Humor for Saturday

I have been a bit dark and annoyed with people. But last night, SOF and I had a funny conversation after the mail came and she wrote it up. Check it out, and send her some love. :)

Friday afternoon rant

Exhausted edition. I really need to sleep a little, but can't let this go. Couple of items caught my eye.

Item 1. When Falwell died, several tried to defend (well, sort of) his initial response after 9-11, noting that he apologized for blaming liberals and abortionists. Yet right before he died, he essentially restated it:

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "But days before his unexpected death May 15, Falwell told CNN's Christiane Amanpour he stood by his original statement. The interview airs tonight in the last of a three-part series on "God's Warriors" examining the link between religion and politics and the effects of Judaism, Islam and Christianity on politics, culture and public life.

In a video clip on the series Web site, Amanpour reminded Falwell he sparked controversy by suggesting that the Lord was removing his protection from America in 2001.

"I still believe that," Falwell said.... "We're killing a million babies a year in this country by abortion. And I was saying then, and I'm saying now, that if we in fact change all the rules on which this Judeo-Christian nation was built, we cannot expect the Lord to put his shield of protection around us as he has in the past."

"So you still stand by that?" Amanpour asked.

"I stand right by it," Falwell replied."

Sigh.

******

Item 2. George Bush. Just how bad is he as president?

AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Bush's Bid for a Death Penalty Fast Track: "The Bush administration is preparing to speed up the executions of criminals who are on death row across the United States, in effect, cutting out several layers of appeals in the federal courts so that prisoners can be 'fast-tracked' to their deaths.

With less than 18 months to go to secure a presidential legacy, President Bush has turned to an issue he has specialised in since approving a record number of executions while Governor of Texas.The US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales -- Mr Bush's top legal adviser during the spree of executions in Texas in the 1990s -- is putting finishing touches to regulations, inspired by recent anti-terrorism legislation, that would allow states to turn to the Justice Department, instead of the federal courts, as a key arbiter in deciding whether prisoners live or die."

Fast tracking executions. Got to kill them faster, and Bush thinks that will make him more popular?

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

*****

But we aren't done with Bush. I mentioned this yesterday, but his invocation of Vietnam just boggles the mind. Happily, I am not the only one with a historical eye who thinks so:

Dan Froomkin - The Analogy Quagmire - washingtonpost.com: "'"Historian Robert Dallek, who has written about the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, accused Bush of twisting history. 'It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president,' he said in a telephone interview.

"'We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn't work our will,' he said.

"'What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion,' he continued. 'We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.'""

And let's not forget the most obvious part. If Bush really thinks that we didn't do enough to win Vietnam, then where the hell was he? Drunk, I realize, but as President to be browbeating people for not fighting hard enough in Vietnam is unbelievable. Even for this guy.

I was reminded of his delusions of grandeur and wondered aloud last evening if Bush remembers himself as a VN hero. When that man gave Bush the Purple Heart he earned in Vietnam, I really was stunned that he took it. Imagine the reaction if instead he responded like this: "that award was for wounds you suffered in service to our country. I am so very flattered that you would give this to me, but I did not earn it. You did. And so have all the fighting men and women who have been wounded in battle today, blah blah."

Nope, this one took it as if he deserved it. We have learned a lot about the character of our last couple of presidents. We knew that Clinton had many flaws in his, but also many good parts. We knew that Bush Sr. had many flaws, but also some reasonableness. I am still looking for any positive character in W at all. Any.

I am telling you, the SBC is trying my patience this week

With the stupidity. Actually, I saw this last week at big daddy weave where he posted on Paige Patterson's new "academic program:"

a new academic program in homemaking as part of an effort to establish what its president calls biblical family and gender roles.

It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women. Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."

To be fair, I have no problem with the sewing and the cooking. I don't sew, but spend many hours each week cooking and have been looking for some cooking classes. Maybe I should enroll at Southwestern. Oops, this program is only open to women because Paige Patterson evidently is still living in the 1950s, or at least, his version of it.

Ethics Daily had more on this, including some excerpts from Patterson defending his new program. This one is my favorite:

"Asked if he believes it is best for women to stay in the home and have children, Patterson said: 'I am wary of the crusade against mothers ... who choose not to have a career but to devote themselves entirely to their homes. That's noble and our society is worse for not maintaining it as a noble cause.'

