President Nancy?

I’m afraid I must amend my earlier posting from 12/19/05 regarding Senate Pro Tem Ted Stevens’ likelihood, following the removal or resignations of Cheney/Bush, of assuming the Presidency.

I can’t believe that I and both my readers missed it, but if the Democrats are successful in returning to majority status in the House, current majority leader Nancy Pelosi of California would most likely become Speaker of the House. If the House drafts successful Articles against Cheney/Bush or otherwise manages to scare them out of office, Nancy Pelosi would become the first woman sworn in as President of these United States.

So forget all the crap about Hastert going down along with the entire administration, resulting in a ‘President Ted “BridgeBoy” Stevens.’

Won’t happen. And the alternative is actually quite super.

From the "You've Got To Be F***ing Kidding Me" file:

I'm not sure how to comment on this Newsweek story. Do me a favor and click on it, read it, then hit the back button and revisit me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078560/site/newsweek/


So here's all I can say:

I think these people really are not aware of the number of gays and gay-rights supporters existing in the arts and specifically Hollywood. You can't throw a ball in this town without fifty fags flinching. I wonder what sort of coronary thrombosis would envelop middle America if they knew how many gays worked on The Passion of the Christ.

But fine. If this is the way you want it, fine. But if you're gonna boycott, then f***ing boycott, motherf***ers! Don't see our movies, don't read our books, don't watch our tv shows, don't get our haircuts, don't get our makeovers, don't buy our clothes, don't eat our food and don't read our blogs. And do it loudly in the name of Jesus. I promise you, when I get to heaven, he and I will look down on you (wayyy down) and we'll have a good laugh.

Next: my sister forwarded me these. Yeah, they're funny; but they're also quite poetic. Use them as counter-reasoning the next time you're trapped in an elevator with homohaters:

Top 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

ACTION vs. REACTION

Congressional Democrats: It's time to stop reacting and start taking action.

It's not enough to simply vote against Sam Alito - or even to call for a filibuster. His confirmation is imminent. And, frankly, if handled properly, it could be a bigger political win for us than a filibuster or a thumbs down vote. Here's how:

Today's new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows us the following:

51% are more likely to vote for an anti-Bush candidate in congressional elections; 40% are likely to vote for a pro-Bush candidate.
52% consider his entire presidency a failure to date; 46% call it successful.
53% believe his administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
54% called Bush a divider, while 41% called him a uniter (for the first time since Bush took office in 2001)
54% say the economy is getting worse; 35% believe it's improving.
58% said Bush's second term has been a failure so far; 38% said they consider it a success.
62% (two-thirds of those surveyed in the poll) said they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States, while 35% said they're satisfied.
64% said things in the United States have gotten worse in the past five years, while 28% said things have improved.

Bush's approval rating remained at 43%, unchanged since mid-December; 54% disapprove of his job performance.

The translation: America is SO OVER George W. Bush. We're done. And we want a change. On top of that, America also seems to be done with the status quo. Snap em together and it's a sweet midterm election brand: "The Bush Status Quo."

If the Democrats are to position themselves as the anti-establishment party and the representatives of change, we have to - right now - take control of the framing of the argument.

No longer can we allow the Right Wing Spin Machine to define who we are and what we stand for. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY: According to these poll numbers, the Republicans have lost the right to define who they themselves are and what they themselves stand for.

And that is how we win. I want to see congressional Democrats calling the Alito confirmation a "victory for the Bush Status Quo" and "the same old Washington rubbish." I want to watch the Democrats quietly tsk-tsk-ing while the Repubs slap each other on the back for their big Supreme Court win.

If congressional Repubs weren't so blinded with absolute power that they could see what they were doing, they'd already be distancing themselves from Bush, in the form of questioning Alito's credentials and making a show of 'begrudgingly' voting to confirm him. Really, at the end of the day, most Americans don't really understand Supreme Court politics, and probably don't care. So by siding with Bush in the hopes that the Alito victory will bolster his approval ratings and lead them to wins in November, the Repubs are sadly mistaken. Bush is damaged goods. And unless there is a major turnaround in Iraq and/or gas prices before November, it will stay that way. Just look at those poll numbers.

These are the things Democrats like John Kerry understand. (now hear me out. I'm not a fan, but I like what he's doing on this.) We need to mount a small (albeit impossible) resistance to the Alito nomination - simply so that we'll have it on record come November who favors the Bush Status Quo and who stands in opposition to it.

It's time for real proactive leadership, Harry Reid. And if you're not up to it, let Kerry and Kennedy show you how it's done. The time for reaction is over; the Repubs' decadent overreaching has dealt us a terrific hand going into this election year - and we should embrace it with full force.

Let's take some initiative, let's take some risk and, by God, let's take back Congress.

ts

Changing The Premise of the Argument

On a recent episode of The West Wing, VP candidate Leo McGarry (the late great John Spencer) was instructed by his press secretary what to do if he didn't want to respond to a difficult reporter query: "Don't accept the premise of the question."

It's an age-old deviation tactic which may or not be more clever than Reagan's famous hand-to-ear indication that he simply couldn't hear the question in question.

It's only logical, then, that the next step in the right-wing War on Information would be a shift from defense to offense: not simply rebuking the premise of an argument, but subversively changing the premise of an argument in the minds of the public. We've seen it several times before, but perhaps not as glaringly as with the Bush/Cheney response to the NSA wiretap scandal.

In recent weeks, the administration's retaliation to public backlash involving their decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans has been clearly worded: These wiretaps are extremely necessary to protect America from its terrorist enemies and another 9/11.

