republicans

A big milestone was hit in Iraq yesterday, yet I doubt the media will talk about it too much:

Iraqi commandos showed off skills they learned from U.S. military forces, who Saturday formally handed over control of combat operations to Iraqi security forces.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, was on hand to watch the final American combat team, the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, tender responsibilities to the 6th Iraqi Army Division.

In a little over 3 weeks we will only have 50,000 forces in Iraq. Yeah that’s 50,000 more than I like, but it is a far cry better than the numbers we saw when Bush was President, or if McCain had become President.

And with this major accomplishment, I highly doubt the media will talk too much about it. When President Obama announced that everything was on target last week, the media stayed mostly quiet, yet when President Obama first announced the plan to get the troops down to 50,000 in the summer of 2010 last year, the media was full of the pessimistic Republicans saying it couldn’t happen. Where are those people now?

Following up on my earlier post about the Republicans not worrying about the deficit if it helps the rich, I decided to post this little graph. It really puts a perspective on the current budget deficit and who is ultimatley responsible for it.

Fareed Zakaria, writing an article entitled “Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!” in Newsweek, sums it up perfectly:

The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.

The chairman of the RNC has done it again. Check out this video of him blasting and lying about the Afghanistan War.

In this Steele calls Afghanistan a “war of Obama's choosing”. Does this moron even know who decided to invade Afghanistan? Does Michael Steele and the RNC believe that those who senselessly murdered 3,000 lives on American soil in 2001 shouldn’t be punished?

Remember – a vote for a Republican is a vote for the terrorists. This is the absolute proof of that and unless other prominent voices in the Republican Party come out and blast Steele for his idiotic and careless comments, then it is the platform of the Republican Party.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that states can’t impose laws hindering the gun rights:

The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Now thinking about this, it seems that the law was put in to protect the citizens. So wouldn’t the same now apply to the 4th amendment? What about warrantless wiretapping of phones? The argument Bush and the Republicans used was that it’s legal because they are doing so to “keep the people safe”. Well it seems like a stronger argument could now be made against that, citing this ruling.

Or could it?

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

That’s some pretty narrow language there. I think if one wanted to apply this to the 4th amendment and the Bush wiretapping, then it could be said that what Alito wrote wouldn’t apply.

This really isn't that shocking of a news story:

While House rules prevent Democrats from using the video of Joe Barton yesterday on the campaign trail, they can still hammer away on his apology to BP for the "shakedown" Obama did to them.

This statement by Barton is a national treasure for Democrats. They can run simple commercials telling what he said and pointing out that if Republicans regain control of the House that Barton would become the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the main oversight committee of the oil industry.

Add to that the fact that Barton's biggest contributors are from the energy industry:

Now you got a great commercial to run against any Republican:

Representative Joe Barton apologized to British Petroleum for the President demanding they pay for all damages incurred by the oil spill. This is not shocking coming from a person who enjoys a majority of his campaign contributions from the energy committee, but is this what America needs?

As the ranking Republican of the powerful Energy and Commerce committee, Joe Barton holds a lot of control over what happens in the oil industry. Do we need Joe Barton as the chairman of this powerful committee? A vote for John Boehner would put Joe Barton one vote closer to taking the gavel and offering the oil industry extra protection.

Barton's statement doesn't need to effect just Barton, but the Republicans overall. Other Republicans have made similar statements, like Michelle Bachmann, but Barton is by far the most powerful. If Democrats take this gift and seize on it then it could really affect the outcome in November.

The President's speech from the Oval Office was a major failure in my view. He missed a golden opportunity to really hit one out of the park. A good example is talking about the clean energy bill, yet he did not use the power of his office and speech to urge Senate to pass it.

That's a big miss Mr. President.

When Bush wanted something done he went in front of the cameras and started chastising the Senate into doing it. It was actually a rather effective approach, and not one all that uncommon. I know Obama used to be in the Senate, but he has to stop acting like it. He needs to push the changes he campaigned on through, and right now energy alternatives is a big one that needs pushed through.

And what ever happened to the "yes we can" attitude? If we ever needed that, it's right now. We needed a forceful President Obama tonight pushing for a new energy future and following it up with a healthy dose of "yes we can". As many have said, we needed a Kennedy "put a man on the moon" speech and we didn't get it. Taegan Goddard sums it up very nicely:

Though Obama called for a "national mission" to transition to clean energy, he was vague on what he actually wants to see in a comprehensive energy bill. In doing so, Obama is just another president that has refused to ask Americans for the necessary sacrifice to finally achieve this greater national goal. He missed a golden opportunity.

That's exactly what we need and we didn't get it. Is he afraid that the Republicans won't agree with him? Well they still won't, so fuck them and move on.

Can we get the Barack Obama from 2008 back? We really need him right now. Back then candidate Obama never missed out on a golden opportunity like he did tonight.

Unbelievable:

Congressional Democrats and the White House are toying with different ways to force BP to cover the costs of damages from the Gulf oil spill. But they face stiff opposition from industry...and it seems leading Republicans. In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he believes taxpayers should help pick up the tab for the clean up.

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

This would basically be a bailout for BP and Boehner is pushing for it? I wonder how the Tea Party would like that one.