February 25, 2009

SOTU Response

I think the only proper response to Bobby Jindal's public humiliation is a good, hearty Nelson laugh.

Republicans in the wilderness. It's gonna be a fun and funny few decades.

Posted by Observer at 08:48 PM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2009


Heard this on the radio this morning, but not sure what the original source was. A column somewhere in some paper today: Republicans are criticizing the stimulus bill. That's kinda like the geese criticizing the flight crew for how they went about getting the passengers off of that plane in the Hudson River.

Posted by Observer at 03:05 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2009

No Compromises

Nate Silver continues to do excellent mathematical analysis of politics, even without an election at stake. I like this one where he shows mathematically that when Republicans say they were ready to compromise on the stimulus bill, in reality, they were not.

He's also got a couple of strong posts further down where he shows how much George Will lied to make his case against global warming in a recent column.

My favorite is the one I linked to. Will tries to make the case that a few decades ago, scientists were predicting dramatic cooling, so there's no need to take their "alarmist" warming predictions seriously. To support his case, Will quotes a scientific paper that predicted "extensive North American glaciation", but when you dig up the paper and look at the actual quote, it says, "ignoring anthropogenic climate effects, the trend is toward extensive North American glaciation."

So the actual paper itself was arguing that man-made global warming effects could be significant enough to dramatically reverse natural cooling trends that seem to be due, but Will quoted it as though it supported his case that global warming is overblown! As usual with Republicans, they're either fundamentally ignorant of the facts or they know the facts cold and are being dishonest, and it is hard to know which is more embarrassing for them.

Posted by Observer at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2009

Who's Responsible?

Jon Stewart has a nice response to Dick Cheney's latest toxic emission. Cheney openly wonders in an interview about responsibility, saying that if you release the Guantanamo detainees and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?

Stewart replies (transcribed from video):

Ooo, I have a question! Ummm, what if we're hit again by a guy who's really sad because his whole family was killed in Iraq? Who's responsible for that?

Or... what if someone got pissed off at us because his brother was potato sacked and bound and kept in a cage without a lawyer for seven years on an island in the Caribbean? Who's responsible for that?

Or... If Al Qaeda, on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, had time to reconstitute and devise another attack because we pulled all our resources out to invade another country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Who's responsible for that?

Posted by Observer at 07:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 06, 2009

He Kept Us Safe

Interviews like Cheney's, in which he crows about the administration's record preventing attacks since 9/11, tend to resonate with the epitaph I hear a lot of Republicans offer Bush. They're trying to find something positive, something to distract from the catastrophe, so they repeat "he kept us safe" like a mantra.

I mean, let's start with 9/11 for a minute. Republicans act like that occurred on Clinton's watch. Actually, no, as has been documented by Richard Clarke (and other more neutral observers), when Bush came into office, he and his team were warned that the #1 focus should be bin Laden. But the Bush team, like petulant children, figured they would just declare "opposite day" and do everything opposite of whatever Clinton and the Democrats wanted.

And so bin Laden was ignored. After all, Bush didn't want to anger his Taliban buddies, whom he had once welcomed to Texas for a state visit to discuss oil and religious fundamentalism, I guess. Nor did Bush want to anger Saudi Arabia, a country with which his family has always had very close personal business ties (they funded his early business failures, seeing it as an investment in future influence, and boy did it pay off), so he didn't follow the leads or pressure the Saudis to help catch bin Laden.

And then on August 6, 2001, he got the famous briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" and responded by going on vacation.

Oh yeah, he kept us REAL safe.

And does everyone just plain forget the fact that several members of Congress were attacked (and some staffers died) thanks to the anthrax attacks? Or did Bush keep us safe from that?

And if Bush has done such a great job closing up the borders to terrorists, why is heroin and cocaine still flooding into the country?

What the hell did he keep us safe from? Peace and prosperity? Ok, I guess, mission accomplished.

Posted by Observer at 08:43 AM | Comments (0)