The Morning Roundup

File Under "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" Two countries that hated each other for years will now finally be able to make peace. Good, right? Ummmm- maybe not. Despite the heartfelt embrace between a dead soldier's mother and an Iraqi human rights activist who cast a vote in her nation's first "free" election in half a century, things in Iraq remain messy. The lead story in the Times today reveals that the early returns show a Shiite party with strong links to Iran in the lead.

Should this party retain its lead and ascend to power, these two historically warring nations can resolve their differences and unite in their hatred of the United States. Just in time for the invasion of Iran, which Condi says is "not on the agenda at this point"(emphasis added). Meaning that it will be as soon as we've cleaned up our present quagmire.

George Dubya's Rolling Misinformation Tour 2005 The Pres hit the road yesterday, to hype up his Social Insecurity Fiasco. Oddly, he only seemed to visit Red States with Democratic Senators who have vowed to stop him. Coincidence? I think not. And despite the oft stated assertion that young people generally support the plan, the Times found many who did not (note- they conducted man on the street styles interviews in the bluest of Blue States, Boston, Mass).

More media outlets are analyzing the plan in detail, and are finding what the Post found yesterday- it's just a loan to government, immediately paid for with massive new Federal borrowing, followed by benefit cuts on the back end. This plan will not save Social Security as much as cripple it for good, and Progressives need to keep the pressure on the President and the Congress to dump it.

All parties agree- doing nothing is not an option, but the system can be saved with good ideas in more or less its present form with a minimum of difficulty. Despite the President's assertion in teh SOTU that he will listen to all ideas, he immediately stated that he would not consider raising the payroll tax. That's too bad, because Salon notes in the above piece that raising a two percent increase would keep the system afloat.

What would two percent mean? The payroll tax is split 50/50 between employer and employee, so two percent would actually be borne by the worker as a one percent raise. For a worker making $50K (simply to keep the math easy), 1% equals an extra $500 per year. Assuming that the worker receives 26 paychecks per year, he would pay an extra $19.24 per check.

And that's without benefit cuts. How much more could be saved if we also raised the retirement age? If we means tested benefits? If we invested the Trust Fund in something other than Treasury bonds? Fix the system- don't dismantle it.

How Hard Could It Be? That is the slogan for Kinky Friedman's campaign to become the Governor of Texas. Kinky, one of my favorite people in the universe, is the writer/humorist/musician who rose to marginal obscurity in the 1970s with his country band The Texas Jewboys, and went on to write a series of hysterical mystery novels in 1990s. Kinky draws his inspiration from former pro wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who the Kinkster notes, " didn't realize that wrestling is real and politics is fixed."

The Times writes, To get on the ballot he needs 45,000 signatures, none from anyone voting in a Republican or Democratic primary. But he voiced confidence, saying, "There's so much apathy; that leaves me a lot of people."

Two Passings Of Note Max Schmeling passed away at 99, prompting me to ask, was Max Schmeling still alive? Seriously, Max Schmeling was a true giant- even though the Nazis touted him as the pinnacle of Aryan supremacy, he fought them every step of the way. He refused to join the party, he saved some Jews from the camps, and when the Nazis ordered him to divorce his Czech wife, he refused that as well.

And Ossie Davis, the actor and activist, has passed away at 87- he will be missed.

State of the Union wrapup

The reports are in, and the results are mostly good for the President. Obviously, the headlines are dominated by the Social Security proposal, and virutally every story notes the chorus of Democratic boos, drawing comparison to the House of Commons. The Post also carries a story on how moderate Republicans reacted to some of the more conservative measures. All major media agree- expect a nasty fight.

It would seem that few commentators have noted the frequent appeals to young Americans. That's too bad, because for all his talk about the troubles of partisan politics, his speech was a blatant play for young voters. It's no secret that a majority of young Americans support fiddling with Social Security, while older voters are more skeptical and those facing imminent retirement adamantly opposed. But since older voters only have so many elections in front of them, the future, it seems, is with the future.

Hence, the President wants to toy with Social Security sooner rather than later, or at least make the effort. Young voters would be well advised to get off this bandwagon- the proposal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The plan is not the 401(k) style nest egg builder that it sounds like. According to the Post, here's how it works.

