Progressive Programmer

Progressive Politics or idle geek banter. What's on my mind when I'm irked, intrigued, bored or up too late.

Location: Michigan, United States


The Coalition

True, one shouldn't diminish the contributions of other countries. But I'm quite tired of the President and other politicians talking as though the coalition is anything other than absolutely and completely lopsided.

This diagram of casualties allows you to remove coalition countries one by one. Either we're practically the only ones there, or we're the only ones stepping into harm's way, or we're the only ones being targeted. I frankly don't know.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Speeches & Lies, both crispy and stale

Before the speech even played, Scott McClellan was lying about how fresh the subject matter would be:
Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory. It is a two-track strategy: there is the military and political track. On the military front, it's important to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and then our troops can return home with the honor that they deserve. And then there is the political track. The Iraqi people are showing that they're determined to build a free and democratic and peaceful future, and we must continue to do all we can to support them as they build a lasting democracy.

So the President looks forward to speaking to the American people tomorrow night. You will hear from him in much greater detail, but I wanted to give you a little bit of a preview to begin with. And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success? Is there a new direction, or is the President basically summing up what he has said before?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place. He touched on it a little bit last week; he's touched on it in -- many times over recent weeks. But this is going to be the President talking about it in a very specific way, about where we are for succeeding and where we are in implementing that strategy.

Given this high and mighty rhetoric--and lathering on the b.s. the way only Scotty can--one might feel that Bush really was going to put out a helluva chat in front of the GIs.

Um, no:
[paragraph 2] The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face – murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression – by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror.
Hmm, speech about Iraq. Paragraph 2. Lie #1: The troops are fighting a global war on terror. Iraq was not part of the war on terror until all of the terrorists came to help out a bit. Lie #2: This war reached our shores long before September 11, 2001. Lie #3: Terrorists in Iraq = Terrorists of 9/11 (This was one that earned support for the Iraq war in spades). Lie #4: Hates freedom, etc. No, that's not true. They hate our policies of interference in their countries and their politics. Can we please stop with this lie already? Very stale. Lie #5: OUR aim is to remake the middle east. What is this guy fucking talking about?

So far I'm wondering about Scotty's claims. Not much freshness in this bag.
[par 7]Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.
I'm really quite sick of this framing. They are converging on Iraq to kill Americans, but there certainly seems to be no advance of peace or freedom in the Iraq I'm looking at. Americans walk their streets armed to the hilt, and their police officers explode almost daily. Why don't we call the insurgents and the remnants of Saddam's guys, "The part of Iraq that didn't surrender"? That's what they are, right? There were some people that didn't want to give up. They didn't. I don't like these people, but it is interesting to consider what we're being told they are. Freedom is not taking root. Millions are being inspired to hate America more, as Abu Graib and other scandals become clear, and as the series of American torture prisons becomes more fact than fabrication in everyone's mind. We promised American freedom and rights and the abolition of torture, and appear to have brought none. Lose their sponsors? Lose recruits? Abizaid said the insurgency is not losing strength. Get a grip, Mr. President.
[par 8]
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
Yikes. I don't think you should have mentioned that, sir. I want victory, but only because it sounds good. I still don't know what I would consider victory, much less what your simpleton thinking might call a "w", if you'll pardon the pun.
[par 9]
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
No limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. Oh, that's rich.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Who is a President who has never been in my kitchen?

Bush came to my adopted home state and gave a speech tonight. It would seem that the polls that Bush doesn't think about in the papers he doesn't read have been getting to the conscience he doesn't have. And so he thought he better give a speech to the people he doesn't care about while standing in front of the troops he won't equip in a war he doesn't tell the truth about and does not, in any way, feel was a mistake.

kos points us to a portrait of how bad America thinks Bush sucks.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


What else do we do that we don't do, again?

Well, along with not invading sovereign nations to pursue terrorists or those that might harm us, it would appear that we also do not negotiate with terrorists.

When are we going to start not giving me lots of money?

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Why can't we call a fascist a fascist?

If you look at fascist states and try to find the commonalities, perhaps you'll end up with a list that makes it pretty obvious what our modern Republicans have done--and are trying to maintain.

No wonder they don't like hearing the word "democratic", but instead replace it with "democrat", as in : I don't like what some would call a staple of the democrat agenda.

They (the fascists masquerading as Republicans) want to cast "democrat" in a pejorative light, much as they've succeeded in casting "liberal". Any agenda that is the "democrat" agenda is forced on you. It is not "democratic" in nature. It is "democrat" in nature, and therefore liberal, and therefore bad. Only a modern Republican could lie to your face, accusing his opponents of the crimes he knows himself guilty. One marvels.

