Thursday, March 16, 2006

Et tu, Barack?

"I haven't read it", "it" being Senate Resolution 398, on the censuring of George W. Bush.

Yet, Obama has a photo on his home page of himself standing at Feingold's side. Does this mean he's thinking about co-sponsoring the censure?

Maybe he just needs a day or two to make sure he's thought things through before joining the call for censure and the effort to educate America on the reasons for it. Come on, Barack, you can do it.

And on the topic of Brutuses (Bruti?), even The Times falls into the same Rove-scripted spin on the censure resolution, passing on Minitrue's propaganda with nary a critical glance... least until the last line: "It looked bizarre, too, when Father Robert F. Drinan and a handful of others, such as John Conyers Jr. in 1972 similarly were planning for the impeachment of President Nixon... When the moment of truth came, they were ready."

This one has to bubble up from below too, since the Democrat rank and file are in shivering milquetoast mode wondering how they could avoid appearing weak if they actually stand up for something... even though, as Cenk Uygur wryly as ever notes, Note to Moronic Democratic Senators: Americans Can't Stand George Bush.

He points out how depressingly obviously wrong the Democrat leadership took away the moral of the story of Kenneth Starr - "taking action against the sitting president is really unpopular" - when there are a couple of little distinctions that make the comparison about as apt as comparing a Bordeaux with an asteroid impact: (1) Clinton's approval rating was 72%, while Bush's is 33%; and (2) Clinton's crime was lying about an affair, while Bush's is - or rather, includes - claiming not to be subject to the law - a big part of the reason for difference number (1), because we the people of America know which one of those offenses gravely threatens America, and trying to cover up adultery is not it.

No comments: