2
Gulp
Is it too late for me to take back my Obama vote?
Above: My dream candidate.
Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.
I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!!
As I’ve said before, there are more important issues facing this country than my bloody-minded quest for revenge. But even if Obama doesn’t plan on systematically destroying every Republican by using the Justice Department to slap them with bogus corruption charges, he could at the very least not appoint any to his cabinet. And while it’s true that Hagel and Lugar are some of the least objectionable Republicans out there, they are still Republicans. They bear the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored.
No prisoners, Hussein X. Please don’t disappoint me.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:12
Milkshakes for all! A pony in every blender!
Invigilator said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:13
Seriously though, Hagel and Lugar are about the best Republicans there are. WHY they are still Republicans, I don’t know.
OTB said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:17
I’m with you, Brad. This “non-partisan” crap is really sickening. Demonize, denouce, destroy…it’s the only language the right understands or respects. The more the dems kick them in their Orange #2-stained teeth, the more the right will love it. They view reason and compassion as hateful weaknesses, and to pretend otherwise is suicidal lunacy for any candidate.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:17
Seriously though, Hagel and Lugar are about the best Republicans there are. WHY they are still Republicans, I don’t know.
I believe they should be rewarded for their party loyalty with cushy positions.
JakeInDK said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:18
*cause they’re McCains - party line hacks who talk a good game of ‘ethics’.
BTW we’re coming for YOU whitey!!!!
Snowwy said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:26
I believe they should be rewarded for their party loyalty with cushy positions.
Prison librarian is cushy enough.
John said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:26
Hagel is as right-wing as it gets, except for Iraq, and Lugar isn’t much better. That’s why they are Republicans. Don’t kid yourselves about these two - look at their conservative vote ratings.
I can’t understand how the Obama followers can ignore this sort of thing. How can they be so naive as to think this will make the Republicans play nicey-nice and go along with whatever the Democrats want? He’s caving in to Republicanism, and he hasn’t even been nominated yet!
If Obama actually does this sort of thing, it’s possible he will accomplish so little that isn’t a Republican agenda item that he won’t even win the Democratic nomination in 2012 - he’ll be defeated on the grounds that if we wanted a Republican president, we’d have voted for one.
JakeInDK said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:28
I’d appoint Hagel as head of the SecDef. Let’s see him defend those ridiculous budget requests to people who can add and subtract! Like pouring salt on a snail…
Jay said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:28
Sounds like Edwards was your guy.
He was my guy, too. An ass-kicking is what the repukes need.
stryx said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:40
Obama-Lieberman ‘08 !!!!!!
Tri-partisanship is the being the change!
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:42
Jay said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:28
Sounds like Edwards was your guy.
He was my guy, too. An ass-kicking is what the repukes need.
Heck, Edwards was my guy, too. Now, onto this ass-kicking. Is there a chance anyone besides Obama can deliver it?
I don’t like the idea of rethuglicans getting positions that they themselves never grant democrats when the positions are reversed. But we are looking at 5-8 rethuglicans being kicked out of the Senate if Obama wins convincingly in November.
It’s worth the chance.
Me said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:56
If the worst he does is Hagel as Defense Secretary, I’d say that’s hardly worth not voting for him. SecDef is a conservative Republican job almost by definition.
And look at it this way–it takes another Republican out of the Senate.
Hoosier X said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:57
Surely he means Hagel as, say, Secretary of Transportation, and Lugar as, say, last Secretary of Homeland Security before it is phased out.
Who knows? Lugar might make a good head of FEMA.
sxwarren said,
March 2, 2008 at 20:59
On the other hand, taking a couple three “moderate” Senate Repubs from states with Dem Governors might be kinda clever.
Yes, Ms. Snowe, I’m lookin’ at you.
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:00
They bear the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored.
I always thought that Derbyshire IS the ‘taint. Or at least the part of it closest to the asshole.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Obama appointing any Republican. By the end of this campaign, after the 6 or 7 months of heavy TV saturation of ads portraying one after another variant on the theme “don’t vote for the n***er”, I don’t know that he will be able to stomach any of them who have not disassociated themselves from the Republican party.
Legalize said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:02
Senator Obama needs to watch this and then get back to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg5D-CqDoI8&feature=related
Robert McClelland said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:13
Republican control of Lieberman has driven many dems nuts. So imagine what Obama could do to the Republicans with two Liebermans.
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:14
Then there’s this damning indictment of Obama’s bipartisanship in the WaPo by David Ignatius, who worries that Obama is not nearly enough like Joe Lieberman.
An Obama Presidency Likely To Include Republicans In High Places said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:21
[...] Also (H/T to MemeOrandum): The Moderate Voice; Donklephant; Polimom Says; Sadly, No!; Open Left Tags: Politics, State Politics, National Politics, Think, Presidency 2008, President [...]
Jody said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:22
Ah, Senator Blutarsky. We need you more than ever.
mikey said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:24
First, I don’t believe he’ll really do it. Obama is positioning for the general election campaign, where he will be competing with McCain for the “moderate” and “independent” swing votes. Those people will find statements like this appealing, for while they are deeply dissatisfied with the bush/cheney policies, they are still more comfortable with a “conservative” message. And lets face it, before he can actually DO anything, Obama has to get elected. All campaign promises are not routinely kept.
Second, when cross-party cabinet positions have been offered in the past, in most cases they are turned down. Nobody wants to be the voice that always gets overruled. It’s a difficult and unpleasant task to oversee an organization without having the power within the hierarchy to enforce your vision, direction and goals.
I AM concerned that Obama will decided to just “let bygones be bygones” and will allow bush, cheney and their supporters to slink safely into retirement and sinecure, but if that’s the price to be paid to get America back and begin to address the worst of the carnage of the last eight years, so be it.
*SIGH*
mikey
Galactic Dustbin said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:26
Uhhh, you might want to re-think that, Blutarsky was a Republican when I reached the Senate.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:26
I dunno, Brad. I’m not sure how much weight to put on the Times piece — the only quotes about cabinet picks from Obama himself are about choosing the best person for the job. The only quote about Hagel from Obama himself is the standard weasel-worded “good friend . . . respect” stuff you’d expect from a guy who has to respond to other people’s claims about what he’ll do. The only direct assertions regarding republicans and cabinet positions are coming from unnamed advisors and the author of the piece. The headline is rather hyperbolic, given the actual content in the story.
cokane said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:28
Sec Def is not a job where you need a partisan, especially since I doubt Obama would waver from his “wiser” foreign policy stance, which is the bedrock of his campaign. Really this isn’t all that objectionable… wingnuts hate Chuck Hagel (him being a RINO or whatever). And honestly, who knows if he’d even follow through with this stuff? It could just be politicking to convince independents and moderates to vote for him.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:29
Dustbin, I had no idea you were in the Senate.
PhysioProf said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:30
Oh, for fuck’s sake!
