The Terrorists Won

The Daily Beast: A Long Island woman has been charged with allegedly calling in a phony bomb threat on Sept. 10th—reportedly because she did not want her family to fly on the tenth anniversary on the terrorist attacks. Airport police in Tucson, Arizona, said they received an anonymous call from a woman on Sept. 10th who claimed she had heard her boyfriend and others discussing a plot to bomb Southwest Airlines Flight 2475 to Long Island that day. Police called bomb squad officials and notified the FBI, who tracked the call to Mary Purcell, 37, who said she was worried about her mother and brother flying that day. She is set to be arraigned in federal court, but the exact charges are unknown.

Yes, when someone calls in a bomb threat in order to cancel the flight for fear of her family flying on the anniversary of 9/11, the terrorists have won.

I'll add my two cents: there were plenty of tickets available for Broadway shows this weekend, mostly due to the fact that this was the first week back to school in New York City. I wouldn't doubt that at least a small part of the reason was because it was the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and some were leery of traveling into Manhattan either because of fear or they just didn't want the hassle of security checkpoints on the highways.

Since it was a light week, many of us in the industry were offered complimentary tickets to the Sunday shows. On more than one occasion, I heard colleagues who couldn't give Broadway tickets away worth hundreds of dollars because either people were frightened to be in the city that day, or they had initially accepted the tickets, but then reneged after someone else talked them out of it.

The terrorists have won.

Compassionate Conservatism Redux

Former George W. Bush speech writer Michael Gerson once defined the phrase 'compassionate conservatism' as, "the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." We all know by now how well that worked for the Bush administration.

Liberal commentator Joe Conason, noting Bush's policy of tax cuts, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative." Similarly, former President Bill Clinton described the message of compassionate conservatism as: "I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can't" or similar variants.

The true definition of compassionate conservatism can be summed up as, "Yeah, that's a shame... wish I could help out but everyone should take care of themselves."

I've been in a self-imposed media blackout these last few days due to the September 11th anniversary 24 hour news cycle (I don't need to see that again) and decided not to watch last night's CNN Republican Primary debate because I saw all I needed to see during last week's debacle. Why would I want to subject myself to the motley crew that is the GOP nominees again? Unless they've changed their minds about climate change or evolution, or actually looked at the numbers to realize they're just flat out lying on the Recovery Act while hypocritically benefitting from it, there was no need for any more self-induced stress.

But then I heard (bad news travels fast) that a hypothetical question was asked of Ron Paul regarding a 30 year old man who chooses not to pay for health insurance, then suddenly needs it - what's to be done? And the audience yelled to "let him die." I couldn't believe it. So I had to see for myself.



More than anything else that has transpired in the world of American politics and the divisiveness we've gotten accustomed to this last decade or so, this truly breaks my heart. What has become of us as a society? Or I should rephrase, what has become of the Republican party as a societal faction of our population? This is the pro-life party? This is the party touting their Christianity? It's absolutely disgusting. And this comes on the heels of last week's audience strongly praising Rick Perry's execution record as Governor of Texas.

There are some criticizing the editing of this video because it cuts off Ron Paul's answer to the question. But the video isn't about Paul's answer, it's about the callousness of the audience. If you listen closely, Ron Paul says "no" when asked if society should let the hypothetical patient die before explaining about pre Medicare days and churches taking care of the sick, blah, blah, blah. Someone in the audience yells "YEAH!" at the thought of letting the patient die to hoots and hollers and it sounds like they're mostly in agreement. I'm sure if the dipshit audience member who yelled had a member of their family who was in that situation, he would think differently.

I also can't dismiss this as just two or three jackasses in the audience. They ALL applauded at the notion of letting the hypothetical patient fend for himself. It's not just two or three jackasses anymore. It's become mainstream GOP thinking. And if the nominees and the Republican leadership feel the need to kowtow to the Tea Party, then shame on them.

Just another example blowing apart the myth that both parties are the same.

September 11 - Ten Years Later

There isn't much to say, is there? Take a moment to remember, reflect and appreciate what you have.

Cliff Robertson Dies at 88

LA Times: Cliff Robertson, who starred as John F. Kennedy in a 1963 World War II drama and later won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a mentally disabled bakery janitor in the movie "Charly," died Saturday, one day after his 88th birthday.

Robertson, who also played a real-life role as the whistle-blower in the check-forging scandal of then-Columbia Pictures President David Begelman that rocked Hollywood in the late 1970s, died at Stony Brook University Medical Center on Long Island, according to Evelyn Christel, his longtime personal secretary. His family said he died of natural causes.

President Obama Beat NFL in Ratings

President Obama's speech Thursday on jobs to a joint session of Congress outscored the NFL season opener in the Nielsen TV ratings. The President's jobs speech was watched by an estimated 31.4 million viewers while the New Orleans Saints/Green Bay Packers NFL season opener drew about 27.2 million.

(Via Washington Times)

Presidential Campaign Season...

...starts early in New York City.

This billboard is on display on the Manhattan bound side of the 59th Street Bridge.



The picture on the left side of the billboard is of President Obama shaking hands with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas showing proof positive that Obama is anti-Israel. You know... sort of like this:



(Billboard photo sent to me by avid reader, Nowhere Man)

Tacky, Callous and Disrespectful

That's how I describe Herman Cain's 9/11 campaign "commercial."



I suppose Herman Cain cares more about September 11th because he'll "never, never, never" forget? I mean, three "nevers" means he cares three times as much as those who say they'll "never forget," right?And showing off his pipes singing God Bless America? Wow.

(*I debated the idea of not including the video here and just linking to YouTube, but felt the need to display it here since my criticism of it is negative. So if you've already seen it, don't bother giving it any extra clicks.)

Must Reads

Oliver Willis: Why I Criticize Obama

Justin Rosario: Censorship Smackdown of the Day: Jewish Organizations That Should Know Better

Andrew Sullivan: Perry Hypocrisy Watch

Elizabeth Drew: A 9/11 Anniversary Misremembered

Karoli: Obama Takes It To The People; Eric Cantor Whines

David Dow: Rick Perry’s Lethal Overconfidence

David Frum: Why Bush Didn’t Mention Canada in His 9/20 Speech

Jason Easley: Eric Cantor Offsets Disaster Relief With a 40% Cut To First Responders

Corey Boles: Senate Approves $500 Billion Increase in Borrowing Authority

Joan Russow: Canada Must Arrest George W. Bush If He Enters Canada

President Obama's Weekly Address - September 10, 2011

Coming Together as One Nation to Remember

Deadbeat Dad Joe Walsh Suing To Continue Being A Deadbeat

I don't know if the Tea Party bargained for having this moron be the face of their movement.