• A worker elects to divert 4% of his FICA total wages into the personal account, up to $1,000 per year.
• The taxpayer may not choose how to invest the money- it must go into a conservative mixture of mostly government bonds.
• Upon retirement all the money that accrues in the account is his, but his Social Security benefit would also be reduced by the amount of the worker contributed into his account as opposed to traditional Social Security.

A "senior administration official" quoted in the Post explains, "The person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent real rate of return, which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive.... So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return. To the extent that his personal account gets a higher rate of return, his net benefit would increase."

If the rate of return in the account mirrors the rate of return of the Social Security Trust Fund, then there is no gain and no loss. For what it's worth, the Congressional Budget Office projects a rate of return of 3.3%- a fraction higher than the Trust Fund's growth.

In the meantime, the federal government has control over your money, and since it has limited the investment to government bond funds it amounts to little more than a loan to the Feds at the interest rate they have chosen. One other thing- if the account does worse than the rate of return of Trust Fund, then the taxpayers loses that money.

It's a gamble with the system. True, something needs to be done to ensure Social Security's long term viability, but the President's plan is little more than a roulette table where you only allowed to bet on black or red. You'll never get rich that way, and green zero will still come up once in a while.

He must be proud

On the whole, I was impressed. He was polished and passionate. He stayed on theme and drove home his points. Good job.

From a political perspective, he was transparent about his motives. The generational appeal suggests that he is interested in adding mew Republicans to the party. He directly referenced young Americans at least three times, made several other references to "future generations," and even tied the war to his responsibility to future generations. He is trying to brand the Republican party as the party of youth.

The GOP political operation has always been better at marketing than Democrats. They fine tune their message with polls and focus groups. They test not only various language choices but also the various contexts within which to place the language. Tonight's context- maintaining a strong union for future generations- served as the backdrop for everything else.

The President did a great job tonight, much as it pains me to say, and his speechwriters must be ecstatic. His performance tonight was equal to his speech after 9/11, and was on par with Clinton. The loyal opposition has its work cut out for it.

More generational appeals

I am amazed at how much of this speech tries to attribute his policies as a legacy to future generations. Economic policy, social policy, military policy- he sees all of his major policies as building a world for the future. He has really tapped into his idealist rhetoric for this speech, not the realist language of past years. I am also quite impressed at how much he has grown as a speaker over the past four years. He has always been better in front of a friendly room, but he is holding his own against some unfriendly quarters.

Social Security

Makes requisite pitch to AARP members- if you're 55 and up, it will not change. Good.

Who was the lonely clapper for the scheduled rise in benefits?

I find it curious politically smart that he set up his pitch by quoting all Democratic politicians on the need to reform Social Security. It's an attempt to show that this is not a Republican attack on Social Security. But then he calls his plan "a better deal," subtly referring the New Deal.

Much of the speech so far has overtly appealed to generational interests. He has made direct appeals to "young Americans" on economic issues- this goes directly back to the post I wrote over the weekend about what Bush sees as his legacy- the long term disabling of the Democratic party. Making this direct plea to young people is a conspicuous and obvious pitch to recruit long term Republicans.

First time he's pissed me off

"Junk lawsuits" "irresponsible class actions" "frivilous asbestos claims"

What-friggin-ever. Tort reform benefits no one except insurance companies, who jacked up the premiums to protect against liability and now want to weasel out of their responsibility to pay up.

"Comprehensive energy strategy?" What planet is he on? He did make the required pitch to ethanol (anyone watch last week's West Wing?) I'm all for reducing the reliance on foreign energy, but making the OPEC nations the 51st through 67th states is probably not the best idea.

Economic puffery

Cut the deficit in half by 2009. Half the room gave him a standing ovation. Could it be that has raised the deficit?

Here we go....

He didn't start with the state of the union is strong. Free and sovereign Iraq. Nice touch. False, more or less.

Hmmm, the state of our union is "confident and strong." Nice touch- he has better writers working for him lately.

Is it just me...

Or is Breyer the only Supreme Court Justice present?

