Huckabee Hound

Arianna has a good post about the Republican freak out over Huckabee but i think she and everyone else is missing the point. It's not about class, it's about money. GWB talked a good game but in the end he's a Bush, he's a blue-blood. He won't do anything stupid with the money, like take it from the rich and give it to the poor.

Republicans, above all else, are about using government to protect and embellish the wealth of their benefactors. Huckabee may not be. He might follow the words of Jesus and take money from the wealthy to benefit the poor. That's the reason for the freak-out. There's a lot of money at stake.

Mr. Motes

SS and Atrios

Everyone is talking about this from Eschaton:

Essentially this is the prefunding con job. Since FICA revenues will cease to support general expenditures in the near future what we must do is... increase the FICA tax so it continues to support general expenditures. In other words, we need to increase the regressive payroll tax so that we don't need to raise other taxes. And we're doing it to "save" social security.

It's even more insidious and dishonest than that. We have 9 trillion in debt. Only a fraction of that is owed to SS. How is it we can't honor the portion of the debt owed to SS but the majority of the debt is manageable? That makes no sense. We'll do what we always do, just roll it over. The debt stays the same and SS gets paid.

But isn't it time to take the offensive on this whole tax fairness issue? Let's eliminate the payroll tax altogether and do away with the fiction of a trust fund. Let's pay for all of our social programs with an increase in the income tax that offsets the elimination of the payroll tax, no net tax increase, just a simpler, fairer system.

And let's attack this fiction of progressivity. I saw Fred Thompson say the other night, "5% of the people are paying 60% of the taxes, "how much more progressive do you want it to be?" Let's compare that to the wealth distribution in this country and then see how "progressive" our tax code is.

Mr. Motes

Republicans Talk Tough

But they're really just a bunch of pussies.

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

Twenty Six!

How Low Can He Go asks MSNBC.

Bush was very unpopular for a newly elected President back in 2001. After 9-11 Bush didn't do anything great but America did: It rallied around its President. However, ever since David Kay came back from Iraq and told us in 2004 that there weren't going to be any WMD, it's been all downhill for Bush. How low can he go?

Peggy Noonan

Andrew Sullivan nailed it:

In 2004 Noonan wrote:

So Much to Savor
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.

Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor. ...

The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.

George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.

Yet yesterday she wrote:

Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT

... For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

...The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?

Even now her shameless hypocrisy is unbearable. Where was this outrage when these tactics of personal attack were used against concerned citizens, some of whom happened to be concerned liberals? Not only was there no outrage, she was leading the charge, and then urging Bush supporters to savor the fruits of her loathsome labor.

Even now she has learned nothing, repented for nothing. She merely objects to the two-sided nature of her sword.

Why Are We In Iraq?

The Blogosphere is all abuzz with that question these days, especially now that Bush has admitted what we've all known and suspected for some time: We will be there for years and decades to come, on permanent bases.

I think you have to go back to what Paul Wolfowitz said in his famous Vanity Fair interview:

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

This is about the Saudis in a big way. Our troops there were destabilizing the Saudi regime by inciting Al Qaeda. So what to do with our massive presence in the region? You can't put them in another friendly country it will cause them too much grief. And the less-friendly won't have us. So you either leave or knock somebody off. Saddam was the obvious choice. That move was supposed to be easy and popular.

And of course there's the money: Just consider how much of the the federal treasury has been directed to companies like Haliburton and you see what a success the Iraq war has been for its benefactors...

This Means War!

America's Moon is clearly under attack from Venus. Will Stephen Colbert have the balls to cover this story? Even if it means criticizing his beloved President Bush?

I Can't Get Too Mad at Wolfowitz

He looks like Leonard Cohen, one of my favorite people in the world...

Hitchens Gives Falwell a Fitting Farewell

Was Jesus Betrayed By His Own Son?

The Discovery Channel's The Lost Tomb of Jesus reveals an ossuary inscribed: "Judah Son of Jesus." What else are we to conclude?

And if you don't think these bone boxes are compelling, just remember what Christian websites were saying when an ossuary (later revealed to be a forgery) was found inscribed, "James Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus:" Stunning New Evidence that Jesus Lived

Yet somehow these same Christian sites don't think these new ossuaries are worth talking about. That's odd...

And think about this: The Jesus box had DNA in it. Why wait for the second coming? Let's clone him and bring him back now. Really, i don't see any problems, theological or otherwise...

Little Adam's Apple Annie Calls Edwards a Faggot!

Now that's irony... Crooks and Liars has it here

Colbert Blows it Again!

Not since he MC'd the Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner has Steven botched something so badly. First, trying to promote Papa Bear's book, he shows a copy with a 30% off sticker covering most of O'Reilly's head? That was insulting to his guest for two reasons.

But even worse than that, Steven made a joke about being sexually harassed by John Stewart at the Daily Show, saying that's the reason Colbert left. "You don't know what that's like" Colbert shouted. Doesn't he know Bill O. had an embarrassing little problem with one of his employees claiming sexual harassment by O'Reilly at The Factor?

O'Reilly had the grace to take these insults in stride, but the baby bear has along way to go before he's in papa bear's league.

Update, here it is on YouTube:

Iraq To Get Boob Job

So says Condi Rice: "I would call it, senator, an augmentation..." Let's just hope Iraq gets a good one...

The Seventh Seal

Papa bear and baby bear to go mano a mano, or should i say el oso a el oso?

O'Reilly, Colbert to trade appearances

1 hour, 53 minutes ago

It may feel like looking into the mirror for Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert next week. The Fox News Channel host and Colbert, who has essentially based his comic character every evening on Comedy Central on him, will trade appearances on each other's programs Jan. 18.

"I'm really looking forward to speaking to a man who owes his entire career to me," O'Reilly said.

On "The Colbert Report," Colbert portrays a self-involved talk-show host who has tried to bring "truthiness" to the world. His character owes an obvious debt to O'Reilly, who holds court in the "no-spin zone" each evening.

On "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly portrays a ... um, he hosts the top-rated program in cable news.

"I look forward to the evening," Colbert said. "It is an honor to speak face-to-face with a broadcasting legend, and I feel the same way about Mr. O'Reilly."

Six Years Of George W. Bush

The Onion has a retrospective, including this gem from 2001:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

It would be funny if it weren't so true. And there's more, including this:

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."