Republican Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh loves to show his face on the talking head shows and shake his fist in the direction of President Obama, go as far as calling the President a liar and refusing to attend joint sessions of Congress, something that I believe elected officials are payed to do. No, it's not mandatory but you get my drift.

Well, soon after Walsh decided to put his face front and center on all the cable news channels and call for fiscal responsibility, it was revealed that he was a deadbeat dad, owing over $100,000 in back child support. So much for fiscal responsibility.

When faced with an embarrassing situation as an elected official, a normal person would most likely settle the issue and move on. But not Tea Party Joe. He's doubling down.

Six days after the Sun-Times reported that Rep. Joe Walsh allegedly owes more than $100,000 in child support for three of his children, the McHenry Republican filed a motion seeking sanctions against his ex-wife.

Walsh’s attorneys sought the sanctions against Laura Walsh because they said she had not complied with their request in February to provide them voluminous documentation of her employment and salary records at pharmaceuticals manufacturer Eli Lilly as well as bank statements, tax returns and expense reports.

At that time, Joe Walsh’s attorneys had scheduled an April interview with Laura Walsh and said they needed the extensive documentation to prepare for it.

Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, called that request “harassment” and said the issue was why Joe Walsh was not paying $117,000 of back child support and interest. Laura Walsh had no corresponding obligation to pay Joe Walsh any support, and so the extensive requests for documents were inappropriate, Coladarci said.

Walsh has set the bar for the definition of "Douchebag." Tea Partiers must be so proud of their choice.

The Party of Hansel and Gretel

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

Too many Democrats are like Hansel and Gretel following the bread crumbs strewn at their feet by the Republicans and mainstream media (MSM). What occurred the other day was a screw up over the date of President Obama’s speech. It was a blip on the radar, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe some White House staff person didn’t check the event calendar. Who knows? I’m pretty sure this type of mistake has happened many times before. However, the Republicans capitalized on this and chose to make it an “event” by publicly rebuking the President in an unprecedented show of disrespect, gamesmanship, and ugliness. They scattered their moldy bread crumbs around, and some on the Left gobbled them up. Rather than call out the Republicans in one loud, strong, unified voice, we castigated the victim, playing right into the Republicans’ hands. Oh, and where was the ubiquitous Congressional Black Caucus? One would think that people who have experienced the ugliness of racism would be denouncing Speaker Boehner. Their response was deafening silence as far as I can tell.

There was an outcry over this fiasco—an outcry denouncing President Obama, not the Republicans. Really, folks, is this the issue for which we wanted President Obama to fall on his sword? Let’s imagine the scenarios of the President fighting back: “Stop being mean to me.” Yep, that would have been effective. That would have been extra fuel for Republicans, and the incident would have lasted for weeks rather than days. Or how about “I’m going to give my speech anyway, and y’all better come hear it.” The House chamber would have echoed as the President’s words bounced off of the empty seats. But my all-time favorite from the Left was he should have given his speech from the Oval Office.

Well, after watching the speech, I would hope we all see why speaking to a joint session was so much more effective. The American people witnessed a spectacle that would have made DeMille happy. For crying out loud, Republicans did not even stand and applaud for the GI Bill for crying out loud. That moment will be burned into the minds of moderates and independents through November 2012.

Thank goodness Mr. Cool didn’t lose his cool like the Republicans and some Democrats. If he had, the attention wouldn’t have been on his speech. In fact, the atmosphere going into the speech would have been one of hijinks and goofiness. But instead the speech was preceded by seriousness and anticipation and the date kerfuffle tamped down. Too late for those on the Left because they had already followed the Republican crumbs right into the Right’s trap—again.

But it’s not only the right wing that drops crumbs for us to follow. Look what the media dropped for us over the past few days--$300 billion jobs bill. One of those chomping on those crumbs was Rep. Raul Grijalva, whining that $300 billion wasn’t enough. Nicole Sandler, subbing for radio host Randi Rhodes a couple of days before jobs speech, said she didn’t like what the President was going to say, an opinion based on media reports. She opposed any debt reduction proposal. (By the way, debt reduction means billions we pay on interest can go toward programs the Left cherish, but that’s another post.) Those two, like so many other Dems, were already criticizing the President’s job plan based on media reports before even hearing the speech.

Wasn’t the issue of black unemployment a media crumb? The Congressional Black Caucus went nuts over that issue recently but interestingly, not before it became the darling topic of MSM. Suddenly, the members of the CBC are all over the map literally denouncing Presodent Obama for low black unemployment. Yes, minority unemployment is an increasingly distressing issue and yes, when unemployment is down in general, it’s so much worse in minority communities. However, all of Obama’s policies and programs that deal with joblessness, hunger, health care also help minorities who suffer by a greater proportion.

They also blasted him for not going to Detroit, a city he has been to many, many times and whose policies have helped the city rebuild. But shouldn’t the constituents of Maxine Waters have answered her statement, “When you tell us to let go, we’ll let go” with “What have YOU done for us lately?” And now the media is accusing the President of never talking about housing. Really? Well, guess what? He does—a lot. In fact, he’s made it easier for home owners to get out from oppressive mortgages. The media just doesn’t pay attention. But I’m betting that will be the meme of the some on the Left soon. Where are the houses? Where are the houses?

While watching President Obama throw a fit and spew angry words may make us feel better, that behavior doesn’t move his agenda forward. And isn’t that what we’re really about? Helping others and our nation recover. If you want histrionics, you better look somewhere else other than this White House. However, if you want a President who moves his agenda steadily forward in spite of so many obstacles thrown in path by both the Right and Left, then Barack Obama is your man.

As long as we follow others’ bread crumbs rather that creating our own message or gobbling up the crumbs instead of staying on message, we hurt our own cause. We must stay on message! We are looking at the most dangerous, crazy field of Republican candidates ever, but rather than show our conservative friends and families the stark differences between them and President Obama, we’re busy bashing him in the most obtuse, juvenile ways with insults to his character and courage. As usual, we on the Left let one opportunity after another go by while we eat our own.

I suggest we try something different this time. Let’s get behind the President’s jobs bill and push it through Congress. Dammit, let’s get is right (uh... correct) this time.