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/hey-barack-fuck-you/
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:32
Shorter David Ignatius:
Will Obama join together with the rest of us non-dirty-f*cking-hippy-centrists and cheer for dropping more bombs on the (non-Jewish) brown people of the Middle East?
Only a sincere commitment to genocide against the Arabs demonstrates a strong commitment to Israel’s security.
This is central to the Ignatius-Lieberman-Hiatt-Gerson-Krauthammer point.
P.S. Hanx for spotting the wanker, Jennifer.
~
Me said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:36
I’m not sure of the gist of your “for fuck’s sake”, but I suspect that quote was taken somewhat out of context, given everything else I’ve heard him say on the subject. I believe his point is that if you wanna label such things as taking care of the troops and spending responsibly as either “liberal” or “conservative”, be his guest. Either way, he intends to do them.
sxwarren said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:38
I’m all for allowing all the Rethugs to slink away to Paraguay and, once they think they’re safely ensconced, suddenly “discovering” that Paraguay has nuclear missiles and is about to launch a strike on the US.
Admittedly, this would be kinda tough on the Giant Armadillo and Chacoan Peccary populations.
StonyPillow said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:39
C’mon, folks. The (London) Sunday Times is a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper. Standard practice to spread FUD among your opponents.
christian h. said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:40
Obama, like McCain, is very good at making people think that, when he says something they don’t like, he’s lying (”he really doesn’t think that Lebanese and Palestinians should be murdered in large numbers, he just has to pretend“). Sorry to say this, but the rule of thumb - proved by experience over a long time - is that any Democrat moves to the right of his campaign positions once elected.
Still, he’s the least bad candidate left in the race. And electing him in a landslide will at least be a symbolic victory.
Hoosier X said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:40
Off topic:
We know Ben Stein is a shit, but just how much of a dishonest, straw-man-flinging, intellectual lightweight is he?
He was at a business conference here in the Antelope Valley a few days ago.
Article is here.
Highlight is here:
Walter Reed amputees show how great America is.
Support American greatness! More amputees!
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:40
Senator Obama needs to watch this and then get back to us:
Legalize:
Good one. He could watch this too…
Of course this is how I feel about it personally.
Revenge! Revenge!!!!1111!
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:46
I want a white house bent on revenge where everyone wears pirate costumes. Rove will walk the plank.
Incontinentia Buttocks said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:46
Presidents always cross the aisle to fill their cabinet out. Bill Clinton had a GOP Secretary of Defense (former Sen. William Cohen). Heck, even Dubya made Robert Matsui his Secretary of Transportation.
You don’t want bipartisan hackery…especially on issues of war, peace, and the military-industrial complex? Don’t vote for “mainstream” members of the major parties.
The only, and I mean only, thing that surprises me about this story is that so many people who should know better are surprised and disappointed.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:47
Ohhh….
Even better!!!
REVENGE!!!!!
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:47
Fcuking spam filter.
“For all his talk of bipartisanship, there’s little evidence that Barack Obama is capable of healing Washington.
- By David Ignatius”
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote:
Shorter David Ignatius:
Will Obama join together with the rest of us non-dirty-f*cking-hippy-centrists and cheer for dropping more bombs on the (non-Jewish) brown people of the Middle East?
Only a sincere commitment to genocide against the Arabs demonstrates a strong commitment to Israel’s security.
This is central to the Ignatius-Lieberman-Hiatt-Gerson-Krauthammer point.
~
3/2/2008 2:30:04 PM
Hanx for the Ignatius link, Jennifer.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:51
Rove will walk the plank.
Only if we can keelhaul Addington & Yoo.
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:56
Unfortunately, Cheney has other plans.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 21:57
David Addington
John Yoo
Both are far more influential than their rather low profiles would suggest. This is apparently the Neocon MO.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:00
From Susan’s link:
(Cheney might go to Wolfram & Hart’s LA branch after 2009.)
Wolfram & Hart’s L.A. branch has been one of the firm’s most trouble-plagued divisions. A gas leak in 2003 resulted in the deaths of most of the firm’s staff, while a new management team brought in the following year exited mere months later under controversial and still-mysterious circumstances, leaving considerable structural damage to the building in their wake.
Sounds pretty serious….
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:01
You know, with all this talk of revenge and plank-walking, this is the part of the conversation where a comment like “the guillotine - an idea whose time has come - again” would fit right in, and given that it’s not being posted in comments on the website of a nervous Nellie Olson douchebag, probably would also not get you banned.
MrWonderful said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:02
And give twenty of the best to Gonzalez.
And then grog all around, lads and lassies!
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:06
Sounds pretty serious….
Just a demon resurrected to bring about the end of the world, a few fights, and some zombies.
Quite a few zombies,actually.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:08
Susan, thank you. I was sadly unaware of the TeeVeeCity Chronicle until this very moment.
And a Nellie Olson reference, too. Y’all are conspiring to make my day.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:10
Jennifer m8zt be banzed!
We is piratz, not Les Misérables!
(You ninjas out there can skulk for yerselves.)
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:11
And a Nellie Olson reference, too.
Okay, that’s who Ann Althouse reminds me of.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:13
The Guillotine, OK….
I like the idea of Cheney OD’ing on whippits and having a brain aneurysm….
Or, if Cheney is stuck in his office late, and decides to microwave a burrito for dinner, but neglects to take off the foil, and the microwaves reflect out at him and short out his pacemaker.
What were you saying about demons & zombies, Susan?
christian h. said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:14
Jennifer, this is the 21st century! I think the firing squad is more appropriate.
Kimberley Taylor said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:14
I’m with OTB - Dems, Greens, Socialists, Whomever….need to kick the GOP in their pointy teeth (so pointy pointy).
It’s time for stockades and inquisitions for those who would destroy our Constitution to satisfy their lusts. We’ve played patty cake long enough.
Give’m the El Duce treatment!
XXKHT
Hattie said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:16
Why are you surprised? He’s after that white guy vote. I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:17
christian h - I dunno, there’s just something about the deterrent value of heads on spikes…
ploeg said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:18
Hagel probably isn’t going to give the Pentagon the good thorough cleaning that it so deperately needs, but he’s probably as good as we’re going to get in a first term.
There’s no particular problem with having a Republican in the Cabinet. Just as long as that Republican gets appointed as special roving ambassador to the Seychelles the minute that the Republican starts veering from being a team player.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:18
Or wait how about this one-
Cheney is strangling a puppy to unwind, and the puppy pees while its dying, and the pee completes a circuit from the wall to Cheney’s foot, and electrocutes him.
g said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:22
A gas leak in 2003 resulted in the deaths of most of the firm’s staff,
WTF????
Oh, Hahahahah!:
Wikipedia
Wolfram & Hart, Attorneys at Law is a fictional international and interdimensional law firm in the television series Angel.
Got me.
Some Guy said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:25
“Why are you surprised? He’s after that white guy vote. I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.”
