Saturday miscellany
There's a run-off House election in Louisiana today. Hopefully the incumbent William Jefferson (D-he of the icebox loot fame) will be defeated by State Rep. Karen Carter (D-not known to store bribes in the freezer).
Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment yesterday. *blink* How did I miss that? I almost hope it doesn't go anywhere... not because Bush doesn't deserve impeachment and removal a hundred times over, but because I don't think it's a good tactical move yet.
The religious right has just caught on that Mitt Romney has a history of being triangle-friendly, which everyone else knew. How does a Mormon Republican get elected governor of Massachusetts, anyway? By donning a gloss - a shellac, if you will - of social progressiveness, duh. (So that's what's up with his hair.) Now that he's running for President, he's tacking the other way. Which, I know, politicians do all the time. But fundamental values like human rights and fairness aren't subject to triangulation, Mitt. It's gonna be fun watching him lose.
The House has passed a free trade agreement with Vietnam. I'm sure their reasons for passing this bill are aaaaall about opening markets to American-made products. *snorts*
Finally, at Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi parses the Iraq Study Group in his own inimitable way:
It's important, when you nominate your panel, to dig up the oldest, saggiest, rubberiest, most used-up political whores on the Eastern seaboard to take up your cause. That way, you can be sure that the panel will know its place and not address any extraneous issues in its inquiry -- like, for instance, whose fault a certain war is, or whether the whole idea of a "War on Terrorism" needs to be rethought, or whether the idea of preemptive defense as a general strategy is viable at all, or whether previously unthinkable solutions may now have to be countenanced, or whether there is anyone currently in a position of responsibility who perhaps should immediately be removed from office and hung by his balls.
...We may soon have to face this fact: With the midterm elections over, and George Bush already a lame duck, the Iraq war is no longer an urgent problem to anyone on the Hill who matters. The Democrats are in no hurry to end things because it will benefit them if Iraq is still a mess in '08; just as they did this fall, they'll bitch about the war without explicitly promising to end it at any particular time. George Bush has already run his last campaign and he's not about to voluntarily fuck up his legacy with a premature surrender or a humiliating concession to Syria or Iran.
I'd say Bush's legacy is already irrevocably fucked up, but I'm afraid Taibbi's right about the rest.
Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment yesterday. *blink* How did I miss that? I almost hope it doesn't go anywhere... not because Bush doesn't deserve impeachment and removal a hundred times over, but because I don't think it's a good tactical move yet.
The religious right has just caught on that Mitt Romney has a history of being triangle-friendly, which everyone else knew. How does a Mormon Republican get elected governor of Massachusetts, anyway? By donning a gloss - a shellac, if you will - of social progressiveness, duh. (So that's what's up with his hair.) Now that he's running for President, he's tacking the other way. Which, I know, politicians do all the time. But fundamental values like human rights and fairness aren't subject to triangulation, Mitt. It's gonna be fun watching him lose.
The House has passed a free trade agreement with Vietnam. I'm sure their reasons for passing this bill are aaaaall about opening markets to American-made products. *snorts*
Finally, at Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi parses the Iraq Study Group in his own inimitable way:
It's important, when you nominate your panel, to dig up the oldest, saggiest, rubberiest, most used-up political whores on the Eastern seaboard to take up your cause. That way, you can be sure that the panel will know its place and not address any extraneous issues in its inquiry -- like, for instance, whose fault a certain war is, or whether the whole idea of a "War on Terrorism" needs to be rethought, or whether the idea of preemptive defense as a general strategy is viable at all, or whether previously unthinkable solutions may now have to be countenanced, or whether there is anyone currently in a position of responsibility who perhaps should immediately be removed from office and hung by his balls.
...We may soon have to face this fact: With the midterm elections over, and George Bush already a lame duck, the Iraq war is no longer an urgent problem to anyone on the Hill who matters. The Democrats are in no hurry to end things because it will benefit them if Iraq is still a mess in '08; just as they did this fall, they'll bitch about the war without explicitly promising to end it at any particular time. George Bush has already run his last campaign and he's not about to voluntarily fuck up his legacy with a premature surrender or a humiliating concession to Syria or Iran.
I'd say Bush's legacy is already irrevocably fucked up, but I'm afraid Taibbi's right about the rest.