In wake of tornado tragedy, both of Oklahoma's senators prove once again to be self-serving assholes

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Inhofe and Coburn, Oklahoma's finest.

First it was Tom Coburn, the junior senator, who said that he would "only support relief aid if it's offset by cuts elsewhere." As I wrote, "disaster relief is apparently one of those things you have to negotiate with Republicans. (Okay, we'll help you out a bit, but only if we fuck some other people elsewhere.) Chris Christie understandably went ballistic when Republicans did this in response to Hurricane Sandy. But who will speak for the people of Oklahoma?"

Well, Jim Infofe, but with shameless hypocrisy. The senior senator said that Hurricane Sandy aid, which he opposed, was "totally different" from Oklahoma tornade relief, because the Sandy bill had "things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C." "Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place," he added. "That won't happen in Oklahoma." No? Your buddy Coburn's already gone there.

In any event, Inhofe is full of shit. As the Post's Rachel Weiner and Matt DeLong explain:

The senator appeared to be referring to the fact that some funds from the Sandy package for the Federal Highway Administration could go to the Virgin Islands, as well as $2 million allocated to the Smithsonian for roofs damaged by the storm. We don't yet know what a congressional relief package for Oklahoma would look like, if one is even necessary. As of Tuesday morning, FEMA has $11.6 billion in its Disaster Relief Fund.

So some money could have gone to an American territory through the FHA and there was a need to repair some damage at the Smithsonian, an essential American institution.

Look, Inhofe and other Republicans were just looking for anything to block Sandy relief. This extra spending was what they used to justify their opposition.

Read more »

Why good people hate them: Republicans reject the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

By Mustang Bobby

If the Republican Party ever has a moment of introspection — yeah, right — and wonders why they lose elections and get portrayed as cold, heartless, and unfeeling bastards, this would explain it:

The Senate Tuesday fell short of the two-thirds vote required to ratify a United Nations treaty aimed at securing rights for disabled people around the world, when the vast majority of Republican senators voted against the treaty. The final vote was 61-38 vote. All the nay votes were Republican.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities essentially makes the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act a non-binding international standard. It requires no change to U.S. law.

Originally signed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and re-signed by President Barack Obama in 2009 shortly after he took office, the treaty has been championed by former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), the one-time GOP presidential nominee who suffered a disability while serving in the Army in World War II. Dole was on the Senate floor Tuesday ahead of the ratification vote, in a wheelchair, accompanied by his wife, former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).

Longtime Republicans like Sens. John McCain (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN) and John Barrasso (WY) voted for the treaty. But that didn't stop the party's more conservative members from warning that it would violate U.S. sovereignty and dictate to parents with home-schooled children.

"I do oppose the CRPD because I think it does impinge upon our sovereignty," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). "Unelected bureaucratic bodies would implement the treaty and pass so-called recommendations that would be forced upon the United Nations and the U.S. ... This would especially affect those parents who home-school their children. ... The unelected foreign bureaucrats, not parents, would decide what is in the best interests of the disabled child, even in the home."

Inhofe was joined by Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), Mike Lee (UT), Marco Rubio (FL) and most of the party's leadership in quashing the treaty. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), who is up for re-election in 2014, voted against it.

Read more »

James Inhofe, like others on the right, slams Obama's Afghanistan trip, provides yet more evidence he's a relentless idiot, a shameless hyper-partisan hack, or some combination thereof

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So, as you may know, President Obama is in Afghanistan -- or was, I'm not sure of his schedule, and he may very well have left already.

On the one-year anniversary of the remarkable mission that resulted in Obama bin Laden's death, which he himself ordered and for which he deserves enormous credit despite all the hypocritical whining from conservatives, he met with U.S. troops at Bagram air base, telling them that "when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do," and also that, alas, "the battle's not yet over."

He also addressed the American people, and the world, saying that "we've traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of new day on the horizon," a message of hope in a place where there isn't much of it -- and where he himself has continued a war seemingly without purpose, even if he is also ending it.

He also met with President Karzai and signed a partnership agreement with the Afghan government for the post-withdrawal period.

