Trump Says He "Loves" Alaska But Everyone Knows He Only Loves Trump

In the 2000 election, 167,398 Alaskans (58.62%) voted for George W Bush against Al Gore. Four years later 190,889 Alaskans (61.07%) voted for Bush against John Kerry. Bush was popular among Alaskan voters-- who also backed John McCain (59.42%) and Mitt Romney (54.80%). But Trump isn't well liked by most Alaskans. He barely eked out a majority against Hillary-- 51.28%, pretty sad compared to Bush. And today it was widely reported that Bush had decided he will neither endorse nor even vote for Trump in November. Colin Powell, Bush's Secretary of State, told Jake Tapper on State of the Union that he "certainly can not in any way support" Trump this year and that Trump has "drifted away" from the Constitution, has been an ineffective president, and "lies all the time." Trump's response was to tweet that Powell is "a real stiff." He hasn't savaged Bush yet. None of this is going to make Alaskan independents more likely to back Trump. Independent voters decide who wins elections in Alaska.

Right now, Alaska has two Republican U.S. senators-- Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, the former an independent-minded conservative and the latter a knee-jerk boot-licker for Trump. Sullivan, who is rumored to be considering dropping out of his reelection bid and allowing Gov. Dunleavey to take the GOP nomination so that he (Sullivan) can run for Governor in 2022, is in a toss up race against independent Dr. Al Gross, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Party. Murkowski isn't up for reelection until 2022. But she already has an opponent: Señor Trumpanzee.

As we saw yesterday, she praised Jim Mattis' criticism of Trump and told a journalist she is "struggling" with the idea of backing his reelection. The most thin-skinned sociopath in American politics immediately flipped his wig and let loose with these two nasty, adolescent tweets:

After embarrassing himself by attacking and threatening a senior Republican senator-- despite having promised McConnell he wouldn't do that in return for McConnell's unwavering obeisance-- Trump lavished praise on all the GOP senators most likely to lose in November because of his reverse coattails: David Perdue (R-GA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Steve Daines (R-MT) and, of course, Dan Sullivan. Sullivan is such a nonentity in DC that Trump couldn't even think of a single thing to say about him... so just retweeted 5 random Sullivan tweets from May 22, 23 and June 2.

The Anchorage Daily News reminded its readers that "During the 2016 presidential campaign, both Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) called on Trump to drop out of the race after the release of a video in which the GOP nominee boasted in vulgar language about forcing himself sexually on women. Both said they weren’t voting for him at the time."

This morning, Gross told me that "Alaskans appreciate when their elected officials take a stand and have a backbone. We can all respectfully disagree with one another, but at the end of the day, Alaskans want to be represented by independents-- people who aren't beholden to an orthodoxy, a party, or an ideology-- because here in Alaska if  you can't think for  yourself, you just won't survive. Dan Sullivan doesn't understand this because he doesn't understand Alaska. He's not from here, and has been solely focused on climbing the National Republican political ladder. I have zero interest in climbing any political ladder. My focus is on making Alaskans' lives better. That's my focus and always will be. I'm Always Alaska."

Teach Your Children Well

I was a dj on my college radio station, WUSB. I was also the chairman of the Student Activities Board and put on all these great concerts by bands like the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, the Dead, the Airplane, the Byrds, Joni Mitchell, Otis Redding, The Four Tops, Ravi Shankar, Muddy Waters, Love...

I got tapes in the mail... like everyday. In 1969 I was getting ready to cut out and go the Europe before officially graduating. I had heard this new group's first song, "Marrakech Express," and I remember it because I was planning to go there. But I wasn't moved enough by it to ask the band to play, even though I was a big fan of David Crosby from when he was in the Byrds doing songs like 8 Miles High-- which he definately was when the band arrived 2 hours late for a concert. But Crosby, Stills & Nash... eh, I thought.

"Teach Your Children" was on their next album, the first with Neil Young, Déjà Vu. It came out in May of 1970. I had already left Europe (and left Marrakech) and was driving across Asia towards Afghanistan singing...

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good-bye.
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by

Someone had sent me an advance tape. It spoke to me... big time. After all, I was on the road, driving through Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal... I had a code to live by too. I sang along to that song every day. And it was a hit in my van, even though it wasn't out yet.

Sunday I heard former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show talking about what CSN&Y had been singing about almost 4 decades ago:

"I tell many stories about the kids I talk to and how they're growing up learning not to hate rather than learning to hate. So what we have to do is focus on our young people. Some of the old folks... if that's the way they feel, that's the way they feel; they're not going to change. But we' have to make sure that we're teaching all of our children, in schools, in the home, everywhere, that it is not right to hate in this country. This is a country of love. This is a country of kindness. This is a country that we reach out to each other and we reach out to the rest of the world."

Yes, he's aware of the current regime and who runs it. That's the point of that hippy speech he just made. Watch as he talks about the constitutional "We the people" rather than Trump's narrow, self-serving "Me the president." (Up top.) But is there any reason to believe that Colin Powell's plea to teach the children to love instead of to hate is going to work any better now than it did when Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young sang it in 1970? Trump has the bully pulpit and what the children are hearing today is, I'm afraid, hate, hate, hate. That's what sits in the White House, after millions and millions of our fellow countrymen voted for him-- the ones whose parents, apparently never took "Teach Your Children" all that seriously, if they even heard it at all.

GOP Governor Brian Sandoval's Big Gamble Is Paying Off-- For Nevada's Working Families

Out of place among the crackpots, Brian Sandoval, bottom row, #3

I doubt many Republicans are worried that Colin Powell has been talking up universal, single-payer health care-- something considerably more progressive than the Obamacare compromise conservatives forced on a naive Obama.

Powell told the audience that countries in Europe, Canada and South Korea offer universal, single-payer health care and said he often asks why the United States has not implemented the same system.

