Pragmatic Liberal

Self-deportation is a JOKE

2012-02-01T18:45:00.000-08:00

I just watched a segment on the Rachel Maddow show. "Self-deportation" comes from a satirical campaign by a group calling themselves "Hispanics Against Liberal Takeover". Lalo Alcaraz and Esteban Zul started a mock campaign in favor of California's Proposition 187, which would deny illegal immigrants use of schools and hospitals. Back in 1994 Pete Wilson failed to know satire when he saw it. Now, Mitt Romney is proving he lacks a sense of humor too. He is also showing a complete lack of empathy for anyone not making millions. What a surprise....

Obama showing strength

2012-02-01T17:43:00.001-08:00

President Obama is showing real strength right now. He is making the case for helping the forgotten middle class.

Romey is the "winner"

2012-02-01T17:07:00.000-08:00

The day after the Florida primary we can see that massively negative advertizing works. It’s true that Newt is a fatally flawed candidate, but none the less he was simply destroyed during the Florida primary. This tells me one thing. Mitt Romney has no moral center whatsoever. He literally will do and say anything to win the nomination. He might not see this as a negative now, but when the general election campaign begins it will come to the fore. There is no reason to take Romney out of context. His statements speak for themselves. He has no interest in the poor in this country. He has no interest in the middle class despite his protestations to the contrary. He lives in the world of the super rich and really has no understanding or interest in any other social class in this country. Sadly, that makes him the perfect candidate for the Republican Party.

2011-10-27T19:32:00.001-07:00

October 27, 2011

Fun and games at Perry’s expense

I just watched Jim Hightower on the Rachel Maddow Show. The guy is hilarious. I’d laugh harder if what he said wasn’t so true. At least he has no problem calling a melon head a melon head. To make matters more interesting Perry plans to skip some debates. That ought to be fun. The remaining buffoons will tee off on him for 2 hours. I’m betting he skips exactly one debate.

The Republican Field

It’s been 17 months and political theater is humming in fine style. The Republican contenders for the presidential nomination can only be described as a pack of buffoons. I don’t even know where to start. There’s Mitt Romney who is a serial liar who can’t maintain a position on anything for more than 10 minutes. Herman Cain is hawking a book and pretending to be a candidate. Rick Perry is an empty suit, and one that’s way too big at that. Santorum is all about the gays, gays, gays. Bachmann is just plain nuts. Gingrich is a large gas bag. Paul has never seen any part of the government he doesn’t hate, except of course his job a a representative for 14 years. Huntsman is a smart guy,,,,in the wrong party.

Winning Ways

2010-01-02T15:24:00.000-08:00

A new year.

More opportunities for the Republican Party to show us why they are morally bankrupt and care not one bit about actual Americans. As congress gets ready to reconvene we can only hope they continue they NO votes...on health care, climate change...legislation that will actually help those aforementioned Americans.

It may be common wisdom to some that Democrats will suffer for these votes. I think that is completely backwards. To my way of thinking, the mere fact that Republicans are fighting so hard against these issues is evidence that they know what I know. Those actual Americans will see the value of this legislation and give credit to Democrats. And rightly so.

What are your thoughts?

Obama in Florida

2009-02-10T16:54:00.000-08:00

Today was interesting. Yes, he hit the high notes re: the economy and how to get us out of our recession.

What really touched me was the emotion from the homeless woman, and Obama's instinctive and natural desire to comfort her. That moment was a window into the heart of our president. I simply cannot visualize the previous president having such a thought or feeling.

It's a relief to have a thinking feeling person running our country.

Obama's Press Conference

2009-02-09T17:21:00.001-08:00

No news yet. Both the president and the press are pussy-footing around. Let's hope we make some news tonight

OK, some news. Well, not exactly news, but a nice calling out by Obama. He laid blame on the Republicans - right where it belongs.

Now Obama's having to walk back some stupid statement made by VP Joe.

So the bottom line? This guy is good, really good. I want to feel a little sorry for the Republicans...but they simply don't deserve it.

Inauguration Day

2009-01-19T19:16:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is going to be a great day.

First of all our 8 year long Bush nightmare is finally coming to an end. I would not have believed 8 years could last so long.

More importantly though, we are inaugurating a Democrat. And a "minority" at that. Better yet, for the Democratic Party we were going to nominate either a black man or a woman. We had a win win out there from the beginning.

On top of that, we sent Palin packing - if only she would stay there!!

I'll have more to say tomorrow.

Republican Talking Points

2007-11-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

What is it lately with Democratic presidential candidates Obama and Edwards resorting to the use of trash talk right out of the Republican play book? Is it not possible to win the nomination without playing the same dirty game they play?

I'm disgusted with this behavior. They talk about politics of change and so-called not inside the beltway tactics; but then go out and parrot those exact things. Do they think we won't notice? They're wrong if the do.

Is Hillary unstoppable?

2007-10-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

This is more than just an idle question. I will say up front that I am a Hillary supporter. But that doesn't mean that I have blinders on.

Hillary is clearly leading the pack in the race for the Democratic nomination. And this is happening on both the national and state level. As for as I can tell, looking at the state polls there really isn't a single state where she is behind.

That being said, polls are not voting citizens. They are snapshots of people's opinions on the date the poll is conducted. I do think that as more polls over more time show Hillary leading, these multiple snapshots begin to paint a picture that runs over time. And this longer time line of polls is a more accurate representation of how people will vote. Why?

Because each polling period occurs as different information is available about the candidates. They make speeches, put out policy positions, offer up new ideas, back away from previous ideas or positions, and interact with both the media and the voting public. In addition, a debate or forum may have recently taken place. Any of these events offers those polled the opportunity to change their minds about a candidate or re-enforces their support for a chosen candidate.

As the polls continue to accumulate, the fact that Hillary's lead has grown in many of them tells me that those polled like what they see and hear. Of course, peoples minds can change and they do.

As far as Hillary is concerned, I believe only a very major mistake will change peoples view of her. She now has the luxury of taking the high road for the rest of the primary cycle.

On the other hand, Obama and Edwards find themselves in the postion of having to go negative. I know many will say that pointing out issues you differ on is not negative and I would agree. Except that they are not limiting their critisism to policies. They are making it personal - attacking characater. To me that is a loser all the way around.

I hate to see sniping within the party, and it will just be used by the Republicans later on. In addition, it hurts those who level these attacks. My impressions of Obama, though he is not my chosen candidate, is that he is just like all the others who snipe on a personal level. The same goes for Edwards and other candidates who get personal and nasty. I am less likely to support that kind of candidate.

So, back to my question; is Hillary unstoppable? Unless something major happens in this campaign I would say yes she is unstoppable.

Obama by the numbers

2007-07-03T15:21:00.000-07:00

I have been looking at the pollster.com site, which by the way, is packed with good information and I've noticed some trends in the Obama numbers.

Here's a link to the site for more information:

Pollster.com

I'll use the polling numbers of the early voting states.