Huh?

Why is Bill Frist trailing behind the President on his way down the aisle? Makes him look like a lapdog.

State of the Union 2005- Live Blogging

It's State of the Union nightm and I will be live blogging tonight. I've picked the CBS feed as my source, principally because Dan Rather could possibly go apeshit and run around in his underpants. 10 to 1 the State of the Union is strong.

Site News

I have done some feature addition- scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can now add my XML feed to your My Yahoo and My MSN pages. You can also subscribe to my content with your XML reader, or with Bloglines.

Also in the works- a likely migration to a dedicated domain name, and perhaps a swimsuit edition.

Okay, maybe the swimsuit edition is a bad idea.

Responding to a commenter

In response to one of my recent articles on Social Security, reader Andrew writes;

If I may, I'd like to dispute your characterization of the motivations of "young voters." I've been getting my yearly statement from the Social Security Administration for a couple of years now, and they've been saying quite clearly that the system is going to run out of money before I retire. That's my motivation, and when the President addressed it, I said "About time."

I'm 28 and remember market crashes very well. We just had one, as you recall, but the economy didn't collapse as a result of it. Market crashes are only a worry of those who don't invest properly.

But, to your argument that Social Security is stable and solvent: please argue the point. I am given to understand that the number of workers to retirees is shrinking.

Okay, here goes. First, when you say that the Social Security system will run out of money before you retire, it all depends on what you mean by "run out of money." According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan, non-policy making arm of the Congress, Social Security outlays will exceed revenues- meaning more money going out than coming in- in 2019, which is decidedly within sight.

However, that alone doesn't mean the system will imediately fall apart. For many years, revenues exceeded outlays- more money in than out. That surplus was placed in the Social Security Trust Fund. When the outlays exceed the revenues, the difference comes out of the trust, which the CBO projects will only be depleted in 2052. Once the trust fund reaches depletion, all the money is due to come from the revenues collected. So while the system will run at a deficit in the foreseeable future, it will not go "bankrupt" any time soon. This is what I mean I say that Social Security is "solvent and stable."

As to the President's privatization scheme, the CBO has analyzed that as well. As I understand their analysis (and I am no economist) it doesn't appear to offer any susbtantial benefit. First, personal accounts would have no effect on the trust fund- according to CBO, it would still reach depletion in 2052 under the President's plan. Moreover, a retiree's benefits would be reduced at an amount equal to the annuity paid from the personal account. In other words, the retiree gets the same amount of money.

Which wouldn't be that bad if the retiree will be able to get more return than Social Security would be able to provide- put enough into the investment account, and you can opt out of Social Security altogether. Except you can't do that. Each taxpayer may invest no more than $1,000 per year, which is considerably less than the amount paid in Social Security taxes. In other words, it could supplement Social Security, but not replace it.

So if privatizing Social Security won't save it, why do it? Politics- the point of my posts from the last couple days. Individual accounts would be a boon to the banking and financial sectors- traditionally Republican contributors, and would undermine the strong association that Democrats have with Social Security. This White House is explicitly political, and so is this proposal.

This, of course, is no excuse to do nothing. The long-term viability of Social Security does need to be addressed, and sooner rather than later. The retirement age needs to be raised- people are living and working longer, and the law needs to reflect this. This could be phased in over a number of years- the retirement age stays 65 for people whose retirement is imminent- 55 and up, perhaps. For people between 50 and 54, raise it to 66- this will give those people enough time to adjust. Keep inching it upward until you get to people in their 20s, who have probably not even begun retirement planning and who will likely live into their 80s (if we do in fact keep living longer). Raising the retirement age both keeps people paying revenue into the system and defers benefit distribution. It's a simple solution, but there is enough time to try simple things before we try something radical.

This Sounds Familiar...

I wrote yesterday (stealing- erm, quoting liberally from Slate) that the real reason for Social Security reform was to undermine FDR's legacy, making it possible to undo much of the regulatory structure that grew up in his wake. Today's Post suggests that I may have underestimated what their goals are.

When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.

But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.

