Uncle Richard Bruce Explains it All: A Play in One Unbalanced Act.

He's Got the Whole World In His Hands...

AUTHOR’S NOTE: When I heard yesterday that Unka Dick was writing a book criticizing George Bush for “going soft” on “their” policies in the final year of his Presidency, I couldn’t help imagining what he would say. This is the result. Enjoy!

 

THE SCENE: Dick Cheney’s secret bunker, erm, house. It is lushly appointed in Modern Dungeon, with grey walls mimicking the look of concrete, medieval torture devices tastefully displayed in gleaming mahogany cabinets with recessed lighting, and an old electric chair given pride of place in a prominent corner. Pictures of Cheney with Nixon, Kissinger and other reviled figures of the American past are positioned artfully on the walls. There are some obvious empty spaces where the pictures of Dick and Dubya used to hang. On the mantle over the stone fireplace are family pictures in black ebony frames; the 75-inch flatscreen TV is perpetually tuned to Fox News. The whole place seems like a museum, and a rather uninviting one at that.

DICK is seated in a leather armchair by the fireplace, waiting impatiently, sipping on a bourbon and water. He is half-drunk, as usual. Finally, his wife LYNNE enters the room with another woman, in her early sixties, and well-put together.

LYNNE: Dick, here she is. What did you say your name was again, honey?

WOMAN: Mrs. Cheney, my name is Frances Wood – I’m here to help Dick with his book.

LYNNE: Well now, Frances, I think you’re going to work out just wonderfully. I’ll leave you both to your work. I just know it’s going to be a huge best-seller!

(LYNNE exits.)

DICK (motioning to a chair opposite him): Well, sit down, Frances, sit down. Tell me about yourself. Do you have a lot of ghostwriting experience?

FRANCES: Actually, yes. I write all of the books for Regnery Press. You know, the conservative publishing house? Michelle Malkin, Bernie Goldberg…folks like that.

DICK (impressed): Well! It looks like I’m in very good hands then.

FRANCES (faux-modestly): I like to think so. So, Mr. Vice President –

DICK (interrupting): Call me Dick. Everyone does.

FRANCES: Well, uh, Dick, where would you like to start?

DICK: At the beginning, of course! Chapter 1: The Nixon Years.

FRANCES: Perfect! May I turn on my tape recorder?

DICK (panicking): NO! No tape recorders! I get to wiretap you, not the other way around!

FRANCES (shocked): Uh, what?

DICK (recovering himself): Oh! Sorry. Just a reflex.  Ha! Well. Where was I? Ah yes. Chapter 1: The Nixon Years. (leaning back in his chair and reminiscing) Ah, Dick Nixon was a great man. He had a problem with the drinking, you know: but otherwise, he was really on the right track.

FRANCES (encouragingly): In what way?

DICK (taking a sip of his drink): Remember when he said “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal?” That was brilliant! Yes, if only he’d taken that farther, we would be in a much better place here in America. (abruptly standing, snarling) But no, that stupid Commie bastard Ford had to come in and ruin everything. PARDON Nixon. For what? A stupid burglary? That was child’s play, a nothing. The only mistake G. Gordon made was getting caught!

FRANCES (eagerly): Wow! This is great stuff, Dick. Please continue.

DICK (basking in her praise): Well, we can flesh that part out later. What I really want to talk about is how I developed my philosophy for world domination, and how that weak, drunken fool (air quotes) “Dubya” ruined everything!

(sitting on the arm of the chair, deliciously remembering his glory days)

DICK: It all began with a group of dreamers. Me and some guys from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, we decided that after President Reagan caused the USSR to destroy itself in Afghanistan, we needed a new focus for American foreign policy. At the same time, we realized that as much as we love our oil men in Texas, their time was coming to an end. Pretty soon the U.S. of A. was going to need all of that oil in the Middle East in order to survive. And of course, we knew that with the rise of that wimp Al Gore’s (air quotes) “internet,” nuclear weapons were going to start proliferating in countries that were very unfriendly to our interests.

