Barack Obama is about to step down as Congressman for the State of Illinois.  The whole state’s in a tiff about who’ll take over.

That’s when disabled Iraq war veteran Major Tammy Duckworth’s name was mentioned.

And why not? Tammy Duckworth might as well BE Barack Obama. They’re both minorities. They both lived in Hawaii as youngsters. They both hold master’s degrees. They both lost their legs in the Iraq war flying a helicopter… er… wait:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said he’s got a short list of people he’d like to see replace Barack Obama in the Senate, and he acknowledged Illinois Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth is among the mix. |

“I have several names and certainly Tammy would be on that list,” said Durbin, visiting an Illinois Wesleyan University class Wednesday.

He said he’s asked Gov. Rod Blagojevich for a meeting to talk about possibilities, but he stressed the decision of the appointment lies solely with the governor.

Major Duckworth currently runs the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and is no slacker when it comes to politics.   Her undergrad is in political sciences with a masters in international affairs.

Hell, she’s already more qualified to be the Vice President than Sarah Palin!

Watch her amazing story:

Popularity: 2% [?]

I came across an amazing article by Politico about the support from military veterans the Republican party has enjoyed for the last thirty years.  After analyzing the voter turnout information, there’s something funny going on with military voters:  they’re moving Dem!

In the past two election cycles, Democrats have added ten new Democratic veterans to Congress. Last week, President-elect Barack Obama helped close the gap among military voters, winning 44 percent of veterans as opposed to John F. Kerry’s 41 percent in 2004.

To anyone who survived the bruising campaigns of the 1990’s, the thought that the Republican Party would surrender its stranglehold on military voters seems unbelievable. But the reality is that this image was never more than surface deep. All those political operatives who seemed to care so deeply about the heroic service of Republican nominees in 1992 and 1996 thought nothing of denigrating and attacking the service of Al Gore and John Kerry when it was the Republican candidate who had avoided serving in Vietnam.

But the really fascinating part is that military personnel haven’t always cared so much whether a candidate was a Republican or a Democrat.  It’s a relatively recent trend that we’re seeing more service members and veterans voting for Republicans.

Republicans did not always have a lock on military voters. Prior to Vietnam, military service was seen as an obligation of all Americans – regardless of political affiliation or wealth. George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy were both sons of privileged, politically-connected families who served heroically in the military during World War II. Back then, this was seen as your duty as an American – and no political party could lay an exclusive claim to the flag.

The Republican strangle-hold on military voters is actually rooted in nothing more than a campaign strategy:

The GOP’s ability to market itself as the “Party of the Military” grew in large part from schisms in the electorate arising during the Vietnam era. For a generation, Republicans exploited George McGovern’s 1972 campaign as a means to brand Democrats as unpatriotic and weak on national security – never mind the fact that McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Europe during WWII and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

It was during these formative years as a budding Republican operative that Karl Rove learned the tools of the trade. Ironically, Rove avoided serving in Vietnam so he could sharpen the political skills he would later use to brand Al Gore a fraud, Max Cleland a coward, and John Kerry a traitor. Never mind that Al Gore enlisted in the Army; Max Cleland left three limbs on the battlefield; and John Kerry fought his way to three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.

Senator McCain was the one true American hero of the Republican party.  Something many of his counterparts could never lay claim to:

For all the GOP’s patriotic imagery and testosterone-infused rhetoric, the sad truth is that most of the current crop of Republican leaders – Rudy Giuliani; Mitt Romney; Newt Gingrich; Mitch McConnell; John Boehner; etc. – were all of age at the time of Vietnam but avoided serving in the military.

Just one more irony of the Republican party.   But at this point, is it really any suprise?

Popularity: 2% [?]

The United States has spent $4 billion more on intelligence than any other previous year.

What exactly does that amount of money get you?

The majority of the money supports electronic eavesdropping, wiretapping and the vast, high-speed data-mining operations of the National Security Agency, which has headquarters at Fort Meade. The budget also funds satellite photo reconnaissance and collection and analysis by agents of the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Treasury Department and others.

The budget appropriations, which were highly classified until 2007, do not include funds for tactical, or localized, military intelligence collection and analysis done by the armed forces and the Pentagon. Disclosure of the overall budget appropriation number was required by Congress in 2007 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

I guess that doesn’t include the brave men and women in uniform monitoring Twitter for terrorist activity.

Popularity: 2% [?]

This may be the one email forward I enjoyed receiving. I’m reposting it here because it’s never too late to resurrect hilarity:

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
Read the full story

Popularity: 4% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Yeah, it’s true, we’ve had several posts about the $700 billion bailout plan on this site and I’m expecting to post several more in the future.  Why?  First because it’s THAT huge for the American economy. Second because it’s drastically effecting my exchange rate in Israel and I need my hummus.  (Let’s be honest here.  The closer to home this thing hits, the more we pay attention.)

Everyone was all excited for this damn thing to pass so that we could finally start walking on the road to financial healing.  But why didn’t Congress pass it bill?

Politicker gives an interesting theory as to why the majority voted no:

There are 41 incumbent House members on Politicker.com’s The Pindell Report of the nation’s most competitive House races. Of that group 31 voted against the bailout, possibly proof that that a yes vote might be politically toxic just a little over a month from Election Day. Of the four House members running for the Senate only Maine’s Tom Allen voted for in favor.

Ok, so it’s because the politicians don’t want to make a mistake that would jeopardize their reelection. Because who wants to vote for the guy who had a hand in the bankruptcy of the United States?

Let’s be sure that we acknowledge that there are MANY reasons besides reelection that effected the vote:

Even Congressional leaders admitted on the House floor that this was less than a perfect bill for any member. Conservatives said the bill would was basically socialism. Liberals said the bill didn’t do enough to protect the Middle Class.

The bill simply doesn’t sit well with most Congressional leaders; both Liberals and Conservatives.  Maybe it takes a crisis like this to finally create bipartisan leadership.

See also Anatomy of the Bailout Breakdown from Time.

Popularity: 3% [?]