The trip was unannounced but certainly made a lot of sense. It's something any U.S. president would have done, and the anniversary of the death of bin Laden provided an obvious opportunity.

But of course conservatives refuse to give Obama credit for anything, including bin Laden's killing, and criticize him for everything. It's what they've done throughout his first teram and they're doing just that over this trip, saying that he's politicizing -- that is, trying to score political points off, bin Laden's death. (As if Romney appearing with 9/11 self-mythologizer Giuliani at a fire station in New York is somehow... not political? Yes, Republicans' political posturing really is breathtakingly inconsistent.)

You can find countless examples of conservatives huffing and puffing -- and, really, just whining over Obama's massive success (like here) -- or you can just read what Republican Sen. James Infofe said, which in its grotesque idiocy pretty much sums it all up:

We've seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years," Inhofe said in a statement. "Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military."

*****

"The security improvements and the killing of Osama bin Laden a year ago are great American victories that should not be politicized," he said.

So, basically, Obama shouldn't be allowed to campaign anywhere, shouldn't talk national security at all, and shouldn't even mention the killing of bin Laden. Not because these things are inherently wrong, mind you, but simply because he's a Democrat. You think Inhofe, or any of these other Republicans, would be criticizing a Republican president for doing any of this? Please. Did they criticize President Bush for his relentless politicizing of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? Of course not.

They're fucking hypocrites. And so transparently partisan, and in such a desperate way, as to be utterly ridiculous.

As usual.

Does John McCain take his orders from Rush Limbaugh?

By Nicholas Wilbur

Sen. John McCain supported the intervention in Libya. He heralded the killing of Osama bin Laden. He supports continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he believes Syria should be the next target of a military intervention.

But those Africans who are being slaughtered by the Lord's Resistance Army?

Not. Worth. It.

After President Obama announced that he would be sending 100 military advisors into Central Africa, McCain had this to say:

I worry that with the best of intentions, that somehow we get engaged in a commitment that we can't get out of. That's happened before in our history and we need an explanation, and I’m very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action.

Here's the explanation: The Lord's Resistance Army, "a notorious renegade group that has terrorized villagers in at least four countries with marauding bands that kill, rape, maim and kidnap with impunity," is currently killing, raping, maiming, and kidnapping with impunity.

Here are the facts about the Obama administration consulting Congress: In May 2010, the United States Congress sent the "Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act" to President Obama to sign into law, which he did, on May 24. The bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House. 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a lead sponsor of the Senate measure, recently told The Hill, "We had 64 co-sponsors. That's the most in the history of the Senate on an Africa-related bill."

"I would have been disappointed" had Obama opted against sending U.S. troops there, Inhofe said, according to The Hill. "It's not that we mandated the president to act; we requested him to do it. I take full responsibility for that. I don't hang that on the president at all."

Got that? Congress already approved this mission – to the tune of $10 million a year through FY2013.

We know Rush Limbaugh thinks the Lord's Resistance Army is a group of "Christians" fighting to "remove dictatorships and stop the oppression of our people." But what Limbaugh thinks just so happens to be wrong.

What's your excuse, John?    

You supported liberating the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. You supported liberating the people of Libya. Now you want to liberate the people of Syria and possibly even Iran.

Why not the people of Uganda, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic?

Are you taking orders from conservative pundits, or is the mass murder of black people just not that big of a concern? As I recall, you were against military interventions in Somalia in 1993 and Haiti in 1994, as well...

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: James Inhofe

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Tulsa World reports:

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Tuesday that he won't participate in Tulsa's Holiday Parade of Lights until organizers put "Christ" back in the event's title.

"Last year, the forces of political correctness removed the word 'Christmas' and replaced it with 'Holiday' instead," the Oklahoma Republican said. "I am deeply saddened and disappointed by this change."

Inhofe, who was Tulsa's mayor from 1978 to 1984, said he had participated in the parade annually, riding a horse as his children and grandchildren watched.

"I did not do so last year because I'm not going to ride in a Christmas parade that doesn't recognize Christmas," he said. "I am hopeful that the good people of Tulsa and the city's leadership will demand a correction to this shameful attempt to take Christ, the true reason for our celebration, out of the parade's title. Until the parade is again named the Christmas Parade of Lights, I will not participate."