California 2007 January-June

32%--27%--25%--27%--25%--22% basically a down trend

Iowa 2007 January-June

17%--19%--20%--20%--19%--18% a slight uptrend, then back down

New Hampshire 2007 January-June

22%--23%--23%--22%--21%--21% a very slight tick up, then down

South Carolina 2007 January-June

12%--25%--24%--27%--26%--25% a huge rise, then small trend down

Florida 2007 January-June

13%--14%--15%--17%--18%--17% a small rise, then a slight trend down

New York 2007 January-June

13%--12%--14%--16%--13%--12% a small trend up, then back down

I bring this up because I think they point out an interesting fact as it relates to the Obama campaign. While raising nearly record breaking amounts of money during the 2nd quarter, he has shown down trends in all of the early states during that same quarter.

I don't think you can claim he is not a known name anymore. So, what accounts for the down trends in the polls while raising money? My opinion (and it's just mine) is this:

Barack Obama has a large number of people who support him intensely and fervently. But, this group, though large in terms of donor numbers, does not translate into people willing to say they would vote for him when polled. Obama has underperformed in the three major debates/forums. Maybe it's not his venue, but it's the one he has available to win people over. He's not doing that. His campaign has tried some questionable tactics to undermine others in the race and that has backfired.

All of this has put him where he is today - firmly in second place - all that money not withstanding. After all he's not going to buy the election and we Democrats wouldn't want that anyway.

Where he goes from here is anybodies guess. But, if things don't change he won't be the nominee in 2008.

Campaign Fund Raising

2007-07-02T11:17:00.000-07:00

Well, it's all over the news. Barack Obama raised more money the Hillary Clinton in the second quarter. There's lots of crowing too from the Obama fan clubs. I have to wonder though, isn't he just the Democratic version of Mitt Romney? Raising all the money, and yet basically going nowhere in the polls?

To me that says exactly one thing. He has about 250,000 passionate followers willing to give his campaign lots and lots of money (like the Mormons are giving to Romney), but ultimately they form just a very small subset of the voting public (like the Mormons). That's why his poll numbers don't seem to reflect the campaign money he receives - like Romney in the Republican polls.

When this piece of news sinks in on the Democratic side, they will put the money race into perspective. It's just a part of the overall campaign to gain the nomination. More specifically, I think are the important factors of qualifications, effectiveness in the debates and forums, national appeal as well as state appeal in polls, organizational skills, ability to avoid self-inflicted wounds, and passion for the job are equally important. On all of these counts, Hillary Clinton is clearly doing the best among the Democratic candidates.

Time will tell, but I do not think all of Obama's money is going to translate into votes in the primaries and caucuses - remember Howard Dean? Can you say deja vu all over again?

Hillary's steady gains in Iowa

2007-06-30T13:34:00.000-07:00

If you look at the early voting/caucusing states, one thing is clear. Hillary is the clear leader in most of them.

When it comes to Iowa, though she isn't yet leading yet in most polls, she is steadily gaining. I think it is most helpful and relevant to watch the same polling orgainzation over time to see how the candidates are trending.

Strategic Vision has been polling Iowa regularly this year. They have 5 polls to compare. Here is the data:

Having watched all three debate/forums it pretty clear that the more people see Hillary Clinton, the better they like her. I can't say that I'm one of the converted, I have always thought Hillary is great and have been a supporter from the beginning. It's good to see that more people are coming to see the person and candidate that I've seen for years.

Iraq's Civil War

2007-06-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

When we talk about Iraq’s civil war I think it’s important to put it into perspective. Do the Iraqi’s really even want a united Iraq?

If you take a minute to look back at our civil war you will see some striking data. In 1860 the US population was about 31,400,000; just a bit more than Iraq’s is today. Our civil war lasted four years and we lost 618,000 soldiers in that war. Our country was nearly torn apart and the cost was immense to hold the United States together. Are the Iraqi people willing to preserve their country? This civil war is now theirs to decide. Do they hold the country together or does it split apart? That’s a question only the Iraqis can answer. Just as only American’s could answer that question back in the 1960’s.

We need to leave Iraq to the countrymen who live there and let them decide the future of their country just as we did some 140 years ago. We shed hundreds of thousands of our son’s blood in our civil war; Iraq may well do the same. The point is this is their country, their civil war, and their decision to make.

Edwards and Money

2007-06-21T17:34:00.000-07:00

Edwards seems to be losing ground in the money race. That is, if his campaign is telling the truth. I know it's tacky that it takes money, and lot of it, to run for President. I also know it's true for this election.

I can't see how he competes successfully for very long if he can't put up adds and run a well funded ground game. I also wonder about his base if they aren't donating in numbers big enough to keep him competitive.

As for Obama and Clinton, they are both sure to come in near or above $30 million. It's going to take a truck load of money to run a campaign this long and go into so many states heavily so soon.

July 15th ought to be interesting.

Take Back America Forum

2007-06-20T19:43:00.001-07:00

I saw the speeches of Barak Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. I think they all were quite persuasive and had lots to say. I want to focus for a minute on the booing during Hillary's speech.

I find it interesting that the Right Wing noise machine makes much of it - and of course lies about what actually happened. The truth and the right wing have clearly never met one another. What's equally interesting is the fact that the Left Wing noise machine mostly in the form of blogs has made much of it too.

To my way of thinking, if Hillary is ticking off/offending/worrying both the Left Wing and the Right Wing she will sound pretty darn good to everyone else who lives in the middle. And that is a big percentage of the electorate. I hope she keeps bothering both ends of the political spectrum; it will means she has ideas and positions that are in line with most of the country.

Clinton tied with Giuliani/Romney in Texas

2007-06-15T11:46:00.000-07:00

Here's the link to the article:
Is Tesax turning blue?

This gist of the story is this:

Texas hasn't gone Democratic in a presidential race in more than three decades. But the survey shows Republican contender Sen. John McCain essentially tied with Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton among registered voters, with McCain at 36% and Clinton at 35% in a head-to-head contest. Republican Rudy Giuliani and Clinton also are essentially tied, at 32%-31%.

The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was taken from April 26 to May 7 by the Texas Lyceum, a nonpartisan civic group. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. An executive summary of the report is available here.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama fared less well than Clinton, though more voters were undecided. McCain beat Obama 32%-25%. Giuliani defeated Obama 32%-22%.

This means a couple of things to me.

First, Texas is in play right now. Hopefully it stays that way. It also means the Dean 50 state strategy seems to be working. At the very least the Rep candidate will have to spend money in Texas to win/compete.

Second, it shows that Clinton is more competitive in a red state than Obama. I think that's because she is seen as more moderate. She also has a pretty strong hold on the children's issues which speak strongly to women.

Third, if this is a trend rather than some blip, it portends extremely bad things for the Reps which warms my heart.

I know we all have our favorites - mine is Clinton - and feel strongly about our candidate. I hope we can focus our energy on what our chosen candidate stands for and makes us want to vote for them and spend a lot less time denigrating the others. At the end of the day there will be only one person who wins and I will support that person because we need a Dem in the White House. All of them are head and shoulders above the Rep choices and all will protect the Supreme Court from further movement to the right.

