McCain To Seek Presidency

Tune into Letterman tonight to see Senator John McCain (R-AZ) announce his candidacy in the 2008 race.

Rabble-Rousing

John Kerry

What is with these guys after they bungle their presidential runs? Is there something about the Democratic nomination that removes one's charisma? It certainly seems to return immediately after they lose. I don't even have to post the story; just look at this picture (and ok, click on the picture for the Crooks and Liars piece that--as always--has the video):

Don Imus

Conservatives do not support the troops. When Democrats go out of their way to support the troops, Republicans attack them!

No One Is Pro-War

Laura Bush went on Larry King last night and said, "No one's pro-war." She also suggested that we will probably still be in Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency. These do not sound like the typical White House talking points to me, which could mean one of two things. Either Laura Bush is unable or unwilling to stay on message or Laura Bush is trying to prod her husband closer to reality. Given her track record, the former is certainly more likely, but the latter is certainly more intriguing.

Crooks and Liars has the video

Old Man McCain

John McCain seems to have once been a reasonable fellow. He was always very conservative--I never understand his popularity on the left during the 2000 campaign, except perhaps as a reaction to the obvious doublespeak of the Bush camp--but he at least stood for something. As we face the frightening prospect of this old man running for the highest office again despite apparently slipping into senility and losing all conception of justice in his quest to become president, I am posting here two McCains--then and now.

Then:

"If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."

John McCain, New York Times, August 19, 1990.

Now:

No Go for Joe

As a Sabbath-observant Jew myself, I have nothing but respect for Senator Lieberman's (I-CT) decision to put his faith first over the years, refusing to, among other things, campaign on the Sabbath, and voting in Congress only when absolutely crucial - that is, to say, when lives are on the line. You can imagine my dismay, then, when I read that this past Saturday "Joementum" walked to the Hill to cast a vote against allowing for debate of a non-binding Senate resolution symbolically opposing the McCain-endorsed escalation of the War in Iraq. Apparently, Lieberman feels so strongly that any Congressional debate of our increasingly murky mission in Iraq would give comfort to the enemy that he's willing to violate the sanctity of the Sabbath to keep his colleagues from so much as opening discussion as to the efficacy of an American mission that has left 3000 of our own servicemen and women dead, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. For shame, Joe, for shame.

Nadler: Use the Power of the Purse

Representative Nadler gave a long speech against the war, the escalation, and the pathetic lack of resolve from Congress on the floor of the House today. Crooks and Liars has video, as usual.

" In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

"We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win, and that is not our fight.

"I know that, if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and could get worse. But this is probably inevitable, no matter how long our troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.

"Yes, the blindness of the Administration is largely to blame for starting the civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can settle their civil war. We can only make it worse, and waste our blood and treasure pointlessly."

Another element of the war...

One problem with the war that has received a great deal of attention with the forward-thinking Dems body as we discussed our unified position on Iraq is that of regional instability. The war itself has led to enormous regional instability, and we felt that any plan we endorsed would have to address that. It is, therefore, sadly inappropriate that--on the very night that we chose to endorse a position--news of just such instability came out of Iran. A bus bombing killed eighteen people a few hours ago in Iran. Yes, that's IraN. Bush's mishandling of this debacle seems to be pushing us ever closer to a protracted regional conflict in a region prone to disastrous conflicts. Whether Douglas MacArthur really said it or not, the Princess Bride was almost certainly right about the follies of a land war in Asia.

Obama Slips Up

Obama, didn't you learn anything from Joe Biden or John Kerry's botched joke about thinking before you speak? Today, Mr. Obama apologized for saying that the lives of American soldiers who have died in Iraq were "wasted."

Oy.