Wait, seriously? Appealing to different demographics “playing” the electorate? Trying to influence (guesstimation) 20% of the total population to vote for you = “The Sting”?
Wow. You right wing trollers have really just stopped trying, haven’t you?
Hattie said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:27
I’m no right winger, sonny, just an old lady who has seen it all.
Your belief that you can’t be manipulated is, well, touching.
mikey said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:27
I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.
I’m sorry if I succumb to my inner asshole, but that’s beyond stupid.
In no way has Obama “rooked” anybody. To even make the statement is to admit an overwhelming ignorance of politics. He is a charismatic politician. I don’t question that. He is also orders of magnitude better than bush/cheney, and the ONE player on the board who has a chance to make things qualitatively better for american citizens.
I’m sorry he’s not perfect. But the chasm between “not perfect” and “GW Bush” is light years across. While you people grandly discuss the downsides of the Democratic candidates, and sure, they have ‘em, it’s as if you completely disregard the horrendous damage that’s been done to America under bush/cheney.
It may be long past recovering. Perhaps Obama will fail. But I can promise you this. Under McCain, America as a concept, as an ideal, as anything short of a military dictatorship will perish. So go ahead. Pick your poison.
I’m old. I’m not gonna be here for long. And I can take care of myself no matter how bad it gets. You folks with families? Futures? Plans, hopes and dreams? You better start getting serious about what the playing field is going to look like in 2015, 2020.
Take a hard look at what we’ve become, and where we’re going. Now decide if it’s truly time to hold out for Mr. Perfect…
mikey
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:28
Wolfram and Hart
The Beast and she who brings the apocalypse
Ira Allen said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:32
Hillary Clinton has experience at fighting and defeating Republicans. Barack Obama is beyond naive.
If you want someone who will stand up for your values, than Clinton is your choice.
If you want someone who will sell you out and coddle the radical Christian fringe and the corporate establishment, then Barack Obama is your choice.
Obama opposes universal health care, favors social security privatization, and favors preemptive war with Pakistan.
Hillary Clinton is the only true progressive left in this race.
mikey said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:32
I’m no right winger, sonny, just an old lady who has seen it all.
Your belief that you can’t be manipulated is, well, touching.
See, Hattie, this is where you completely lose me. I’m blind and being manipulated, but you can see right through all that. Poor, pathetic, pitiful helpless me. Since you seem to believe you’re the only one who can see clearly while the rest of us stupid sheep are helplessly led around by our nose, perhaps you could enlighten us on some other areas where your wisdom and perception are so much superior to ours.
Shiiit…
mikey
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:35
OK, one final idea,
John Yoo accidentally eats a can of Mad-Cow-infected Hormel beanless chili.
In his finaly days of madness, he drafts a constitutional opinion that according to the Unitary Executive Theory, PBS will create a George W. Bush muppet called “Georgie Bushie”, who will be featured on Sesame Street in perpetuity.
Then he dies on the toilet.
g said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:36
I hope many of you will now understand that you have been rooked by a charismatic politician who knows exactly how to play you.
right, Hattie. Cause all the other politicians running for office are completely, 100% sincere.
TB said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:36
If I was president, the first thing I would do on inauguration day would be to make sure that every last one of these twisted little thieves were in custody before sunrise the following morning.
By the end of the week, they’d either be in Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks, or in The Hague being sentenced to life without parole in Spandau.
Yes, I know, Spandau was torn down, but I figure as part of their “rehabilitation” they could live in tents why they rebuilding it themselves, brick by brick.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:39
Ira Allen said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:32
Hillary Clinton has experience at fighting and defeating Republicans. Barack Obama is beyond naive.
So that’s why she’s winning the primary. It’s all clear to me now.
And now for something completely different.
Dean Booth said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:41
I once shot a Republican in my pajamas. Why he’s a Republican, I’ll never know.
Lesley said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:45
what mikey said. He’s being strategic.
kenga said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:46
Yup. And that’s why he’s going to send Chuck Hagel out in front of the press, to take Grover Norquist to the woodshed over the debate to raise taxes to fund public infrastructure projects. And Richard Lugar on the teevee with Timmeh to talk non-proliferation and in the process do him up like a wall-eyed kitten chasing a laser pointer.
I’m skeptical that appointments such as Lugar and Hagel will play out (well, Obama did work closely with Lugar in designing and passing some pretty serious nnon-proliferation legislation), but I can believe it’s been considered and I think it’s a pretty fucking good idea.
imagine, if you will:
Grover: “But, but, but tax and spend, prosperity - liberals!!!”
Obama: “You’re whining again. Your self-centered far right philosophy will run aground on the shoals of patriotic bipartisanship embodied in this administration. Neener neener.”
Susan of Texas said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:48
Put a Republican face on anything they messed up. Make Sen. Whoever (R. Screwed the Pooch) tell the public what they did.
Lesley said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:49
John Yoo accidentally eats a can of Mad-Cow-infected Hormel beanless chili.
In lieu of infected beanless product, Lou-Gherig’s disease would be an appropriate slow demise, with no accelerated morphine drip.
Rightwingsnarkle said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:51
Actually, I think the plan is for Lugar and Hagel to job-share an insignificant cabinet post - probably agriculture, since they’re both from corn states.
That way, each can also be available for childcare duties at home.
Some Guy said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:52
See, that’s what makes this so funny to me. I really don’t care either way between Obama or Clinton. I lean towards Obama, because Clinton would be the easiest for the Republicans to regroup, galvanize, and counter-attack against; also that retarded 3am ad lost her some points with me. But really? Meh.
I’m reasonably certain that “Gary” and “Ida” are the same griefer, as they share the same writing styles, down to the bullet point lists of asinine Talking Points of Idiot.
Hattie is clearly also fake, since no one actually uses the term “sonny”, as this is not a bad newspaper comic strip, placed circa 1938. Though I care less, because I’ve never seen this one before.
Really, I’m just a sucker for train-wreck bad logic or historical inaccuracies, especially if they’re based off of a half-paragraph in a middle school text book, with a pinch of imagination and assumption. They make me giddy.
sxwarren said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:54
Perhaps while they’re rebuilding Spandau, they could form a classical dance troupe.
stryx said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:55
I like the rock-breaking idea, but I think it would be more effective if they had to wear shiny black corsets. And absurdly high heels. And fuzzy hot pink thongs.
Definitely.
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:57
Seriously folks, we need to tone down the extremism on this thread.
Otherwise Doug Watts will be forced to trot over here and lecture us about manners and civility.
Hattie said,
March 2, 2008 at 22:59
Go ahead and put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?
Batocchio said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:03
It’s traditional to appoint someone of the other party to a token cabinet position. Then there was Gingrich, insisting Clinton appoint a Republican Secretary of Defense, as if Republicans would ever do the reverse… not that Clinton’s pick was that bad, but still.
Satan said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:04
How about the Office of Apologizing to the World?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:04
This is central to my point.
norbizness said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:05
The only direct quote in that article is ““Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much.” The second part of the article is “Bill may tell Hillary to quit on Tuesday,” also with no quoted evidence.
