Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer: The Extended Interview

Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart went toe-to-toe last night. But you didn't see everything. Much of the interview had to be cut for time. But this is the internet, where all we have is time. So, here now, is the complete interview.

Follow the links and watch the whole thing. Perhaps it's his outsider "non-reporter" status, but Jon Stewart gets to the heart of issues more thoroughly than most "real" news reporters. He's not Tim Russert, but sometimes I wonder whether, in terms of confronting hypocrisy anyway, he isn't the closest thing we have we have right now. "Roll the tape."

Memeorandum has links to the 3 part series of videos, and to many other posted reports and opinions.



read more | digg story

Apparently, Ms. Bachmann, Rush "be da man."

Can any Republican representative break free of Rush's gravitational pull?

Spokesman for Boehner Calls Rush a "Boogeyman." Will He Apologize Too?:

"Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Gibbs was trying to create a distraction by responding to Limbaugh.

'What we are seeing is a desperate attempt by Democrats to distract attention away from a multi-trillion dollar spending spree taking place in Washington,' Ferrier said. 'Creating a boogeyman to change the subject does nothing to alter the fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill, that the economic stimulus bill contained no Republican input or that their budget would increase taxes on all Americans.'

So now Rush Limbaugh is a BOOGEYMAN? Perhaps we'll be hearing Antonia Ferrier or John Boehner apologizing to Rush now?"

Advice for the GOP: don't mess with Rush

Let the word go forth from this time and place to Republicans everywhere: Rush Limbaugh, the ideological Mother Superior of contemporary conservatism, is not to be crossed. First, he earned the mewling supplication of Congressman Phil "Georgia Peach" Gingrey. That began when Gingrey criticized Rush's inflammatory locutions as unhelpful, not having to "do what's best for your people and your party." In response to a "high volume of calls and correspondence to his office," Congressman Gingrey phoned Mr. Limbaugh in "regret" to apologize for saying so.

Now, the microphone-toting unofficial head of the GOP has managed to get its official head to kiss the ring as well. This weekend, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele derided Limbaugh as "incendiary" and "ugly." Late Monday, Chairman Steele withdrew criticisms of Rush he made over the weekend calling them "inarticulate." This follows closely on the heels of Limbaugh's Monday broadcast, where he derided Steele as being "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds."

While the Republican party still has a leadership apparatus comprised of elected officials, it's pretty clear just who is actually running the show. If Limbaugh manages to squeeze an apology out of Congressman Boehner, the debate is over - the GOP will be the party of the untouchable, unimpeachable Chairman Rush. And then things will really get nasty.

The chastised Steele will probably be permitted to stay on as RNC "leader," but the lesson is clear: Attention--and more importantly deference--to the great Rush Limbaugh, the true head & heart of the Republican Party, must be paid. And isn't that classic of the totalitarian right. This Michael Steele, like Gingrey before him, spoke the truth, until Rush and the dittohead hordes that worship at his alter practically lynched them both and forced each of them to beg forgiveness. And when Bohner's aide does to -- which is immanent, judging by the speed with which the last two Rushpublicans fell to their knees before the sweaty ton o' fun that can control some Cons like ventriloquist dummies -- it could prove to be be the final nail in the Republican coffin for a good long while.

------------
“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach. I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell." - Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), 1/27/09

"Rush, thank you so much. I thank you for the opportunity. Of course, it's not exactly the way I wanted to come on, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity. Mainly, I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. Basically the intent of my words to them was to discuss the unique position of congressional Republicans and our leadership, particularly John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments (laughs) and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, and -- and all our conservative giants who help us so much to maintain our base and grow it and get back this majority that I regret those stupid comments." - Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), 1/28/09
----------

"I don’t want him [Obama] to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble." - Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), 2/25/09

“The governor was not referring to anyone” in particular." - Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s Communications Director, 2/25/09
---------
"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh—his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly." - Michael Steel, RNC chairman, 3/1/09

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh” - Michael Steel, RNC chairman, 3/2/09

The History of America's Inaugural Prayers - WSJ.com

With a h/t to that guy @ his blog (he gets unbelievably touchy when anyone makes mention of the same piece of internet that he did over at his place. -- And this time, I actually did see it there, first), I offer The History of America's Inaugural Prayers, by Steve Waldman.

