Stranded Motorists You Should Not Help: Number 411

My friend, Larry Baker, in the San Francisco Bay Area wrote me yesterday to vent about a bumper sticker he spied "...on the back of an SUV of course."



As I always say, if you see a broken-down car with this bumper sticker affixed, keep driving. They do not deserve your help.

Larry goes on to rant about the sentiment behind that charming little slogan:

Gee, let's see, just off the top of my head, these are some of my values:

• Number One: Treating others the way you yourself would want to be treated
• Equality for all
• Protection of privacy
• Security for the country
• A healthy environment
• Telling the truth
• Caring for others, especially those less fortunate than you - giving to charities like Habitat for Humanity
• Health care for all
• A fair and balanced government
• Separation of Church and State
• Freedom of Religion
• The right to dissent
• Freedom of Speech

I'd like to know which of these are not family values, and why. I can understand if someone has the intelligence to argue a specific point, but these moronic, infantile slogans trying to demonize liberalism are just so small minded, childish and pathetic. I guess stealing 2.4 million dollars is a family value.

Larry is obviously referring to former Congressman – as of Monday – Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an eight-term Republican stalwart, who pleaded guilty to graft on Monday, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.

C'mon, Larry.... In the GOP household, that's not only a family value, it's a way of life, Baby!

Thanks to Larry for the note and please drop me a line at yellowdogblog@gmail.com if you spot a bumper sticker we should all know about.

How Does the GOP Really Feel About Veterans?

Actions speak louder than words and, with the president's umpteenth speech before a military audience today, it seems like a good time to point out again the true contempt that the GOP has for Veterans.

When the Republicans were faced with having to run against a decorated Veteran in the last presidential election, they stooped as low as to don Purple Heart bandages on the floor of their national convention, in an effort to minimize John Kerry's service.

I would submit to all of my fellow Veterans that they diminished us all and, despite their hollow, patriotic words, showed their true stripes.

Have a look – and don't forget.

Bush Speech More of The Same -- Again

President Bush just finished his much-anticipated speech on progress in Iraq and, as many of us expected, it was more of the same stay-the-course rhetoric with a smattering of details thrown in to make it look good.

Some quick observations:

• Bush speaks in front of a hand-picked, military audience as usual... This president will never speak before an audience of average, random Americans. Never.

• This is the eighth speech Bush has given in 2005 to try to bolster public support for this war with his main message to the American people can be summed up in a one-word request: Patience. Can you take a hint, Mr. Bush? We overwhelmingly don't believe in you and we're out of patience.

• The president signaled a new GOP talking point by using the phrase "artificial timetables" no fewer than 10 times in the speech. But isn't a timetable only artificial if you make it so?

• Joe Lieberman must go. Any time Bush uses your name and quotes you in a speech of this magnitude to build support for a policy that two-thirds of the country is against, you've seriously lost your way. Can we please come up with a strong Connecticut Democrat to challenge Lieberman when his term expires?

• Bush ended by doing what he does best (or worst): Using the troops for his own political agenda by reading a heartfelt letter of a soldier killed in Iraq to advance his stay-the-course mentality. Once again, Bush's bizarre mantra is that the only way to honor those who have been killed is to have more people die.

• None of this rhetoric matters. Even if Iraqi troops were being trained at the breathtaking pace claimed by Team Bush – which they're not – they will need intelligence and logistics support from the U.S. for years to come. Why? Because we destroyed their military infrastructure – which means they either need to buy a new military or, more likely, Americans will be paying for it by robbing from our children and their children.

• I don't claim to have the largest vocabulary in the world, but I'm pretty sure that the president is inventing new words again. In case this is news to you, our enemies are now "rejectionists" and "Saddamists."

• Note to CNN: Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator who votes with the Republicans on almost every major issue, is the best you can provide to give the Democrat's point of view on Bush's speech? Are you kidding me? Was Zell Miller booked already? But even Nelson said this: "It's not talking about a timetable but talking about measurable results and I don't hear the president saying that."

Party of "No" is Not The Democrats

With the ongoing Republican strategy of throwing any smear or spin against the wall and seeing if it sticks, it's difficult at times to know which lie to refute next. Today, I'm going to take on the language control the GOP has been trying all year, in which they label Democrats "the party of 'no'" and attempt to depict us as nothing more than negative obstructionists.

In fact, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a commercial earlier this year titled "The Party of No" complete with generous helpings of Democrat-bashing Fox News clips and sound bites of Democrats sounding quite contrary.

“President Bush’s State of the Union presented a positive agenda for keeping America safe and preserving Social Security, but the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of ‘no’ in responding with obstruction and pessimism," said RNC Communications Director Brian Jones in February.

Conservative talk-show host Melanie Morgan, who has spent the better part of 2005 hounding the mother of a fallen Iraq-war soldier in Cindy Sheehan, spouts the RNC's talking point every chance she gets.

"The Democrats have become the anti-party – being against anything proposed or advanced by President Bush or any other Republican politicians," wrote the Ann Coulter clone earlier this month. "It doesn't matter whether the dateline is Washington, D.C., or rural America – the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has devolved into the anti-everything antics of the radical Left."

Of course, Morgan is the same person who recently said that America's Village Idiot, Rush Limbaugh, "...has a penchant for putting his finger on the driving forces and central themes in contemporary American politics."

While that statement alone disqualifies Morgan from having an intellect worthy of debate, I'm here to provide you with some concrete ammunition for the whole "party of no" nonsense -- some facts of your own to combat GOP spin in which, as they did earlier this Fall, they call Democrats "The party of no plan, the party of no agenda."

Democrats have the same agenda we've had for some time: Taking care of the weakest among us, protecting our people through strength and diplomacy, fighting for working families, keeping the environment healthy, promoting economic fairness and setting a global example of how a civilized nation conducts its affairs.

Most Americans would agree that these are central tenets to what our country is supposed to be about. But it's not what the Republicans stand for and, as the minority party in both houses of Congress, it's much harder for Democrats to get heard and far easier to get beat back on initiatives – which makes Democrats more vulnerable to the "no ideas" charge because nothing they propose or champion makes it into public policy.

