Today’s Daily Schadenfreude: George W. Bush

Shorter Drunky McStagger: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

It’s increasingly looking like Bush’s petulance is not just for show.

Apparently, a year of dealing with a Democratic Congress — even one as supine as this one — has profoundly upset him. And he may have given up on reaching any accommodation with them at all.

[...]

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann parses what he calls Bush’s “tantrum” yesterday.

Mike Soraghan, Klaus Marre and Manu Raju write in the Hill: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democrats have been making progress but have been blocked by Republican obstruction. He said Bush is complaining now only because Congress will not do his bidding as it did when Republicans were in control.

“‘This president is defying the will of the American people, and he’s chagrined that things have changed, so he’s complaining,’ Hoyer said.

“Bush pointed to recent legislation to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, the farm bill, the energy bill and a small-business bill as examples of Democrats’ effort to raise taxes.

“Democrats retorted that they have found ways to pay for the programs they have proposed, rather than simply adding to the debt.”

David Espo and Charles Babington write for the Associated Press that Bush has apparently dug in even further in opposition to the SCHIP bill: “President Bush told Republican lawmakers on Tuesday he will not agree to legislation expanding children’s health insurance if it includes a tobacco tax increase, a decision that virtually ensures a renewed veto struggle with the Democratic-controlled Congress. . . .

“The White House has said previously it opposes tobacco tax increases that Democrats included in the health care legislation, but only after first detailing numerous other objections.”

It couldn’t happen to a nicer more ethically bankrupt president. Congratulations, Drunky, you sniveling, simpering WATB: today’s Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

But what about the appeasement?

A headline in WaPo tells us today that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey is “Losing Democrats’ Backing.” The puzzling thing for me is why Democrats in the Senate ever backed Mukasey in the first place.

For one thing, merely as a tactical measure, the Democrats should rise up and oppose every nomination that Drunky McStagger sends down Pennsylvania Avenue, whether it’s for Attorney General or Postmaster of Podunk, Nebraska. But even if you say that such a tactic would be needlessly obstructionist, they shouldn’t have been supporting Mukasey, even before the concerns arose about his philosophy on torture:

In a four-page letter to the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey walked a tightrope by outlining the laws and treaties forbidding torture and other cruel treatment, and explaining the legal analysis he would undertake of “coercive” techniques, while generally declining to render judgments.

Mukasey said that techniques described as waterboarding by lawmakers “seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans.” But, he continued, “hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical.”

Mukasey also said he is reluctant to offer opinions on interrogation techniques because he does not want to place U.S. officials “in personal legal jeopardy” and is concerned that such remarks might “provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program.” His arguments are similar to those advanced by the Bush administration in its refusal to discuss waterboarding or other interrogation techniques.

Yet, even after all that, there are prominent Democrats who refuse to come right out and say that Mukasey is unacceptable:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary panel’s chairman, reacted with blunt dissatisfaction, saying in a statement yesterday that he will continue to delay any vote on Mukasey until the nominee answers more questions from lawmakers. “I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States,” he said.

But Leahy, who said last week that “my vote would depend on him answering that question,” stopped short of declaring he will oppose the nomination. Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), also issued a statement criticizing Mukasey but did not say whether he would vote no.

If for no other reason than his non-answer regarding torture, Michael Mukasey does not deserve to be confirmed by the Senate. But the very fact that Democrats are even considering supporting his nomination says volumes about the effectiveness of Senate leadership (I’m looking at you, Harry Reid) and about the Democrats’ ongoing failure to stand up to the Republican minority in their chamber.

Happy Halloween thoughts

According to the Death Clock, I have 1,003,754,515 seconds left to live.

1,003,754,514 …
1,003,754,513 …
1,003,754,512 …

That takes me up to August 23, 2039. I’ll be 73 years old. My parents both already are older than that …

And if I can hold on for two days longer, I’ll make it to my son’s 40th birthday. I’ll keep my fingers crossed …

(h/t ::matthew)

Right-wing response to Muslim protestors at FAU: spitting on them

Turns out the media was right after all yesterday: there were protestors at FAU last night for the Daniel Pipes speech. And, just as predictably, the right wing showed their true nature:

A young protester stood outside a crowded auditorium Tuesday night and watched a scowling older woman approach her.

Sana Akhtar, a 23-year-old psychology and biology student at Florida Atlantic University, gripped a stack of fliers that decried Daniel Pipes, the controversial speaker scheduled to take the stage in 30 minutes. Like many of the 40 or so others who had gathered to protest Pipes, whose comments on Islam have been called racist and xenophobic, she held up a placard, on which she had written: “GUILTY … CUZ I’M A MUSLIM?”

The angry woman, a school employee with short reddish hair wearing a yellow FAU polo shirt, stood close to Akhtar and, according to the student and a dozen or so witnesses, muttered, “You don’t belong here.”

And then, for Akhtar and the others, a surreal experience: The woman spat on her.

The incident was one of a handful of nasty encounters that played out before Pipes spoke Tuesday night at the invitation of a student group, the Middle East and National Security Organization.

What the hell is wrong with these people? I’m instantly reminded of the episode in 2004 in Portland, Ore., when a Bush supporter pushed or struck a Kerry supporter in the face. At the time, I described it as “the true face of the Republican Party,” and that obviously hasn’t changed.

What we in the reality-based community have to realize, if we haven’t already, is that the Right cannot prevail in a debate on facts. They never could. So they bloviate and distort and attack, attack, attack. They hit. They spit. They’re like four-year-olds who don’t get their way … because there is simply no way for them to win a civilized debate on policy.

I’ll be interested to see if the “school employee with short reddish hair” is ever identified. In the meantime, though, it’s instructive to remember that these people still walk among us, and these most rabid among them are unlikely to be silenced, especially as the discourse grows more heated and the invective increases towards the next election.

Perfecting Coulter

I borrowed the pic and the title from The Shane Life. Too good to pass up … especially on Halloween.

UPDATE (9:41 am 10/31/07): Something’s wrong over at The Shane Life, so I went and got the original pic. It’s larger and scarier anyway.