Meanwhile, they (the fascists masquerading as Republicans) follow the 14 points--plus a few horrifying ones of their own--down the road to fascist dictatorship. Of course, unless they can get a good reason to declare martial law and suspend elections, they'll probably just take turns in The Big Chair in the Big White House, moving money to their cronies and playing war with the children of the masses and the money of your great grandchildren.

It's a shame the Press doesn't call them (the fascists masquerading as Republicans) out on all of this.

I have told friends, that I can respect a Republican that points out how un-Republican and un-American these men are. I have friends that have done so. But those that blindly support this approach are worse traitors than the perpetrators themselves. Those that hide under the cloak of the church in order to further this same agenda are also traitors, but they tack on blasphemy for good measure. Not all Christian supporters of this movement are aware of what they support, so they can be forgiven their lack of knowledge, but should be ashamed their Christian learnings didn't make it painfully obvious.

Perhaps the only thing that could slow or stop them (the fascists masquerading as Republicans) is a large contingent of their own party standing up, and saying, "No. Stop. Enough. The country we leave behind is worth more than the power we enjoy today and wish to maintain tomorrow."

Pity. As the country would rally behind that group (the Republicans that are today just playing along with the aforementioned fascists, who are themselves masquerading as Republicans).


I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Why do 49% of Americans hate America?

Even Americans now think Bush was picking a fight w/ Saddam more than the reverse : link.

(via atrios)

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Happened across a blog w/ an attitude

One recurring theme, is that everything Bush has failed to do is really YOUR fault.

Yup. We progressives & liberals tried to get Bush's Administration to stay the course. To listen to citizens instead of generals. To allocate funds but not armor. To hypocritically attack one nation while ignoring those that attacked us. To lie to the American people. To impugn the service of war heros. To use religion and social issues as a divisive tool. To politicize 9/11 while accusing his opponents of doing precisely that.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Let slip the dogs of K

And we wonder why no Republicans give a flying shit about the budget deficit? 2 reasons: they're the target of too much $$ while they're in office, and they won't care if their constituents vote them out for being pandering bastards because when they lose office they'll increase their salaries by a factor of 10. Ban lobbying or watch democracy die.

Of course, if all of the Republicans live off the fat of the K long enough, to the benefit of the monied and the detriment of their constituency, they'll all lose, which will portend the rise of the Democratic congress.

A question arises of supply and demand, but both of these are seen as infinite. The demand corporations have for bilking the government is infinite. The supply of government $$ to be bilked is seen as infinite (We know it is not, but Republicans leaders of this country are near-sighted asses). So what happens?

Perhaps the Republican lobbyists that can still get something done are worth even more. Perhaps the Democratic lobbyists start pulling down the big coin. I don't know. What I do know, is that only true campaign finance reform, in conjunction with voting reform, can hope to restore our democracy, and neither is possible with Republican gerrymanderers running congress and a corporate puppet in the White House. Add to that the pile of snakes on K street and neither campaign finance or election reform can be mentioned without someone asking why we hate America.

I've said it before. Ban lobbying now. Save our democracy. Send former legislators back to a TRULY private sector life.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Young Yeller

Well, Operation Yellow Elephant might be facing an uphill battle if the Young Republicans keep rejecting advertising from those trying to recruit personnel for our armed services. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Help stop the hypocrisy of GOP Support

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Oil Oil bo-Boil, banana-fana-fo-foil.

My father recently said, in response to my question about what in the world had made the value of my sister's real estate skyrocket in such a way in such a short period of time, "They're not making any more lake front property."

True. How simple.

Ya know what? They're still not making any more oil.

Odd that as a resident of the USofA, I have to literally dream, nay fantasize about having a President that is willing to admit when science is science. Would that W. would find it in his cavernous skull to make an attempt at actual, real policy to hold back demand as opposed to increasing supply. Even the steps he *has* taken will take years to come to fruition. Unfortunate that our government's (spurned by our short-sighted automakers) vision never seems to take both sides of the simple economics into question. Curbing demand is the only long-term solution. Increasing supply is like chasing a ghost, and will remain so the whole way down Hubbert's Peak.

Though I don't think Exxon Mobil worries a hair on their 43%-single-year-gain loving heads.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Manjoo = Cannon Fodder

Farhad Manjoo gets boomed by a large retort from Cannonfire.