So let's look at some key Senate votes in just the last 45 days to get a clue as to what the real – and often overlooked -- Democratic agenda is. While it may be a fair criticism to say that we need to kick our PR mechanism into a much higher gear, it's instructive and encouraging to take a look at some of the things that Democrats proposed and fought for very recently. Conversely, if you want to talk about a downright un-American agenda, here's what the Republican party has said "no" to since the middle of October:

• Money to provide for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (Twice)
• Increasing the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200
• Providing additional funding for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
• Increasing appropriations for Head Start programs
• Additional funding for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
• Funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within the Health Resources and Services Administration.
• Increasing appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers.
• Providing a 6-month transition period for coverage of prescription drugs under Medicaid for the elderly whose drug coverage is to be moved to the Medicare prescription drug program.
• Amending title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide the authority for negotiating fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs.
• Establishing a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001.
• Providing enhanced eligibility for retirement pay for non-regular service members in Iraq
• Amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
• Repealing certain tax benefits relating to oil and gas wells intangible drilling and development costs.
• Reinstating for millionaires a top individual income tax rate of 39.6 percent, the pre-May 2003 rates of tax on capital gains and dividends, and to repeal the reduction and termination of the phase out of personal exemptions and overall limitation on itemized deductions, until the Federal budget deficit is eliminated.
• Sense of the Senate amendment concerning the provision of health care for children before providing tax cuts for the wealthy.
• Tax increase on incomes in excess of $1 million to eliminate child poverty.
• Providing an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.

And that's just the damage they've done in the last 45 days.

Want a handy reference showing that Democratic ideas are alive and well? Keep that list handy. And, because Republicans tend to scatter like cockroaches when you shine a light on them, you can prove each of these points further by looking at the actual roll call votes here.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, Democrats did indeed say "no" earlier this month to allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We've also been the guys saying "no" to privatizing Social Security and continuing to mortgage our childrens' future by adding to the massive federal deficit.

We've been pretty consistent naysayers on the whole thing of giving rich people more tax cuts, while screwing the poor, elderly and needy. And we've also given a big "no" to being the party whose leadership is under chronic investigation and whose members should be forming an indictment-of-the-month club. More needless death and expense for an Iraq war predicated on lies? We give that a big thumbs-down too.

But isn't it also fair to look at a laundry list of all the things the GOP has fought and been so negative about and ask if they're as willing to stand by what they say "no" to as readily as we are? Midterm elections are coming up and it seems like the perfect time to have this debate.

I'm a Democrat and I'll match the things I'm against with the things they're against any day.

Warner and Biden Call Bush, Cheney Liars

In a stunning bipartisan action on NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday , John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Biden (D-DE) agreed whole-heartedly that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are liars.

Here's Senator Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, flat-out disagreeing with the Bush administration's new Lie du Jour, that members of Congress had pre-war intelligence on Iraq identical to that held by the White House.

Tim Russert: But even back then, Senator Warner, and this is really important. This is what you said on August 27, 2002. "As I read and follow the debate, there appears to be a `gap' in the facts possessed by the Executive Branch and the facts possessed by the Legislative Branch."

The White House is now saying that you had every bit of intelligence that they had and yet, leading up to the war debate, you were saying there was a gap between what you knew and what the president knew.

Senator Warner: Well, I stand by that statement also. There are times in which I feel that we do not have the full knowledge, and as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have done my very best to assure that members of our committee do get the full intelligence. I also serve on the Intelligence Committee. And I feel very strongly that that gap should never exist. And apparently, at that time, I was of the opinion and I stand by the statement.

Think that will be enough to get Bush, Cheney, Scott McClellan and Ken Mehlman to stop spinning that crap?

Minutes later, Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, responded to Dick Cheney's ongoing assertions that it is "dishonest and reprehensible" for Senators to suggest "... that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."

Joe Biden: Let me ask you, Tim, a rhetorical question. He sat on your program in the fall before the war and said, "Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear weapons." I simultaneously said, "There is simply no evidence to sustain that. None. Zero. None." I said it then, I said it again, I say it now. I demand anyone put forward for me, classified or in any other form, any evidence to sustain the assertion the vice president of the United States made that Saddam Hussein said to Tim Russert he, Saddam, has reconstituted his nuclear weapons. That is a flat misrepresentation of the facts.

Russert: And, in fact, he did say exactly that March 16, 2003. Later that year, September 14, he said he "misspoke"...

Biden: Well, there it is.

Russert: ...that he meant nuclear capability.

Biden: Well, even nuclear capability, you--we did not have access to the same stuff that the president gets every morning, as John will acknowledge. We didn't realize that--how discredited the sources were that were being quoted to us about the reconstitution of a nuclear capability. There was no evidence of that. Look, you had phrases like "mushroom cloud," "much graver threat than grave threat," "mortal threat," "the threat is urgent," "grave and gathering danger," "urgent threat," "immediate threat," "serious and growing threat," "real threat," "significant threat." These are all phrases these guys used.

And we should probably start keeping a roll call of this because Biden just became another U.S. Senator to admit his vote to trust Bush with the power to take the nation to war was wrong.

Russert: And yet it's important that we put things in historical context. Senator Biden, you were on the show in August of 2002 talking about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. You concluded your statement by saying, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power." A month later you voted for a resolution authorizing just that. In hindsight, knowing everything you know now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, was your vote a mistake?

Biden: It was a mistake. It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly. And I brought along that whole quote. I knew you'd ask me this. I said, "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There's a real debate on how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or it's a matter of less than that. We don't know enough now." That was the rest of my quote. So I never argued that there was an imminent threat. We gave the president the authority to unite the world to isolate Saddam. And the fact of the matter is, we went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan.

Russert: If there was a vote today, you would vote no?

Biden: I--with this president, absolutely I would vote no, based on the way in which they've handled it.

