An infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce a link between this guy & al Qaeda

If "an al Qaeda" falls in Samarra, does it make a sound? Usually the answer is "yes," unless somebody drugs Dubya's PR monkeys. Then why hasn't the killing of Haythem Sabah al-Badri made for E.Z. "We Got' Em" listenin, this week? Here we have Centcom issuing a press-release, announcing the killing of "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra," the guy to whom US Centcom attributes the bombing of the Golden Mosque (Feb 2006), and nobody throws a party in the WH Rose Garden?

I mean, the story has everything: a veritable Qaeda/Iraq sandwich, too mouth-watering to ignore. Are you telling me you're not gonna eat that?

Well, here's the problem: even the best sandwiches go rotten with time. In this case, all of the ingredients--while they seemed delectable in their own right--they were never meant to go together.

What am I gettin' at with this ill-conceived metaphor? The NY Times' Frank Rich will help us out. Today, Rich presents us with a carefully constructed timeline of the US Preznit's propaganda since the Nov 2005 lead-balloon plan for "Victory in Iraq." Rich contrasts the PR-events that punctuated the intervening months against our best knowledge of...reality and manages to unearth yet another Big Lie.

Rich reminds us that, in Jan 2007, Bush strongly "implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the country’s December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006," when, you guessed it: the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed. Not true. The death-squads and civil war had been raging for at least 15 months prior to Feb 2006. Samarra didn't mark the beginning of 'sectarian violence.' (memo: can't say "civil war," no matter how many times your own people try to warn you that one is brewing--and they did. Back in 2004.). Rich rightly calls BS on this.

Recalling the same "surge" speech, Rich observed how the Preznit struggled to worm al Qaeda into his justification for 20 000+ more troops. But how to do it? Nobody had been directly fingered for the bombing yet, but it sure as hell wasn't...oh, fuckitall:

Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. [GW Bush, Jan 10, 2007]

But Rich knows what's what:

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security forces were themselves responsible.)

Uhhh....but how does Badri fill the bill? Rich:

Since Badri is a leader of a tiny insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to complete his newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan for victory until the mosque was bombed. 2) “Al Qaeda in Iraq” bombed the mosque. 3) Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” those “very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th.”

A-Ha! As L. Paul Bremer might say: "Ladies & Gentlemen: We got'em!" So...why not crow a little louder, even if it is a widdo-white-lie double-decker Royale with Cheese? Well, as it turns out, Bush's confidence in his own capacity for misdirection actually has its limits. To identify the limits of his confidence, you first have to recognize that Bush has no difficulty conflating "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with "the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th." Then, putting aside the fact that Bush has no solid evidence connecting Badri to the bombing (I'm sure it's in a secure location), Bush knows that he can't promote Badri, however posthumously, from some penny ante thug who happens to identify with the al Qaeda brand to "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra." No "al-Qaeda in Iraq emir"-->no al Qaeda terrorists feeling threatened by Iraq's glorious democracy and no al Qaeda blowing up "one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam" (just like they blew up our buildings...remember? Hmm?).

Rich provides a perfect summary of the White House conundrum:

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri’s death nine days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official White House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn’t do his usual victory jig over Badri’s demise because there’s no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin Laden. He was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam’s Special Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our woes in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president’s story line falls apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden’s Qaeda, the Samarra bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr. Bush denies.

So there we have it. Bush didn't get his "US smites the al Qaeda emir who blew up the Golden Dome" fairy tale.

And thus, just this once, their Goose failed to lay a Golden Egg.

No PR monkeys, geese or sandwiches were harmed in the composition of this post.

Read on, MacDuff!

Mark it down: Democracy is Coming to Ontario on Oct. 10, 2007

Yes, 10/10 is the date: Ontario is the place.

Question: Aren't you sick of elections where a party can win 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power, with a paltry 40% share of the vote? And what if I like Candidate X, but I know his/her Party leadership doesn't have a snowball's chance in...Cancun? I know...it's all very silly.

Come October 10, 2007, Ontarians will have a chance to change all of this.