And so was born – the Project for the New American Century!

(A fanfare bursts out in the room.)

FRANCES (jumping up, startled, hand on heart): Oh my goodness!

DICK (confused): Huh? (light dawning) Oh, that! Oh don’t worry, Frances. I’ll have it  turned off. The house is wired for certain..special effects. (Presses a button under the arm of the chair) There! That should be the last time you hear it.

FRANCES (calming down, but now confused in turn): Special…effects?

DICK (embarrassed): Ummmm, yes. You see, it’s hard for some people to understand my speech, so we have a Cheney to English translater built into the house. (gesturing) My words are processed as they exit my mouth, so you can better receive my wisdom. But that’s not why we’re here, so let’s get back on track, shall we? We were talking about – my glorious vision! 

(sits back down in the chair)

FRANCES: Yes, tell me more about (looks around apprehensively), um, PNAC?

(No fanfare. FRANCES sighs with relief.)

DICK: Yes, PNAC! Well, we understood that weak-minded, lily-livered hick, Bill Clinton was destroying America with all that so-called peace and prosperity. We knew it was time to do something quick! So here it is: Our Statement of Principles, from 1997. I can recite it from memory, of course.

(declaiming)

“We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”

(DICK looks expectantly at FRANCES. She is spellbound, but then, comes out of it to give DICK a round of applause.)

FRANCES: Bra-vo, Dick! And how did PNAC proceed after that?

DICK: Well, we wrote a letter in 1998 trying to convince ol’ Billy Boy to invade Eye-Raq. We had some of our Congressmen do the same. But it didn’t work. He couldn’t see the opportunity and the danger of Saddam’s evil regime. But when we got Georgie in the White House, we knew we had struck gold. And 9/11, well, that was just great for us! It was the perfect excuse to do what we had wanted to do from Day One. We even put one of our members in charge in Afghanistan! Allahu akbar, baby!

FRANCES (smiling, tactfully): Uh, Dick, I might not put that in the book. I mean, we want people to like you and sympathize with you. Right?

DICK (standing abruptly, thundering and pointing his finger): LIKE me? Do you think I give a shit about that? This book is about being RIGHT and setting the record straight. I can still influence the direction of this country and keep it from descending into complete chaos! It’s my duty as an American!

(taking a deep breath, calming himself)

Now, if you will excuse me, I think I need a break. We’ll continue in an hour or so. Please feel free to help yourself to whatever you need in the kitchen. The maid will be along shortly to give you a tour of the house.

(DICK exits.)

(FRANCES, mindful of the bugs in the Cheney home, turns up the sound on the TV. She furtively takes out a cell phone and makes a call.)

FRANCES (in a stage whisper): Hello? Laura? It’s me, Frances. It’s working out just like you said it would! Dick is even more nuts than you told me! (listening) Yes, I heard the fanfare. (listening) Trust me. When I’m done with Dick Cheney, your husband George is going to look like a saint! (listening) You’re welcome, honey. Anything for a fellow Kappa Alpha Theta! KAT Forever! Bye, honey!

(FRANCES hangs up the phone happily.)

(LIGHTS OUT.)

IACF! INOF! WTF???!!!

Typical Obamaganda

During the primaries, the Obots followed a distinct pattern whenever Obama did something they didn’t like. The tactic was so prevalent that I actually coined an anagram for it:  IACF! (It’s All Clinton’s Fault!)

A classic example of IACF! was when Obama said he’d filibuster telecom/Bushie immunity for warrantless wiretapping, then turned right around and not only didn’t filibuster, but actually voted FOR the immunity. Meanwhile, Hillary kept her promise and voted against the immunity.

Whose fault was it? Was it Obama’s for not keeping his promise? Of COURSE not. It was Hillary’s fault for showing him up! And remember the Reverend Wright brouhaha? Josh Marshall said that he was Hillary’s fault too.

If Obama’s the nominee, we will see no end of this kind of stuff. And there’s probably some small benefit of getting a preview. But the simple fact is that we wouldn’t be seeing this stuff now if it weren’t for the fact that this is the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton’s campaign has decided to wage — often directly and at other times indirectly by not reining it in in her supporters when it crops up on its own. Wright is news today because Ferraro’s been news yesterday. Are her comments racist? That’s a loaded, too copious, word. And there’ve been cases where the Clinton team has gotten a bum rap on these matters. What I do know, however, is that Clinton’s campaign and her surrogates have injected the subject of Obama’s race into this campaign too many times now for it to be credible to believe that it is anything but a conscious strategy.

Of course, Josh, of course. Hillary waved her magic wand and forced Obama to sit in that church for 20 years. Mein Gott, the incredible power she has over Barack Obama! I mean, if she had that much control over what Obama did, don’tcha think she woulda waved that wand and made sure he didn’t run at all? Hellllooooooo, as Naomi “Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year’s” Wolf would say!

But Obot delusions aside, if you were under the impression that IACF! was going to cease now that we have the most post-racial, unifyingest, Pony-est Preznit evah, think again! It’s just mutated into a different form: INOF! (It’s Never Obama’s Fault!)

Whither Iraq?

Over Here, Barack

In a post entitled “But Hillary Voted for the Warrrrrrrrr!“, I detailed the absurdity of the default Obot position that Barack Obama was somehow “superior” to Hillary Clinton regarding Iraq, simply because he had given a speech in 2002 stating that he was against the invasion.

Did any of the Obots even know Hillary Clinton’s plan to end the war in Iraq? Or did her scary ladyparts get in the way?

Here is the portion, found at the above link, that makes me especially sad today.

SUMMARY OF HILLARY CLINTON’S PLAN TO END THE IRAQ WAR

(Source: Hillary for President website)

If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is President, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the President to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary’s First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home.

As President, one of Hillary’s first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council.

She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member — including every member of the National Guard and Reserves — and their families.

Well, Obots, it’s been more than 60 days since Obama was inaugurated. What’s he doing about Iraq? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Is the issue which provided the official excuse to excoriate Hillary Clinton on a daily basis no longer important to you?

The Judgement of Barack Obama, Part II

Note: It’s Pearl Harbor Day. Believe it or not, Barack Obama and George W., oceans NEVER protected us. We honor the service of the men and women who fought and died in World War II, especially on this day “that will live in infamy.”

The people our President-Elect surrounds himself with have always been of grave concern to me. We know so little about this man, yet we were supposed to trust his judgement over Hillary’s in the primaries, and McCain’s in the General Election. Why? Because he made a speech against the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

That speech was supposed to outweigh the fact that his friends are neoliberals, racists, misogynists, homophobes and domestic terrorists, and that he has consistently failed to adhere to liberal/progressive principles when he is forced to act instead of just speak. He did not filibuster, or even vote against, telecom immunity from being prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping, as he promised. (Hillary voted against it, keeping her promise.) He did not take public financing, as he promised; in fact, he raised about $500 million online during his 21-month campaign. Despite the ludicrous spin the Post puts on it, that money didn’t come from “small donors.” We know that Obama’s online donation system did not verify names and addresses, unlike Hillary’s or McCain’s, which would not allow donors from overseas, or who posted phony names and addresses, to give them money. Thus, those donors who gave $80 or less multiple times (as the Washington Post story admits, the average Obama donor gave more than once) could have easily gone over the $2500 personal donation limit by simply logging in with many different names and addresses. Moreover, Obama is not required to disclose the names of anyone giving less than $200 to his campaign. How conveeeeenient, as RiverDaughter would say! The bottom line is, someone has bought Obama, and we don’t know who it is because no one will investigate where it all came from. So much for the Obamabot spin that Obama is a populist figure.