Finally, a sidebar question for Tim Russert: You're supposed to be a reporter, aren't you? Just like we all learned in journalism school, why don't you gather all of these quotes, and all of the facts you have accumulated in the last few months and do an investigative report on how the president and vice president have lied to our country?

Now there's an idea! Wouldn't that be more gratifying than asking the same damn questions on the subject every freakin' Sunday?

No More Reaching Across The Damn Aisle: Reason Number 436

People sometimes ask me why I'm so darned uncompromising to conservatives and neo-cons and why I no longer reach "...across the damn aisle" to Republicans. Here's another in a lengthy series of reasons.

Ann Coulter.

There was the Wicked Witch of the Right misleading her butt off on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight on Friday in discussing the near-unanimous vote against the fake GOP call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Coulter was, of course, indignant at the fact that Democrats would call on President Bush for a timeline for leaving Iraq – at this point, almost any timeline would do –and cited the bogus bill offered by the Republicans as evidence of flip-flopping by the Democrats.

"I think this is a monumental development, this vote last Friday. I mean whether, of course, on principle you have a right to say timetables, war isn't going well, bring the troops home. Americans are against it. Yes, in principle you have a right to say that. But there's no question. It's simply a fact that that is going to encourage the enemy and will demoralize our side.

"Now we know from the vote last Friday the Democrats don't even believe it. They voted -- in the vote in the House was 403-3 against withdrawing the troops. So why do they keep saying it's not going well, bring the troops home, Americans have turned against it? I mean, you're down to the only rationale being that they want to demoralize our side and encourage the enemy."

Wow, even for a conservative hag like Coulter, that quite a clean sweep. She's talking about the sneaky measure brought to the floor by House Republicans, calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democrat John Murtha had proposed a gradual withdrawal in his earlier bill and the GOP version was their way of forcing Democrats to vote on something they never asked for – immediate withdrawal. This put Democrats in a lose-lose situation where they either voted yes on the bill -- and could then be called for "cutting and running" -- or vote no and look like they were backing down from their original call for a withdrawal timeline.

Viewers counting on the likes of anchor Christine Romans to call Coulter on this bit of dishonesty were disappointed. Romans could have said something simple like "uh, Ann, doesn't the vote by Democrats on the GOP bill actually do nothing to mitigate their original position for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq?" Instead, the designated news reader sitting in for the lucid Lou Dobbs let Coulter get away with it and moved on.

As you can see, Coulter also used the opportunity to accuse Democrats of only calling for a timeline that will actually save military lives to intentionally "... demoralize our side and encourage the enemy."

What a disgusting cretin she is.

And yet another example of why we no longer even consider reaching across the aisle or compromising with Republicans.

If you have a strong stomach, you can catch the video at Crooks and Liars.

GOP Congressman Guilty of Taking Bribes

Did you hear the one about the Republican Congressman who pleaded guilty yesterday to accepting bribes for political favors?

Oh, wait, that's not a joke. And it's not a rerun either.

Crooks and Liars – ironically enough -- has the video of YARC (Yet Another Republican Crook) as Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) resigned his office yesterday after pleading guilty to fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery and tax evasion.

Cunningham's guilty plea is an admission that he accepted $2.4 million in bribes in return for doing nice things for really rich people in the defense industry. Sounds like standard GOP fare to me.

"I know I will have to forfeit my freedom…. In my life I have great joy and great sorrow, and now I know great shame," said Cunningham.

My guess is that, in addition to the jail time he'll be receiving, Cunningham's startling admission that he can actually feel shame means automatic expulsion from the Republican party.

Kerry's 1971 Words: How Sadly They Apply to Iraq

No matter how one feels about John Kerry as the Democratic party's presidential candidate in 2004, it was an impressive sight to see the old footage of the 27-year-old, Vietnam-Veteran Kerry testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971.

Kerry, then one of the leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gave riveting and erudite testimony that left even critics astounded at the intellectual weight brought to bear by such a young man. And, of course, some of Kerry's honest descriptions of combat in Vietnam were dug up again by the Republican party to use against him in the presidential campaign and to smear his patriotism with words three decades old.

What is both amazing and profoundly sad is to read back through Kerry's entire narrative, as I did over the weekend, and see the startling parallels between what Kerry said almost 35 years ago and what is happening today with the Iraq war.

"I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

"As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country."

As a Veteran myself, I think a lot about our focus on the 2,100 military dead and the many more who will come home badly wounded and understand fully the hidden price that our society will see in the future – and it is exactly as Kerry described in 1971. This may be a different generation and a different war, but the circumstances under which our soldiers are fighting today is very much the same and we will see the same degree of post-traumatic stress, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, dysfunctional families and suicides among Iraq Vets as we saw among their Vietnam predecessors.

In addition, many Iraq Vets, already struggling with what they experienced in combat, will be forced into an even greater sense of despair and anger as the true nature of the deception leading to this war becomes even more apparent.

"But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, 'That is fine. I am going to serve my country.' And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent.

"But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam. The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations."

That should sound familiar. As we well know, this administration's true loyalty to Veterans is so paper-thin that, as Kerry describes above, Veterans medical facilities "..don't have the appropriations," any more in 2005 than in 1971 to deal with the medical conditions being brought home from Iraq.

"In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said 'some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse' and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.'

"But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol."

Does the name Cindy Sheehan come to mind as the modern-day embodiment of the "criminal misfits" decried by Agnew? And give some thought to the ongoing attempts by Team Bush and the Right Wing to vilify those of us who hate seeing lives wasted and our country's reputation trashed and who, as Kerry said of Vietnam-war protesters of his era, "...were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to."

"In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

"At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world."

Wow. How much can you add to that? Kerry's generation endured a war started on a lie – the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – and, as we well know, Americans have had a sick sense of deja vu as the Bush administration has misled us into the Iraq quagmire. In Kerry's words, you even get the current sense of how "preservation of freedom" is being used as the bogus justification for almost ever move made by George W. Bush and to smear those in the opposition.

"We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against 'oriental human beings,' with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater."