I'll post the opening paragraphs, but I urge everyone to read the whole thing:

In 1949, the year of Harry S. Truman's inauguration ceremony, America was a much less tolerant and diverse place. It would be another decade before Americans would be comfortable electing a Catholic president. Jews were still excluded from the upper echelons of government and business. The levers of power were held by Protestants, who made up the vast majority of the population.

But there on the podium with Harry Truman, to deliver prayers, were a Protestant minister, a Catholic priest and a rabbi.

Flash forward to 2001. America is a much more diverse nation. Protestants make up barely half the population. We've had a Catholic president and numerous Catholic Supreme Court justices. Jewish politicians and businessmen have risen to the highest levels of government and finance, and increasingly Islam is being treated as a mainstream American religion.

Yet at that inauguration, of George W. Bush, there were two clergymen, both Protestants, and they both preached with enthusiastically Christian language. Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell prayed in "the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ." And Rev. Franklin Graham asked the American people to "acknowledge You alone as our Lord, our Savior and our Redeemer. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."

In fact, if one looks at the roster of clergy and the prayers they gave over the past 70 years, it appears that America has actually become less inclusive and pluralistic over time.

From there Mr Waldman goes on to discuss the history of elected officials and religion, and traces the changes that got us from:

- no invocation of religion at Presidential swearing-in ceremonies,

- to several celebrants on the podeum, representing the major religions in America (the "religious-diversity" model, 1937 - 1985),

- to one celebrant, who took care to recognize that we were a country of many faiths, and offered words that were inclusive of as many people as possible (the "America's pastor" model, 1989, 1993),

- to the latest, "Protestant only" model, where diversity is not taken into account, and the prayers speak of Jesus as Lord of us all, without regard for those who might be personally or religiously offended by such statements (Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus...)

Mr Waldman believes that unlike the prior two models (or the period with no religious invocation at all), this current way of doing things offends the spirit, if not the actual words, of our Constitution, as it "giv[es] clear preference to Christianity by having only clergy who pray in Christ's name."

After some discussion of where some atheists stand on these prayers (hint: they're opposed), and more about religious expression by our earliest Presidents, Mr Waldman concludes the essay with the following:

As Messrs. Warren and Lowery take the inaugural stage next week, they'll be trying to achieve two different missions. They are Christian ministers and need to stay true to their faith. But they are the only clergy on the podium and therefore must represent all Americans. If they can't restore the proper balance that existed before 2001, then their prayers will -- and should -- increase the drumbeat to get rid of inaugural prayers entirely.

Before anyone decides that Mr Waldman is just another crazy nihilist or atheist (while these terms may be interchangeable in some circles, they in fact have different meanings), please read his bio:

Steven Waldman is editor in chief and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, and author of "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America." There is an archive of inaugural prayers since 1937 on his Beliefnet blog.

While I would personally prefer to see Presidents go back to either the "religious diversity" or "America's pastor" models discussed in the article, I believe that ultimately, it is the President's day, and I can "overlook" the use of celebrant[s] from his own faith, and messages that reflect his own beliefs, rather than the whole country's.

Contrary to many, on both sides of the political spectrum aparently, I wouldn't want to lose the inaugural invocation &/or benediction based on what naysayers in the public have to say about a particular President-elect's choices of celebrant or prayer. Who they choose & what is said tells us something about the leaders they intend to be, of course, and I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion of either, but those decisions should ultimately be the President's, rather than ours...

If there ever comes a time when we go back to having no religious invocation, I want it to be because the President-elect in question wanted it that way, and not because a whiney public didn't approve of his chosen celebrant(s), or the message they planned on offering.

I believe the inauguration is the President's day, more in keeping with a wedding than a government function. In both cases, we're invited to attend the ceremony, but we don't get to pick the preacher or the vows... ...though we are free to express our opinions & otherwise kibitz amongst ourselves about both.

An Endlessly Angry Enemy of Americans

In a screed called America's Enemies Within, a guy sez:

"This post is inspired by two angry anti-American commenters at this blog, commenters who have called me a 'hater' and 'terrorist' because of their inability to rebut the opinions I have expressed: Ben Sutherland and James Casper."

First off, I don't understand why the guy insists on using unrelated posts and off-topic links in his replies. The post below to which he originally linked (or Ben's, for that matter) have nothing to do with the topic about which he's whining. Does he not realize it, or does he simply not give a shit?