President Obama's Joint Session - The American Jobs Act

In case you missed it.

Tackling the Important Stuff

I'm so glad the House of Representatives is grabbing the bull by the horns and dealing with tough issues.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after the House, by unanimous consent, passed H.Res. 391, a resolution marking the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001:

“The people’s House has renewed its solemn vow to ‘never forget’ what happened on September 11, 2001. The thousands of innocents and heroes who lost their lives are in our prayers, as are their loved ones...

Seriously? Look, I get the whole 9/11 Remembrance thing, especially on the 10th anniversary, as well as anyone, but do we really need a resolution passed by unanimous consent vowing to "never forget"? It just comes across as fake and jingoistic.

Colbert Interviews Pawlenty

Had Tim Pawlenty shown even an iota of personality on the campaign trail like he did in this interview, things would be very different now.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Sound The Dog Whistles!

Obama has a "ghetto behavior" problem, is crass and lacks grace says Michael Meyers.



I don't know if Michael Meyers knows what those words mean. By the way, who the fuck is Michael Meyers? Notice how Fox News looks for these types of crackpots to throw incendiary racist bombs who just happen to be black? Way to cover your ass, Sean Hannity.

We Connive, You Decide

Here we go again. How many times does this have to happen before our collective response is, “…yawn…”?

At yesterday’s Labor Day presidential event, Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. spoke about the need to vote Republicans out of office in 2012. Of course, Fox News had a completely different take on what Hoffa “meant” through selective editing.

As Media Matters reports, Fox edited video of Hoffa’s money quote to suggest, actually to just flat out lie and say that he was urging violence against Tea Party activists.

...fuller context included in other Fox segments makes clear that Hoffa wasn't calling for violence but was actually urging the crowd to vote out Republican members of Congress. During the segment that the bloggers have latched onto, Fox edited out the bolded portion of Hoffa's comments:

HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon including Andrew “ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Planned Parenthood” Breitbart, and hacky tweets from Dana Loesch demanded that President Obama condemn Hoffa’s remarks and “sanctioning violence against fellow Americans” if he doesn’t. This after the fact that it was Fox’s Ed Henry who initially reported correctly on their own network that Hoffa as referring to voting Republicans out, and is on record with his tweet just 20 minutes after his report. Why tweet? Because he KNEW it was going to be taken out of context.

Now the pushback of course will be, or already has been that the left took Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, RELOAD!" comment out of context as well. But I'm willing to wager that if you head over to the Teamsters' website, or any site associated with James Hoffa, you're not going to find a map with crosshairs targeting Republican districts. Just another day at Fox News.

We connive, you decide.

They're Not The Same

This is a rare Sunday "Must Read."

Former 30-year Republican Capitol Hill staffer Mike Lofgren, has written a rather extensive piece explaining the machinations of the GOP, leading to his decision to retire after witnessing the current crop of crazies that has enveloped the Republican Party. It's a truly insightful piece that needs to be read, shared and pulled out when confronted by your idiot relative at the next family dinner when they take center stage to proclaim that "both parties are the same." Here are some tasty morsels:

...The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP. 

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics... the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

[...]

...It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

[...]

...The media are also complicit in [the phenomenon of distrust of the government.] Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'" 

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

[...]

If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.

The "both sides are the same" meme is what got us in trouble in 2000. Does anyone want to wager that a President Al Gore would have invaded a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack on our soil? Or that had there  been a keener eye at the helm we would have had a better chance at possible prevention of the attack in the first place?

Let's not make that same mistake again.

Go read, "Goodbye To All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left The Cult." ...NOW.

Less White Flag, More Pit Bull

A regular reader of this blog, Nowhere Man, and I had a conversation about ScheduleGate way, way back, long ago when it was fresh in our memories a whole 48 hours ago. He made a cogent argument for the frustration we were feeling at the time, at the news of the White House switching the date of the anticipated job's speech. I asked Nowhere Man to email me in the form of a post and I'd include it in the blog.

I know this will stir up controversy, especially with my co-blogger Jennifer and others, who believe we should keep our sights focused on John Boehner and the obstructionist GOP instead of "blaming" President Obama, and rightly so. But in my opinion, the continuing pattern when it comes to the perception, the perception of the White House and Congressional Democrats backing down from a fight on a seemingly consistent basis can be a very damaging thing.

Whether the perception is true or not, we know that the combination of a right-wing echo chamber and a complicit mainstream media terrified at the thought of being labeled "liberal," can hurt. I've said it before: optics matter. All you have to do is think of John Kerry on a sailboard, Michael Dukakis wearing a helmet while riding in a tank, or the infamous Howard Dean yowl to know that optics matter. The general population likes the image of a strong leader. Whether they agree with him or not, they can at least say he's a person of convictions. But the constant backtrack is a turn off. Two words: Mitt Romney.

So yes, while he have to keep our eyes peeled and call out Republican hypocrisy at every turn, it would help tremendously if the President and the administration did as well.
___________________________


POSTED BY NOWHERE MAN

Let's go back in time and try to remember when the brand new President of the Unites States tried to pass the stimulus to a Democratically controlled Congress to stave off a hemorrhaging economy. Republican leadership led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor wanted tax cuts in the bill. President Obama, trying to show he can work with the Republicans, allowed them to fill it with tax cuts. The largest tax cuts in US history, $282 billion worth over two years. The result: not a single Republican voted for the stimulus.

Right then and there the new President, barely a month into his term, should've sent the Republicans a profound message: DON'T TAKE ME FOR A SUCKER. He should have told then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to write a new bill minus the tax cuts the Republicans wanted. But he decided not to fight and instead left the Recovery Act as it was. By doing so, he made his first big mistake and sent a very different message to the Republicans: I CAN BE ROLLED.

What the President has needed from the very beginning is an advisor with a pit bull attitude, the way former President Clinton had James Carville to call out what phonies and hypocrites the Republicans were, and to say President Obama was trying to be conciliatory but got stabbed in the back by the opposition instead.

In the battle over the Bush tax cuts, Obama gave speeches to his base renewing his campaign pledge to let them expire. The Republicans held unemployment insurance hostage. He caved again and explained, incredibly telling and stupid in my opinion, that the hostage was going to be injured. The hostage was ultimately us. But it reaffirmed to the GOP he can be rolled, and all you have to do is grab a hostage.

