More pieces to the puzzle

Recent news implicates Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist in a rather interesting money laundering scheme.

I've long maintained that many of these individuals going around prostelytizing either on religion is not so much interested in government theory, but rather on working out ways to enrich their own pocketbooks.

This definately seems the case for Norquist. Charging a 10% handling fee for his money laundering operations? It looks like he pockets several hundred thousand dollars. They would have gotten cheaper rates by going to Western Union. They only charge 3% for money transfers.

For years, they've been trying to hide this. Every since Jim Bakker got caught, but the reality is Big Religion is about big money.

Of course Grover isn't a religious nut, he's a "smaller government" nut. Actually he's not for smaller more efficient government so much as insuring the right people benefit from government largesse. That is, people like Grover. So again it's not surprising to see him take fees to launder money for the purpose of supporting a lobbyist who was trying to get the government to prevent his client from suffering against competition.

This crap has to stop.

The Iraq Plan

Interesting reader comment posted to TPM by Josh Marshall

Something in your post this morning really clicked for me, and I'd like you to
put a sharper point on it from here on out. I'd like to see the main Democratic
talking point become, "Bush will be in Iraq forever. Period. The Democrats will
extricate us. Period." And let the administration convince the public otherwise.
I think if the Dems just keep saying, over and over, "Republicans want us there
forever, that's why we have no timetables, that's why THEY ARE building
permanent bases, etc.," this would be a useful evolution of the basic
description of the situation.

This is an interesting point. It kind of turns the Republican argument back on itself, and it really is the truth. Democrats don't want to cut-n-run so much as just get ourselves out of the place where we don't belong.

What I find interesting is the new notion the Republicans are placing that if we leave Iraq it will destabilize the whole region. It's an interesting argument in that their supposed purpose for invading Iraq was to destabilize the region. The pro-Democracy domino theory that they sold us. So why the sudden concern now?

That's what I don't get about this Iraq policy. What exactly is their strategy here? It's not clear that they have one... well, other than to use foreign policy blunders abroad to win domestic elections at home. That is, my theory of the Arsonist. That they're starting fires so that they can campaign on putting them out.

More Malkin stupidity

I just caught this, and thought it was funny.

In reference to an image lit up on the side of the wall at the ykos conference, she implies that it's some sort of satanic symbol.

It's actually a representation of the Great Seal of the United States. It's an Eagle holding arrows in one claw, and olive branches in the other, and the words across the top say 'E. Pluribus Unum', which we all know means "From many, one".

It's curious that Malkin, someone who rails about immigrants not understanding US history, would have so little knowledge herself.

Another interesting point

Alex Rossmiller at the ykos panel on foreign policy pointed out something simple.

If you ask anyone, whether they want American troops in Iraq for eternity, they'll say no. So obviously the question is not whether we stay or not, the question is how do we leave.

From yearlyKos

I'm here at yearlyKos in Las Vegas. It's interesting and there's been a number of good discussions that have gone on.

But at the MetaKos panel, Hunter made an interesting comment which I want to make note of.

He noted that something which is unique about Bush is that he acts as The Republican President, as opposed to the American President. This is a fairly new phenomena in recent politics. He noted that even Reagan understood that he was President to the entire country, and addressed issues that way. Bush on the other hand, goes solely for the divisive stuff knowing and understanding the whole time that he's aiming for only a small portion of the country.

Just interesting. I actually think if you look at history, it's a return to the 19th century of politics. A terribly unfortunate thing, but it's reality and while we lament it, maybe we need to learn how to deal with it.

Stupid Incumbent Representative of the Day

Mark Kennedy is going to be an Agent of Change, if we send him to Washington as our new Senator.

So, apparently he's decided to run away from his record of the past six years in the House.

I'd consider this sad, if they weren't this stupid in real life.