Second (after reading the whole of his piece & Snooper's), I don't know who I feel more sorry for; Snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or this guy, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice.

Neither Ben or I are anti-American. We both love our country, and speak to it's values and our own, generally without much in the way of belittling others, including those who disagree with us. In fact, Ben & I don't even come from the same political side ourselves--he a Libertarian, and me a Green--but we do see this blogger the same way... A pompous blowhard who'd rather puff up with "righteous indignation" at everyone & everything he deems an enemy (many of whom are his fellow citizens, rather than the "real" terrorists--which is a charge he tosses at others pretty often, but obviously fails to recognize in himself...) One becomes anti-American (or a "nihilist," or a "Stalinist," or a "socialist," "radical" "extremist" or... or...) simply by disagreeing with the guy or showing him up. Folks can decide for themselves whether I've done so (there are many exchanges between this blogger & I, both on my blog and his) but I will say that Ben pegged him down like a howling polecat in his very first comment, and the guy has seemingly never recovered from the slight, as evidenced by his post denouncing us.

The guy all about the propaganda... And as others have pointed out, he's been getting meaner & more spiteful to those among his fellow Americans who don't share his political or social views since his man McCain (as well as many other hopefuls in his party) lost the election. It's fine to be angry and to flail his arms at the sky damning everyone for not believing as he believes if that's what he wants. But he'll have to learn to forgive the rest of us (both left & right, apparently) for seeing such screeds as the unbalanced nonsense that they are and daring to say so.

Making Him Do It - Hullabaloo

"If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals."

Ask for -- & DEMAND you get -- the changes you want from the new Obama administration. Cheer where appropriate, but criticize whenever necessary. As Digby reminds us in her post,

a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. [FDR] read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was – and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

Obama, like many Presidents before him, will do the same, and will need our voices to help shape the direction of this country. Being endlessly optimistic cheerleaders or mindless drones willing to accept & defend whatever our government hands us (as though our government is an entity separate & apart from us, rather than made up & empowered to act by us) will not do. We need to speak out loud & strong, constantly, in support of the ideals & values we believe in.



read more | digg story

The McCain Bailout: Privatizing success, socializing failure.

When it looked like the bailout bill was going to get the votes, who was all too happy to claim the credit?

John McCain.

When the bill didn't get the votes, who deserves the blame?

Practically everyone except that wacky Maverick.

Democrats failed.
Pelosi failed.
Obama failed.

John? Not his fault. He didn't phone it in. (Except that reports say that's exactly what he did, preferring telephone calls to face-to-face meetings during his little jaunt back to Washington last week.)

For the McCain campaign, the buck stops... ...anywhere but with them. Like the failed Wall Street firms, they're only accepting credit for good news. Blame for bad news belongs to someone (anyone, & if possible, everyone) else. Profits to me, loss to everyone else.

And after it failed, who looked more presidential?
Obama spoke to the American people and appealed for calm, assuring them that there will be a solution.
McCain boarded a plane without speaking to reporters or issuing any statement.

That's some kinda leadership there, Johnny... Heck of a job...

Similar:
Think Progress � After Taking Credit For Bailout Bill, Is McCain Campaign Willing To Share Responsibility For Its Failure?

Marc Ambinder (September 29, 2008) - McCain's Share of The Blame?

Bail Out Fails,McCain Owns It

McCain uses Bush's Free Speech Zones

McCain = Bush

The video:



The news report:


The press release: Progress Now Action | Alan Franklin: Press Release: First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign

When will these folks learn that America is a "Free Speech Zone?"

John McCain: Don't hope...

D’oh Nuts

See UPDATES below.


Wingnuts: Saving the world from fried batter, one paisley scarf at a time....

Knuckleheads on the right boycott Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear. They don't run on intelligence, obviously...

read more | digg story

See more: Crooks and Liars Oh Noes! Is Meghan McCain A Terrorist Sympathiser Too?

UPDATE: A far better post on the subject than mine (warning: If you value your monitor, no drinking anything--especially coffee, I guess--whilst reading): Daily Kos: Indiana Malkin and the Slightly Scary Neckware of Doom

UPDATE: Photo montage, with a hat tip to James Poniewozik's "Tuned In" Blog at TIME

Replies to American Power blog (AmericanNeoCon)

American Power

Since Nero's limiting me to one reply/his post on his blog, I'm setting up this topic in an effort to keep the dialog flowing... He's welcome to post here, or I'll drop reply links over there... I don't take well to those who edit my posts for content, but I confess to enjoying the twisted NeoCon bullshit that comes out of his mind, sometimes...