It's too bad he didn't have a pit bull standing in front of the DC, inside the beltway, media elite cameras, ripping the Republicans and saying they didn't have a soul for using the middle class and unemployed like so much used toilet paper so the rich could keep getting richer, especially at such a difficult time for so many people during the holiday season, questioning, "What kind of country are we?" or "What kind of country have we become?"

At the press conference announcing the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that he was so against, he was asked by a reporter if he was worried that the Republicans would now use the debt ceiling as the next hostage. Obama explained despite prior evidence to the contrary, that he thought Boehner was an HONORABLE man! I'm sure there were plenty of eye rolls by the White House Press Corp when he said that.

In the debt ceiling debates he repeatedly vowed that there would be no budget cuts without new revenues. He again gave speeches to his base telling them to contact their representatives to support his debt ceiling plan, and that there would be no cuts without new revenues. There was so much email traffic from his supporters that several Congressional websites crashed. I actually thought, "Finally! He's drawing a line in the sand!" Well we all know that turned out to be just another rerun: spending cuts with no new revenue.

There was no pit bull going around saying the Republicans love their party more than their country and proving it by willing to let the country go bankrupt. There was no thought of explaining how the elderly, the disabled, our combat soldiers engaged in two wars, were all being held hostage yet again. And President Obama, refusing to challenge the Republicans and see if they had the balls to let the country go under, as usual raised the white flag.

And now ScheduleGate. When I first heard that they scheduled the speech on the same day as the Republican debate, I said, "Wow! He's starting the campaign with a bang! What a politically brilliant and bold in your face move declaring 'I'm ready to fight and no more Mr. Nice Guy!'" I was listening to liberal radio that afternoon when the news broke on Boehner's rejection and suggestion that the speech be moved to the following night, opposite the first game of the year for the NFL.

In response, the White House should have explained the timeline. They should have said Boehner had no problem with it until Rush Limbaugh had a problem with it. They should have explained that Boehner's excuses were faulty at best because they were using a parliamentary tactic to prevent the President from making any recess appointments, therefore they were technically in session. They should have release a statement like this:

"While Congress was enjoying its five week layoff, there were and still are millions of Americans who have been on permanent unpaid vacations struggling to get by. They've been waiting for this current session of Congress to start who, under the leadership of John Boehner, have yet to introduce a single jobs bill in the nine months since he's been Speaker. They continue to demonstrate their benign neglect of the unemployed by the unprecedented rejection of the President's request for a joint session of Congress to deliver his speech for a jobs plan. 

The President has decided instead to give the speech to those its aimed at - the unemployed. Therefore, President Obama will be addressing an auditorium full of unemployed Americans at the University of Maryland as scheduled, on September 7th. We are making our case directly to the American people while the Republican controlled House passes all the anti-Planned Parenthood bills it wants."

But who am I kidding? That would be a pit bull talking!

Must Reads

Milt Shook: The Professional Left Is Killing Us; Example #1

Hrafnkell Haraldsson: Bachmann Says Earthquake and Hurricane Are Messages From Her God

Roger Simon: White House Furious Over Speech Delay

NY Times Editorial: Oh, Grow Up

Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Magic Love Hose: Why I Don't Care What Day Obama Gives His Speech (NSFW)

President Obama's Weekly Address - September 3, 2011

Time to Act on the Transportation Bill

August Job Numbers: Zero

This is bad.

The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession. It was the first time since World War II that the economy had precisely net zero jobs created for a month.

But hey, that jobs speech could wait another day, right?

Seriously though, let's see what the President has to say, and how the Republican Party will react. Are they going to work with the President for the sake of the country, or are they going to obstruct anything that may help dig the economy out of the recession hole?

I know. Stupid question.

The Blaze's Mike Opelka - A Day Late and A Whine Short

The Blaze's political blogger Mike Opelka took umbrage with President Obama's "Frustrated" campaign email I referred to yesterday. But it wasn't for the same reasons. No, he takes the usual right wing hacky talking points that don't hold water. He complains about President Obama waiting until next week to lay out his jobs plan speech, the "failed" stimulus and the Martha's Vineyard vacation.

So I felt the need to post a response:

Very interesting, Mr. Opelka, that you would criticize the President for waiting until next week to make his speech.

1- The White House chose the date to coincide with first day that Congress was back in session.

2- I see no criticism of Boehner refusing the request and making the country wait yet another day. After grousing for months with the "Where are the jobs?" playground taunt, it seems Mr. Boehner and the GOP didn't think it was important enough and could actually let it go another day.

3- Bemoaning the President a vacation is petty considering the entire Congress has been out for the ENTIRE month of August. Five weeks. And the previous President spent a full 3 years out of his 8 year term on vacation.

4- If you're dealing with reality, you should note that just recently, a study came out citing the recession that started in 2007 (that would be before Obama took office) was much worse than previously thought. If you're going to criticize the stimulus, the correct criticism was that it wasn't nearly large enough to push back against the recession. Oh, and one third of that Recovery Act was tax cuts.

I'd forgive Mr. Opelka his talking points had it not been for his omission of point number two. If he'd written this post with no knowledge of the sequence of events regarding the joint session request, then okay. But it's posted with today's date. A good day and a half after Schedulegate. You can't complain about the timing of the speech and why we have to wait until next week, when John Boehner didn't think it important enough and delayed it yet another day. Opelka is a day late and a bitch session short.

Frustrated

Okay, I had to sleep on this one - I purposely avoided any news on my television machine this morning and averted my eyes from any headlines online and in print as to not cloud my judgment or contaminate my thoughts. I wanted to take a step back after a pseudo-rant in a post outlining yesterday's events, venting on Twitter and debating with Twitter friends, and try to explain how I feel about them.

Last night I received an e-mail from Obama for America titled, "Frustrated."

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work. Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them...

...It's been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.

I know that you're frustrated by that. I am, too.

He then asked me to stand with him, which I did, and asked for a donation, which I didn't give.

You see, the President is right. I am frustrated. But this time there's more than a little frustration to go around on both sides. And I'm not normally a "both sides" guy.

Earlier in the day, the White House announced that they were finally making a highly anticipated speech to lay out a jobs plan for the struggling economy. For months, the petulant Boehner and the rest of the spoiled brats in the GOP cried, "Where are the jobs?" like a playground taunt. They swept into office in November of 2010 on the issue of "jobs, jobs, jobs" and have done absolutely nothing on that front, pivoting on a dime and making deficit reduction during a horrific recession their primary goal and doing anything and everything, including holding the debt ceiling hostage and causing a downgrade of the American economy by S & P in the process.