And what do we have today? Caskets and body bags coming home that the media are forbidden to see and Vice President Cheney telling our own people that "...the back of the enemy was about to break" by describing the insurgency as being in its "last throes" -- only to see it come on even stronger the very next day. And Kerry is clearly talking about using weapons like napalm in Southeast Asia, which makes for poignant reading at a time when it has been confirmed that the U.S. has used white phosphorous during combat operations in Iraq, including in civilian areas.

"Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake.

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.

"But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

But we clearly have not learned that lesson even now.

And, as we read Kerry's words again in a new era and with a different war, the similarities are compelling. It jumps out at you even more when you look at Kerry's testimony here and in its entirety and substitute "Iraq" for "Vietnam" and "terrorism" for "communism."

We need to remember this going forward and recall another lesson from that time: Vietnam war protesters like John Kerry, his fellow Veterans and millions of people all over America helped end that war and their opinions and beliefs have been vindicated by history.

And ours will be as well.

Monday Check Of The Osama Clock

If it's Monday, it's time to check the Yellow Dog Blog's Osama clock.

It has now been over four years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and exactly 1,533 days since George W. Bush (The Resolute One) said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

As we ask every Monday... Mr. Bush: Where's Osama?

The Saturday Cartoons

Paul Hackett: Still Not Holding Back

There is everything yet to be seen in the race for the 2006 Democratic nomination for U.S. Senator from Ohio -- it really hasn't even started yet -- and it looks at this point like quite a contest will occur between Congressman Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett. Hackett is the Iraq war veteran who barely lost a special Congressional race to Republican Jean Schmidt in July, in one of Ohio's most conservative districts, despite running a race in which he pulled no punches in his disdain for the war and for President Bush personally.

I observed that race closely and the way Hackett ran and found myself constantly saying "I like this guy!"

He called George W. Bush on his hawkish posture and on Bush's corresponding failure to serve in the Vietnam war and, despite being questioned about his harsh invective on national television many times during the Congressional campaign, refused to back down from referring to Bush as a "chickenhawk."

Then I opened my copy of Mother Jones magazine a couple of months ago and the cover story on Hackett started with the candidate jumping in a right-winger's face when the guy tried to intimidate him. Here's the excerpt:

It’s August 2, Election Day, and the lanky, blond, 43-year-old Marine has taken up position outside the polling place in Loveland, a burg on the outskirts of Cincinnati, flashing his toothy smile for the early risers. Hackett is dressed smartly in a blue shirt and striped pastel tie. His khaki pants hang loosely from his wiry, 180-pound frame.

“That’s low politics, punk!” a heavy-set man sneers as he marches toward the poll. Hackett wheels around. “Pardon me?“ "You know, that radio ad that says, ‘You don’t know Schmidt.’” He’s talking about one of Hackett’s attack ads against Republican Jean Schmidt.

The man spews a stream of epithets, and Hackett lets out a crybaby whimper: “Waaaaaaa!”

“What’s that, punk?” the big man growls.

A TV crew is setting up nearby, but Hackett doesn’t seem to care. “What’s your fuckin’ problem?” the candidate snaps. “You got something to say to me? Bring it on!” Hackett, all 6 feet 2 inches of him, is nose to nose with the heckler. “Problem?” he taunts. The man turns around and storms away.

“These guys in the Republican Party adopted this tough-guy language,” Hackett tells me, still steamed, an hour later. “They’re bullies. They’re offended when somebody takes a swing back at them.”

God, I love that.

That interaction is a microcosm of what Democrats have been putting up with for years: Bullying from Republicans with nary a significant response from our side. And there's Hackett, on the street, getting right up in some big old conservative's grill.

I'd like someone to tell me how that isn't exactly the kind of candidate we need in our party right now. And there was Hackett on MSNBC's Hardball Wednesday night in his usual, no-holds-barred position.

Hackett: The war-fighting experts are those in the Pentagon with the stars on their collars who consult with the battle experts in the field who are usually Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels. And they go through a very in-depth process of planning and that took place leading up to Iraq. This administration and, frankly, their elitist outlook on how to use the military, disregarded that advice. They're effectively nation building over there, despite the president's promise not to use the military to nation build.

Matthews: A lot of people have noted the fact that a lot of the people at the top of this administration are not veterans. They're what I call pencilnecks. They're intellectuals. They have ideals about fighting in a war and –

Hackett: [laughing] Pencilnecks! What??? Pencilnecks? Come on!

Matthews: Is that a good phrase? I like it, it's not derogatory at all. But let me ask you: Do you think the president displayed a lack of courage when he failed to go into the active combat military during the Vietnam era?

Hackett: Yes. I've said that and I mean it.

Matthews: You've said.... In GQ this month you said "he didn't have the stones to serve in his generation's war... he wanted to drink alcohol and snort cocaine and party." You stand by that?

Hackett: Those are the facts. I stand by it.

How sad is it that hearing someone like Hackett just flat-out saying what he thinks and believes, with zero equivocation, is so intoxicating to so many of us? Hackett talks about a lot more than just his negative feelings about Bush in this interview and you can catch the rest here at Crooks and Liars.

None of this cheerleading should be construed as a knock on Sherrod Brown. I know little about him, but he certainly seems to come to the table with some great Democratic credentials.

But in Hackett, I see the fighter we need right now. There will undoubtedly be those who will call Hackett too conservative in some ways and, while I am sure I won't agree with him on every, single issue, I cannot imagine a situation where I will question his guts and his willingness to take the fight to the bad guys.

We haven't seen enough of that in recent years and I like any Democrat who, like Hackett, will make Republicans think twice before they take him on.

"Mean Jean" Schmidt Follow Up

"I'll get you Congressman Murtha -- and Nancy Pelosi too!"

After laying low for a couple of days after calling a decorated war veteran (Democrat John Murtha) a coward on the House floor, Representative Jean Schmidt is showing her face again and suggesting she's the victim in the whole thing.

"I am amazed at what a national story this has become," she said in a statement. "I have been attacked very personally, continuously, since Friday evening."

