Oh lord, there is just so much silliness in the op-ed columns of late – what’s a poor, humble li’l liberal blogger to do?

I used to have a blast stopping by the Caledonian (Broken) Record site. Partly because their bizarre right-wing rants are so unhinged, they are strangely mesmerizing. I realize after a few moments that I like them so much precisely because I could often have written them myself, if I were trying to make fun of the more deranged wing of the Republican Party.

Case in point the latest, entitled “Greenpeace Arrives.” Oh trust me, dear readers, you do not want to miss this one – and those of you outside the circulation range of the CR will think I’m making this up.

I dunno who writes these things, but I picture him obsessively cutting out magazine pictures of Obama, drawing Hitler mustaches on all of them and pasting them all over his bedroom walls and ceiling. Op-ed follows, presented in the style of Mystery Science Theater 3000…

As if Vermont didn’t have enough problems with home-grown, wild-eyed liberals,

Hence our Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

we have now been invaded by Greenpeace,

Invasion! AAAAAAA!

‘Cause, of course, there were no Greenpeace members that already lived here, or were (gasp) born here.

Poor fellas in pretty serious denial about many of his fellow Vermonters…

one of the most radical environmentalist groups in America. If there is one radical group that we don’t need,

Wonder what “radical group(s)” he thinks Vermont does need.

in addition to all of the others that we have, it’s Greenpeace. How is it that it has decided to come here?

Just for you, Mr. Caledonian Record.

That’s easy. Vermont, Maine, and Oregon are the most liberal states in the union. Nowhere is there a more congenial place for far-left fringe liberals. Greenpeace’s arrival is a benchmark of Vermont’s progress into the radical left pantheon.

Does this mean you’re leaving?

Greenpeace moved into Burlington in June. In contrast with their usual stridency and theatrics when they squat somewhere, this time they are pretending to be staid, quiet workers from within the mainstream.

They could be your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends…

Hide the children, grab yer gun…

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Holy Grail for Greenpeace, here, is their coming campaign to close Vermont Yankee. Their anti whaling and anti global warming zeal pales in comparison with their opposition to nuclear power.

(To say nothing of their anti-global-whale-warming zeal, or baby zeal, or something)

They will stop at nothing. Nothing.

We’re all going to die.

That which makes sense to half the world as the cleanest, cheapest power pushes Greenpeace into paroxysms of out-of-control fury.

Trust him, he’s an expert on paroxysms of out-of-control fury.

We are in for a fight if we are to succeed in defeating the far left in its holy mission to close Vermont Yankee, our only nuclear power plant and the source of nearly 40 percent of Vermont’s power, sold to us at prices that no other source of power or combination, thereof, can match.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

The fact that there hasn’t been a nuclear accident since Three Mile Island,

Leaks, breakdowns, structural collapses don’t count.

and even that did not cause any deaths or damages to America or Americans,

And the kids loved it!

doesn’t mean anything to Greenpeace or to their radical supporters on the left. Atomic power is their bogeyman,

It was given by the mighty hand of God.

and everybody knows that bogeymen are pure evil and should be erased from the earth for everybody’s good.

Actually, most everybody knows there’s no such thing.

So, now we have them. Hunker down. This clash is going to get very rough.

…and oh how they like it rough at the Broken Record.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

The Vermont Press Bureau’s “Capitol Beat” column in Sunday’s Times Argus made an effort to cover the Boots Wardinski campaign for lite-guv. Well, actually, effort might not be the right word since much of the piece is little more than a shallow cut and paste from Shay Totten’s Seven Days blog post on Friday. They did, however, manage to stick to the Bureau’s apparent unwritten rule to cover political campaigns without mentioning a political issue. High five!

But, seriously, at what point in the political campaign process are issues allowed to be covered? Apparently we’re not there yet. Because in the several hundred words they gave to Wardinski’s recent decision to run as a Prog in next year’s primary, they didn’t mention one issue, instead getting bogged down in rhetorical gamesmanship like this:

“No sooner did State Rep. David Zuckerman, a prog, say he might run for lieutenant governor as a Democrat – while hoping to win the Progressive primary as a write-in candidate  — than perennial candidate and protester (or maybe it should be perennial protester and candidate) Boots Wardinski announced he was running, too.”