So here was the announcement. And the White House chose the first day that Congress is back in session. It's also the same date as the scheduled GOP Primary Debate at the Reagan Library. Now don't misunderstand. This wasn't a decision made willy-nilly. This wasn't some random "idiot staffer" throwing a dart at a calendar, as one tweeter tried to suggest. These things are known well in advance and coordination with 535 members of Congress, with major news outlets and networks are all planned. And I thought it was a brilliant strategy politically. Put the GOP between a rock and a hard place - make them choose. Do you care more about one of your many upcoming GOP debates, or are you being a serious party and really care about jobs for America despite your actions to the contrary? Perfect plan.

And then the unbelievable happened. Boehner refused the President of the United States his request for a joint session. He showed his hand - a jobs plan that he has been wailing about for months could wait another day.

FUCK YOU, BOEHNER! I thought. If you don't think this is of the utmost importance, fine. Let the President take his address to the American people from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Show the dichotomy, plain for all of America to see. A president who cares about the unemployed against the GOP whose primary stated goal is making Obama a one-term president. Except the president wasn't so resolute.

The Obama email was time stamped at 10:38pm, about an hour after another "compromise" in which the President chose a specific date, September 7th, for an important joint session of Congress to address the nation's job issue, and Speaker of the House John Boehner refused the date, an unprecedented move and one that was most likely motivated more by a GOP primary debate conflict that same night rather than the House schedule, along with some Rush Limbaugh advice. Boehner suggested one night later, September 8th. So the two men talked. And the "compromise?" Or what passes for "compromise" nowadays? President Obama will give his address to a joint session of Congress on September 8th. All within a couple of hours, President Obama acquiesced yet again to Boehner and the GOP. And then he asked me for money.

And within minutes, there was the spin. On one side: "Obama caved again." On the other: "Obama is the only adult in the room." My initial reaction was the former, not the latter. Every once in a while when you're the only adult in the room, the spoiled brat needs a spanking. I'm still waiting for that spanking. And. It's. Fucking. Frustrating.

Now logically, sure, it makes sense that people would come to the defense of the President with the "adult" angle. The Party of No proves their moniker once again. The rancorous GOP shows they refuse to agree with the President about anything to show their extremist base they won't budge. John Boehner is at fault for putting party and politics ahead of the country. I get it. But I'm sorry, I can't turn on a dime that quickly. I can't call the choosing of the initial date great political strategy and within hours dismiss it as, eh, it's just a date. And I'm not going to let other people use that excuse either. Because it wasn't just a date. It was chosen specifically by the White House as a shot across the bow and before the battle began, there was a retreat.

And let's not pretend that it's insignificant. In the grand scheme of things, a specific date isn't the issue. It's about a continuing, troubling pattern of capitulation. There is no such thing as compromise anymore. There is no 50/50 meeting of the minds. From the public option, to the threat of government shutdown in the budget deal, to the threat of government default in the debt ceiling hostage negotiations, there has been no meeting in the middle. How many times will the President draw a line in the sand and then walk away from it? Unfortunately, optics matter. Spin matters. And to me, this just looks bad. That is why I'm frustrated. And I'm allowed to be frustrated.

I'll vote for President Obama. I'll contribute to his campaign. I'll work at the local campaign office when I can. I'll proudly wear my Obama t-shirt and display my lawn sign. But I'm allowed to be pissed off every once in a while.

So now the date is set for Thursday, September 8th, coinciding with the NFL season opener. I don't have to remind readers here that the majority of the country doesn't follow politics like we do. They're not wonks or cable news junkies and probably couldn't name the Secretary of State if asked. But they loves them some football. How many potential viewers will be lost by this move? I have a feeling it will be a significant number. Yes, we'll watch it because that's what we do. But on Friday, ask the average Joe Six Pack if he watched President Obama's joint session of Congress. See what answer you get.

My good friend and co-blogger Jennifer wrote a post last night using a "ball in the dirt" baseball analogy and comparing the President to a catcher controlling a ball thrown in the dirt to induce the batter to swing at a bad pitch and miss or ground out weakly. And that's a good analogy. But the problem is that in this situation, President Obama wasn't the catcher. He was the pitcher. He pitched a plan, a date for the speech. But batter Boehner didn't swing at it. He took the pitch for a ball. He then beared down at the plate and it was the perfect opportunity for Obama to throw one in high and tight; give him a little chin music. Instead, Obama didn't even challenge him.

Boehner walked.

Balls in the Dirt

POSTED BY JHW22

I am NOT a baseball fan AT ALL. But one day I was listening to NPR and had no other choice than to listen. Normally, I like to listen to NPR but this day, they were playing an interview with a baseball player. Ugh. B.O.R.I.N.G. But as I listened, it was anything but boring. It was fascinating and I learned a lot. I like strategy. I enjoy analysis. And this interview was a former catcher, Brad Ausmus, explaining his job from an analytical perspective. In that moment I felt I could like baseball as long as I didn't have to watch it.

And as the interview went on, the catcher said something about balls in the dirt that gave me what Oprah would call, "An a-ha moment". This discussion of balls in the dirt became THE analogy for how I view President Obama. So, I never thought I'd ever make a baseball/politics analogy, but read this, think about it and understand that with all the cries for Obama to "grow a pair", he has a big ol' pair and he knows how to control them.

DAVIES: Now, you mentioned balls in the dirt. They're a terrific weapon for your pitcher, I mean to get a batter lunging at a ball that's dropping out of the strike zone. And so you get a lot of ground balls and a lot of strikes that way, and that's good for your team. But there's also the risk that that ball can get past you, the catcher, and a base runner can advance.

You were known for being good at stopping balls in the dirt. Any particular tricks you used?

Mr. AUSMUS: There's nothing - no trick to it. And really the important thing about keeping balls in front of you - this is how I often explain it. If I was a basketball player, and somebody took a jump shot, and I swatted the ball into the stands, blocking a shot, everyone might ooh and ahh, but the truth of the matter is, is that team gets the ball back because it went out of bounds. So it doesn't do us any good.

That is very similar to catching. You can't just block the ball, you have to control the ball, because if you block it and it ricochets more than five feet away from you, the runner's going to advance anyway, and it hasn't done you any good.

So my whole theory on blocking was controlling the ball, kind of catching the ball with my chest protector and keeping it close to me, because if it went too far, we're in a worse predicament.

