Well said!

The President tried tonight, but I fear healthcare reform is hitting the third rail. The GOP, trading in their treasured coin of fear tactics and lies, coupled with Obama's "loose reins" approach (a well-meaning intent to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton years), could well sink the public option. Or the whole reform. Meanwhile Big PHARMA has already rung out concessions from Congress. So the insurance and pharma companies will get richer and more people will go broke or die because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare in this country. [sigh]

The Bill Moyers Journal says it well here. Give a listen.

Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away

Today is Sarah Palin's last day in office serving as governor (much to Alaska's relief, no doubt). Now it's off to make a fortune selling books to those "lower 48" states and to clean up on the lecture circuit. If we're lucky she'll earn just enough to buy a new, deluxe tanning bed and then she'll disappear.

I've heard right-wind pundits talk about how scared the liberals/progressives are of Palin. Damn right. We always fear the unholy union of naked ambition coupled with laziness and raw stupidity. We've had one president who didn't read newspapers, and look where it got us. Go back and watch the Couric interviews again ... the mere idea that this dingbat could make ascend to higher office and make decisions that could shape the course of world history is truly, truly frightening. Stephen King couldn't dream up during his worst nightmare something as horrifying as the prospect of this starry-eyed dolt signing laws that would affect me and my family.

Of course, given her current negative-approval rating of 53%, I suspect she would only lead the Republicans to another utter defeat in 2012. She's really the gift that keeps giving. I also suspect that the ranks of Independents (if not Democrats) would swell with yet more disaffected Republicans should she run, but there also that mindless contingent that will vote for her or support her strictly because of her conservative stances regardless of how obviously moronic and dangerous she is. (This week various experts on FOX "News" were calling Obama dangerous ... holy crap! Let's see, a choice between a man who taught constitutional law and a woman who skins elk and can't even name a magazine or newspaper she reads when asked twice...)

So I say to Sarah, don't go away mad, just go away.

Goodbye Mollie

Mollie Sugden died July 1st after a long illness; her twin daughters were at her bedside. She was 86 years old. Mollie worked in theatre (where she met her future husband William Moore) and starred in such British shows as The Liver Birds and Coronation Street, but she is best known to American audiences as the fiercely outspoken Mrs. Slocombe on the britcom Are You Being Served?. She also later starred in the sequel of sorts, Grace & Favour, in which the department store coworkers attempt to make a go of a country bed and breakfast establishment.

A long-running joke on the show involved her references to her cat, Tiddles, also known as her pussy.

For a classic bit, click here and go to timecount 7:50. In this scene Mrs. Slocombe is speaking about her cat's pregnancy, but only Ms. Brahms knows she's talking about her cat.

Mollie, as Mrs. Slocombe, really defined Are You Being Served? a great deal. Much of the action and laughs revolves around her character, and she had a central role most of the Men's Dept vs Women's Dept action on the show. Her stance toward management is something many of us can appreciate.

Thank you Mollie for the many hours of laughter you've given me, and I am unanimous in that.

Crazy Like a FOX

The story of embattled South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford broke on the FOX News network as it did elsewhere, but wait there's a problem...

"(D)"? They seem to have mislabeled a Republican in disgrace as a Democrat. Luckily, this has never happened before...

Oh.

In a word: owe up to your own, folks. The Republican Party has climbed onto its high horse and self-labeled itself the party of family values and the keepers of general morality, but the endless stream of shamed Republican politicians belie that notion. Newt Gingritch, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, John Ensign, Mark Sanford... Did you catch that scent? It's the smell of hypocrisy in the air.

Pitch Perfect

Conservative criticism to the contrary, Obama's soft stance on the Iran voting crisis is dead-on. There are those who foolishly insist the President, speaking as the voice of freedom et al., insist that the revolting citizens are correct, the election was rigged, and so on. This is wrong.

The Iran hardliners and Ahmadinejad's camp would love to make this debate into Iran versus the Evil West rather than Iran versus many of its citizens. They have already warned the US not to meddle in a thinly veiled, weak attempt to do just that. A bold comment by the US would only give them the ammunition to make a valid case, swaying some citizens toward Ahmadinejad and inviting distraction at a time when a shocking minor(?) revolution is taking place.

This past Sunday, Monica Crowley, displaying a typically Republican lack of long-term vision, insisted that Obama take such a ill-fated stance. Lawrence O'Donnell immediately took her to task for the position, and pointed out that the result of such a statement would be ... well what? Would the elected individual step down? Would the Supreme Leader suddenly cal for a recount? Seriously, folks. The result—the only possible result—would be Iran shaking its fist at the US and crying foul. Their people lose or get distracted, they take a tougher stance (probably killing more protesters than they might otherwise), and our next series of diplomatic talks with them are automatically unproductive. Brilliant strategy, so we can—what?—feel we said the right thing? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that the current Administration would love to see a power shift over there.

This is the difference between an intelligent, measured Administration and a swaggering, foolish one—giving thought to one's actions and their possible repercussions, lest you, I don't know, start a messy war or something.

100 Days

Ever since FDR’s New Deal, all new presidents have been cursed with the “100 days” evaluation. Today President Obama has hit this somewhat infamous benchmark, and he is doing surprisingly well. The latest polls show his job approval rating at 69% (wouldn’t Bush have killed for that!), 90% feel he is a competent Commander in Chief, the Right Track/Wrong Track numbers have gone from 20/80% to 60/40% since Obama took office, and a poll this week in the Wall Street Journal (hardly a bastion of the "liberal media") ranked Obama's personal likability at 91%. The GOB pundits are crying foul at the levels of spending and his friendliness toward certain world leaders, but considering that only 21% of Americans label themselves Republicans according to their values it seems a safe bet we can ignore such chatter.

