Actually, how about "the unmitigated gall"? Not of the Dems; of Walden:

The House Democrats "actually tightened down the screws much more than we ever did," said Walden, recounting how little input the House Republicans had on the stimulus bill.

From Jeff Mapes' blog, and Mapes does not record if Walden was talking with a straight face. The House GOP under Gingrich, Delay, Hestert et al, turned the House Dems into their butt boys (and girls). For the most part, of course, the Dems took it, not as happily as the Dems in the Senate (many of whom retain the habit of acquiescing to the Rs even though the Republican Party is in the process of swirling down the national political toilet). But then came 2006, and Speaker Pelosi, and suddenly Greg Walden and his anti-democracy comrades found themselves where they had stuck the Dems: On the outside looking in.

Not that the ruling party should ever arbitrarily cut the opposition from the process, but a couple of points to note here.

For Walden to bitch about how badly he and his party are being treated is a bit precious. Of course they are also the party that bankrupted this nation with their tax cuts for the rich, the Iraq War and deregulation of banks and insurance — and now whine that Obama is spending too much money trying to create jobs, improve education, save the planet and otherwise help people who are not going to contribute vast amounts of money to the Republican Party and their cronies.

Second, the GOP has offered nothing of substance since Barack Obama took office. He reached out to them, more than halfway, and they responded by spitting in his face. They have criticized without contributing, they have yet to offer up a single productive idea, and so they are being treated with the respect they have earned: Zero.

So, Greg Walden, two little words of advice to help you understand the situation, to give you perspective and help you deal with being in a party that is a huge minority because the nation has finally recognized you are a force for destruction and not for peace, prosperity and justice:

Suck it.

Courtesy of Streetfilms, how L.A., of all places, is taking the idea of a dedicated line and doing it at less cost and with a heavy emphasis on bikes. We can't build light rail everywhere, but the idea of bus-only lines serving areas that need a heavy-duty mass transit alternative is very, very cool.

(suggestion: start the clip, hit pause & let it load. they have a poor server but it's worth the wait.)

From Huff Post & Air America, "Young Turk" Cenk Uygur:

Time after time, the Bush administration, the Obama administration and Congress had an opportunity to attach limits on executive pay to legislation authorizing bailout money. And time after time, they refused. So, please spare me the bullshit outrage. If you didn't see this coming, then you are an absolute moron.

Here's the part that drives lefties batshit: Obama is giving people a chance to do the right thing. He's giving that chance to people no one else is willing to trust. Is he a moron? Or is this part of a bigger endeavor, his overarching promise to change America's political culture?

When seeking to get people's cooperation, you have two choices. One, you can tell them "Do this". Few people react well to that sort of dictate, especially when it comes from government. Even people who have lousy track records, like the greedheads who caused much of the financial meltdown, are likely to react badly to being told they have no choice but to do things as they are told. The President & Congress could have passed laws that put these people under the screws, but the long-term consequence would have been to create a division of enmity that would have undermined much of the President's program.

For several years now, Jon Steward and Steven Colbert have not only been hailed as the nation's leading purveyors of news and information for millions of viewers, the fact that they are has been both goggled at and decried. Comedians? Satirists? These are the sources of news for millions of Americans? What the hell is wrong?

Well — nothing. Comedy and satire have long been vital parts of the political discourse, all the way back to the Greeks and probably earlier (go ask a scholar who would know). Aristophenes' "Lysistrata" is a great example, a satire of men's lust for war being thwarted by their disgusted wives who withheld relief to the other great lust until they declared an end to the war. In no uncertain terms, the ancient Greek playwright skewered the ways of his nation's leaders, and he made it funny. (If you ever get a chance to see a production, do so; it really is funny — and wonderfully lewd.)

More recently, and yet over 200 years ago, Jonathon Swift tore apart the politics of his day in "Gulliver's Travels," a novel entertaining enough to be enjoyed today (and amenable to a variety of productions). Will Rogers was famous for his political comment as much as anything: "I'm not a member of an organized political party," he said, "I'm a Democrat" — words that continue to ring true. In the 60s and 70s, some of the most prescient and accurate political commentary in our nation came from comedians: Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce, James Gregory, the Smothers Brothers (yup; you had to be there). I'd even throw in writers like Ring Lardner, Jr, who wrote the screenplay for M*A*S*H, the best anti-Vietnam war movie of the day.

So Stewart and Colbert are doing nothing new. They are following an ancient tradition, using comedy to illuminate what others try to keep dark. Are they serving as a source of reliable information? Well, that's tricky. In order for their jokes to work, audiences have to know what the hell they are talking about. Many of their pieces require them to show actual news footage — the facts, if you will — before they can hammer the punchline. Of course they can manipulate these clips to make the jokes work, and they do, but if what they were doing was twisting what newsmakers did and said completely out of recognition, audiences would grow tired of the bits. The shows would just be another version of Mystery Science Theatre, the News Edition.