You know, a few weeks ago I put up a "Vote for MMP" button on my sidebar (it's ok if you didna notice...*sniff*). I uploaded the button shortly after learning about this campaign on Facebook, but I neglected to 'splain what it was all aboot. So. What is this MMP you speak of? Is it another vaccine? Do I have cooties?

It's Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Panic not, mes amis, this campaign's low on wonk and high on...uh...tonk? In any case, MMP is so easy a kitteh could figgur it out ;)

Step 1. Cut a hole in the box... Sorry.

Step 1: Vote for your "preferred local candidate"
Step 2: Cast a second vote for your "preferred political party."

Step 3: Elections Canada pixies will descend on the scene and take it from there:

The share of these votes that each party wins will determine its overall share of seats in the legislature.
If after the 90 riding seats are filled, a party has fewer seats than its portion of the party vote, that party wins some of the additional 39 provincial (or at-large) seats to ensure it has its fair share of the total seats. These at-large representatives are elected from provincial lists of candidates nominated by each party in advance of the election. Voters can judge these at-large candidates, as well as local candidates, and vote accordingly.

Huh? Lists? "At-large representatives?!" Whatchu talkin'bout Willis?:

Here's an election example: Party X gets 30 per cent of the party votes, but when riding results are tallied, they have a share of seats that is 10 short of the 30 per cent of the seats they deserve. In that case, Party X will also gain 10 at-large seats, with their top ten at-large candidates winning those seats.

But wait! I'm still worried: I'm not sure I trust Party X to fill their list with the people I like. What do I do?
I have confidence that Dr. Dawg and CuriosityCat will assuage your fears. Here's Dr. Dawg:

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly specifically recommended that parties be required to make public their method of list creation by submitting their selection process to the non-partisan Elections Ontario, which would then publish that information widely. Electors could see, for example, if backroom party hacks or cronies of the Premier have been awarded the list positions, or if, on the other hand, the parties have a more democratic and open process, that does something, for example, about the representation of women and minorities, geographic balance, and so on.

...and the Cat:

The fact that the MMP system proposed does not lay out rules for the names on the individual list being chosen is not a negative at all. In fact, it allows individual parties to decide on their own criteria, and voters will be better served by this happening. If you feel that the Liberals are not doing enough to ensure that women are represented in Parliament, and their list continues this trend, but the Tories, for example, are, you can cast your vote accordingly. Only those who fear the power of the ordinary voter should be running scared of this wonderful grassroots democratic option.

Ah yes. Dawg and Cat bring up an important point. A more diverse legislature is one of the best byproducts of MMP. Equal Voice and Fair Vote Canada have studied this issue and found that, compared to our clunky first-past-the-post system, women are bound to gain much better representation under PR. And bonus: wouldn't it be cool to kick Sweden's ass?

And yet here we sit, citizens of Ontario, sweatin' the summer away, NOT knowing a dern thing about the choice we face in October: an Environics poll discovered that "70 percent say they are not familiar with it, including 51 percent who admit no familiarity at all."

So that's why I'm blogging about this MMP thing here tonight. Debra, Scott, Mark, Kuri (of TIBT fame) and others (noted/linked above) have edu-ma-cated me about MMP, but it's clearly time to spread the word. Here's Mark of "Blogging for Democracy" with his $10.10 Challenge:

That's why I'm calling on all my readers who are fed up with politics-as-usual to dig into their pockets and make a small donation to the Vote for MMP campaign. Like I just did, you can take a minute and donate online to the campaign right here.

Yes. Money. Gettin' the word out takes some dosh. Not a lot, if we all chip in: Mark is suggesting $10.10, in 'honour' of the date, October 10. And if you're joining the bloggin' fur MMP funfest, make sure you drop a line to the Vote for MMP site. That's where I'm heading right...now!

(Sample MMP ballot image courtesy of Equal Voice)

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 9: "Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy"

Welcome to the ninth and FINAL installment of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Reminder...you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy

(General Question: Stephanopoulos plays a clip dated August 14, 1999, in which Dubya promised to restore the "honor and dignity" of the office. What would you restore to the office?)