Hillary on the Palestinian fiasco

2007-06-14T10:13:00.000-07:00

Clinton was asked about her thoughts re: the attacks by Hamas on Fatah in Gaza. Here is a portion of the article:

" Democratic Senatorial Candidate Hillary Clinton told the Post Wednesday that when it came to the means of strengthening Fatah in its struggle with Hamas, she was "going to leave those decisions to the Israeli government." She was speaking after making remarks at an Orthodox Union luncheon in Washington warning of the danger a Hamas victory would pose for Israel and the region.

"We've got a situation here where it's almost ironic that people are rooting for Fatah. This is something that I don't think any of us ever would have foreseen," Clinton told the OU audience.

"The civil war in Gaza, which has the potential of spreading to the West Bank, has the potential of bringing Hamas to power with a much stronger position than it currently has. I think that is deeply disturbing."

She continued, "If Hamas emerges victorious in this civil war, we'll have a whole new set of issues that we'll have to figure out how to deal with. That is not good, obviously, for Israel, but it's also not good for Egypt. It's not good for Jordan." Clinton did not outline any specific action plan, other than ruling out any contacts with Hamas.

"There should not be any effort to, certainly recognize, or even deal with Hamas until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist," the New York senator said. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333335

I think these comments pretty clearly point out the very bad state we find ourselves in now. The options for this country are quite small at this time and we can thank the monumental failures of the Bush so-called foreign policy for this.

I honestly don't know how our country can do much at this time.

The Iraq funding vote

2007-05-29T19:53:00.000-07:00

I've watched as the Democrats have pushed to have meaningful timetables and accountability as part of the recent war funding bill. I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I am angry that they basically gave in to Bush's demands for just a pile of money. But, I can see reasons why it happened.

By pushing like they did, they were able to get the Republican congressmen and congresswomen on paper as supporters of Bush's War Without End (BWWE). Those votes are going to cost them come November 2008. They also showed the American public that Democrats can put together meaningful legislation to end BWWE. That is good.

And, passing the toothless bill does at least remove the claim of not supplying the troops. And, I have to say, I'm not happy that Hillary and Obama voted no. To my mind, they are pandering to the anti-war (actually anti-BWWE) left. That NO vote could come back to haunt them too.

Time will tell how passing this particular bill will effect the course of BWWE.

Gonzales and the new blue dress...

2007-03-28T18:14:00.000-07:00

You can't say politics isn't both interesting and karmic in its own way. Looks like Bush gets to have his Monica moment too. Just not the good times as it were.

The more details that come out on this whole USA firing fiasco the bigger the stink gets. I can see why Bush is desperately hanging on to Gonzales and our new Monica is planning to take the 5th. This administration may well fall on this case.

BTW, I am not so sure she actually even invoke the 5th, and even if she can, I see the Senate giving her immunity and forcing truthful testimony out of her. There is no way some very big fish in this administration are not caught in this net.

Back on the air

2007-03-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

My self imposed hiatus is over. I'm still a pragmatic liberal...I lean left, but believe in evidence based policies and plans for this country. My philosophy is inclusive of all people, and that includes conservatives!

I try to always keep up a civil communication with my conservative friends; many times it's more a matter of degree than outright policy that separates us. If we not at polar opposites on an issue there is more hope of finding areas of agreement.

That being said, there are beliefs I hold that truly are the polar opposite of some conservatives. As you might guess, they are the so-called moral issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Conservatives who hold religious beliefs so strongly that they would legislate those beliefs into law simply cannot and will not ever try to look at the other side. For that reason, I waste no time having the conversation. I simply work my behind off the elect public officials that won't legislate religious beliefs.

So, that's my definition of a pragmatic liberal What's your?

2006 Elections

2006-10-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

Is the perfect storm about to hit? I have had my reservations all along; particularly in light of the fiasco in 2004 but I think I'm coming around to the notion that yes, the perfect storm is brewing.

It's not just the ongoing horrible news coming out of Iraq, though that's bad enough. And it not the constant drip drip of dirty Republican politicians doing the perp walk these days. I do think these things are driving the voters toward the Democrats.

I am basing much of my cautious optimism on the recent spate of discussion among conservative pundits. Partly about how bad they think the Republicans are doing (and they're right!), but mostly - and my sample consists of just one blogger - upon the writings of a rabid conservative who has never shown a hint of concern before about the outcome of the November elections.

Now I'm reading about how unpredictable the polls are; how the GOTV action for the Republicans will save the day; how a statement from him like this, "A Democratic tsunami is still a possibility, of course." is tantum out to an admission that the Republicans are in serious trouble.

I'm not about to bet the farm or even a couple of bucks on the outcome, but I'm coming round to the idea that I won't be waking up the Wednesday after elections with a stunning headache.

Udate on the Family

2006-05-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

Things have moved along; as they do. We go to the MD this week to have the staples removed. Then about mid-May we get to unlock the splint. What that means exactly I don’t know; but I hope it means more independence. And a slow return to what passes for normalcy in our family.

I hope to be a bit more talkative in the future...

Family Ties

2006-04-19T08:00:00.000-07:00

This last couple of weeks has been filled with medical stuff in my household. My partner has been recovering from a total knee replacement for almost two months. This is a big deal if nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately for us, she fell and pretty much shredded the ligaments on the inside of the knee.

The good news is the new joint is fine. The bad news - she had to go back to surgery to have the ligaments reconstructed. Now she is home again, but with a long leg brace locked into full extension for a month. That's like having a long leg cast. She had to come home in an ambulance and I'm not sure she can get into either of our cars.

We drive small fuel efficient vehicles, but they aren't designed for people with leg casts. Too bad we are not driving some big SUV fuel hog! I could use one right now. I'm not sure how this little drama is going to work out yet.

But, as for my never ending thoughts on politics, they are in my head; I just have to find time to get them on to the blog. I'll work harder now that everyone in back home.

Islam and the 21st Century

2006-04-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

I have been talking via emails with a conservative blogger:

I have enjoyed the discussion via quoted articles and emails re: the Islamic religion. You stated, “No view of religion is ever gone for ever. Islam may not be promising material for modernity; but I'm not prepared to give up on its eventual reconciliation with liberal democracy.”

How I would like if just wishing could make it so. Sadly, all the evidence indicates that Islam remains a paternal religion that flatly states they are the one true religion. While that’s not unlike most religions, the Islamic faith backs it up with these quotes from The Koran:

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9:73)

"Those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Sura 4:76)

"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." (Sura 9:5)

You simply won’t find a call to hurt those who don’t believe in the Bible anywhere in either the new or Old Testament. I’ve have read Islamic scholars who make the point that later verses abrogate these calls to action. If that were truly so, why do we see such a consistently high level of violence in the name of Islam? Obviously, the teaching to hurt/kill those who do not believe/convert to Islam holds great sway to today.

In any case, I don’t have much confidence that Islam will reconcile with 21st century cultural values any time soon.

