Some Guy's Blog: Happy Thanksgiving!
James Fallows has been posting on how our myopic media manufactured a failure out of Obama's China trip
Angry Bear: Another Reagan myth bubbling back to the surface
cab drollery: They Knew
The Sardonic Sideshow: Has the American Dream drifted north?
onegoodmove: The Right Side of History (h/t reader Geoff)
Michael Steele has been nothing short of an embarrassment to the Republican Party. (That's just fine with me, he can stay as long as he likes) He fits right in with today's feckless GOP, but it appears there is trouble in paradise, as some party leaders are finally growing tired of his buffoonery:
GOP leaders, in a private meeting last month, delivered a blunt and at times heated message to RNC Chairman Michael Steele: quit meddling in policy.
The plea was made during what was supposed to be a routine discussion about polling matters and other priorities in House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office. But the session devolved into a heated discussion about the roles of congressional leadership and Steele, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting.
The congressional leaders were particularly miffed that Steele had in late August unveiled a seniors’ “health care bill of rights” without consulting with them. The statement of health care principles, outlined in a Washington Post op-ed, began with a robust defense of Medicare that puzzled some in a party not known for its attachment to entitlements.
It's no secret that the Republican Party is a rudderless ship, devoid of leadership, but this incident shows a deeper divide between Steele and party lawmakers:
There are larger issues at hand, though, beyond a tense exchange over strategy. Since Steele took over the party earlier this year, congressional leaders and their staff have often cringed at the voluble chairman’s gaffes and rolled their eyes at his unambiguous view that he alone leads the party.
“He’s on a short leash here,” said one top House GOP leadership aide. Read on...
Steele's very existence as RNC chairman (and subsequent failure) is merely a symptom of the party's short sighted strategy of throwing out generic personalities to match Democratic front runners. He was supposed to be a counter-balance to then Senator Obama, to try and attract black voters, and of course, there's no denying that the party made a fatal error in shoving Sarah Palin onto the 2008 presidential ticket in an attempt to counter Hillary Clinton. You get what you pay for, and the GOP is definitely suffering from buyers remorse.
Why do I feel like I've seen this movie before? I'm hoping against hope for a different ending this time: America having the strength to walk away from something that will drain our resources with no clear goals in sight.
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."
But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.
But Obama is trying to figure out whether that's actually the road he wants to take:
Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.
McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration officials, is just "one input" in the White House's decision-making process. The president, another senior administration official said, "has embarked on a very, very serious review of all options." The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.
Obama, appearing on several Sunday-morning television news shows, left little doubt that key assumptions in the earlier White House strategy are now on the table. "The first question is: Are we doing the right thing?" the president said on CNN. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"
"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there -- beyond what we already have," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, "then we'll move forward," he said. "But, if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration."
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: FBI numbers prove that the 'War on Drugs' is a failure
Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Congressman Alan Grayson talks Fed transparency and missing money
Culture Monster: Glenn Beck and Freedom Works' 9/12 logo based on communist and socialist designs
The New Republic: Wealthcare
Echidne of the Snakes: Guarding our hearts and wallets
Sadly, No!: Quick Question
Apple Eating Notes: Organizations and government bodies endorsing HR 676/Single Payer
The Edge of the American West: Justice too long delayed is justice denied
Balkinization: An appalling number of executive branch positions remain unfilled because of the Senate's failure to confirm nominations that have been made or, in some cases, because the Administration has failed to nominate anyone at all.
Economist's View: "Don't Let the Stimulus Lose its Spark"
American Street: My Two Dollar Newspaper Sucks
AverageBro: Erry'body Hates Michelle-O...
Paul Krugman joined the round table discussion on ABC's THIS WEEK and highlighted the misleading CBO report on the costs of health care and he singled out Doug Elmendorf as the culprit..
Krugman: I think I should say something about that CBO thing which really surprised a lot fo people because...
George: it was important and interesting timing...
Krugman: And also because most of the health care economists I talked to think that MedPac reform, that having these judges would actually be quite important especially in the long run so they were really kind of surprised. There's a kind of sense that the CBO faced with a, no one can put a hard number on this, but CBO sort of said that if we can't put a hard number on it we're going to say it's zero and that seems to be wrong. There's every reason to think that what Medicare is willing to pay for can save a lot of money and this was a kind of destructive comment by Doug Elmendorf of the CBO.
Ywa, think? How can the CBO give an effective cost analysis without the entire bill being presented to them? And suddenly the CBO is the judge and jury on whether we get health care reform passed and gives detractors a vehicle to complain. The media sure seems to be rooting for an Obama failure on health care reform, but what's their stake in it outside of loving the prospect of running with that story? I actually saw a segment on CNN which discussed the ramification of having no health care and how it affects Americans. There's too little of that and too much of imaginary numbers.
Mock, Paper, Scissors: Can Sanford salvage his book deal? Oh, yes..
Echidne of the Snakes: Hacktackular Howie
Booman Tribune: Advice for Harry Reid
Corrente: Terminological Interlude
Calitics: At the end of this process, somebody will step up to a microphone and claim how reaching agreement is a sign of success. No. It's a sign of failure.
OFF THE BEATEN PATH: MN Progressive Project, Blue Heron Blast, Economic Perspectives from Kansas City, archy
The DCCC sent out an exceptionally well-done clip today pointing to the difference between Obama's vision of Hope and the Republican vision of failure. Please take a look at it. There's no doubt that the Republicans are on a mission to not just obstruct, but to undermine-- everything, from health care reform to the economic recovery and even to the safety of the nation itself. The clip puts forth a strong message, a compelling message. But it just isn't bipartisan enough. After all, it isn't only Republicans who want the single most important piece of Obama's change agenda-- substantive health care reform-- to fail. Plenty of Democrats get the exact same huge handouts from the exact same Medical-Industrial Complex and Big Insurance lobbyists and CEOs. And they will do anything to prevent single payer health care from passing-- or even being brought into the discussion!