Yes, in a Rovian twist, someone who asks why this program is only open to women is then accused of a "crusade against mothers." Unlike Drake, Patterson is not one of the "gallactically stupid" (another movie quote, for you Tony), and in some ways, that makes this all the worse. Yes, Paige Patterson, liberals hate mothers and families and want children to be raised by government-run, lesbian-flag-burning machines. Sigh.

*****

Speaking of the brain surgeon that is Wiley Drake, I wondered yesterday why he would only invoke an imprecatory prayer against someone who, you know, wrote him a mean letter? Why haven't we used this weapon against Osama Bin Laden? Or against terrorism in general? Given our Defense Department's new love affair with fundamentalism, we could have given Wiley his own sub department, where he could call down God's wrath on select terrorists and South American dicatators. Talk about your "smart weaponry" and "air strikes."

But that would be ridiculous. Almost like having a degree in home economics for female seminarians in a world where we might elect our first woman president next year.

Sigh.

Music break

I am having problems not listening to this new song by Rilo Kiley. Not sure I am completely sold on the album, though there are several other songs that really catch me too.

Seriously, what to say about someone this deluded

Crooks and Liars has a great bit where David Shuster debunks Bush's VN comparison. Of coruse, the last few years, the man kept trying to say that VN was a bad analogy and "sent the wrong message to the troops." And, of course, Shuster points to the obvious. The same man now brazenly criticizing Americans who got out of Vietnam was nowhere to be found when he had the opportunity to fight there.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't blame him. I would not have wanted to go to VN and would have found whatever alternative I could. I don't blame him for his cowardice. But to then send thousands to die while criticizing those who don't like his little war--that is a whole level of delusion and seems frankly pathological. The other day, Karl Rove said something about being proud to serve a President who wanted to bring the country together. I did a double take then. I do another one now.

What do you say about people like this? Are they that insane? Or are they just very good liars. No honest person can say that Bush has tried to bring us together, anymore than any honest person can say that Bush has credibility to address the Vietnam war.

Just tired of stupidity (Obscenity alert)

Maybe it is just the fatigue of the first week of class. I am tired and easily annoyed, and I recognize that. But Tony's post on this idiot pastor wanting armed congregants just pushed me over the edge. Tony is equally annoyed, I think, but as usual, nicer than me.

I am just tired of stupid people saying really, really, REALLY stupid stuff. And too often lately, they have been in a pastoral situation. First Wiley Drake's petulant childish bizarre theology aimed at someone who dared criticize him and call him on his actions. In response he asks God to fucking kill them! I am still stunned by this.

Then Tony notes this guy who says that Congregations should be filled with guns. Not necessarily to shoot, but to show to criminals who, he says, are all cowards and will run from the gun. Because more guns always makes us safer. Because no escalation has ever happened when one person tries violence and is met with violence. Because when you have guns around, no one innocent has ever been shot by well-meaning people.

I am not expecting all pastors to be rocket scientists, nor am I expecting even a depth of theology for all. But is it too much to ask for a modicum of common sense? Forget gun control, these two make me want to push for "preacher control" where you have to pass a basic psychological competency to get a license to Preach.

But that--unlike asking God to kill someone--would be ridiculous.

A few more thoughts

First, Michael Vick. Sully says it very well, calling what the QB did:

"cruelty. It's a vice we don't talk of much, but it is essentially the aspect of the human psyche that sees a vulnerable person, animal or thing, and exploits that vulnerability with further violence or power. It's evil. It's why I despise torture in every form. It is not just the absence of love or respect; it's the active presence of its opposite. And animals, creatures over which we have near total control or dominion, are more vulnerable to such cruelty than many humans. Vick is an inhumane bully, an exemplum of cruelty and arrogance."

I also think that those who would so cruelly treat dogs this way, will do so to humans.

*****

And this is interesting and also a bit suspected--given the Bush admins approach to all things regulation. But McClatchy reports that:

"The Bush administration and China have both undermined efforts to tighten rules designed to ensure that lead paint isn't used in toys, bibs, jewelry and other children’s products.

Both have fought efforts to better police imported toys from China."

At least no one blames the lead in toys on some "act of God" but it appears that the lead scandal is very related to the Bush/GOP view of capitalism, which is, no taxes and no regulation. Even if those taxes are to pay for bridges and the regulation is to protect children.

Sigh.

This kind of confirms what I suspected

The Barna group released a poll that suggests that evangelicals prioritize marriage and families and improving the overall spiritual condition of the US--but don't care nearly as much about environmental concerns or improving conditions for children.