President-Elect Obama is no longer saying he will “end the war” in Iraq. He has moved the frame on abortion from “safe, legal and rare” to “in consultation with their families and pastors” and has nominated the anti-freedom Tom Daschle as head of the HHS, rather than a staunch pro-freedom advocate like Governor Janet Napolitano. Furthermore, what did Joe Biden mean when he predicted Obama was going to make unpopular decisions we would hate, and that the world would test Obama when he came into office?

What have we on the leftish side of the spectrum done by allowing ourselves to be fooled by this cipher into giving him the most important job in the world? Why did we let this happen to our country? Why did we elevate supposedly “inspiring” speeches over action?

And speaking of speeches…we now have a little insight into Obama’s 27-year-old chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau. Which is he – a neoliberal, racist, misogynist, homophobe or terrorist? If you guessed “misogynist,” you’re right! Here he is, showing the same respect to a cutout of Hillary that Obama and his cohorts have shown to the real Senator Clinton.

Respect

If you genuinely think this is no big deal, what if it were a cutout of Michelle Obama?

Photoshop by Murphy at PUMA Pac

Bill Burton’s Secret Weapon: A Play in One Scientific Act.

THE SCENE: BILL BURTON, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, is sitting behind a large chrome and glass desk in a well-appointed, modern office. A large, sleek metal box with two buttons rests on top of the desk. One button is red, and reads “Verbiage;” the other is green, and reads “Statistics.”

There is a computer (the latest Mac, of course) and a printer on the side of the desk. His iPhone is lying on the desk: Bill is [duh!] too hip for a landline. Besides which, he doesn’t want AT&T spying on HIM!

In front of the desk is DAVID AXELROD, Barack Obama’s right-hand man. They are sipping cups of coffee and finishing up croissants. AXELROD also has an iPhone in his hand, from which he will read the action items for the meeting.]

BURTON: Ah! The almond croissant was particularly moist today. So, David, what’s on the agenda?

AXELROD: Okay, Bill, we’ve got several things that need our immediate attention. First off, as you know, President Obama’s foreign-policy experience has now been brought up to parity with John McCain’s after his week-long tour of Europe and the Middle East. So we’re all good there. However, we estimated that a million people would attend his speech in Berlin, and even with two free concerts thrown in, we were nowhere near that number. Can we figure out how many people attended?

BURTON: No problemo! [addressing the box on his desk] Computer, how many people attended the Berlin rally?

COMPUTER [in sultry female voice]: Please press the green button. [BURTON does so.] Your answer is: Two hundred thousand.

AXELROD: Great, great. I’ll send it out now. [notates the number in his iPhone and quickly sends it off to his press mailing list] Okay, next item is: The President skipped a visit to the troops while in Berlin because the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring in his cameras. How do we make it clear that President Obama does not, in fact, think of the troops as just a campaign prop?

BURTON [drawing in his breath]: Oooooh, that’s a tough one. Let’s see what our girl can come up with. Computer, what is the reason for Obama’s skipping his visit to the troops?

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your answer is: I.A.C.F.

AXELROD [confused]: IACF?

BURTON [embarrassed at the faux pas]: Um, that stands for “It’s All Clinton’s Fault.” I keep telling her that is no longer an acceptable response, but she keeps defaulting to it – I don’t know why. [addressing computer] Computer, please give alternate reason.

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your alternate reason is: George W. Bush.

AXELROD: George W. Bush? What does she mean by that?

BURTON [nervously]: Search me. [both think for a moment]

AXELROD: Wait, wait! I’ve got it! We’ll say the Pentagon stopped him from going. They were worried that it would look like a campaign visit. Brilliant, Bill! Gotta love that machine. [BURTON is visibly relieved. AXELROD dashes off another communique to the press corpse.] All right all right all right! Now, how about this one? People are raising the issue that President Obama’s senior thesis is nowhere to be found.

