Bring in the McClowns

It seems I write the same things over and over again because the Republican pattern repeats indefinitely.  It's OK when we do it or say it or demand it, it's anti-American, tyrannical, too little, too late, too much, too soon when they do it. Even if Republicans invented it or pioneered it or used it until yesterday it's different when "they" do it.

How long ago was it that John McCain and  Fox News and the rest of the merry bunch made a circus act with all three rings full of how Obama is a "tyrant" for appointing all those Czars?  "More Czars than the Romanovs," tweets the funny man.  So where's the big red nose and oversize pants when John McCain tells us that hapless weakling Obama isn't appointing the Czars we need?  That's right, John McCain has joined Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), sponsor of H.R. 3226 (111th): Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009  in condemning the administration for this egregious failure, invoking the "if it's bad, it's Obama" clause in the Party rules. 2009 is when George W. Bush left office -- just coincidentally -- and of course George had 33 of them, but let's keep that quiet.


Of course there's no public office with the title Czar on the door as far as I know. It's a media epithet that began in the 1940s and of course there's nothing unconstitutional about the President appointing "other public ministers" no matter how much they chuckle and chortle and lie in the Fox newsroom.
But quoting history and public record never seems to have much effect on the magic thinkers and pea-brained partisans of any stripe.  The public's eyes are always on the jugglers and clowns and what they're doing now, not what they did ten seconds ago.

"No one knows who's in charge," says McCain, his face revealing nothing of how his party, with the help of the NRA has blocked the nomination of a Surgeon General, an office designed to take control and coordinate the process of informing the country of what's being done.  Yes, the NRA, because the Surgeon General might just get involved in gun policy.  Can't have that. Better a plague than risk a gun grabber liberal doctor commie near our weapons. Better this country perish from the earth.

John McCain's knee jerks again

You have to feel sorry for John McCain. When you're the privileged son of an admiral, and you're in your 30s when those negroes got all uppity the Civil Rights movement took place, it's understandable that you might have a certain amount of "white man's privilege" that it's hard to let go of.

So it probably stung when he got his ass so throroughly spanked by a black man in 2010.

And since he had to sit out most of Vietnam sitting in a bamboo cage, maybe little Johnny just wants to get his war on. I suppose that could be it.

But come on, John!

Arizona Senator John McCain on Sunday warned that the situation in Iraq is "unraveling" due to recent U.S. foreign policy actions there - and that a "very chaotic situation" could give way to a rise in Iranian influence in the region.

McCain, speaking to Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation," argued that the recent U.S. military drawdown from Iraq is creating a dire situation in that country.

"It's unraveling because we didn't keep residual force there, because the President of the United States pledged to get out of Iraq," McCain said. "We could have kept a residual force there and kept some stability. And instead it's unraveling, and Iran's influence is increasing and there's every possibility you could see a very chaotic situation there."

See, Johnny, it's probably best that you didn't specifically name which president it was that "pledged to get out of Iraq," since Obama simply lived up to the timetable that was set up by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, signed by George W. Bush.

So, what's changed between now and then?

So, here's how the GOP works.

(April 22, 2004)
(Peter G. Peterson, chairman, Council on Foreign Relations): Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

(Sen. John) McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Seems pretty clear, right?

OK, so let's scoot forward to last year.

(December 28, 2010)
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: "The withdrawal of forces agreement expires on Dec. 31, 2011. The last American soldier will leave Iraq."

(Technically, that's actually a "Status of Forces Agreement," but it's not like English is his first language, right?)

So, obviously, McCain knows what should happen next, right?

(Oct 21, 2011)
"Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world," McCain said in a statement Friday afternoon. "I respectfully disagree with the President: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

McCain said the decision is "a consequential failure of both the Obama Administration - which has been more focused on withdrawing from Iraq than succeeding in Iraq since it came into office - as well as the Iraqi government."

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Father's Day

Things change, everyone gets older. You start to wonder how many more father's days will pass while you still have a father to spend it with. It's good then, to see how some things never change; things like the bitter, miserable, vicious lies that spew from the GOP. Take the current Elmer Fudd of the Party, John McCain, the tortured war hero who didn't have the courage to stand up to the party's support of torture. Take John, who is making this Father's Day so much happier by blaming the Arizona wildfires on illegal immigrants rather than on the drought.

But he has substantial evidence, which he will, no doubt, reveal eventually, or not reveal or simply forget about after the wildfire of hate has got beyond control. Remember when Mexicans were bringing leprosy across the border? Many will long remember Lou Dobbs' accusations but not the lack of evidence and perhaps the wildfire libel will stick long after McCain's slide into dementia becomes all too obvious.