I see conservatives working hard to make Islam a "peaceful religion". It's not. I wish that it was, but the sooner we come to accept that those who practice Islam would as soon kill us as look at us if we don't accept Allahah and Islam, the sooner we develop a foreign policy rooted in reality.

What's up in the Republican world?

2006-04-03T13:45:00.000-07:00

That's a loaded question in the best of times. Right now, with Bush continuing to tank and the world going to heck in a hand cart, the question is more than a little important.

What are the Republicans/conservatives/evangelical right up to today? I find it interesting that we are hearing less about the evangelical right and more about the Republicans today. For better or worse, Republicans are being viewed as one in the same as the evangelical right. For Democrats this is a good thing. We have long sought to identify Republicans with the evangelical right - for good reasons. It would seem we have finally succeeded.

The question is; can we take this new paradigm and run with it? Can we liberals/Democrats take advantage of the fact that "Republicans" are slipping into the lexicon of dirty word? I certainly hope so...

More on Immigration

2006-03-29T19:11:00.000-08:00

The following is a conversation I had with a Republican blogger. As Usual he went on to point out the weakness of the Dem plan without really talking about the failures of the Bush administration.

ME:

I might be an easy grader. But, the baseline has been dramatically altered too. We can both probably agree on the current state of affairs in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is; this sorry state of affairs is the result of a very badly planned and executed Bush foreign policy. Yes, there aren’t a lot of appetizing options now in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And why is that? That is a legitimate question. To my mind it is the result of a poorly thought out and implemented policy by the Bush administration. This is where the Democrats can point out their differences with the Republicans.

If Gore had won in 2000 would we have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? Yes. Would we have stayed to finish the job? I think so. Would we have invaded Iraq? I don’t think so. Would the world really be worse off if Saddam Hussein remained in power today? Speaking of dirty little secrets; I would so NO, the world, and the US in particular would not be worse off if Saddam remained in power. That’s the other dirty little secret Republicans don’t want to talk about.

As for the “here’s our vision”, at least the Democrats are offering up something other than “stay the course”. If the 2006 election ends up being about who has the better vision, the Democrats win. The American public has already seen way too much of the Bush/Republican vision of how the world ought to be.

Republican Blogger:

I think you're an easy grader, Teresa. This kind of generic "here's our vision" document would have been useful after 2004, when the Democrats really were back to square one, and needed to hammer out some basics before coming up with some more specific proposals.

(I'll provide you with a handy counterargument - "yeah, Jim, if the Democrats had followed your advice and done this earlier, they would be ahead in the polls and with great momentum for 2006 - oh, wait a minute, they didn't follow your advice and that happened anyway!")

I think the dirty little secret on national security policy is that there aren't a lot of appetizing options that are significantly distinct from what the Bush administration is doing right now. On catching OBL, presumably the biggest obstacle right now is Pakistan's shaky control over the tribal areas. Do we send in a bunch of troops and de facto invade? Very messy, probably very bloody. But beyond that, we're hoping for some informant to come through with something and/or hoping to get lucky with a Predator drone.

On "finishing the job in Afghanistan", I think the Rahman case showed us the ugly truth about Afghani tribal society. Are we twisting arms and applying diplomatic pressure over there as much as we could? If we twist or press harder, do they break and do the Afghanis turn on us? How much is too much, and persuades the average Afghani on the street that Karzai's our puppet?

On Iraq, it's like Afghanistan, but worse. I think Americans are tiring of waiting for the Iraqis to get their act together, and even I have my times where I wonder if the skeptics are right - that a civil society cannot be formed out of the sectarian hatred of the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd; or perhaps they need a decade-long bloodletting like the Balkans before they will consider peaceful coexistence.

Tough problems, that don't have easy solutions. Tough to turn that into a distinct, appealing political agenda.

But reciting goals with no plans, as Reid and Pelosi did today, isn't all that dissimilar from what many Administration critics call the Bush/Cheney/Rummy "happy talk."

Of course my Republican friend can't see beyond his own preconceived notion of reality. That's not a surprise. I always hope that Republicans will move beyond their own self created reality; but it rarely happens.

Immigration

2006-03-29T10:05:00.000-08:00

The big controversy of the day is immigration. That's not surprising. It's a classic wedge issue for the Republicans (and Lou Dobbs ratings), and this is after all an election year. So it's no surprise that we're talking about it.

The pleasant surprise for me is how the Senate Judiciary Committee is discussing the issue. On the whole the Senators are actually thinking about the situation and not just making speeches for their constituents (except Kyl and Cronin - no big surprise). The unpleasant aspect but not a surprise is Bill Frist's plan to bring up his own competing bill in the Senate.

Honestly, can that man be any more tone deaf when it comes to politics? He is doing his best to alienate the Senators in his own party on this issue. He can't leave the Senate soon enough. And, if he continues to play to the fundamentalist right he might just get the Republican nomination for President in 2008. For moderates and liberals in the country that would surely be a gift from heaven. There is no way he gets elected. Even Hillary would win.

Tim Kaine's response

2006-01-31T19:29:00.000-08:00

Tim Kaine just blew me away. He was calm, thoughtful, and sincere. He laid out some relly good ideas and goals. I found myself really listening to him carefully, and liking what I heard.

I know some wondered why he was picked, and I can see why now. This guy is good and can only get better. We may have just seen the unveiling of the next President of the Unitied States. We could do much worse.

The Alito Filibuster

2006-01-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

Is the Alito filibuster a good idea? I can see problems (mostly political), but the basic idea is a good one. I would even go so far as to say it's an excellent one. If Alito is, as liberals believe going to rubberstamp the conservative viewpoint of Scalio and Thomas, than the filibuster - though failed - puts in place the mechanism whereby Democrats did everything they reasonably could to stop this nomination. As the year goes on, and if Alito tows the line toward more loss of personal privacy, including abortion rights; we will look back on this attempted filibuster as a watershed moment in the growing of the Democratic spine.

Iran and nukes

2006-01-23T20:35:00.000-08:00

Well, isn't this just a mess? It's really ugly all the way around. I think there is a way to avoid the nuclear scenario though. That would be the one where we (and who "we" are is yet to be determined) disable enough of Iran's nuclear facilities to set them back some 20 years. A couple of things – the Muslims in this world already hate the US, the great Satan, so there's nothing to lose there. Hopefully, the current hateful environment on the planet won't last forever. If you think back to the state of affairs in 1941-1942, I would say emotionally the planet is in about the same state. But, we didn't stay that way.

As much as I think we made a huge mistake attacking Iraq, it seems like a no-brainer not to see that an attack on Iran that includes us is inevitable. We need to be the ones who decide when and who decide how.

The only question in my mind is do we have enough military forces, bombs, etc to get the job done? And, by the way, I am not advocating using ground forces here. Warn the cities that have the nuke facilities in advance, give the people time to get out, than take out the plants, research labs etc. Also, let's get some covert action going on the scientists in Iran. Kidnap, kill, whatever it takes to get the brains of the operation out of the picture.

