Wednesday, January 24, 2007



Did your senator vote to stop the Bush/MCain escalation plan? A real bill, with real teeth, went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Chris Dodd's. The Beltway Bubble Establishment moved into action immediately to kill it. Ultimate Beltway Bubble Establishment Shithead, Joe Biden, tried to pressure Dodd into withdrawing the bill. Dodd refused. Biden was joined by 4 other Democrats who want to pass the toothless nonbinding symbolic thing-- Cardin (D), Nelson (FL), Casey (PA) and Webb (VA; it was a nice speech last night) and all the Republicans, both the Bush Regime dead-enders like Lugar (IN), Corker (TN), Issacson (GA), Vitter (LA), Voinovich (OH), Murkowski (AK) and DeMint (SC), and the ones who want to appear to be against the war without actually voting against Bush: Sununu (NH), Coleman (MN), and, distressingly, Hagel (NE).

So who were the good guys today? Which senators decided to pay attention to what the American people want? Not many.
Dodd (CT)
Kerry (MA)
Feingold (WI)
Boxer (CA)
Obama (IL)
Menendez (NJ)

Good thing Bush can count on Biden and some waffling Democrats to join the Republican minority and insure that his escalation and Stay-the-Course plans go undisturbed. And Biden wants to run for president or vice-president (as a Democrat).


After killing Dodd's bill to actually prevent the escalation, Biden mustered a majority (12-9) for his silly nonbinding symbolic thing that Bush already announced he would ignore. The full Senate will debate it next week.


Now that Wayne Allard has announced his impending retirement, we have a tie for most endangered GOP senator for '08 between two sad-sack rubber stamps, the somewhat intelligent but ne'er do well John Sununu (NH) and the completely stoopid and hilariously imbecilic Norm Coleman (MN). Both have been running around making noises to show voters in their home states, home states that have turned progressively more blue recently-- and progressively anti-war-- that they don't back Bush/McCain on escalation. Today Coleman tried amending Biden's already weak, weak nonbinding symbolic thing to say that the Senate doesn't want to send more troops to Baghdad but that the Senate wants to send more troops to al-Anbar. It failed but he dug up 3 other right-wing nitwits to go along with him. Does Minnesota have recall for senators who can be shown to have had a precipitous drop in IQ?


At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That sound you keep hearing is me ripping my hair out.

At 4:15 PM, Blogger Capeman said...

Hey, bil (short for bilge?)

Any campaigner that wins is good and any that loses is bad?
In an operation like a national campaign, you don't spend money just because you have it, you spend it on something that will win you votes.
Hillary just spent at least $36 million bucks on a re-election campaign that she didn't have to spend a million on to win.
Is that a good use of money?
And Kerry not only spent that money from his campaign on candidates, he also used his lists to get others to donate to candidates of whom the donors never would have heard. And he campaigned for them.
What did you do, bil?
Did he make mistakes in the campaign? Sure did.
Did he get a larger percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton did the first time he ran? Yes, by far.
Does he deserve your derision? Hardly.

At 8:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, if you read today's op-ed in Salon an article by Rick Perlstein lays out why the Democrats can stop the war, and today's non-binding resolution is following the steps congress took to bring us out of Viet Nam.

Very interesting article, and I believe we will be seeing that public opinion will keep surging congressional binding resolutions into passing in the short-term.

Again, interesting article.

At 9:33 PM, Blogger Capeman said...

Yeah, bile

If it wasn't for your phone calls, Webb would have lost. Oh, thank god for that.
If Webb's opponent hadn't macaca'd himself out of the race, Webb would have lost. If the race had taken place in 2004, would Webb had won?
Would that have had made him a disgusting loser?
If you remember 2004,the contested states already had just about every minute of advertising sown up, voters were getting multiple calls daily. Just what would 10 mill have bought?
In the nation, he lost by 2 million votes. Unlike 2006, a lot of people were still buying that Iraq was winnable and that you don't change horses...So was 10 million enough to change those votes?
You can look at the hundreds of decisions in a hundred races that were worse than any decision made in the Kerry campaign, some winners, some losers.
He tried, risked his life and reputation, and worked it 24-7 for the better part of 2 years and came up short.
So, who could have done better? It doesn't matter who you name, they either lost to Kerry in the primaries or were too afraid to run. All disgusting losers?
This is my point, people who put themselves in harms way and lose aren't disgusting losers. It's the ones who don't put themselves out there and take potshots at those who do that are the losers.
John F. Kennedy said it best:
Victor has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan.

At 3:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mercifully, Kerry decided he was a good Senator, and a bad presidential candidate.

At 5:16 AM, Blogger Capeman said...

You seem to miss the point. Progressives have to stop eating their own. Kerry is a good guy, he lost. Bad for him, bad for me, bad for us. But don't use your anger against him, save it for the people who really deserve it.
The $10 million? Some was reserved for a possible legal challenge, some was from his Senatorial campaign fund. Miscalculation? Maybe.
Are you as hard on others about not spending their contributions on other campaigns?
Why don't you ask Jim Webb what he thinks of Kerry?


Post a Comment

<< Home