Cute.

But I’d call Boots a “constant” protester – ever seen how the fella lives? – and a regular political participant. You know, kind of like what we used to think of as a functioning citizen back in the good old days.

By ignoring the issues and labeling Boots as a “perennial” candidate, the Press Bureau basically gives itself a free pass to skip out on its job. High five!

Besides, don’t they know that snarky writing and skipping out on journalistic responsibility is for bloggers? Yo fellas, you’re reporters.

Interestingly, media bias also comes into play in the Press Bureau’s short piece on the Wardinski campaign. There are six other politicians and/or past candidates for public office mentioned in the article, but only Wardinski got the dismissive “perennial” tag. Um, how about Anthony Pollina? Or Martha Abbott? They’ve both ran for office on many occasions and are the in same position as Boots: On the outside looking in.

Worse, not only does Abbott get away with dodging the “perennial” tag, she also gets to accuse Wardinski of “marginalizing” her party’s statewide efforts. Despite being inadvertently funny (how do you marginalize a zero-percent success rate on statewide elections?), I think it’s Pollina who ought to be getting the blame for marginalizing the Progs. It was Pollina, after all, who’s lost every statewide Prog race he’s entered and then ditched the party last time around to “better his electoral changes.” Yo Tony, how did that work out for you? Ouch.

It’s also a shame that the Press Bureau allowed the Abbott dig to go unchallenged from Wardinski. But, then again, that would require actual reporting work and, damn it, it was a Friday deadline and it was a lot easier to cut and paste Totten’s work than to make a couple of phone calls. Three Penny Taproom, here we come! High five!

Elected politicians mentioned in the article who also dodged the “perennial” tag included Zuckerman and Peter Welch, two fellas who have certainly been constant candidates for years (Zuckerman) and decades (Welch). Of course, the use of the word “perennial,” based on the words definition, has nothing to do with success – only effort. Unless, of course, you’re a lazy political reporter who wants to signal a dismissive tone without doing your homework. High five!

Whatever.

At least they spelled Broadsides correctly.  

( – promoted by odum)

In his op-ed piece in Sunday’s Times-Argus Jim Douglas 1) lies about the good faith offers state employees have made to ease the state’s financial woes, and 2) lies about the salaries Vermonters are asked to pay their state employees for the quality services upon which they rely.

Jim Douglas writes (emphasis mine):

With the average state employee making over $71,000 a year with benefits and in light of two consecutive pay raises over the course of the recession…it is not unreasonable to ask state employees to make some sacrifices to preserve the workforce and help struggling Vermonters afford their government…

How convenient that Douglas fails to mention VSEA’s February 2009 cost savings proposal.  In that proposal, VSEA offered to give up two years worth of cost-of-living pay raises as well as delay contractual “step” pay raises.  The offer was rejected by the governor, who is more interested in pursuing his job cutting ideology than in actually saving the state money.  Now he has the gall to accuse the VSEA of receiving the very pay raises they sought to refuse!

He continues:

In effect, the average Vermonter working in the private sector who earns under $50,000 a year and likely has not seen a raise during this recession, is being asked to pay state workers who make $20,000 a year more and had two raises in the last two years.

Although it’s difficult to tell for sure from his manipulatively vague language, it appears that Douglas is comparing an average state employee salary INCLUDING benefits to an average private sector employee NOT INCLUDING benefits – as if these two statistics are comparable.

The Burlington Free Press lists salaries for all state employees by name and job title (http://miva.burlingtonfreepress.com/miva/cgi bin/miva?SOVWageform.mv).  According to the Free Press numbers, there were 8689 state employees (including Governor Douglas) as of October 2008.  5216, well over half, earned less than $50,000 (not including benefits, which are not available from the Free Press site).  

One thing that is quite clear from perusing the Free Press site is that many of the 890 state employees earning top salaries (greater than $70,000 plus benefits) are non-union, “exempt” employees – i.e. employees not eligible for membership in VSEA;  the Commissioners, Agency Secretaries, and PR hacks whose numbers have increased disproportionately under Douglas’ governance.  Douglas doesn’t indicate where his “average state employee making over $71,000 a year with benefits” figure comes from.  But the relevant statistic would actually be the average VSEA-eligible state employees making over (fill in the blank) a year with benefits, which Douglas does not cite.  It’s the VSEA-eligible employees whose jobs are on the line and whose bargaining representatives have offered generous but fair concessions to ease the state’s budget deficit.