"Whether it's Obamacare, or son of Obamacare, I don't care," Powell said. "As long as we get it done."

Powell, a retired four-star general, was diagnosed with prostate cancer and credits his survival to the universal health care provided by the United States military.

…"We are a wealthy enough country," Powell said, "with the capacity to make sure that every one of our fellow citizens has access to quality health care."

Perhaps, though, Republicans are more concerned that one of their most popular governors, Nevada's Brian Sandoval-- polling-wise on another planet from detested GOP governors like Rick Scott (R-FL), Tom Corbett (R-PA), Scott Walker (R-WI), Rick Snyder (R-MI), Paul LePage (R-ME), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Rick Perry (R-TX), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Nikki Haley (R-SC), John Kasich (R-OH) and Pat McCrory (R-NC).

Unlike this long list of despised GOP governors, Sandoval has been working across the aisle as a moderate who is not driven by ideology or by fear of teabaggers. Democrats don't even have an opponent against him for next year. (In contrast, Corbett, for example, is so unpopular that Republican legislators want to replace him as their nominee so that he doesn't drag the whole party down to defeat. There are 9 Democrats vying to get their party's nomination.) And then there's the whole question of health care. The unpopular Republican governors oppose it and are refusing to expand Medicaid or to cooperate with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Sandoval is doing everything in his power to bring health care to Nevada residents and watching his record on ObamaCare is not very different from watching that of any of the Democratic governors who have championed it.

Sandoval is the only Republican governor whose state is both running its own health insurance exchange this year and expanding its Medicaid program under the health law. He’s arguably doing more to put the Democrats’ signature law into place than any other Republican.

But in fully implementing Obamacare, Sandoval faces a double-edged sword: He’s helping bring health care coverage to a state with the second highest uninsured rate in the country, while he may be hurting his national ambitions because he’s not actively blocking the president’s law.

…“Sandoval’s approval numbers are stratospheric, so it’s a very small group of folks who are concerned about it,” said Jon Ralston, the state’s leading political analyst. The objections came from those on the far right who “seized on that because they don’t believe Sandoval is conservative enough.”

On health care, Democrats laud him too.

“I don’t know what the politics are from his standpoint but I think it’s the right decision,” said Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, whose Nevada district has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. “People are signing up, fortunately, in Nevada and the website is working pretty well. We’ve been very aggressive.”

Politically, it helps that Nevada is a “purple” swing state with the second highest uninsured rate in the country and especially high uninsured rates among Hispanics, a key constituency that Republicans hope to attract. That makes it easier for the Republican governor to carry out President Barack Obama’s law.

But Sandoval, 50, is also seen as a GOP up-and-comer, and Obamacare implementation could crimp any national ambitions if the health law remains as unpopular with Republicans as it is today. There’s a hint of early 2016 vice presidential buzz around Sandoval, and Obamacare implementation could be a big negative.

…States were supposed to run their own insurance exchanges but most GOP governors refused, forcing the feds to take on the job. Nevada is the only GOP-governed state running an exchange, although New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Idaho’s Butch Otter are partnering with the feds this year and plan to run their own next year.

And once the Supreme Court made Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion optional at the state level, GOP governors split. Some high-profile ones like Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have resisted. But at least eight Republican governors have also expanded Medicaid, including New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Arizona’s Jan Brewer, Michigan’s Rick Snyder and Ohio’s John Kasich.

If ObamaCare is successful before the Republican convention, Sandoval will be sitting in the cat bird's seat when they start looking to balance out the ticket. And then there's 2020 or 2024, which might be even more propitious for a moderate Hispanic Republican from a purple state. Of course, Sandoval is being hit from the far right. Even if no Democrat wants to take Sandoval on for governor, a mentally-deranged, neo-Nazi Mormon conspiracy-theorist, David Lory Vanderbeek, is already running against him… at least on YouTube:

Are There Enough Political Sociopaths In The House Republican Caucus To Force A Default And A Government Shutdown?

For more and more Republicans-- particularly the Southerners who now dominate the party-- there is a widespread view, both among the electoral base and those they send to Congress, that the federal government is the enemy. They may not be able to force a return to the Antebellum South (i.e., slavery), but that doesn't mean that in their hearts they don't want to give it a try again. Everything about the mindset is pure reactionary and even if it doesn't have the strength to win national elections, it does have the strength to screw up the nation with lockstep obstructionism. It's all about looking backward-- if not to before the freeing of their slaves, at least to before FDR enslaved them, in their warped, brainwashed minds, by forcing white people to pay for blacks to get Social Security and Medicare. Sounds ugly? That, in a sentence is what the Republican Party is today.



As you can see in the video above (Meet the Press on Sunday), the country's most prominent black Republican, Colin Powell, has noticed that his party is on the verge of sinking itself into oblivion-- at least outside of the Old Confederacy. The party, he asserts, has shifted significantly to the right since Reagan's day and it has "a dark vein of intolerance” running through it and “if they don’t change along with the demographics, they're going to be in trouble.”

Striking out blindly and angrily, a significant number of House Republicans-- and more than a few GOP senators-- now appear willing to allow the whole American edifice to collapse-- just like their ancestors-- who remained unpunished for their treason-- did in the 1860s.

House Republicans are seriously entertaining dramatic steps, including default or shutting down the government, to force President Barack Obama to finally cut spending by the end of March.

The idea of allowing the country to default by refusing to increase the debt limit is getting more widespread and serious traction among House Republicans than people realize, though GOP leaders think shutting down the government is the much more likely outcome of the spending fights this winter.

...Republican leadership officials, in a series of private meetings and conversations this past week, warned that the White House, much less the broader public, doesn’t understand how hard it will be to talk restive conservatives off the fiscal ledge. To the vast majority of House Republicans, it is far riskier long term to pile up new debt than it is to test the market and economic reaction of default or closing down the government.