Asked for a response from Mayor Dewey Bartlett, city spokeswoman Kim MacLeod said the mayor "wouldn't miss the city's parade" and then provided a comment from the mayor.

"If it was up to me, I'd call it a Christmas parade, but I also understand that we have a diverse community, and I'm sensitive to the importance of the many cultures and traditions that make up our city," Bartlett said.

In related news, Sen. Inhofe called reports of non-Christians residing in Oklahoma "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the God-fearing people of this state."

Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday, he said that he'd never encountered a "Mohammedan" anywhere in Oklahoma -- "and I've been around, from homestead to homestead." He also claimed that he'd never met "any so-called Jew or Jewess other than Joe Lieberman and his wife, and they're nice people otherwise." When asked about "Indians" and "blacks," he asserted that "Indians here embrace Christ and the Hinduist ones over there are atheists" and that "it is well-known that blacks have no traditions other than the Christian, so what's the big deal?" When asked about "Buddhists," he said he "[doesn't] even know that is," accusing Beck, who by then was sounding somewhat reasonable, of "making it up."

So, yeah, I don't think he's one to be sensitive and embrace diversity. Even by Oklahoma standards, Inhofe is a narrow-minded bigot.

(You think I'm making all that up about Inhofe? Huh.)

Elephant Dung #3: Inhofe defends earmarks, refuses to back down over ban

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Mitch McConnell finally capitulated on earmarks, handing a big (if largely symbolic) win to Jim DeMint and the right-wing Republican rebels (even if it's also a win for good government), but at least one leading Republican is refusing to back down -- the ever-so-crazy, ever-so-extreme James Inhofe:

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe is going down swinging, insisting he'll still send earmarks to his state even though his fellow Senate Republicans are poised to adopt a two-year ban on pet projects.

"I'm going to look out for my state of Oklahoma," Inhofe told POLITICO. "Obviously, that's what the Constitution says I'm going to do, and I'm going to do it. Let's keep in mind this is over. I'll be the last conservative standing."

The Constitution? Really? Inhofe claims that the (non-binding) earmark ban "trashes the Constitution and violates our oath of office." This is stupid. While Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution requires Congress to pass legislation regarding all federal appropriations, it does not, as Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) writes, authorize "the contemporary practice of earmarking, which typically involves individual members of Congress identifying specific projects for which they obtain exclusive funding."

Still, Inhofe certainly appreciates the power of pork, both for his state and for him personally -- not that he needs the votes, but what he brings home helps make him largely invincible in what is already a solidly red state. And he is quite right that earmarks total just a small percentage (1.5) of federal discretionary spending. Not I think he's right -- this really is a good government issue -- but he's got a point. Members of Congress serve their constituents, after all, and one of their jobs is to do what's best for them.

But what does he mean when he says that he'll be "the last conservative standing"? Is he suggesting that the earmark issue will be the undoing of his fellow Republicans?

As Walid Zafar puts it at Political Correction, a Media Matters blog, "[r]egardless of who is right or wrong, or whose side ultimately prevails, it's becoming abundantly clear the gap between the Republican old guard and the anti-government forces is starting to widen."

Good times. 

**********

Senate Republicans approved the two-year ban last night, propelling DeMint's star even higher.

Inhofe isn't alone. Sen.-elect Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) also came out against the ban. "He thinks it's the prerogative of the legislative branch, not the bureaucrats, to fight for projects in their states after they've sought the lowest possible budget," said a spokesman. One assumes that Blunt is rather more sober than Inhofe on this issue.

Craziest Republican of the Day: James Inhofe (for thinking that America's men and women in uniform are a bunch of anti-gay bigots like himself)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This time it's not for calling global warming a hoax, or for denying that there was ever torture at Gitmo, or just generally for being a dangerous idiot, but rather for saying this about gays in the military:

For those of us -- and I'm one of them -- who have gone through the military, gone through basic training, and you stop and think -- it just doesn't make any sense. Second of all, it's just not working. You have women, men, then you have a third group to deal with, and they're not equipped to do that.