TANCREDO: "Hope. We have made a number of mistakes…we can no longer afford political correctness" (huh?) He then vowed to start braggin' about 'Merica again, to tell the world that "there is something not just good but great" about the USA. (Tony the Tiger could not be reached for comment)
T. THOMPSON: He would "open up the East Wing" and bring in the "best minds, Democrat, Republican or Independent" and…do what, exactly? Play some RISK ? Hungry, Hungry Hippos? Thompson just kinda trailed off there.
BROWNBACK: He wants to begin "rebuilding family" and laments the number of "out of wedlock" families. He wants you to know that he "stands for life," and that he will appoint the next Sup. Crt. Justice to "overthrow Roe v. Wade" (creepy amounts of audience cheering, unfortunately)
MCCAIN: He wants you to know (yes, again) that he is "fully prepared…to fight the transcendent challenge…the struggle against violent Islamic extremism"
GIULIANI: Would "restore hope" (hey! Rudy's cribbin' from Tancredoland!). Rudy goes on to claim that "none of the Democrats" have ever run an executive office (what is Bill Richardson, then?)
ROMNEY: Vows to "strengthen America's military," add "more troops," (Geddit? "Romney Strong"). He will also "strengthen the economy" and "strengthen families."
HUCKABEE: Tells an anecdote from his days as Gov. Arkansas, when he had a picture in his office with "Our Boss" inscribed in the frame. Huckabee would rotate pictures of "ordinary" Arkansans through the frame, so that he would "never forget who the boss really, really is." (C'mon...it's Rove, right? It's ok…you can speak freely here)
PAUL: Vowed to restore "openness" and "transparent government."
HUNTER: Would restore "economic patriotism." Feels that Americans, during WWII, "rode to victory on an arsenal of democracy" (did he just cuss?) Further, Hunter vowed to stop "China from cheating on trade" and would "elevate the family" (you better hurry…Romney's just threatened to "come down on life"!)

You know, I never realized how many ways there were to pander. Evidently there are many, many ways. Family, terrorism, life, and democracy. Free market. Grow the economy. Hey, I think I've got the hang of it! I can has GOP nomnashun?

Woohoo! We made it. We traversed the entire 90 min Loonytoons debate in...well, ok, it took a long time.

Return to the Introduction/Part 1..."Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 8: "I know what you did last summer"

Welcome to Part 8 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

I know what you did last summer

(General question: Can you point to a defining mistake in your life?)

HUNTER: "Contemplating running as a Democrat"
PAUL: "I didn't speak forcefully enough" for the cause of "liberty" and the constitution.
HUCKABEE: He wishes he'd started losing weight earlier in life. (Awww…this actually makes me feel sorry for him)
ROMNEY: Regrets that he used to support "pro-choice" (people? causes?). Mitt hastens to add that he eventually "came down on 'life'" (Blech…would you mind scooching over a bit, Mitt? Come down on sumpin else, ta very much.)
GIULIANI: Jokes that he has "only 30 seconds" to respond, then proceeds to rib Stephanopoulos about his Priest father, suggesting he'd only "confess" his mistakes to a man of the cloth (i.e. he passed on this one)
MCCAIN: Random-ish choice he made in Vietnam that (presumably) ended with his capture & torture. (I honestly have no jokes for this one--his was a genuinely awful story)
BROWNBACK: Regrets "not telling [his] wife and kids that [he] loves them often enough" (Gawd, some of these 'rock-ribbed' Republicans can get really smooshy, eh?)
T. THOMPSON: Explains that all of his female primary relatives have/had breast cancer and he wants to work harder to "end" it. Gives date of 2015.
TANCREDO: Regrets that it took him "30 years to realize (recognize?) Jesus Christ as [his] personal saviour." (Really? I thought Tancredo's personal saviour was Lou Dobbs. Or maybe John Birch.)