Obama promised to close Gitmo and reduce troop levels in Iraq, and prudent steps have been taken to make that so. He planned to inject roughly 800 billion into the economy, and Congress signed through approximately 787 billion. It’s been a good 100 days. He also signed off on absolutely banning torture his very first day, though some dislike that policy…

Torture

After the economy, the torture issue has been getting a lot of press recently (fueled in part by Dick Cheney’s incessant babbling on FOX News). What I want to know is, when did the use of torture ever become a debate? If you or your parents had been asked in grade school, “Do Americans torture?” the instant, authoritative answer would be “No, they don’t.”

So what has changed? Torture is still not an effective means of getting information (as saying what people want to hear and providing actionable intelligence are not the same). I’m also getting tired of the “we live in different times” or “this is a different kind of war” argument. Yeah, so? Were the days after Pearl Harbor a relaxing time for the country? All wars are different. Was Korea not different from Viet Nam ? Was Viet Nam not different from World War II? World War II different from the Civil War?

If we are going to yield our moral fiber, what exactly are we defending? There are those who would gladly permit secret government wiretapping of our own citizens and torture, yet they say we must defend ourselves against “evil” states. If we stoop to that level, we’ve already joined those states; the war is already over.

A Specter of Change?

Arlen Specter joined the ranks of the Democrats this week, bringing us closer to that filibuster-proof majority of yore. I knew I liked that tough old sage. Now if Al Franken’s lawyers come through, we’re off to the races.

Here’s to the next 100 days.

Good for a hoot.

Old Rush got the business this week ... from one of his own party. (No photos today; I really don't want to see that pudgy face on my site.) Give a listen. Love it.

Bereft of Ideas

We’re now 60 days in and counting, and the new Administration is rolling along fast. Despite the enormous challenges left gift wrapped at this Administration’s door, they’ve already worked nimbly on multiple fronts. Good. Now if they could only learn to screen their potential appointees a little better…

The Republicans have basically become the Party of No, desperately clinging to their long-disgraced economic policies and basically refusing to go along with anything, yet offering precious little new ideas in return. In the meantime, they longingly search for a scandal, any scandal, to hang around the new president’s neck.

Mass Amnesia?

Most amusing are the complaints coming from these guys. I too worry about the debt of future generations, but where, pray tell, was this great concern about the mounting deficit (at least 1.3 trillion of which President Obama inherited) when they were happily lining up without complaint behind George W. Bush’s wild spending sprees, tax cuts, and other excesses?
Now that the spending is actually to be applied to things that can benefit future generations—better education, lower healthcare costs, greater environmental safety, and true energy independence, rather than filling the coffers of the super-rich—these guys suddenly turn fiscal conservative on us. Convenient.

Mitt Romney appeared on Sunday television a few weeks ago and mocked Obama’s plan to half the deficit in 4 years. Where was his scorn when Bush said he’d cut his deficit in half in the next 10? (I’ve personally always found it amusing when a current president states they’ll achieve a fiscal benchmark well after their term expires—talk about passing the buck!)

Not that it matters. As usual, the last departing Republican president has upheld the tradition of leaving a deficit-happy fiscal disaster for his Democratic successor, so it’s truly doubtful that meaningful changes will be forthcoming because now we simply don’t have the capital.

Equally amusing (though it’s really infuriating) are their cries about Wall Street bonuses and their cries for investigations. Oh really? No mention of investigations about secret prisons, wiretapping of Americans, torture of prisoners, secret meetings with energy executives, screwed up invasions, botching of Katrena, bad treatment of veterans (shall I go on?), but some contracted bonuses have them in a huff. They act Populist to gain public sympathy while ignoring their continual cries over the previous 8 years for less Wall Street regulation and “ownership society” policies. It would appear, intentionally or not, they have short memories indeed.

Clinging to the Old

The Republicans, if really they wish to gain public trust, rebuild their party, and milk the current Populism, need to stop their endless policies to benefit only the rich and the corporations. They are painfully transparent, and it’s getting old.

As recently as this month, good old Newt Gingrich (whose intelligence I respect, if not admire) pushed in editorials for lower capital-gains taxes (gee, who would that benefit?) and lowering the business tax rate to match Ireland’s (at 12.5% currently). This is just another version of the tired voodoo, trickle-down economics, and it doesn’t work. If you give companies greater profits, they don’t suddenly give all their workers a raise, the company leaders simply take a greater profit. Many is the time I heard companies slash raises and such because of bad economic times, but never in my life have I seen a company say “Hey, we’re making great profits and the economy is surging, so look for a bonus in your next paycheck!” But hey, maybe it’s because I don’t work in lower Manhattan.

Today the Republicans brandished their “new plan” under Obama’s nose, deriding claims that they had no new ideas. I haven’t yet read it, but I’ve heard it’s a trifle light on numbers (as in few if any) and I’m willing to offer excellent odds that it keeps the deficit-burgeoning Bush tax cuts, encourages at-home drilling at the expense of our children’s environment for the enrichment of oil companies, and gives more fiscal benefits to employers than employees. Any takers?