Wed - November 8, 2006

Drapes???


I got about a thousand emails from various members of my family today - politically obsessed bunch that we are. In my family, elections are up there with Christmas and birthdays. Some of my fondest memories are working the polls with my dad. Since I turned 18, I have voted in every single election I've been eligible for. Even the ones in April that have only 2 names on the whole ballot. Even when I lived overseas. Doug's family is just as obsessed with politics, so he completely understood when I kicked back with a beer last night to "watch the election."

The strangest email today was from my sister. She wrote, "I'm listening to bush speak about drapes and pelosi." She didn't capitalize either noun (we are a lazy email family, often forgetting punctuation or caps) so I wrote back "Who is Drapes?"

Then I heard Bush's speech later tonight. Why do I have the feeling that if Nancy Pelosi were a Ned Pelosi, there wouldn't have been a comment about the drapes? Is he really such an oaf that he would stoop to talking about decorating....just because she is a woman? Geez.

and yes, I heard Bush last week - or Rove - or Cheney - or whichever of them it was - make the comment about measuring the new offices for drapes. Remember? Rove was saying that he had *the* math and they were predicting huge Republican gains. He was downright testy. NPR sure re-played that interview a few times today.

Honestly, I don't know much about Pelosi's politics, yet. I have a feeling she leans a bit more left than I do. But, man - the fact that she is a 60+ grandmother and is the first female speaker of the house. That gives me chills. It's about time we had someone in charge who has changed a few diapers in her lifetime.

Mostly I'm pleased because we seem to be electing more centrist politicians. The Santorums of the world are out and the Schwarzeneggers are in. Don't get me wrong - I'm no Arnold fan. But, he's a lot easier to take than Rick Santorum, any day.

Dana was upset today that the marriage amendment ban had passed. She's been reading a lot about civil rights lately. A lot. She can't believe that in my life time, blacks and whites were segregated. That is completely incomprehensible to her. Her class at school has more blacks than whites. Some of her best friends are black. She doesn't get it. We get book after book out of the library on the civil rights movement and she gobbles them up.

A few weeks ago, I took her down to the "Fair Wisconsin" office and we sat down and they explained what they stood for. I don't agree entirely with everything they stand for - but I sure didn't want our constitution amended to discriminate against anyone. It's the constitution, people. It's a very important document. You can't just go amending it every time you disagree on something. We got a yard sign against the amendment and donated a paltry sum to help them out.

Anyway, Dana told me this morning, "Mama, it took a lot time to make the civil wrongs into civil rights. maybe this will just take a long time too."

She's 6 now....so in 12 short years she'll be voting. Watch out world.

Posted at 09:44 PM    

Wed - February 1, 2006

The State of the Union is....


....scary, quite scary.

I have this horrible habit. I cannot miss a State of the Union. I can miss a few minutes - here and there - whilst putting children to bed and getting delayed drinks of water...and the subsequent visits to the potty. But, every year - I tune in. I don't think I've missed one since high school. Surely, I must have - but sadly - I don't think I have. Democrat - Republican - doesn't matter. I watch it.

Luckily, I'm married to someone with the same habit. Growing up in a politics-obsessed family will do that to you, evidently.

So, last night's speech. Sigh. Somewhere between the "human-animal hybrids" and the "switch grass" and the "nukular" mispronunciations...I got this very sad sinking feeling that our country is just not in very good hands right now.

And I can't get Robert Palmer's song out of my head: "You're gonna have to face it - you're addicted to oil."

There is one thing that will give me slight hope tomorrow: If by some miracle Ray Blunt does NOT get selected as the Speaker of the House. That guy is scary. Surely, even Republicans can recognize gross corruption when it stares them in the face, right? Surely, they will pick Shadegg instead. He seems like one of the only ones who isn't completely insane: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007828

It's a sad, sad day when I'm reading an article that encourages us to go back to the days of Reagan and I'm saying "yes! exactly! Let's go do that!" But the more I read about Abramoff, Delay et al, the better Reagan looks. Sure, I didn't agree much with the guy. But at least he seemed honest and ethical. Is that really too much to ask?



Posted at 07:28 PM    

Thu - July 14, 2005

Random thoughts on Rove-Plame-Wilson 


1. Valerie Plame had 2 year old twins in 2002, the year she allegedly asked that her husband be sent to Niger. For some reason, I believe her on this one. Sure, the woman can speak 4 languages, operate complex machine guns, and work as a NOC. But, really, could she handle 2 year old twins by herself? Really, now.

2. The time frame of the "Iraq is buying Uranium in Niger" speech seems to be about the same time that Bush/Cheney et al were so madly in love with Chalabi. We all know how that turned out. The CIA never trusted Chalabi...and the CIA sent Wilson over to discover that there was no Uranium/Niger/Iraq crisis. Who were Bush/Cheney/Rove et al getting their intelligence from at this point? If it wasn't the CIA....who was it?

