Date

The Republican Base

susan — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:30:17 -0600

From the blogosphere -- Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly.
Hat tip, Larry LaVerk.

THE REPUBLICAN BASE....
Last night Joe Klein sat in on one of Frank Luntz's focus group sessions for the Republican debate. It was one of those deals where each participant got a "dial" that allowed them to register instant approval or disapproval of what each candidate said. Klein's report:
Yes, read on!

Hangin' around, looking for real news

barbara — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:22:32 -0600

barbara writes

Taking a breather here between David’s radiation and chemo. So finally had time to catch up on the news a bit. Crikey! Did you know that George W. Bush lies? That he then lies some more? And then lies about his lies? Hard to believe of a U.S. president whose lapel sports the American flag, I know, but there you have it.

It started for me this morning when I picked up the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Above the fold: A full-color photo of a dead deer and a butcher, who was preparing to gut it and carve up its flesh. Local touch. Very Minnesota. Oy! Okay, turns out it’s a story about Minnesota’s venison donation program. Even so . . .

Way down at the bottom of the page is a 4 X 5-inch lead to a story that's buried inside the section. It's headlined “U.S. backtracks on Iran: Nuclear arms drive shelved.” Subhead: “Bush’s WWIII warning undercut; so is drive for sanctions.” More!

A Clotheslineblog exclusive!

barbara — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:42:34 -0600

barbara writes

According to the AP, George W. Bush sent a personal letter to Kim Jong Il of North Korea this week. But no one will reveal what George wrote. Doesn't do much for one's comfort level, does it?

The Clothesline is dedicated to bringing you the news in detail. We have succeeded in ferreting out a copy of Bush's letter, which follows in its entirety:

Dear Kimster,

See, in Texas, we like to use what we call nicknames for people and stuff. Do you know where Texas is? I’ll send you a map with a “you are here” star on it. Heh-heh-heh. Hey, you oughta come to Crawford sometime for barbecue and a brewski. Did you know that Americans voted for me because I’m the guy they’d really like to sit down and have a beer with? Partly, that’s because I look so good. Nice haircut. Not one of those spendy John Edwards deals. Mine are free. Heh-heh-heh. Y’all might want to think about, you know, kinda updating your look. Shooter says you remind him of a hedgehog. Laura says that’s not nice. I'll let them duke that one out. Click here to read the rest of Bush’s letter.

read more

Which candidate didn't get the dark suit memo?

barbara — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:02:56 -0600

barbara writes

Lately, when I’m not obsessing about how to manage David’s cancer, my focus returns to politics. Turns out there’s not much difference. Cancer is an insidious, opportunistic, sometimes lethal growth in the human body. BushCo is an insidious, opportunistic, sometimes lethal growth in the body politic. Both generate no small measure of uncertainty and fear. And no one knows for sure how to reverse the damage in either case.

Politically speaking, what’s at issue is that we must choose from the passel of Dem pols the one who is best suited to follow in the wake of what is arguably the most destructive administration in our country’s history. The man who is elected to do that (sorry, Hillary) must exorcise and also heal all three branches of the United States government and their attendant agencies. He must inspire and earn the trust of Americans. And then he must set about winning back our allies and our standing in the world community. No small tasks there.

And here’s the real kicker. He must launch all of that the moment he’s elected and ramp it up the day the White House door slams on George W. Bush’s faux-patrician tush for the last time. (Note to self: Envision that. Hold the thought. Oh, yeah, baby!) Read some more--it's good for you.

The Hunk vs. the Huck?

susan — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:36:49 -0600

Nailed it again, Babs. (see below.)
But I'm full steam ahead with Obama, because at some point you just have to make that leap.(And I just read that he's now within one point of Hillary in NH.) And even as I write that my stomach flops, because I fear a horrible ending to that race, and I don't mean defeat for the Dems. Let's just consider a Huckabee/Obama match-up, and folks, it could just come to that.

Huckabee's lost one hundred pounds, putting him right there in a league with Oprah, who surely has lost and found a similiar amount over the years, and judging from the covers of tabloids at the checkout counter, Americans are divided in their fascination between Brittney's devil spawn and fat. Who's lost it and who's gained it and how you can peel off 42 lbs. by the holidays. (Bonus CLB tip: Eat less, walk more.)

So that's a plus for Huck, going one on one with Oprah on the fat front.
Yes, I'd like to read more of this incredible drivel.

And Open Letter to Fred Thompson et al

susan — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:07:36 -0600

Barb and I are -- otherwise occupied. So today, a guest post from our favorite commenter, Perhansa.

* * *
When the terrible, evil, scary, boogeyman, terrorists are plotting ways to kill Americans, Fred Thompson asked us to consider, “Who do you want sitting on our side representing you? That’s who you should elect President.” No Fred, IT’S NOT! This is the real world not a spaghetti western. You need to watch fewer Die Hard movies. If we listened to you we’d vote for Dirty Harry.