Hey, what's she complaining about? It got her on "Saturday Night Live" last weekend – oh, wait, that was Rachel Dratch lampooning her. Then the guy she claimed to be quoting in her hideous House floor speech denied he said any such thing. And now it looks like people in her Cincinnati-area district also think she's a bit of a buffoon.

"How dare this idiot call John Murtha, a war hero, a coward. I am ashamed to be from her district," Gregory Moore, a 39-year-old lawyer from Batavia said.

Chris Finney, a Cincinnati lawyer who led an anti-tax group in opposing Schmidt during her recent special election, said the politics of negativity and name-calling should be a thing of the past. "People want someone who can get things done," Finney said. "She's an embarrassment to this district."

And an online poll done by Cincinnati television station WCPO -- sorry, folks, I think it's over now -- shows almost 80 percent of people saying that their opinion of "Mean Jean" is less favorable following her comments about Murtha last week.


Ouch.

But she stands by her overall position – and by her man, President Bush – with her goofy stay-the-course mentality about Iraq. "I am quite willing to suffer those attacks if in the end that policy I so strongly oppose is exposed as unsound. First and foremost I support the troops. They dodge bullets and bombs while I duck only hateful words."

Yeah, she supports the troops until they go from active duty to being veterans... Then the "hateful words" will come from her.

The Color of Disapproval

From our friends at Pensito Review, we get an encouraging map that shows just how unpopular George W. Bush has become nationwide, based on November 17 polling numbers:

Here's the raw numbers behind each state's presidential tracking poll, that show how low Bush's approval numbers are on a state-by-state basis.

And they're gonna go lower...

But I continue to ask: What the hell is wrong with people in Idaho and Utah?

Happy Thanksgiving

The Yellow Dog Blog will be taking today off and I will be spending Thanksgiving Day with my family.

I am very thankful today. I am alive and, based on my brushes with mortality in both the military and with brain surgery last year, this makes me a grateful guy every single day. I have a wonderful wife, a beautiful son, great family and friends and, as we celebrate the holidays this year, we are all healthy -- minus my nagging sinus problems -- and our little world is good.

And I am thankful that, all political considerations aside, the national dialog is now turning in the direction of bringing our brave men and women in Iraq home, versus rationalizing how we can keep them at war longer.

Finally, I am very grateful to all of you for visiting the Yellow Dog Blog and for being the force behind its amazing growth. Thank you.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Turkeys Refuse Ceremonial White House Pardon

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In yet another publicity blow to the beleaguered Bush administration, both National Thanksgiving Turkeys have refused the ceremonial pardon traditionally given by the president. The turkeys, named Marshmallow and Yam, were selected for the eleventh-hour Thanksgiving reprieve based on a White House web-site poll.

"Yam and I talked it over and, well, Bush just isn't our kind of guy," said Marshmallow, in an interview before he was taken away. "I mean, let's face it, if these guys ran the election for the pardon, who's to say it wasn't rigged? Maybe some other turkey should have been up here – hey, you notice both Yam and me are white, right?"

The White House expressed disappointment in the turkeys' decision to turn down the ceremonial pardon and suggested a possible partisan motivation.

"It's no secret that Mr. Marshmallow met with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and has had coffee with Cindy Sheehan," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "Other than that, this is an ongoing investigation and I can't comment any further."


Yam is wrestled to ground after refusing presidential pardon

The 35-pound Yam said his main problem is with Bush himself.

"Let's face it, I'm a turkey and even I can see that this guy Bush is whack – and not the sharpest knife in the drawer," said the doomed gobbler. "I was really a Gore guy in 2000. I would accept a pardon from him or Kerry."

Meanwhile, the Minnesota farmer who raised the two turkeys wasn't surprised at the actions taken by the birds.

"They've spent a lot of time in their coop listening to Air America, so this doesn't really surprise me," said the farmer. "But it does seem odd that they would choose certain death over accepting a favor from the president."

The courageous birds said they have no regrets.

"Part of me wishes I hadn't stuck my neck out like this – no pun intended," said Marshmallow. "But even a turkey has some dignity and I'm not accepting any favors from that idiot."

Correction to Chickenhawk Medal Story

I've been called on my lack of research – or, more accurately, my laziness.

Reader Doug Wray writes to tell me that, for my Chickenhawk medal, I incorrectly used Warner Brothers icon Foghorn Leghorn, who is a chicken (really a rooster), and not a real chickenhawk.



Doug forwarded the picture above. "The Chickenhawk is the lil fella on the right," says Doug. "Foghorn is a Dixiecrat Chicken -- Rhode Island Red, supposedly."

Growing up on a farm, I actually knew that Foghorn was a rooster and not a true chickenhawk but I thought the lovable lug would be the more recognizable figure – and thus, more humorous – and I also just couldn't find a good graphic of the little guy from the cartoons.

Then along came reader Roger Kingsford who not only did the legwork but also produced a more accurate Chickenhawk medal for me (at left).

"Unfortunately, your post showed the Foghorn Leghorn Award," said Roger. "If you followed the cartoons, you would know Foghorn was always smarter than Henery Hawk, the chickenhawk. I've included a corrected medal."

So there you have it. Authentic reproductions are being produced as we speak, for distribution to 99 percent of the Bush administration.

OK, now can we start our long weekend?

Nominate The Dog for a Weblog Award!

Think the Yellow Dog Blog, at the very least, sucks less than all the others out there?

Then please go to the Weblogs Award site and nominate us for Best New Blog.

I'm only performing this public display of ego because, frankly, I've worked by butt off on this blog and, based on the growth in readership, I believe I at least deserve to be considered as a finalist – there, I said it.

To nominate the Yellow Dog Blog, just go here and go all the way to the bottom of the comments section and leave the following information:

Yellow Dog Blog
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/atom.xml

And any additional laudatory comments you wish to leave.

Warning: You do need a Typekey comments account to be able to nominate. They're good to have anyway, since they allow you to leave comments on thousands of blogs but, if it's too much of a pain to sign up, no worries – I'll know you nominated me in spirit.

