I Don't Like You Either.

Dr. Laura Blames Spitzer's Wife

Watch Dr. Laura Schlessinger claim that Spitzer's use of prostitutes was all down to his wife's failure to "make him feel like a man"....  What does a man feel like, I wonder, in Dr. Laura's world?   Based on what I've read and heard about her views on men and what they want, she knows some very different ones from the ones I know.  I wouldn't want my husband to be---or feel---like one of those. 

As my friend from Minnesota used to say, "Oh for STUPID."

In the meantime, some source who spoke to The New York Post alleges that Spitzer has had a hooker problem for, like, SIX YEARS.   I'd say his wife clearly has a problem, though not the one Dr. Laura is focusing on.

In both instances, consider the sources.

Dances With Shrubs; He's a Victim Too!

These photographs of W dancing in the Rose Garden with his Senegalese guests drew cries of disgust, alarm, and cruel mockery from Wonkette (well, natch) and Shakesville (where the photos are posted), but to me, they show what is best and most endearing about W.   I look at them and I think, "If only..."

Suppose his comparatively articulate brother, former Florida governor Jeb, had become president instead of W----which you KNOW is what everyone really secretly expected.   Suppose Gore had been defeated in 2000 (okay; sorry)   Suppose Jeb had won in 2000.  Free of Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney,  wouldn't W have been the amiable, wise-cracking, Senegalese-dancing Billy-Carter-like sibling to Jeb's more earnest Jimmy?  And wouldn't we all have secretly enjoyed his deadpan jokes, garbled utterances, and frat-boy reputation? 

God---or rather "Chang" or "Chiang"---only knows what Jeb would have done differently if he'd had a go first, but whatever, it could hardly have been worse.  So then mightn't W been the comic relief?  And we'd all have said, "If only it had been W instead of Jeb, things would be very different now!  W's a uniter, not a divider or decider, you know!"   

These are idle dreams, of course. Except for the part about Jeb having a go first.   That could still happen, people.  Be afraid.

I couldn't find the Senegal thing at YouTube, but I found this footage from Brazil.  Maybe someone will upload the Senegal one.

Ready for your mood swing?  Let's glide gently downward into melancholy, as we listen to Laura Bush's description of the white man's burden.

Laura Bush would have you know:  No one suffers more over the loss of life in Iraq than W.  You can see the videotape and read some trenchant commentary at Americablog.  Laura B. talks about "the burden of worry" on Bush's shoulders.  He suffers all the time, even as he dances in the Rose Garden! And Laura suffers too!  For additional commentary, check out Gun Toting Liberal:  "Laura Bush Takes the Biscuit."   

I ain't young enough to get all worked up about this piece of hyperbole, but the above-linked blog is suitably trenchant.  (Not that the Junior League Republican wives who were watching and nodding along are reading any of it, but it's good we Dems have a place to get this stuff off our chests).

Quote of the Day for 23 March 2007! Iraq: "Safe as Detroit or Harvey, Illinois."

People in Detroit or Harvey, Illinois were probably not too cheered up by hearing a Republican state representative, Representative Tim Walberg, say on television that Iraq was no more dangerous than Detroit.  But before they rush to judgment, they need to consider the context:  he didn't mean the statement as a slur against Detroit; he meant it as a compliment to Iraq. 

[quote begins from AP article posted at Ann Arbor News]

Program host Jack Ebling remarked, "I've never heard Iraq compared to Detroit before.''

Walberg responded: "Well, in fact, in many places it's as safe and cared for as Detroit or Harvey, Illinois, or some other places that have trouble with armed violence that takes place on occasion.''

Detroit and Chicago had higher rates of murder, assault, robbery, burglary and car theft than the nation as a whole in 2005, according to FBI statistics.

"It's absurd to compare Detroit and Iraq in any way,'' James Canning, spokesman for Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, said Wednesday.

You might wonder where Walberg gets his evidence for his statement. 

[quote begins from AP article posted at Ann Arbor News]

Walberg spokesman Matt Lahr said in a statement that the congressman "frequently shares sentiments expressed to him by the soldiers and veterans he meets at Walter Reed hospital or the (Veterans Affairs) hospital in Battle Creek.

"These soldiers have expressed optimism to the congressman about the safety and security of the majority of Iraq.''

[quote]

Gringrich Says Personal Lives of Candidates Shouldn't be an Issue in 2008.

Yet another glorious piece of political irony from the Republicans:  First, Gingrich recently admitted that he was having an affair during the time he was bravely hounding Bill Clinton over the Lewinski scandal and helping to pave the way for impeachment.

Now that he's considering making a run for the presidency himself, he suggests that the personal lives of candidates shouldn't be an issue in 2008.

[quote begins from NewsChannel 5 in Nashville]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in Nashville that the personal lives of White House hopefuls shouldn't become an issue in the 2008 campaign.