BURTON: Heh. Thank goodness.

AXELROD: Yeah. So anyway, since Hillary’s thesis was thoroughly reviewed and dissected in the media, why haven’t we released Barack’s?

BURTON: Wow. That IS a stumper! Computer, why haven’t we released President Obama’s thesis?

COMPUTER: Your question contains a logical fallacy. Please rephrase.

BURTON [rolling his eyes]: Fine, fine. [to AXELROD] She can’t handle it when I say “President Obama.” So literal-minded! [re-addressing computer] Computer, why haven’t we released Senator Obama’s thesis?

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your response is: “The absurdity of spending any time discussing this issue on television at all makes it difficult to even respond to what you’ve done. Even presenting a balanced argument of what is such a specious story does not do justice to the ridiculousness of giving this any oxygen whatsoever.”

[slight pause]

AXELROD: Well, it’s a bit wordy, but I think it’s the right tone. Great job again, Bill! Off it goes to my press contacts. [AXELROD works his iPhone.]

BURTON [looking at his iPhone]: So, David, is that about it? You know I have to bring the President his waffles.

AXELROD: Oh, just one more thing. Can that model do predictions?

BURTON [doubtfully]: Well, we did install a new module last week, but it’s more of a “Magic Eight Ball” than a real analyzer.

AXELROD: Ahhhh, so what? Let’s try her out. We may get something we like.

BURTON: Okey-dokey. What do you want me to ask her?

AXELROD: Ask her to predict the results of the November election. Who will become our next President? [snickering] As if we didn’t know the answer to that.

BURTON [snickering]: Yeah! That’s a good one, Davey. Let’s have a little fun. Computer, who will become our next President?

COMPUTER: Please rotate me three times. [BURTON does so.] Your response is: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

BURTON: What? There must be some kind of malfunction. [starts hitting the side of the box]

COMPUTER: Barack Obama’s campaign will self-destruct in thirty days.

AXELROD: What the hell is that bitch talking about? [crosses to desk and starts hitting the other side of the box]

COMPUTER: Party Unity, My Ass. PUMA. PUMA. PUMA! [COMPUTER explodes with a giant BANG! and a large puff of smoke.]

[After the smoke clears, BURTON and AXELROD have dirty faces, electric-shock hair, and exasperated expressions.]

AXELROD: Fifth one this month.

BURTON: Yup. Maybe we need a stronger anti-PUMA program. The PUMA virus keeps infecting all our bots.

AXELROD: Well, work on it, will ya? This is getting ridiculous. [begins walking out]

BURTON: Hey, Dave?

AXELROD: Yes, Bill?

BURTON: What if PUMA is the anti-virus, not the virus? What if we are the infection, and the Democratic body keeps rejecting us?

[brief pause]

AXELROD [menacingly]: Bill, you want my advice? Stop thinking so hard, or you’ll end up going the way of your computer there.

BURTON [cowed]: Yessir. No problem. I was just -

AXELROD: I know what you were doing. Now, put your happy face on and go get the President his breakfast.

BURTON: Right away, sir. [involuntarily bursting out] PUMA!

AXELROD: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

BURTON [sheepishly]: Sorry, Dave. It’s catching!

[LIGHTS OUT.]

Cross-posted at The Confluence

Dear PUMAs, Stop Paying Attention! A Letter from the DNC/Obama Conglomerate to Over-Informed PUMA Voters

Dear PUMAs,

Please, please, please stop paying attention to what we are doing. Our nerves are shot, thinking that our pre-planned installation of Barack Obama might not go through! Seriously, kitties – you think Howard Dean screamed in Iowa? You should hear him now!

We honestly thought everyone would unify behind Obama! Um, well, okay, we didn’t really think that, since we’ve repeatedly told you we don’t need you to win. But, ha ha, we were just kidding when we said you usually voted Republican! Can’t you all take a joke?