To claim that Vermonters earning $50,000 are being asked to pay exorbitant salaries to state employees who “make $20,000 more” is a gross misrepresentation based on deceptive math.  Vermont’s rank and file state employees are not overpaid.  In fact, Vermont’s public payroll per capita ranks 27th in the country – about average (see http://www.greenmountaindaily….

Douglas is correct that Vermonters are suffering.  Indeed, I agree that “it is not unreasonable to ask state employees to make some sacrifices to preserve the workforce and help struggling Vermonters afford their government.”  VSEA has repeatedly and sincerely offered to make just such sacrifices during the past few months.  Douglas has rejected them all – in pursuit of his mission to gut vital state services.  Please don’t fall for it.

The classical definition of fascism is a melding of business/corporation and state further combined with a militant foreign policy.

Your ears should certainly prick to attention when you read

President Obama scored a big victory on Thursday as the Senate Finance Committee rejected a proposal to require pharmaceutical companies to give bigger discounts to Medicare on drugs dispensed to older Americans with low incomes.

(Senate Panel Rejects Bid to Add Drug Discount, NY Times, 09/25/09)

The rejected proposal apparently would have brought in over $100 billion (a thousand thousand thousand dollars) over the next decade in Medicare savings via drug purchases rebates.

In arguing against the proposal, [DC Democratic Senator] Carper said, White House officials told him that “a deal is a deal,” and he agreed.

(ibid)

Yeah, a deal with big corporate daddies is a deal, but for you and me? The middle finger. (And don’t forget this is the DC “leadership” Leahy, Sanders and Welch continue to fawn over.)

Hey … now all we need is a huge military complex on the home front to keep the war machine working overseas!

Oh, we already have that?

Shit.

The Two Most Visible Right-Wing Figures in the Media Have Crossed the Line With Beck Calling the President a ‘Racist’ Without a Shred of Proof and Limbaugh Falsely Claiming Obama Is an Arab and Calling for Racial Segregation of School Buses

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Monday,September 28, 2009)

================================

A ‘SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL

================================

Can you believe their chutzpah?

Just who are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck trying to impress with their wild, unprovable claims that President Obama is a big, badass black boogeyman who’s out to make life miserable for white people in this country?

Has Limbaugh’s admitted past addiction to OxyContin and other prescription drugs driven him totally paranoid? Has Beck’s own admitted past addiction to cocaine and alcohol similarly pushed him over the edge?

Or have America’s two most visible and controversial right-wing pundits come totally unglued by the changes in America’s  political and social landscape that they both know they cannot stop?

It’s indeed a blessing that Obama is as cool as a cucumber. Rather than take Limbaugh and Beck’s racially-charged bait, the nation’s first African-American president has ignored them, instead moving on with the same calm demeanor of optimism that won him the presidency at a time when America is facing its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Indeed, it would be very un-presidential of him to do otherwise.

But it would be the height of irresponsibility at best — and outright enabling at worst — for anyone else to either ignore or dismiss as “boys will be boys” the racially-charged venom that Limbaugh and Beck are injecting into the public discourse.

We absolutely don’t buy Limbaugh’s lame excuse that he’s merely an “entertainer” and his rants are merely sarcastic parodies. As we said in an editorial last week, that’s a crock of pure, unadulterated B.S. What Limbaugh has done — and continues to do — is ugly and poisonous.

Indeed, it is beyond ugly. It is beyond poisonous. Limbaugh and Beck have crossed the line into deliberate race-baiting that, in the opinion of The ‘Skeeter Bites Report and many others — including a growing chorus of conservatives — a flat-out abuse of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The time is long overdue that they be held accountable.

LIMBAUGH AND BECK SHOULD BE SUED FOR SLANDER, DEFAMATION

Limbaugh and Beck also crossed a line into outright slander and defamation of character, for which both clearly deserve to be sued in a court of law. Limbaugh’s claim that the president is an Arab was a thinly-disguised attempt to demonize the president as a Muslim, when in fact, he is a Christian.

