Recently in Incompetence Category

But not for being a sexist.

Alan Simpson's comment is not in the least bit sexist. But it is derogatory, insulting the majority of American's that have worked hard to support a family.

My father, who is probably one of the hardest working persons I have ever had the privilege know, worked a full-time job at an oil refinery (now Flint Hills Resources, but then simply known as Koch Refinery) while also working an 80 acre farm, mostly by himself. If you have ever known anyone that worked an oil refinery, they often are working 12 to 16 hour days during turn-a-rounds, which could last for weeks. He did this for 4 or 5 years back in the 1970s. All the money he earned was taxed, some of which was paid into Social Security. Meanwhile, my mother, who was taking care of me and my three siblings while dad was either in the fields or at the refinery, was also working part-time as a waitress. Some of her earnings likewise was paid into Social Security. At the end of the 70s, and through the 80s, my parents then ran a restaurant, which in and of itself is almost four full-time jobs. They once again paid into Social Security.

Today, they are enjoying the twilight of their years on the measly benefits that they more than earned. Over the last 30 years, working as a waitress nearly broke my mother's back. My father has had several heart attacks because of the physical demands his work put on his body. And what does Alan Simpson do? He implies they are ne'er-do-wells living off the government's teats.

While many on the right seem content to call Social Security recipients lazy, unproductive members of society, I have the belief that most of them are hard working fathers and mothers who struggled to put food on the table for their family and, having reached the twilight of their years, are simply reaping the benefit of having worked hard and paid Social Security taxes.

You see, not only did I witness my parents work hard, I also witnessed the parents of my friends, the neighbors in my town, and my co-workers struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, all the while paying Social Security taxes. So, it is unconscionable for Alan Simpson to claim that over 300 million American's are lazy, unproductive members of society. For that he deserves to be fired.

Yeah, of course it didn't work. Since when is the thinking that caused the problem ever going to solve the problem.

Kevin Drum does a crack job of explaining the difference between the Katrina disaster and BP's mishandling of the ongoing oil spill.

This conflates two very different things. Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government.

[snip]

But there is one way in which they're similar. As Levin says, Katrina would have been an immense disaster no matter what. But it was far worse than it had to be because a conservative administration, one that fundamentally disdained the mechanics of government for ideological reasons, decided that FEMA wasn't very important. Likewise, the BP blowout was made more likely because that same administration decided that government regulation of private industry wasn't very important and turned the relevant agency into a joke. If you believe that government is the problem, not the solution, and if you actually run the country that way for eight years, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But we shouldn't pretend it's inevitable.

In the end, it all boils down to having competent people in government positions, not ideological cronies scratching their balls.

And I am the dumbest politician in the whole wide world.



If he is going to talk like Forest Gump, he could at least make an effort to improve his impersonation. Because, really, he makes Forest look like an intellectual.

And yes, I am aware Forest Gump is a fictional character. I happen to believe it is appropriate to compare the two, because for all intensive purposes, Rudy Giuliani is a fictional leader.

Hot Dish Politics

Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann stopped by the state Capitol on Monday to pitch some proposed ground rules for the national debate over health care reform.

 

At a news conference, Bachmann unveiled the "Declaration of Health Care Independence," which will be formally released Wednesday.

 

"We are rejecting politics as usual in Washington D.C. in dealing with this health care issue," said Bachmann, a Republican.

Proposing ground rules at this point in health care reform is like the refs showing up for the game after the clock has run out.

Sometimes there's crazy, which makes sense in a headline grabbing sort of way. Then there is the above move by Bachmann, which is just plain stupid. Dumb ass stupid.

Okay, you managed along most of your bills through congress. However, what you did not do is lead. The President Of The United States needs to lead, not manage. You have safely guided your various agenda bills through the house and senate. At no time did you show courage by taking a risk.

Now, as your closest advisers tell you to move towards the center; as they tell you to become even more dedicated to bi-partisanship; as they whisper to you to be cautious: tell them all to go to helI.

It is time for you to do a 180. They did not like health care reform as negotiated? Then throw the whole damn thing out and demand pure universal health care. Not universal health insurance, or single payer, but national health care.

Stop playing their God damned game, sir. Go out, take charge, set the tone. You have been led. Hell, you allowed yourself to be led. Now, cowboy up. Throw caution to the wind. Push for what you deem to be impossible, take the ridicule and derision and lead this country, Damn It.

I agree with the Heritage Foundation: President Obama should call Miserable Failure and ask his advice. Then do exactly the opposite of what MF suggests. No doubt there will be complete and utter success.

Seriously, there are some lazy people in Federal Law enforcement. 8 million pings? There are not enough terrorists in this country to justify that many pings in one year.

Eww! They eat their own.