I've got the full story up at DownWithTyranny, but John called from the airport and asked me to remind everyone to please consider helping out with the Blue America initiative to save the public option. As John keeps pointing out, health care reform isn't really a Republican vs Democratic issue; it's an issue for the welfare of all American families-- which is why a staggering 83% of Americans want the public option.
Blue America has launched this new campaign to persuade senators who routinely take a great deal of money from Big Insurance to work for their constituents, not for their campaign contributors. We are working with Brave New Films to put together a series of TV commercials that we will start running next month in Arkansas, home of two anti-reform Democrats, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. Please read more about the plan-- and consider helping us put it into effect-- here at our Blue America page.
Chris Matthews cites the Senate Armed Services Committee report to Rep. Mac Thornberry and although he admits there was a systemic failure in the prison he won't admit it came from the top and that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are in any way connected. Thornberry like the rest of them are trying to turn this into a political issue. It's a legal issue and a question of whether or not there were war crimes committed. In Rep. Thornberry's world it's appropriate to punish the underlings but heaven forbid hold those at the top accountable for their actions.
I never thought for the life of me I'd see this many Republicans coming on the air and justifying torture. First it didn't happen. Then well okay, it happened but it was just a few bad apples. Now torture was necessary and down right patriotic if we were torturing suspected terrorists. All that other torturing that was going on...of course that had nothing to do with the policies that had us torturing the "bad guys". I've got to wonder just how stupid they really think most of the non-Sarah Palin worshiping American public is to buy this sort of double-speak.
I would also guess they're counting on no one ever watching this again.
I found this clip this morning and thought I'd share it here at C&L. The clip is from 1990 when a much younger Rush Limbaugh got owned by the studio audience during his very brief career in television. The crowd eventually becomes so incensed by his nasty attacks on women that he can't get a word in edgewise and they are forced to clear the studio in order for Rush to actually finish the segment.
Rush has challenged President Obama to a debate, but only because he knows there isn't a hope in hell it will ever happen. He knows he wouldn't stand a chance, but that's not going to stop him from rallying his ignorant minions. He cares nothing for his party, this nation or its people, he's out for power,money and fame -- much like the party he now leads.
If you've ever wondered why cowards like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and those of their ilk never debate anyone of any substance, watching this clip will help you understand. When exposed to the average American, hate merchants and propagandists like Rush don't stand a chance.
el Rashbo hasn't changed much in the past twenty years and neither has the GOP. I wouldn't advise the president to lower himself to debate this idiot, but in my heart of hearts...oh, nevermind!
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the real Bush legacy -- as opposed to the Rovian version which attempts to liken dear leader to MLK.
What's on your mind?
Politico: (h/t Scarce for video)
Per Drudge, some brutal late night shots at McCain, who cancelled on Letterman tonight:
David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.
Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"
"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put
in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?""What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!" Read on...
In what can only be described as the most desperate political move in modern presidential campaign history, John McCain is proving that he is wholly unfit to lead our country. I hope David Letterman is not the only one with a national stage to speak the truth about this. McCain is scared out of his mind and this hoax only solidifies the point. The McCain/Palin ticket is plummeting in the polls, the Davis/Freddie Mac scandal is reaching a fever pitch, they're trying to keep Palin locked in a bubble and more and more Republicans are becoming furious with the way this sham of a campaign is being run. Barack Obama needs to stand firm and not give in!
(h/t Heather)
Barack Obama's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Susan Rice appeared on Friday's Morning Joe to discuss foreign policy, and more specifically North Korea's destruction of a long-defunct nuclear cooling tower yesterday. The Scar thought this was a huge diplomatic victory for George Bush, but Rice sets him straight, reminding him that North Korea's nuclear program expanded by leaps and bounds under Bush's watch and that if he would have opened negotiations years earlier, much of this could have been avoided in the first place.
Joe pretends to be a middle of the road kind of guy, but when he gets punked, especially by a Democrat, it drives him crazy and his true, far-right colors always come through. As Rice goes down the laundry list of Bush failures, Joe gets snippy with her, and even stoops so low as to hurl an insult at Jimmy Carter in the process. NBC's David Gregory chimes in at the end of the segment and drops a question on Rice that was pulled directly from Karl Rove's playbook:
Gregory: "Hello, Susan. While we are talking about the prospect of nuclear terrorism, which is what is behind the concerns of North Korea and Iran. I have a broader question for you and really for Senator Obama. Why is it, does he believe that America has not been attacked in this country by terrorists since 9/11? And does George W. Bush, President Bush deserve credit for that?"
Rice: "I think what we have to acknowledge, David, that we haven't been attacked but we are nonetheless less safe as a sequence of the policies of this administration has pursued. Our standing in the world is at an all-time low. Al Qaeda is more dangerous now in Afghanistan and Pakistan than it has been. Our intelligence community is warning they are reconstituting and more deadly to U.S. forces than Iraq."
Of course, Gregory is incorrect, there HAS been a deadly terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 -- the anthrax attacks that killed 5 Americans ring a bell to you? It's interesting that so many seem to forget this factoid. Speaking of anthrax and Bush failures, you'll be happy to learn that $5.8 million of your tax dollars were just awarded to Steven Hatfill in his lawsuit against the Bush Justice Department. Hatfill is an Army scientist who was deemed a "Person of Interest" in the anthrax attacks, but was eventually ruled out as a suspect in the Bush administration's botched investigation. Hatfill's lawyer placed partial blame on the media for not questioning the Bush administration's motives in targeting him and for reporting leaked disinformation they could not substantiate.