The fucking Times of London, people.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:10
The fucking Times of London, people.
What punishment is sufficient to meet the crimes of Rupert Murdoch?
StonyPillow said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:11
TB, the traditional penalty for a treason conviction is hanging. I understand it’s also traditional not to tie together the legs of the condemned, giving rise to the phrase “traitor’s dance”.
Matt T. said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:12
Go ahead and put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better. I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?
Again with this “oh, you Obamaniacs and your cult worship” nonsense. It’s this years “hippy Deaniacs” meme from the group of people who apparently got nothing better to do with their lives than out-cynic everyone around them. Do y’all have a point beyond “Neener neener, your favoritest hero is not actually perfect, pwned”?
Bah. It’s probably all Ralph Nader’s fault.
Jonah said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:14
Is anyone else loving the under-the-radar appearance of “I drank your milkshake!” among blogs, Internet, etc, as the latest entry in the pop culture lexicon? I think I will never get tired of that phrase, and it will have more lasting power than “Show me the money!”
Satan said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:15
The fucking Times of London, people.
Papers can lie? You mean–this isn’t true?!?!
Matt T. said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:18
Is anyone else loving the under-the-radar appearance of “I drank your milkshake!” among blogs, Internet, etc, as the latest entry in the pop culture lexicon?
First I’ve seen it, actually. Does it have anything to do with milkshakes being brought to the yard? ‘Cause, if I understand properly, that’s a big deal, milkshakes being brought to the yard or making people come to the yard or what have you. Do you drink the milkshake after coming to the yard? I’m so confused.
atheist said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:18
Lou-Gherig’s disease would be an appropriate slow demise, with no accelerated morphine drip.
Good Point.
Hattie said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:19
OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize. I mean, why do you think it’s wrong to point that out? Can he win without you?
And in answer to a post upstream: Like most elder women (and men) I’m plenty concerned about the future, not just my own future but that of my kids and grandkids.
First and foremost in my mind is getting out of Iraq.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:20
Satan said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:15
The fucking Times of London, people.
Papers can lie? You mean–this isn’t true?!?!
Papers CAN lie, Satan. See NYT, WaPo, War in Irackeystan. But as to your specific example: It’s totally fucking true.
Batboy is out of control.
otherlisa said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:51
I don’t know how many times as of late I’ve read some variation on this notion: “Don’t listen to what Obama says/does, he doesn’t really mean it, it’s a clever stratagem to get elected, and once he’s in the White House, his true progressive colors will emerge!”
The problem is, there isn’t nearly enough of a record to actually tell us much one way or another.
Why progressives flocked to this guy, I will never understand.
Jennifer said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:54
otherlisa - they flocked to him precisely because there isn’t enough of a record to prove one way or the other.
As oppossed to Clinton, whose triangulating centrism is well known.
There’s at least the chance that Obama will govern further to the left. With Clinton, it’s a known commodity of accomodationist centrism even when it’s not absolutely required.
otherlisa said,
March 2, 2008 at 23:58
Jennifer, I’d feel more comfortable with that theory if not for Obama’s professed positions in this campaign being to the right of Clinton’s. On trade, on economic policy, on health care, and on the environment (his platform has changed to reflect a more sound “green” position but it originally included corn-based ethanol and liquid coal without any of the hedges about these technologies having to be carbon neutral).
Add in the accomodationist rhetoric and co-opting of Republican talking points, and I just feel like we’re all being taken for a ride on the Magical Unity Pony (to borrow from Balloon Juice).
I was supporting Edwards originally, just to tell you where I’m coming from. Switched to Clinton after a lot of study and hesitation. When it comes right down to it, I trust the Wonk over the Preacher.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:08
Jennifer, I’d feel more comfortable with that theory if not for Obama’s professed positions in this campaign being to the right of Clinton’s. On trade, on economic policy, on health care, and on the environment…
I noticed you skipped Obama’s position on “bombing the shit outta the Ay-rabs”, otherlisa.
Could compare and contrast your opinions of Obama and Hillary on this issue?
atheist said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:11
Sure, makes sense. Some smart people voted for Clinton for exactly this reason. Others, like me, thought Obama sounded marginally better than Clinton.
Soon we’ll know which one is the Democratic candidate… why fret about it now?
otherlisa said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:21
Thunderdog (if I might abbreviate), I don’t see much different there, especially with Obama’s ratcheting up the rhetoric as of late (Pakistan, Europe needs to do more in Afghanistan, etc.). Where I worry is the inexperience and the seeming lack of interest in the nuts and bolts of policy and government (no meetings of the Senate subcommittee he chaired, for example).
Atheist, yeah. Not a lot to be done at this point except to let the process play out and see what happens.
I’m a Democrat, and I’ll support the nominee.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:22
OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize. I mean, why do you think it’s wrong to point that out?
Hattie, nobody said he wasn’t. Neither did anyone say you were wrong for pointing it out. Some Guy simply pointed out (with a fair degree of snark) that of course he’s angling for votes from as many demographic groups as possible, and that doing so doesn’t equate to “playing” anyone. It equates to “getting enough votes to win.”
As for all the references to swooning or losing one’s head or whatever over Obama . . .jeez. There’s not a lot of doe-eyed worship going on in this thread. The original post here is, you may have noticed, quite critical of the guy. The closest thing I’m seeing here to what you’re seeing is a lot of leftish types closing ranks around the guy who looks likely to be the nominee of the only party that stands a chance of both a) doing a significantly better job of running the country than the republicans and b) actually beating the republican nominee in November.
For the record: I haven’t swooned over anyone since I met my spouse a couple of decades ago. I was originally an Edwards supporter. When he bailed, I came to favor Obama. If Clinton gets the nomination (which is unlikely but possible) I will absolutely vote for her. I don’t think I’m alone in any of this (well, except maybe for that swooning thing back in the ’80s. Good times, good times.)
otherlisa said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:24
I have to say, this thread (and I’m guessing this site in general) is a rare island of snarky rationality in the perfect primary storm.
Just don’t go to Kos. It’s scary there.
LittlePig said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:25
Yep. The choice is between two triangulators. I think Obama is marginally more likely to ramp down Georgie’s Excellent Mesopotamian Adventure, so that’s who I voted for, but as far as “true progressive”, please. Centrist peas in a pod.
We Love America More Than Anyone. » take no prisoners. said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:34
[...] on obama: I’ll be so depressed if he takes this “bipartisanship” nonsense seriously. Personally speaking, I’d like any Democratic candidate to spend their whole first day in office standing atop the White House roof dressed in pirate garb shouting “NOOOOOOOO PRISONERS!!!!!” at the top of their lungs. I want someone who will appoint Rudy Ray Moore as a Supreme Court justice, who will punish the Keyboard Kommandos by passing a Constitutional amendment banning Cheetos and Funyuns, and who will look into every Republican’s eyes and tell them that he drank their milkshake. HE DRANK IT UP!!! [...]
Joe Max said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:35
A young friend of mine used a good one-liner of that style that seems to be gaining use in California:
“Gimme your lunch money!” (sometimes followed with “Now!”)
mikey said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:45
“…flocking to…”
“…cult of Obama…”
“…wonk over the preacher…”
Sheesh. It’s a game that tastes a lot like a Rove sammich. I guess I should accept that Rovian politics will be part and parcel to the way the game is played forever. I just wish it didn’t need to be so.
Lookit. There are exactly three people in the whole goddam world that have a chance to be president of the united states. You can pick one, or you can sit it out. That’s all. It’s not hard, and the one you DON’T pick doesn’t have to be a criminal, a charlatan or a demon. Just the one you didn’t pick.
McCain is bush/cheney with anger issues.
Clinton is logarithmically better, but her corporatist and authoritarian streaks put me off. She’d be a million million times better than what we’ve got today, but she’s locked into the system.
You can play around with the “experience” thing, like there is any such thing as being experientially prepared for that office, but that’s horsecrap. A president makes decisions based upon his/her ideology and pragmatic considerations. As far as having the experience for the job, hell, I’m as ready or not as any of them.
I believe Obama will make decisions without concerning himself so much with the status quo, what Greenwald calls the “Beltway Elite”, and therefore will act more often with the best interests of the people and the country in mind. If that somehow makes me a pollyanna sucker flocking to a cult, fine, tell Karl I said hi, but there’s only three choices and you gotta pick either one or none…
mikey
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:47
I think Obama should make Jonah Goldberg Secretary of State, and this is central to my point.
gbear said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:47
I once shot a Republican in my pajamas.
How did a Republican get into your pajamas?
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:47
At first I thought this was addressed to Hoosier X and I was confused. Then when I, y’know, actually read it right, all I could think of was Dianne Weist’s great line in Parenthood (paraphrased): “They say they love you, sweetie. Then they come.”
atheist said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:49
How did a Republican get into your pajamas?
I once shot an Elephant in a Church… how I got into a Church I’ll never know.
g said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:53
but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?
Perfectly fine, lady. It would also be way OK if you’d stop with the concern-trolling.
g said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:56
OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize.
god, this is the kind of provocative thing that good concern trolls do. The heavy-handed sarcams.
Yes, you dumbshit, he is angling for the white male vote. Just like he’s angling for all the votes he can get. Just like all the other candidates are.
What the fuck is with you that you think it’s somehow unethical for a candidate for political office to be….you know…trying to appeal to voters?
buzz off, you old bag. And I speak as someone who shares your demographic.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:57
Yeah, g. I coulda said it that pithily, but I’m verbose. *sigh*
Element 5 said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:00
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
This asshole (and if he’s going to do what I think he is, yes, he’s an asshole) is going to open his administration with some fucked-up version of “Our long national nightmare is over…….let’s put the past behind us and look forward”.
That will blow a dozen horse cocks. The only way that we (as a country) can save ourselves from complete, catastrophic failure is if we bring these monsters to justice. Bush and Cheney need to be handed over to the Hague for war crime trials (at the very least!!) and the Justice Department will need to be cleansed of the Regent University scum that it’s been packed with (let’s start by making every “degree” granted by those frauds INVALID). The Defense Department has to be cleared of the roosts that provided for comfortable livings for the neocons that lodged there in the Clinton years. All of this will need to be done over the howls of the GOP and the screams of the media that’s in their pocket, without worrying about whether Rush Limbaugh will approve or not.
Fuck it all. I can only hope that Hillary wins the next round and stays viable (lest this “Can’t we all just get along?” meme become part of the Democratic side of the campaign). I’ve HAD IT with Vichy Dems, I won’t go out of my way to elect one President so that we can *continue* having the living shit kicked out of us by a tiny minority of extreme Right-wing sociopaths!
***
Ira Allen said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:08
Through February 19th, Hillary Clinton has won more votes from Democratic voters than Obama.
Hillary will not be bullied out of this race, especially not while she has more support from real Democrats than Obama.
Hattie said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:09
g said,
March 3, 2008 at 0:56
OK so Obama is not angling for the white male vote. I apologize.
god, this is the kind of provocative thing that good concern trolls do. The heavy-handed sarcams.
Yes, you dumbshit, he is angling for the white male vote. Just like he’s angling for all the votes he can get. Just like all the other candidates are.
What the fuck is with you that you think it’s somehow unethical for a candidate for political office to be….you know…trying to appeal to voters?
buzz off, you old bag. And I speak as someone who shares your demographic.
Now, now. Nurse Ratchitt will bring you your meds and calm you down.
Hattie said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:11
Twit.
pgl said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:12
The anger we have with the GOP leadership is largely in part because the spolied little brats of the Republican Party have highjacked their party. Hagel and Lugar are two of the few grownups with household names. IMHO (as expressed over at Angrybear), Obama is doing the right thing. Heck - he’ll need a cabinet of merits to undo the damage done by 8 years of Bush-Cheney. Let’s also remember - Cabinet members work for the President, not the other way around. President Obama will be setting the agenda - not Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
Arky "I just get these headaches" The Blasphemer said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:14
I heard Sadly, No! is thinking of appointing new bloggers such as Johan LœdedHösen and KLoaded to its stable.
pgl said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:15
“Bush and Cheney need to be handed over to the Hague for war crime trials (at the very least!!) and the Justice Department will need to be cleansed”.
Now I agree with this 100%. Let’s put a real prosecutor in the office of Attorney General. Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald - even if he is registered as a Republican. Let Fitz nail these criminals that now work in the White House. Look - I think Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Ira Allen said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:17
Funny thing about Patrick Fitzgerald
He’s going to lose his job if Obama is elected, because Fitzgerald’s big cases now include the Rezko case and the Daley cases.
mikey said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:23
Ira Allen is living proof that while all Republicans are wankers, not all wankers are Republicans.
Freakin idiot…
mikey
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:23
It’s Ratched, Hattie. Not Ratchitt. Which sounds like rat shit. Which is what Ira Allen keeps ingesting and then regurgitating. Go away, Ira.
TB said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:29
fthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
[ ... ]
What punishment is sufficient to meet the crimes of Rupert Murdoch?
I would say that there is precedent for prosecuting Murdoch they same way that Julius Streicher was prosecuted. Murdoch is, after all, a US citizen.
StonyPillow said,
TB, the traditional penalty for a treason conviction is hanging. I understand it’s also traditional not to tie together the legs of the condemned, giving rise to the phrase “traitor’s dance”.
Naturally … I would say that some, Karl Rover for instance, could be convicted for treason.
And as far as that goes, I say hang him, hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution anchored in Boston Harbor, and leave his carcass there to rot.