And you know -- you hear the stories all the time. A military guy -- I happen to be Army, and Army and Marines always feel that when we're out there, we're not doing it for the flag or the country; we're doing it for the guy in the next foxhole. And that would dramatically change that.

Not equipped to do what? I'm sure there's extensive anti-gay bigotry in the military, as there is elsewhere in society, but, for the most part (if, unlike Inhofe, I may think well of America's military), these are courageous men and women who are risking their lives to defend their country. If they're equipped to deal with the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm sure they're equipped to deal with those of a different sexual orientation in their own ranks.

Not that Inhofe gets that, of course. He obviously doesn't understand homosexuality, or sexuality at all, as he seems to think that, under fire in a foxhole, a gay soldier would ignore matters of life and death in order to try to sodomize, or be sodomized by, his comrades. This is a common homophobic fear, and it is a reflection of a deep and abiding ignorance. It's just like the anti-gay bigot who doesn't want to be in a common shower with a gay man because that gay man must obviously want to fuck him. The implication is that gay men (if not also lesbians) just can't control themselves, as well as that the bigot himself must be so fantastically desirable as to induce raging hard-ons in every gay man within a one-mile radius.

Now, I've never been in a foxhole, thankfully, but let's say I was in one with a couple of female soldiers, one who looks like Michelle Branch and one who looks like Vanessa Carlton (both of whom I find unbelievably attractive). Even if we weren't under fire, I don't think I'd let my desire get the better of me. And, under fire, I'd obviously have other things on my mind. Would I not want to fight for my comrades, male or female? Of course not. I'd fight for them, and for myself, no matter what. In other words, I'd be a professional, and, yes, I'd do what needed to be done, or so I like to think. But let me be even clear. Just because I harbour desire for a woman doesn't necessarily mean I want to fuck her, and certainly doesn't mean I can't control myself. Again, not that Inhofe gets any of this.

Inhofe no doubt considers himself an unconditional supporter of the military, but his comments are nothing if not deeply insulting to America's men and women in uniform. Regardless of what he thinks of gays and their apparently uncontrollable urges, his point is that straight soldiers won't fight for their gay comrades simply because of their sexual orientation. He might as well have said that male solders won't fight for their female comrades simply because of their sex or that Christian soldiers won't fight for their Jewish comrades simply because of their religion or that white soldiers won't fight for their black comrades simply because of their race. It's pretty much the same thing, with an added fear of sodomy.

Excuse me if I think a whole lot better of America's men and women in uniform.

Everybody take a breath

By Edward Copeland

What in the world is wrong with us? As the threatening instances linked to tea party activists and health care opponents seem to accumulate, I find myself scratching my head in disbelief. I guess I shouldn't. Back during the election, at Palin rallies where she egged on participants by suggesting that Barack Obama "palled around with domestic terrorists" she'd be greeted with shouts of "kill him." When John McCain actually stood up to the paranoids at one of his campaign events who expressed fright at the prospect of an Obama presidency or repeated the idea that he wasn't born in the United States, his own supporters actually booed him.

Since that time, there have been attacks on law enforcement officials, the murder of people by a man who said he killed them because he couldn't get to those named as threats to America in Bernard Goldberg's book, the assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller by someone who supposedly is "pro-life" and the murder of a guard at the Holocaust Museum by an old hatemonger who was found to have birther literature in his car. Does anyone really believe these people are overreacting because of a law that stops discrimination against people with preexisting conditions? Are people being pushed to extremes because they are so outraged of the idea that parents will be able to keep their children on their health insurance plans until they are 26? PolitiFact has begun debunking an insane chain e-mail making the rounds chock full of lies about what opponents want people to believe is in the health care bill.

House Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor did have a bit of a point when he mentioned that he'd had threats and incidents against him, but he didn't publicize them. It is always something to think about. The Secret Service doesn't issue a press release every time there is a threat made against a president. When a company receives a bomb threat, there always is a debate about whether or not to report it for fear it will only spawn more. The same goes with foiled terrorist plots. Still, he's being disingenuous if he doesn't think the Republicans haven't fanned the flames of lunacy by not speaking more forcefully against the threats and language of violence before.