There is a reason why the strongest support for Social Security privatization comes from young people- they have no memory of market failure, and their political identities are not yet fully formed. If a young person has any awareness of Social Security at all, they tend to see it as an ill advised giveaway to the old and infirm (no Republican has yet explained how someone receiving Social Security Disability is supposed to open personal accounts). The long term goal is to undo Social Security's strong association with Democrats, and essentially create a new generation of voters who associate Republicans as the party that represents their interests.

The Post continues, If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior adviser Karl Rove. In other words, the real goal of Bush's domestic agenda is a continuing Republican majority for the foreseeable future.

This worries me, because the opposition party has proven itself ineffectual at delivering its message. Progressive policies are the right policies- we have done a piss poor job at framing the issues, however. Case in point- John Kerry kicked Dubya's ass in all three debates, but what were we talking about? Swift Boats and whether Kerry was out of line for acknowledging in public that Mary Cheney, a lesbian, is in fact a lesbian.

The other side pursues policies that are reckless and irresponsible- risking the retirement funds of an entire nation to the vicissitudes of the market sounds reckless to me- but because of the way they present the issue, we have to take the defensive. Remember, Social Security as it exists has a 70 year history of success. Before FDR, a majority of the country lived in poverty. Now, most Americans are safely in the middle class- that change is solely the result of activist and aggressive government intervention; but because they have framed the issue, whenever I suggest that Social Security is solvent and stable, people look at me like I have three heads.

If Dubya gets his way, it will be because they control the language.

From the Sunday Papers

It's Election Day in Iraq and by all accounts turnout was high, and the violence was lower than I thought it would be. Dubya will no doubt claim a great victory. Don't buy it- this is only the first step in a long, slow transition from dictatorship to occupation to self-government. Also, the system chosen for the first Iraqi parliament, proprtional representation, will likely continue to inflame the insurgency. Let me explain- in proportional representation, voters cast ballots for the party of their choice. Party A gets 40%, Party B gets 30%, Party C gets 20%, and Party D gets 10%- therefore, Party A gets 40% of the seats in the parliament, B gets 30%, etc etc.

In Iraq, the majority of the electorate is Shiite. Under Saddam, Shiites were repressed, sometimes brutally. Sunnis are numerically in the minority, but they were the rank and file of Saddam's Baath Party. Times have changed. The Shiites will likely retain a number of seats proportional to their numbers, although not necessarily in one party. The flipside, of course, is that the Sunni will also have power proprtional to their numbers. The people formerly in power soon to be on the outs. Is it any wonder why the Sunnis have been the most vicious of the insurgents?

Now, here's where it gets really tricky. On the whole, Sunnis are most likely to be friendly to the West. Shiite Muslims, on the other hand, adhere to Islamic law more stricly and are more likely to pursue anti-Western policies. What happens if the new Iraqi government is dominated by explicitly anti-Western Shiites? If this country is to regain a scintilla of the credibility we have lost over Iraq, we can't just shout "do over!" This ain't kickball, folks.

If I could think this through while watching Meet The Press over a couple cups of coffee in bed, surely the Departments of State and Defense, the CIA, the NSC, and the White House could have figured this out over the last three years.

The op-ed page of the Times sharply criticizes the corporate welfare hidden in the American Jobs Creation Act. It was a known accounting trick for years- attribute the profits to an overseas subsidiary. The Feds can't tax it here, and the host country taxes it at their prevailing tax-haven rates. The problem is that eventually the money has to come back to the States, where it would be taxed at the corporate rate of 35%. The Act reduces that rate for repatriated money to five and a quarter percent!

But it wasn't enough for many companies that have piled up excess cash abroad. The Homeland Investment Coalition, a roster of dozens of America's largest corporations, lobbied vigorously - and successfully - for a tax holiday before deigning to repatriate their overseas profits.

Congress's ostensible purpose for allowing the holiday is to unleash a flood of money for job creation, hence the name of the law that includes the holiday - the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. But few of the approved uses for the repatriated funds - such as debt redemption, advertising and a catchall category of "financial stabilization" - will lead directly, if at all, to more jobs. One approved use - the ability to spend the money to buy other companies - would be more likely to create layoffs, as corporate acquisitions usually do.