In making that comment, Limbaugh gave tacit –if not overt — support for the “birther” movement, which insists — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Obama is not a native-born U.S. citizen but a native of Kenya, his father’s homeland.

He also, whether consciously or unconsciously, stoked the rabid Islamophobia of so-called “Birther Queen” Orly Taitz, whose ties to a radical Jewish extremist group that considers Obama a threat to Israel were exposed by The ‘Skeeter Bites Report  on September 7 and whose latest lawsuit against the president was thrown out as “frivolous” by a federal judge — ironically, an appointee of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush..

Beck’s accusation that Obama “is a “racist” with “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture” was a clear attempt to stoke the passions of rabid white-supremacists. It was also so patently false and defamatory toward the president that the only reason Beck hasn’t been sued is that the president, being the nation’s chief executive as well as a public figure, cannot take legal action against Beck — or anyone else — until after he leaves office and becomes a private citizen.

LIMBAUGH: SEGREGATE BUSES — ROSA PARKS AND FEDERAL LAW BE DAMNED!

Limbaugh went over the line when he called for the re-segregation by race of school buses. “We need segregated buses,” he said, commentating on an incident aboard a school bus on September 15 in which a white teenager was attacked by two black teens.

Seizing upon the incident to fire yet another slam at President Obama, Limbaugh said, “I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson that we’re being taught here today. [The] kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and so forth. This is Obama’s America.”

One big problem with that, Rush: Segregation by race on buses and other public accommodations is illegal. It’s been illegal for more than half a century. But apparently, Limbaugh doesn’t care about that.

Nor, apparently, does Limbaugh care about the long struggle by African-Americans to end the practice that began in 1955 when Rosa Parks, an African-American seamstress, refused to obey the bus driver’s order that she give up her seat at the front of the bus to a white passenger and move to the back of the bus where blacks were required to sit.

Parks’ act of defiance became an important catalyst to the modern civil rights movement with the subsequent launch of the Montgomery bus boycott, led by a young African-American minister named Martin Luther King, Jr. The boycott launched King into national prominence in the civil rights movement and made Parks an international icon of resistance to racial segregation.

The Federal Communications Commission takes a dim view of broadcasters using the radio and TV airwaves to openly advocate breaking the law, but is generally powerless under the First Amendment to do anything to stop them — unless they openly incite violence or the violent overthrow of the government, the latter of which is illegal under the federal Smith Act of 1940.

While neither Limbaugh nor Beck have gone so far as to advocate the violent overthrow of the government — yet — one has to wonder how much longer will it be before they cross that red line.

BECK INFLUENCED BY ‘CRACKPOT’ CONSPIRACY THEORIST?

This isn’t the first time that Beck has gotten himself in trouble over racially-charged remarks. In fact, Beck has been playing the “race card” on the radio for years.

According to columnist Joe Conason, long before he went national with his syndicated radio show, Beck, while a “shock jock” morning-show host on a Kentucky radio station, “regularly mimicked African-American speech patterns for fun.” Conason, citing a  lengthy profile of Beck written by Alexander Zaitchik for Salon.com, quotes a former colleague of Beck’s as saying that Beck “used to do a funny ‘black guy’ character, really over the top.”

Conason also writes that Beck is a devotee of author and conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen. “Among Skousen’s pet theories was that Southern slave owners were actually the victims of the plantation system, which according to him, favored the lazy and pampered slaves, whose children he called ‘pickaninnies.'”

Does that mean Beck is a bigot? “If Obama had ever endorsed the writings of Louis Farrakhan,”Conason wrote, “replete with vile slurs against whites and especially Jews, that would certainly be enough for Beck — who says he believes that the president has ‘a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture.’ That must be why the Obama White House has so many whites of all ethnic and religious backgrounds advising the president, from the Cabinet down.”

CONSERVATIVES’ GROWING ALARM OVER BECK

Beck’s increasingly bizarre comments are drawing ire from a growing number of conservative commentators. Lat Tuesday, MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, a conservative former Republican congressman, lashed out at Beck, telling viewers, “When you preach this kind of hatred, and say that an African American president hates all white people —  hates all white people, you are playing with fire. And bad things can happen. And if they do happen, not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don’t call him out are responsible.”

