Quote of the day

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker (R-eally? Do I actually need to tell you what party he's from?), stating his well reasoned and logical opposition to why Chris Dodd's plan, to roll up the myriad of financial and banking regulatory agencies spread across different government departments into one regulatory agency, is a bad idea proposed by a bad man:

You mentioned having an alphabet soup of [regulators] coming to talk to us, and it’s not unlike witnesses coming before our committee with differing points of view in many ways. I have to tell you, I have enjoyed that. Each of the regulators — sometimes gleefully, sometimes not — points out the deficiencies of the other regulators. And I have to tell you, there’s some merit in that, just for what it’s worth. To have a captive regulator, much like we had with the GSE’s, which would be the case with all banks, to me, could be very problematic.

That's right, we can't have what sounds like a good idea because Bob Corker likes it when the small agencies squabble in front of him for his amusement. I mean sure, that system of patchwork regulators was unable to to avert that financial meltdown thingy dingy and our regulatory structure is deeply harmed by shoddy structure of small regulators with limited range, turf battles, and poor funding, but Bob Corker does like a good inter-regulatory fight go down in front of him. You see, he doesn't have cable. It's the only entertainment he gets.

And never mind the fact that the financial service industry is virulently opposed to Dodd's plan and that they think the current system "works good", we certainly don't need better regulation. I mean the total collapse of the markets already happened, it's not like it's gonna happen again. Why improve what doesn't work?

RNC sweepstakes

I bet you thought the battle for head of the RNC was just a contest to see who could come up with the most racist folk based novelty song. You'd be right, but it's also a contest to see that if they level timid criticisms and charges of "He deviated too much from Republican orthodoxy at the end there" that they can convince the American people (who are really paying close attention to the RNC chairmanship) that they aren't like Bush.

• "Most of us strongly supported the Bush administration through the entire two terms, but in the last few months, this bailout and the abandonment of capitalism really kind of sealed it,"
• "People in this country are more conservative than what has been shown," said Cathie Adams, an RNC member from Texas. "Republicans have lost because we were playing the me-too game of growing government."
• RNC members frequently criticize Bush's "compassionate conservatism," Blackwell has been the most explicit, likening Bush to former president Herbert Hoover for advocating policies that increased the size of government.
• "There are things President Bush did very well; there were things we wish he had done differently...but it's so easy to play Monday-morning quarterback," Smith said.

Yes, this clearly shows a finger on the pulse of the American people. The last two elections people just looked at the Republican party and said "These guys are just playing 'me too' at the game of growing government, I'll vote for Democrats." I do appreciate Blackwell's grasp of American history, though. Hoover and Bush are the same because they grew government? Hmmmm, close, but not quite hitting the heart of it. But I do think that Americans will be swayed by the message of "Sure Bush was great, he just went off the rails there at the end....AND ONLY THE END! Anyway, it's all monday morning QB bullshit that no one's interested in. Anyone want to hear about capital gains cuts?"

At least one person in the article seemed to get it: John Feehery, Dennis Hastert's former top adviser. "I think we're becoming a regional party, it seems like we only want to appeal to Southerners. We seem too far to the right, and I think we need to have a better understanding of principles that appeal to people in all 50 states." Of course he'll be ignored and drummed out of the party. Keep on keepin' on RNC, I don't think you've quite cracked your problems yet. Don't worry though, as Democrats have shown, you don't actually ever have to become a cohesive party with strong messages that's in touch with America to actually get back in charge. The downside is you don't have a charismatic black guy to hide those problems. C'est la vie.

Dick Cheney has declared war on you

Hates puppies. And you.

No longer content with the wars he's got going (Afghanistan, Iraq, Civil Liberties, basic human decency), Cheney is fixin' to throw down with Russia over its invasion of Georgia.

I find the phrasing, specifically the claim that Russia's actions "Must not go unanswered," particularly pleasing. You can practically see Cheney's knuckles whitening around the neck of whatever small animal he was throttling as he delivered this latest verbal 80's action retread.

For some strange reason, I'm compelled to call into question the sincerity of Cheney's dedication to national sovereignty. But hey, if Bill Kristol is on board, what could possibly go wrong?

Berlin, Germany is the same as Berlin, Wisconsin

Where's Lambeau Field?

Barack Obama is going to give a giant speech in Berlin today. John McCain is going to counter that by......running attack ads in small American towns called Berlin. He better run them during the Obama speech or no one will hear them or see them. He also plans to order 100 bratwurst pizzas to Obama's Dusseldorf advance team without paying for them, step on the style of doughnut known as 'the Berliner' in an angry manner, disseminate a photo of Barack in lederhosen, and blame him for Krystallnacht.

I think this is a good move. America's chief concerns now are the economy, Iraq, and that the Bush Administration hasn't engaged in enough petty sniping and low-rent attempts at one-upsmanship.

This aggression will not stand, man!

As Matthew mentioned yesterday, the Center for Arms Control and Proliferation (which has, say, a passing interest in international military matters) released a report politely requesting that our presumptive presidential nominees stop fighting over who has the bigger dick pointed at Tehran. In case you missed it:

A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be dangerous, and the United States must take steps to prevent this development. However, by nearly every quantifiable metric, Iran does not presently represent a serious threat to the United States based on its conventional arsenal.

Now, I mention this in light of what Gen. Hossein Salami, a man who by virtue of his last name cannot be taken remotely seriously, told the international press after today's missile test. The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's ground forces said the following:

"We want to tell the world that those who conduct their foreign policy by using the language of threat against Iran have to know that our finger is always on the trigger and we have hundreds and even thousands of missiles ready to be fired against predetermined targets."

That's right, man. Hundreds! Even thousands! I don't even know how many we have, we have so fucking many. And tanks, too! We got a shitload of tanks! And... and... Elephants! With Great White Sharks strapped to their backs that can trample/bite through anything! So you'd better back the fuck up, Great Satans, or, or you'll be sorry!

Jesus... any superpower with even a shaky sense of security in its vast military and economic supremacy would recognize this as the playground bravado it so plainly is and respond with something along the lines of, "Yeah? Fire up another and your capital reaches 10,000 degrees before the contrail is a mile long."

But we are not that superpower. We are an aggressive, jingoistic, dick-waving lot of shit-stirrers and because of that I will now curl up in the corner and try desperately not to hear Obama and McCain try to one-up each other on the campaign trail.