Wisconsin Governor Gets a Prank Phone Call

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker thought he was talking to a wealthy GOP donor.  He was actually talking to a liberal blogger posing as GOP donor David Koch.  GOP governors should be wary of taking phone calls (see Sarah Palin prank phone call during the last presidential election).




Not much there.  About 4:30 into the second cut there's been some talk about planting some trouble makers in the crowds protesting.  Just interesting that these phone calls are not screened better.

Remember I Said November 2010 Is a Ways Away?

After health insurance reform passed the GOP'ers declared that they would use its passage as a rallying point to flip one if not both chambers of Congress during the midterm elections this year in November.  And I recall pointing out that there was a heck of a lot of time left until the midterms and finance reform was next on the list.

And now the GOP is "digging in" to oppose finance reform.  Really?  Do they think opposing finance reform is a good idea, especially in light of all the terrible press coming out as a result of the Goldman Sachs investigation?  Or do they just understand who butters their toast?  And don't get me wrong, the table was at least partially set for the whole financial mess when Bill Clinton signed the law repealing Glass-Steagall.  Reinstating Glass-Steagall should be number one on the list of reforms considered.

But, as usual I digress.

Either way, (whether the GOP really thinks the financial status quo is OK or they owe their benefactors on Wall Street) you have to admire the GOP for sticking to their guns as the party of no.  Even if it means alienating voters before the midterm elections.

Stay Classy Tea Partiers

Check out this class act, the Tea Partier in the tie, that mocks a man (by making it rain?!?!?!) suffering from Parkinson's disease, also notice the Tea Partier on the left of the shot with the baby in the baby carrier appearing noticably uncomfortable:

And I know some will say that the above is just one bad apple.  There are a multitude of examples of Tea Party gatherings being supposedly marred by a few "bad apples" that don't reflect the true views of their movement.  I wonder why the Tea Party movement attracts so many "bad apples"?  The answer to that question probably says a lot about the Tea Party movement. 

Here's my answer to why the Tea Party movement attracts so many "bad apples": the Tea Party movement, at least in part, preaches a politics of fear of change, fear of the different, and just plain fear.  If, in part, the Tea Party continues to preach fear, other fear-preaching groups and individuals will continue to be attacted to the Tea Party.  Exactly how many bad apples have to be caught on video or photographed before it's decided that maybe the whole barrel is tainted?

"I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying"

More on the politics of the day (especially since lousy Kansas destroyed my bracket).  I know the GOP and Tea Partiers and rubbing their hands together getting ready for a huge gain in one or both chambers of our fair Congress.  But, 8 months is a long time.  Look at recent history, for example.  Don't forget, McCain was polling great against both potential Democratic presidential nominees, Obama and Clinton, in late March and early April of 2008 in key batteground states.  Let me be clear, I think the Dems will lose seats in the House for sure and maybe even the Senate.  However, it may not be as bad for Dems and good for GOP'ers.   

Things can and will change.  Voters attention will shift away from health insurance reform by Nov. 2010, trust me.  Surely Glenn Beck will come up with another political crisis at which he can point his fanatical Tea Party followers by Nov. 2010.  And don't forget that Tea Party candidates may run and split the GOP votes in some midterm elections.  Look at what happened in the upstate New York special election in 2008, a Dem won a seat that been held by the GOP since Reconstruction.  Financial regulation reform is the next political fight to be had and it should be a doozy.  Who knows what will be at the top of voters' lists as THE important issue when Nov. 2010 rolls around.  Memories fade.  It's only March 2010 not November 2010.  8 months till the midterm elections is a long, long, long time, especially in politics.  To quote a good friend of mine, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

Who Said Change Was Going To Be Easy

Health insurance reform passed.  At least some form of it.  Here's a decent synopsis of what's in the bill.  It's not what ultra-liberals wanted, a single-payer, run by the government, health insurance option available to all people regardless of income level.  It's definitely not what conservatives wanted, which was to maintain the status quo in which 30+ million Americans were without healthcare. 