Right-wing bloggers have recently attacked Newt Gingrich for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's (R-NY) vacated congressional seat. On her blog, Michelle Malkin said "no thanks" to the possibility of a Gingrich 2012 presidential run, noting that he is the "most prominent GOP endorser of [the] radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate," while at RedState.com, Erick Erickson reportedly wrote -- before removing the post -- that Gingrich "stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994."

I have to say, I take some small satisfaction in seeing Gingrich suffer the slings and arrows he inflicted on the Democrats and Clinton back in the 1990s.

The problem with monsters is that they turn on their masters.

Can he be any more infantile and juvenile?

(Salon) According to Scahill (via email), Todd approached him after the Maher show and the following occurred:

Right as we walked off stage, he said to me "that was a cheap shot." I said "what are you talking about?" and he said "you know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Media stars are so unaccustomed to being held accountable for the impact of their behavior -- especially when they're on television -- that they consider it a grievous assault on their entitlement when it happens.

"You sullied my reputation on TV?" A grown man pouting like a kid in the playground who had the ball taken from him.

Seriously, I expect better from my 12 year old.

Hat Tip C&L

MN Progressive Project has a post up about Minnesota Republican infighting that has gotten ugly. It is the usual personal attacks on character that we have come to expect from today's Republican party. It is reminiscent of the attack George W. Bush's campaign made against John McCain back in 2000

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that Democrats of days gone by have engaged in the same personal attacks and will do so in the future. Currently, though, it appears to be a Republican trait. If anyone has done any reading on Karl Rove's past, you learn that he started his dirty, character assassination tricks at a young age, and at a local level.

I know, for myself, that in the past I never paid attention to these kind of low brow political attacks. I considered myself above them, or just felt it was not important enough for me to take into consideration. But I have come to learn that it is important these types of antics be exposed and brought to the attention of the electorate, and at a local level. Just imagine a world where Karl Rove's sleazy campaigning were exposed when he first started out, and had not been at the helm of George W. Bush's campaign, and by extension, his administration.

Eight years of George W. Bush in the White House has taught me that all politics is local. Any and all personal attacks, whisper campaigns, and other Lee Atwater dirty trick antics, whether by Republicans or Democrats, must be exposed early on at the local level, or else we can look forward once again to an incompetent and immoral presidency.

Ian Walsh believes President Obama is just about done being proactive. I agree.

The Republican/conservative brightness before the burn out I keep thinking is happening, only gets brighter and brighter, and not in a good way. As the Birthers, Tea baggers, and generally just mad at the world types, descend upon the town hall meetings, I realize that my imagining of their behavior falls quantitatively short of their capabilities.

Then, Ian had this to say:

They took the lesson of the Clinton administration to be "don't enflame (sic) the fanatics on the right--avoid social issues, and don't slash the military".  They were, of course, wrong: the radical right (and there is hardly a non-radical right left) will oppose Obama no matter what he does and if Obama is unwilling to use to the full might of the administrative apparatus against them, they will simply take advantage of his weakness to escalate.  Tactics which are seen to work, will not be abandoned, to the contrary, they will be used more and more.

don't enflame (sic) the fanatics on the right--avoid social issues

Suddenly, my imagination made a quantum jump that pictured a radical increase in the use of deadly force, with a resultant increase in dead minorities (including gay, lesbian, and transgenders).

Now, I am not about to believe one way or another that President Obama understood this possible scenario. Still, to pick health care as his first major policy push might have been for other reasons besides the time was right. Regardless of whether he recognized it was a policy that could result in the least amount of insanity and violence, in the end, it is what happened.

Ask yourself this; had President Obama picked an African American jurist for the Supreme Court, just what kind of push back do you think would have happened? Unlike health care, an African American nominee to the Supreme Court is a racial element that would have inflamed the radical right even more then the current push for health reform. I don't know about you, but my imagination in this situation includes some serious killings, maybe even a lynching or three.

What? You think that's too far? If there are calls by influential leaders of the radical right for people to bring guns to town hall meetings, my suggestion of lynchings had President Obama attempted to place an African American on the Supreme Court is going to far? Considering how easy it is for the radical right followers to kill gays, lesbians, and transgenders during less politically decisive times, any push to end DADT, or otherwise legislate equal rights for sexual orientation, would suddenly result in a decrease of killings? We are talking about a section of the electorate that thinks it is funny to print out liberal hunting licenses.

So, for whatever reason, President Obama went the path of least resistance. But, Ian is right. No matter what policy the President pursues, the radical right will fight back. And they will use any action they perceive to have already been effective. If the push for health reform does stall, and no bill is forthcoming this year, I too believe the President is dead in the water. He will achieve no further legislative goals. And even if he does pass health care reform, I still believe he's dead in the water, simply because the radical right, already inflamed and instilled with an Armageddon mindset, will simply believe the end is nigh and make a homicidal/suicidal push. They are going to take as many with them as possible.