Well thanks John, for all you do and for reminding us of Republican fathers long gone like Joe McCarthy with their vaporous claims of "evidence" and I'm sure your legacy will stink long after you're gone.

The Odd Couple

No, not Felix and Oscar, but Joe and John: Lieberman and McCain. Putative Democrat and the Republican quondam candidate. Often appearing to be on the same side, their opinions drive us to confusion and not to any conclusion.

The right wing outrage machine has been like a chorus of vuvuzelas, blaring accusations that the classified rules of engagement instituted by General McChrystal on his own initiative were in fact forced on him by president Obama and his opposition, despite his sworn public testimony to the contrary, was the reason he was relieved of command. I suspect Joe Lieberman agrees, although I know he knows better.

The policy of trying to reduce the heavy civilian casualties so as to give the US less of the appearance of an invading horde bent on its own objectives and with no concern for innocent life or limb, is misguided says Lieberman; as though to say we shouldn't be concerned to appear as liberators with the best interests of Afghanistan at heart. We shouldn't care that people whose children we've cavalierly blown to hell aren't going to try to make our efforts any easier and so he's advising General Petraeus to shoot first and ask questions later. It's hurting our morale, says he as though 9 years of getting nowhere can be blamed on being the kind of nation we're supposed to be and more importantly as though it were president Obama's fault for worrying too much about worthless Muslim lives.

Perhaps John McCain's statement that even another ten years of war may not be too much to ask of our country, fits with Lieberman's disinterest in having the country we tell ourselves we're helping on our side. Ten more years of shooting up innocent families at weddings, on the streets, in their cars and in their homes will likely draw us into many more decades of war, and that McCain thinks this war is self justifying if not actually morally or functionally satisfying is not beyond conjecture. Another ten years, another 3, 4, 5 trillion dollars and who knows how many more dead: economic and moral collapse -- that should make the country crazy and enough to elect another Republican.

Pretty clever, and to think I thought McCain was an idiot.

Teh Great Wall-Off Mexico

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So when John McCain ignores the overwhelming empirical evidence of human history and insists that massive federal spending on a barrier will work this time, you know he's lost his mind.

Also: I'm trying to win a Netroots Nation scholarship, and all you have to do to help is click a couple of times.

Internet Freedom Act and Net Neutrality

No, no, no. The Internet Freedom Act isn't about freedom for you as an internet user and you should know by now that when a Republican uses the word Freedom it's about corporate control over your options. John McCain's "freedom act" appears now, after we've just begun to recover from eight years of the Bush FCC acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of big communications corporations; fudging the science and ignoring its own rules with impunity. Under Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, the Commission has stifled, hidden and falsified studies concerning the adverse effects on the public airwaves and even disaster relief services, of using power lines as a conductor for broadband internet and has made censorship of "indecency" a prime directive. It's high time they were prevented from protecting the public interest rather than the power of the telecommunications industry and the religious right.

If McCain's legislation is passed, the Internet Service Providers will have the power to limit your web bandwidth and mine and give preference to - you guessed it - the people they like, the people they own and the people who say what they want said. Have a blog that criticizes Comcast? Back to the days of 300 baud for you old chap! Fox News can blaze along at any speed they like with all the streaming and screaming video and Glennbeckery they can produce and the FCC won't be able to represent you. The freedom of giant corporations and puritanical moralists to censor you -- that's the kind of freedom John McCain thinks is worth fighting for!

Poor little Palin, part II

"I continue to be surprised at the vicious attacks on her. I've never seen anything like it"

says John McCain on CNN.com. Of course that's not nearly true or credible and of course "viciousness" is not what distinguishes the many criticisms of Palin from the criticism McCain himself endured; criticism that he handed out and that he observed being handed out to people like John Kerry while standing by saying little or nothing. Indeed the hypocrisy of anyone in any way part of the Republican establishment of the last decade who is still crying about how poor Sarah has been treated is something the like of which I've never seen. What distinguishes complaints about her ethics with accusations that McCain sired an illegitimate, black daughter or that Barak Obama was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who wants to destroy the country, are the facts behind them -- or not behind them.

McCain and his party would very much like you to think that what really sours people like me on candidates like Palin are her daughter's pregnancy or some details of her private life that should be beyond public scrutiny. Indeed the campaign was complaining about such things far in advance of public awareness, making it apparent that they intended to make her an antihero and to run on sympathy rather than on any strong capabilities she might have. Of course any suggestion that anything in a candidate's life should be beyond scrutiny when made by a Republican is so hilarious as to be horrifying while there is ongoing hysteria about things that are not part of Obama's life being treated as controversial by people who know better.