It's not that those on the left have never gone overboard either. For too many years now, the losing side of a presidential election have been unable to treat the winner as legitimate and they must. That's the way our democracy works. Elections have consequences. Some members of the tea party are doing the right thing. Republicans they don't like they are challenging in primaries. That's what you are supposed to do. Some labor unions are upset about the way some members of Congress switched their votes around on the health care bill. Are they throwing bricks through windows or leaving threatening voicemails? No, they are trying to find challengers to the specific candidates in their primaries. This is what we are supposed to do.

Everyone needs to relax. If you disagree with what your elected representatives have done, vote against them when the time comes. If they still win, that's the breaks. I live in a state where my U.S. senators are Tom Coburn and James Inhofe. Want to talk about taxation without representation? Still, as much as I despise these men and as often as I've voted against them to no avail, I've never threatened them, cut gas lines to their homes or tosses bricks through their offices. Everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, need to act like that. If you cannot and you still feel the urge to react violently, you owe to yourself and everyone around you to turn yourself in to the nearest mental health facility and get the help you so desperately need.

While I have leaned toward the left for a long time, I vote Democratic because it's my only option and it saddens me. I wish that somehow the Republicans could right their ship so that in an ideal world I'd actually have a choice between two candidates when I vote (in a really ideal world, there would be more than two choices). It's disheartening that one party has thrown itself so completely in bed with extremists, excommunicating its own moderates, so that they aren't a choice for me and I'm left with a party I mostly agree with but which is very often less than perfect. If only we had a true democracy, with real choices and real candidates, lost the craziness and brought back civility to debates about issues.

Inhofe in Copenhagen -- a hoax?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico: "Jim Inhofe gets cool reception in Denmark."

Maybe that's because he thinks Denmark, like global warming, is a hoax.

Would someone please send this dangerous and ass-backwards idiot back to Oklahoma and let the mature, civilized people of the world try to deal with the most pressing crisis of our time?

(Not that that's working out too well, but denialists like Inhofe don't exactly make it any easier.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: James Inhofe

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's one of the craziest each and every day, but some days he stands out above even his own awesomely lofty standards. Take, for example, what he said about Gitmo the other day at a town hall in Grove, Oklahoma:

There has never been a case of torture there. The people there are treated better than in the federal prisons.

No torture at Gitmo? Ever? (Does Cheney know? I mean, he was behind the Bush Torture Regime. Would he not be disappointed that no one was tortured?)

TP: "As the Center for Constitutional Rights has documented, there have been countless cases of detainees being abused and tortured at the prison camp. Detainees have been beaten, deprived of sleep for weeks, sexually harrassed, and shackled to the floor for days at a time."

Yet Inhofe, who also thinks that global warming is a hoax, genuinely seems to believe his own nonsense. That makes him not just an ideological extremist but seriously crazy.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Joe Barton (for his idiotic "Carbongate" crack)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), for suggesting that Obama has a "Carbongate" to rival Nixon's Watergate. And why? Because, if you haven't been following the story -- and it's the right that has been making much ado about nothing -- the EPA refused to release a global warming denialism study by one of its economists, one Al Carlin. Here's TPM's Pete Martin:

[Carlin's] cause has become a favorite of right-wingers, who suddenly believe science to be sacred, and are charging that the Obama administration is "suppressing" a report whose conclusions it dislikes. The anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute first publicized Carlin's report last week. Since then, Carlin has discussed his "findings" with Glenn Beck on Fox News, and on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for a criminal investigation into the issue.

Now, Rep. Joe Barton is taking the outrage to a new level. [Yesterday] morning on America's Newsroom, the industry-friendly Texas Republican accused the EPA of suppressing the report, and declared that "just as Nixon had Watergate, Obama now has Carbongate to deal with."

(Note that Barton called Carlin "a scientist at the EPA." In fact, Carlin has worked for the agency since months after its founding in 1971, but he does not hold an advanced degree in any natural science, and he has always worked as an economist.)