Remember, conservatives have been against every major piece of progressive, "liberal" legislation in the last one hundred years including, but, not limited to, labor laws (including mandatory maximum work weeks, establishment of a minimum wage and every increase since then for example), social security, disability, medicare, medicaid.  I'm sure there's more but, that's all that I can think of off the top of my head.  Tea partiers must be besides themselves.  And will Limbaugh really leave the country now?

Obama ran on change and this legislation is certainly that.  Health insurance legislation was one the cornerstones of Obama's change platform.  The Dems won the presidency and both chambers of Congress on the coattails of Obama's pledge of change.  And when a party wins both the presidency and the Congress you get change.  And then you get a political backlash against that change.  It almost happens like clockwork, especially in a president's first term.  In fact only 3 presidents since Reconstruction have netted seats in midterm elections (FDR-first midterm gain, Clinton-second midterm gain and W.-first midterm gain; I attritbute W.'s midterm success in 2002 to the goodwill directed towards him and the GOP in the aftermath of 9/11, but, that's just my take).  Let's see what happens next.  Maybe the Dems lose the House or Senate in the midterm elections.  I certainly doubt they lose both.  Dodd's financial reform bill just flew through the Senate committee and is headed to the Senate floor for debate.  More change on the way?  Who could possibly be against financial rules changes in the wake of "too big to fail?"

But, as usual, I digress.  So there will be changes in health insurance but not as much as some wanted and way more than others desired.  That compromises were made should surprise no one.  Don't forget some of the definitions of compromise: 1. To arrive at a settlement by making concessions; 2. To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something.

Tea Partier Says She Wants to Hang Sitting U.S. Senator

So this right wingnut, Tea Partier essentially said that she wants to hang sitting Washington State U.S. Senator Patty Murray. I'm a big fan of protected free speech. But, I'm also as big an opponent of unprotected speech that advocates violence. Can you say terroristic threat? You cannot go around threatening violence, period, much less violence against a sitting U.S. Senator. So the this Tea Partier's mantra is, "you're either with me or I'm going to kill you?"

Please, let Tea Partiers continue to speak. And let GOP'ers continue to try to woo Tea Partiers. That should help the GOP'ers reach out to all those independent voters.

GOP'ers Wish It Was 1776 Again

Some GOP'ers have gathered at Mount Vernon and signed "The Mount Vernon Statement" in which they profess a desire that the USA harken back and emulate the era of our Founding Fathers circa 1776.

In their little manifesto (who the heck issues manifestos these days besides radical weirdos?) reads, "The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist." What "truths" from 1776 are they writing about? Or are they only cherry picking the easy, still embraced "truths" from that era (like all [people] are created equal) and forgetting the other less likeable "truths" from that era?

Let's start with this truth: Mount Vernon, the namesake of their document and where they signed their manifesto, was Founding Father George Washington's plantation. Yeah, that's right, his plantation. Truth: Slavery was legal plus non-land owning men and women couldn't vote for quite a while after 1776. Another "truth" back then was that there should be no national income tax, that "truth" seemed to go away after a while. So these GOP'ers at worst want to go back to a time when slavery was legal and masses were disenfranchised and the federal government was broke. At worst they think that era is something to aspire to. Brilliant.

Yet Another Example of Why to Not Take Decisions Out the Hands of Judges and Juries

Read this story about a women serving 27 years on a first time non-violent drug offense. Tell me that her sentence makes sense. Tell me it makes sense when you know that this women is serving 10 more years than a similarly convicted person because she was busted with crack instead of powder cocaine. That's right, if a person is convicted of a crack cocaine offense the Federal mandatory-minimums dictate more time served than if a person is convicted of a powder cocaine offense. Even if the amount of drugs in each case is the same. Tell me that makes sense. The ACLU has joined in asking President Obama to commute her sentence. If you go to the ACLU's site you can ask President Obama to commute her sentence too.