Bible Belt Blogger: When Aimee Semple McPherson came to Arkansas: "In a different way, evangelicals stood out regarding their views on the environment. Only 35% said that protecting the environment should be a top priority - the lowest score recorded among any of the 80 subgroups studied. The national average was 60%. Oddly, evangelicals were also 20 percentage points below the national norm in saying that improving the overall care and resources devoted to children is an absolute necessity. Again, that placed evangelicals at the lowest end of the continuum in terms of support for that idea.'"

Odd. Given that evangelicals voice the most concern for marriage and family, but the least for children? And who do they think are harmed by environmental problems? Are they with Dobson that the environment is only about trees and birds? (Nevermind that these are the same people pushing a literal creation which means that God created those trees and birds that they care so little about.)

Couple of quick items

The Bush legacy will take years to fully understand, but the immediate impact is actually bad enough. AP is reporting that our Army is nearing the breaking point (h/t Upper Left):

"WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.

The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press. That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:"

How Republicans still get high marks for supporting the troops amazes me. In this piece, they admit privately that one option on the table to provide for 2008 is to extend tours beyond 15 months (which was already an extension beyond 12). I won't castigate the entire Republican party, but Bush and Cheney are horrible on the military. Those Republicans who support them have to decide for themselves. The next SUV I see with a yellow ribbon for the troops, a "these colors don't run" sticker, AND a W, or W 2004--I might just puke.

******

Item two is the Schip program--or the insurance program for poor children. After failing to veto any meaningful legislation beyond stem cell research when the GOP ran the shop, Bush has rediscovered his veto power. But he uses it in such terrible places.

Faithful Progressive: Bad Medicine: New Bush Health Care Rules Leave Many Children Behind: "The Bush administration, engaged in a battle with Congress over whether a popular children's health insurance program should be expanded, has announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children."

Last month, Krugman assessed Bush's stance:

It’s not because [Bush] thinks the plans wouldn’t work. It’s because he’s afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can’t do the same for adults. […]

There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you’re afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.

I am afraid Krugman is right here. Bush does have principles, they just suck.

*****

Finally, this gem that really suggests that Bush and his people don't "get" America and never have.

A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.

Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

Reread that. American citizens were arrested for protesting their President. They didn't threaten his life, or start a riot. They simply wore t-shirts. T-F*&KING SHIRTS!!!!! And the Bush White house tried to put them in jail. They lost, but claim that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. They can't even admit that jailing someone for wearing a t-shirt is wrong.

Boy, those votes for Bush in '04 are starting to look dumber and dumber, aren't they?

Politicians on theology

Melissa Rogers points to one of the few parts of the Democratic debate that I caught yesterday where the candidates were asked (by someone in Iowa) about their belief in prayer and how it works.

Here was the question:

"My question is to understand each candidates' view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?"

Personally, I thought it was a stupid question, but there it was. It implies that those disasters were acts of God, which really bugs me. Certainly, the hurricane was a force of nature and no one had any control over that. But the "disaster" portion of it was almost purely man made. And the Minnesota bridge collapse? Come on. How about blaming a no-taxes for anything approach? That bridge didn't collapse from some cosmic cough. It went down because it failed and human beings failed to catch that it was failing.

Obama had one of the better answers:

OBAMA: Most of the issues that we're debating here today are ones that we have the power to change.

We don't have the power to prevent illness in all cases, but we do have the power to make sure that every child gets a regular checkup and isn't going to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma.

We may not have the power to prevent a hurricane, but we do have the power to make sure that the levees are properly reinforced and we've got a sound emergency plan.

And so, part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control. And that's what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government.

OBAMA: We've got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions.

I am not bashing prayer, but praying for the poor and then voting against them seems problematic to me.

Ok, one more on Drake

It is hard to resist. Saw this USATODAY.com where they too asked Drake WTF:

"Today, Drake told us by telephone that he has called for prayers aimed at smiting the AU and its leadership not because they oppose him personally, but because "they are attacking God's people."

Again, he equates himself with God's people. I think I am one of God's people, and I don't feel attacked. Well, not by Americans United. Feeling just a little attacked by idiots like Drake.

Speaking of idiocy:

Drake also said he had been careful to state that he was "personally endorsing" Huckabee, not throwing his church's support to the candidate. He put the endorsement on the church's letterhead, Drake said, "because I'm not going to let anyone tell me I have to hide who I am. I use letterhead to pay my phone bill and to send my mother a note.""

