Thieves in the Temple.

now what?

I congratulate Barack Obama for becoming the 44th President of the United States. I also congratulate him for being America's first African-American President (a feat I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime) and also the first President elected by the American people since 1996. Mr. Obama should enjoy these accomplishments today, because tomorrow he becomes a hunted man.

Republicans took a bath yesterday -- and frankly, they're going to take another one in 2010. But they are far from powerless, not merely because because they'll likely still have the filibuster power they used to kill dozens of decent Democratic bills last term, but because they still have the "liberal" media in their grasp and because Matt Drudge is still (as Atrios puts it) America's Assignment Editor. Thus will we hear (for example) incessant gossip about the "Chicago mafia" the moment one Illinois-based individual becomes a candidate for a cabinet spot. Thus will we continue to hear about the "unanswered questions" regarding Mr. Obama's relationship with Antoin Rezko. Thus will the most disgusting fantasies of right-wing bloggers -- murders, affairs, secret ties to al-Qaeda, et cetera -- get treated by the "liberal" media as important questions to consider, and not just on Fox News. I hope that Mr. Obama's vaunted discipline discourages Republicans from trying to impeach him, but I wouldn't put that past these clowns. Maybe this time they'll try it during his first term.

More generally, we'll hear, despite the voters' resounding rejection of Republicans yesterday, that the people still want bipartisanship. When I hear such a thing, I have to wonder whether reporters and columnists ever talk to people they don't see in the mirror or hear in their heads. As smarter people than I have put it: voters don't care whether politicans "work together" so much as that politicians govern effectively, and this group of Republicans have demonstrated, time and time again, that they don't give a rat's hind-quarter about governing; they only care about power. I said it in 2006 and I'll say it again: the only reaching out across the aisle I would ever do would be to slap some Republican upside his damn head. How many more wars, how many more federal budgets trashed, how many more port cities left to drown, how many more Middle Eastern countries left without adequate utilities five years after an invasion, how many more neighbors and friends and family members divided from one another, will it take for the "liberal" media to recognize that Republicans are responsible for all of it? When Republicans are interested in governing again, we should listen to them. Obviously we should try to get along with other people. But that doesn't mean we should keep letting burglars into our house.

Unfortunately, that's why I never supported Mr. Obama -- I became convinced that he would be the kind of fellow who prizes "getting along" and "reaching out to the other side" more than he would prize the popular will and good government. This doesn't mean I didn't root for him every time the right-wing spewed filth about him, nor does it mean I won't root for him when they try to destroy him starting approximately by the end of this paragraph. But it does mean that I'll always push him to be a better President. That's my job as a citizen. And I expect the good folks at Public Citizen, the People's Email Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, American Rights at Work, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, United for a Fair Economy, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (among others) will take it as their job as well. Nothing has changed. It isn't time to "let Barack take care of it." We are still Americans, and our counsel is still our greatest gift, and we must never withhold it out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the President. As I've said many times, it's not our job to be loyal to the President -- it's the President's job to be loyal to us.

One last thing: I will never, ever ever shut up about what a lousy so-called President Mr. Bush was, or about the hate and hurt he inflicted on the country I love so he could steal more taxpayer money for his cronies. It's not time to "move on" from that. There may come a day when it doesn't hurt as bad; there may come a day when I'm just weary of being angry; there may even come a day when I'm spiritually advanced enough to forgive him. But I won't shut up about it, because I want everyone to remember it. And I want everyone to remember it because I never want to see this great land elect an arrogant moron as its President again. If we forget, we might one day wind up with someone even worse. This is America, where we are, all of us, leaders. Of all the people on earth, we have the least reason to tolerate bad ones.

push it along.

I think we've pretty much passed the point where Mr. Bush can permit a terrorist attack on the U.S. merely to prove that he really, really, really needed those big telecoms to receive immunity for their participation in his warrantless wiretapping program in order to protect the country. But October lies ahead, and by then few will remember -- and the "liberal" media certainly won't remind us -- that Mr. Bush could have had his basket warrants from Congress if he hadn't been inflexible on big telecom immunity. And by then, Tha Bush Mobb might be after bigger game.

Back in 2004, I speculated privately to friends that Tha Bush Mobb probably wouldn't permit a terrorist attack in October because they could win the election without one. And certainly John McCain will be as likely to win in 2008 as Mr. Bush was in 2004. But this election may not be very much about helping out John McCain, but about keeping Tha Bush Mobb out of jail and/or international war crimes tribunals. A terrorist attack on the U.S. close enough to the election, followed by a summary declaration of martial law (n.b. that the last two Congresses have expanded the President's martial law powers), sure would help Tha Bush Mobb in these aims. And they may already have the interment camps.