Gallup: People want Congressional action

Gallup has a new poll out showing that the majority of people would like to see a binding timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, just like the Columbia Democrats. Not surprisingly, they also give a decidedly lukewarm response to the idea of a "nonbinding" resolution (feckless is a more appropriate adjective) that effectively does nothing to bring the troops home. Clearly, the American people are sick of useless, symbolic gestures of disapproval from all involved and are ready to see Congress take legislative action to stop the war. A majority has long thought that the war itself was a bad idea; now they want the Democrats in Congress to find a way out, and that is just what they are going to do.

Target: Obama

Barack has been catching flack from all sorts of frightened right-wingers since he announced his candidacy officially, but by far the most interesting has just come in from nutty Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr. Howard believes that the terrorists should be hoping for an Obama victory (is this sounding familiar?) due to Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr. Howard is apparently so committed to prolonging the disaster in Mesopotamia that he has agreed to deploy an additional 25,000 troops to Iraq in lieu of the proposed American surge. Just kidding, Australia still has only 1,400 troops in Iraq. I am certainly not one to argue for more feet on the ground in a war that is only hurting all involved, but I also think that these wingnuts should hesitate to criticize sacrifices being made by others as not big enough when they themselves refuse to sacrifice anything. Here is a further illustration of Mr. Howard's understanding of the intricacies of Middle East politics:

He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

UPDATE: Australian Labour Leader Kevin Rudd gives a response to Mr. Howard that many Congressional Democrats would do well to watch over and over.

'08AMA

It's official...Barack Obama announced today that he is running for president. Welcome to the campaign trail, Barack.

Direct from the Quagmire

What to do, what to do? Democrats won the elections in the fall largely because of the whole country being so fed up with the hideous Republican strategy for democratizing Iraq. But I am really concerned over the lack of concrete action that has been taken. This past week, the Dems were being a "symbolic, nonbinding resolution" criticizing the White House's usual lack of responsibility and common sense. Why is it that the Democrats haven't pushed anything significant through? It's my sincere hope that next week--during the 36-hours allotted for discussion which allows every single Democrat to talk about Iraq for 5 minutes--some type of conclusion will be reached. There's not enough time to waffle around on this issue, for every day gets the USA more and more involved in an irreconcilable ethno-religious conflict.

At least the Dems realize that they need to get their act together, with Pelosi stating the obvious:

The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”

But then there's always the concern of getting whatever materialized resolution through to the executive branch before Bush vetoes it. The Republicans are on to this:

“They are now in the majority,” said Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, the chairman of the Republican Conference. “They finally have the opportunity to change policy and they are putting up a sense of the Congress resolution, which is worth about as much as the parchment it’s printed on.”

Welcome to politics, ladies and gentlemen. The sad fact is that anything coming out of the house is unlikely make it all the way though. The Senate seems even more unsure about what to do. Then what's to do? Hold out on the financing. The power of the purse seems to be the only realistic approach for the time being, as Rep. Nadler highlights,

“The president is not going to listen to anything we have to say,” Mr. Nadler said later in an interview. “There’s nothing we can do to stop him unless it’s the real consequence — the power of the purse.”

And does that really accomplish all that much?

One Closer in the New York Senate

The Democratic failure to take back the New York State Senate is one of the greatest shortfalls of the 2006 election. This morning, we are one seat closer to taking back control of that house (we already hold a supermajority of 107 out of 150 in the New York State Assembly). A Democrat was pulled into office on Spitzer's belated coattails in a historically Republican part of Long Island. The voters have sent a message: they want Democratic change in Albany. It is time for the moderate Republicans in the Senate to switch parties and support Spitzer's agenda of reform.

Oops for Biden

Senator Joe Biden announced yesterday that he would run for President...and that's when his campaign started to go downhill. Biden made some very controversial remarks about Senators Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Way to start the campaign off right, Joe.

It's Go Time for Al

IT'S OFFICIAL. AL FRANKEN IS STARTING HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN IN MINNESOTA!!!

glorious. Simply glorious. He'll be running against Sen. Norm Coleman (R). The biggest concern? Establishing himself as a "serious" candidate.