GOP officials said more than half of their members are prepared to allow default unless Obama agrees to dramatic cuts he has repeatedly said he opposes. Many more members, including some party leaders, are prepared to shut down the government to make their point. House Speaker John Boehner “may need a shutdown just to get it out of their system,” said a top GOP leadership adviser. “We might need to do that for member-management purposes-- so they have an endgame and can show their constituents they’re fighting.”

The country would eventually default if House Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, which the Treasury estimates will hit in late February or early March. The government would shut down if House Republicans instead were to refuse to extend the law funding current government operations on March 27.

Boehner assumes he can ultimately talk members out of default, but he is so wounded and weakened from last month’s tax-hike battle that the speaker might very well be wrong. Obama assumes Republicans would never be so foolish as to put the economy at risk to win a spending fight. Conservatives say he’s definitely wrong on that score. They say he’s the foolish and reckless one for piling up $6 trillion in debt on his watch.

...The truth is Boehner is at the mercy of a Republican Conference that is far more resistant to compromise than he is. Boehner was embarrassed when he had to pull his plan for raising taxes-- and then watched as three-quarters of his members opposed him on the final tax increase bill after Christmas. He might be the weakest speaker of his generation right now-- and there is a fair amount of back-biting about who to blame for the recent debacles.

To pacify conservatives, he made two promises to his members that will greatly restrict his ability to craft a compromise in the spending fights ahead. The first promise was to bring to the floor only legislation a majority of his members support and do it through the committee process. The second was to increase the debt limit only in exchange for a dollar-for-dollar decrease in spending in the time period covered by that debt increase.

In a meeting between House GOP leadership and outside campaign groups at the Republican National Committee on Thursday, Boehner’s chief of staff, Mike Sommers, discussed the possibility of increasing the debt limit for only one to three months-- a move that would rattle markets and threaten the U.S. credit rating. The idea, which has little chance of winning Senate or White House support, shows how uncertain Republicans are about how they might avoid the white-knuckle moment of default. “Any option-- including that one-- is contingent on getting corresponding cuts/reforms in return,” a Boehner aide said. “It depends on the White House. If they offer cuts and reforms equal to one month, that’s what they get. If they agree to more cuts and reforms, they get a greater increase.”

The conventional wisdom is that Obama and Congress will ultimately work out a grand spending compromise that raises the debt limit, keeps funding the government and changes the $1.2 trillion in automatic “sequestration” spending cuts set to kick in on March 1.

Here’s the problem with that: Two top GOP officials told us Republicans are not willing to compromise on the $1.2 trillion in cuts. Those cuts, designed initially by the White House and GOP leaders, were agreed to by the last Congress and Republicans consider them a done deal, in the bank. They would negotiate the specific programs that get cut-- but not the total number. Right now, half the cuts target defense, half other programs.

...GOP officials said 90 percent of their members are prepared to allow the cuts to take effect, rather than compromise, based on their preliminary head counts. This seems like the most likely outcome right now.

Sequestration, while devastating to defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, is small potatoes compared to the debt limit.

Boehner’s own staff has warned conservative lawmakers that deficits will soar, as interest rates rise, the markets will tumble and the economy will face catastrophe if they truly follow through on default. They will walk members through a presentation on this scenario this week, and the hope is conservatives will conclude it would be economic and political suicide to go all in. But GOP leaders have made similar pitches before, and most House Republicans didn’t buy it. They are willing to take that risk because they believe the future consequences of more spending are more severe. Sommers told the RNC meeting they will not finalize a strategy until their members weigh in this week.

Even without looking at the newly elected freshmen extremists from safe seats in basically unreconstructed former slave-holding districts-- Bob Pittenger (R-NC), Roger Williams (R-TX), Tom Rice (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), hate talk radio host Trey Radel (R-FL), Doug Collins (R-GA), George Holding (R-NC), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Randy Weber (R-TX) and Richard Hudson R-NC)-- there are dozens of Confederate obstructionists in the House Republican Caucus with lifetime ProgressivePunch voting scores of crucial issues that are less than 4.0 (out of 100). They are as opposed to America as any al Qaeda terrorist-- often for the same basic Bronze Age reasons-- and they will continue to do all they can to disrupt the smooth functioning of a government they see, basically, as an occupying power that confiscated their ancestors' slaves. The worst Confederate traitors in Congress (by the numbers):

• Mike Rogers (R-AL)- 3.77
• Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)- 3.76
• Jack Kingston (R-GA)- 3.76
• Taliban Dan Webster (R-FL)- 3.48
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- 3.46
• Trey Gowdy (R-SC)- 3.23
• Martha Roby (R-AL)- 3.23
• Steve Southerland (R-FL)- 3.23
• Mike Burgess (R-TX)- 3.07
• Blake Farenthold (R-TX)- 3.01
• Robert Aderholt (R-AL)- 2.99
• Lord Charles Boustany (R-LA)- 2.99
• Steve Womack (R-AR)- 2.98
• John Fleming (R-LA)- 2.94
• Phil Roe (R-TN)- 2.94
• Spencer Bachus (R-AL)- 2.92
• Hal Rogers (R-KY)- 2.87
• Virginia Foxx (R-NC)- 2.84
• date rape Dr. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)- 2.74
• Jeff Miller (R-FL)- 2.74
• Phil Gingrey (R-GA)- 2.61
• Stephen Fincher (R-TN)- 2.51
• Dennis Ross (R-FL)- 2.51
• Michael McCaul (R-TX)- 2.39
• Kay Granger (R-TX)- 2.31
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- 2.30
• Randy Forbes (R-VA)- 2.29
• Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)- 2.26
• Rick Crawford (R-AR)- 2.24
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- 2.24
• Tim Griffin (R-AR)- 2.24
• Tom Rooney (R-FL)- 2.21
• John Mica (R-FL)- 2.17
• Tom Price (R-GA)- 2.09
• Joe Wilson (R-SC)- 2.09
• Kenny Marchant (R-TX)- 2.05
• Gregg Harper (R-MS)- 2.02
• Bill Flores (R-TX)- 2.00
• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- 1.90
• Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)- 1.86
• Jo Bonner (R-AL)- 1.84
• John Culberson (R-TX)- 1.83
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- 1.82
• John Carter (R-TX)- 1.76
• Renee Ellmers (R-NC)- 1.75
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- 1.73
• Sam Johnson (R-TX)- 1.68
• Brett Guthrie (R-KY)- 1.67
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- 1.62
• Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- 1.61
• Lamar Smith (R-TX)- 1.54
• Alan Nunnelee (R-MS)- 1.52
• Rich Nugent (R-FL)- 1.50
• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- 1.32
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- 1.30
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- 1.25
• Diane Black (R-TN)- 1.01
• Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)- 1.01
• Steven Palazzo (R-MS)- 1.00
• Pete Olson (R-TX)- 0.74

