Friday, January 21, 2011
Interesting to look back on the posts I wrote back then; I was pretty regular in my postings.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Am I the only one who finds this just a tad revealing?
When asked if he thought bin Laden would be captured this year, [Gen. John Abizaid] said he had no way of knowing.(Abizaid is the Commander of the U.S. Central Command.)
But he said, "I think that we will make it very painful for al Qaeda between now and the end of the year."
So, why is our time horizon for "making it very painful" for al Qaeda to the end of the year? Is there some reason why this year (as opposed to 2002, or 2003) is a better time for going after Osama bin Laden? And why not continue the efforts in 2005?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing the General of planning on ending the hunt on November 2. But his statement does seem to illuminate the current focus, one which happens to coincide with George Bush's election prospects. And, to me, that reeks of misplaced priorities.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Well, we've been here (on again, off again) for a year! Woo hoo!
We'll be making some substantial changes shortly, and bringing more of the Weasels into the mix!
As always, check out our main site, the Daily Weasel!
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Ed Gillespie recently accused Democrats of plotting a campaign of "dirty tricks".
It's ironic (but not unexpected) how quickly the GOP decided to prove who has dirty tricks in mind. In less than one week, the GOP's shills have attempted to smear Senator John Kerry with a doctored photo and a bogus infidelity charge. Both have now been exposed, and the GOP looks pretty damn bad. Nice job, guys.
And just a note to Gillespie: it ain't "dirty tricks" when you're telling the truth. You see, Democrats haven't had to resort to dirty tricks when it comes to Bush; the guy's a walking embarrassment. You guys, on the other hand, don't seem to have such scruples.
I suppose we can thank you, and your colleges such ad Drudge, for being so stupid and obvious about it though.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Surprise, surprise. Bush is claiming his tax cuts are responsible for the tremendous 7.2% GDP growth in the third quarter of 2003.
And he may be right -- to a degree: the decrease in tax payments correlates with increased consumer spending in the third quarter. Of course, Bush has actually cut taxes twice, and only once (third quarter 2003) has the cut correlated with increases in consumer spending. It is also worth noting that the growth (which occurred without a corresponding increase in jobs, remarkably) seems equally due to increases in personal earnings, and that Bush, a one-trick pony when it comes to economic issues, could have and should have done far more to jolt the economy than ram through massive, deficit-exploding, long-term tax cuts. Finally, most of Bush's tax cuts (large donations for the wealthiest Americans) have yet to take effect.
Cut taxes often enough, and sooner or later the cuts will be followed by economic growth. Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Bush just got lucky. As others have already noted, however, this luck may be short-lived, and the rest of us may (once again) pay the price for Bush's incompetence. In the meantime, let's all enjoy an improving economy that (thanks to Bush) has been a long time delayed, and hope the improvement continues.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Hey, folks! Yep, we're back after a couple of months off. A lot has been happening: I finally finished my Master's degree (well, technically, I finished all of my requirements -- an absolutely arduous ordeal in and of itself -- the degree will officially arrive in December), got a wonderful job doing things I truly enjoy and my wife and I moved to the Washington D.C. area. Needless to say, these goings-on have required my full attention.
And it's been interesting watching events unfold in the world. Bush's approval ratings have vacillated around 50-55%, but generally have continued to go south. And not without just cause: his handling of pretty much everything imaginable has shown an almost unbelievable level of incompetence, dishonesty and callousness. Add to this several gross political missteps and scandals that would have made Nixon blush (and gotten Dubya impeached already, if Congress weren't stacked with his cronies), and we have a recipie for a "president" in very, very deep trouble.
Coming soon, this blog will be revamped, as has our main page. Also, don't forget to check out Milt Shook's very own, brand-new blog!
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Looks like the latest Zogby poll (which, admittedly, typically finds lower approval ratings for Bush than several other polls) is putting Dubya's approval/disapproval ratio at 52%/48%. That's his lowest Zogby scores since July of 2001.
Even worse, Zogby has the percentage of people saying "someone new" needs to be elected President vs. re-electing the Shrubster at the highest ever: 48% say we need "someone new", and only 45% say they can take more of Bush's incompetence.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Looks like the GOP has yet another brewing public-relations fiasco on its hands. The Washington Post is reporting that a number of Republican state attorneys general solicited funds from corporations in legal trouble:
The attorneys general were all members of the Washington-based Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). The companies they solicited included some of the nation's largest tobacco, pharmaceutical, computer, energy, banking, liquor, insurance and media concerns, many of which have been targeted in product liability lawsuits or regulations by state governments.
The documents describe direct calls the attorneys general made, for example, to representatives of Pfizer Inc., MasterCard Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos., Citigroup Inc., Amway Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., Nextel Communications Inc., General Motors Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Shell Oil Co., among other companies. They also make clear that RAGA assigned attorneys general to make calls to companies with business and legal interests in their own states.
One of those soliciting funds between 1999 and 2001, according to the documents, was Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr., a pending nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Sources said that a former RAGA employee recently turned some of the fundraising documents over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which could vote as early as today on his nomination. A source who asked not to be named provided the documents to The Post.
Is this a case of a small group gone bad, or a larger symptom of a political party drunk on power and riddled with corruption? Time will tell, of course. One thing's for sure, though: the nomination of William Pryor just became a lot more difficult for Repubs to support.
Of course, if past history is any judge, that won't stop them, though. It's not as though he were a savory guy to begin with...
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Mr. Bush's political advisers pushed back against Democratic presidential contenders who have in recent days accused him of losing credibility on what had been seen as his strong suit, foreign affairs. The Republican National Committee issued a statement tonight asserting that "Democrats politicize war in Iraq," while party leaders declared that Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on the subject.
"The bottom line is this — what is their policy, what are they for?" Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview today. "We know what they are against, we know they don't like the president. But what are they going to do?"
The rapid counterattack from the White House, the Republican National Committee and Mr. Bush's re-election campaign suggested that Mr. Bush's advisers were unsettled about the turn of events, even as they expressed continuing confidence in the president's overall political support. And while arguing that Mr. Bush would suffer no long-term damage, some Republicans still said it was critical that he respond to the attacks by the Democrats.
"They have the potential to hurt, unless they are firmly and forcefully and frequently answered," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. "I don't think you can let any of this go unanswered. And I don't think the president is going to take any of this lying down."
It is, perhaps, understandible that Ed Gillespie would respond in political fashion -- he is, after all, paid to be a political shill (though it's unfortunate that he would participate in this travesty for cash). But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), as a member of Congress, has taken an oath of office. It's his job to put duty to the Constitution and the Country ahead of political party and political gain. It is unconscionable that he would choose, instead, to attack the messenger rather than responsibly question the administration's deliberately misleading statements and deeply undemocratic behavior. Senator Specter should likewise be held accountable.
This behavior is unacceptable. The President of the United States has sullied the office, and misled the nation. Senator Specter and all others attempting to defend the indefensible out of partisan loyalty should be ashamed of themselves.
Well, the press refuses to go away and play nice regarding the administration's lies, and all I can say is, "damn! so this is what a healthy, skeptical press looks like"!
Maybe the media in general has finally woken up to the fact that they've allowed themselves to be cowed into uselessness by GOP'ers and their extremist bretheren?
We can only hope.