And Cannonfire is right when he makes the point he often repeats (which bears repeating at the top of his lungs and ours)
In 2004, the exit pollsters also asked the voters about their choice in 2000. The majority of respondents said that they had pulled the lever for "Bush" in that election. Yet in 2000, AL GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
He[Manjoo] refuses to explain how, in the known political universe, the exit pollsters might encounter so many people resistant to Bush's charms in 2004 who nevertheless brag about (or confess to) voting for Bush in 2000. If Bush voters are by nature reluctant to speak to those eeee-vil pollsters, why doesn't this reluctance color the question about Bush/Gore?
Given that tidbit, how can one argue that Democrats were more likely to respond to the 2004 exit pollsters? That explanation don't fly for why exits showed Kerry winning, no matter how many times people try to reuse it.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Schiavo -- Retraction from Frist coming post haste, I'm sure

The population of my bomb may never stop growing.

We find, as all sane, non-religious-fundamentalist-puppets were aware before her death, that Terri Schiavo's autopsy confirms her atrophied, pained existence without a doubt.

"Culture of Life" has but one rule : Life starts when the conservative at the microphone says it starts and ends when God says it ends1.

1except when the conservative at the microphone is:
  • W. as Governor, sending a record number of inmates to their death
  • W. as President, sending a record number of Iraqis to their death
  • W. as President, sending 1700+ Americans to their death over lies and fixed facts
  • Tom DeLay as Tom DeLay, pandering.
  • Bill Frist as Bill Frist, pandering.
  • Dobson

Anyways. How can we trust Frist to help run this country, when he is abusing his education as a medical practitioner in this country by diagnosing a woman, via video, having never met her, from the floor of the Senate in a way that is meant to call into question the numerous, qualified diagnoses of the same woman by medical practitioners that did in fact MEET THE WOMAN! MULTIPLE TIMES.

The simple answer is that we can't. But Wingnuttia careth not. They told Frist to march on out there and say some dumb shit cuz their bible-thumping, science-hating followers would lap it up, and Frist is in no position to question the will of the, I mean, The Lord our God.

Power is their poison, folks, and unfortunately, their power is poison to us all.

MSNBC Link to Frist's el-stupido diagnosis via Think Progress via atrios.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Go Gitmo, and leave the cooking to us

Club Gitmo

Enjoy fantastic meals a couple of times/week, including, but not limited to:
Oven Fried Chicken Platter
  • broccoli
  • peas
  • mushrooms
  • rice
  • pita bread
  • fruit of day 1
  • fruit of day 2

Lemon Fish Platter (OBL Bodyguard's twice-weekly joy)
  • rice
  • broccoli
  • carrots
  • bread
  • fruit of day 1
  • fruit of day 2

Other lovable items enjoyed by "the killers":
  • Werewithal to conduct religious services
  • Q'uran (Thousands of copies available, touched only by gloved American hands)
  • Library (13 different languages) of Q'uran available
  • Prayer Call 5 times/day (including signs pointing to Mecca, and rugs purchased for them by the American taxpayer)

All this, and only a few instances of "illegal touching" ever reported 1!

You'll never eat better, be treated better, or be more comfortable in your life! Unless you think chicken three times a week is torture 2!

1 Which is to say that we have admitted it was reported and have since taken the token action of demoting one officer. We understand that there are hundreds of reported abuses, but we do not recognize those as they have been reported by former detainees (and thus by killers). Please do not attempt to point out the fact that we would not release those we found to be killers, and therefore that these abuses are reported by innocent people wrongly detained. We don't agree with the premise of this argument and besides, it is old news.
2 Please note that your shipment overseas to any one of a number of faceless, nameless, unrecognized prisons in a country that condones and practices torture, dismemberment, disfigurement and the occasional accidental murder is plausible and likely despite and/or in spite of any defense you may attempt to present (which will be ignored due to your being an enemy combatant as we define it, thus rendering you unrecognized as a POW under the Geneva Convention as we interpret it).

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Straw tells Blair what the Facts of Life are all about

Again from AfterDowningStreet, I keep reading each of these memos, and have to wonder if their order is intentionally directed to form a crescendo of astonishment, as in the final of the 6, Jack Straw to Tony Blair
1 The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few.

He could have stopped right there, having already typed the most-eloquent summation of a trip to Crawford ever devised. Has anyone, other than a Saudi or a failed Cabinet Member, been rewarded by a trip to Crawford?

But what comes after that is tantamount to a set of peacenik talking points. It sounds like everything being shouted from the rooftops by pro-peace demonstrators, bloggers and writers since early '02... just about the time it was being written. Only this is coming from the office of Jack Straw, and is written to Tony Blair.

Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But we have a long way to go to convince them as to:
(a) the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently;
(b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of eg Iran and North Korea as to justify military action;
(c) the justification for any military action in terms of international law; and
(d)whether the consequence of military action really would be a compliant, law abiding replacement government.


3 The Iraqi regime plainly poses a most serious threat to its neighbours, and therefore to international security. However, in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action [emphasis mine]

Hell, it even goes on to complain about the infamous Axis of Evil speech being a problem, where they would have to "delink the three" (Iraq, N.K., Iran) so invading Iraq could be justified without encouraging the logical (and militarily unviable) conclusion that the others must be invaded as well.

Did anyone write memos like that in OUR government? My guess is they'll start appearing soon. This story has legs, as well it should.

I'm dumbfounded. Where is the outrage from the Right at how a President dared lie to the American People? Don't expect any word at all from those hypocritical, treasonous, lecherous, cronie-feeding, America-hating jackasses. They're probably preaching about the moral value of lying countries to war and killing innocent men, women and children for profit, or stumping about how anyone that opposes the President's War On "Terra" is an America-bashing terrorist-lover. Over the top? Did you read these memos I'm quoting? The Bushies LIED. Get it straight and stop denying it or shut the hell up.

Watch for the Bush Admin, if anyone in the Press even asks them about this crap, to say that they disagree with the premise of the memo, or perhaps that it is old news (everyone already knows they lied us into war, so it's a non-story). They won't deny the authenticity. And because the memos are British, they'll assume the story will not be successfully used against them long-term.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I dare you, I DOUBLE Dare you, say, "Iraq" one more g.d. time

Actually, I just dare you to read #s 4-7 in the below memo, available from AfterDowningStreet :


The more I read, the more I wonder... can the Bushies dodge this one too?

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Burning Downing the House!

Cannonfire points us to After Downing Street, which I've heard much of but had yet to find the time to visit. Apologies.

A whole pile o' Downing Street-like documents from the Brits seems to paint an ever-clearer picture of how they were reluctant as the Bushies shoved Iraq down their throats.

1 - ods020308
2 - fcolegal020308
3 - manning020314
4 - meyer020318
5 - ricketts020322
6 - straw020325
One fun quote (from link #2 above):
In the UK's view, a violation of Iraq's obligations which undermines the basis of the cease fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view. [emphasis mine]

Downing Street's page does a good job of painting a few quick quotes to show how the whole plan unfolded itself in horrifying logic--all driven by the predetermined goal of unnecessary war w/ Iraq to appease Bush.
For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD

Frequent After Downing Street if you can. They're not letting go of this, whether the Press wants to dig up evidence of their own failure to ask questions or not.

As Fox News' Bill O'Liely might ask, "Why do the Brits hate America?"

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

How dare you point fingers at our enablers!

Via atrios, the Washington Post tells us that our government is actively suppressing international discussions and/or investigations into a shooting of "hundreds of protesters".

Seems our country likes its military base from which to continue its failed war in Iraq (and handy Gulag drop-off point) more than it likes the principles on which it was founded. Glad Bush finally set us straight on that.

But hey, at least we're doing this hand-in-hand w/ Russia. So we got that goin' for us.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


The cruel tutelage of Douglas Feith - or, why W didn't get any resistance to his Iraq invasion dreams

So, your father is threatened by a mean, nasty old man. You dream of one day being able to teach that mean, nasty old man a lesson (and force your political agenda down the country's collective gullet as a result).

Meanwhile, you begin surrounding yourself by those with a deeper, less-personal, more premeditated agenda. An agenda that encourages destabilization of the mean, nasty old man's region to the benefit of a different country entirely... a country that has been unable to succeed in its own aims to do the same.

Is it any wonder what you will do when given an excuse? Is it any wonder that those you have surrounded yourself with will encourage you to attack that mean, nasty old man? Is it any wonder that some will question whether there is any way to avoid war, and whether intelligence might be fudged to garner support?

How powerful is AIPAC? How powerful were Feith and his minions before this horrible failure of a war (which, in their minds, is not a failure, but a rousing success)? How helpless were Tony Blair and company to talk some sense into those that had wanted to attack Iraq for anywhere from 3 to 7 years? (Bush's 1999 comments to Perle & Feith's Clean Break Strategy for Israel in 1996)

If the 1996 strategy had been written by anyone else, this is a non-starter. But like the PNC (also less-fluff here), Feith and Perle have written, years in advance, the play book they now follow in public... and still we wonder what will happen next.?.?.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


GOP... easy as WCP

Howard Dean is getting his ass handed to him by Dems and Republicans alike for speaking a simple, obvious truth to the masses.