Speaking of...did you know that Tancredo has produced his own little series of vids? The series is entitled, "Tancredoland." Watch Rachel Maddow take a tour...

Quick tease: Tancredo shows us where he likes to play with "army men."

Ok! We're on the home-stretch, yo! The final installment, Part 9 is coming right up..."Families, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy"
or...
Return to Part 7..."Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 7: "Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"

Welcome to Part 7 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies

(General question: The Iowa Republicans have proposed a "Fair Tax," i.e. elimination of all fed & state taxes and the imposition of a 23% sales tax)

HUCKABEE: Supports fair tax. "More Americans fear an audit by the IRS more than they do being mugged," and goes on to joke about how very "painful" IRS audits can be (do you hear that, victims of mugging? You buncha babies? Jeez.) Huckabee suggests that the Fair Tax would eliminate the "underground" economy, and that gangsterism, prostitution, gambling would die-off. (now why am I dubious about this? Seriously. An end to prostitution? This is the GOP! At least spare Mitt his "underground" police force...it's all that stands between him and the NY Times!)
ROMNEY: is "cautious" about the Fair Tax, and will not yet lend his endorsement. He would, however, like to "get rid of the tax on savings." (I didn't understand this)
GIULIANI: Whips out his emergency Frank Luntz handbook and begins crowing about the "Death tax!" Rudy would "immediately" eliminate the inheritance tax on the upper-upper-upper fraction of 1% families. He says he is "intrigued" by the Fair or Flat Tax proposals, but he's not yet willing to endorse them outright. (Interesting use of word "intrigued"; makes it sound like he has a prurient interest in fringe tax policy. Tax fetishist!)
MCCAIN: He is more interested in resolving the "Alternative Minimum Tax" problem. Vows to "find Alan Greenspan," round up his ol' bones, and force him to head a commission, so they can "pass a law." (Are you looking forward to the John Galt Act of 2009?)
TANCREDO: Instructs the other candidates to "read Neil Boortz's book" ("The FairTax Book," reviewed here). Tancredo is a proponent of the 'FairTax' because "income tax is designed to manipulate behaviour" and accretes "too much power for the federal government."
BROWNBACK: He is for "an optional flat tax…16 countries have already gone to a flat tax"

Say...do you wannu guess which "16 countries" have adopted the flat tax? Go ahead and look. I'll wait.
In the words of U.K. PM Gordon Brown:

An idea that they say is sweeping the world, well sweeping Estonia, well a wing of the neo-conservatives in Estonia.

Oh yeah...add Teve Torbes to the list. He was super keen for the flat tax. Great company, eh?

Part 8 is on the way..."I know what you did last summer"
or...
Return to Part 6..."Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 6: "Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"

Welcome to Part 6 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President

MCCAIN: Jokes that the VP only gets to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and "to enquire daily as to the health of the President." (har, har, har). But seriously folks…McCain would assign the VP to "area of talent," e.g. telecommunications, and he would "be clear that there is only one President."
T. THOMPSON: VP "Cheney is an honourable individual"…Thompson then reverts back to health care, insisting that he doesn't want the press to think "Republicans are against poor children." (remember those greedy, greedy children)
GIULIANI: Makes the case for a strong VP, "Now that we're at war…a VP has to be just as capable, just as ready to take over that office at a moment's notice." Feels that the Reagan/GHW Bush model was a good'n, and that the US can't have another FDR/Truman scenario (wherein Truman was completely unaware of the Manhattan Project).
ROMNEY: The President and Vice-President "have kept us safe these past years" (…and other bedtime stories, by Gov. Mitt Romney)
BROWNBACK: Tips his hat to Cheney's vast "experience" (e.g. Sec. Def.), but feels that the "President over-relied on that" (I think that's a new word?)
PAUL: Blames the VP's prominence for the admin's "neocon agenda" and reminds the audience that most Americans think that the VP is more powerful than the President.
HUNTER: Brags about his personal military background and implies that he would not need a hawkish military running-mate to lend gravitas to his ticket (hint, hint…*cough* Giuliani *cough* *cough* Romney) "I would not share the role of Commander-in-Chief" (and don't even ask about his Thin Mints. I mean, really.)