Scarborough went on to say that he was starting an “honor roll” of conservatives willing to come out against Beck. He made multiple references to Beck’s “race-baiting,” and “wallow[ing] in conspiracy theories.”

Other conservatives, however, are going after Beck’s assertion made during an interview with “CBS Evening News” Anchor Katie Couric on her new Web-only program that John McCain would have made a worse president than Obama — apparently coming to the realization that Beck is a totally unpredictable “loose cannon” whose growing popularity with the radical right-wing fringe is posing a direct threat to the mainstream conservative movement.

A “loose cannon” who apparently doesn’t care for an African-American being president of the United States. Make that two “loose cannons.”

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved./

cross-posted from www.asrblog.com

Credit to the Burlington Freepress for reporting last week that federal stimulus money slated for road projects may not be distributed wisely throughout Vermont.  Because distribution is based on economic hardship in a county and not on the condition of its roads, rural Essex county in the Northeast Kingdom will receive more money than Chittenden County, the state’s largest metropolis.  According to the road surveyors, Essex does not have one road that is considered to be in bad shape, while 25% of Chittenden County’s roads are considered “unacceptable.”  The rationale for this decision is that the stimulus money must be injected into the economy as quickly as possible, which would not be possible if it were concentrated only in the areas with the worst roads, considering you can’t work on 25% of the roads in one county at the same time.  Furthermore, because the unemployment rate in Essex is higher than Chittenden and mean incomes are roughly $22,000 and $42,000 respectively, Essex is getting more money.

While I am fundamentally against the concept of federal stimulus money for reasons such as this glaring inefficiency of spending, not to mention inflation, I am forced to accept that it is being done and will provide a suggestion as such.  The primary goal is clearly to get the money in the hands of citizens by way of road construction, with a secondary goal of fixing unacceptable roads, but everyone knows that there is always wiggle room when tabulating business expenditures.  So to avoid turning “acceptable” roads in Essex into “super acceptable” roads, bring all the Essex workers into Chittenden county.  The drive is too long to commute each day, so spend Essex’s money paying their workers, and spend Chittenden’s money on trailors to house these guys, buses to get them to the job sites, caterers to BBQ for them each night, launderers to take their clothes every couple days, cleaners to keep the trailers looking nice, and of course we can’t forget to make big signs that say PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT.  Chittenden county has cleaners, sign makers, launderers and caterers, all of whom could be employed to ensure the roads are constructed well.  The money will be shot into the economy as fast as if we had only paid road workers in both counties and neglected all these other folks, with an end result of fixing the same number of unacceptable roads in Chittenden.

Given that both Sanders and Leahy saw fit to vote against the measure to deny funding to ACORN, I was more than a little puzzled by Peter Welch’s decision to support it; so on Sept. 20, I emailed the following to his Congressional mailbox:

I just have to ask you what was your rationale in supporting the measure against funding for ACORN. I’d like to think you have a reason other than the obvious need for a Junior Congressman to follow the leader.  So I am writing to give you an opportunity to explain to me why this measure serves the long-term interests of the country and your constituents. You must realize that  your vote  has just expressed your support for political interference in the normally non-partisan review of projects seeking federal funding.

A couple of days later, I received the following reply:

Thank you for contacting me about federal funding for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

Recent actions by ACORN employees reveal a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars.  On September 17, 2009 the House of Representatives voted 345 to 75 with my support to ban federal funding for ACORN.  In addition, the Census Bureau informed ACORN last week that it no longer wanted the group’s assistance for the 2010 census.

Thank you again for contacting me.  Although we may disagree on this issue, please continue to be in touch and I hope to see you in Vermont soon.

 Sincerely,

PETER WELCH

Member of Congress

I didn’t think that this was a very satisfactory reply; so, on September 22, I followed-up with a few specific questions.

Thank you for your response.  We are discussing your vote on Green Mountain Daily and I wished to give you an opportunity to respond.  