In my opinion, any further legislative attempts by the President and violence is assured. It is already occurring. If President Obama manages to shove a version of health reform through congress, he's going to be faced with one angry, pissed off radical right. He will pretty much be unable to overcome any further resistance because civil unrest is only going to continue. Chances are, it will take up most of his administration's attention.

So, once he's done with as much of the legislative work he can realistically achieve, I suggest he turn his attention to judicial/legal house cleaning. Unleash the Justice Department and force a searching and fearless constitutional inventory of our government. There is a world of hurt in it, with much latent corruption and incompetence set to cause further decades of pain and suffering, thereby weakening our country. If he truly wants to be seen as an agent of change, the more important task he faces is exposure of the past administration's eight years of malfeasance and criminality. Hell, cleaning up the last 30 years of modern conservative governance is one damn fine legacy, if you ask me.

Now, I do not believe President Obama wants that for a legacy. But most people do not get to choose their destiny, it chooses them.

FiveThirtyEight has a poll up about McCain/Palin and the move away from polarizing politics. Now, let me start right out and admit I'm about as knowledgeable about polls as Palin is about coherent speaking, which is to say; not at all.

None the less, is the country really moving away from the old, vilifying politics of old?

Okay, I admit it. I'm not really trying to argue with Tom Schaller, I just wanted to take a pot shot at Sarah Palin. I'm such a rascal.

I know, I know. Most of you already think of  the Republicans as dumb. But seriously, this statement by Palin;

(ABC) As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a year ago, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations. [highlight by editorial, i.e., me!]

is nothing more than Nixon's statement "When the president does it, it's not illegal" dumbed down. Palin's statement boils down to the same unitary executive belief as voiced by Nixon and further advocated by Bush/Cheney. Honestly, the point is not that she's stupid, though she sure works hard at projecting stupidity, it's that she is following the same unitary executive ideology.

The ideal question to ask her would be her belief about the separation of powers inherent in the constitution. Her whole "Department of Law" gives evidence that she either doesn't believe in the separation of powers, or is just plain stupid.

Well, yes. Of course it could be both.

Carl, over at Unpopular Ideas reminds us that the introduction of Sarah Palin as the GOP VP selection was a "Hail Mary" pass. In keeping with this metaphor; a reminder that most Hail Mary passes are incomplete. Her resignation from the Governorship of Alaska - that she is leaving with an incomplete term - completes the metaphor.

(TPM) Bachmann also differentiated between the 28-page American Community Survey, which only a tiny fraction of Americans will receive, and the short form that everyone gets -- and she objected to both of them. "Does the federal government really need to know our phone numbers?" she asked. "Do they really need to know, like you said, the date and time that we leave mental stability?"

I'm sure Ms. Bachmann only has the financial burden of this question in mind because it would take all the census staff from all across the nation to fully record all the dates and times that she took leave of her mental stability.

Assuming, of course, that she was ever present with her mental stability.

While it appears the Legacy Media continues to beat the drum about signs of recovery (because the corporate masters believe it will make the masses believe and the economy will magically improve) I am listening to the bloggers and economists (in two cases, both) who called the housing bubble and the financial meltdown. You see, I tend to listen to people who actually have a track record of being right.

Interesting that in most cases, they turn out not to be Republicans...........

(TPM) Because if it turns out the President didn't get the full story from Cheney and the torture memos were after-the fact justifications, not explorations of policy options, we are looking at something far, far greater than we realized a week ago.

Now Josh, being Josh, is a bit hesitant to paint Bush as out of the loop by claiming it's really not salient, but at least agrees there are new dimensions to the story. Personally, I see Dick Cheney protesting too much and throwing paranoia into the mix because he knows it all leads back to him. What we are witnessing is the behavior of a guilty man.

What is really interesting is the suggestion the DOJ memos on torture came out after waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation" methods were used. Now, I remember reading somewhere that apparently then Vice-president Cheney requested waterboarding be used. Of course, now I can't find the blog. However, I do know it's become common knowledge that torture was used extensively to force an acknowledgment of connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Now, if that's the case, with the memos an effort to give Cheney cover after the fact, we are back to the age old political controversy of cover-up. It's never the crime that does in politicians, it's the cover-up.

Honestly, have our conservative brethren deteriorated to a state of second childhood? This age old cry of "tattle tail" is right out of noon recess at the local grade school playground.

Smith: Some of the critics are really labeling this 'Abu Ghraib Part II.'

Herridge: Well, you remember that after Abu Ghraib there was worldwide condemnation for these images of humiliation. And I learned in my research today that there was also a military report in 2008 that concluded that there is a connection between these images and also suicide bombers. Forty-eight bombers, or potential bombers, were interviewed, and they said that these images were a big factor, a big motivating factor, in the decision to become a suicide bomber.