Just for comparison, Michele Bachmann, head of the Tea Party Caucus has a lifetime crucial vote score of 3.92, "more progressive" than anyone on the list above! And Louie Gohmert, widely considered the most ignorant bigot sent to Congress since the Civil War ended has a 4.78 lifetime score. And, if you need a reminder, this is what these people are catering to... this exactly:

So what exactly did Obama say at his press conference today about these sociopaths he's forced to work with? Apart from reminding them that "we are not a deadbeat nation," here are some excerpts:

We can't finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. The cuts we've already made to priorities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense mean that we spend on everything from education to public safety less as a share of our economy than it has-- than has been true for a generation. And that's not a recipe for growth. So we've got to do more both to stabilize our finances over the medium and long term, but also spur more growth in the short term.

Now, I've said I'm open to making modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to protect them from future generations. And I've also that we need more revenue through tax reform, by closing loopholes in our tax code for the wealthiest Americans. If we combine a balanced package of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we can solve the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow.

It turns out the American people agree with me. They listened to an entire year's debate over this issue. And they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer. They don't think it's fair, for example, to ask a senior to pay more for his or her health care or a scientist to shut down life-saving research so that a multimillionaire investor can pay less in tax rates than a secretary. They don't think it's smart to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans rather than rebuild our roads and our schools, invest in our workers' skills, or help manufacturers bring jobs back to America.

So they want us to get our books in order in a balanced way, where everybody pulls their weight, everyone does their part. That's what I want, as well. That's what I've proposed.

And we can get it done, but we're going to have to make sure that people are looking at this in a responsible way, rather than just through the lens of politics.

Now, the other congressionally imposed deadline coming up is the so-called debt ceiling, something most Americans hadn't even heard of before two years ago. So I want to be clear about this: The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.

...We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.

It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."

So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial wellbeing of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.

The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.

So it shouldn't be surprising, given all this talk, that the American people think that Washington is hurting rather than helping the country at the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan brinkmanship over paying our bills while they overwhelmingly want us to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.

...Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don't have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I'm happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I'm happy to accept it.

But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such-and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and-- because they have the spending power. And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.

Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can't do is tell me to spend X and then say, "But we're not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills."

And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren't following all-- all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.

And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the-- you know the-- the notion that Republicans in-- in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.

...[E]verybody here understands this. I mean, this is not a complicated concept. You don't go out to dinner and then, you know, eat all you want and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you're breaking the law. And Congress is... should think about it the same way that the American people do.

You don't-- now, if Congress wants to have a debate about maybe we shouldn't go out to dinner next time, maybe we should go to a more modest restaurant, that's fine. That's a debate that we should have. But you don't-- you don't say, in order for me to control my appetites, I'm going to not pay the people who already provided me services, people who already lent me the money. That's not-- that's not showing any discipline. All that's doing is not meeting your obligations. You can't do that.

And-- and that's not a credible way to run this government. We've got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis when there's this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some responsibility, and some compromise. That's where we need to go. That's how this needs to work.

...If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.

And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that's been taken, on the part of some House republicans, is that, "Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills."

Well, you know, tha -- that can't be-- that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.

Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican's president. And yet, you-- you-- but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.

How About This Compromise? The 1% Start Paying Their Fair Share But Don't Go To Prison

Today Christine Amanpour had Colin Powell on her ABC-TV show, This Week. He sure used the phrase "the 99%" a lot but wasn't really using it the way that's been current of late. In his Times column on Thursday, We Are the 99.9%, Paul Krugman was, as usual, more in the center of the zeitgeist.

“We are the 99 percent” is a great slogan. It correctly defines the issue as being the middle class versus the elite (as opposed to the middle class versus the poor). And it also gets past the common but wrong establishment notion that rising inequality is mainly about the well educated doing better than the less educated; the big winners in this new Gilded Age have been a handful of very wealthy people, not college graduates in general.

Powell was talking about something else, but not something unrelated: national service-- and not necessarily military service. Powell's ideas are the antithesis of the adolescent Ayn Rand "Selfishness and Greed Are Good" philosophy that has been expropriated by the Republican Party which, ironically, once begged him to run for president on their ticket.

Personally, I always felt that the antiwar protesters of the 60's-- myself included-- were doing another kind of service for the country than the kids who went over to fight for the corporate agenda in Vietnam (like Powell). I would have loved Amanpour to ask him today about the service that the OccupyWallStreet folks are doing for the country. Her mind isn't that nimble.

POWELL: We are able to recruit as many soldiers as we need into the military. So even though it's 1 percent of the population, that satisfies a need for troops in the armed forces and, in fact, we're looking to reduce the size of our armed forces in the months ahead. But the issue here is not the 1 percent that are in the military. It's the 99 percent who are not, and how do we make sure that they find it to be a call to serve.
 