Put a brass plaque on the deck under that spot that reads “Ever Thus to Traitors”.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:29
while all Republicans are wankers
Just because I feel like stirring the pot here . . . yesterday I spent a fair amount of time over at Nancy Nall’s blog. She’s the former reporter who broke the Goeglein plagiarism thing that exploded on Friday, and the thread that spilled the beans on old Ted got pretty long. I read the whole thing, and I’ll tell ya, one of the things that impressed me was that if you ignored several of the frothing-at-the-mouth drive-bys from people who’d never heard of her before this week, the dialogue was principled, respectful, thoughtful, and on target. And it was playing out among people of a variety of political leanings, including those who call themselves conservatives. I was heartened by the number of them who espoused traditional conservative principles (fiscal restraint, for example) but expressed absolute disdain for Bushco and all its coattails. Of course, several said they’re pulling the D lever this time around, so they’re not, y’know, those republicans. But still. It was sort of hopeful.
atheist said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:35
I believe Obama will make decisions without concerning himself so much with the status quo, what Greenwald calls the “Beltway Elite”, and therefore will act more often with the best interests of the people and the country in mind. If that somehow makes me a pollyanna sucker flocking to a cult, fine, tell Karl I said hi, but there’s only three choices and you gotta pick either one or none…
Totally, Mikey.
One other thing we progressives need to remember- every single one of the three people who might end up president in 2009 are somewhat separated from our POV. None of them is that great. I think Obama is the best, but we’ll see.
Many of us are political activists of some kind, in relation to some issue or set of issues. Therefore, now is the time for us to read all we can about how Obama, Clinton, and McCain relate to our chosen issues. Rather than focus on the candidates themselves, since none of them will do the right thing without a lot of work on our part, we need to focus on what the situation is with our issue, and how that situation is likely to change in the event of any of the three front-runners winning.
In other words, since we are not in control of the election, we should focus more on the issues that we find important, and less on fighting over one candidate versus another. Not only do we have a better chance of effecting positive change if we focus pushing forward our own goals, but none of the candidates will really do what we need them to- unless we work on them a lot.
So, what we need is to decide what our main issues are- mine, for instance, is trying to prevent a war between the USA and Iran- and how to further them. We need to realize that McCain, Clinton, or Obama could become the next president, and so we need to make contingency plans in the event of any one of them winning the Presidency this year.
So if I am most focussed on keeping the USA and Iran out of a war, then I need to focus on that more than I focus on trying to make one candidate win (my ability to effect the election is limited at best). And, I need to plan out how I will act in the event of an Obama win, a Clinton win, and a McCain win- don’t forget that. Either one of the three could happen. And I think we should include the possiblity of Obama winning but being assassinted, too. After we do that, though, we need to stop worrying about who will win the presidentcy so much, and focus more on our #1 issue or issues.
That’s my take, anyhow, for how to be effective, but not drive ourselves nuts at the same time.
Hattie said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:40
What a love fest.
Twerps.
g said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:41
Now, now. Nurse Ratchitt will bring you your meds and calm you down.
Funny, hattie, I was just going to say that to your cohort, Element 5, who’s getting just a little bit frothy.
You’re another kind of troll. I always marvel at people like you who come to a board they’ve never been to before and proceed to lecture the other posters for their inability to be as morally upright as you.
Is the sour bitter sense of self-righteousness you get really worth it to you?
I’m curious how you’re going to play this one out - are you going to ramp up the flaming, and hang around all night? that’s always amusing, but it can be a thread killer. or are you going to tell us how awful this board is, how intolerant we are, and write a half a dozen posts telling us you’ll never come back here again before you actually kiss off?
akatsuki said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:46
So apparently you just ignored his indications he would reach across the aisle? You thought it was BS? Obama wants to get stuff done, lots of stuff done. He isn’t interested in revenge, and if he does take revenge it will kill his momentum because America mostly just wants to move on, right or wrong. Yes, we are talking almost an amnesty over the past couple of years, because it would take up his entire presidency to try and get revenge, and nothing progressive would be accomplished.
I want universal health care, international relations, and an improved education system. I don’t care about revenge, not when we finally have the chance to get these things. And you just want to throw it all away by tying up the entire system in hearings for the next 8-10 years. This is our chance at a progressive agenda, at taking the slander off the word “liberal”, to take back red states and confine the republicans to be the marginal party they deserve to be. Thing long term subversion versus short term vendetta.
gbear said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:49
I was hoping that Obama would be absolutely everything that I want and need in a president, but it’s starting to look like he might not be. Therefore, I am going to fill my heart with extreme bitterness and make sure than no one of any party ever again steps on my lawn.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:50
Maybe she’ll do both, g. I’ve seen it before.
Anyway, on to Ira, who’s a class-A douche. From Ira’s link, which he seems to think proves that Clinton has won more votes from Democrats than Obama has:
Kinda disproves your “argument” by using your own evidence, dunnit?
gbear said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:52
And that goes for their kids and dogs too. I hate them all for what Obama’s done to me.
Hattie said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:55
Oh I’ve posted plenty here. This thread is not your property, much less the Democratic Party or even the Obama campaign.
a different brad said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:56
Y’know, I’ve been rabidly anti-republican more or less since I developed a political awareness many years past, but this potential move doesn’t upset me.
For one, Obama is positioning himself here, especially for Texas. He’s telling Reagan Dems that they’ll be able to live with him
And he’s supporting the closest thing to sane Republicans we have, which has two benefits. One, it potentially creates a divide in Repubs between the kool-aid drinking true believers and the actual majority of the party who are merely misguided but occasionally rational, tho with McCain’s (undeserved) rep as a RINO that’s going to be a smaller effect.
And, second, it reinforces the position of those moderates after Obama wins, forcing the rest of the party to go through them to get anything done.
There is such a thing as a respectable Republican, and frankly, we’re almost as well served by strengthening their hand as we are by getting someone resembling a progressive in office.
Also, like black people standing behind a Repub candidate, a RINO in a small, mostly meaningless cabinet position would give cover against cries of persecution as the ones who deserve it are lined up and summarily executed.
Revenge is a dish best served cold. Patience, bradrocket. Someone with a clue is almost in office. Give him a chance.
(Does this mean I’m a cult member, then?)
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:58
Well said, akatsuki. I mean, I get the desire for revenge, I really do. But I kinda thought the point of getting a decent president into office was so he or she could start overseeing a good and just and helpful government. That’s a pretty big job. And with just 24 hours in a day, etc. etc., it seems like the revenge thing (if done to the specifications outlined here) would take up most of the time a prez might otherwise spend, oh, I dunno, restoring habeas corpus and civil rights in general, looking out for the welfare of the people . . . that sort of thing.
Smut Clyde said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:59
I wish people would stop reaching across the aisle. They trip me up, and then there’s coke and popcorn everywhere.
g said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:00
Oh I’ve posted plenty here. This thread is not your property,
all right, darling. Be my guest. Show us your all. Is “twerp” a sample of your intellectural discourse?
