POWER HOUSE

Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:

John McCain's celebrity ad was effective. It wasn't uncontroversial and it didn't please all the political scientists, but it sure got noticed, and it made Barack Obama overreact. Questions about Obama's desire for celebrity status will linger. He now has to be very careful about intersecting with Hollywood, pop culture and entertainment. Lee Atwater said the worst thing you can do in American politics is play to your negative stereotype. Well, Obama's negative stereotype now includes the idea that he may be a little too glitzy. (Speaking of negative stereotypes, when Obama was talking about the pictures of presidents on dollar bills, was he introducing the presumptuous notion that his face belongs on American currency? I wonder whom he thinks he should replace.)

At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."

In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.



Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.



The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.

And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:



That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.

POWER HOUSE.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Digby has written about Surry Hill. Probably because I was too busy remodeling my bedroom after discovering that Ed Rogers has the exact same furniture.

LATE UPDATE: I eagerly await the swift arm of justice:

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Pathological

One month ago, DB wrote a post about my fears over the logistics of an American withdrawal from Iraq:

But then, I'm afraid, it will get even uglier. Assuming he hasn't started anything with Iran by then, with a majority of Congress calling for withdrawal, Bush will have to start redeploying. It is important to realize that extracting ourselves from Iraq will be a complicated and dangerous operation.

Consider the incompetence of this administration for a moment. Now imagine this Commander in Chief presiding over that redeployment. It has the potential to be a disaster. And, as Pat Buchanan has been saying all week, they will blame every problem and death on the "party of defeat."

Philip Carter wrote an excellent piece about what the withdrawal will probably look like.

But then I reached a point in my post that caused me a great deal of anguish. I revised it three times, eventually toning it down. Here's what I wrote:

I'm not suggesting that they will deliberately make the exit a disaster. I will not enter "Republican Strategist" Ed Rogers' dwelling:

The clumsy politics that the Kerry campaign is playing on terrorism should be offensive to all Americans. And the media should blow the whistle on them. I think -- in my heart of hearts, I think that they're hoping for an attack, so that they can say, I told you so.

(I must say it makes me quite apprehensive to hear people with such a pathological lack of empathy and who are the embodiment of solipsism making comments like that.)

But, no, I will not go there. I will only go as far as asking how much this administration, which hasn't given a crap about the troops throughout the entire war, will care about them at this dangerous juncture?

Part of me wanted to "go there," but the thought of following Ed Rogers there -- even for the sole reason that he is already there -- was too much for me.

But I cannot deny that this administration and its mindless defenders scare the crap out of me. I truly believe they are pathological and have a disturbing lack of empathy. Consider how far removed from the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes you have to be to think Katrina survivors might think it's "kind of fun" to lose their houses and be forced to live in shelters. Or that the victims might actually be better off since they were so poor. Or that Iraq is not in that bad shape since it looks peaceful from 30,000 feet above. I mean, imagine how much you would have to be disconnected from the suffering to say, "And are people being killed? Yes. And is it unfortunate? Yes."

It's just disgusting. There's no way to account for the lack of compassion on behalf of the people running this country other than to say simply that they lack the fundamental ability to see things from other people's perspectives. And the conclusion that follows is that they are solipsistic and everything out of their mouths says more about them than the people they are trying to smear.

When they blame the media for being biased, I have always felt that clearly indicated that they themselves felt no obligation to speak honestly. I reasoned that if these people felt that the public forums provided by the modern era were fundamentally dishonest, then they would also feel that the proper way to play the game was to lie "just like everybody else." I still think this is true, but I realize now that it stems more from a projection of themselves than it does from any legitimate analysis of the environment they are in.

Which leads me back to Ed Rogers' horrible, horrible accusation. I really didn't want to write this a month ago, but I have a deep fear that when somebody like Rogers suggests that liberals want to see an attack on American soil, it's because he would think the same thing if he thought his party would benefit from such an attack. Perhaps he truly believes liberals think like that. He probably does. But he's wrong... and worse, he's projecting.