AMANPOUR: So how does one, then?
 
POWELL: Well, there are many things going on in this country. And, you know, it isn't as if the 99 percent are not doing anything. There is a huge, huge commitment to service on the part of the American people. And what we want to do is leverage it, get even more, and then make sure it is directed in ways that, you know, the service is providing a useful outcome for the American nation.

... Amanpour: General Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, wrote quite a provocative essay recently. I want to read a little bit from it.
 
POWELL: Yes.
 
AMANPOUR: Saying that, quote, "We have let the concept of service become dangerously narrow, often associated only with the military. And this allows most Americans to avoid the sense of responsibility essential for us to care about our nation and for each other. We expect and demand less of ourselves than we should."
 
What do you make of that? There does seem to be a sort of “we can hide in the corners.”
 
POWELL: I'm sorry. Just I don't fully-- I know the point he's trying to make, but I don't fully agree with him, because in the work I do with the America's Promise Alliance, that I founded at the request of all our presidents, some 14 years ago, we are able to get lots of people involved in service. 
 
We see a lot of ways in which people are stepping forward, to mentor kids in school, to read to kids in school, to give more of their resources to people in need
 
And one of the things we've been doing with the America's Promise Alliance is we made one of the key features of our program service to others among young people. So early as possible in the life of a youngster, you start putting in place that virtue and value are service to country, service to community, service to others. And it'll make a difference as these kids grow up.
 
AMANPOUR: What about this tone in the country right now? It's still very divisive. It's still very sort of brash, some say poisonous. I mean, you can barely get anything done on Capitol Hill, just behind me there. What needs to be done, to actually improve the tone and the ability of people to work together?
 
POWELL: The tone is not-- is not good right now, and our political system here in Washington, particularly up on The Hill-- Congress has become very, very tense in that two sides, Republicans and Democrats, are focusing more and more on their extreme left and extreme right. And we have to come back toward the center in order to compromise.
 
A story I like to tell is our Founding Fathers were able to sit in Philadelphia and make some of the greatest compromises known to man-- tough, tough issues. But they did it. Why? Because they were there to create a country, where we have a Congress now that can't even pass an appropriation bill, and we're running this country on a continuing resolution which is what else are they here for but to pass appropriations bills? 
 
And so we have got to find a way to start coming back together. And let me say this directly. The media has to help us. The media loves this game, where everybody is on the extreme. It makes for great television. It makes for great chatter. It makes for great talk shows all day long with commentators commenting on commentators about the latest little mini-flap up on Capitol Hill. 
 
So what we have to do is sort of take some of the heat out of our political life in terms of the coverage of it, so these folks can get to work quietly.
 
AMANPOUR: I get your point about heat and light, but what about the fact that, in fact, it is one of the political parties, although-- or rather the big political influence, which is the Tea Party, which quotes left and right the Founding Fathers? They say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
 
POWELL: They compromised-- the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. They had to in order to create a country. They compromised on the composition of the Senate, of the House, of the Supreme Court, of a president-- what are the president's powers? Can you imagine more difficult compromises today? 
 
Compromise is how this country was founded, and unless two people in disagreement with each other don't find a way to reach out to one another and make compromises, you don't get a consensus that allows you to move forward. 
 
But the Tea Party point of view of no compromise whatsoever is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win.

Whether it's the corporate media or useful idiots, the problem with the kinds of "compromise" on the table in Washington is that the middle has moved so far to the right, that it's worthless for ordinary working families. That didn't happen by chance. Millions and millions of dollars have been invested in moving the center to the right. Look no further than the conflicted corporate shills that were put on the SuperCommittee. Whose side were they on anyway? Norman Solomon, one of the best of the candidates running for Congress this year (and endorsed by Blue America), has a different kind of compromise he's offering. It would save the souls-- and maybe the lives-- of the Ayn Randians. He sounds a lot like David Korten in offering his Economic Agenda For Main Street.

Create New Green Jobs

• Jobs and sustainability must go hand in hand. As co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay, I organized public hearings and heard testimony that repeatedly debunked the false choice between jobs and the environment. By bringing together labor, entrepreneurs and environmental leaders, I saw the potential of good green jobs to provide high-quality employment while safeguarding the environment.

• I support major federal investment to create jobs that expand green technologies such as rooftop solar, well-sited wind and tidal energy production.

• By expanding conservation efforts, we can create jobs programs that directly fund retrofitting and weatherization for homes, schools and other buildings.

• We need large-scale government investment in public transportation-– to create vast numbers of new jobs, reduce greenhouse gases and ease traffic gridlock.

Invest in Our Workers and Communities

• We must reinvest in America’s workers and families, to rebuild our economy and our social fabric. I support robust public investment in economic programs that create living-wage jobs. The government should invest directly in the nation’s infrastructure, and in social services that help stabilize our communities.

• I support policies that strengthen small businesses and protect them from the predatory practices of big box stores and other corporate chains which stifle competition and erode the local tax base. Small businesses are key engines for job creation and a core part of local economies.

• I will defend federal housing programs that help cities and counties invest in new affordable housing, create opportunities for first-time homebuyers, and reduce homelessness at the local level.

• I strongly support H.R. 870-– the Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act-– introduced by Congressman John Conyers, which provides for a federal policy of full employment. With a one-quarter of 1 percent transaction tax on Wall Street, the bill would generate roughly $150 billion per year in revenues, creating millions of new jobs.

Stand Up for Workers-- Not Wall Street

• I will never hesitate to stand up to corporate lobbyists and Wall Street in defense of working Americans, the unemployed and under-employed.