Nominations close on November 26.

And, with that, I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving.

Schmidt's Source Denies "Coward" Remark

Wow. It's a good thing the average Republican has no shame or this could be kind of embarrassing.

Just days after Jean Schmidt (R-OH) took to the floor of the House of Representatives to smear John Murtha (D-PA) – the decorated Veteran who dared to call for a withdrawal strategy for Iraq – the person she quoted to imply cowardice on Murtha's part is refuting her all the way.

On Friday night, Schmidt made the following statement:

"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. [...] He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Now, Bubp is running away from Schmidt faster than a Republican can kick an elderly person.

"There was no discussion of him [Murtha] personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said. "I don't want to be interjected into this. I wish she never used my name."

So, in other words, Schmidt lied on the House floor -- didn't she?

Bush's 'National Family Week' Hypocrisy

Did you know we're smack-dab in the middle of National Family Week 2005? Neither did I until I read the formal proclamation issued by President Bush on Monday declaring November 20 through November 26, 2005, as a time to "join together in observing this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor our Nation's families."

"Families give our society direction and purpose. During National Family Week, we celebrate the many contributions families make to our country," reads the president's proclamation. "Throughout America's history, families have been the foundation of our society and a source of stability and love for every generation. Strong families teach children to live moral lives and help us pass down the values that define a caring society."

Stirring stuff, George, you big old hypocrite.

This must be the same "caring society" that, under his administration, has on three occasions in 2005 swatted down funding in the Senate for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). I'm sure the president simply forgot that this is the safety-net program that helps keep poor children, the elderly and the disabled from freezing to death during winters with high energy costs -- like the one we're about to have.

Didn't the Senate, under this administration's "compassionate conservatism," shoot down funding for Pell grants – to educate our "strong families" -- and deny more money for helping pre-school kids with the Head Start program?

And it must be tough for Bush to sign a proclamation like this without the ever-present smirk on his face, knowing how that pesky Ted Kennedy tried to help working families with an increase to the federal minimum wage in both March and October of 2005 -- only to have Bush's buddy Bill Frist shoot it down both times in the Senate.

But that wasn't all Bush said in his heartfelt proclamation.

"At this crucial hour in the history of freedom, our Nation is grateful for the sacrifice of our military families who love and support the men and women of our Armed Forces," said the presidential decree. "My Administration is committed to providing a better quality of life for our military families and helping them plan for the future."

Hey, something about that doesn't sound right...

After all, it was just last week that Senate Republicans killed two bills to help military families. One would have made combat pay of those serving in Iraq eligible for the earned-income tax credit and the other would have funded an additional $500 million for post-traumatic stress and substance abuse counseling for returning Vets.

Both were sponsored by Democrats and both were defeated by Republicans. And I'm sure just a couple of phone calls from a truly-caring president – whose party controls the Senate – would have made those measures go through like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

And, in March, Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) introduced an amendment to increase Veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006. It lost by a vote of 53-47 and you'll never guess which side of the aisle cast the 53 votes against the funding . Then Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) took another shot at it in April and asked for only $2 billion in medical care for Veterans – same result except, this time it was defeated by a 54-46 vote by those caring, family-oriented sorts in the GOP.

Anyway, it's a nice thought for a proclamation – and I truly considered not making fun of it.

But when I look at all of the aforementioned items, how Team Bush doesn't give a damn about the millions of American families without health insurance and the profoundly anti-family impact of the Republican Bankruptcy Bill passed this year, I quickly came to my senses.

Murtha's Military Decorations, GOP Counterparts

Anyone still having trouble figuring out the outrage over the Republican party chickenhawks calling Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran, a "coward" and someone who "cuts and runs" from terrorists?

Here you go:

Some of Congressman Murtha's Military Decorations

In order: Bronze Star, Purple Heart (2), Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Navy Distinguished Service Medal.



Contrast that with the only military decoration held by the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert and Jean Schmidt.

The Coveted GOP Chickhawk Award



Enough said.

Family-Gathering Political Talking Points

When I sit down for my Blue-state Thanksgiving dinner, I will be surrounded by fellow Democrats and only need to worry about minimizing our talk about George W. Bush and the Republican party so we don’t get nauseous and ruin a nice meal.

I know many of you aren’t so lucky and will have to endure family gatherings like I would have to sit through if I still lived in my home state of Nebraska – listening to people sing Bush’s praises and repeating whatever inane talking points they have heard on Fox News. I often get e-mails from people asking for good arguments to silence this type of person and I was all set to write a pre-holiday piece on talking points that actually reflect the truth on Iraq and the state of the nation.

And then Peter Daou of the Daou Report went and did it for me.

In an incredible article called The Straw Men of Iraq: Ten Pro-War Fallacies, Peter blows apart any possible lame argument you could hear from a Republican friend or relative and gives you every bit of ammunition you need to make them look like the mental midgets that they are.

Peter explodes the myth of everyone in Congress sharing the same pre-war intelligence information as Bush – the GOP’s latest contention – Democrats “supporting” the war by “voting for it,” and the lie about “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.”

As always, Peter cites multiple sources for his thesis.

If you have time to read only one thing before Thanksgiving, leave the Yellow Dog Blog right now and go read The Straw Men of Iraq: Ten Pro-War Fallacies.

Print it out. Read it again.

And feel the joy of making your loud-mouth, Republican, Uncle Zeke silently stare into his turkey and stuffing.

Bush's Job Approval Hits New Low

Americans continue to awaken from the fear-induced coma successfully perpetuated for four years by Team Bush and weigh in once again with a Bush approval rating dropping faster than the GOP’s respect for Veterans.

A CBS News poll taken October 30 through November 1, 2005 shows Bush’s approval rating continuing to fall and bottoming out this month at 35 percent.