Part 7 is on the way..."Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies"
or...
Return to Part 5..."Gas, grass, or ass: Nobody rides for free"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 5: "Gas, grass, or ass: Nobody rides for free"

Welcome to Part 5 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Gas, grass, or ass: Nobody rides for free

(General question re: Minneapolis 35W bridge collapse: should you raise the federal gas tax to fix crumbling infrastructure?)
HUCKABEE: Uses this as an opportunity to express his disgust at the billions appropriated for "reconstruction" in Iraq. Thinks it "may be time to spend some of those billions of dollars on our own infrastructure." Rambles about current state of air traffic control. (Someone's still cranky from his flight to Des Moines?)
GIULIANI: (Asked why it isn't ok for Republicans to suggest tax increases. Don't you have to cut spending if you don't raise taxes? What would you cut?) Response: "We should reduce taxes and raise more money…I was able to raise more money to fix bridges [in NYC] by lowering taxes." Reverts to shitting on John Edwards for proposing to increase the capital gains tax: "there is a liberal democrat assumption that you raise taxes to get more money. [It] is a very big mistake."
ROMNEY: Thinks he can "keep taxes down" to "grow the economy"
MCCAIN: Complains about congressional pork-filled transportation bills, e.g. $50 billion bill that included the "bridge to nowhere," while "not one dime was [appropriated] for bridge inspection or repair."

Summary: pay no attention to your $1000000000000 wars. Or Bush's $3500000000000
tax cuts (through 2017).

Raise taxes? Pfftt...go jump in a lake.

Part 6 is on the way..."Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President"
or...
Return to Part 4..."I can't believe it's not democracy! Furrin Polsy and the War on Brains"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 4: "I can't believe it's not democracy! Furrin Polsy and the War on Brains"

Welcome to Part 4 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

I can't believe it's not democracy! Furrin Polsy and the War on Brains

GIULIANI: (Asked about his statement on Charlie Rose (August 1), i.e. that he agreed with Obama's proposed approach to Pakistan; Stephanopoulos quotes Rudy as having agreed that he "would take that option") Response: Rudy tries to disown previous statement, insisting he would take Obama's advice "if there was no other way," and then openly disagreed with the transcript of his own words. Rudy feels that the US President "should seek [Musharraf's] permission" before striking targets w/in Pakistan's borders. (At least that's what Rudy thinks today. Stay tuned).
ROMNEY: Asserts that Obama wants "to meet with tyrants" but wants "to unilaterally bomb our friends." Romney goes on to suggest that the US would never consider bombing within Germany's borders w/o first seeking permission. (WTF--is he referring to present-day Germany, or…um…yeah. Romney's completely incoherent today. And he's acting like a petulant ass.)
HUNTER: Defends the Pakistani government and its military contribution to the 'war on terra': insists that Pakistan is "co-operating."