Okay, maybe you all think Obama himself is a joke. Fair enough. He certainly has made a lot of gaffes lately. Tee-hee – he even claimed credit for legislation created by the Senate Banking Committee, calling it “my committee!” We thought it was hilarious that he pretended to head up a committee of which he is not even a member. Gotta love that Obama chutzpah! Ooooh-weeee!

Shouldn’t you all be on vacation or something? Why have you been noticing how much Obama’s positions are starting to resemble a rightwing Republican’s? On everything from abortion to the Fourth Amendment to the war in Iraq, he’s been throwing mainstream Democratic positions out the window, or as you would say, “under the bus.” But if we tell you he’s a Democrat, he’s a Democrat! Why are you questioning our authoriteh?

Another thing. What is with this ridiculous insistence on Hillary’s name being placed into the nomination at the Convention? Just because it’s always been done that way is no reason to steal the nomination, which he has not yet earned, away from Obama! What’s the matter, are you all racists or something?

In conclusion, just get over it. Acknowledge that we own your vote. And after the election, we don’t expect to hear a peep out of you ever again, because we are the ones you’ve been waiting for.

Yours In Obama For America,

The DNC

Conservative Lying Liars, Historical Revisionist Edition

So, yesterday I figured my blood pressure had slipped a little low. I wandered over to The New York Times to see what David “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader” Brooks had to say. I mean, I find myself agreeing with both Ed Koch AND Paul Krugman these days, so why not give Bobo a try?

Let’s just say, the man did not disappoint.

The first part of the editorial was actually quite well-written. I wondered if my Bizarro-World experiences lately had caused me to hallucinate.

We’re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is the first time I’ve seen anyone in the MCM lay out the massive problems that face the next administration so succinctly. My eyes were wide with astonishment and happiness. Was this a new era of substantive political discussion by the New York Times?

Of course not. Read on, if you dare.

All of this means that the next few years will be an age of government activism. You may think, therefore, that this situation is ripe for Democratic dominance. The Democrats are the natural party of federal vigor. Voters prefer Democratic approaches to issues like health care and education by as much as 25 percentage points.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It’s as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

No, it’s as if David Brooks stopped reading history after 1929. But hey, he has to justify his McCain love somehow. Who cares if he completely ignores FDR’s four terms in office, during which the New Deal was created and successfully implemented? Or perhaps he is forgetting LBJ and the Civil Rights Amendment?

The only “conservative” American President he could find to justify his preposterous thesis was Theodore Roosevelt, who resembles John McCain about as much as Beverly Sills resembles Britney Spears. His other example was Benjamin Disraeli, because conservatism in England is exactly the same as conservatism in America. [snort] In any case, here is how McCain equals The Rough Rider in the fuzzy brain of Mr. Brooks.

“The true function of the state as it interferes in social life,” Roosevelt wrote, “should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them.”

John McCain’s challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism.

Ah, there it is – that delightful soupçon of élitism without which a Brooks column just isn’t complete. You know you simply cannot implement change unless your family has been in America for at least 100 years being all heroic and stuff. Otherwise it’s just change for change’s sake! The White House will be painted in rainbow stripes, the Oval Office will smell like patchouli, and President Democrat will enact legislation forcing all Americans to wear their underwear on the outside. The Horror!

The column is a laughable effort by Brooks, to be sure, but to be fair, conservative propagandists are having a harder and harder time pushing their line these days. After all, Bush has proven that today’s conservatism (a toxic stew of X-treme Reagonomics wedded to a Christofascist domestic policy and a neo-conservative foreign policy) is a recipe for disaster – the results of which Brooks readily acknowledges in the first portion of his column. The problem is, how to keep Democrats from another four decades of legislative – and possibly executive – dominance?

Poor Bobo. It’s hard work being a Minister of Truthiness these days.

At least I know that in this world where every day seems to be Opposite Day, David Brooks can still be counted on to raise the blood pressure of almost everyone who reads his mind-blowingly crapulent bloviating.