You know, I'm still not willing to believe that the Bush administration -- not even Cheney -- would deliberately allow the withdrawal to be a disaster so the Democrats could be blamed for ending the war. I still think they're incompetent enough to make it a disaster, but I won't say they'd be evil enough to make it a disaster deliberately.

But I revisit this topic today because I just read this, from Dennis Milligan, Chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Unlike this important Republican, I pray we never have another attack on American soil. Unlike another important Republican, I won't even wish the next attack upon his family.

The modern GOP is the lowest assortment of cretins we've ever had at the helm of our nation.

Nothing is over until Bush decides it is

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

MICHAEL GOODWIN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: I think, Lou, you said the magic words there. Petraeus' September deadline is the real deadline. And I think that what Congress is doing now is just trying to -- it's really about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign more than anything else.

LOU DOBBS: How is she doing?

GOODWIN: Well, so-so. And I think that is the problem for her.

DOBBS: But she's leading.

GOODWIN: But that's why she's trying to separate herself from the others. And she is still trying to get over her initial Iraq vote. I don't think this will accomplish that.

ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: And first of all, I mean, our troops are still there fighting. Your report earlier of the great burden that's going on in our Army and someone like Harry Reid basically saying, we've lost the war already. Who have we lost the war to?

We may have not objectively won, but the Democrats' strategy of drop our guns and run is not going to work. And we've got three or four more months to try and make this thing work. If it doesn't work at that time, it will have bipartisan support.

We may have not objectively won... Nice one, Ed.

This is why it is so important for the GOP to prop up Gen. Patraeus and mention his name in every interview. They know this war is over. They just want to wait until they hear a grim report in September, so they can say that they are looking for an exit because General Patraeus says it's time to redeploy. If they leave when Harry Reid says it's over, they can't call him a surrender monkey.

It is practically certain that Congress will call for an end to this in September. Every casualty from now until then will be because of politics.

But then, I'm afraid, it will get even uglier. Assuming he hasn't started anything with Iran by then, with a majority of Congress calling for withdrawal, Bush will have to start redeploying. It is important to realize that extracting ourselves from Iraq will be a complicated and dangerous operation.

Consider the incompetence of this administration for a moment. Now imagine this Commander in Chief presiding over that redeployment. It has the potential to be a disaster. And, as Pat Buchanan has been saying all week, they will blame every problem and death on the "party of defeat."

I'm not suggesting that they will deliberately make the exit a disaster. I will not enter "Republican Strategist" Ed Rogers' dwelling:

The clumsy politics that the Kerry campaign is playing on terrorism should be offensive to all Americans. And the media should blow the whistle on them. I think -- in my heart of hearts, I think that they're hoping for an attack, so that they can say, I told you so.

(I must say it makes me quite apprehensive to hear people with such a pathological lack of empathy and who are the embodiment of solipsism making comments like that.)

But, no, I will not go there. I will only go as far as asking how much this administration, which hasn't given a crap about the troops throughout the entire war, will care about them at this dangerous juncture?

I almost think it would be safer to leave the troops in Iraq until somebody with competence and a fully-functioning moral compass takes office, if that happens.

What a horrible mess we are in.

A central front except when it isn't

For years, the Republicans have been telling us that Iraq is a "central front" in the Global War on Terror. Just last month we heard it from the President.

There's an interesting debate in the Democrat Party about how quick to pull out of Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq before we accomplish the mission will make the world a more dangerous place. It's bad policy. I know it may sound good politically; it'll endanger our country to pull out of Iraq before we accomplish the mission.

See, Iraq is a part of the global war on terror. It's not the global war on terror, it's a theater in the global war on terror. --George Bush, June 14, 2006

The Republicans in Congress completely agree and even made it law when they passed their sham of a hip-hip-hooray resolution in lieu of an actual plan for Iraq.

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror

Now we hear from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki:

I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear -- this is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, wages a war on Islam and Muslims and values -- (applause) -- and spreads hatred between humanity.

