Quote of the Day

"Oh, Tim, if you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy." 

~Mitt Romney to Tim Russert, on Meet the Press in 2007

Well, no shit, Sherlock. Mitt Romney has taken changing policy positions, AKA flip-flopping in his case, to an art form.

This quote was unearthed by Think Progress in regards to the resignation of openly gay policy advisor Richard Grenell, affirming at the time that Romney doesn't think it's the job of the federal government to protect workers from being fired based on sexual orientation. Based on the recent caving to the evangelical right on the Grenell affair, it seems this is one of the few policy issues on which he hasn't flip-flopped.

No Mitt, you're not my guy.

I Miss Tim Russert

Watching Meet The Press this week was an eye opening experience as I sat dumbfounded by the lack of moderation by Tom Brokaw. One thing that you could always count on when watching MTP with Russert at the helm was an informed debate, thoughtful questions and a chance for the guest to respond. None of that was on hand this past Sunday.

Joe Lieberman and John Kerry were on as surrogates to their respective political parties; Kerry for Obama and Lieberman for McCain. Yeah, I don't care that Holy Joe has an "ID" after his name - there's no such thing as an "Independent Democrat."

From the second Brokaw asked his first question, "Do you think running a campaign ad in which you feature Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with Barack Obama is respectful?" and Lieberman answered "I do," I was thankful that I didn't have anything in my hand or else I'd be getting a new TV today. I knew I was in for a bucket load of bullshit from then on. An to tell the truth, I expected it from Lieberman; it's become his normal routine. What I didn't expect was that when it was Kerry's turn to speak, he was interrupted by Lieberman more than once with no objection from Brokaw, and in an attempt to get to as many questions as possible, Brokaw would rush along and leave the "debate" unresolved.

It was a piss poor attempt at moderating and made me realize the talent that Russert had when sitting at that table.

Tim Russert Dead at 58

The New York Times is reporting that Tim Russert has died of a heart attack that the age of 58 according to his family.

More later.

UPDATE: NY Post - Tim Russert, NBC journalist and political heavyweight host of "Meet the Press," has died after collapsing at NBC's Washington news bureau, a source said.

NY Times - Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News, came on the air at 3:39 p.m. that Mr. Russert had collapsed and died early this afternoon while at work. He had just returned from Italy with his family.

Speaking Of Endorsements...

... why has the media taken a pass at the endorsement of John McCain by evangelical Pastor John Hagee? Why has the media barely spoken about McCain's refusal to reject or denounce Hagee's endorsement? Are their mouths full of barbequed ribs?

Let's look at Hagee's background. According to Wikipedia Hagee is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church with more than 19,000 active members. Hagee is the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries which telecasts his national radio and television ministry carried in America on 160 TV stations, fifty radio stations and eight networks including The Inspiration Network (INSP) and Trinity Broadcasting Network. The ministries can be seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes.

Really! 99 million homes. Well no wonder the Maverick wants his endorsement. But wait, there's more.

Hagee has made various statements that some find a little, oh, shall we say, fucking nuts, such as calling the Catholic Church "the great whore", a "false cult system" and "the apostate church."

Or how about when Hagee stated that Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God". He specifically referred to a "homosexual parade" that was held on the date the hurricane struck and that this was proof "of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Cricket...cricket... cricket... do you hear that? That's the "liberal" media lining up to skewer McCain just as Tim Russert tried to do to Barack Obama during the last debate in Ohio, questioning Obama on an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan, despite Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's statements.

Here's McCain defending his endorsement:

"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions." [McCain Media Availability, 2/29/08]

So we have Tim Russert on national television trying to play a "gotcha" game with Barack Obama and trying to link him with Farrakhan over an endorsement he didn't seek, asking him to reject Farrakhan's support that was never offered and driving most of the media to cover this story for days, while back in the real world the media whores remain silent over McCain actively seeking an endorsement a couple of days later from a bigoted, misogynistic "man of God" who fans the anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-gay flames ; a man who can't wait for McCain to become president so he can continue our path to Armageddon. Because that is what Hagee ultimately wants.

Here's Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks flipping out over Hagee endorsement.



What a sick, fucking joke.

Ralph Nader Needs To Shut Up And Just Go Away - Updated

On Sunday, February 24, 2008, three days before his 74th birthday, Ralph Nader announced his presidential bid on Meet The Press. Happy birthday, Ralph. It is the fifth* time that Nader is running for President, previously running in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

I've rewritten this post in my head multiple times since Sunday waiting for my anger to subside else my post be a swear-filled rant probably topping most previous entries. Ralph Nader needs to go away. Just shut up and go away.

Don't misunderstand. Nader is an admirable man, with great credentials. His consumer advocacy is second to none. He's founded over four dozen non-profit organizations that are funded by most of his net worth according to the FEC disclosure report in 2000. Taking on the automobile industry on safety at a time when the car was king was stunning.

But one question must be asked: why does someone who has no chance of winning the highest office in the land, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE, why would that person run again and again and again?

You can make a case for running once or twice. But this is Ralph Nader's fifth attempt at the Presidency. It's become a sad, sad joke. The power of his convictions has overtaken the rationale of his thinking. And call me cynical, but the only reason I think Nader is running is to fill his egotistical need to be in the spotlight and feel wanted.

Nader's fourth attempt in 2004 netted him a total of 463,653 votes, for 0.38% of the popular vote. Nader replied to this in filmed interviews by pointing out that, "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me."

That's all well and good, Ralph, but the 2004 presidential election was up to that point, the most important election this country had ever seen. All you did was muddy up the waters. 0.38% of the popular vote is not viable, so why do it?

On principle, sure, you want to get your message out there. Here is what Nader's website states the issues are this time around:

- Adopt single payer national health insurance
- Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
- No to nuclear power, solar energy first
- Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
- Open up the Presidential debates
- Adopt a carbon pollution tax
- Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
- Impeach Bush/Cheney
- Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
- Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
- Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
- Work to end corporate personhood

Well, it all sounds great, doesn't it? Even liberal radio talk show host Mike Malloy, when speaking of Nader's candidacy, has said that this is what the Democratic Party should have been, this is what it was gearing towards 30 years ago and we have strayed. I agree with him. But I also believe we had a Ralph Nader in this election. His name was Dennis Kucinich, and he went about his candidacy in a serious way, attempting to put his name on the ballot of every state, out there stumping on the campaign trail, trying to make his voice heard long before Nader emerged from the ground looking for the sustenance of the spotlight.

If Ralph Nader was serious about actually helping third parties or independents become viable, then why is it we hear nothing from Nader for three and a half years? Then suddenly, his coffin lid opens, he rises from the ground, dusts himself off and feeds on the egomanical blood he so desperately craves. His first official run was in 1992. That's sixteen years - SIXTEEN YEARS! - that he could have been working to make a third party legitimate and a contender, instead of eye-rolling laughable.

When asked by Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

On that, Nader and I can agree. But you have to ask yourself: if this is what Ralph Nader truly believes, then why bother entering the race?

UPDATE: Correction- This is Nader's third official run for the presidency. According to Wikipedia - In 1992, Nader stood in as a write-in for "none of the above" in both the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic and Republican Primaries. In 1996, Nader was drafted as a candidate for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket during the 1996 presidential election. He was not formally nominated by the Green Party USA, which was, at the time, the largest national Green group; instead he was nominated independently by various state Green parties (in some areas, he appeared on the ballot as an independent).

Clinton Attacks Obama - Obama Bites Back

Tim Russert poses the question, Clinton answers with some Obama bashing.

Obama fights back:

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. …I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.

(H/T) Crooks and Liars