All together now: I don't say these things to depress you. I say these things to prepare you for the worst, and I also say these things so that, if Tha Bush Mobb is really planning something this dastardly, they'll know we're on to them. I can't say it hasn't worked so far, though, surely, I can claim very little credit for that.

a brief note.

The House of Representatives adjourned for the weekend without taking up FISA reauthorization -- meaning that the Protect America Act will expire tomorrow. Good for them. I firmly expect that the "liberal" media will blame the Democrats for this, but Mr. Olbermann's Valentine's Day special comment summarizes the facts, which state, unmistakably, that Mr. Bush's insistence on getting everything ensured that he got nothing.

I would be remiss not to mention the possibility that a terrorist attack could happen in the United States very shortly, just to "prove" that Democrats are weak and that Mr. Bush is always right. Mr. Olbermann seems to think Mr. Bush doesn't have it in him. I say never underestimate a political animal -- particularly a political animal with no discernable soul.

more "paranoid" speculation because I love my damn country.

You may have heard that a B-52 carrying at least five nuclear warheads flew from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana this past Thursday. But you may not have heard that Barksdale is, according to Larry Johnson, "a jumping off point for Middle East operations." So it's entirely possible that those nukes weren't flying over the middle of the country by accident! I can't remember the name of the country I've been worrying about Tha Bush Mobb nuking, but I'm pretty sure A Flock of Seagulls wrote a song about it.

Read the comments on the Larry Johnson post, too, because they're quite intelligent. Have I mentioned what a joy it is to read intelligent comments at blogs, and what a joy it is to tell other people what a joy it is to read intelligent comments at blogs? And have I mentioned what a soul-destroying chore it is to read the violently stupid comments I've read at so many other blogs? I'd jump in and apply my Two Fists of Shame, but there are a lot of blogs infested with stupid comments and, unlike a lot of the trolls who leave said comments, I work for a living.

(Hat tip Atrios.)

holiday greetings, and I refuse to be ambushed.

Happy Labor Day, everyone!

I'm not going to let speculation about Tha Bush Mobb's war-with-Iran propaganda campaign ruin my damn day. But, er, I am going to pass said speculation along. Read the comments, too.

have some more of that do-goody good bulldada.

Sometime after the election, I wonder if I'll be reading something like this:

"Despite his low ratings in the polls, President (sic) Bush had a positive effect on every race he visited in the waning days of the campaign. How can this be? 'I suspect polls simply aren't an accurate indicator of the President's (sic) popularity, or anything else, for that matter,' said Sean O'Evil, fellow at the Justice League. 'This President (sic) is a fighter, and he seems to confound the expectations of the liberal media time and time again..."

I bet I could read something like that in a hundred newspaper reports and never find someone willing to come out and tell us the real reason Mr. Bush might save some Republican backside:

Money.

Who's Mr. Bush still popular with? Why, his "base," of course, the richest people in the country, who are doing quite well under Mr. Bush, thank you very much, and who are thus more than happy to help out Conrad "Frank" Burns or Jim Talent (though probably not George Allen or Rick Santorum, since everyone knows by now that they're clowns) by paying a lot of money to hear Mr. Bush speak (sic). And Republicans can then spend that money for TV ads that lie about their opponents, or for better ground operations that turn out more voters -- or both.

Money is both the elephant and the elephant dung in every room that discusses politics.

And in the interest of full disclosure, let me state that, though I support public campaign-financing, I also live in a world that doesn't, so I've given a hundred bucks to each of the following individuals: former independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader; Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV); U.S. Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown (D-OH); State Senator and U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester (D-MT); former Navy Secretary and U.S. Senate candidate Jim Webb (D-VA); and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). I'm not going to brook any silliness about how there's only one Republican on that list. You want the cash? Have integrity and do good works. Mr. Paul doesn't seem to have any problem understanding that.

the more we speak of the worst, the more we can fight it.

DailyKos wonders if the detection of tularemia in both San Francisco and Washington, D.C., concurrent with anti-war protests in both areas, is more than just an accident.

Many of the comments to the aforementioned post are appropriately skeptical, but I think it's suspicious that the government seemed to have an answer ("the protestors were kicking up dust") at the ready.

(Hat tip to News Dissector.)