I will try to re-phrase my question; why do you not feel that the conventional review processes, which are in place for any federal funding, are the appropriate filters for Acorn’s projects as well as those of any other entity?  Do you now believe that the role of Congress is to second-guess the non-partisan review process?  Wouldn’t this be substituting political judgment for qualified peer-review?  

Regardless of the outcome of the ACORN investigation, doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent?  How do you respond to those who believe that the enormous scale of ACORN’s workforce, and the wide scope of their community activities make it statistically more likely that SOME individuals within the ranks will behave improperly from time to time?  Should we de-fund Congress for the same reason?  Or deny tax-exempt status to the Catholic Church because of systemic pedophilia among priests?

Green Mountain daily represents many people who have supported you over the years.  I think you can see that we are truly troubled by your vote.  

That was five days ago and I am still waiting for a reply.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

You know what we learned from The Wire, right? Among other things, we learned a lesson that we seem to need to repeat endlessly: that our cities are neglected, that people are suffering, and that a system that offers them no hope condemns them and their children to poverty, violence, and death.

It is telling that The Wire, the best show in the history of television, never won an Emmy. Maybe it's a little to real for people who prefer to watch undertakers or suburban Mafiosi, or maybe it's just part of the phenomenon it reported on.

Now we have a new series that has been compared to The Wire, but it's a documentary. In five consecutive nights, Brick City documents the struggles of people trying to make Newark, N.J., a better place. The star is undoubtedly Mayor Cory Booker, but the heroes are in every scene, including gang members, ex-felons who have taken to the streets to save Newark's youth, to guys who get out of prison and decide they need to serve their families by making the hard choice to look for a straight job.

 The entire series ran this past week, but it's still playing on the Sundance Channel. You need to watch it.

(thanks to Common Dreams and FAIR for helpful pointers)

In late June of ’09 the AP was saying this about the political struggle in Honduras:

Sunday’s referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

(Honduras heads toward crisis over referendum, Guardian (Brit), 06/26/09)

It didn’t take long, as the Common Dreams post above states, for that refrain to change to one of Zelaya actually trying to change the constitution and install himself as president forever.

But the lies my newspaper don’t stop there ….

In a USA Today article titled Honduran soldiers ring deposed leader’s refuge, the AP further misleads by mindlessly repeating the words of the coup installed self proclaimed Honduran president: “”Coups do not allow freedom of assembly,” [coup benefactee Micheletti] wrote in a column published Tuesday in The Washington Post. “They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant.”

Fact checking that claim would have been as easy as … oh … maybe checking out this news piece from “The Real News”:

It’s time my newspapers stop lying to me.

It's taken a very long time, between all the obstructionism, outright lies and manufactured outrage, but miracles evidently do happen. The Senate Republicans have finally found a tactic and a strategy that will actually benefit the American people, if you can believe it. What could it be? A sudden bout of conscience or something? Are you kidding?

The new strategy? Quit. Yep, as in the “take my toys and go home” way:

Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said Friday that they will no longer participate in an investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation policies, arguing that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s decision to reexamine allegations of detainee abuse by the CIA would hobble any inquiry.

They're not too thrilled that Holder didn't stick with Obama's “make-nice-move-along-nothing-to-see-here” capitulation in regards to the CIA abuses perpetrated under Bush, so they're not participating:

“Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the President to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the Committee's review,” the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said in a statement.

Ok, so after whipping up the Teabagging mouthbreathers into a perpetual pants-pooping frenzy about Obama's fascist/socialist/communist/antidisestablishmentarianist (insert your own “ist” here – they won't have a clue, regardless) lies, all of a sudden they took him at his word that he was gonna brush the Bush stuff under the Oval Office rug. Convenient.Yet they don't believe him when they say there's no “death panels”. Go figure.

Of course, Diane Fienstein (D- Milquetoast) is all upset that now it can't be “bipartisan” – you know, you have to have some element of reality-detached craziness in there for it to be taken seriously by the Amuurrican people, but overall, I hope that this will be a new-found winning strategy the GOP is taking on… getting the hell out of the way. Think of the things we could finally accomplish.

There's still those Blue Dog Dems to deal with, the real impediment to progress nowadays, but at least we wouldn't have to hear McConnell or Boehner whinin' and lyin' anymore.