Needless to say I think laws that take discretion away from judges and power away from juries are terrible. Mandatory-minimum federal drug sentencing laws are just one of many examples of such laws. GOP'ers usually say less government is good and to trust individuals. Generally, GOP'ers claim we should look to the Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution. Yet generally and ironically, GOP's support and pass blanket generalizations into law about law enforcement issues, for example, taking discretion away from judges hearing individual cases and power away juries of our peers in the individual cases they decide. "One rule fits all" does not work. Each case is different. Each defendant is different. Maybe people should pay attention to all parts of the Constitution, like the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, not just the parts of the Constitution that are easy to like.

Fcuk Fox News

Fox New cut off the question and answer between the President Obama and the Republican House Caucus' retreat.

They just decided to cut it off. In the middle of the day. There was nothing else going on. How are the a new station again? My brain now hurts when "Fox" and "news" is used in the same sentence. As far as I'm concerned Fox is good for Sunday night animated comedies (see Simpsons, Family Guy).

How does the magical, weird, purple sky colored world of TV math work in the magical, weird world of Fox? I have an idea. As follows:

Homer Simpson (is greater than) > Bill O'Reilly
Marge Simpson (is greater than) > Glenn Beck
Bart Simpson is > Sean Hannity
Lisa Simpson > Great Van Sustreren
Maggie Simpson > Rupert Murdoch's soul

Just my thoughts.
                            

State of the Union Reaction Then Obama Schools GOP'ers at Their Own Retreat

First Jon Stewart's take on the State of the Union:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Speech Therapy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Then, Obama shows up at the House GOPers' annual retreat with the press corps in tow. And the GOPers agreed to let him do a Q&A with the cameras rolling:


This should be an annual event. The sitting president should go to the other party's House caucus' annual retreat and do a Q&A. But, given how the above exchange went over I doubt the GOPers will let Obama come over to their winter retreat again next year. Here's SNL's take on the Q&A:

State of the Speech

(the following was written during/after the State of the Union - text here)

Key, but not all, topics covered: recession, stimulus bill, bailout, budget, environment/green tech, jobs bill, health insurance reform, financial reform, super-majorities in the Senate, education, Supreme Court decision regarding corporate spending on campaigns, national security, the wars, veterans, loose nukes, Haiti, civil rights, don't ask don't tell.

I'll be honest, to me it seemed a bit partisan and almost too casual at the beginning. Too much joking around. Too many jabs at the GOP'ers and veiled blaming of the past administration for the mess we're in. Were the jabs and assertions regarding the past administration deserved and/or true? Yes. But, the State of the Union doesn't seem like the time or place. Maybe that's just me.

Of course during the speech I also didn't like the GOP'er's snickers and and passivity. I especially found annoying minority whip Eric Cantor smirking and shaking his head every time they showed him--it was incredibly annoying. He looked like a second grade smart-aleck in the back of the room making fun of the kid giving a speech at the front of the classroom. And GOP minority leader John Boehner was as orange-tan as ever. Boehner and Cantor next too each other looked like Tan-man & Grinnin', the boy blunder.

Towards the end of the speech the tone turned more serious. The President dished out and took some blame for where we are.

Overall impressions: Tense. But, these are tense, hyper-partisan times we live in. I've seen better and I've seen him do much better too. It seemed a little like a campaign stump speech, especially at the beginning. I want State of the Union speeches to be inspirational and forward looking. And President Obama's speech was inspirational and forward looking at times, especially towards the end.

Overall grade for the speech according to yours truly: B (maybe because I expect a lot from President Obama-of course I expect a lot out of the Congress generally and especially the Senate.)

Campaign or Vacation

Unless you've been on a remote island with no means of communication then you've probably heard that Democratic candidate Martha Coakley lost the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat to Republican candidate Scott Brown in a special election.

How could a Republican win in mega-blue state, ultra-Democratic Massachusetts?

In the political campaign play book I don't think going on a week long vacation within 1 month of election day is recommended. Who would GO ON VACATION with an election for a U.S. Senate seat, you're supposedly trying to win, literally only weeks away? Martha Coakley would and did go vacation. Oh by the way, Coakley had a double digit lead in the polls before the ill advised vacation.

Also not found in the political campaign play book is the strategy of bad mouthing an admired statewide sports figure. Who would say that Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan, even if it was intended as a joke? Martha Coakley would and did. Moreover, she also made the Schilling-Yankees joke less than a month before the election. That would be like Kay Bailey Hutchison joking about Roger Staubach being an Eagles fan.

Furthermore, it's probably not a good idea to make fun of your opponent because he decided it would be a good idea to shake hands with voters outside Fenway Park.

So after losing the election what does team Coakley do? What every losing campaign seems to do these days, start pointing fingers at others. In this case the Coakley campaign started blaming the D.C. Democrats and White House for not helping out enough and thus causing the predicted Coakley loss BEFORE ELECTION DAY!

So let me get this straight, candidate Coakley goes on vacation for a week right before the election, makes fun of a local sports hero and lost to a guy that posed nude. Then, her campaign tries to throw the blame for the loss on out-of-town/out-of-state Dems? One definition of vacation is as follows:

vacation : an act or instance of vacating.

Coakley vacated her responsibility as a candidate when she and her campaign believed their own press and looked at the poll numbers and decided that it would be OK for her to take a break from trying to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. Maybe those in glass vacation houses shouldn't throw stones at D.C.

Rudy Giuliani: We Had No Domestic Attacks Under [George W.] Bush

Yes, Giuliani really said that, seemingly forgetting about the whole 9/11/01 terrorist attacks including the attack on the city he was mayor of at the time and the shoe bomber that same year. Surprising given Giuliani's repeated non sequitur references to the 9/11 attacks in speeches for years after.

What color is the sky in Giuliani-land I wonder?

Here's Biden bagging on how Giuliani constructs a sentence:


And here's Rudy bringing it back to 9/11 when asked about Hillary Clinton getting choked up on the campaign trail during the 2008 primaries:


Other things that, according to Giuliani, probably happened or didn't happen during W. Bush's administration:
- There was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
- The USA went to war in Iraq based on good intel.
- Colin Powell didn't lie to he UN about WMD's in Iraq.
- We found WMD's in Iraq.
- Giuliani won the GOP nomination in 2008 for president.
- We captured and/or killed Bin Laden.
- Cheney never shot anyone in the face.
- W. Bush took swift and effective action after Hurricane Katrina.
- The mission really was accomplished when W. Bush stood in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner on that aircraft carrier.
- The economy didn't tank during W. Bush's administration.

And here's the thing, Giuliani isn't the first, and probably won't the last, GOP'er to claim there were no attacks during W.'s presidency. Remember, W.'s former White House press secretary Dana Perino and former Dick Cheney aide Mary Matlin have gone on record saying the same thing. Do they think if they say it often enough or loud enough or really, really really believe no attacks occurred during W.'s presidency then everyone will agree with them? They do know that people can remember and read, right?

Man oh man, I do love the smell of revisionist history in the morning.

"If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."*

*of course that's a quote from your favorite little green alien and mine, Yoda from Star Wars.

Well, looks like Yoda was wrong again-don't forget that Anakin/Darth Vader turned away from the dark side right before he bought the moisture farm in the sky. A conservative blogger has broken ranks with Emperor Limbaugh and Darth Beck. Charles Johnson, writer of the blog LittleGreenFootballs.com, has "parted ways with the Right." Read his reasons, in his own words, here.

GOP Launched a New Website (Straight Into a Dumb Brick Wall)

This is somewhat old news but, I'll explain below why I'm posting this now after all the coverage it's already received. As you may have heard from numerous news outlets, on Oct. 13, 2009 the GOP launched a new website, namely, GOP.com that had some problems.

Oh, GOP, you're like that elderly person from the early 1990's who tries over and over again to set the time on your VCR to no avail. After every failed attempt the VCR continually flashes "12:00" in what you believe is a mocking, condescending manner. Or GOP, you're like the 90's elderly person trying to look cool as you show off your new, hip cassette tapes to your younger friends, friends who wonder if you've heard of CD's.