Now, before you liberals have a stroke, remember I'm a Pragmatic Liberal. And it's as pragmatic as hell to take the nuclear scenario out of Iran's future.

Can a 42 year old even get through basic training?

2006-01-19T22:01:00.000-08:00

So, the Army plans on reaching its recruitment goals by luring in grandparents. The top age allowed has been raised to 42. It sounds like some kind of SNL routine, but sadly, it's the truth.

Do we actually think a 42 year old (and I can say this with authority) will even make it through basic training? Will the arthritis get in the way? Or other ailments endemic to the early 40's population?

If this is the only way to meet the Army's goals; don't we run the risk of having an Army literally incapable of the job it is tasked to do?

And, on a more practical note, isn't the health care of these recruits going to be inordinately high?

Illegal Immigrants

2006-01-18T15:56:00.000-08:00

There is lots of news today about the Catholic Church and its supposed support for the illegal immigrants.

I want to ask a different question. How would this country look and run if all of the illegal immigrants were to be deported? Have you spent any time looking into the kinds of jobs they perform? From my experience, they work in large numbers in the service industry - maids, stockers, field workers, and more recently in the construction industry. My question is, with the US unemployment rate running about 5%, where do we think we are going to get the workers to replace the illegal aliens?

And, more importantly, why do we want to do this? If they provide a service that does not seem to be filled by legal aliens or US citizens now, what exactly is the problem with the service they provide?

Hillary, Take Two

2006-01-18T14:24:00.000-08:00

Well, I've had a night to sleep on it. And, I think I was right, but not completely. Now that Hillary has gotten out there on the attack, she needs to stay there. Certainly she can add clarity to the statements she has made, but don't back down an inch.

And, from what I've seen today on the news she isn't. Furthermore, she has to take on the Republican congress, Bush, and NOW, Laura Bush. How ridiculous is it that what Laura thinks about this gets any air time at all. And, now is a perfect time for Hillary to point out that Laura is not an elected official, and once she gets herself elected to ANY office at all, then she can speak with some authority.

I also notice that Barrack Obama backed up Clinton today on her statements. This is good news. All Democrats need to stay together on this issue, and not just defend the position, but go after the fake outrage of the Republicans. The Republicans have no claim to any outrage about any issue with regard to how Congress is run. They run it, and badly.

Hillary and the Plantation

2006-01-17T14:27:00.000-08:00

I see that Hillary Clinton has given a speech in a mostly black church in New York. She stated that the leadership of Congress was "running it like a plantation; and you know what I mean".

Now, she went on the very next sentence to state this meant that they didn't allow any business but their business to see the light of day. That the Democrats were shut out. This is true.

The question is, will anyone remember or bother to note anything other than the "plantation" statement. I don't think so, and I think her comments were at the least not well thought out, and at the worst just stupid. She muddled the whole argument which is a good one to the point where it will be hard to make it now.

I know I rant about the Republican's and their talking points, but there is something to be said about prepared statements that don't end up being taken out of context and creating situations where way too much time is taken up explaining the statements and being on the defensive.

About Alito...

2006-01-13T12:29:00.000-08:00

It seems pretty clear he is on his way to confirmation. Like most nominees lately, he managed to pretty much not say anything, and got away with it. It looks like we're left to hope that once elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court, he will recognize the importance of his job and conduct himself in a way that at least follows the law. We'll see...

What to do about Alito...

2006-01-13T12:28:00.000-08:00

I want, really want to feel comfortable with Judge Alito. But, I'm having problems. Surprisingly, it actually doesn't have to do with his pro-life positions. That seems pretty well established, which is not surprising, considering he has been nominated by President Bush.

My bigger issues are arising with his truthfulness. The discussions today about his membership in the now defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton. He was a member; in fact he listed it on his resume for a job in the Reagan administration in 1985. The merits/demerits of the association aside, his answer that he didn't "remember" being a member is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. This man can quote extensively from numerous court cases going back over a 15 years period, but can't "remember" if he belonged to a group "demonstrating its anti-gay, anti-minority and anti-female sentiments"?

That defies belief, plan and simple. This judge is lying and I think pretty much everyone in the hearing room knows it. To my mind that disqualifies him from the job of Supreme Court Justice on the face of it. He's lying about this, what else is he lying about, or will lie about in the future? Why does he have so much trouble acknowledging being a member of this group? He can easily state that he does not hold these views today; that time and maturity have changed his beliefs. I could believe that; it happens to all of us.

As it stands though; I find him to be disingenuous and dishonest. I don't want him on the Supreme Court.

King George

2006-01-10T20:49:00.000-08:00

"It is slowly becoming clear that the Bush administration's real goal is not winning the right to torture, or to spy on Americans, or to lock people up without recourse. It is absolute power."

This is from a Salon opinion piece about the push for absolute power. The old saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely is particularly apt for this president. Here's a man raised in wealth and privilege; never having to actually be responsible for any of his actions. The thought that he would have of himself as truly above the law isn't surprising. Nor is it surprising that he feels himself to be the chosen one. Barbara always treated him that way. So has Laura.

The unfortunate part comes in when he takes these dysfunctional beliefs and adds that to the fact that he isn't even really a properly elected president. Truly, why would we think he would behave differently? His intellect won't allow it; it upbringing won't allow it, and his entourage won't allow it either.

The Polar Ice Cap Is Melting

2006-01-10T20:47:00.000-08:00

Here's an article sure to upset anyone living near any coast on the planet:

Polar Ice Cap Melting

The melting of the polar ice cap has accelerated over the last few years, and scienetists are rightly concerned about what this means for us.

"Even if temperatures and conditions went flat from this point forward, we anticipate that Arctic ice would eventually disappear," Scambos said.

What this means is hard to say exactly, except that the polar ice cap is melting, and will completely melt regardless of what we do going forward.

It's not clear how much the sea level will rise, but some experts think it could rise 23 feet by the end of this century. I won't be around for the big day, but my great grandchildren will, and I'm sorry we're saddling them with this fiasco.

Let's try this again

2006-01-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

Obviously, I'm no expert at doing web pages! So, here (I Hope) is the actaul, correct link to my Blog through my ISP. Geez, I guess I should have taken that class.

Pragmatic Liberal

NEW WEB SITE

2006-01-03T21:40:00.000-08:00

I'm taking advantage of my ISP's offer to host a web site - for free - and switiching my blog over there. Here's the new url:

Pragmatic Liberal

I hope those who enjoy my thoughts, or maybe just check in to disagree, will come on over to follow the blog.

Thanks so much for those who have checked in regularly. I'll keep posting at the new site.

Teresa Wyeth

Kerry and 2008

2006-01-03T18:11:00.000-08:00

I want to believe I've heard it wrong. That there's no way John Kerry would even think about running again. Not after running one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen. The man DIDN'T RESPOND to the Swift Boat attacks. What does that say about his ability to respond to a threat as President?

I'll be up front though. I voted for him in 2004. It was clear that we needed to get Bush out of office - and I'm not really prescient, I just didn’t want the power grab to continue, as it apparently has.