Companies can also use the money to help pay legal liabilities, which could prove to be a big boon for companies like the drug maker Merck, which is sitting on some $15 billion in untaxed foreign profits and faces an estimated $18 billion in potential claims arising from the Vioxx debacle. Multinationals cannot use the repatriated profits to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back their own stock or pay executives. But because companies have a lot of flexibility in financing their activities, they will generally be able to use the money as they see fit while still meeting the letter of the law.

The Times correctly concludes that giveaways like this encourage tax avoidance. I can't blame the companies- they are taking advantage of the system in a lawful way to the benefit of their shareholders. Rather, I blame the Congress, who exempted overseas profits in the first place.

That Highbrow Hussy Maureen Dowd has found yet another way to get me angry. She writes this morning about a book recently written by a former Gitmo interpreter. It seems that our proud nation has sunk to appalling lows, making me once again contemplate a move to Canada. It's too bad that this book wasn't out last years for all those people who voted for Bush because of his "moral convictions." Like Pat Benatar once sang, "stop using sex as a weapon."

A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection.

After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

No doubt these incidents will be minimized. It was just a few bad apples, someone will say. These are different times, someone else will say. This is a different war, another person will say. Let's turn the tables for a second. What would the Bushies say if an insurgent did this to an American soldier? You can bet your bottom dollar that there would be hell to pay, as well as an angry Bill O'Reilly and a furious piece on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. What if one of our soldiers were captured and sexually denigrated? What would the reaction be in Peoria? Conflict is no excuse for stripping a person of his essential human dignity. The ends do not ever justify the means. I am so angry.

Technorati tags Politics Iraq Maureen Dowd Anti-Bush

The Real Reason For Social Security "Reform"

Republicans, if nothing else, are consistent. When the economy is down, they can be sure to argue that the only way to build it back up is to cut taxes and regulation. When the economy is up, they argue that the way to keep it going is to cut taxes and regulation. If Bill Frist's wife is constipated, I'm fairly certain that he would prescribe tax cuts and regulation (and perhaps some fiber).

Of course, history does suggest otherwise. There was thing called The Great Depression. You may remember reading about it, or perhaps you watched The Waltons. Anyway, times were tough. People were starving. Amber waves of grain turned to vast bowls of dust. Unemployment was the norm. Life, generally, sucked. America got this way under the "leadership" (note intentional use of irony quotes) of Herbert Hoover, a laissez faire Republican champion of low taxes and free markets.

Enter Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A scion of wealth who became a man of the people, he saved American capitalism from itself with policies of taxation and regulation. FDR's economics (actually John Maynard Keynes' economics) adopted activist polices- putting people to work on public projects to increase the demand for goods and services- that flew in the face of Republican economic thought- cutting taxes to increase the supply of money in the economy. Republicans, who sometimes called FDR a traitor to his class, were incensed.

FDR deftly charted a course between extremists on the left- who were calling for government control of all private property, AKA communism- and extremists on the right- who were calling for crackdowns on personal liberties the unemployed in line, AKA fascism. By giving the unemployed immediate relief, while keeping American business in business, even if on a shorter leash, FDR became beloved like few other Presidents before him.

And that, argues Daniel Gross in Slate, is why Dubya is making a full court press to "reform" (note intentional use of irony quotes) Social Security.

Dead going on 60 years, FDR still makes self-styled champions of American-style capitalism fulminate, much the same way their counterparts in the 1930s raged against "That Man." Why? The New Deal era reminds national greatness Republicans... of their party's futility in a time of true national greatness. I also suspect that many Republicans are simply unable to forgive Roosevelt for what may have been his greatest and longest-lasting achievement: saving American capitalism through regulation. And since they can't tear down the Triborough Bridge or the Hoover Dam, these guys act out by going after Social Security.