But Stewart and Colbert not only attempt to begin with news items presented fairly, their shows work better because they do exactly that. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and the other right-wingers succeed by taking things out of context, by inventing premises that never existed, and by numerous other means of dishonesty. They have nothing of substance on which to stand; they must continually invent something they can sell. Stewart and Colbert know that something as close to the truth as they can make works even better. They let politicians, Wall Street execs, media hacks and the rest hoist themselves by their own, as it were, pitards; the jokes are just waiting to be plucked like low-hanging fruit. But it only works because they present an honest introduction to their jokes: they rely on the truth to be their straight man.

I testified in support of HB 2556 and HR 4 — legislation to Keep the Guard in Oregon — on March 11, 2009, before the Oregon House Rules Committee. Thanks to Assistant Majority Leader Sara Gelser and Rep Chris Edwards for ensuring an early committee session for this crucial legislation. Following is my testimony to the Committee.

Testimony of Todd A Barnhart
in support of HB 2556, HR 4 & SR 1

Chair Roblan, Members of the Committee, my name is Todd Barnhart. I live at 6831 SE 48th Avenue, Portland, and I am here today with the Campaign to Keep Oregon's Guard Home, Military Families Speak Out, and as a citizen.

Thank you for providing this opportunity for me to speak before this Committee and to ask you, and the Oregon Legislature, to show unconditional support for the men and women of the Oregon National Guard by passing and acting upon HB 2556, HR 4 and SR 1.

I come before you today in my two most important roles: citizen and parent. Both roles have the same goal: to tell you in no uncertain terms that the scheduled deployment of the Oregon National Guard must be stopped.

As a citizen of this state, one who has served his country in uniform and one who continues to serve through civic and political involvement, I have learned over the years what it means to serve one's nation. When I joined the Air Force out of high school, I had little idea of what a commitment to service meant. Nothing has taught me that lesson more thoroughly than my other role, the one that has transformed my life since the first moment I held my first son, that of parent.

As a citizen, nothing matters more than the law. You've heard from legal experts on this matter, and you'll hear from more. Here is what I believe about the legality of HB 2556:

The Legislature's job is not to pre-determine what a court might decide if a law is challenged; the Legislature's job is to pass the right law. In this case, the right law is the one that protects Oregonians and honors the commitment our state has made to the men and women of our National Guard. The right law is HB 2556.

And here is why HB 2556 is the right law, the law that must be passed by this Legislature and signed by the Governor: HB 2556 is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to our fellow citizens, telling them that we respect and honor — and love — the members of Oregon's National Guard too much to sit by idly while their bravery and commitment to duty is given to a war we believe to be unlawful and improper. HB 2556, in conjunction with HR 4 and SR 1, is our state's demand that our Guard be called to war only when a constitutional authorization exists for that service. I do not believe such an authorization is in effect, and, therefore, the deployment of my son's Guard unit is not justified under law.

Both of my sons wear their nation's uniforms today, as I once did. Jesse, my younger, is on his way to the seas off Central America on his first Coast Guard assignment aboard the USCG Cutter Midgett. Alex, his older brother, is weeks away from deployment to Iraq.

I will be honest with you: I did not agree with his decision to join the National Guard while our nation was involved in a war that I felt was morally unjustified. But Alex is a strong, intelligent young man, and this is the choice he made: to serve Oregon in her home guard. As his father, I made my own choice: to insist that his service be what National Guard service historically has been: protecting Oregon, in Oregon.

I am here asking you to give your support to these measures because my son is too precious for a war, as President Obama said, that never should have been authorized and should never have been fought. Alex's life is too precious for a cause so unworthy. HR 4 and SR 1 demonstrate that American forces no longer serve a legitimate aim in Iraq: There is no enemy and there are no weapons that threaten our nation as the Authorization of 2002 falsely, but legally, declared. There is only a nation we occupy at the cost of more American lives.

I cannot bear the thought that my son might possibly be one of those lives.

Please give your vote to HB 2556 and HR 4. Do not worry about what the courts may or may not do, or what the Governor is likely to do. You must do the right thing for my son, for those who serve with him in the Guard, and for all their friends, families and loved ones. You have been sent to this capital on behalf of your fellow citizens. On behalf of parents like me. My son's willingness to serve must be honored with a commitment from you that that service will be in a just and legal cause. The deployment to Iraq is neither. Your vote for these measures will send a message to our state, our country and the world that we in Oregon will back our Guard fighting for a just and legal cause — and nothing less.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak in favor of HB 2556, HR 4 and SR 1.