The American public is also not buying the Bush administration’s pledges of innocence in the outing of Valerie Plame, with 62 percent of Americans believing that someone in the White House did leak the name of the covert CIA agent to the media. In a somewhat encouraging sign, 51 percent say the CIA leak is of “great importance” to the nation – which is a bit more than the moronic 41 percent who thought Bill Clinton’s sex life was of great importance to the future of our country in January of 1998.

Half the country says we should have stayed out of Iraq entirely, 64 percent say the result of the Iraq war isn’t worth the costs and 68 percent of the nation thinks the country is going in the wrong direction.

"The progress is there and the momentum is there and we're going to deliver for the American people," said Senator Bill Frist (R-TN). "I see signs of obstruction around here all the time, too much for me, but we're just going to try to stay above it."

Two points here: I’m not sure which universe the whining Senate Majority Leader is operating in but, the last time I looked at Washington, D.C., his party controlled the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government – so who has the power to obstruct? In addition, I suggest CBS News do a poll of the 30,000 workers about to be laid off from General Motors to see how they feel about the “progress” that Frist is seeing in America.

Time for Blue Dog Democrats in House to Disband

I was gratified to see the outrage and pure fight displayed by Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday following the slew of Republican attacks on John Murtha (D-PA), after Murtha turned from his hawkish past to courageously calling for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- but starting immediately.

What we saw the following day was typical GOP attacks in which Murtha – a highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran, with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star on his record -- was said to be "aiding and abetting the enemy" and "cutting and running" from the terrorists. The conservative attack machine hit its low on Friday night, when Jean Schmidt (R-OH), the most junior person in all of Congress, took to the House floor to imply that Murtha was a coward, delivering a message allegedly from a solider that said "Cowards cut and run. Marines never do."

The House floor erupted, with Martin T. Meehan (D-MA) shouting "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" at the Republican side of the aisle and Representative Harold Ford (D-TN) physically rushing across the chamber's center aisle during a heated exchange with Tom Tancredo (R-CO) that followed.

I mention Ford in particular because he is a member of the Democrat's Blue Dog Coalition in the House.

The Blue Dog Coalition was created in 1995 and came about to promote positions "...which bridge the gap between ideological extremes" according to their House web site. "Many of the group's policy proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic," say the Blue Dogs in their mission statement.

Yes, it is predicable that a Yellow Dog Democrat like me would have little use for Democrats who still go around back-slapping with the Republicans. But it should now be obvious to everyone that, as Murtha so aptly said, "the future of our country is at risk" and it's time to stop reaching across the aisle to a GOP that does not share our values, makes little effort to be honestly bipartisan and has no respect whatsoever for those who make such efforts.

In other words, the time has come for the Blue Dogs to put their organization to sleep.

Where has that cooperative spirit been as the vast majority of legislation created by House Democrats dies before it even reaches the floor for a vote? How about in the Senate where, of the Democrat-sponsored measures that somehow manage to make it to a vote, 90 percent are killed by the Republican side of the house?

How warm and fuzzy have the Blue Dogs felt when they watched their Republican colleagues hound Bill Clinton for his entire presidency, steal the national election from Al Gore in 2000 and swift-boat their way to a second George W. Bush term in 2004?

And, as Democrats, how can they stand by and be so formally compromising when they see the GOP gutting social programs, refusing to heat the homes of the elderly and disabled this winter and fighting a minimum-wage hike every time the Democrats try to raise it from poverty level?

Finally, as Congressman Ford's outrage spilled over on Friday night, we have to ask how the Blue Dogs can continue to exist with the stated purpose of reaching across the aisle to Republicans who smear our patriotism, question our loyalty to country and, most heinously, attack Democratic combat veterans, despite the overwhelming lack of military service on the GOP side of Congress.

How much more must the Blue Dogs see to comprehend that the time for equivocation and compromise has gone and the time for a resolute stance on Democratic values has arrived?

We all saw the repulsive pictures of Republicans on the floor of their convention in 2004 wearing purple heart bandages as a way of further demeaning John Kerry's military service. We saw how they got Saxby Chambliss elected in Georgia by calling Democrat Max Cleland – who lost three limbs in Vietnam – unpatriotic and running television ads of Cleland's picture next to one of Osama bin Laden. As I've said, if Audie Murphy himself were a Democrat today, the GOP would find a way to smear his service as well.

Now we see the likes of Schmidt calling Murtha a coward and the White House issuing a press release on the Congressman's thoughtful call for action on Iraq saying that "...he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party" in an effort to depict a conservative Democrat as far out of the mainstream.

And it's not like most of these Blue Dogs need to belong to such a group to be politically viable. Of the 37 Blue Dog members, only half are from strongly-Republican states like Utah and Georgia, while the rest are from swing states or solidly-Blue states like California and New York.

Another raison d'etre for the Blue Dog Coalition is to fight for the cause of fiscal conservatism and to make sure our country keeps its financial house in order. Given that a Republican president hasn't balanced a budget in 40 years, wouldn't these guys be better off strategizing on the nation's financial health with their Democratic colleagues?

If nothing else, these Democrats should see the treatment of Murtha who has, for 30 years, been one of the most compromising and conservative Democrats in the House, as yet another sign that they are being played as political chumps.

So come home, Congressional Blue Dogs. Now more than ever, we can use you in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

White House Plays Chicken With a War Hero

There was a great editorial by Derrick Jackson in the Boston Globe over the weekend in which he talked about the despicable attacks from the Republican party on Representative John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha is the heavily-decorated veteran (Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam) who decided he had enough last week and called for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq to start immediately.

In his column, called White House plays chicken with a war hero, Jackson takes to task, a White House with a lot of tough-guy bluster, but little military service to back it up:

Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11," which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful." In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha."

You can read the rest here.

Monday Check Of The Osama Clock

If it's Monday, it's time to check the Yellow Dog Blog's Osama clock.

It has now been over four years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and exactly 1,526 days since George W. Bush (The Resolute One) said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

As we ask every Monday... Mr. Bush: Where's Osama?

Senate Republicans Kill Two Bills To Help Veterans

We all know based on the actions against Representative John Murtha (D-PA) last week what House Republicans think of Veterans and, as they have demonstrated all year, the GOP-controlled Senate has once again shown their true colors when it comes to standing with both Veterans and those on active duty.