That Palin lied about refusing earmarks, about being opposed to running up debt, is a small matter compared to the accusations of treason she smilingly made againstBarak Obama in her pedantic sing-song tones and nothing said against her suitability compares with Republican accusations against McCain made by the Bush camp. Of course complaining about criticism alone and without reference to the content and the facts of the matter constitutes deliberate misrepresentation. Is it vicious to accusePalin of ethical violations when there are legal proceedings based on formal accusations? Is it vicious to mention misstatements, to mention lifelong dedication to witch hunters and heretic persecutors or other things which are incontestably true?

If so, what then are accusations based on lies and distortions? If so what do we do with a candidate whose entire campaign was run upon such things while she whined about how unfair it was to criticize her at all?

It's rare enough for a governor, even a governor under indictment, to simply walk away from the job without explanation, yet Mr. McCain would like us all to believe that she was forced out by the nefarious and vicious Liberals who just can't stop asking why she did it. It's an insult to the electorate, of course, but no more of an insult than the McCain/Palin campaign was. They've been getting away with insulting and assaulting us for a long time -- because we're stupid, because we're emotionally and tribally driven and too often only informed by those who insult us.

That McCain is still playing the victim game; the poor, suffering and forgotten hero game, doesn't speak well for him. That he's still viciously attacking efforts to fix the problems his party created while offering no other suggestions than the same policies that caused them and the same policies that turned the crash of '29 into the Great Depression, doesn't recommend him either, but his misplaced loyalty that drives him to cover up for the VP candidate who may have cost him the election all by herself certainly suggests self-delusion, a total lack of independence and the kind of situational honesty that makes me so very glad he lost.

The Right Reaction on Iran

The proper reaction regarding the recent turmoil in Iran is clear, or at least it should be. It's also exactly the reaction President Obama has had so far. The president has been very reluctant to use aggressive language when discussing Iran's election, the subsequent protests, or the seeming illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (or Khamenei's). He's actually been quite reluctant to say anything at all.

His reasons are many. His doesn't want to anger an Ahmadinejad/Khamenei-run government should the current regime maintain its power - he will, after all, have to work with whatever government emerges from this struggle. He doesn't want to use overly forceful rhetoric only to find that he has to ratchet it up further should the violence become drastically worse. He also doesn't want to risk emboldening Ahmadinejad by giving the Iranian president someone to point the finger at.

But most importantly, President Obama recognizes that this decision needs and ought to be made by the Iranian people. It is a fool's errand trying to sway the politics of a nation in the midst of upheaval. We could only make matters worse. And if we really want genuine change to come to Iran - change that will stick - we need to recognize that that change must come from within; as Sen. John Kerry wrote in a NYT op-ed, "Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America."

Obama has expressed all of this without any of the bombast characteristic of his predecessor (see Evil, Axis of). On Monday, President Obama spoke briefly to reporters about Iran, closing by saying,

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

Careful to express that this is Iran's election, Iran's battle, but subtlely showing support for the protesters. Nuanced. Sophisticated. To the point, but full of between-the-lines insight.

Contrast that with this comment from Sen. John McCain on the "Today" show:

He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.

In speaking with David Gregory, he advised that the United States should

[...] do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights.

To which The Huffington Post bitingly noted,

Ah, yes, because U.S.-Iran relations "throughout the Cold War and afterwards" are such a model of success.

McCain is aggressive. Overly-confident. Ignorant of history and of our potential to influence an election that isn't any of our business. We should not be surprised that the man who jokingly, and irresponsibly, mock-sang "bomb, bomb Iran" would desire such decidedly strict language. McCain's sometimes belligerent nature played no small role in costing him the presidency. We should be thankful that America is awake enough to have recognized that the prudence Obama brings to the table is a far more powerful diplomatic tool than the incitable speech of 43 or the failed-44.

And most important of all, we should recognize that by treating Iran and the rest of the Middle East with respect, Obama has already done more to help spur the change we're seeing than either of these men (or the countless other neoconservative war-mongers) can imagine. No more Axis of Evil, no more distrust of Muslims and Muslim culture, no more overt (very overt in the case of Iraq) aggression in the Middle East. Just an invitation for some honest dialogue with a region of the world we have managed only to alienate in recent years. That is progress, that is how you make a difference.

Update:

Shaw has two posts at her blog that complement this very well.

You're no Maverick

John McCain, you're no Maverick and you're certainly not the original. In fact the original Mavericks are so disgusted with you, at least two of them say they'll shoot. . . . the TV if they see your face on it again.

The Real Mavericks in fact are Liberals with affiliations going back to FDR and the New Deal, not to George Bush and the shady deal.

But don't take my word for it:

PUTTIN’ ON AYERS

Ahh, the pleasures of a sunken wreck, where hidden crannies are made for sulking, and long-abandoned galleys are still stocked with un-salvaged wine to challenge the jar-opening skills of an octopus. There is nothing like a good shipwreck to soothe a savage cephalopod.