Could that be the answer to this riddle? Drake isn't just theologically challenged, but just not very smart.

The riddle is solved by, well me, and the Los Angeles Times columnist Dana Parsons. Parsons writes an interesting take on the Drake nutjobbery by connecting it to teaching the Bible in school. Should we, he asks, teach imprecatory prayer in Public schools? Would that violate the school's "zero-violence" policy? That part is funny and pretty apt.

But included is a little glimpse of Wiley Drake--the wingnut himself. Parsons has interviewed him several times and kind of likes the nut. Parsons assures us that Drake is "no ayatollah." Ok. I don't really care. But he includes this:

He's a Southern Baptist from Texas who is cookie-cut from the mold of men who like to preach the Gospel and issue press releases. I wrote 10 years ago that he "likes microphones for breakfast," and Drake didn't dispute it.

He acknowledged then that he probably had "been rightly accused of being somewhat self-aggrandizing and a media freak" but added that he'd actually accepted years earlier that he wasn't going to become famous.

You catch that last line?

he'd actually accepted years earlier that he wasn't going to become famous

See, I thought that Pastors were supposed to be about service. Drake is just one in a long line of people who are there (at least partially) for the fame and notoriety. The late Jerry Falwell comes to mind, for some inexplicable reason. Or James Dobson's tailored suit as he strides from the limo to meet with the centers of power. Oh, I am sure along the way all did some good to those around them. Drake supposedly fought city hall to establish a homeless shelter at his church, and Falwell famously did much for unwed mothers. Dobson undoubtedly taught some underprivileged couple to spank the hell out of their kid. But all of them love those microphones and revel in the wealth and fame.

Tony calls these types "celebrity Christians" and I agree. Unfortunately, they have a voice and it has been a very bad voice for, well, all of us. Everytime some idiot like Drake pops off, we forget that there are pastors like Tony who clearly are not in it for either fame or money and who recently had his VBS group raise money for Special Olympics (obviously not getting the Bush memo that Special Olympics is supported by the Kennedy family). This is not to single Tony out, except he is the one I know of right now. I also know that Anglican's priest here in Norman is just one hell of a guy and another man serving those around him. There are countless more out there, but those men and women are lost in the mega church-satellite service-video preacher-branded church-mindless "praise and worship"-non denom with the hip music and high tech show, etc., phenomenon. We need to focus more on them and shut the Wiley Drake's and James Dobson's the hell up.

One last thing, an image I found on a blog post about Wiley Drake is very interesting and quite telling. I don't know where the picture was taken or who the people are, but I think it came from the right wing "Move America Forward" website (cheap and cheesy response to Moveon.org, and dominated by a lot of right wingers). It tells us a lot about the Dobson/Drake/Falwell phenomenon. I am sure you will see what I am talking about.

Couple of cute stories

From yesterday. Obviously later in the evening, my Alafair moment took over the night, but the afternoon was rather charming. First, I mowed (no, that isn't charming) but before I could get started, this woman came over and asked me and my neighbor to help her daughter push a pickup down the street a few houses to their rental driveway. We agreed and negotiated the busy east/west traffic. We told the daughter to put it in neutral, and let off the brake. We started pushing and yelled steering commands. But the truck just kept going straight. Finally she hit the brake and stopped the truck. I assumed the lack of power meant that the power steering wasn't working right. But when we came around the front, she said, "the wheel seems locked up."

Then she pulled the keys out of her purse. Yep, a locked steering wheel would cause that.

******

Second, we went to the pet adoption where we found Abbie. We returned a crate they were so nice to lend us and took them some spare leashes and extra paper towels--things we assumed they could use. They were so nice. And several asked who we had adopted. When we told them Maggie--now Abbie--one said, "what and you didn't bring her back to visit?" and the other said "Please send pictures."

I thought with all the dogs they might lose track of the individuals. But they knew exactly who is running around our house making us smile.

More Wiley Drake wingnuttery

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "In an interview with EthicsDaily.com, Drake responded to the AU’s second press release dealing with his call for imprecatory prayer.

“If they think it’s ‘outlandish,’ it doesn’t surprise me,” Drake stated. “They’re ungodly, un-scriptural, not even Christians.”

“They have no reverence for the Word of God,” Drake continued. “And if they think it’s ‘outlandish,’ don’t blame me, I didn’t write it, God did.”

“It really doesn’t matter what my words are,” Drake added. “What matters is what does God’s Word say? God’s Word says if they continue to attack God’s people, God will cause their children to become orphans and their wives to become widows. I didn’t say that, God did.”