Contrary to what's come in our Koran, which says we have created of you -- of male and female and made you tribes and families that you know each other, surely noblist of you in the sight of God is the best conduct. The truth is that terrorism has no religion. Our faith say that who kills an innocent as it has killed all mankind. Thousands of lives were tragically lost in September 11th, where -- when these impostors of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life.

Your loss on that day was the loss of all mankind, and our loss today is loss for all free people. (Applause.)

And wherever human kind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all humanity. It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line is this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror. (Applause.)

But don't tell that to "Republican Strategist" Ed Rogers. Suddenly, everything that's happening in the Middle East is now a "side show" and the Democrats are trying to make Maliki a part of it, despite the fact that he's been critical of Israel.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What do you make of the fact, Ed, that it took a half-dozen Democratic Senators and Congresspeople to squeeze this guy's arm -- to pull it back behind his back practically -- to get him to stop saying things against Israel and to promise, at least, to his foreign ministry that he will say something against Hezbollah soon?

ROGERS: I think it was petty. I think it was in poor form. I think it was against American interests for them to drag Maliki into this. He doesn't have a dog in the Israel-Hezbollah fight...

...

MATTHEWS: Is the prime minister that we installed as head of Iraq through the process we undertook, is he pro- or anti-Israeli as far as you know?

ROGERS: As far as I know, it is irrelevant for his task at hand. His day job is to bring peace and security and Democracy to Iraq. We shouldn't make him part of the side show that is taking place right now in Lebanon... in Southern Lebanon. It's unfair. It's unfair to him.

...


MIKE BARNICLE: First of all, the Israeli conflict is not a side show.

ROGERS: It is for the Prime Minister of Iraq. Sure it is.

BARNICLE: Second... Well, then why did he inject himself into it?

ROGERS: Maybe he made a mistake.

[CROSSTALK]

ROGERS: He was here to say thank you. Thank you to America. Let's give him that

[CROSSTALK]

BARNICLE: Ed, Ed, could you please take a breath, Ed?

ROGERS: I'm breathing.

BARNICLE: Before he got here to say thank you, he injected himself into this "side show" as you call it...

ROGERS: So? So?

The worst part of that exchange was the way Rogers said "So? So?" with his head shaking at the camera like the wife in that horrible Century 21 commercial. Close second was when Rogers suggested Maliki didn't answer a reporter's question about Hezbollah because "he's not an English-speaker." Never stopped Bush.

But whatever you think about the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict, if you accept that Iraq is part of the GWOT then you cannot choose to detach it from parts you don't like.

Especially if you are going to praise Maliki for having the courage to come to the United States, which is hated for its support for Israel. If Israel's actions and U.S. support is putting him at risk, then Democrats have nothing to do with his relationship to that conflict.

The bottom line is that the big plan Rogers and the GOP supported -- to bring peace to the Middle East by invading Iraq -- is failing and watching them verbally construct and then deconstruct the region to further their rhetoric is migrane-inducing.

Being There, with Ed Rogers

What happened to the Ed Rogers we all know and love?

You know, this guy:

ED ROGERS, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: The clumsy politics that the Kerry campaign is playing on terrorism should be offensive to all Americans. And the media should blow the whistle on them. I think -- in my heart of hearts, I think that they're hoping for an attack, so that they can say, I told you so.

Deep breath... Count to 10...

Well, somehow he's been replaced with soft-spoken zen master Chance the Gardener:

In a garden, growth has its season. First comes spring and summer, then we have fall and winter, and then we get spring and summer again. There will be growth in the spring.

Here's how Rogers quietly enlightened "Hardball" viewers today:

Every White House has their time in the dunking booth. This is clearly the Bush White House's time in the political dunking booth.

Paging Peter Sellers! "This is just like television, only you can see much further."

Forget about everything bad this administration has done. It's just the natural cycle. Soon they'll be back in full bloom and we'll all be right as rain!