I also removed the word "enemies" from the title; thought about substituting the word "opponents". But those who are attacking his policies or, in this case, the way he's running his administration, are not merely opposing him. They are his enemies. They want to destroy what he is trying to do.

It's only political in part. The Cantors, Boehners et al do want to regain political power. But that's the tip of the iceberg. The real goal of the President's enemies is his overall package, the ones he enumerates in the video:

...health care, oil, war. These are sources of vast wealth for many, sources of power. If we have universal health care, if we wean ourselves off oil, if we turn away from war — these people will lose money and clout.

Men have killed for much less over the centuries. Yes, those who are saying he should not try to fix all these different problems are his enemies, and they want to utterly defeat him. If they fail, they lose so much. Of course, the rest of us regain our lives, our dreams and our nation. But they could give a fuck about that.

i love Sara Hickman. she & Nanci Griffith were the music i listened to endlessly when my marriage ended, and both have been comforts to me in the years since. i've been lucky enough to see Sara 5 times, and i got to talk with her (briefly) a few of those times. the folks in this video are really lucky: she's their friend & came to their house to do a mini-concert.

wow. lucky people.

I am a deaniac. First, foremost and central to my political life: I am a deaniac. I got involved in politics in 2003 because of Howard Dean's campaign; I stayed involved in 2004 because of Howard Dean's post-campaign example. First he had the courage to do something extraordinarily insane, and then he showed even greater courage by not using the nature of his defeat in the primaries — a dirty, viscious attack enabled by members of his own party — to give up and walk away. He showed that the long-term goal matters far more than any short-term set-backs.

In 2005, a grassroots effort among Democrats made Dr Dean Chair of the DNC, and the party's hopes were reborn. Howard Dean is the leading progressive in the nation. No one understands what it takes to win as clearly as he does. His 50-State Strategy was not simply brilliant politics; it was the epitome of democratic politics. He wanted everyone to be part of the political process, not just the few with clout and power, and so he did what he could to enable that participation. He brought the party to the people, and he gave the the resources to build a local party that could be successful.

And successful it was, beyond anyone's hopes. In 2006, the 50-State Strategy brought the Democrats back into leadership, and in 2008 Barack Obama used it to win the White House. Dean's vision was a break from everything any national party had ever tried, and it was an incredible success. Yes, the build-up of Bush failures helped greatly, but Dean had the structure in place to build on that political opportunity. What he showed as the path to success in 2006 became the blueprint for Obama in 2008.

Unfortunately, Rahm Emmanuel thinks he was the one who won 2006. As head of the DCCC, he fought against the 50-State Strategy; the millions of dollars that Dean let the state parties keep, Emmanuel wanted in DC. His plan was the same old plan that had the parties held as sacrosanct before Dean: pick the districts you can win, and pour the money there. As for the rest of the country, well, to put it in Emmanuelian terms: Fuck 'em.

Had the Democrats taken the Emmanuel route in 2006, they might have regained the House, but by a much smaller margin. Obama might have still have won the presidency, but the old way of fighting for Congressional seats that Emmanuel advocated would not have brought the huge wins of 2008. Those are the direct result of Dr Dean's leadership, and Rahm Emmanuel will never forgive Dean for that.

Unfortunately, Obama selected Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and that means Dean is dead to this administration. He should have been made Secretary of HHS; no one else would have fought harder for health care, and no one would have fulfilled better Obama's pledge to have an inclusive (as opposed to bi-partisan) process. But Rahm Emmanuel will not allow Howard Dean any role in the party while he can do anything about it, and he is in a position to do exactly that. And that is why Rahm Emmanuel is Barack Obama's biggest mistake to this point.

Fortunately for the country, Howard Dean as a free agent will be able to have a huge impact on the health care process. He can now return to Democracy for America, utilizing its huge and committed membership to push the Administration to stick to a program of change that delivers what was promised — no matter the pressure to cave. I'd love to see him team with the Achimedes Project and Dr Kitzhaber; the two programs are virtual twins. And as a free agent, Rahm Emmanuel will be able to do nothing but stew. He can't attack Dean or try to stop him; he's not stupid enough to even try. He'll never give him an iota of credit, of course, but Howard Dean proved in 2004 that he's a big enough man not to worry about getting credit or being treated fairly. His purpose is to bring change to systems that hurt those who most need their government's care. He doesn't need to get credit for it; he just wants to see it happen.

Rahm Emmanuel could learn a lot from Howard Dean. Including how to be a decent human being.