Either this'll work, or it won't... But I figured I'd give it a try...

AmericanNeoCon edits me out.

The post: American Power: Ecoterrorism and the Democrats: More on the Radical Left

My first reply, as originally posted:

I'm examing the nature of today's far left-wing movement in campaign '08, particularly the degree to which contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner. So far, there some's evidence for this in Tom Hayden's call earlier this week for the left to unite behind the Illinois Senator, " Progressives for Obama."

There is?

Which radical(s) have rallied to the Obama banner?

Tom Hayden? (& the other authors of that piece, Bill Fletcher Jr, Danny Glover, & Barbara Ehrenreich)?

How can you claim there has been some evidence that contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner, yet and not name any contemporary radicals who actually have rallied to the Obama banner?

Captain Ed's got an interesting post

I think that’s Malkin’s Hot Air.

Minor pick from the “Captain’s” post: Apparently, the sobriquet only applies if one actually kills people, at least in Salon’s eyes.

Actually, that was the law, up until recently… Is Briana Waters a terrorist? | Salon News: "Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the State Department defined terrorism as 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants.' But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense 'calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government' or 'to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.' Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action."

At first glance, I hesitatingly support the change, as long as the courts apply the new laws fairly… Should wackos on the right start murdering “abortionists,” again, I want the same laws to apply… And I’ll be interested to see how broadly it’s applied to various interest groups.

Now, to be clear: There's no mention of partisan political ties between the ECL terrorists and the Barack Obama campaign.

So what you’re saying is, these radicals (& I agree that these are radicals) are not rallying to the Obama campaign.


Still, a quick link to the Earth Liberation Front homepage indicates (as of March 27, 20008) that some activists in the eco-liberation movement advocate closer ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the Al Gore global-warming ayatollah wing.

Please go back ASAP & explain that… Because from what I see,

Mentions of the word “democrat” on the homepage – 1 – from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co.In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post
February 27, 2006”

reprinted on the ELF home page.

Let’s try the word “Gore.” – 5 matches:

1) From what appears to be another reprinted news story, but has no byline: They say the environmental movement remains strong - building on the work of grass roots activists, or supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore, or going deeper underground to avoid the fate of the 10 activists brought to justice in Eugene.
2) A banner link on the left side of the page: Did you Know that Al Gore Invented the Internet ? Find out the Truth about Al Gore Invented The Internet - we have Al to thank for the World Wide Web
3) Same ad as #2
4) Banner ad just below the previous one: It's time we make the Corporations pay for the damages caused by global warming. Read about the Global Warming Lawsuit- you might be eligible for a settlement check! President Al Gore has pledged to help clean up the environment and reverse the effects of Global Warming.
5) A letter written to the webmaster by a right winger: Recent Letter To Webmaster:
As a Marine, I find the worst form of coward to be one that does what you asses do on a regular basis. When you blow up a lot full of SUV’S how much damage are YOU doing to the environment? Talk about carbon! But I know “ don’t judge by our results , judge on our intent” What a bunch of left wing pussies. Well here is an open invitation to come get my SUV, but remember some of us are still armed , and well trained. Get a life. Your professors were wrong, ALGORE is not God , the earth doesn’t love you, God gave us the earth to use AND take care of . OH one more thing trees grow back, in case you missed that in school. Really the only way that you can not impact the earth , is to not exist! So do me and the rest of humanity , and mother earth, a favor and remove your unbathed hippy ass out of the equation! That ‘d be a true testament to Mother Earth. Ahhh I can feel the love now!!!!
Jim H.

So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
--------------------

But it seems that NeroCon had other plans: Here's what's there now, thanks to Nero's edit:

American Power - Comments: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 6:41 pm | #"

Cowardly, or what?

I'll update, as the debate continues.
------------------

While I was being edited, I was replying to Nero's comment, which said:

I linked to ECL, Repsac.

I was there, obviously... I brought back anything linked to Dems or to Gore. There was no there, there.

I'm asking you to be specific, not just claim there were unnamed folks advocating unnamed ties.
-------------

But while I was doing that, Nero was changing his reply, to read:

Me: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”?