Earlier this month Gingrich said he was seeking forgiveness for his own extramarital affair committed while he pursued President Clinton's impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

[quote ends]

Newt, Newt, Newt.   I couldn't agree more; and I'm the first to say we should let bygones be bygones.  I couldn't care less about your little indiscretion; it's none of my business (which was basically my position on the Lewinski scandal).  And you haven't proved to be substantially more hypocritical than the other Republicans who seemed determine to spend whatever time and resources were necessary to punish Clinton for lying about Monica. 

So, all together now:   WE FORGIVE YOU, NEWT!!

There now.  Whew!   I feel much better about the whole Clinton impeachment debacle. 

More from Glenn Greenwald at Salon: On the President's Noble Stand on Executive Privilege.

  Those who enjoy seeing a political irony come home to roost (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I don't have all day here), will also enjoy this opinion piece by Salon's Glenn Greenwald, "The president's oh-so-noble-reliance on executive privilege."  The irony, or beauty, part lies in his reminiscences of presidents past, such as President Bill Clinton, and especially (because these are choice) his excerpts from Tony Snow and other Republicans and conservatives during those Glory Years in the history of political discourse.

What a difference a little shift in power makes, eh?  Though as I said, I think the Democrats ought to tread carefully here, for exactly that reason.

"More Safety than we can afford."

CHERTOFF:  "MORE SAFETY THAN WE CAN AFFORD."  After all, the present Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, has come right out and said that the U.S. can't afford to protect "all targets."

At a hearing before a Senate Committee, he explained that we don't have the resources to take all the security measures some members of Congress think we should be taking.  His argument ought to make you go, "hmmm" if not "huh?"  According to him, Osama bin Laden want us to bankrupt ourselves trying to buy ourselves a little security and if we spend too much money doing that, we'd only be playing into his hands.

This is what he said at a Senate hearing, according to this New York Times article by Eric Lipton, U.S. Can't Protect All Targets, Chertoff Says.

[first quote from the article begins]

Osama bin Laden, Mr. Chertoff said, has made it clear that scaring the United States into an unsustainable spending spree is one of his aims. In a 2004 video, Mr. bin Laden, the Qaeda leader, spoke of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

“He understood that one tool he had in waging war against the United States was to drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend ourselves against every conceivable threat,” Mr. Chertoff said at a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “We have to be realistic about what we expect and what we do. We do have limits, and we do have choices to make.”

[quote ends]

So let me get this straight:  we can't afford too devote too much money on national security because by doing that we are playing into the terrorists' hands?   Getting us to spend the money is all part of their evil plan?

I read this article at the HBO website for Real Time with Bill Maher last night and woke up thinking about it.  It's actually pretty unnerving. 

[quote from New York Times article begins]

But the list of initiatives cannot be limitless, Mr. Chertoff said. A mandate, for example, that every cargo container headed into the United States be X-rayed and subject to a radiation scan before it leaves a foreign port to search for a possible nuclear bomb is not now feasible, he said.

Was the [London] Terrorist Plot a Sham?

In my "Reality Bites" section:  I'm sorry; I just can't take these conspiracy theories seriously.  And yet they're being introduced in all earnestness (I think) by people I respect. Will this be another "Joe Lieberman" issue for me?  Will I turn out to be wrong AGAIN?  Are the Huff Post bloggers right?

I sincerely hope so.  But I still think:  nope.  Read these Salon articles, conspiracy theorists!  Such a plot, however advanced, is all too probable.

And I think that the Bush Administration is beginning to reap the rewards of years and years of scare tactics:  terror fatigue.  People have reached the point where they are all "Whatever; we can't do anything about it and we aren't at all confident that you can either." 

Which is really bad news for the GOP and for the nation.

JUMP TO MY NOTE HERE.

Read All About it! "Amazing" "Revelations"!

 

  Did the mainstream press get it wrong then or are they wrong now?  Whose side are they on, anyway?  Which way is the wind blowing?

 

            

I’ve been furious with the press for a long time.  But I am particularly angered by the current frenzy of fury at President Bush---not because I don't think he deserves a time out, but because I happen to think that the press have played a key role in enabling exactly the sort of policies and practices for which they are now pillorying the Administration.  It makes me crazy to see them all, "The scales have fallen from our eyes!" and turning on Bush like a pack of dogs when the lead dog is down.  “If they finally got with the program, don’t crap on them,” one of my progressive friends said to me brusquely. “Be glad they finally did.  It's high time.”  But I don't see it that way.  If what they are now saying reflects the facts, and if they are indeed getting it all right for the first time, I think the members of the mainstream press has failed in their way as outstandingly as they are now claiming that Bush has failed in his.   

 

During an interview with Anderson Cooper during Real Time, Bill Maher (my personal hero) noted that Katrina seems to have given us back our press. Anderson Cooper seemed miffed by the remark; I was miffed too, for different reasons. If Katrina has given us back the press, where has it been in the interim? What sort of courage does it take to suddenly become bold in attacking an Administration in the face of declining public approval?