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:06
Barack Obama is the new Bill Clinton: a highly intelligent person whose sole overriding goal in life is to become President of the United States. In and of itself this isn’t either a good thing or a bad thing, but let’s face it: nobody has a clue what he would do if he were elected.
I happen to think that John McCain will beat him like a rented mule if the two of them match up, and that’s a major disaster for America (in my opinion, McCain is GeeDubyuh with lots of added PTSD). I don’t know what the answer to that is, though. Guess, as usual, we’re pretty much fucked,
a different brad said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:10
Wow, lots of concern trolls and misguided souls here tonight, eh?
Lakeesha- mark your Hillary talking point emails as spam and you’ll suddenly see Obama in a whole new light; reality.
Ira/saul/kev - Yep, Fitz is gone with the new Admin. Cuz they replace all the folks in his position when a new Admin comes in. Either you weren’t payin much attention, or you were hopin the rest of us weren’t.
Now hurry up and reduce yourself to racism so it’s proper to pielist you.
Hattie- are you Ilyka’s Mom, by any chance?
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:12
a different brad,
no, my problem is I’m not a Dem - I don’t support Hillary either. I have no great confidence that she could beat McCain.
gbear said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:12
I happen to think that John McCain will beat him like a rented mule if the two of them match up
That’s a good visual image of the level at which the republican party will come after Obama, but I think the mule just might wind up owning all the property in the county before November.
kenga said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:13
I think you’re right. Although, I’d add that having prominent Republicans in his administration will help keep the housecleaning mentioned just above by diff brad and mortician from being easily characterized as “revenge”.
To my mind, that is going to be critical to actually accomplishing the things many of us would like to see the next POTUS bring about.
conumbdrum said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:13
Um… fact is, Obama and Lugar have worked together on legislation several times, with good results. Here’s an example (courtesy of Obsidian Wings):
********
Here Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). How did this happen? Here’s the Washington Monthly:
By most accounts, Obama and Lugar’s working relationship began with nukes. On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as “nonproliferation” is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as “exchange-rate policy” or “export-import bank oversight.”
The way to a wonk’s heart: campaign on securing Russian loose nukes. — In any case, in addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:
“These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That’s why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.
Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.
One part of our initiative would strengthen and energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight antiaircraft missiles and other conventional weapons, a program that has for years been woefully underfunded. There may be as many as 750,000 missiles, known formally as man-portable air defense systems, in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. Three years ago terrorists fired missiles at — and missed — a jetliner full of Israeli tourists taking off from Mombasa, Kenya. In 2003 a civilian cargo plane taking off from Baghdad was struck but landed safely.
Loose stocks of small arms and other weapons also help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and, as we have seen repeatedly, provide ammunition for those who attack peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize and rebuild war-torn societies. The Lugar-Obama measure would also seek to get rid of artillery shells like those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly to U.S. forces in Iraq.
Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and millions of tons of excess weapons and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient leadership have hampered destruction. Our legislation would require the administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, consolidating scattered programs at the State Department into a single Office of Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction. It also calls for a fivefold increase in spending in this area, to $25 million — a relatively modest sum that would offer large benefits to U.S. security.
The other part of the legislation would strengthen the ability of America’s friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. Stopping weapons of mass destruction in transit is an important complement to our first line of defense, the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons of mass destruction at their source.”
Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone’s hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart — it seems to me that this is an excellent thing to spend one’s time on.
*******
One more point: it’s assholes like Rush Limbaugh who rumble that any Republican who works with a Democrat on ANYTHING needs to be “punished.” Let’s not lower ourselves to his level. If Obama can appoint Republicans to cabinet positions and get good results like the legislation above… well that’s only more evidence that Democrats are far more suited to govern than Repubs.
Jennifer said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:14
The hyper-partisans just can’t resist showing up and flinging poo, can they?
As someone upthread said, I think pretty much everyone here is on board with voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. At this point, all any of you frothers are accomplishing is supplying ammo to the Republicans. I’ve already voted in the primary and probably so have at least half of the other people here. We find your bullshit utterly boring.
cokane said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:20
I think some of you are being awfully narrow minded in this discussion. As someone in Ohio, I’m going to vote for Obama. And I’m not voting to make a president who will act out my sadistic fantasies. Clinton is not a true progressive imo. Her husband brought us NAFTA and neoconservatism. And while there were some good things (balanced budget, SCHIP) the “experience” I’ve had with Clinton presidencies has left a bad taste in my mouth. Furthermore, a Clinton/McCain campaign will be another presidential race where Vietnam is one of the top issues and I’m so damn sick of that…
In my opinion Obama is like teflon. None of the smears will really stick to him, and he won’t get angry or unlikeable in public. The attacks on him will see mean and crude and the American people are ready for a new kind of campaign. With him as the candidate the Republicans will implode on the campaign trail and expose themselves as the racists and bigots that they are. Sure the “Muslim” and black smears will work on the true believers, but their votes were never up for grabs.
An Obama campaign will cause Democrats to win more Senate and House seats than a Clinton campaign would. And being in Ohio, let me tell you around Cincinnati we almost unseated 2 of our 3 Republican house reps in ‘06. An Obama ticket gives the Dems a good shot at both. I’m sure this is true in other parts of the country as well. Obama is from the midwest and did community work there. He knows what’s wrong in one of the most hurt parts of the country (Ohio and Michigan have some of the highest unemployment in the USA). And some of you guys don’t realize that this is real shit, that needs real solutions. Punishing Bush and Cheney isn’t going to help anybody. Fuck those guys.
Ultimately you will get a progressive agenda for the country by having
1. A democrat as president.
2. A majority of House of Reps as Dems.
3. 60 or more Dem Senators (or as close as possible)
Whether Chuck Hagel is Sec Def or not will not effect a progressive agenda much at all. What you want is a progressive prez, and a largely progressive legislature. We are more likely to get these things under Obama than Clinton, even if he appoints some R’s to key spots. And strategically, this isn’t a bad idea. You guys need to listen to some Republican talk radio or blogs once in awhile. Most of the Limbaugh-Kristol wingnuts hate these moderate Republicans, and it would be a great idea to drive a wedge between the RINOs and the wingnuts.
kenga said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:22
Noted.
I disagree - I think McCain has a better chance of winning against Clinton, because I believe Republican turnout will be higher than against Obama and Democratic-voting turnout would be lighter. I think Obama has both a better chance of winning, AND an Obama win will produce more Democratic seats in both houses of Congress than a Clinton win. And various state legislatures, county governments, school boards, etc.
I also think, based on turnout in primaries and caucuses thus far, that my view has more empirical support.
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:27
kenga,
you’ve crunched some numbers and I hope you’re right. I’m not a fan of either Clinton or Obama, but they’re both light-years better than McCain.
mikey said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:33
At the risk of repeating myself, as I’ve said before (I guess I AM repeating myself after all), the ‘08 Presidential election is nothing more or less than a referendum on the bush/cheney policies.