Mission Accomplished, baby.

You Keep Saying That Word, Unity. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Having been on Howard Dean’s mailing list for years, one or two requests to be removed clearly are not cutting it. I received the dreaded Obama mail solicitation this weekend, and the “ick” factor? Off the charts.

The return address was interesting: “Obama for America.” What is “Obama for America” – a new game show? Seriously, shouldn’t there be somewhere, something that admits that Barack Obama was elected as a Democrat, even though he hasn’t campaigned like one? “Obama for America” sounds suspiciously like “Connecticut for Lieberman” to me. You know, that phony third party that Lieberman used in order to avoid his primary loss to Ned Lamont and run for Senate anyway? Lieberman was Obama’s Senate mentor for a while; looks like Obama might have learned some very poor lessons from “Joementum.”

The letter itself started with the whole phony Axelrovian story of Obama The Underdog. “We started with just two cans and a string connecting them.” Uh, what we, Kemosabe? I have never been a part of your campaign. I am not one of your supporters. Therefore, I am assuming that this is the royal “We,” a construction that, like most things about you these days, makes me very nervous. Finally, don’t give me that “We beat the Big Scary Clinton Machine!!11!!!” crap. You and the DNC have been conspiring for a long time to make sure the nomination goes to you. Why else would Florida and Michigan have been punished the way they were, when the other “early” states were not punished at all? Why else would the takeover of the DNC have happened BEFORE you were officially nominated? We’re onto you, pal. Don’t try to okie-doke, bamboozle and hoodwink us, mmmmkay?

After that inauspicious beginning, I skipped to the part I had heard about on the Internets. I am supposed to send “Obama for America” money along with this pledge:

“Dear Barack, I agree! We are the ones we’ve been waiting for…we are the change we seek. You can count on me to support you and our movement for change all the way to the White House.”

ICK!

Is this guy a political candidate, or Dr. Phil? Is the Obama “movement” a movement to effect specific changes, or just a bunch of people wanting to feel good about themselves? What are the goals of this movement?

Oh, here they are!

Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth. Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it, and an education policy that gives every child a chance at success.

Change is ending a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and finishing a war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan that should never have been ignored.

That’s it? New Deal, anyone? Creating jobs through building infrastructure? The environmental crisis? Millions of people losing their homes?

[cricket cricket cricket]

No wonder Oprah was stumping for him. What a platitude-spewing empty suit Obama is.

I searched in vain for any plan whatsoever for me (not him) to effect these changes. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

So for all this blather about Unity, this “movement” is about one thing: Electing Barack Obama. There is no party – it’s “Obama for America.” There is no platform – it’s vague nonsense about getting us out of Iraq (still slamming Hillary for “authorizing” the war, which the AUMF did not do, of course) and “finishing the job” in Afghanistan, about cutting taxes on the middle class, offering health care to “those who want it” and improving education. IAAO – It’s All About Obama.

But what if you don’t like Obama?

Who does Obama for America have in its grand movement, really? Wealthy liberals, African Americans (who came out 93% for John Kerry in 2004) and young voters?

Uh, isn’t that the same coalition we always have in national elections? Where are the soccer moms, the blue-collar workers, the registered Democrats who so often vote Republican? Where are the voters in swing states that carry Democrats to such rare victories in Presidential elections?

Oh, yes. They voted for Hillary Clinton. And they’re not coming to Obama. But don’t worry – he doesn’t need them to win. He’ll win Virginia, North Carolina and some Western states…

Don’t give up, Hillary. Take some time off, think for a while, and then come back strong. Fight for the nomination that would have been yours without this dirty back-room Chicago-style wheeling and dealing.

We need a President who sees us, and not just herself, when she looks in the mirror. If we truly want Unity, and not Submission, we will nominate the one who united the Democrats behind her: Hillary Clinton.

Until then: P.U.M.A.!

What is Going On with John McCain?

