SEAT TRUMPS EVERYTHING, INCLUDING EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR."

Time to donate to Joe Sestak

It's not unusual for a President to lend his supposed clout to state electoral contests. While political parties may have titular heads, a sitting president usually trumps the "official" head of the party. But while Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney, the New York Times tag-team of journalistic hackery, may be fanning themselves on a chaise longue about how Barack Obama trying to influence state candidates is just SO un-bipartisan, they also point out that Obama is backing some pretty ugly horses out there:

The president’s top strategists have recruited candidates — and nudged others to step aside — in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections, as well as with an eye to the redistricting fights that will go on within states early in the next decade.

The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who helped Democrats win the House three years ago as chairman of the Congressional campaign committee.

While some party officials applaud the White House for its efforts — there is widespread concern among Democrats that the party could suffer if Mr. Paterson runs — the actions are drawing alarm from some Democrats who believe they cross a line and run contrary to Mr. Obama’s often-stated pledge to rise above partisan battles.

“The Democratic Party under Barack Obama did not come into office because of political calculation; it got there because of audacity,” said Representative Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who ignored White House efforts to urge him to stay out of a primary race against Senator Arlen Specter. “To be seen like you are selecting winners and losers in a party-boss way will breed some resentment, and in a longer term it won’t bode well.”

[snip]

In Pennsylvania, the White House has rallied behind Mr. Specter, a Republican-turned-Democrat, as he faces off in a Democratic primary against Mr. Sestak. The support from the president reflects a promise Democrats made to Mr. Specter earlier this year in persuading him to switch parties.

“An endorsement by the president is a tremendous boost,” Mr. Specter said. “He’s the captain of the team.”

More than anything, though, the interventions reflect a controlling style of this White House and of Mr. Emanuel, who employed similar hard-ball tactics to recruit candidates when he was running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In addition to Mr. Emanuel, the White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, and deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, keep close watch on all political races.

Yes, and Arlen Specter is nothing but a craven political opportunist. Backing him is textbook Rahm Emanuel -- forget about change, forget about anything but perpetuating the entrenched power structure.

We don't have to go along with this crap. If you have some shekels to spare, you could send some to help Joe Sestak break this monster. Choose your sponsoring organization here.

"Political realities": Translation: Don't piss off the Blue Dogs because they're so mean we can't control them

In case you had any doubts that Washington DC was one giant hackocracy full of venal, greedy bastards from both parties who just want to shovel as much corporate cash into their pockets, and listen not one whit to the American people, here's your proof:

All was well within the Democratic Party, which had finally received that elusive 60th caucus member. The Republican filibuster would be no longer be a threat.

Or maybe not.

Franken is expected to come to Washington after the July 4th recess. But not everyone is convinced that his presence will make a huge political difference. The reality, which few in the Democratic Party are willing to talk about openly, is that there are really only 58 caucusing members. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, has been out for nearly all of the current Congress on medical leave. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, while released from the hospital on Tuesday morning, continues to face health issues of his own. Meanwhile, moderate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, D-La, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have made it almost a point of pride in not allowing their votes to be taken for granted. And on specific issues, the party has proven strikingly allergic to philosophical unison.

"It is good news for the Democrats and it is bad news for the Republicans. That is a simple fact," said Mo Elleithee, a Democratic strategist who has worked on Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe's campaigns. "Having said that, you don't want to get too far ahead of yourself here. It is not like the caucus is unanimous on every issue."

Talking on condition of anonymity, some Democratic strategists were even blunter. "Sixty is an imaginary number," said one operative. "You are always going to lose the Ben Nelsons and all the centrists. This is why 2010 proves to be so important because it can set a buffer for that 60 threshold."

The threshhold for a filibuster-proof majority is now exactly one more than the number of Democrats you have.

Useless sacks of shit.

Isn't it funny how Republicans never thought like this? They had 51 seats, they were king of the fucking world. But Harry Reid is folded in a fetal position in the corner, lest Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh and the other corporatist suckup say mean things.

Can we please vote these weasels out of office and get some Democrats with some stones in there? It's things that make me miss Paul Wellstone more every fucking day. And even though Al Franken has finally taken back that seat from the people who murdered Sen. Wellstone, I'm not convinced he's going to be significantly more progressive than the blue dogs.

I am hoping he'll surprise me.

But of course journalists and Washington politicians have health care, and who else matters,really

Only Democratic and Republican Congresscritters and Senators and the journalists who love them don't want a public option to mandated shoveling of money into the pockets of insurance companies. The vast rabble that doesn't matter, does want one:

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.

Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

Let's go back and revisit what Mark Halperin said, shall we:

Time's Mark Halperin frequently repeats right-wing myths about the "liberal media." But today he undermined his already-weak case by arguing that one reason "to bet AGAINST major health care reform passing this year" is that "Most journalists still have health insurance."

The clear implication is that because most journalists have health insurance, they don't see the need for reform -- and that colors their reporting.

Because only the people who live and work in the bubble of Washington matter -- and the ones shoveling cash into the campaign coffers of Senators from both parties.

And still Americans keep re-electing these guys and taking clowns like Mark Halperin seriously.

(Yes, I am in Germnany. Silly photos of insignificant things to come.)