I had an interesting conversation last week with someone I greatly respect who, disillusioned by the Iraq war and the scent of administration corruption, switched from his 2000 choice and voted for Kerry in 2004. He's been reading and watching the same press that I have and when the topic came up, he was in step with Bush/Cheney in his assertion that this wiretapping was and is absolutely vital to the security of this nation. Moreover, he was shocked that I wouldn't agree.

This struck me as odd - because I absolutely agree.

Why did he look at me, knowing I'm a progressive Democrat, and assume I don't agree that domestic intelligence plays a very important role in keeping our nation safe? The answer is that Bush, Cheney and their army of ditto-head automotons are trying to change the premise of the argument. And in my view, they are currently succeeding.

By phrasing their responses to criticisms as something like 'We know more about this than you or our political opponents; the enemy is out to get us and this intelligence helps us stop them', they are achieving two things. At once, they are playing on their strengths (their highest poll #s are for their handling of the 'War on Terror') and exploiting Americans' fears that another 9/11 could happen to them or their loved ones. The knee-jerk response we've seen from public polling is that a vast majority of us are saying 'Go ahead! Listen in to my calls if it will stop the terrorists!'

Well, of course.

Here's the problem: No one is arguing about the necessity of this eavesdropping data! (even though it is estimated that the NSA has eavesdropped on thousands of private conversations that are in no way connected to Al Qaeda and collected vast amounts of info unrelated to national security while the FBI has conducted extensive surveillance of the Vegan Community Project, PETA and a Catholic Workers group they describe as having a "semi-communist ideology"). Still, almost everyone agrees that this type of intel is helpful in predicting and coordinating responses to future attacks. The only group who might disagree would be the ACLU, but even they haven't come out against it.

What they and many Americans like me have come out against is the illegal manner in which the information is being obtained.

In our government, we have multiple levels of checks and balances which are intended to protect the rights of our citizens. There was a clear procedure in place (for over 20 years) to obtain domestic wiretap warrants. A simple legal check was put in place to prevent specifically what has been done - the executive branch overreaching and infringing upon citizens' rights.

Adding insult to injury, the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which oversees this process has only turned down 5 requests in it's entire existence (since 1978) - granting over 19,000. AND the already simple process of obtaining these permissions is simplified even further by allowing the wiretap to occur as long as the initiating agency applies for the warrant within 72 hours after starting the tap. Finally, this law already covers warrantless wiretaps in a time of war -- it limits them to the first 15 days after war is declared. Now even I think 15 days is a little crazy, and that may need to be revisited, but the important thing here is that all scenarios were considered and accounted for in writing this law, so unilaterally ignoring it just doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever.

So then the big question on everyone's mind is "Why?" Why did Bush (Cheney) feel he needed to circumnavigate the law? Is there something about the data or the way it's being collected that would lead him to believe the court would deny the requests? And if that's the case - isn't it even more important that the court, whose sole purpose is to ensure the protection of American citizens' constitutional rights, be involved?

Of course the real answer may have less to do with the data mining and more to do with the Vice President's very public views about restoring executive powers that he feels have been curtailed since his old boss resigned his office in the disgraceful wake of a...? You got it: Wiretap scandal.

ts

Picture it. It's 2006. Riding a populist wave of discontent and, yes, nausea, over the current Republican regime, Democrats sweep into majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before their first session even begins, they begin drafting Articles of Impeachment against President W. As Rummy would say: Indictments? Sure. Presumptions of guilt? You bet. Removal from office? Not likely. Why? Because a tidal wave of resignations will hit Washington. So who will be left standing at the end of the day?

Here's the official Line of Presidential Succession, as it stands today, according to the 25th Amendment:

1. The Vice President Richard Cheney
2. Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
4. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
5. Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
6. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
7. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
8. Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
9. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
10. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez*
11. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao*
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
14. Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
15. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
16. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
18. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff**

* Gutierrez and Chao were born outside the U.S. and are therefore ineligible to assume the Presidency.
** Legislation which would move the Sec. of Homeland Security to 8th, ahead of Sec. of the Interior, is pending approval in the House.

So how will this shake out?

I'll be exploring this in future posts. But we can be sure that if Bush goes down, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales and possibly Chertoff go down as well. And Gutierrez and Chao are out. Which changes the map to look like this:

2. Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
5. Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
8. Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
9. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
14. Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
15. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
16. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

Now that's assuming that the Bush cronies depart from the pack to save their own hides. Since this is something not one but Powell has ever done, we can assume that Snow, Norton, Johanns, Leavitt, Jackson, Mineta, Bodman and Spellings will go down too. Changing the list to this:

2. Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

And I only left Colonel Nicholson on there because he's a veteran and I respect his service to our country. But wait: Wasn't he Chairman of the RNC during the 2000 election nightmare? Okay - that changes things:

2. Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
3. President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens

But of course, Hastert has his own legal troubles brewing due to his tight relationship with one Tom Delay. So let's assume he has to step down, and let's also assume that the Democrats stall the procedural vote to install Roy Blunt or Eric Cantor or David Dreier or one of those f**ks:

3. President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens

WHO THE HELL IS TED STEVENS? Two of his more interesting quotes:

"I am guilty of asking the Senate for pork and proud of the Senate for giving it to me."

"People who vote against this today are voting against me and I WILL NOT FORGET."

Ted's the guy who's building the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere," a $223 million (of your tax money) apportionment for the construction of a bridge as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge to Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) from the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000).

So all this begs the question:
Why can't John Kerry just do it?

http://www.arnoldsneighborhood.com/

Hurricanes. Indictments. Conservative Confirmations. Gas prices. Dead soldiers.
I could use a good laugh right about now. How about you? --> click here