Shorter Wiley: "Don't blame me. Blame God for writing such crazy stuff. Can I help it that it is useful for me?"

What a scumbag.

Alafair's pond

It has been two + weeks since we said goodbye and we are doing better. I say that after having one of those moments we call "Alafair moments" over the last few days that are painful and yet also nice. We miss her so much. We adopted her from an organization up in the city (Pets for People). She was sickly and shy and scared of everything. We loved her and she loved us back and for ten years, our lives were better for knowing her. We named her after a James Lee Burke character (the main character (also a nickname--Streak) adopted a daughter--Alafair), though she took on numerous nicknames. Her tail was thin and kind of curly, so she became the Monkey. The short version of Alafair was 'Fair' which became 'Bear.

One of our friends said that she brought joy to everyone in her world. And that is true. She made our lives better every day she was with us. She would bark at us with this half bark--actually more of a soundless bark--when she wanted a walk. When she felt good in the backyard, she often ran from spot to spot in a full frenzied way that brough a smile to us every time. Her happiness made us happy. Even when the stress of the mundane got us down. We loved her so very much.

This week, I finally started her pond. I know she would have been scared by all the machinery and swearing it took to get it operational. I still have to do more to add fish and plants. But the soothing sounds of the waterfall--I know she would have liked that. She was the best that life has to give us--a glimpse of unconditional love, and unconditional friendship. We miss her very much.

Huckabee spokesperson calls Wiley Drake's comments "evil"

Thanks again to Melissa Rogers for this heads up. This is a bit of good news/bad news. One one hand, I really not considered just how batshit crazy Drake's attack was. I kind of thought he was just calling on God to disfavor these individuals. I guess I hadn't considered just how bloodthirsty Drake is, or how fond he is of the OT God here. But he is calling for these people to die, for their children to be "fatherless." A Southern Baptist fatwa, in other words. Truly unbelievable and horrifying.

And Drake isn't backing off. Of course, as a true crazy wingnut, he is just blaming God for it.

“The prayer does call for serious, serious punishment on people. But I didn’t call for that, God did,” said Drake, who completed a term in June as second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The whole "God did it" is nice, isn't it? I always love the passive aggressive "your argument isn't with me, but with God" that is so often used by fundamentalists. No, Mr. Drake (I won't call you a minister--ministers don't do this. Mob bosses and terrorists do this) our argument is with you and your pretense to represent something approaching Christianity.

Oh, and all of this was because Americans United suggested that Drake be investigated for using Southern Baptist letterhead to endorse Mike Huckabee for President. As Barry Lynn noted, that is beyond the allowable endorsement for someone trying to keep their tax exempt status. Never mind that Drake is free to endorse whoever he wants as a private citizen. That is not enough for the crazy wingnut.

Drake said in a telephone interview Thursday that neither he nor the church violated the law and insisted he could use church stationery and the Internet program to “personally” endorse a political candidate. He said the Bible calls for imprecatory prayer when someone “attacks the church.”

Because Wiley Drake IS the church, evidently. Maybe when he dies, the Southern Baptists who have allowed him to have this voice will put up a shrine to him along with eternal flame and bus parking.

On his Internet show, in a news release on ChristianNewsWire and in an e-mail to Americans United, Drake called on others to pray that the Americans United officials be punished.

He gave as examples of imprecatory prayer:

“Persecute them. ... Let them be put to shame and perish.”

“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

“Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg.”

This makes me want to vomit. A supposed minister hoping that children be poor and fatherless.

The only good news here is that Huckabee's spokesperson responded forcefully:

Huckabee was campaigning Thursday. Alice Stewart, a campaign spokesman, said the campaign did not coordinate with Drake on any of the material he’s distributed regarding the Americans United complaint.

“We certainly don’t condone the evil comments he’s made,” she said.

Yes, they are evil. I think I need a shower.

Falwell Shrine?

Our friend Tony (who has decided, btw, to start a second blog where he writes about the intersection between faith and social and political issues) caught this gem of a story about the Falwell family/company building a shrine to the late preacher/GOP activist. As Tony notes, whatever on the memorial. Certainly, the family and college can do that. But this one includes an "eternal flame," because as his son and current carrier of the family jackass label put it, the flame is "a fitting tribute to his legacy and his vision and his passion to reach soul’s [sic] for Christ."