Your faithful mudsquiggle has returned!  No more self-flagellation (and don’t ask where the sucker-shaped hickeys come from).  I don’t care if my earlier posts were riddled with specious reasoning and ad hominid attacks on hopeless humanoids.  I tried to play fair … but the McHacks are back again … so I changed my mind.  According to rumor, Senator John McCain intends to raise the Ayers issue during the next and last presidential debate.

Here is what a conservative blah-blah-blogger is saying about the Obama-Ayers connection:

Obama is associated with Bill Ayers, a man whose terrorist group killed police officers and bombed the U.S. Capital …

But wasn’t Obama eight years old when this Ayers fellow started the Weather Underground?  If Obama spilled a glass of milk at age eight, not even General Ripper would give a rap about losing precious vital bodily fluids.  But Senator McCain does.  And who exactly is this Ayers fellow? According to the New York Times:

“Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.   “He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally,” Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues …  “This is 2008,” Mr. Daley said. “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.”

And this is what Tom Hayden, the former 1960s activist, thinks about the Obama-Ayers connection:

[Hayden] said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”   “If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”

So Barack Obama and William Ayers crossed paths and served on the same education board, while swarming wingnuts are making a big buzz over little more than a casual association. More than a buzz, the McCain/Palin campaign is using the Ayers trope to turn political rallies into ugly mob scenes with chants of “terrorist,” "traitor,” "kill him” and “off with his head.”   In the year 2008, it is hard to believe there are still people acting like this:



Can you name even ONE wingnut who understands this as inciting mob violence? Can you name even ONE wingnut who has spoken out?

Of course, wingnuts conveniently ignore all evidence they find unsuitable to their cause, especially the language of hate when it benefits their candidate.  Incitements to violence may not bother them, but they bother me. Angry mob scenes remind me of witch burnings, lynchings, pogroms, and 1930s Germany.

Amazing. Wingnuts have even ignored the pleas of their own candidate. Here is McCain trying to undo the damage of his own campaign run amuck:



But here is the rub.  About the McCain supporter who called Obama an “Arab,” she was later interviewed via streaming cell phone by Noah Kunin from The UpTake, Adam Aigner of NBC News, and Dana Bash of CNN:



According to the transcript, the McCain supporter who called Obama an “Arab” got this information from a pamphlet supplied by her local McCain campaign office [my bold]. The implications are disturbing. When will candidate McCain fess up and take responsibility for the worst assault on civil discourse in American history? When will he finally admit to crossing the line and inciting mob violence? How does one equate “Country First” with outright lying?

In this world, there is hardly one politician untouched by six degrees of separation. Somewhere, there will always be a questionable association - whether real or imagined. While the McCain-Palin campaign points a finger at Barack Obama, there are more than enough skeletons in McCain's closet to delight Wes Craven. These include Randy Scheunemann, G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating, former Senator Phil Gramm, and dozens of lobbyists and other shady characters too numerous to mention.

But wingnuts will read only what they want to read, hear only what they want to hear, and believe only what they want to believe because their minds are tighter than clams, and they are incapable of acquiring new knowledge or considering other viewpoints.

I grow tired of this post now.  Maybe I'll talk about these shady characters some other time. Meanwhile, your faithful, blue-blooded octopus is hungry.  Is that a tasty McMorsal I see crawling furtive under anemones?

Maverickism

According to dictionary dot com, a MAVERICK is

a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.

Mmmmm now that's curious. So SP & JM are arguably also aligning themselves with INTELLECTUALS & ARTISTS. Ha! Oh the irony!!!

Now, admittedly this definition says "or" which means one has a choice of what kind of maverick one would like to be. However, I find it amusing that the dictionary people also recognize intellectuals & artists as being of maverick behavior - two groups of people that the Republican party traditionally finds suspect. Very suspect. I know because I fall into both of those categories. Intellectuals & artists tend to be creatively thinking people. People who ask new questions & seek new answers. They are people who resist being pigeon-holed. They - We - are people who are often accused of not toeing the mark with respect to good old fashioned American values (whatever the heck they are). AND - we are people who are by & large APPALLED at the thought of JM & SP sitting in the white house.

Go figure. "Maverickism" - it would seem - makes for curious bed-persons.

So - here's a thought - maybe if all of us intellectuals & artists start calling ourselves "mavericks" all the time (following JM & SP's example) proudly embracing & owning our maverickism, then maybe - just may be - we can take the wind out of the sails of this now nauseating word. In other words, we can defuse its individuating effect by loudly assigning it to all who qualify. Rendering it meaningless by over-use. (In other words, speeding up the process begun by JM & SP - though I think they are genuinely clueless as to how meaningless this word is becoming)