This is a problem with the entire Republican field. When did we become so afraid that and entire major party defines diplomacy as the barrel of a gun, a bunker busting bomb, or “shock and awe”? Wake up Fred. We ARE NOT on the verge of Armageddon. Military and might don’t define diplomacy. The campaign to reduce terrorism can only be won through cooperation and collaboration. That means having numerous friends and allies. That means talking to people not pointing a nuclear warhead in their face and snarling, “Make my day” It requires reaching out to countries in need not invading countries for their resources and strategic positioning. Think “Gandhi” Fred, not Bruce Willis.
More!

Not Ready to Make Nice

susan — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:40 -0600

When conservatives like columnist Clifford May suggest that those of us who opposed the surge now graciously concede that it’s working, I’ll go along -- if they’ll concede that the purpose of the surge was to buy President Bush time to get out of office without conceding the colossal failure of his mission.

But in the holiday spirit of light prevailing over darkness, I've been watching the lull in violence and hoping that the worst is truly behind us, that our troops will be home soon, and that America will once again bask in a kinder light of world opinion.

But I’m getting a familiar feeling. That old Bushian “Fool me once — you can't get fooled again" feeling.
More.

Erratum

susan — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:17:23 -0600

Clarification of Strib Op-ed

Thanks to all who have written to tell me I've swallowed the kool aid, that I'm Bush's lap dog, or just stupid for thinking that the Surge is Working. Actually, I've had no kool aid, and if I were Bush's lap dog I'd nip his nuts off. (Ewwww) I try to flip the stupid switch to "off" when I write, but sometimes -- you know.
What I am guilty of is sloppy writing.

The piece in the Strib on Thursday was originally around 700 words. (I cobbled together a messy version of that original and posted it here yesterday.) My editor -- who I respect and appreciate -- cut the piece by nearly half, saying that I'd merely recited a lot of old news about the war. He sent me back the version that ran, and although I made a few additions, I signed off.
In truth, I was disappointed, but in a rush and didn't read it carefully. I figured something was better than nothing -- that I couldn't let Clifford May get away with his "why don't you all concede it's working" column of the previous week. And yeah, I hadn't had ink in a while and so that played a part too.

Well, mea culpa. I should have killed it. And then he put a headline on it that really got it wrong. More groveling.

Wishing you the peace of yet

barbara — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:09:15 -0600

barbara writes

It’s an interesting time in Bloghalla. Even the most cynical among us (what?—you haven’t noticed cynicism?) seem to be ratcheting down the tone a bit. Maybe it’s about these long, cold nights and short, gray days. Tends to sap the vitriol. Makes some of us cranky, others of us melancholy. Or maybe it’s about the-holiday-whose-name-cannot-be-spoken mayhem. Possibly we’re just worn down by the oppressive, toxic political environment. Ditto the toxic environment, period.

Whatever the reason, we’re entering the reflective, end-of-year-pondering season.

In our household, we seek balance between Christmas cookies and Boost. Between living in the moment and anticipating whatever comes next with the upcoming cycle of chemo treatments. Between not-so-good days/hours/moments and their “doing okay, thanks” counterparts. Even in the duel with cancer, life is good. Blessed are they who so lovingly support us in this, for they shall be called angels.

Take, for example, the gift that egregious gave readers of her blog. It’s the gift of *yet*, which transforms brick walls and closed doors to something quite other. Please click to read more.

Hope, fear and some good reads (wherein Barbara argues with herself)

barbara — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:21:45 -0600

barbara writes

I’m dragging up from the comments in the previous post about the (apparently) arguable power of hope encapsulated in the word “yet.” Commenter Neo Lotus had this to say about that post.:

"Beyond Hope" by Derrick Jensen is a very good read. I came by (it) from an article posted at www.carolynbaker.net. Personally, I'm less interested in having “hope” than I am in finding a means to act.

Well, that kind of knocked me on my metaphorical keister. And not because I totally disagreed with Neo. I followed the link above and, as advertised, Jensen’s piece is a good read. Made me think. Hard. What is the real place of “hope” in healing the United States government, the battered environment, David’s body, etc.? Where does hope leave off and action begin? Is hope bogus? I think not; read on.

The Benazir Bhutto tragedy: Far-reaching implications

barbara — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:56:23 -0600

barbara writes

(Please excuse the shifting, whispering nature of the Clothesline the past couple of days. Shattering world events and ponderous thoughts have caused this to-ing and fro-ing of posts and comments. ~ Barbara)

BREAKING: Speaking of hope and fear, Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated. Junior will do an 11:00 a.m. (EST) presser. I am more afraid and less hopeful about that man than ever before, which is really saying something. His complicity in destabilizing the Middle East, Far East, Near East, east coast, west coast, heartland, and the cosmos is criminal.

Read more.

"Here, children, let us show you how"

barbara — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:00:19 -0600

barbara writes

In case you hadn’t heard, the Bush administration is thinking about intervening in the investigation of Benazir Bhutto’s death. Why? Condoleeza Rice says, “I don’t think the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all.”

Are ya kiddin’ me? To even inkle that BushGov should be viewed as credible is a study in breathtaking arrogance. There are few nations on earth whose “leaders” have less credibility than ours. Colombia, maybe. Sudan. It’s a short list. Bush and Musharraf have almost identical disapproval ratings.

The NYTimes says there is speculation that the U.S. may press for FBI involvement in the investigation. Can the CIA be far behind? Homeland Security in toto? Oh, lordy. More.