But as kos points out, with assistance from AMERICAblog, what's all the fuss about the truth?
In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat

But that's okay too. Cuz the guys at MyDD remind us that it won't always be that way. Good things will come to those who wait. I'm with Chris at MyDD. By "good", I do not mean Christianity declining. I mean the branch of the Republican Party that has been able to cloak itself in Christianity as a means to an end... as a means to keep themselves in a strong majority based on religion rather than politics. The separation of Church and State should cross over to the separation of religion and politics, and this can not fully happen unless/until these trends play out.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


The Press avoids applying the Pressure

Denis Horgan at the Hartford Courant questions journalism that would knowingly ignore a story despite having been repeatedly lied to by the Bush Administration:
...the press does have a role in society, and it is not to be a cheerleader for government -- not this government, not the last one nor the next one.

Amen. Fox News is an anti-American abomination dressed in a flag of faux patriotism that cheers on an Administration that is deliberatly, knowingly harming our country in order to help cement their power and line the pockets of their cronies. So is every other mouthpiece for the traitors running the House and Senate. They can only be deliberately ignorant of damning facts because the non-compliant media is scared to death of being labelled as biased.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Name-calling hurts feelings of cowardly right-wingers

Via atrios, thepoorman writes a scathing critique of how the Right successfully deflects genuine, brutal criticism of their horrible, brutal tactics by picking teensy little things to rant on and on about. They rant on about the teensy little things... and never address the larger issue--that the Bush Administration is a gulag-running bunch of lying sinners.

Yes. Sinners.

Because Newsweek writing a story about the Quran being desecrated is an unholy abomination and a prime example of the abuses of the Freedom of the Press. Beatings, torture, rape, murder... those are Jim Dandy! Didn't you hear what I just said about Newsweek? Those other nasty things are the kinds of stuff that happen in a War on Terror, and should, therefore, never be discussed or addressed, no matter the criticism or evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, we must pick a word, label it "absurd" or something of that ilk, wait 2 days, and call it old news about which all questions have been answered.

A series of prisons that spans the globe, out of reach of--or at least out of touch with--international authorities, is being run by the Chicken Hawks of the Bush Administration with the support of big-business and the right-wing nutjobs that call themselves Christians. Gulag is an appropriate term.

These nuts deserve to be called names, and, apparently, it upsets them enough to actually get a response.

Normal criticism--legitimate, reasoned, thoughtful, evidence-supported criticism--bounces back from their rubber and sticks to our glue.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Liar, liar, Iraq's on Fire

ThinkProgress enumerates a few of Bush's many many lies.

I'm sure the outrage in the punditocracy is *cough* imminent *cough*.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I've seen things suck before...

52 out of 100 Americans think Bush sucks.

Better late than never? Tough to say.

Alterman, atrios, kos all kick him while he's down.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Going Downing Downing Downing in a burning ring of Minutes

The Downing Street Minutes won't go away. Will they? They shouldn't.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

One wonders just how much proof is needed? How much proof that our President violated the constitution he swore to uphold...while simultaneously lying to the American People and the world, and while alienating many long-time allies and while helping to create uncounted numbers of new terrorists and terrorist havens?

Presumably, with a party in the majority that cares for their power and their party a thousand times more than they have ever cared for their country, there is simply no amount of proof that will suffice.

Bush didn't get blown by an intern. He just tried to destroy another country, illegally, and based on support he earned only by lying to us all.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Lobbying perks. Milking the teat without remorse.

I'm sure abuses of the lobbying industry travel both up and down the bullshit river--on both sides of the aisle--that helps erode our rights, protections and incomes.
A Senate staffer, who was having dinner at the Capital Grille, noticed a lobbyist across the bar, walked over to him and handed him his bill.

A staffer? A staffer?

Stories like this aren't the reason I've been saying that one of the fastest ways to help cure politics in this country is simply to ban lobbying altogether. But it certainly pours fuel on the fire.

No dinners. No gifts. No trips. Nada. Put the little guy back on the same level as the giant corporations. If a corporation wants more influence, let them donate money, or organize their employees to exert a thousand points of pressure instead of one heavy-handed one. If they can do that, at least they'll be talking to their labor instead of pissing on it.

Lobbying is part of the problem. Politicians need to think of their constituencies with untainted minds, and that's the last thing a lobbyist wants.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention