For the umpteenth time since he became a shock-show host, Rush Limbaugh is blaming liberals for something that most people would consider to be only slightly related to politics. Yesterday, during his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a recent study on the growing obesity problem in America, Limbaugh suggested that liberals were partly to blame for the national epidemic.
has the transcript:
LIMBAUGH: I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government.Food stamps, all those -- you know, I'm gonnatell you people a story. I -- just, well, the government, you could say, is killing these peoplebecause we know obesity kills, and the government's killing the poor. The Bushadministration is killing the poor with too much food.
What Limbaugh chose not to mention was the fact that the study ranked each state. The locations where obesity numbers were the worst are red states. In Mississippi, the fattest city, . This is obviously not a laughing matter. The point is that Rush Limbaugh would never blame Republican politicians or registered Republican voters for anything -- so this was completely expected.
I never thought that he could pull it off. But once again, Rumsfeld outperformed himself. One day after suggesting that the U.S. media was , the Defense Secretary went on a angry tirade, of the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers during World War II:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the worldfaces "a new type of fascism" and likened critics of the Bushadministration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazisin the 1930s.
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed theadministration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectualconfusion" about what threatens the nation's security. His remarksamounted to one of his most pointed defenses of President Bush' warpolicies and was among his toughest attacks on Bush's critics.
If you want to talk about intellectual confusion, then look no further than the cause and effect of our current geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. Day by day, we are implementing a self-defeating doctrine that bogs down our military and weakens our national security for future generations of taxpaying Americans. We are learning first hand what happens when you implement a foreign policy strategy that is based on black and white idealism -- completely contrary to the realism that has driven the international system ever since the end of the Cold War.
Rumsfeld has no idea how to effectively fight terrorism. He lacks the open-mindedness to understand that in a multi-polar system (meaning more than one or two superpowers) you need strong alliances, and you depend on those alliances by working in their framework to corner rogue states and destroy terrorist cells that threaten infrastructure throughout the world. It might not be shock and awe entertainment, but it keeps the peace. You don't over-stretch your military, you don't unilaterally attack countries that don't pose a threat and you don't invoke policies that in the long run increase terrorist recruitment.
Donald Rumsfeld, like a broken record, has illustrated to us over and over why he is intellectually incapable of understanding the complexities in 21st century international politics. -------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about Donald Rumsfeld: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Now that Joe Lieberman has officially abandoned all of the Connecticut voters that showed up to cast their ballots in the dead of summer, he can venture outside the party for support. Late yesterday, two-time Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp (1976,1996) announced that he will campaign with Mr. Lieberman.
The Senator from Connecticut accepted Kemp's offer, while on anyone that questioned the decision:
"I think if anyone complains about Jack Kemp coming in on my behalf, itjust shows that they're still blinded by the old partisan politics," hesaid.
On the contrary, Ned Lamont supporters would do anything but complain. In fact, this all positive. Getting a pro-war gunslinger like Jack Kemp on his side, who in 1996 accused Bill Clinton of waging a campaign "," only affirms Lieberman's inability to stand up to President Bush and the big donor Republican establishment. If anything, Lieberman's Republican friends are a net plus for Lamont, as many political strategists would agree.
Although Lieberman gained the support of Kemp, he lost the backing of Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii). issued a statement:
"After the primary, Senator Inouye was mostdisappointed and unhappy when Senator Lieberman remarked that theDemocratic Party no longer represented the mainstream of America, andthat the Democratic Party had lost its values," the eight-term Hawaiisenator said in the statement.
Not even Inouye, one of Lieberman's most steadfast supporters, could continue to support the Connecticut Senator's direction.
Here is your Wednesday morning roundup of the other campaign news regarding the Connecticut Senate race:
The latest puts Lieberman ten points ahead of Lamont, 49.4% to 39.4%. However, an that came out a few days ago shows the race much tighter. In that one, Lieberman only holds a 44% to 42% lead over Lamont. We still have more than two months to go.
The Service Employees International Union () has announced that they are endorsing Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race. They argued that . This certainly falsifies the by many in the traditional media that Lieberman has the complete support of unions.
According to the anti-Fox News blog , as Jack Kemp was given uninterrupted time to campaign for Joe Lieberman on Neil Cavuto's show yesterday, Fox News introduced a graphic that said "Grand Old Party for Joe." Now there's something that Fox got right!
The Ned Lamont strategy of trusting the grassroots is paying off for Democratic Congressional candidate Donna Edwards, who is trying to unseat pro-war Democrat Al Wynn. is calling her "Maryland's Ned Lamont."
The Lieberman Campaign released their of this entire election season (and yes, it tops their from a few weeks back). Hey, they can waste their money if they want to. So no complaints as far as I'm concerned.
-------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about the Connecticut Senate Race: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Today, the news that the White House is being subpoenaed in a suit brought by hundreds of plaintiffs hit the blogosphere like a tidal wave (or, due to the sensitivity of the anniversary of hurricane Katrina, maybe the phrase "like a bullet" is more appropriate!).
The blog , which has obtained a targeting the Administration, is reporting that subpoenas are on their way to the White House in an effort to find out the details of President Bush's warrantless domestic wiretap program. The lawsuit also seeks to determine whether phone companies violated the by handing over customer information to the government.
And as the adds, more importantly, this will hopefully shed some light on when Bush's secret warrantless domestic wiretap program began. In other words, did the monitoring start even before September 11, 2001?:
The lawyers said they suspected the administration had begunobtaining the records even before the Sept. 11 attacks, which, if true,would raise questions about whether the program was initiated to combatterrorism.
"We want to find out when they started going after these records. Wewant to find out who authorized it. Was it Dick Cheney? Was it someoneelse? And, frankly, we want to find out if they were using itimproperly," Mayer said.
Keep in mind that the Patriot Act was actually all . I wouldn't be surprised if this warrantless domestic wiretap program had the same pattern of origination. Remember, ever since he was sworn in as Vice President, one of Dick Cheney's goals has been to that he felt had declined after the Watergate scandal.
If the newspaper and ABC News are right in their reporting, then this says a whole lot about the Administration's reversal of policy towards terrorists. ABC News' had an entry today about a story that appeared in Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper, about the real reason why the Fox News reporters were released from their Gaza captors.
Originally, the traditional media reported that the reporters made an agreement with their captors to convert to Islam, which led to their release. But as writes, the Bush Administration negotiated with the terrorist group in Gaza. Soon after, the Fox News employees were released:
The paper quotes "informed sources close to the mediations" assaying that the U.S. secretly negotiated with the group through leadersof "the Palestinian popular resistance committees."
Last week, the previously unknown group calling itself "The HolyJihad Brigades" issued a statement demanding the release of all Muslimsheld in U.S. prisons in return for the release of the two journalists.In fact, the paper reports that the public demand was not serious andthat the group's "real demands" were that the U.S. press Israel toreopen the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Palestine and ceasethe shelling of "Palestinian activists'" residences.
According to the report, the mediators contacted a representative ofa European country who in turn contacted U.S. and British diplomats. The paper's sources said in the report that members of a senior FBIdelegation, who had arrived in the area a few days earlier, were alsoinvolved in the negotiations.
The announcement that the two journalists had converted to Islam asa reason for their release was only a camouflage to conceal the factthat the U.S. had agreed to the hostage-takers' demands, according tothe sources cited in the article. A few days ago the Rafah crossing wasreopened for a few hours daily, and the Israeli forces stopped shellingresidences of activists in the past few days, noted the paper'ssources.
When asked for a response by ABCNews.com, a State Departmentspokesperson refused to comment on the report in al Hayat. Thedepartment's stated policy has been that the United States does notnegotiate with terrorists.
First of all, this is what you call foreign policy realism. We had trained diplomats, not Bush Administration rhetoric, controlling the talks to ensure the release of the reporters. In other words, hardly anyone would object to back-channel negotiations with this group if it meant that, one, the reporters could go free, and two, it would not endanger our national security in any way.
But what I find intriguing is why the Administration let these secret negotiations take place. If it went public that the White House negotiated with terrorists, then the Administration would look bad heading into November. It would go against to never under any circumstance engage in dialogue with the enemy. What this event proves is that sometimes engagement is much more effective in achieving an objective than polarized idealism.
Lastly, we know that if this sequence of events happened while Clinton was in office, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the entire right-wing noise machine would be calling him a traitor -- even though that in situations like this one, engagement can save lives.
The earmark bandit has still not been caught yet. I am referring to that anonymous member of the Senate who blocked legislation that would that lists the name of each entity that receives appropriations. With the bill now in jeopardy because of that unnamed Senator, one can only guess who that sneaky person was.
If I were in Vegas right now, I would bet my life savings on the likelihood that Ted Stevens had something to do with it.