3. The Jeff Gannon connection really bothers me. Any gay male prostitute who parades himself as a right wing conservative journalist and circulates false memos on issues regarding national security is disturbing. I know he was a huge story on the blog world - but if we went outside and stopped 10 people in the street, I bet that 5 of them would have no idea who he is.

4. George H. W. Bush is just looking better and better in my eyes. Can we get him back? As a former President and a former CIA director, he's just what we need right now to get this mess all straightened out. He can go talk to his renegade son. He can go talk to Wilson and his CIA cronies. Evidently Wilson has a framed hand written note from H.W. Bush, thanking him for all his bravery in Iraq.

Hmmm...maybe that is what all of this is about. Has W. showed any bravery in any sort of dangerous situation, ever? Seems to me that he has personally avoided all such activities.

Is he perhaps starting complicated, dangerous wars in countries he doesn't understand in which hundreds of thousands of people die just to get some sort of fatherly approval?

And don't get me started on Rove. He's a PR spin machine, that man. Why can't anyone in politics ever just admit they made a damn mistake? The American people aren't idiots. (Well, most of us aren't.) We realize that saying "Joe Wilson's wife" is pretty much the same thing as identifying her. Must we go back to this Clinton-esque definition of terms? Have we learned nothing?
 

Posted at 09:37 PM    

Tue - June 28, 2005

tonight's speech 


What I wanted to hear:

"Folks, we made a mistake. We thought there were WMDs and there weren't any. But, some really positive things have happened in the region. The Iraqi elections weren't perfect, but they were a start. It is crucial that we support stability in the Middle East. We are there now and we've got to stay and make this work. Whether you agree with the war or not, we're there and as a country, we need to pull together to support our troops and get them back home safely as soon as we can implement a stable Iraqi government. It might take years, but I'm confident we can do it."

What I heard instead:

"We are fighting the terrorists. After 9/11, I promised to fight for freedom. So we are fighting the terrorists."

Now, which terrorists would those be? The IRAQI insurgents, perhaps? Or has bin Laden decided to hang out in the middle of Baghdad and nobody but Rumsfield has seen him? There are many terrorists in the world. And many different kinds of terrorists. My preference would be to spend our American lives and defense budget fighting those who attacked us. Last time I checked, al-Qaeda wasn't camping out in Iraq.

At the very least, the speech was a nice departure from the "mission accomplished" pollyanna-ic rhetoric of previous speeches. He does seem to be starting to grasp that it is a complex situation that will require international cooperation and a lot of time and a lot of lives and a lot of money.

Why couldn't he have grasped this 2 years ago???? Then maybe we could have done this right. I've never been against the idea of an eventual war with Iraq. I've always been against the timing (why so soon? why so rushed?) and the implementation (why not do more diplomacy? Why go it alone?) and the justification (WMDs? Terrorists? Can't we just admit that it's about oil and the balance of power in the middle east.)

I think his aim was true. But his actions have created a vacuum which has created even more terrorists: Iraqi terrorists. Before we attacked Iraq, how big a problem were the Sunni insurgents? I know there is a long complicated history of conflict in Iraq...but I think we have singlehandedly made it a lot bloodier and a whole lot more complicated.

We did that.

So now, not only do we have to worry about fighting al-Qaeda (terrorists), we also have to worry about fighting the Iraqi insurgents (terrorists.) My question is: can we do both? Seems to me like we are very worried about the later...and completely ignoring the former.

Why, oh, why can't the Democrats find an intelligent candidate with a backbone and some solid military experience who can speak in plain English? Is that really too much to ask? 

Posted at 09:34 PM    

Sun - June 26, 2005

Liberalism 


11D is brilliant, as usual.

We caught up on a slew of "Daily Show" episodes last night. I know it is all supposed to be funny, but it just made me want to cry. Listening to Congressmen debate the mission-critical issue of flag burning made me so angry. We have so many real problems right now in this country. Flag burning? You know, it just doesn't make my top ten list.

The Economist was brilliant this week too. The entire issue.

More later. 

Posted at 01:58 PM    

Fri - June 24, 2005

boys will be boys 


First Howard Dean said: 
"A lot of them [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives."
Then Karl Rove said:
"the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Boys, boys, boys....that's not doing much to get our economy back on track or to foster world peace now, is it?

When our country's leaders are acting more like 2 year olds than my own 2 year old - I'd say we're in trouble. If my 2 year old ever made such a sweeping negative generalization about a group of people, he'd be in a time-out, for sure.

I wonder if that SuperNanny TV woman would visit DC? Maybe put one of her signature "timeout circles" in the Capitol Rotunda? 

Posted at 02:19 PM    

©