Two amendments to the Tax Relief Act of 2005 – one that sought to make combat pay of those serving in Iraq eligible for the earned-income tax credit and another to fund an additional $500 million for post-traumatic stress and substance abuse counseling for returning Vets -- were killed by Senate Republicans late last week.

An amendment (S.Amdt. 2616) sponsored by John Kerry (D-MA) and Barack Obama (D-IL) would have extended the poverty-reducing, earned-income tax credit to the combat pay earned by soldiers on active duty in Iraq.

The amendment, argued Obama on the Senate floor, would "... ensure that the families of our men and women in combat are not deprived of their tax benefits."

"In the midst of war, are we really going to tell our troops that their combat pay doesn't count as earned income for purposes of calculating tax credits?" said the Illinois Senator. "That is hard to imagine. Our troops not only earn their combat pay, but they have also earned our respect. They deserve our commitment of support."

It was defeated with 55 votes in favor of passage and 60 votes required. Every Democrat voted in favor, while all votes against were cast by Republicans.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed an amendment (S.Amdt. 2634) to the Tax Relief bill that would have provided additional funding "... for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder."

"This amendment is backed by the American Legion, AMVETS, and Disabled American Veterans," said Boxer, in pleading for passage of the amendment. "We pay for this in a very simple way. We say the tax cuts of 2001 that have not yet taken effect for those earning over $1 million a year be deferred. We find that when we pay for this $500 million, we have millions left over to reduce the deficit."

Boxer should have known that mentioning where the money would come from – in this case, America's wealthiest people – would doom her bill in the GOP Senate. But she closed her floor argument by quoting an e-mail from the wife of an Iraq War Veteran who committed suicide upon his return.

"I got an e-mail from a woman who was married to Captain Michael Jon Pelkey, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for over a year. He sought help on several occasions but was discouraged by the wait time and the stigma," said Boxer.

Boxer then read directly from the e-mail which said "Michael passed away in our home at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest on November 5, 2004. I feel that my husband is a casualty of this war and to date the Army has not done enough for post-traumatic stress."

"I know millionaires in California, and I know they would give up a tax cut to help our veterans who are fighting in deplorable conditions every single day," said Boxer. "I hope my colleagues will take a stand for our veterans and say to the millionaires of this country: We know you want to help them."

Senate Democrats could only get one Republican vote for Boxer's amendment – Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) – and the measured died 55-43.

Pass this information on to any Republican you know with a "support the troops" sticker on their car.

Yellow Dog Blog Hits 200,000 Readers

Please indulge just a moment of self-congratulations, as the Yellow Dog Blog hit 200,000 readers this afternoon.


This is since I started keeping track of the numbers in the middle of June. Thanks to everyone for your readership and ongoing support.

And now, on with the fight!

The Saturday Cartoons

A New Low – Even for Republicans

Think you know how low Republicans can go?

A short time ago, during debate on a bogus bill put forth by House Republicans to embarrass John Murtha (D-PA), who yesterday called for a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Jean Schmidt (R-OH) implied that Murtha, a heavily-decorated veteran, is a coward.

Schmidt, the hag who narrowly defeated Democrat Paul Hackett in Ohio's second Congressional district in July, took to the House floor this afternoon and read a message allegedly from a Marine colonel who she said referred to Murtha and said "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed and shouted her down, bringing the House to a standstill. Schmidt was eventually forced to withdraw her statement.

Murtha's resolution would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date," while the Republican stunt calls for an immediate withdrawal and is intended to crush the intent of Murtha's bill.

But chew on what Schmidt did as you start your weekend... Are you reaching across the aisle to these people? Ever again?

The Little Boy in New Orleans

I didn't really get enough insane, right-winger e-mails this week to run my usual Friday Fruitcakes, reader-mail feature, so I thought instead I would respond to a request that I've heard a lot in the last few weeks.

I wrote a piece immediately after Hurricane Katrina in early September, based solely on a picture of a young man praying in the New Orleans Superdome and, as the father of a little guy right around this boy's age, the overwhelming feelings I had in just looking at that photo.

For whatever reason, many of you have had a hard time locating it in my archives and have asked that I run it again, so here's the link:



I Know This Little Boy In New Orleans

For those who asked to see it again, thank you. To my other readers, please indulge the rerun – and have a good weekend.

Great Woodward Stuff From Arianna and Jane

From two of the people topping my most-like-to-have-cocktails-with list, Arianna Huffington and Jane Hamsher, I want to pass along a couple of excellent pieces on the whole Bob Woodward imbroglio – in which my childhood journalism hero, seems to have lost his way.

In 15 Questions for Bob Woodward, Arianna asks the questions that need to be asked of the formerly-intrepid Mr. Woodward, such as: "Why were you afraid of being subpoenaed in 2003? Subpoenas of reporters didn't begin until 2004" and "On October 27, you were on Larry King saying you had no big scoop. Was that true or a lie?"

Go to the Huffington Post for more...

In Plan of a Hack – damn! why didn't I think of that one? – one of my favorite writers, Jane Hamsher, addresses a lot of the seminal issues in the Woodward affair and handicaps where she thinks this will all shake out, vis-à-vis the name of who spilled Valerie Plame's identity to Woodward. An excerpt:

"Woodward's cast-iron refusal to act like a journalist and name a source he has now testified about most assuredly and permanently bestows upon him Chief Stenographer status. His mea culpa was even more embarrassing than Judy Miller's (at least the Times named Libby as Miller's source upon her release from jail -- who thought that sordid affair would ever be invidiously compared to anything?) The Post's up-and-comer status as the "paper of record" to replace the NYT was dealt a serious blow as they refused to buck their star reporter's desire to play White House suck-up. Woodward verily laughed at any suggestion that he bore some professional obligation to the Post that might compromise his prized, self-serving 'access.'"

You can find the rest at Jane's blog, FireDogLake.

Read and enjoy!