(General question: Stephanopoulos plays a clip from Bush's 2nd inaugural address, highlighting the export-of-liberty business. Asks how this policy is working out since, in the intervening years, elections have brought about Hamas, Ahmadinejad et al.)
HUCKABEE: US role is to "create an enviable form of government" at home. Feels it isn't the US's job to force "our way of life" on other nations.
PAUL: Wants US to begin by "spread[ing] democracy here"; feels that Bush is taking instruction from W. Wilson's philosophy, which makes no sense for Pakistan, Iran, etc. He also disagreed with "nation building" in Afghanistan and Iraq (although he reminds everyone that he initially voted to authorize the attack/invasion of Afghanistan, as did all-but-one member of the 2001 House, Barbara Lee).
GIULIANI: Declares that democracy requires the "rule of law," and that, sometimes, democracy is "the long term goal," but rule of law comes first. When he first became mayor of NYC, GIULIANI claims that residents were afraid "to go out at night." Thinks that US should "go slow" with encouraging elections. (spoken like the true fascist that he is)
MCCAIN: "We failed to realize that elections do not equal democracy." McCain reverts back to Obama to take another flying dump on his speech at the W. Wilson centre: "It's naïve to say we will never use nuclear weapons…President Kennedy said we would go anywhere and bear any burden" (ah yes…the neocon rallying cry: I was for Kennedy and now I'm for PNAC & Bush)
ROMNEY: Quotes Tony Blair, "ours should be a campaign of values," and insists that he is not Dubya, "I'm not a carbon-copy of President Bush." He thinks that the US should have done more to help the Siniora government in Lebanon, when it was first struggling, and that "we should draw these folks towards modernity" (Gah! That is so offensive, on so many levels!). Returns to hector Ron Paul with "They attacked us on 911!" (Jeez...that well never runs dry, eh?)
TANCREDO: (Asked why he threatened to bomb Mecca and Medina; Stephanopoulos reads the State dept. response to this, i.e. "reprehensible" to threaten the holy sites) Response: Tancredo wears the State dept. response as a badge of honour. Reverts back to crapping on Obama: insists that anyone who would take nukes "off the table" isn't fit to be president.
T. THOMPSON: Thinks that threatening to bomb religious sites would only unify "enemies." BUT…"We are fighting a holy war" (D'oh!). Goes on to blame US for being too "politically correct."
BROWNBACK: Argues that "words of our leader matter…we are a nation at war….we have to be realistic about the time we push democracy" (always thinking of those birthing metaphors)

Part 5 is on the way..."Gas, grass, or ass: Nobody rides for free"
or...
Return to Part 3..."Well, at least you have yer health. Wait...no. You can has bucket. Kthxbai."

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 3: "Well, at least you have yer health. Wait...no. You can has bucket. Kthxbai."

Welcome to Part 3 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the rest of the series, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Well, at least you have yer health. Wait...no. You can has bucket. Kthxbai.

HUCKABEE: (The Fmr. Gov of Arkansas is asked about the Senate's recent proposal to expand children's health insurance (SCHIP), and asked about whether he agrees with the Presiden't threat to veto the legislation) Response: "Either give every American the same kind of healthcare that Congress has or [force] Congress to live on the kind of healthcare that Americans have." Suggests that the US should focus on prevention and wellness, instead of dealing with illness and catastrophes. "Almost like a boat taking on water…do you get a bigger bucket?" (sorry…I missed the middle of this folksy analogy. You get the idea: do you wannu fix the leak or just keep on bailing? I dunno. "Iz nice tnx, but is not mah bucket." LOL)
T. THOMPSON: Wants to move the US towards wellness and prevention. Argues that the 'ill and disabled' take up 60% of all health care costs. Suggests that health care delivery/insurance could be simplified in one form, like the simplest of IRS tax forms (WTF?)
TANCREDO: Argues that it is "not the responsibility of the federal government to provide "womb to tomb" health care." Wants to foster more "personal responsibility," encourage reimportation of drugs, and, remember: it's those "illegal aliens" who are taking up a "large part" of US health care resources (I call B.S. See "Delivery of Health Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers," by Arcury TA and Quandt SA., Ann Rev Pub Health, April 2007)

(General question: all congressional Representatives/Senators who are running for the Republican nom. voted against expansion of SCHIP. What about Romney & Giuliani?)

ROMNEY: Concedes that expanding the ranks of the insured can't be brought about by tax exemption, but still thinks that the US can provide full coverage "with a free market based system" (With what? Its palpating invisible hand?)
GIULIANI: Thinks SCHIP and its proposed expansion are inherently bad because they move the US "towards socialized medicine" (uttered w/extra hiss). Giuliani wants to give a "major tax deduction" for health care, approx $15 000.

(Note: Stephanopoulos points out that all Republican candidates have stated their opposition to the expansion of health insurance for children. Nice.)

HUNTER: Insists that some SCHIP recipients are not poor families, but include those earning $60 000/yr. (Those greedy, greedy children, eh?)
BROWNBACK: Feels that the US "needs more market forces in health care," and that the Democrats are "marching" the US towards "socialized medicine" (aside: can't you just imagine Father Brownback ordering his daughter to "march up to your room, young lady"?)