Let someone else run as the Democratic candidate. Someone who will strike back at those who launch unfounded attacks. Someone who isn't afraid of upsetting some wing of the party. Someone who realizes that the very liberal wing of the party is going to vote for whoever wins the nomination. What other choice do they have? Nader? Never again.

I want someone strong enough to respond to the filth dished out by the fundamentalist rightwing whackos.

Abramoff Cops a Plea

2006-01-03T09:51:00.000-08:00

What does it all mean? Can we expect him to give us details on his dealings with members of congress? I know he was somewhat of an equal opportunity briber, but he was way more generous to the Republicans.

Certainly one of his biggest benefactors was Tom DeLay. I hope he brings down lots of people in high places.

New Blog

2006-01-03T09:49:00.000-08:00

I'm in the process of setting up a web site through Homestead. I'll double post both places for a while, and let you know when I switch completly over to the new site.

A Lawless President

2006-01-02T16:27:00.000-08:00

Well, it's official now. The President has stated in his signing statement re: the McCain Amendment:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

As far as Bush is concerned, if he wants to break the law, he will. If congress the media can't stop him from usurping power from congress and the courts, the name "King George" will be more than just a sarcastic phrase.

While we're worrying about the leakers...

2005-12-30T21:20:00.000-08:00

Since the government seems so excited about learning who leaked the wiretapping info, I have to wonder why it is so unexcited about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent.

This feels like a double standard to me. A convenient double standard I might point out. One investigation is designed to throw up a smoke screen having to do with Bush's actions. The other non-investigation is coincidently designed to do the very same thing.

What is the real shame is the fact that this administration seems to get away with it time and again. What there is to do about it, I have no idea. I leave that those smarter than me.

I see misdirect written all over this

2005-12-30T19:34:00.000-08:00

I'm talking about the Justice Department launching an investigation into who leaked the information about the apparently illegal warrant less wiretapping. This is designed to take our eyes of the ball. Yes, someone surely illegally provided this information to the New York Times.

But NO, this is not the issue. The issue here is one of massive presidential overreach. It's not the first time, and sadly probably won't be the last. But it's one we know about, and can maybe through our legislators do something about. Knowing that the information may have come to us illegally doesn't detract from the factual matters addressed.

I think we should find out who leaked, but not at the expense of moving toward meaningful protection of our civil liberties.

Misinformed Americans

2005-12-29T13:24:00.000-08:00

I like to think that on the whole Americans are a reasonably intelligent group of people. After all, this country has been in the forefront of most of the innovative ideas for many years.

My faith was shaken badly today by a poll out by the harris interactive polling assoc.
It asks a couple of basic questions that I thought most Americans knew the answer to:

"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped
plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on
September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of
mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the
hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

Here's the link to the poll.

I don’t' really want to enter 2006 as depressed as I entered 2005, and I probably won't. These poll numbers however do give me pause. There has to be some turn around in the general populace if Democrats are to have a chance at retaking the house and winning more seats in the Senate. Don't you agree?

So, a Shite Muslim Theocracy it is

2005-12-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

Isn't that just peachy. It looks like the vote in Iraq will stand. That means that our latest favorite, Allawi is out. So is our former favorite Chalabi.

My memory of the event might be hazy, but didn't Chalabi, exiled from Iraq, swear that Hussein had WMD? That we would be greeted with roses? I guess it turns out that the Iraqi people had a better idea of who this guy was than Bush and his crowd. The same goes for Allawi.

I suppose the best we can hope for now is a benevolent Shite Muslim Theocracy. That would certainly be worth the thousands of US soldiers lives, wouldn't it?

Does Frist still believe this?

2005-12-28T20:05:00.000-08:00

"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

I think we can all agree that Senator Frist has proven himself to be probably the worst majority leader the Senate has seen in a while. The statement above was spoken by Frist in reference to Bill Clinton when he was about to be impeached. As it happens I agree with the statement, at least in part.

The President is not above the law. However, the President should only be impeached for crimes associated with his conduct in his role as the President. Naturally, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. His crime, lying to a grand jury was not related to his job.

Our current president, however, does seem to be violating laws as part of his role as our President. That's the difference. When a president violates his oath/the law in his role as president, he hurts every citizen in this country. Bush should be impeached if he has in fact violated the oath of his office. It is looking more like that to me every day.

Abortion and Republicans

2005-12-28T18:15:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that discusses what conservatism is and how Republicans today are not conservatives. That's not actually news to Democrats and liberals.

One specific area is especially interesting. It is surprisingly frank. Here's the quote:

Abortion.

This has been a focus of conservative, and national, attention since Roe v. Wade. Yet abortion as an issue, its availability indeed as a widespread demand, did not arrive from nowhere. Burke had a sense of the great power and complexity of forces driving important social processes and changes. Nevertheless, most conservatives defend the "right to life," even of a single-cell embryo, and call for a total ban on abortion. To put it flatly, this is not going to happen. Too many powerful social forces are aligned against it, and it is therefore a utopian notion.

Roe relocated decision-making about abortion from state governments to the individual woman, and was thus a libertarian, not a liberal, ruling. Planned Parenthood v. Casey supported Roe, but gave it a social dimension, making the woman's choice a derivative of the women's revolution. This has been the result of many accumulating social facts, and its results already have been largely assimilated. Roe reflected, and reflects, a relentlessly changing social actuality. Simply to pull an abstract "right to life" out of the Declaration of Independence is not conservative but Jacobinical. To be sure, the Roe decision was certainly an example of judicial overreach. Combined with Casey, however, it did address the reality of the American social process.

I don't suppose today's conservative Republicans will agree with Mr. Hart's definitions. But than today's Republicans don't seem particularly attached to reality anyway.

Bush is reading

2005-12-28T18:03:00.000-08:00

Does anyone really believe that? I see that the White Houseis putting out the word that Bush is an a “history buff” and “avid reader.”? That is how White House spokesman Trent Duffy described him.

It is comments like these that are calculated to undo a perception people have of Bush - one I might add that was created by Bush's own statements - that lead me to be highly skeptical of most everything that comes out of the White House. These types of statements only reinforce the idea that most of what we know about Bush is staged.

Like the military outfits, the military backdrops, etc. The notion that Bush is an authentic person is pretty laughable in my opinion.

But hey, that’s' just me...

Highly Recommended

2005-12-27T22:43:00.000-08:00

Go to Informed Comment. It's a must read. Professor Cole lists the top ten myths about Iraq in 2005.

If your not already upset about the war, you will be after reading this.

That's the reason...

2005-12-27T22:20:00.000-08:00

It seems that the FISA court has been turning down Bush administration requests at a pretty good clip recently. Is that the reason they decided to simply stop going to the court? Is that why suddenly Bush had all the authority he needs as commander in chief to do pretty much whatever?

If this is accurate, than it would seem that the administration is going around the court because it KNOWS it is breaking the law. Now, can we hold Bush legally libel for not upholding his oath to follow the constitution and protect this country? He's rapidly becoming as big a threat to our way of life as any terrorist could hope to be.