I linked to ECL, Repsac, and added the quote. The site provides no link to the source:

"They say the environmental movement remains strong - building on the work of grass roots activists, or supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore, or going deeper underground to avoid the fate of the 10 activists brought to justice in Eugene. “The environmental problems on the planet aren't getting any better, they're getting worse,” said Jim Flynn, former editor of the Earth First! Journal and a veteran of protests in Eugene. 'People will do what it takes to either try and stop environmental degradation, or draw attention to it.'"
---------

That quote is from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co. In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
 - Washington Post - 
February 27, 2006”

I had already posted that info, before the edit. That's the only time the word "Democrat" appears on the ELF page.
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:10 pm | #
-----------

Obama doesn't need to endorse them, but the fact is that they prefer him.
Shoprat | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 7:45 pm | #
------------

Whether or not they prefer him (& perhaps, to who?) is what the professor is aiming to show... with examples eventually, I hope.

I see he's convinced one person, already... I hope you don't mind if I wait until he's actually linked a few radicals to the Obama campaign, before agreeing with you.

(If I'm feeling really charitable, I might give him Hayden, even though the guy hasn't actually done anything politically radical in a very long time... There was a time when his ideas were radical, but both the times, and he, have changed.)
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 8:44 pm | #
------------

Repsac3: My blog, my rules.

You're generating complaints and you're bothering me. I'll debate, but I won't be harranged. If you've got a lot to say, write it on your blog, and drop the link here, within my blog rules. Look how I've debated at Biobrain's, post and response, not obssess and obssess, like you're doing here.

Also, I carefully avoid sweeping generalizations at the ECL post, so you're critizing me for something I haven't done. ECL works through some mainstreams groups. I claim nothing more.
Americaneocon | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:35 pm | #
------

I thought I was doing pretty well, aside the html accident...

But as with everything else, I cannot force you to use a level playing field...

We'll give it a shot, but I think I'm going to post to my blog, with a link to yours, so that I know you cannot again edit my words after I've posted them. I find that most distasteful...

You're welcome to post at W&M, as long as you don't just drop your comments anywhere, as you did last week... Please stay on topic for the post... I intend to keep an open thread, just for you.

I never used the words "sweeping generalization" to describe your ELF post, did I? Where is the criticism?

And where are the mainstream groups through which ELF works? I didn't notice any listed...

Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Choice quote:

While Democrats are constantly forced by manufactured controversies generated by the right-wing noise machine and their media allies to "repudiate" and "renounce" a never ending carousel of "extremists" ranging from the moderate to the irrelevant (Michael Moore, MoveOn, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. etc.), the GOP establishment for years has tied itself at the hip to hate-mongering extremists along the lines of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Roberston, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of various Instapunks, with no repercussions or accountability whatsoever.

I am War.

Pro-war thuggery

And typically, they're proud of it.

Like the comment one person posted to the video yesterday (since removed, as any dissent from or discussion of the party line lends not to be tolerated in some circles), it's confusing strength with rightness. Getting physical with Code Pink protesters & damaging their property doesn't make you right about continuing the occupation. It only proves you're a thug who chooses not to be civil.

It's thinking like this (& Melanie Morgan, who ripped up a sign taken from a "moonbat" on stage with glee, and a few other leaders in their movement) that encourages & celebrates violence as a way of getting what they want, that leads us into these conflicts. It is often far more courageous to refuse the temptation to violence than to give into it.

Watch the video & decide for yourself whether we want this kinda thinkin' to have any influence over American foreign policy.

(As the poster of the vid is deleting any negative comments about it, I figured I'd bring them here, as I see them. Both sides deserve to be heard.)

West Wing, Petraeus' shop 'hard-wired'

It isn’t exactly a big surprise that a Gillespie-run public-relations team in the White House would be fully integrated into Gen. Petraeus’ team, but it does reinforce what observers have known for quite a while now: Petraeus is a part of the president’s political operation. That’s not necessarily a criticism. It is, however, a realization that Petraeus’ testimony is not that of a neutral, dispassionate observer.

read more | digg story

The DC Establishment versus American public opinion

The majority of Americans have emphatically rejected the Beltway P.R. campaign of the last several months, and are as opposed more than ever before to the war. Perhaps most remarkably, in light of the bipartisan canonization rituals to which we have been subjected, a strong majority (53-39%) believes that Gen. Petreaus' report "will try to make things look better than they really are" (rather than "honestly reflect the situation in Iraq").

