• Why Hillary Will Lose

    By Neil the Ethical Werewolf The old CW on Hillary's presidential aspirations was that they'd be crushed under her liberal reputation. The "socialized medicine" attacks on her health care reform plan stuck to her more than they stuck to Bill. And while Bill's upbringing and red-state governorship made him acceptable to Southern regionalists, Hillary's Chicago roots and New York Senate seat marked her as someone from the strange liberal cities that many small-town folk still regard as foreign to their way of life. The new CW is that she's moving to the center and leaving the old liberal reputation behind. She supports the Defense of Marriage Act, repositions herself on abortion, and has an incomprehensible position on flag burning that allows her to vote for a ban. But I doubt that she's actually gained any lasting political support through these moves. A candidate just coming onto the political scene might use these positions to get a genuine reputation as a moderate on the issues,...
  • Trailer Sweet Trailer

    By Pepper In his big Katrina speech, it looked like George II would pull a magic trick and fade his blue torso right into a blue background. But it seems like he really does want to whip up a magic trick by rebuilding the Gulf Coast into a bigger, better place without having to pay for it . Bush and economics have had an uneasy relationship. Now, the nation has three choices when it comes to paying for the Katrina disaster: 1. Raise taxes; 2. Go into increased debt; or 3. Do the job on the cheap. Bush has clearly does not like the first option and is in denial regarding the second : "[Rebuilding is] going to mean that we're going to have to make sure we cut unnecessary spending. It's going to mean we've got to maintain economic growth, and therefore we should not raise taxes." Therefore, the third option is the way to go for Bush and Co. And the solution is the trailer park, for why have a home when you can have a trailer?
  • On Not Being a Good Democrat

    Posted by Jedmunds I’d like to begin my inaugural post here by thanking Ezra for inviting me to join his weekend crew. It’s an honor to join such a great cast that includes some of my favorite bloggers. I hope to prove a worthy addition to the team and that I am somehow able to pull my weight among such a talented group. Now with the smooches out of the way, as sincere as they are - and they are sincere – I’d like to discuss the role and viability of the “single issue” group in today’s political climate, specifically “single issue” groups that are considered part of the larger progressive movement. Kos of dailykos , who you may have heard of, has long argued that “single issue” groups are outdated and even counterproductive in this contemporary political environment of conservative ascendancy. I disagree, for reasons I’ll go into detail below.
  • Cheney To Go Under the Knife

    Shakes here... Nothing to worry about. Just a little aneurysm . In his knee.
  • Duck, And Something That Rhymes With It

    Says O'Reilly: O'REILLY: The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don't want it, because it is not diverse enough. You know, that's what this gay marriage thing is all about. But now, you know, the poly-amorphous marriage, whatever they call it, you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck, I mean -- LIS WIEHL (co-host): A duck? Quack, quack. O'REILLY: Well, why, you know, if you're in love with the duck, who is the society to tell you you can't do that? I think Bill is spending too much time in front of the VCR. He seems to have mixed up support for civil rights with a Woody Allen flick: In any case, this strikes me as a good time to link to the article I wrote, or at least collected, on O'Reilly. Awhile back I went through his court records to collect the, err, juicy parts. And for someone scared of duck sex, Bill has some fun kinks of his own. So here you are: Bill Gone Wild .
  • Make Them Eat Their Words

    Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math Ezra's finishing up college this week, so the weekend crew is coming in a bit early. And just in time for Tom Reynolds (R-NY) to suggest that the GOP give up on Social Security. Reynolds runs the NRCC, the body responsible for coordinating recruiting and campaigning for all the House Republicans. And he has no interest in forcing increasingly vulnerable House Republicans to go into re-election having voted to tear Social Security into pieces. Without a vote, it's time to dig through all the public statements from Bush's winter and spring tour where he kept touting privatization. Anyone who stood on a podium with Bush and shilled for his plans, anyone who said they supported tweaking Social Security, anyone who suggested we haved a "gender adjustment" to benefits, needs to have his or her statments crammed down his or her throat from August to November of 2006. So start combing through Nexis searches now, so that we're ready when the bell...
  • Heads Up

    I've got finals to do today, so no blogging from me. I'll invite my weekenders to start now or, in any case, there'll be plenty of original content again tomorrow. For now, if you're bored, read the post below this one, my parody of Glenn Reynolds, or my bit on Privatizing FEMA.
  • Reconstruction Czar Rove

    Sometimes it genuinely feels like Bush sits in a back room and makes decisions based on what would piss off Democrats the most . Bolton fit that category, and making Rove special reconstruction head does as well: Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government and includes the direct involvement of Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development. Josh , blood pressure rising and steam beginning to pool in his eardrums, says this proves that the reconstruction will be a wholly inefficient and politically-run effort. Well, yes, but only because this administrations' DNA happens to be a double helix with one strand inefficient and the other being blatantly political. But I don't think they're making a special effort here. If they were, Karl Rove would from behind the scenes while Rudy, Colin, Clinton, Rice, Zinni, someone...
  • Da Speechifier

    I'll have more on the speech tomorrow. For now, it was good -- real good. In fact, if you closed your eyes and cleared your mind, you would've sworn a Big Government Democrat was on the podium. And then, when you open them back up, you read TLaura's blog (which is great , by the way) and are dumped right back in reality: Too fucking perfect. According to David Kuznet at TNR, it wasn't Gerson who wrote the masterpiece. It was Bush's new head speechwriter, William McGurn. Just how completely phony was the speech? McGurn is a former editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page! All that big-government-conservatism, your-government-is-there-for-you pap Bush was spouting had been penned by one of those WSJ drown-it-in-the-bathtub, government-is-the-enemy hyper-libertarians, whose ex-colleagues have, among other things, been urging Bush to use Katrina as an excuse to push school vouchers on the exiled flood victims moving into other communities! Oh Democrats, Democrats, wherefore art...
  • The Republican War on Science

    Chris Mooney is everywhere. The Daily Show , Fresh Air , the papers, the internet ...and everywhere he goes, his hosts say the same thing: Buy his book. And guess what I'm going to say? Buy his book. Bunches of other bloggers have reviewed it, so I'm not going to spend too much time recapping the basics, but in short, The Republican War on Science is about the right's multipronged effort to devalue, contradict, and drown out scientific evidence that discredits their agenda. And since their agenda has become wholly business-oriented and/or religiously motivated, Republicans have had too start waging war against empiricism a lot .