The suggestion by Herridge is that by releasing the photos, we are endangering the service members of our armed forces. However, I think David Neiwert makes the more intelligent, more mature, point:

If anyone thought that photos from those centers would not eventually leak out to the public -- or at the bare minimum, be forced out eventually by the inevitable lawsuits, as was the case here -- they were fooling themselves. Or at least gambling that they'd be out of office by then and could lay the whole mess in the laps of whoever had the misfortune to succeed them.

Indeed, the Obama critics are now out in force shouting that the pending release of these photos will hurt soldiers in the field, including Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Bill Kristol is claiming that "this would be a gratuitous assault on the well-being and the reputation of our fighting men and women."

Imagine my surprise when I see the names of Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Kristol leading the battle cry from the playground. For Christ's sake, they're supposedly grown men. Instead, we are subjected to hearing excuses I expect from a 4th grader.

President Bush allowed torture to occur under his watch. Torture of which the Great Republican/Conservative God Ronald Reagan himself strongly rejected, as proven by his signing the Geneva treaty banning torture. Now, we are reaping the benefits of torture. Well, actually, al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are reaping the benefits of torture.

The Bush administration lied about the rational for invading Iraq, then tortured terrorists to acquire proof of a tie between al-Qaida and Iraq (which failed miserably) and now we are faced with this misbegotten horror of a news story.

Some days, I really don't like the human race.

It's time to call the fighting in Pakistan a civil war, one that's been going on for many decades, and one that George W. Bush managed to put us smack dab in the middle of because of allowing Osama to escape.

The GirlFriend™ cut in line and made use of the bathroom before I got a chance to hop into the shower. As a result, I've a few minutes to fill. What better way to pass the time then to complain about my Governor. Well, not really my governor, since I didn't vote for him. However, I have to accept he is the governor because he managed to squeak out an electoral win. Anyway, Mr. Pawlenty is current engaged in old GOP behavior that, quite frankly, lost them power on the national level in both 2006 and 2008, as well as at the local level in both chambers of the state congress in both years.

See, the whole purpose of being an educated, intelligent adult is to pay attention to when you fail, so that you may learn from your mistakes. But the not so fine governor of Minnesota seems intent on closing his eyes, holding his breath, and throwing a tantrum until he gets his way. In the process, he will take health care away from Minnesotans, continue to starve our government, and generally behave exactly like the former POTUS. As a result, our state will be weaker, as the former POTUS left our country weaker.

Seriously; merge the Health Care Access fund with the General fund? Hello! Any one reminded of the move to privatize social security? This seems along the same order. It's just another attempt by a Republican to steal money from those less fortunate.

On a side note; has anyone looked into whether our not so fine governor dodged a bullet with his connections to the telecommunication industry because of the politicizing of the Justice Department? I am just wondering.

Okay, so you believe that the "harsh interrogation methods" are legal. You have people in the Justice Department create memos to support your belief. What reason, then, is necessary for you to destroy memos challenging your belief that "harsh interrogation methods" are legal? Unless, of course, you really do know the "harsh interrogation methods" are illegal.

It's going to happen. A Special Prosecutor will be named.

Rule of Law, Bitches!

No comment is needed. Well, other than a hat tip to John.

When I was reading the many posts and articles about the court decision stating Al Franken won the senate election last year, one thought went through my mind; Governor Pawlenty will not certify the election as the law stipulates.

Now, imagine my surprise when I came across this t-shirt at DownWithTyranny!

Mind know, it's not definite that Coleman will file an appeal with the Minnesota State Supreme Court. He hasn't as of this posting. However, should the court refuse to hear the appeal, it's time for the Governor to certify the election. Should he refuse, than he no longer has the best interest of Minnesota citizens in mind; he is thinking only of his position in the Republican party and a run for president.

If that is the case, then hell yes! it's time for a recall.

If you want proof that the extreme social conservatives are complete idiots, go read this post over at All Spin Zone.

OK, this one shouldn't be surprising. We know, for instance, that the whack jobs on the social conservative extremist end of the GOP spectrum are a bit on the dim side and don't play all that well on the internet. Well, it was last Wednesday that the National Organization for Marriage launched their 2M4M campaign, not understanding that "M4M" is a standard abbreviation in personals for "man looking for man." In other words, their cute slogan reads like a solicitation for group gay sex. Hey, even Rachel Maddow has made fun of it. Today we find that the National Organization for Marriage was so stupid as to not buy up the domain names for their new initiative.

Wait for the punch line.......

www.2m4m.org is now a place of inclusion that stands for civil rights.

Teh stup, it burnzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Editor's note; typing errors from the original site corrected.