The fight over Social Security, therefore, is a proxy war- it is a fight over FDR's legacy. No Republican since Lincoln is as holy in public memory as FDR. Changing Social Security is a way to remove the halo from over his head- making him no longer the People's Champion who saved America from the excesses of American business, but rather the meddlesome class traitor who left us all the alphabet soup agencies. Again, Daniel Gross-

It's difficult to discern the short-term political gain for Republicans to try to dismantle Social Security now. So the payoff must be more psychological or intellectual. Now that they indisputably control all three branches of government, Republicans finally have the opportunity to slay some of the liberal demons that have been bedeviling them for so long.

Those liberal demons are taxation and regulation. What amazes me about Republican trust in business is their utter distrust of individuals to regulate their own behavior. The right wing response to crime, sexuality and religion issues is almost always in favor of more regulation. Smoke pot? You're not fit to walk among us. Are you gay? Then you shouldn't enjoy the privileges of family life. You a Jew? Buddhist? Atheist? I suppose you can believe what you want to, but never forget that this is a Christian nation, boy, and if we post the Ten Commandments on our courthouse walls, you ought to just shut up. These are the same people who believe that business will always regulate itself for the betterment of humanity. Recent history suggests otherwise.

I fear that Social Security will only be the first step, and that much of the public regulatory system will be dismantled in some way, because while I trust most people will do the right thing, I absolutely do not trust corporate America to do anything.

Technorati tags-Politics Social Security Slate

Bird Brains

Sorry about the headline- I know it's obvious, but sometimes the obvious joke is just the one that works.

Now that Oklahoma's citizenry has forced the state to ban cockfighting, a diehard state senator has the gall to try to revive the lurid pastime by equipping roosters with - picture this - tiny boxing gloves and chest protectors.

It's hard for me to fathom how we haven't all just reverted back to drooling lemurs.

Payola, Shmayola

The big story of the day is clearly the emerging evidence that the administration is paying off commentators for favorable press. This is an issue that gets politicians and journalists fired up- some people are taking money on the down low! GASP! Hands will be wrung and ink will be spilled as the cognoscenti try to determine what should be done about this.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people will shrug and wonder what the fuss is about.

Democrats would be well counseled not to push this too much- the wrong is too petty, the injury too remote to get all worked up about. Besides- people in glass houses should not throw stones. It was known as early as October, 2003 that Howard Dean had been paying bloggers to build up hype, and the Clinton Administration did much the same thing.

Also Wednesday, Democratic members of the House Government Reform Committee released a report on federal spending on public relations, reporting that Bush agencies spent more than $88 million on contracts with outside firms in 2004. That outpaces the $64 million spent on public relations firms in 2003, which was roughly equivalent to the amount Clinton administration agencies spent on such firms in 1999.

Is it wrong? Yeah- but not "invade a country for no good reason" wrong. The Democrats really need to stay on the ball and hit the President where he is vulnerable- the war, the Social Security fraud, and the ridiculous deficit. Hit those issues hard for the 2006 midterms (Jeebus Christ- am I already blogging next year's elections?), because voters will have forgotten Armstrong Williams by then. But they will remember that their neighbor's son lost a leg in Iraq; they will remember that the country is deeper and deeper in debt.

Technorati Tag Politics

Speaking of rubberstamping Alberto Gonzales...

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to approve Gonzales' nomination. Democrats decried his evasion and arrogance. Republicans played up his self-made, humble beginnings.

Yeah, whatever, the guy should be in prison. When asked how to justify torture, he came up with the answer that his boss wanted- nevermind that the rest of the world disagrees with his analysis. Since torture is an international crime, the rest of the world gets a vote.

It is a crime against humanity, and as we learned from Nuremburg everyone from the brains of the operation all the way to the person wiring up some poor Iraqi slob's dick, they're all guilty. If Lynndie England is going away for years, so should Alberto Gonzales.

And Dubya, Dick, Condi, Tom Ridge.

And maybe reality show contestants.

If you took "nay" and 71 votes- YOU LOST!

You may recall that I predicted Condi's confirmation would be overwhelming. What would you say to 85 yeas against only 13 nays. Next up for rubberstamping is Alberto Gonzales.

If only the opposition could muster up the testicles to oppose something. It took us nine hours of "debate" to keep the worst war criminal since Kissinger down to a 72 vote cushion.

I'm moving to someplace where people give a shit. Like Iceland.

Tag Politics