He absolutely, positively refuses to get the most basic elements of the Iraq occupation correct.

At today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, McCain seems to have gotten it wrong again, when interviewing Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

MCCAIN: “There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future
of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?”

PETRAEUS: “It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major
a threat as it was say, 15 months ago.”

MCCAIN: “Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?

PETRAEUS: “No, sir.”

MCCAIN: “Or Sunnis or anybody else then?

What is he, guessing?

This is absurd. And it’s not the first time he’s done it, either – there have been four other occasions on which he has stated that Iran and Al-Qaeda are directly linked.

And as for the actions of Muqtada Al-Sadr last week, McCain seems to be a tad confused as well.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:

It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. … With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.

In fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed. Experts agree that Sadr’s influence was strengthened — rather than diminished — by the Basra battle. Finally, the New York Times reported Friday that at least 1,000 Iraqi national soldiers deserted or refused to fight in Basra.

What is going on here?

There are two possibilities here, neither of them good.

1) McCaca is old and senile and honestly doesn’t know what he’s talking about; in which case, he is simply unable to be President; or,

2) He is insidiously catapulting the propaganda that Iraq would be doing fine if it weren’t for Iran; in which case, he is trying to drum up a case for war against Iran, and is a carbon copy of the Warmongerer-In-Chief.

I’m voting for option two.

I’m adding my voice to the “Any Democrat 08″ brigade once more. Anyone considering voting for McCaca, or staying home, should consider his obvious intentions to continue and embiggen, if you will, the horrific policies of George W. Bush. If you want, as Teresa Heinz Kerry famously said, “Four more years of hell,” then by all means, help make McCaca our next Deciderer.

But be prepared for The Worst President Evah, Part Deux. Because “there will be other wars.”

Oh, Isn’t This Precious.

Not content with “embedding” reporters, preventing photos of coffins and wounded soldiers from being on the TeeVee, and fabricating heroic stories (a la Jessica Lynch) out of whole cloth to gin up support for the occupation of Iraq, we now discover that the Bush government is arresting reporters to control information.

Fascism with a smiley face, eh, Jonah Goldberg? Methinks your puerile little graphic would look quite natural on George Bush’s neck.

Associated Press president Tom Curley says his news organization does not buy the government’s argument that one of its photographers arrested in Iraq was working on behalf of the enemy, and he alleged the US is rounding up journalists in an attempt to control information.

“To say the least, we see things very differently,” Curley commented dryly, regarding photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested two years ago and remains in military custody.

Noting that at least a dozen other Iraqi photographers have been detained or arrested, Curley stated, “It’s impossible not to conclude that the words and pictures these journalists produced were considered unhelpful to the war effort and that their arrests would have served a broader strategy of information control.”

Of course, there is a “legal” basis for these detentions – the putrescent Patriot Act. Ah, poor George Orwell; you thought you were writing a satire, not an instruction manual!

Curley also called on journalists to demand that all the presidential candidates make a commitment to reversing a directive issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft shortly after September 11 that radically restricted the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

Ashcroft’s memo stated, “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.”

Curley told the National Press Club, “When a matter of public policy poses a straight-up choice between the public’s rights of access to government and a government effort to infringe or even narrow those rights, journalists cannot pretend to be disinterested observers.”

“This is the moment to make it clear to all the presidential candidates how important reversal of the Ashcroft directive is to us and to the people,” Curley continued. “We need to ask the candidates at every opportunity … whether they are willing to appoint an attorney general willing to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law that protects the people’s right to know what their government is doing.”

Senators Clinton and Obama, I hope you are listening to this man. We have seen how secrecy and lies have been an integral part of the survival of the most corrupt Administration in history. We need the next President to open the doors once again to transparency and openness in government.

A democracy cannot function without information. Our media has been slowly turned into a Missing White Woman/Shark Attack/Britney Spears infotainment machine. We need to put the news back on the evening news.