• In the early 1990s, I publicly opposed NAFTA before it was enacted. Widespread evidence shows that NAFTA and other international "free trade" deals have hurt American workers, undermining job security and wages, and should be renegotiated to protect the U.S. economy and the environment.

• I publicly opposed the Wall Street banks bailout before it was enacted in October 2008. Rather than subsidizing big investors and rewarding corporate executives for destroying jobs, the federal government should be creating jobs and protecting homeowners from predatory foreclosures.

• I support passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. This measure is vital to restoring workers’ fundamental rights, and will help improve wages and healthcare for all American workers. I support a national living wage and a worker’s right to collective bargaining. All workers should be treated with dignity and respect.

Protect Social Security and Medicare

• I will fight to protect-- and strengthen-– Social Security for current and future beneficiaries. I support Sen. Bernie Sanders' bill to protect Social Security from the budget ax in the so-called congressional Super Committee.

• We must defend Social Security’s cost-of-living allowance.

• Contrary to myth, Social Security is solvent-– and we must stand firm against cuts and privatization schemes that would “fix” what isn’t broken.

• I will unequivocally oppose all efforts to raise the eligibility age for Medicare.

• I will push for reform of Medicare Part D to reduce the costs of drugs while reining in runaway profits of huge pharmaceutical companies.

Quality Health Care for All

• I support single payer health care, also known as enhanced Medicare for all.

• The fact that the U.S. spends more on health care than most industrialized nations is a reflection of the unhealthy power of the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical industries. Our current system does not serve Americans equitably; it must be reformed and improved.

• I will fight to protect and bolster Medicare and Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California.

• I support expanded federal funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers.

• I will fight to ensure that every community has access to quality health care services.

This is what a Blue America candidate for Congress sounds like. There is no reason to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. These are the standards to which we should hold our candidates. It's why Blue America never endorsed Barack Obama-- and never will-- and it's why we picked these candidates for the House and the Senate.

Obama Advisors Split On Afghanistan-- Congress Needs To Act

Ramstein is the site, in southwest Germany, of a huge U.S. airbase and of the world's most catastrophic airshow disaster in which 70 people were killed and almost 400 seriously injured (1988). It's where the hugely successful and fascistically-inclined metal band Rammstein took their name, and it's also where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, traveled Friday to meet up with U.S. proconsul for the Afghanistan occupation, General Stanley McChrystal. The general gave the admiral a request for something like-- who really knows for sure?-- 50,000 more U.S. troops for the absolutely unwinnable war in one of the worst hellholes on earth.

With only 29% of Americans favoring an increase in U.S. forces, "Obama and his top national security advisers are locked in a heated debate about the way forward in Afghanistan. The administration announced in March that it had a strategy for Afghanistan, but it's had a difficult time defining the strategy amid declining political and public support, mounting U.S. casualties, evidence that Afghan President Hamid Karzai rigged his re-election last month, pervasive official corruption, a resurgent Taliban and halfhearted assistance from neighboring Pakistan."

The heated debate has trusted Obama advisors divided between hawks like Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke and those advocating or leaning towards disengagement like Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Joe Biden, National Security Advisor James Jones, Rahm Emanuel (on the right side of history for the first time in his political career) and Jack Reed who serves on the Senate Armed Service Committee as chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats.

Doug Tudor is the progressive Democrat running for the open Republican seat in FL-12. He's done a lot of thinking about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and when I called him yesterday he certainly wasn't on the Clinton-Holbrooke team-- and he doesn't seem in the slightest bit conflicted about what he thinks we should be doing next.

“As a career military man, I appreciated The Powell Doctrine. Simply put, it states America should only go to war when national interests are at stake; the objective is clearly defined; the risks have been fully analyzed; and is there a plausible exit strategy. In other words, is the job the military being asked to do achievable, reasonable, and short-termed? Is it worth it? While there should have been a much more thorough discussion of these criteria in 2001, no reasonable person can now state that our current efforts in Afghanistan meet any of these criteria.

Simply put, there was never supposed to be a war in Afghanistan. Our job was to hunt down and kill or capture members of al Qaida. The Bush Administration perverted and then ignored that mission. It is not too late for us to reclaim that mission, but we can’t do it by furthering our current failed policies. If elected, I will not vote for a single Afghanistan War funding bill that provides monies for anything other than killing or capturing al Qaida. That means no stabilization operations, no occupation forces, and no nation-building. Period.”

Friday at the Blue America chat with Eric Massa, a retired Naval officer and congressman from upstate New York, there was an emphatic emphasis on defining the mission. Massa's position is exactly what Powell is telling Obama. Massa:

[I]s this about fighting the Taliban or fighting al-Qaeda-- two distinctly different groups-- or is it about creating a democracy, or is it about protecting the Afghan people? These are very different missions that require very different resources. And until we know what we're doing, we cannot begin to get it done. The first thing a military officer asks is 'What is the mission?' And as of right now, that is a very legitimate question... [W]e should demand a strategy that turns the destiny of Afghanistan over to the Afghans so we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the condition of our departure is creating a Jeffersonian democracy, then we are on a fool's errand.

Obama has to decide if being bogged down in an Afghan disaster is how he wants to spend his first-- and in all likelihood if he does, only-- term. He can use the crooked election as a way to get out of his boneheaded characterization of this bullshit occupation as a "war of necessity." He needs to do it right away-- part of the reason Blue America started up the No Means No! Act Blue page, which seeks to rally netroots support around the 32 courageous Democrats who voted against the supplemental war funding budget in June. Feel like doin' some rallyin' today?

Someday soon we'll be seeing stuff like this in the American mainstream press, but today's Guardian in England looks at current DC thought on what looks like a budding anti-war protest movement that's starting to show signs of Vietnamization.

As Barack Obama appears likely to increase America's already greatly enlarged troop commitment to the Afghan war, the war itself is becoming increasingly disliked.