That's really scary and really sad.

What is done in the name of the" War on Terror"

2005-12-27T21:51:00.000-08:00

I read a conservative blogger pretty regularly. In fact we email back and forth and he's a good guy. All of which makes me wonder; how does an obviously intelligent fellow fall for the company line being pushed by the Bush administration?

He is convinced that having the American public become aware of the CIA prisons, the massive NSA eavesdropping, and the radioactivity program has made it harder to fight "the war on terror". As though it would never occur to terrorists that our government would be attempting to track them down by a variety of means. That they wouldn't ALREADY be doing everything they can to stay under the radar.

The last point he makes, that when you find yourself dead at the hand of the terrorists, you'll be dying a well informed citizen, is one really whinny "I told you so".

Are we, as Americans, willing to see the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution go away to protect ourselves? Is that even possible? I don't think so on either count. Let's not destroy this country in the name of saving it. Let's not end up becoming a government that looks even more like an autocratic theocracy than that envisioned by the terrorists. Is it really a choice of becoming a Christian theocracy or a seeing our country fall? Not hardly.

The false arguments by conservatives only weaken this country; they do nothing to actually prosecute a war against the terrorists who would attack us.

"King George"

2005-12-27T09:46:00.000-08:00

That phrase is getting around these days. And, it's not just used by the Democrats. To their credit, some conservatives have noticed that these days President Bush is threatening the US Constitution as much as the terrorists.

This is from a column by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune:

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

Chapman is among conservatives with raising reservations about Bush. These reservations are appearing on many fronts. There are several now, both in and out of the government that have serious concerns about how we were led into the Iraq War as well as its prosecution. There are those who are concerned about the secret CIA prisons and the apparent widespread warrantless wiretapping. Others fret about the massive growth of our national debt. Now they have concerns about Bush's power grab.

Will they coalesce? Will they become a force that finds common ground with the Democrats to not only slap this president down, but possibly hold him legally libel for his wrongdoings? Is Bush's impeachment out of the question?

I always thought so, but I'm beginning to think it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Back from a mini-family crisis

2005-12-26T20:36:00.000-08:00

What a strange Christmas this was. I worked 12 hour day shifts both Saturday and Sunday. I basically missed the event. It's never a great season for me - I find that there is as much stress as good times.

This season too has included problems with a wayward stepson. I'd describe him as a narcissistic, self-absorbed 18 year old, but that doesn't really do him justice. Anyway, we're trying to help him make better choices. Lot's of luck to us on that count. But, family is family, he's really is a good kid.

Hope the season was good for all. There's always next year for me.

Have I used the "I" word yet?

2005-12-23T14:43:00.000-08:00

Intentionlly NO. I think we could have impeached Bush in 2002 based upon the fact that he didn't uphold his oath to protect this country. There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda was a threat, yet his administration did essentially nothing to stop them.

Hey, but that's just me...

No More Terror in the US?

2005-12-23T10:33:00.000-08:00

The following is from Wikopedia:

On a blanket, nationwide level, it has been raised to orange five times:

* September 10 - September 24, 2002, around the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001.
* February 7 - February 27, 2003, near the end of the Muslim religious holiday Hajj. Intelligence reports suggested the possibility of terrorist attacks against "apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets."
* March 17 - April 16, 2003, around the beginning of U.S. and Coalition military action in Iraq.
* May 20 - May 30, 2003, "The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Al Qaida has entered an operational period worldwide, and this may include terrorist attacks in the United States." - Tom Ridge
* December 21, 2003 - January 9, 2004, citing intelligence information suggesting large-scale attacks around the holiday season.

In addition, the alert has been raised to orange on a select or partial basis twice:

* August 1 - November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets. [11][12]
* July 7, 2005 - August 12, 2005, for mass transit systems only. The DHS secretary announced the level after the 7 July 2005 London bombings despite the absence of "specific, credible information suggesting imminent attack" in the United States. [13].

Other official terrorism warnings issued without raising the threat level above yellow:

* May 28, 2004, citing "credible evidence" of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections.
* July 8, 2004, again citing "credible evidence" of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections.

I guess the threat to our country miraculously passed once George Bush won his second election (or did he?) as President. Praise the Lord. More likely, he no longer had to frighten the public into believing he was the only one who could protect them. Never mind that 9/11 actually happened while he was protecting us. Never mind that his entire premise for invading Iraq was a bunch of lies. Never mind that we are stuck in a morass in Iraq - I'll refrain from using the "Q" word for now.

Or, maybe the Bush Administration got word that their terror level system was known to be a farce by one and all. If he just stayed up late enough to watch the late night shows he would have figured that out a long time ago...but our boy needs his sleep.

Bush Administration is 0-2

2005-12-23T09:59:00.000-08:00

I'm talking about their plans to install the Iraqi leader of their choice.

Remember Ahmed Chalabi? His political group got just 0.36 percent of the votes in Baghdad and just 0.34 percent of the vote in Basra. So, he's out.

But what of our more recent favorite Allawi? This is from a joint press conference in Sept. 2004 (Bush is speaking), " Thank you all for coming. I'm honored to stand with the Prime Minister of a free and sovereign Iraq. Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister. I applaud your leadership and your courage. It's my honor to welcome a friend to the White House."

According to early election results, "The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad."

Is our government ready to accept the vote of the Iraqi people if it means they set up a Shite Muslim theocratic government? We don't actually have a choice do we? Or are we prepared to throw that government out of office too, hoping for the perfect western style democracy we planned on?

There's an old phrase around, "Be careful what you wish for." It seems pretty applicable to our current situation in Iraq. We've bled the blood of thousands of our citizen soldiers, lost the lives of thousands more - all for this moment. Did we get our money's worth? NO, NO, NO.

How many ways are there to say NO.? It is simply not possible to list the ways in which the Bush Administration has screwed up. Those behind this ridiculous failed scheme won't be held accountable, and won't lose a minutes sleep either. And that's really sad.

Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

2005-12-23T08:45:00.000-08:00

There is a God in Heaven (or whatever spiritual belief you have). So Alito has defended the indefensible already. The fact that he has already done so in the past means it's definitely fair game during his nomination hearing.

And I think this may well turn out to be his Achilles Heel. Or maybe just the straw that breaks the Camels back. (I definitely have to get the use of these handy little ditties under control, don't I?)

I will be interested to see how Alito manages to try and turn his defense of wiretaps into something he was doing "just to get a job, as part of an interview, as it were". It's not going to fly this time either.

We are getting a pretty good picture of why Bush chose him. They come from the same mold. And, that isn't a good thing.

Bush and War Powers

2005-12-22T21:31:00.000-08:00

I'm glad Tom Daschle is talking. Assuming he is accurate - and I think he is - right after 9/11 Bush actually attempted to in effect declare war on the citizens of the United States.