So just to compare: Watergate involved the cover-up of a criminal enterprise directed from the Oval Office. "Carbongate" involves the EPA ignoring a scientific study by a non-scientist that it never commissioned and which hasn't been published in any scientific journal.

Of course, these denialists don't give a shit about science. Their industry-driven propaganda is at odds with what is a remarkable consensus among the world's leading researchers. Unable to win on the facts, they're resorting to smears, to allegations of some Obama-led cover-up, touting as science what is really just ideological deception.

It's all so predictable, and all so pathetic, and all so popular on the right, and, alas, all so prevalent, still, with an American public that in large numbers has been taken in by the propaganda.

As for Barton, it seems that Inhofe now has a challenger to his title of Most Deranged Denialist.

Craziest Republican of the Day: James Inhofe

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma is, with respect his global warming denialism, one of the most dangerous idiots on the right. And also one of the craziest.

And, in response to Obama's Cairo speech, he proved once again just how deep his insanity runs. Specifically, he called the speech "un-American" Why? Because Obama called the Iraq War a war of choice, and because Obama didn't go after Iran.

So apparently it's "un-American" to be anything other than a warmongering neoconservative, a rubber-stamper for Bush's disastrous war, and a relentless partisan.

"I just don't know whose side he's on," he said of Obama, implying, as is so often implied (and often explicitly stated) on the right, that the president may very well be on the side of the terrorists.

Now that's just fucking crazy.

(Make sure to read the Think Progress post in full for an excellent rebuttal to Inhofe's claim. It was an extremely successful speech, it would seem, received well in Iraq and, extremists aside, throughout the Muslim world. And, of course, one of the points of the speech was to bring America and the Muslim world closer together -- and not because Obama is on their side (as if there are only two sides, good and evil), but because it is essential that the misunderstandings on both sides, the misunderstandings everywhere, on all sides, be overcome. Then, and only then, will it be possible to achieve a lasting peace, which is certainly in America's interests.)

Today feels real

By Carol Gee

Today is the last full day that George W. Bush will hold the office of President of the United States. And this story from Politico.com "It's over: Bush staffers make exits" (1/16/09), makes it a reality in my mind.

(Image: Free Images.uk)

What will be going on in the White House this Monday, Martin Luther King Day, this Day of Service planned by the Obamas? ProPublica: reported last week that the "Midnight Regs: [are] Nearing the End Game" (1/16/09). Our current president may still be keeping his pen at the ready, really. Politico.com: listed "10 Bush pardons to watch for" (1/19/09). Politico posts pros, cons and odds. To quote:

1. Pardon Prospects: Military and CIA interrogators of war-on-terror prisoners. . . 2. Pardon Prospect: Former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr. . . 3. Pardon Prospect: Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales . . . 4. Pardon Prospects: Former American Israel Public Affairs Committee Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, Former Pentagon Analyst Lawrence Franklin . . . 5. Pardon Prospect: Former Justice Department official Bradley Schlozman . . . 6. Pardon prospect: Former junk bond king Michael Milken . . . 7. Commutation Prospects: Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean . . . 8. Commutation Prospect: Former Governor George Ryan (R-Ill.) . . . 9. Commutation Prospect: Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard . . . 10. Commutation Prospect: Randall “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.)

Update re (7): Bush commutes sentences of former U.S. border agents.

Republican defeat has been a bitter pill to swallow -- Regarding How Obama Got Elected.com"# (1/14/09) Jon, my regular contributor, notes, "Here is a website the repugs. are rehashing their loss. Palin is spouting lies again as a sore loser. Hello, "BITTER," party of one, or maybe a party of all the repug. losers." And, unfortunately, some Republicans will hold to a spoiler mentality, rather than making the best of their bad situation. Here is an example from Think Progress "Blackwell: GOP Must Defeat Job-Creating Stimulus Because It Will Ruin GOPs Election Chances"# published (1/17/09). What is so sad is that they "just do not get it": From Think Progress comes this sad headline:"Think Progress Fred Barnes doesn't bat an eye when C-Span caller and Barnes fan calls Obama Mr. Monkey Boy"# (1/17/09). McClatchy concludes with commentary that the: " 'Just say no' philosophy is failing GOP"* (1/13/09). To quote:

. . . the party of can-do – has become the party of stale white bread and "just say no."