Part 4 is on the way..."I can't believe it's not democracy! Furrin Polsy and the War on Brains"
or...
Return to Part 2..."Iraq: Stay, Go, or Arm-paramilitary-death-squad(s)?"

Read on, MacDuff!

Part 2: "Iraq: Stay, Go, or Arm-paramilitary-death-squad(s)?"

Welcome to Part 2 of my not-so-live blogging of the Iowa GOP debate. You can still access the introduction & Part 1, if you arrived here out of sequence :)

Just a recap from Part 1: I transcribed what I could, but you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Iraq: Stay, Go, or Arm-paramilitary-death-squad(s)?

PAUL: "Just come home." "We shouldn't be there" (huge applause) "What is [troop] morale with less than a year's rest?" "The foreign policy is defective."
HUNTER: Contends that he's stood up to the Russians...and that he was there "when we did Central America (did?!), when the liberals were raging that we had to get out of Salvador, today Salvadoran troops are standing side-by-side with US troops in Iraq." (Ack! So, I guess the reasoning goes: if paramilitary death squads were good enough for El Salvador, they're darn well good enough for Iraq. Thanks Dick Cheney...er...Congressman Hunter.) Says he is tired of Democrats and their "race to stampede for the exit the quickest." "We are standing up" the Iraqi army.
HUCKABEE: Suggests that the US should "put some pressure...on the Saudis." "Everytime somebody in this room goes to the gas pump, you've helped make the Saudi Royal family a little wealthier...and the money that has been used against us in terrorism has largely come from the middle east." "[we should] end our dependence on foreign oil-and let's not play around and say '30 years,' let's get it done, right now." As for the Saudi/Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian et al. role in Iraq: "It's their neighbourhood."
BROWNBACK: "We need a 'political surge' like Thomas Friedman talked about" (Yeah. That Thomas f'g Friedman)
MCCAIN: Dismisses 'loose federation' idea (Biden/Gelb) and offers the Iraqi soccer team as evidence of national unity. (Nemmind that nobody on said team actually, y'know, lives in Iraq & the captain wants US forces out of his country)
GIULIANI: accuses Dems of 'political correctness' since none of the Dem. candidates use his personal fave term, 'Islamic terrorism.' Refers to O'Hanlon and Pollack op-ed and crows about significance of the liberal NYT verifying success in Iraq. (need I remind Rudy that expert demolitions of this op-ed have appeared all over the place? e.g. David Isenberg's)
ROMNEY: accuses Obama of going "from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week" (referring to his Dem debate performance and hawkish speech on Pakistan, respectively)
TANCREDO: flips out on Stephanopoulos "there are other people on this stage too, George" (I can has Grvel momint?)
T. THOMPSON: blames Iraqis for failures, e.g. "can't even decide whether to take one month or 6 weeks off"; he's for States' Rights in Iraq.
PAUL: Opposed war from outset; "There is no need to go to war against a 3rd world nation" Romney interrupts Paul: "has he forgotten about 911?" (Romney flashes big grin to the audience, goading them for applause)
PAUL: Reminds audience that he served in Vietnam, and that the US now enjoys trade with the Vietnamese: "we can achieve much more with peace than with these unconstitutional, undeclared wars"
MCCAIN: "I was one of the biggest critics [of the war's execution or 'management']." "Give us some time for it to succeed" (Doan worree, babee! I B good frum now on!)

Part 3 is on the way..."Well, at least you have your health. Wait...no. You can has bucket. Kthxbai."
or...
Return to Part 1..."Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes"

Read on, MacDuff!