They always forget that they work for us

Many of us start out blogging pseudonymously. We do it for many reasons, not least of which is a desire for privacy. Every job-hunting site out there tells you to look for your "digital dirt" -- things out on the internet that might reflect badly on you in a job hunt. Whether being a progressive blogger qualifies as "digital dirt" remains to be seen, and it's easy to say "Well, what I do on my own time is my own business" -- until you're laid off into a crappy job market. The problem is that for the most part, once something is out there, it tends to stay forever, even if only in the Wayback machine archive. Some of us start out pseudonymously and then after a period of time decide to reveal more of ourselves. A few people on my blogroll have done just that recently. I blog halfway pseudonymously, but enough people have linked to my full name that anyone looking for my "digital dirt" will find this blog. This was a huge concern while I was job hunting, but amazingly, I managed to be hired by a giant multinational corporation despite it (and I don't buy for one minute that they didn't check).

But the decision to "come out", as it were, ought to be the decision of the individual blogger, not that of politicians who don't like what we write. But that is exactly what's happened to AK Muckraker of Mudflats.

It takes guts to be a progressive blogger in Alaska, given the tendency of its Evita of the North to attempt to incite violence among her frothing minions. But AK Muckraker decided that Americans ought to know more about the governor of Alaska than the media narrative of "pretty hockey mom" that we were getting, and with a family and a life up there, decided to blog pseudonymously....until a DEMOCRATIC -- yes, Democratic -- local politician forgot that he's accountable to the people he serves, and decided to be a thug.

You see, it all started when an Alaska state representative, Mike Doogan, started receiving e-mails -- lots of them -- as part of a coordinated e-mail campaign. This happens all the time. Right now there's one to sponsors of Bill O'Reilly's show on our side of the fence, and the other side is constantly trying to get progressive voices shut down. I'm quite certain that Barney Frank gets his share of not just critical mail, but outright hate mail. This pissant little Alaska bantam rooster, however, decided that voicing one's opinion to someone who represents you in the statehouse is out of line, and started vowing revenge against the Alaska bloggers who pointed out that he's forgotten for whom he works. Avedon Carol explains what happened next.

If there was ever a time for another "I Am Spartacus" moment in Blogtopia, this is it. The last one was during the infamous Amanda Marcotte/Melissa McEwan firing by the John Edwards campaign (which ought to have told us everything we needed to know) at the behest of Catholic League lunatic Bill Donohue. It's time for another one. Because it doesn't matter to what party the politician belongs -- a thug is a thug is a thug. They work for us. And it's our job to make sure that they don't forget it. Skippy has some suggestions on what to do.

Tonight I'm going to try to get to my town's public council meeting. Mine is a single-party rule town where the mayor hasn't lived for the last two years -- and no one on the council asks him to resign. He gets paid to preside over a town in which he no longer has any interest. The Democratic party doesn't even run candidates. I don't plan to talk at this meeting. I just want them to know I'm paying attention.

For those who thought Obama would put us bloggers out of business

Rahm Fucking Emanuel?

This is the best you can do?

Rahm Emanuel? The guy tho fought Howard Dean, without whom the next president would be named "John McCain", tooth and nail about the 50-state strategy and tried to have him booted from the chairmanship of the DNC? The guy whose idea of strategy in presidential politics was to pour money into states that were a sure bet anyway and hope that maybe Florida and Ohio might go your way and get you the victory?

Rahm Emanuel? The guy who drove a nascent Democratic star in the person of Paul Hackett out of politics for good after insisting that Sherrod Brown, a good "party man", should run against Mike DeWine in Ohio in 2006? Sherrod Brown is a perfectly good Senator but Paul Hackett was a potential star who could have sold the Democratic brand for decades to come to the very swing voters that are always wooed so heavily at election time.

Rahm Emanuel? The guy who decided that a good, honest, well-known and popular progressive named Christine Cegelis wasn't the right candidate for Illinois' 6th district because you don't dare run against Captain Codpiece's war? It was Rahm Emanuel, having learned absolutely nothing from the infamous Max Cleland/Saxby Chambliss race of 2002, who machinated the moving of an Iraq War vet named Tammy Duckworth who had lost both legs in Iraq into the district under the assumption that no one would dare criticize a war amputee. No one knew who Duckworth was, so no one was there to defend her when her opponent, Peter Roskam, accused her of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq. Duckworth is a brave and good woman who was as ill served by Barack Obama's would-be chief of staff as she was by Peter Roskam.

Rahm Emanuel was quick to take credit for the Democrats' takeover of the House in 2006, but as Paul Lukasiak pointed out at the time, if Rahm had had his way, the Democrats would have spent the next two years still in the wilderness. But hey...Rahm would have still been on the talk shows, and isn't that all that really matters?

The Hackett/Brown and Cegelis/Duckworth fiascoes is what makes Rahm Emanuel, as far as I'm concerned, the poster child for the Democratic Party's long sojourn in the wilderness. The future of the party is with Obama and with Howard Dean at the helm of the DNC, bringing the kids into the fold and showing that we don't have to be the party of glad-handing and hackery. Choosing this odious hack as his chief of staff is not the most auspicious of beginnings for Obama, though it's one that was predictable. After all, only Republicans thought Obama was the most liberal Senator. The rest of us knew better.