Nothing says care for other people's souls like an eternal flame. Or the legacy of a person who blamed people like me for 9-11. I guess one nice irony--an eternal flame will nicely represent someone who reveled in his large (and I do mean large) carbon footprint and laughed at global warming.

Sigh.

Here it is: Jon Stewart grills Stephen Hayes

One of my favorite lines is when Hayes argues that Cheney appears more wrong than he is because he speaks in public so infrequently. Get that? Because he speaks publicly less, there is more attention to the times he is wrong. Ok.

Late notes

First, via Melissa Rogers news that Wiley Drake has struck again calling on Baptists to pray for misfortune to fall on two staffers for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Because, of course, Jesus called on us to use prayers to smite people. Like magical spells.

*****

Second, I just watched Jon Stewart dismantle Stephen Hayes, the author of the recent Cheney biography. I will post the video when I find it online, but Jon was masterful and spoke for all of us who doubted Bush/Cheney and were called traitors for our trouble. As Jon said, when you have been so wrong about so many things, you shouldn't call us weak or idiots when we disagree with you. Hayes really stumbled at one point and said that no one in the Bush administration had doubted critics patriotism. The crowd just laughed at him. I guess Hayes forgot that Bush's brain did that on a regular basis. Here, from 2005:

Rove Questions Liberals' Sympathies: "'Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?' Rove asked 'Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.'"

I have said this about a million times on this blog, but Jon Stewart asks questions that most media never even seem to consider. He actually calls some of these people on their bullshit. And even if this was a Weekly Standard twerp Cheney proxy--it was damn nice to see.

On Rove

Eugene Robinson won't miss Rove, though he doubts that he will really be gone.

Rove didn't invent "wedge" politics, but he was an adept practitioner of that sordid art. When Bush was campaigning in 2000, he proclaimed himself "a uniter, not a divider." But the Bush-Rove theory of politics and governance has been divide, divide, divide -- either you're "with us" or "against us," either you're right or you're wrong, either you should be embraced or attacked without quarter.

Yes, politics is about winning -- they don't give style points for graceful failure. But the us-or-them brand of politics that Rove mastered and that Bush practiced has been a disaster for the nation and its standing in the world.

Yesterday, in remarks on the White House lawn, Rove praised Bush for putting the nation "on a war footing" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But that's precisely what Bush failed to do. Rather than try to foster a spirit of national solidarity and shared sacrifice, he persisted with tax cuts designed to please his wealthiest supporters. Rather than engage critics of the war in any meaningful dialogue, Bush accused them of wanting to "cut and run." Rather than actually practicing the bipartisanship he disingenuously preached, Bush governed with a hyperpartisan political agenda.

Exactly. Bush, with Rove's guidance, decided to use the 9-11 attacks to divide us further, not build some kind of bridge. And the odd thing is that I truly believe he could have been far less divisive and far more effective at building the Republican majority he so badly wanted. Imagine the power of Rove or Bush had he seriously reached across the aisles and pulled America together for more than a week. Instead, Rove decided it was better to demonize those of us who disagreed as "soft on terror."

Rove said he was leaving so he could spend more time with his family -- the standard reason in Washington for leaving any job. Bush said Rove will continue to be "a dear friend," and I don't doubt for a minute that Rove will continue to be one of the president's closest and most trusted advisers. I don't think the Bush administration is going to change course at this late date.

"I'll be on the road behind you here in a little bit," Bush said to Rove as the two men faced reporters yesterday.

Not soon enough.

Ding Dong

Karl Rove to quit at end of August - CNN.com:

"'Obviously it's big loss to us, said Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino. 'He is a great colleague, good friend and a brilliant mind.'

Perino said Rove 'wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this is the right time to be giving more time to his family.'"

Yeah, right. Spend more time with his family. Until one of the GOP buys the notion that Rove is brilliant and is willing to do whatever it takes to win. Jon Stewart's joke about Scott McClellan comes to mind. Perhaps it would go like this, "Karl Rove has resigned to spend more time lying to his family and spreading rumors that his neighbors are anti-American flag burning gay terrorists."

Reading that article in the Atlantic on The Rove Presidency makes me think that Rove was a perfect advisor for Bush. Arrogant to the core, and completely unwilling to admit either error or acknowledge the harm they have done--they were meant for each other. And neither is close to being as smart as they think they are.

Personally, I think this man should be in jail instead of making up something about his family. I am sure the right wing will shower him with money and adoration. But I also suspect this is not the last we have heard from him. Either running another campaign or indicted or both.