Now, did you see the analogy within the analogy? The catcher made a reference to basketball. He said:

If I was a basketball player, and somebody took a jump shot, and I swatted the ball into the stands, blocking a shot, everyone might ooh and ahh, but the truth of the matter is, is that team gets the ball back because it went out of bounds. So it doesn't do us any good.

President Obama is a smart player. But because he doesn't perform the dramatic, spectacular, ahhh-inducing, crowd-to-their-feet plays on a regular basis, he's called weak and naive.

On the contrary. This President controls the ball to save the play. And THAT is why I support this President and humble myself (which is a hard thing to do) by reminding myself that this stay-at-home mom who likes to blog and Tweet about politics, doesn't know shit about baseball, basketball or politics when compared to the great Barack Obama.

It's All In The Timing - UPDATED

For months now, all we've been hearing from the Republican Party is a mocking tone led by Speaker of the House, John "Big Gavel" Boehner. "Where are the jobs?" Boehner would ask/mock/yell any time he took a podium within earshot of network microphones. All you need to do is take a look at Boehner's tweets to see that his constant harping about any Obama plan and the damage that it would do, adding the modifying "job killing" phrase to every other sentence and even a couple of bills, and the transparency is obvious. Nevermind that the GOP ran on "jobs, jobs, jobs" in 2010 and as of this writing, the Republican led House of Representatives has not passed one single jobs bill.

And for weeks now, there's been nothing but whining and moaning from the GOP on wanting an economic and jobs plan from President Obama, regardless of the fact that it's the House that ultimately controls the pursestrings and creates and passes economic legislation.

Well, they wanted a jobs plan and now President Obama is going to give it to them. So it happens that they requested a joint session of Congress to reveal said plan on the same night as a Republican primary debate at the Reagan Library on September 7th. ...Oops.

While it may be a thumb in the eye to the GOP, the fact of the matter is that September 7th is also the first day that Congress is back in session after a five week recess. Yes, they were off for the entire month of August while some whined about the President's 10 day vacation. So it makes absolute sense to make the address on the first day of school. Is it also a 'fuck you' to Republicans who've been badgering him about a jobs plan for months? Probably, although they'd never admit to it. But now the White House has put the GOP in a tough spot. If they're so eager to hear the President's plan, they'll have to decide to agree to the joint session and prioritize what's important. They'll have to deal with the optics of a real President giving an important address regarding the nation's most pressing issue while the wannabes squawk about their one idea yet again: deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy as job creation.

But so far, all we've heard is more whining.

ADDING... Gawker has called this move "the most gratuitously -- and joyously! -- dickish move of his presidency." Well, when in Rome...

UPDATE I (6:55pm): Well, now we know where John Boehner and the GOP's priorities lie.

House Speaker John Boehner announced Wednesday that he would reject a request from President Obama for a national address before a joint-session of Congress.

So much for the jobs crisis, huh?

UPDATE II (9:35pm): I'm disgusted.

President Barack Obama agreed late Wednesday to delay a planned jobs speech to a joint session of Congress by one day after House Speaker John Boehner objected to the date the White House originally sought.

That one day delay, September 8th, is opening night of the NFL. As a regular reader of this blog just said to me, "Fucking clueless. Even I will be watching the game. If he loses the election, it won't be because of the economy. The base will just see him as a capitulator. I hear it every fucking day."

I have to admit I'm feeling the frustration as well. It's obvious this particular Congress doesn't give a shit about even the appearance of giving this particular president a modicum of respect. And if I'm being honest, if Obama doesn't demand it, why should the GOP bother when they know they can roll him?

I'm fucking disgusted.

ADDING... Look, overall I think I'm just venting my increasing frustration with the lack of respect shown to the President from the other side. I'm tired of Boehner and Cantor and the GOP thinking they are on equal footing with the President of the United States. Never in the history of this country has such hubris been displayed by the opposition party against the Commander in Chief. Refusing a joint session of Congress to a sitting president has never happened. But what I'm projecting is what I think most of the country is projecting; the majority of the country that aren't political junkies and view this peripherally.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the general population looks at this scenario and will see and realize that the GOP will say no to everything the President suggests, even a date for a jobs speech the GOP have been badgering for, for months. I hope they realize that the GOP is unreasonable and can't even acquiesce to a date requested by their President. I hope this is more Obama ju-jitsu and hope that the polls reflect that. I pray to the FSM that I'm wrong.

But I still can't shake my original point: why did the White House pick this particular date if they weren't going to stick to it? It looks wishy-washy and politically it'll be spun as such. There would be no controversy had they chosen Tuesday night (most if not all of Congress would be back in DC by then) or Thursday night even though they'd be fighting for ratings against opening night of the football season. So again, why did they choose the same night as the GOP debate?

Quote of the Day

“Instead of doing everything he can to help Virginians and people on the East Coast recover from the loss of life and property that Irene dealt over the weekend, Cantor is parading around on Fox News talking about how he will hold federal aid hostage unless he gets to slash the budget. Anyone willing to play political games while people are suffering is unfit to be a congressman.”

~David Mills, executive director of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Pat Buchanan's White Oppression!

This must stop. For far too long, the white race as been at a disadvantage. Just take a look at affirmative action and see the result; qualified white males being passed over for a job that an equally qualified minority can do. Don't believe me? Just ask Pat Buchanan. Here he is on the Laura Ingraham Radio Show.

Buchanan: "Now, these folks [meaning minorities], these appear to be inordinately overrepresented of one group. And I've gone through for my new book and you find out that the federal civil service has affirmative action basically for women, for Hispanics, and for African-Americans, but none for white males who are diminishing dramatically. So what you're going, is you're going back to pre-Chester Arthur as I wrote in my column, going back to the federal service as a huge patronage thing that the party in power rewards its friends, rewards the voters that put it into office, and the problem is that Republicans do zero about it."

Yes! That's the problem! Republicans do nothing about repealing affirmative action. They're too busy defunding Medicaid, restricting Planned Parenthood family planning services, and railroading organizations like ACORN. How much time can they possibly have left for asserting the rights of white males?

Of course, Pat Buchanan is completely full of shit. Here's a handy little chart of the "dramatic diminishment" of white males in civil service employment:



See? White males hold 56.1% of the federal civilian workforce and whites overall (including women) hold 67.7% of the jobs. Shouldn't they have more? That 17.6% for blacks is just too much, don't you think? But if Pat Buchanan is so dependent on the numbers, perhaps he should explain why with a current unemployment rate of 9.1%, unemployment among Whites is 8.1% while it is 15.9% for African-Americans. Maybe he thinks it's laziness? Or maybe as he believes that the federal civil employment ratio is disproportionate in favor of blacks as he infers in his column, he should explain why the US prison population of non-Hispanic blacks is 39.4% when the total population of blacks in America is 12.6%. Are they just born criminals?