The current problem stems from the fact that while we know earmarks exist, they all happen under the radar screen. For example, nearly half of the recent $286 million highway bill that was signed into law by President Bush will now apparently go towards . Unfortunately, this new interstate will shadow the path of another freeway that already exists. Unfortunately, we never had a database that showed the public what the bill contained before it passed, so now any debate about Interstate 69 is moot.
Please and tell them to get this database bill passed because pork like the kind in the latest transportation bill is adding to our National Debt, which is nothing more than a birth tax on future generations. ------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , .
Remember back to 2004. President Bush and Dick Cheney that the Democrats favored a pre-9/11 mindset. In other words, the perception was that the Democrats were the party of the past, and the Republicans were the party embracing the 21st century security climate.
Possible 2008 Democratic hopeful Mark Warner is completely turning the tables. During , he classified the Bush doctrine of first-strike without diplomacy as a "19th century mindset":
In Sioux City, Monday night, the democrat told members of the Truman Club politics is about the future versus the past.
On the subject of Iraq, Warner says the Bush administration's"19th-century mindset" lets the U-S military act any way it wants to.But, Warner says he'd rather "unite our friends... and divide ourenemies" around the world. "I look to Washington and I don't see thosekinds of results," said Mark Warner, (D) Former Virginia Governor. "Ifwe're gonna get our country back on the right track it's gonna takeengaging all Americans... regardless of party. We're in a world atinternet speed... and I don't think we have politicians who understandthat."
I like the 19th century analogy because it relates to how the English overextended their empire, which led to a steady decline in both economic and geopolitical power.
Yesterday and late last night, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used his widely anticipated speeches to criticize the press in this country, and added that the :
"What bothers me the most is how clever the enemy is," he continued,launching an extensive broadside at Islamic extremist groups which hesaid are trying to undermine Western support for the war on terror.
"They are actively manipulating the media in this country" by, forexample, falsely blaming U.S. troops for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
to suggest that if the Democrats had their way and got our troops out of Iraq, then the terrorists would be happy:
He added, "While some at home argue for tossing in the towel, the enemy is waiting and hoping that we will do just that."
Obviously this comment, if Rumsfeld was not kidding when he said it, would lead many foreign policy experts to question whether the Defense Secretary has any understanding of asymmetrical warfare? Assymetrical warfare is more about politics and less about the military. As far as recruiting and furthering their radical agenda, the terrorists want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq because it polarizes the Middle East and encourages young children to become suicide bombers for a misguided cause. For every action we make, there is an opposite reaction on the other side. Any terrorist group wants political amunition to further their cause. Keeping a U.S. presence in Iraq gives these groups the necessary amunition for recruitment, and it is hurting our national security as a result.
What next perfectly illustrated his strong dislike of our free press:
"The enemy is so muchbetter at communicating," he added. "I wish we were better atcountering that because the constant drumbeat of things they say — allof which are not true — is harmful. It‘s cumulative. And it does weakenpeople‘s will and lessen their determination, and raise questions intheir minds as to whether the cost is worth it," he said alluding toAmericans and other Westerners.
If we did things Rumsfeld's way, I doubt we would have a free press at all. We would get all our news on the war from the daily Pentagon briefings.
I want to make this a routine. Once each day, I will post a roundup of the most buzz-worthy videos that sum up the latest water-cooler talk in politics.
First Up: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert raided the Emmy Awards. Yes, I am one day late for showing this clip -- but there was so much news yesterday. During their presentation of the award for Best Reality Competition Program, the two reminded us why they are the perfect antidote to the Fox News channel.
Second in Line: Democratic Party ignores a potential opportunity. Over in California, Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is under fire for giving out money in exchange for campaign contributions. The Democrats could challenge him and aggressively fund his opponent. But as this UNC TV report explains, even though Lewis is now being investigated by the Justice Department, the Democats are too afraid of going after someone with such high status.
Third: Katherine Harris separates mind from sanity. Jack Cafferty reads through some interesting e-mails that CNN has been getting about Katherine Harris. If you recall, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Florida was the one who that "God chooses our leaders," and that not electing Christian candidates means "you are going to legislate sin."
Fourth: Hannity the hurricane man. During a weather report on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, Hannity seemed rather interested as to whether hurricane Ernesto will to hit Cuba. Make of it what you want.
Fifth, But Not Least: Maher meet Kos. This is from Friday. Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos blog appeared on the HBO show Real Time with host Bill Maher. The two discussed how the Democrats can possibly counter the Republican noise machine.
Recent Comments