As such, the only REAL chance McCain ever had was to entirely divorce himself from bush/cheney - that is, to recognize that he was running against THEM every bit as much as he was running against the dems. Instead, he divorced himself from Don Rumsfeld.
Either democrat nominated, barring some historic faux pas, will cruise to a substantial victory in November. McCain will have a very hard time taking 40% of the popular vote. This wave will also wash over the congressional elections.
The danger for the winners will be to notice that after the ‘06 midterms, when the dems repeatedly rolled over and played nice, their approvals plummeted. These people are NOT throwing their support to the dems because what they want is more of the same.
Woe betide any elected dem who doesn’t understand the mandate under which he or she was elected…
mikey
mikey said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:34
Yep.
That’s right.
I used the phrase “woe betide”.
Got a problem with that?
I’m old. It’s something we’ll just have to live with….
mikey
chopped liver said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:37
I’d just like to step in and offer my sympathies to all of you who haven’t garnered any responses to your comments this evening. I personally thank you for your contributions, and hope you will continue trying.
Jennifer said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:40
I could live with the idea of neither Bush nor Cheney dying in prison if we can at least convene some fact-finding inquiries into their many, many crimes and publicize them widely.
The reason these fucktards keep repeating on us is because they are never unmasked and never punished. I’ll live without punishing them, but if we don’t unmask them, they’ll be back every election. And, don’t be naive…they will try to make the tenure of any Democratic president a replay of the Clinton years. One way to shut that shit down is to embark on an endless round of investigations into their real crimes, so as to keep them on defense so they don’t have the time or standing to invent fake crimes for endlessly harassing the Democratic president. If it costs the Reichtards nothing, not even reputation or voters, to break the law whenever they gain power, there is no disincentive to doing it every time they gain power…which is essentially what we’ve been seeing for the past 30 years. They push the illegality a bit further with every new administration, because there’s no cost for doing it.
Dhalgren said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:40
Obama isn’t interested in revenge. But had better be interested in supporting retro-active investigations of the Bush administration said. As Kerry said in 2004, we don’t know how many uncovered scandals there are in that White House. We might be investigating Bush for a decade. Seriously.
Jennifer said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:47
You know, my kinkiest fantasy involves Nancy Pelosi stepping forward once the new Democratic president has been sworn in, and saying that the only reason she had ever put impeachment “off the table” was to keep Bush from issuing a bunch of pardons, and that now that he’s out of office, criminal investigations were being convened.
Like I said, fantasy. Kinky.
a different brad said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:48
Well, Lakeesha, I guess I can only respond by sounding like a cultist.
Obama is playing a whole different game than Hillary and McCain, and that’s why he’s going to cream McCain, tho Iraq will get all the credit. McCain is Bob Dole II, a a sacrificial lamb. He won’t be as passive in his demise, but the same ending is coming. McCain is, no matter his positioning in his party, the establishment candidate, the pro war, more of the same guy. Obama is change, he owns that word this election. Obama is appealing to our better selves, saying we can be more than this. That’s how a progressive goes on the offensive, and that’s why I’m willing to sip his kool-aid now and then. He was against invading Iraq, and he’s actively not affiliated with the DLC. Maybe Hillary’s health plan is better, maybe Obama’s is more realistic, I’m not that wonky on the topic so I won’t claim to know. But Obama is doing what I’ve been wishing a Dem would do my entire life, and it’s succeeding spectacularly. That means he’s going to be emulated, and that the Dems are on the cusp of something big.
Yeah, I’m going all fanboy, but shit. Obama is the best political development of my lifetime. I don’t want him to be perfect, because that means he’s real.
Rightwingsnarkle said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:49
“I say hang him (Rove), hang him from the highest yardarm of the USS Constitution…”
Awesome. And we’ll make Mr. Bush clean up the seagull shit that falls on deck as they peck away at Karl’s stinking remains.
kenga said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:50
Lakeesha - “crunching” would be an overly generous description.
It occurs to me that in all the primary contests so far, the thing I have been consistently most interested in is turnout - party v. party in particular, and the breakdown demographically after that. If the Democratic voters(and I’m assuming some statistically significant percentage of voters in the Democratic primaries will -never- vote D in the actual election) turn out at the same rates as they have for the primaries, the Republican nominee is going lose embarrassingly.
If she’s the (D) nominee, I’ll happily vote Clinton, I believe she could be a very effective President - and let’s face it, anything that genuinely resembles competence will feel like an epiphany after what’shisname. She is more than simply competent.
I’m not a Goldwater-gal-guy, though.
I can’t say I’m an Obama fan(fan-atic) either, though I’ve come to respect him more as I’ve learned more about him. I don’t think he’s a “lightweight” - but, even if he is, he’s certainly proved with his cooperation with Lugar that he pays attention to serious shit, the the likes of which aren’t popular, sexy or photogenic. Just really really serious.
And, as I said earlier, I think his potential coat-tails are nothing short of astonishing. That embarrassing loss I mentioned up top - spread that across federal, state, county and municipal levels of government. I mean, if we want a progressive shift in this country, we’re gonna have to do that anyway, maybe block-by-block. If we can do that this year? How can we not try to run the table?
Righteous Bubba said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:53
I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, of course. but is it OK if I don’t lose my head over the guy?
Why yes.
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:54
a different brad,
That’s cool - I’m not busting on your choice. Hell, I’m a Socialist and I know I’m going to be thanksralphed into the next century, regardless of what happens.
Max Renn said,
March 3, 2008 at 2:56
Smiling Mortician said,
March 3, 2008 at 1:29
while all Republicans are wankers
Just because I feel like stirring the pot here . . . yesterday I spent a fair amount of time over at Nancy Nall’s blog. She’s the former reporter who broke the Goeglein plagiarism thing that exploded on Friday, and the thread that spilled the beans on old Ted got pretty long. I read the whole thing, and I’ll tell ya, one of the things that impressed me was that if you ignored several of the frothing-at-the-mouth drive-bys from people who’d never heard of her before this week, the dialogue was principled, respectful, thoughtful, and on target. And it was playing out among people of a variety of political leanings, including those who call themselves conservatives. I was heartened by the number of them who espoused traditional conservative principles (fiscal restraint, for example) but expressed absolute disdain for Bushco and all its coattails. Of course, several said they’re pulling the D lever this time around, so they’re not, y’know, those republicans. But still. It was sort of hopeful.
Quite right, SM. That Danny fellow and Jeff (the good Jeff who’s a minister and a regular on NN’s blog, not the weirdo freeper who could barely spell, and certainly could not type) gave me more than a little hope that there is some ballast and heft on the right side.
Also, folks, this is a pure Pickelene article. It is AP Solomon style. Nedra and Gene would be thrilled to hang with Ms. Sarah Baxter. Nothing in Baxter’s piece is well-sourced. No where does she offer from the Obama campaign any more than bro