Not-so-live blogging the GOP debate, Part I: "Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes"

Lads & Lassies, there is nothing quite so entertaining as the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates. They say the darndest things. In fact, if I had better faith in the integrity of the US democratic machinery (small-d), I could put these debates in the same guilty-pleasure category as the whole Jackass 'oeuvre.' (Yes, I will own that: I have the sense of humour of a 10 year old boy)

While I couldn't resist indulging in the odd *snerk* or *snap!*, some of their quotes sit completely unadorned by moi, as words literally failed me. It's hard to accept that they are uttering these breathtaking comments as they worm their way towards the 2008 GOP nomination. Sadly, one of these men could become the 44th preznit of the Excited States. Chew on that while you're reading this not-so-live blogging. If you're like me, you may find yourself rocking in the fetal position by the 5-min mark (pun intended, wanted and nurtured to full-term).

Due to its length, I've elected to divide the post into several parts (I will add links as soon as each 'goes live'):

1. Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes.
2. Iraq: Stay, Go, or Arm-paramilitary-death-squad(s)?
3. Well, at least you have yer health. Wait...no. You can has bucket. Kthxbai.
4. I can't believe it's not democracy! Furrin Polsy and the War on Brains.
5. Gas, grass or ass: Nobody rides for free.
6. Hold me closer, tiny dancer: the role of the Vice-President.
7. Tales from the crypt: the attack of the zombie tax policies.
8. I know what you did last summer.
9. Kids, bombs, and a backpack full o' democracy.

A little setup: this particular debate was hosted by Drake University (Des Moines, Iowa), and moderated (just barely) by ABC's George Stephanopoulos. I transcribed what I could, but you can watch the whole Konservative Krying Game for yourself at the ABCnews.com site. Aside from Stephanopoulos, the cast of characters included: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; and Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
(Missing and presumed sleepy: former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn)

Sex, Guns & the Return of Karen Hughes

BROWNBACK: (asked about his Iowa campaign's "robo calls" about Mitt Romney, stating that Romney does not have a 'pro-life' record, e.g. 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, and Ann Romney's contributions to Planned Parenthood) Response: stands by his ads, "It's a truthful ad…I'm pro-life and I'm whole-life" (Don't we know it, Senator! Here's Brownback in an earlier debate, indicating where he feels women's 'whole-life:'

Note: we are considering having him fitted for one of these.)

ROMNEY: Says that the Brownback ads are "desperate," and contends that he is "pro-life." "Massachusetts citizens for life" gave him an award for his service. Romney also insisted that he "opposes tax payer funding of abortions."
BROWNBACK: encourages audience to watch Romney's 1994 debate performance on YouTube.
ROMNEY: Contends that he "never said I was pro-choice…I changed my position," and insists that he explained this change of heart in a Boston Globe piece.
ROMNEY: (Stephanopoulos plays a clip of a Christian Broadcasting Network interview with Romney, in which the Fmr. Governor suggests that Giuliani's stances on abortion, gun control and gay rights are not going to help Rudy win the Republican nomination. Romney is asked if he still feels this way) Response: that interview was "very early in the process" Stephanopoulos: "that was in March" (Snap!)
GIULIANI: insists that he "supports the 2nd amendment," believes "that marriage is between a man and a woman" (though he adds that he supports domestic partnerships), and promises to put "an emphasis on decreasing abortions and increasing adoptions…but ultimately, a woman should make that [decision]"
T. THOMPSON: (confronted with an earlier quote, wherein Thompson suggested that the Giuliani platform is in opposition to the Roman Catholic church and that a pro-choice candidate won't make it in the Republican party) Response: doesn't disavow earlier statement but adds: "this debate should be about major issues," citing health care as an example.
MCCAIN: (asked whether "Giuliani's pro-choice position [will] help him in a general election") Response: "The respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn is something I've fought for and it has a lot to do with national security because it says very much what kind of country we are and our respect for human life, whether it be here in the United States, whether it be in China, or Bangladesh, or the Congo, or anyplace else in the world, so I think it is connected [to national security]."
If you thought this was a new (not to mention an exceptionally loathsome) talking point, allow me to re-introduce you to Karen Hughes: here is Dubya's ex-advisor on April 27, 2004:

I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life.

Part 2 is on the way..."Iraq: Stay, Go, or Arm-paramilitary-death-squad(s)?"

Read on, MacDuff!