The conflict used to be called America's "forgotten war". No longer. As casualties have spiked, so has hatred for the war: a solid 57% of Americans now oppose it. That has seen the anti-war movement in America prepare to turn its attentions from Iraq to Afghanistan, gearing up for an autumn campaign of marches and civil disobedience.

They hope to emulate the anti-Vietnam war protests, using highly visible public campaigns to force the hand of the White House to pull out of the country, not escalate the conflict.

The first major protest will happen next weekend, when anti-war protesters plan to arrange more than 500 empty pairs of boots on a grassy lawn right outside the White House. Each pair will represent an American soldier killed in the war... The honeymoon with Obama is over and the American people are not going to stand for it much longer.

...The movement is certainly tapping into a growing public mood of anger and discontent. For years, Afghanistan was seen as the "good war" as opposed to Iraq's "bad war". It had supposedly been won with relatively little loss of life, deposed a reviled government and been justified by the Taliban's open support of al-Qaida.

But now, there are more US casualties each day in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and American troop numbers will have risen dramatically to 68,000 by the end of the year. Indeed, Washington and the White House are consumed by speculation over whether Obama will accept a request from General Stanley McChrystal for yet more troops to be sent to the combat zone.

Apropos of nothing at all, of course, Rammsteinimages by famous German film-maker Leni Riefenstahl:




COMING UP AT 2pm PT:
SUNDAY CLASSICS TACKLES BACH

#

If The GOP Has A Soul, There's A Big Battle For It Right Now

Yesterday, and again this morning, former Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Ridge pushed back against the extremists who have captured the Republican Party. His special target: Pig Man. Bush's former Secretary of Homeland Security, was a guest on John King's CNN show where he chastised Limbaugh for his "shrill" vicious attacks on people instead of ideas. He's concerned that the GOP needs to restore itself as a national party and that the way Limbaugh is going about it is counterproductive.

Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important... It does get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourself but let's respect others opinions and let's not be divisive."

This morning a much larger audience watched one of the last nationally popular Republican leaders, Colin Powell, who has been harshly criticized by the far right, try to move his party back towards the mainstream, pointing out that Limbaugh is nothing more than a well-paid entertainer who has used his own contemptible racism as a tool to attack his (Powell's) ideas. It was a very powerful appearance and I suggest you give it a listen if you missed it:



Powell didn't mention that Limbaugh and Cheney were both selfish and hypocritical draft-dodgers and phonies-- but he got the point across pretty well. He did mention that “Rush will not get his wish, and Mr. Cheney was misinformed; I’m still a Republican.”

Powell, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who identified himself as a Republican only after leaving the military, said he felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it has been. Noting the party’s substantial losses in last fall’s elections, he said: “You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on it.

“In almost every demographic indicator, the Republican Party is losing. North, South, East, West. Men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics.” “Are we simply moving further to the right,” Mr. Powell asked, “and by so doing opening up the right-of-center and the center to be taken over by independents and to be taken over by Democrats?”

Does Ignorance Breed The Kind Of Weak Mind That Easily Falls Prey To Right Wing Demagoguery?

In this morning's NY Times Charles Blow cites a great many statistics to show why people in the Northeast aren't taken in by the right-wing's siren songs any longer-- and why the GOP now has a minor and shrinking presence in that region. He asserts that "Northeasterners are not so easily duped. Voters there tend to be wealthier, better educated, less religious and more progressive than those in other regions."

Of course there's a correlation between all of these factors-- better educated people tend to be less superstitious, more successful financially, more open to new ideas, etc. College graduates, for example, tend to make more money and are far less likely to allow their lives to be driven by primordial fears and primitive religious dogma. They are less likely to take Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity seriously and less likely to vote for a political party whose philosophy starts and ends with selfishness and greed.

Across the country, 27.5% of Americans have graduated from four year colleges. Let's compare the half dozen states with the smallest percentage of college graduates with the half dozen states with the greatest percentage-- in terms of how they voted in the 2008 presidential election. (The final figure, in the parenthesis is the median household income of each state.)

West Virginia- 17.3% McCain-56%/Obama- 43% ($35,059)
Mississippi- 18.9% McCain-56%/Obama- 43% ($34,473)
Arkansas- 19.3% McCain-59%/Obama- 39% ($36,599)
Kentucky- 20.0% McCain-58%/Obama- 41% ($39,372)
Louisiana- 20.4% McCain-59%/Obama- 40% (39,337)
Alabama- 21.4% McCain-61%/Obama- 39% ($38,783)

Massachusetts- 37.9% Obama- 62%/McCain- 36% ($59,963)
Maryland- 35.2% Obama- 62%/McCain- 37% (65,144)
Colorado- 35.0% Obama- 54%/McCain- 45% ($52,015)
Connecticut- 34.7% Obama- 61%/McCain- 38% ($63,422)
New Jersey- 33.9% Obama- 57%/McCain- 42% ($64,470)
Vermont- 33.6% Obama- 68%/McCain- 31% ($47,665)

This morning's Washington Post reports that Colin Powell, probably the most admired living man still claiming to be a Republican-- who is being driven out of the GOP by the likes of detested and divisive political figures like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh-- will be answering his narrow-minded, extremist critics tomorrow morning on Face The Nation. Not all Republicans agree with Limbaugh and Cheney that mainstream conservatives like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Wayne Gilchrest and Colin Powell should be "cleansed" from the GOP to make way for some kind of small, narrow, regionally-based party that considers itself "pure" but can only win in states with populations who get all their information from Fox, from Hate Talk radio or from the Buy Bull and where few people are educated or living a middle class lifestyle. Even an extreme right-winger like South Dakota's John Thune is starting to worry. Powell, he told the Times is "one of the greatest leaders of our generation, and he is at heart a Republican." I guess that means Thune's going to have to do penance in front of a Limbaugh alter next week.