Glenn also reposts his prediction about what's going to happen when Bush/Petraeus dictate their report... from a post he made back in May.

read more | digg story

Petraeus/Bush: Report? What Report?

Balloon Juice

Just a brilliant post...

Oh, and for the record, here is my prediction for how the Congressional testimony will go:

1.) Petraeus will enter the room, and Joe Lieberman and several other moderate Democrats will faint when they see him in Class A’s with lots of ribbons and medals.

2.) Petraeus will offer a mixed report, citing temporary tactical advantage and listing points of progress. Lots of cheese charts with arrows pointing in the right direction, but little to no sourcing, will be on display.

3.) Lieberman, freshly revived from his initial fainting, hears Petraeus utter the words “our brave men and women in uniform,” and promptly passes out again.

4.) Petraeus mentions, in passing, that we are facing difficulties. Democrats fail to press him. The difficulties are not mentioned specifically, but in vague generalities.

5.) Petraeus states the situation is too tenuous to drawdown troops before fall of 2008.

6.) Lieberman is revived yet again, only to hear the phrase “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” and promptly falls to the ground in shock and horror. Ron Paul gives him the finger.

7.) Afterwards, numerous Blue Dog Democrats state to the media that the General was impressive, and has assured them that we are making progress, and, as such, they are reluctant to do anything.

8.) Republicans, when speaking to the press, state that this is clear proof we are winning, and evidence that we do not need to cut and run like some of the Democrats want.

9.) Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner all state how impressed they are, but note that they have some unspecfied concerns and that we need to proceed cautiously.

10.) Some cranky Democrat notes that there was no real information presented, and wants to have some hard data to compare to the numerous negative reports we have received from independent organizations. Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, NRO, and the Weekly Standard promptly call him a traitor. Malkin breaks out a cheerleader outfit. Michael O’Hanlon goes on Hardball and claims the GAO is the most corrupt organization in Washington.

11.) The rest of the media cover the story until about 7:45 EST, at which point it is learned that Lindsey Lohan may have smoked pot while in rehab. The Petraeus story dies.

12.) Seven more members of the military die.

Another Person Arrested for “Impeach” Sign

There have been a spate of arrests & other harassment of people who dare to use their free speech to advocate against Mr Bush. Here is another.

Watching Melissa Etheridge on TV at the Live Earth concert persuaded Jonas Phillips and his wife, Kindra, to go out and do something about the Bush Administration’s abuses.

So they made a cardboard sign with “Impeach Bush Cheney” on it.

And they held that sign on the sidewalk of the Haywood Road Bridge over I-240 in Asheville, North Carolina, on several different occasions this summer.

Like Kevin Egler of Kent, Ohio, who was arrested for illegal advertising with his “Impeach” sign (see Recordpub.com - 'Impeach Bush' free speech test? Man who posted sign in Kent surprised by uproar ), they got in trouble for theirs.

read more | digg story

More on the topc:
How I Got Arrested for Holding an IMPEACH Sign | AfterDowningStreet.org
CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Political messages should not interfere with traffic
YouTube - WLOS: Highway Blogging

My take... If they felt that highway blogging was unsafe, they might've respectfully given the man a warning, rather than arresting him...

iRack - Mission Accomplished

Whose Report Is It, Anyway?

The "Petraeus Report" -- the supposedly trustworthy mid-September reckoning of military and political progress in Iraq by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker -- is instead looking more like a White House con job in the making.

read more | digg story

Rock the Debates!

What is Rock the Debates?:

Never before in American history has it been more vital to have an open, honest, and innovative examination of America’s problems and solutions.

The best way to sparking the minds of Americans is to open up the presidential debates beyond the Democrat and Republican parties. Rock-the-Debates seeks to include third parties who will energize the presidential debates placing their ideas into the mix, without endorsing or opposing any particular candidate. We just want the ideas out and let the American people decide.

You can play a key role in this unprecedented, historical endeavor.

The idea is to get the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to commit to debate third party candidates.

How? We’ll ask them to debate, get the clip on video, and place it on You-Tube. Folks in places like New Hampshire can play a key, historic, pivotal role in making this happen.

Follow the link above for more details.

Follow the following link to see where it stands, to date:
Third Party Watch - Seven Major Party Candidates Respond to Open Presidential Debates (so far)