Not just "no" to immigrants – a desperate move to pander to the close-the-border GOP crowd.

Or no to fair wages in a struggling economy while handing over a trillion dollars of taxpayer-financed bailouts to the fat cats in Detroit and Wall Street.

Scandals or discouraging realities will not all be going away today: Reported by The Public Record: "Universities And Other Scoundrels Reach Late Deals With Bushies"* was the headline on (1/17/09). Also this news comes from Buzz Flash: "Report Finds Major U.S. Companies Have Offshore Tax Haven"* 1/16/09). And finally from Facing South is this story: "Black Lung Rising"* (1/13/09). To quote:

The sight of more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash waste covering a community in Eastern Tennessee has clearly shown the limits of claims made by the coal industry's "clean coal" marketing campaign.

To get another view of the dirty reality behind coal, we need to look inside the lungs of Appalachian miners.

Meanwhile in Congress there is very little possibility that anyone will be held accountable for all of this. In his new book, "35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush" (available for download from Feral House Books), Congressman Kucinich establishes Bush as the 'decider' behind countless abuses of power. But nothing will come of it. And Republican senators such as Inhofe from Oklahoma will continue to be out of step with the bipartisan mood of the country. The story is from Think Progress: "Inhofe: Browner Is A Secret Socialist Who Belongs To A Scary Group Called The Center For American Progress"* (1/14/09) To quote:

Appearing on Fox News this morning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) peddled the emerging right-wing trope that Barack Obama’s White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner is a secret socialist.

Many of us will still be tempted to pinch ourselves to make sure it is all real. For me I plan to continue with my efforts to get closure, to use one of my therapeutic terms. This post is one of three left in my set of Monday (Republican) drafts. They will all get published today, and I will be rid of them! At least, for a while.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Stars and swipes

By J. Kingston Pierce

Republican’t U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma isn’t exactly renowned for his logical statements. After the media reported in 2004 on the abuse of inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, kicking up a storm of protest and charges that the Bush administration had sacrificed U.S. credibility on the anti-torture front, the ultra-conservative Inhofe said with a straight face that he was “more outraged by the outrage than ... by the treatment” of those prisoners. This same out-of-touch right-winger has criticized the Red Cross for being “a bleeding heart” and declared that he was “really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”

Now this great sage of nonsense is attacking Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as someone who doesn’t love his country. He tells the Tulsa World:

Regardless of what polls show, Inhofe said, voters will have to ask themselves a question once they get behind the curtain in the voting booth on Election Day.

“Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?” he asked.

“That’s the big question.”

Shannon Gilson, spokeswoman for Obama, said Friday that he has a plan to strengthen the economy and offer immediate relief to working families, while Republican nominee John McCain and his Washington friends such as Inhofe are offering four more years of President Bush's failed economic policies.

“Sen. Obama won’t let anyone question his love of this country,” Gilson said.

“Challenging your opponent’s patriotism to win an election is the type of cynical partisan politics Americans are tired of--and won’t bring the change we need in Washington,” Gilson said.

After he was asked for an explanation on why voters should question Obama’s love for his country, Inhofe issued a written statement on Friday to clarify his earlier comments.

“Let me be clear,” he said.

“I am not questioning Sen. Obama’s patriotism, but you have to question why at times he seems so obviously opposed to public displays of patriotism and national pride, like wearing an American flag lapel pin.”

Inhofe’s statements are stupid, on their face. And there’s of course a great deal more to consider in choosing a president than whether or not that person demonstrates rabid patriotism. Furthermore, Obama has demonstrated no less honest patriotism than George W. Bush disciple John “100 Years War” McCain.

And if Inhofe really believes that failing to wear a tiny American flag pin on one’s lapel demonstrates significant lack of patriotism, then he can be expected to vote for somebody other than McCain in November. In case Inhofe didn’t notice, the cranky 72-year-old Washington insider wasn’t wearing a flag pin when he accepted the Republican’t Party’s nomination for president on Thursday.

Proof is in the photo at the top of this post.

(Cross-posted at Limbo.)