UPDATE: So What Do We Do About It?

Morgaine Swann sent me a more clinical-- and more facsinating-- look at this, Attention Liberals: There's No Reasoning With A Reptile. And she isn't referring to Republicans are snakes and lizards, any more than the rest of us. Like many of us, she's looking for an answer. Understanding the problems-- in this case, the way the brain functions-- is a crucial first step.

We need to move Left in this country. We need single payer health insurance, but its proponents are not even allowed a seat at the table. We have evidence of war crimes but it looks as if this administration won't pursue legal redress even though failing to do so violates national and international law. Billions of dollars are still being funneled to private interests with no benefit to the taxpayer. People are still denying the right to marry to an entire segment of the population based on the incorrect assumption that marriage has anything to do with monotheist religion. Women's bodies are still subject to control by the state. It's time for us to live up to the Jeffersonian ideal.

Now, the problem we face is this: How do you pull a majority of the population into a higher level of moral and ethical development? Reason won't work with someone stuck at Level 2. They don't have critical thinking skills and they aren't open concepts or cultures in conflict with the one they're born into. Now that the Republican party is facing its own loss of power and prestige, a threat to its survival, they have completely regressed to Level 1 functioning. Reptiles lack empathy, logic, and are based in rage and fear. It's no coincidence that I just described Dick Cheney's recent media blitz, telling us all we're going to die if we don't torture people in violation of international law even though torture doesn't work.

There is also the additional problem that the leaders of the Right have financial interests in keeping the status quo, and they understand these levels of functioning. They are extremely adept at manipulating people with good intentions but poor educations. The only solution I see to moving us Leftward is education, but we know our schools aren't up to the task right now and we can't wait several generations for change. The only way to reach most people is through the popular media. Short of strapping everyone down and making them watch Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, I don't know how we reach them. I only know that it has to be done.

Obama Slams Bush And GOP In No Uncertain Terms (Really)

I wonder if President Obama will be able to bring Americans along on His Great Big Post-Partisan Adventure. They sure booed Bush when he came out for the inaugural ceremonies yesterday-- or were they booing John Boehner? I guess it doesn't matter. At least all the show throwing ended the day before (see White House photo above). Nor was it just the 1.8 million unwashed masses eager to see Bush for the last time. Even Colin Powell threw a proverbial shoe at the ex-boss who turned his name to mud. On CBS News yesterday he waxed poetic about how American prestige abroad had improved significantly when Obama beat McCain, who the world saw as a stand in for Bush.

...Barack Obama's election to the nation's highest office a "reaffirmation of American principles values that will help us overcome some of the difficulties of recent years with respect to the attitude of the world toward us... I think it has really, really been a remarkable event in terms of getting everybody to stand back and say, look at what we have seen here in America," Powell said. "The America we remember is back again."

And even President Obama, for all the sickening post-partisan mania, took some major slugs at the Bush Regime-- if not Bush personally-- and at the Republican's venal philosophy of governance... in, of all places, his Inaugural. In fact, on a personal level, he was very kind to the universally reviled failed ex-president: "I thank President Bush for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition," the new president began as politely as his grandma taught him.

Now let me pull a few lines out that tore into the GOP and the 8 years of malfeasance and incompetence that has virtually wrecked the country. In fact, on a personal level, he was very kind to the universally reviled failed ex-president:

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

If that doesn't sound like an indictment of Republicanism in general and Bushism in particular, you haven't been paying attention. And this next line wasn't really a slam against Senator McCain as much as it was a slam at Bush and the GOP again: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Do you think those lines made Bush, McConnell, Boehner, et al sweat a little? I don't; but they should have. He even turns God against them: "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."


The President talks about the path to greatness and makes it clear it isn't one Bush took and it isn't one Republicans take. "It must be earned... It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame." He talked about an America filled with men and women who "worked till their hands were raw," not exactly something one associates with Republicans, and about Americans who saw our nation "as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." That's how the Chamber of Commerce fascist scum define the communism they tried pinning on Obama during the election campaign. "[O]ur time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions-- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

I think by then Bush was praying 1.8 million people weren't going to start throwing their shoes at him. And then Obama walloped him and his reactionary and rejected party:

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

Each line must have felt like another shoe bouncing off his skull. So Obama gave him a respite-- and went after the GOP itself (and maybe their Blue Dog allies as well):

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

He slammed Republican theology and their most sacred hysterically-guarded dogma: "[T]his crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." That line, more than any other is probably what set Hannity off on another of his utterly out of sync, tone deaf tirades today. And then it was back to Bush-- with a vengeance: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake." (Actually that might have gone right over Bush's head, even if he was paying attention. But I hope it was Eric Holder who was paying attention then anyway and that Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders repeat it to him... quickly.)

There was more than an implied criticism of Bush's approach to foreign policy; it was more like a complete condemnation of its very foundations:

And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.

Although this may sound like he's talking to Mitch McConnell, Jim DeMint, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, the context seems to indicate it was meant specifically for foreign fanatics, not domestic ones: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Although this next bit was a warning shot he clearly wanted Republicans to hear: "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it." I think Wall Street knew he wanted them to hear too. When he got to the Oval Office he started signing proclamations: "I'm a lefty. Get used to it," which he is, though not in the way we wish he was.

Meanwhile, Bush made a halfhearted stab at defending his disastrous legacy of misery to small crowds in Midland and Waco, Texas after President Obama's stark repudiation. Perhaps not fully cognizant that his wrong-headed policies have left President Obama with the worst economy since the Great Depression, 2 wars, a hostile and distrustful world and a divided nation, Bush blathered on how “I always felt it was important to tackle the tough issues today and not try to pass them on to future presidents, and future generations."