One of the most covered aspects of the new GOP site was RNC chairperson Steele's blog titled, "What Up?". One day after launch they changed the name of the blog. I wonder why.

Another heavily covered snafu at GOP.com was the "future leaders" section of the site which displayed an error message or was blank part of the day it was launched.

Oh irony, you are a cruel, cruel mistress.

They've supposedly fixed the "future leaders" problem. They "fixed" the "future leaders" page by adding some prose that still does not list any future leaders of the GOP. I'm serious. And that's why I went ahead and wrote about the GOP's new site more than a week after its horrendous launch. GOP.com's "future leaders" section, as of this post on Oct. 21, 2009, still lists no one more than a week after the site's launch. Now, irony has evolved into plain, old stupid. Why even have a "future leaders" section? Sure, invite folks to give their 2 cents but, maybe, just maybe, you should list some up and comers in your party. Otherwise, it makes your party look lost. Just a thought.

To quote a famous GOP'er, "fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again." Apparently, the GOP can be fooled again(original GOP.com launch) and again(Steele's "What Up?" blog) and again(error on "future leaders" page) and again(fixed "future leaders" page still lists no one). Now if only the GOP could figure out how to set the time on its darn VCR...

Pot, Let Me Introduce You to Kettle...

Party of...

Putting People In Their Place

I came up with the above after reading this story, this other story and this older editorial.

The Sky Is Falling...

...when it comes to the public option being included in the new health insurance reform legislation.

Maybe, kinda.

The Senate Finance Committee voted against the inclusion of a public option in it's version of the health insurance reform bill.

The Senate Finance Committee bill is not the only version. The Senate Health Committee bill apparently has the public option in its version and the different Senate versions have to merged. Then, the Senate bill would have to be reconciled with whatever comes out of the House, which is sure to have a public option in it. It's all up to supposed Blue Dog Democrats(conservative Dems) in the Senate. Will there be a vote in the full Senate on a bill that includes a public option? Or would the Blue Dogs join a GOP fillibuster to stop a full vote on a public option bill?

Do I think the final bill will have a public option? I'd say it's 50-50 or worse. If there's no public option in the final bill then I think it's more than likely that the final bill will have a "trigger" provision (if rates don't come down then public option occurs), a health coop provision and a provision that mandates that all people have health insurance. If the final bill does indeed have a "trigger" provision then it'll be interesting to see if rates actually come down. If health insurance rates don't fall then it'll be interesting to see how difficult it will be to pull the "trigger" and actually put a public option into action.

Would Reid and the non-Blue Dog Senate Dems force a show down on the public option and dare the Blue Dog Dems to support a filibuster against their own party?

There's also what's known as the "nuclear" option. The Senate would need to procedurally do away with the filibuster by suspending the rules and allowing a simple 50 vote majority to call for a vote on a final bill that included a public option. Currently, 41 Senators can "filibuster" and block a vote on a bill or other matter by the full Senate. But, it's unlikely. The Senate GOP'ers threatened to use the "nuclear" option when they were in the majority and Dems in the Senate were blocking some W. Bush appointments. However, it's unlikely that Reid and the non-Blue Dog Senate Dems would go that far in my opinion. But, it is an ultimate, last option.

Invasion of the Hair Aliens!

The above is at best absurd and at worst (probably) just plain dumb. It is what it is.

Want to know more about how/why my brain came up with the above? 
OK, you've read so far... It was inspired, in part by the twitter feed I read about (and now follow) a while back GovPerrysHair. Essentially, according to the twitter feed, Perry's hair has a mind of its own. That, for some reason made me wonder about who or what might control Perry's hair. Thus, the "Hair Aliens". Next, I thought of the quote from Dune, "he who controls the spice controls the universe." And that's how I came up with the cartoon. At least in reference to the Hair Aliens. Otherwise, Perry just looks like he takes too much time on his hair, thus the endorsement at the bottom. And yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how I got to the Hair Aliens and Dune quote.

More or less from the Hair Aliens in the future?

Click here for more of the ongoing saga of the Hair Aliens.