Yeah, those white males really have it hard to not be included in affirmative action.



(H/T Bob Cesca)

Music Break! MVPleez

A good friend of the Mrs. and mine has been writing and co-creating music videos, the first of which just officially launched.

Enjoy.

Energy Sec Steven Chu Explains Climate Change So Well, Even a Republican Can Understand It

So simple a six-year old... or a Republican, can understand it.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he was "saddened" by the political debate over climate change, and that political leaders didn't understand it. I'm guessing the saddness comes from knowing that they really do understand, at least the smart ones, but aren't willing to lose an ideological wedge issue.



(Via Think Progress)

Voice from Vermont

POSTED BY JHW22

My friend in Vermont posted this Facebook status today and it's important that we realize what Irene has done and help Vermont recover:

This is really bad. Farmers' whose fields were flooded have to destroy the crops due to possible contamination, and are forbidden from planting anything intended for human consumption for 60 days. After the flooding and lingering cold weather this spring, this should just about finish them off. When farmers are screwed, we're all screwed. I'm scared.

Wilkerson's Scathing Cheney Review on Democracy Now

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now about Dick Cheney's new memoir (video to follow). Wilkerson proceeds to give a scathing review not so much of Cheney's book, but Cheney himself. He calls the release of Cheney's book in the wake of Hurricane Irene, the devastation in Vermont from the storm, and the most recent soldier deaths in Afghanistan "singularly insignificant," described Cheney's 'exploding heads all over Washington' line as akin to "grocery store tabloid" and says "I simply don't recognize Dick Cheney anymore" not as a descriptive measure of how he's changed, but that he doesn't recognize him as a person (my take).

Wilkerson: "...The Vice-President seems to find fault with... Condi Rice, ...with Powell, with [Richard] Armitige, with the president himself. The only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney. I think we have a word for that kind of person; I won't use it here on television, but I think Mr. Cheney's view is totally, utterly, completely Mr. Cheney's view. I doubt there are very many people in America, other than the cheerleading squad for people like Cheney, who like torture and the like, who'll even read his book, or if they do read it, they'll read it in order to increase their revulsion of him rather than their respect for him. And that's a pity because he is a former vice-president...

...This is a book written out of fear; fear that one day someone will 'Pinochet' Dick Cheney."

After a quick call from Glenn Greenwald charaterizing some of Cheney's actions during his administration as criminal, Wilkerson agreed wholeheartedly, said that he would be willing to testify against Cheney should it ever come to trial, and would also take any punishment he is due as part of that administration.

Must Reads

Jonathan Capehart: Cantor Wrong. Obama Clear on Raising Taxes on Wealthy

The Rude Pundit: Someone Should Smack Marco Rubio with a History Stick

E.J. Dionne: Obama Can’t Win for Winning in Libya

Harold Meyerson: The GOP Will Raise Taxes — on the Middle Class and Working Poor

Timothy Egan: Stop Waiting for Superman

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 27, 2011

Coming Together to Remember

Submitted Without Comment

(via GottaLaff)

Facts Schmacts!

Especially when it comes to climate change.



Need I say more?

(Via Bob Cesca)

Batten Down the Hatches!

I've lived in New York City all my life up until a year ago. I've witnessed Hurricane Floyd. I vividly remember Hurricane Gloria. I've never witnessed a pre-emptive closing of NYC Mass Transit (subways and buses) and New Jersey Transit. I've never seen a mandatory evacuation of lower Manhattan. This one is serious. But hey, better safe than sorry. And I'm off for the weekend to batten down the hatches at home. Keep safe, everyone.

Will Cantor Look for Cuts Elsewhere to Pay for His District Disaster?

Hey, remember what Eric Cantor said about federal disaster relief funds after Joplin, Missouri was practically destroyed by a tornado? Let me refresh your memory:

The No. 2 House Republican said that if Congress doles out additional money to assist in the aftermath of natural disasters across the country, the spending may need to be offset.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said “if there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental."

That was way, way long ago... too far for the MSM to possibly remember. Three whole months ago.
Well, now that the epicenter of the east coast earthquake landed smack dab in the middle of his district in Mineral, Virginia, are we going to see him look for "pay-fors" to help offset the cost of federal relief?

[Cantor] said that a federal process is underway to assess the damage and address residents and businesses that may not have earthquake insurance.

Sorry, Sparky. Why should we shell out federal money to help people that weren't smart enough to carry earthquake insurance while living over a fault line? Oh yeah, that's right. Because we're fucking human beings who look out for our fellow man. And I'm completely fine with that. But why the hell does Cantor insist on Tea Party populist bullshit like this?

...Eric Cantor (R-VA) will extend his requirement that federal disaster relief be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere in the budget to Hurricane Irene.

“We aren’t going to speculate on damage before it happens, period,” his spokesperson Laena Fallon emails. “But, as you know, Eric has consistently said that additional funds for federal disaster relief ought to be offset with spending cuts.”

I called him a punk then and I'm calling him a punk now. The people of VA-7 must be so happy they voted for this douchebag to look out for their best interests, huh?

Tweet of the Day

Joke of the Day

Come on! Who's yanking my chain?

Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, is considering a run against U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur in 2012, according to Republican Party sources.

Jon Stainbrook, chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party, said there is "high-level interest in the national Republican Party" in a potential Wurzelbacher candidacy.

"We are encouraging Joe to run," Mr. Stainbrook said. "He hasn't made any official decision yet."

HAHAAHAAHAHAHHAAA!
If his supposed candidacy goes as well as his book sales, there's nothing to worry about.

The Jesus Agenda

POSTED BY JHW22

About a week and a half ago Desert Crone posted her take on Liberals and Christians. I agreed with a lot of what she said even though I am an atheist. So, as an atheist, I wanted to try to say the same thing, but with a different perspective. One that I formed over 30+ years as what I call, a Christian-magnet.

My parents raised me sans religion. They didn't raise me to not believe in God or to believe in God. In fact, I don't remember them really teaching or encouraging me much of anything when it came to religion and I am truly grateful for that. They raised me to be a clean slate to choose or believe what I alone am able to believe. The only true way to believe is to get there on your own.

