Damn Those Democrats!

The President’s latest mouthful of bullshit? “If you want to keep your hard-earned money, vote Republican.”

From the Associated Press:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney launched a one-two political punch against Democrats on Friday, saying they are ill-equipped to handle the economic recovery or the war on terror.

Shouldering dismal poll ratings, Bush worked to frame the debate ahead of this year’s congressional elections by telling supporters that “the difference is clear” between the two parties on how to sustain the recovery.

“If you want the government in your pocket, vote Democrat,” Bush said. “If you want to keep more of your hard-earned money, vote Republican.”

Okay. Right.

Time for a little history lesson, Georgie.

The Democrats are actually rather well-equipped to handle the economic recovery, seeing as how they had to do it after Ronald Reagan and your father ran the deficit to then-record levels. Let’s review some facts:

1. During Bill Clinton’s eight years in office, 23 million jobs were created, the budget was balanced, the debt incurred during the Reagan-Bush years was paid off and the country was in a state of great prosperity.

2. In 2001, when you took office, the country had a billion-dollar surplus.

3. In 2002, one year after you took office, the budget surplus was gone. Vanished. Why? Well, first, you cut taxes for some folks out there. However, you Republicans did nothing to cut spending at the same time. Instead, spending increased under your watch.

4. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Current cost of the Iraq war? Over 2300 military personnel dead, over 16,000 injured, plus $259 billion dollars and counting.

5. Fraud, mismanagement, and waste – a hallmark of your administration. How much money was stolen by Halliburton and its subsidiaries (and other politically-connected companies) for doing jobs in Iraq that were done by military units in previous wars for much lower costs? How much money was stolen, wasted, or misused by FEMA and politically-connected companies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

So, here we are, in 2006, facing future economic disaster – and I do mean disaster on a ‘Great Depression’ scale – and you’re busy cutting money to programs that help the less fortunate in our society – including veterans of current and former wars, while making sure your rich friends are making lots of money and paying less taxes on that money.

And may your God help us if China decides it doesn’t want to loan us any more money, or asks us to pay back what we’ve already borrowed. The current deficit is so large that each man, woman, and child living in the United States currently owes $30,000.

Here’s some more facts: The Democrats have zero power in DC. None. The Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress, so even if every Democrat votes against them, they still pass whatever legislation they want.

Plus, even with a Republican Congress that cheerfully rubber-stamped everything that crossed their desks (until Dubai Ports World) you continue making ’signing statements’. Signing statements that – in effect – mean you don’t care what Congress says because you’ll do what you want.

What’s the definition of ‘tyrant’ again?

The Minister of Propaganda…Scott McClellan keeps telling us you want to ‘work with the Congress’ and that you’ll be happy to listen to their ‘ideas and suggestions’. Since when does the Constitution say that Congress’ only role is that of advisory committee?
As for the War on Terror – do you really believe anyone can do a worse job than you already have?! I think my thirteen-year-old daughter could run this war better than you!

Another few salient points:

1. Osama Bin Laden – remember him? He’s the guy who actually planned the 9-11 attacks, and he is still on the loose nearly 5 years later.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. They were not connected to Al-Qaida, except by Saddam’s attempts to infiltrate their organization. Saddam hated Osama, and Osama hated Saddam. Why? Because, moron, Osama wanted a Taliban-type regime, while Saddam – because he was a power freak – ran a secular government.

3. You’ve admitted that that your little war was a failure, and that you will not be cleaning up your own mess.

VP: Things Are Going Great!

From Mikhaela:

Making Reservations for Cheney?

As celebrity hotel-room demands go, the Dark Lord has a pretty simple list. Some even make sense.

From The Smoking Gun, which has the VP’s ‘Downtime Requirements’ sheet on its website:

While the vice president’s requests are pretty modest (no extract-the-brown-M&M demands here), Cheney does like his suite at a comfy 68 degrees. And, of course, all the televisions need to be preset to the Fox News Channel (what, you thought he was a Lifetime devotee?). Decaf coffee should be ready upon his arrival along with four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite.

The form also specifies that the ‘Advance Team’ should be notified if the hotel puts a gift in the suite. (Which makes sense. You’d hate to see the Secret Service blow a perfectly nice fruit basket into fruit juice ‘just in case’.)

USSC: All occupants must okay searches w/o warrants

In a ruling that will have a chilling effect on women in abusive relationships, the Supreme Court ruled that all occupants of a dwelling (ie: house, dorm, etc) must give consent to a search of the premises. No one party has rights of consent over another.

From the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court’s new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.

Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man’s wife invited them in.

The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.

[...]

Georgia’s Supreme Court ruled for Scott Randolph, and the high court agreed.

‘This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims,’ Souter wrote. ‘No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.’ [emphasis mine]

Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing voter, joining the court’s four more liberal members.

Roberts’ dissent was unusually long — almost as long as the main opinion. He predicted ’severe’ consequences for women who invite police in only to be overruled by their husbands.

What, may I ask, is ‘good reason’? Does a woman need to be bleeding or bruised? Does she need to be unconcious? Does she need two witnesses? Do they need to have received two or more 911 calls from that residence.

You can see the future. Some woman is going to be killed by her significant other, and when the cops are asked why they did nothing to help, they’ll say, ‘We just didn’t have a good enough reason at the time to believe there was a threat.’