But I had extended family and friends who had a huge impact on me when it came to forging what I did not believe. And for years, these people impacted in me in very negative ways. Without going into the drama and rants I would have loved to spew 10 or 15 years ago, I will summarize my early experiences this way: Christians are assholes.

That's what I came to believe. I couldn't believe how hateful, judgmental and hypocritical they were. WHY would I want to be part of their religion when I didn't like, agree with or even care to comprehend? Why would I want to be a fellow asshole?

Sadly, I thought this of some people in my life who I really should love.

Then, in college, I became friends with two wonderful women. They didn't try to make me something I wasn't or believe something I couldn't. Oh, they prayed for me to find whatever, but they didn't push. We would talk about religion and in our conversations, I felt a sincere desire to understand, not to believe, but to really understand them. Not their religion. I wanted to understand what made them want to believe. Although they didn't make a believer out of me, they did soften me to my hardened opinion of Christians as assholes.

And then I met my husband. My husband was raised in a liberal-minded, open-hearted Christian family. He doesn't consider himself a Christian, but if you knew him, you'd know he projects that which is ideally a Christian life - minus the acceptance of Christ as his savior. My husband, and his family became the new symbol of what a Christian can and should be. Seriously, his grandma, parents, uncles, aunt, cousins. They ALL walk the walk. And this stopped me in my tracks. I couldn't believe there were people who called themselves Christians, who led lives I could respect and they actually made the connection between their beliefs AND the ways they lived their lives EVERY DAY. Seriously. They didn't preach and judge me or anyone who didn't believe the same as them. Instead, they lived an example in a way I'd never imagined.

My husband's family was the first family I ever met who really lived what they said they believed.

And because of them, I really had to stop seeing Christians as assholes.

Since then, I have known many Christians who impress me. They support issues and causes and people that is perfectly in-line with their beliefs. None have converted me. I have no desire or need for a savior or a Heaven or forgiveness or any of that. But because of these wonderful Christians, I have worked hard at not labeling Christians as assholes. Not as a whole anyway.

That brings me to the distinction, that to me is quite simple. I love many Christians. And I despise many who call themselves Christians.

Jesus gave humans a to do list, or an agenda. It's not a hard list, or an impossible list. It doesn't require perfection. It requires simple tasks and thoughts. For someone to follow the agenda set forth by Jesus, one simply treats others well, cares for them, aides them. Easy peasy. The whole, "I'm not perfect, I'm forgiven" attitude is moot because Jesus didn't expect us to walk on water or perform miracles. Never did. He only "gives us what we can handle". Right? I mean, seriously, Jesus didn't ask us to be Him. He only set forth an agenda and hoped we'd follow it.

But when people who claim their principles are based on the Jesus agenda, put the Jesus agenda aside when it comes time to choosing elected leaders, when they choose a person who makes a career out of NOT doing the things on the Jesus agenda, and when they decide that there is a separate political set of principles that trumps their Jesus agenda, they essentially tell Jesus he's less important. YET, Jesus clearly states to render unto Caesar. And He never says, "Help the poor UNLESS..." or "Feed the hungry EXCEPT..." Jesus NEVER gave Christians an excuse to put His agenda on hold because of who was being asked to execute that agenda. Jesus NEVER gave Christians the option to not help people if helping meant helping via the government. He never said that if the government wants to help the poor people, using tax dollars, that Christians can or should choose otherwise. In fact, He makes it rather clear that Christians should be helping their neighbor despite any excuses.

So, that is why the many Christians I respect in my life tend to vote for liberal politicians, they support candidates who, using tax dollars or not, set policies that match the Jesus agenda.

When a Conservative politician says Americans can help the needy on their own dime, on their own time, and to leave government out of it, they say that the Jesus agenda is irrelevant. And that's where the irony/hypocrisy/bastardization comes in: when a party wants to put their faith INTO their politics then purposely eliminates the exact principles that define what they SAY Christians are about -- the teachings of Christ, the Jesus agenda -- that's the root of all their evil.

So when a Christian looks at candidates in an election year, they need to have their Jesus agenda handy. They need to look at which candidate supports policies that allow the Jesus agenda to be followed. They need to put away the concern over who will pay for it or how it will get done and just ask themselves which candidate's platform looks like the Jesus agenda. And they need to separate the number of times a candidate says "Jesus" or "God" or "pray". Because the agenda is less about the church a person goes to, or how vocal they are in their faith. The Jesus agenda is about acting, not preaching, it's about helping, not hindering. The Jesus agenda is about simple tasks that each of us can do and that each of us can elect others to do.

I am proud to say that I know more and more of the Christians who actually vote the Jesus agenda. And although I don't accept Jesus as my savior, I think his agenda is a pretty damn good one.

EDIT: After a good discussion with a friend, one who is a true moderate and a Christian, I posed this thought to Republicans

Republicans need to ask themselves if they are putting aside that which makes them Christian just to vote for that which makes them Republicans.

Welfare Drug Queens?

POSTED BY JHW22

I am just shocked when I hear, read, speak to people I consider compassionate liberals who support drug-testing for welfare recipients. Shocked. To me, it spits in the face of what we stand for as liberals. And worse, it means liberals have fallen for the Conservative trap of believing in a false frame. Suckers. Damn it.

For those of you who agree with the welfare recipient drug testing, my beefs are that the premise is based on a lot of false assumptions: falsehood that there is an overwhelming number of people on drugs getting welfare, cost-saving fallacies, and a misunderstanding of how much money these people actually get each month.

So far, in Florida, the testing is a waste of time, money and energy all at the expense of some people's dignity. It's hard enough to need welfare assistance. It's another thing to have a big chunk of your fellow Americans believe the lie that you're some druggie taking advantage of the system. Anyone who supports the drug testing, has believed one part of the big lie meant to convince you this is a good idea. And it just simply isn't. It's all a political agenda to make you focus on the people who have less of an effect on our economic woes than the people who actually DO affect our financial health in this country. As we humiliate drug-free welfare recipients, we allow multimillionaires to pay a lower tax rate than their cleaning ladies. And yet people like ME are accused of declaring a class warfare.

Seriously, think about who has the greatest effect on our country's fiscal health. It's NOT the 2% of drug-using welfare recipients.

More MSM Seriousness

Another gem of a story from Politico. When I first read the headline, I thought I had inadvertently clicked on some TMZ or Star Magazine site.

If only President Obama had been behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the earthquake would never have happened.