According to the Washington Post article:

"The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.)"
see article here

Here' more:

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrant less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

And this:

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

The main point to take from all of this is the fact that Bush sought and was rebuffed by congress in his attempts to make war on US citizens. The fact that he continued to use the NSA to spy on US citizens is the clearest example to date of his failure to protect and defend the constitution.

Where do we go from here? Is there really anything to be done? Or has King George, through deceit and lies become the autocratic leader of this country? Have we slipped into dictatorship, unaware, blind, carelessly ignoring the signs that our once great experiment in democracy is coming to an end?

One More Thought about Hillary

2005-12-21T12:22:00.000-08:00

I see that Jeanine Pirro is abandoning her campaign for Sen. Clinton's Senate seat. Is Hillary about to run essentially unopposed?

That leads to the obvious question; if the Republican's can't find anyone to fight the good fight against Hillary in 2006, why do we think they will have any more success in 2008 if Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate?

While New York isn't a microcosm of the country, there are plenty of Republicans in the state, and she is popular among them too.

Hillary Clinton and Abortion

2005-12-21T10:37:00.000-08:00

Hillary says that the just passed benefits cuts in Medicaid will ultimately lead to more abortions. Her reasoning - Medicaid cuts to contraception will lead to increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and from there to more abortions.

I agree with her. It's not just rhetoric to say we want abortions to be rare and safe. Those words mean something. Providing contraceptions through Medicaid does cut the abortion rate. This is a fact. Abortions are safe for now. But, efforts to make abortion illegal again will almost certainly lead to unsafe abortions.

All of this is just common sense. And Hillary saying it doesn't make it any less logical. As a Pragmatic Liberal, I don't have any problems with Hillary's stance on abortion. In fact, hold the very same position philosophically. I wonder what the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party will think? It seems they have trouble liking anything she has to say.

Cheney back to take from the poor...

2005-12-21T08:33:00.000-08:00

I see Vice President Cheney made it back in time to cut the benefits of those who need it. The amount comes to about $40 billion. Coincidentally (there's that coincidence again) the Republicans passed tax cuts that will give those earning more than $1 million that same $40 billion. All over the same 5 years.

I have to wonder, how do the Republicans sleep at night? They can't hide behind the philosophy of small government. The new Republican philosophy (maybe it was always there, just better hidden) is make the rich richer and keep the poor people poor, or better yet, make them poorer.

I guess it's not really all that new either. Going back to Reagan, the Republican Party has morphed into something completely unrecognizable to those who believed in small government, individual liberty, and keeping the government out of people's lives.

What he said...

2005-12-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

Here's what Gonzales thinks about the secret wiretapping:

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

But, what if the questioning had instead gone like this:

Q If FMA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute before you started arresting gay couples?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to the US Constitution, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, so we just went ahead and started prosecuting same-sex couples. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we would just start arresting them to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Don't think for a minute that the abuse of powers by the Bush administration is going to stop here. Bush will be president for three more years (baring an impeachment) and it's just a matter of time before he expands his list of people who are a threat to this country. If he is not slapped down hard on this issue, it's only going to get worse.

Super Thin Models

2005-12-20T10:53:00.000-08:00

No, this isn’t' about politics - exactly. I just watched an interview on The View. They interviewed a "plus size" model. That is somehow who models clothes above size 10-12. But, according to most statistics, more than 60% of American women where a size greater than 10-12.

I'm not here to say it's OK to be overweight; by whatever criteria you want to use. What I find interesting and sad is the notion that to be a really famous model you have to literally be emaciated. That got me to thinking, why is it happening?

I think that this trend started with Twiggy back in the 1960's. I don't think it is a coincidence that the first generation she affected was also the first generation born after WWII. In fact, Twiggy is of that generation, as I am. We don' have a personal memory of seeing the emaciated survivors of Hitler’s concentration camps. The generations before us see very thin people and immediately relate it to the horrors of WWII. To them this is no look to emulate; it's just the opposite.

And, as we move further away from WWII, it becomes less real, just an historical event. It loses its power over us. That's too bad. I guess it does show how even the most horrific events fade in our memories and into the past; losing their power to effect us.

The President Broke the Law

2005-12-20T09:57:00.000-08:00

No, that's not a surprise to most thinking people. The only question has been which law will he finally be held accountable for breaking?

The following code applies to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

The following is from the US criminal code:

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
Itis a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed

Do we think Bush might actually be held responsible for breaking this law? It's a much bigger deal than lying under oath about an extra-marital affair isn’t it? Didn't we impeach a president for that? Are there any honorable Republicans left in Washington? We're about to find out.

What Harry Reid Said

2005-12-19T21:21:00.000-08:00

This is a statement from Harry Reid today:

“The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

“First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

“I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

“The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

“Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

“We need to investigate this program and the President’s legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.”

Will there be an investigation? One is certainly called for. But, as many have pointed out, the American public does not seem to care very much that their privacy rights have been trampled by this administration. Can the Democrats force this issue without the vocal public outcry and support? Time will tell.

We've known for a while that Bush is breaking the law.

2005-12-19T18:03:00.000-08:00

The following is the text of a letter written to Vice President Cheney by Senator Rockefeller back in 2003:

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Here's a linkto the hand written note.

If this is correct, and it appears to be, it's way past time for the Democrats to stand up en masse and demand that Bush and Cheney either resign or be impeached. Personally, I like the idea of impeachment a whole lot better. I see Senator Lindsay Graham leading the prosecution - oh darn he's not in the house anymore. Can we find enough honorable Republicans left in the House of Representatives willing to do the right thing?

A Rock and a Hard Spot

2005-12-19T17:47:00.000-08:00

So, Bush says he'll continue eavesdropping on Americans.

And Democrats have responded.

Such as this from Senator Levin, "Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight? That's not a check on the executive branch, notifying some members of Congress -- if he did -- that he's taken the law into his own hands."

And Senator Feingold's response, "The president does not have a leg to stand on legally with regard to this program. I think it's one of the weakest legal arguments I've heard that this [Afghanistan] war resolution somehow undid the basic laws of wiretapping in the United States."

Are we heading toward the momentous occasion? The one where a large number of Democrats stand up together and demand that President Bush be impeached? Will this ever happen? How many times does Bush get to go above/break the law before he is held accountable? Will it only happen that glorious day when he stands in front of St. Peter and has to explain his actions while President?

I won't be there for that particular event, so I want some action now. After all, hope springs eternal doesn't it?

Presidents and Wars

2005-12-19T10:03:00.000-08:00

I don't suppose its news that Presidents try to expand powers during wartime. It happened during the Civil War and during WW II. The problem here gets back to the issue of the war itself.

I think most people would readily agree that those wars were both just and unavoidable. While I might not agree with Lincoln's and Roosevelt's attempts to expand the government’s powers against their own citizens, I can at least accept that these events happened in the context of just wars.

The Iraq war is neither just nor unavoidable. In fact it's just the opposite. And, there are specific laws on the books today (created in 1978) that were not available to Lincoln or Roosevelt to allow the government to obtain legal authority to spy on Americans. And yet Bush chose not to use the powers already available to him.

What are we to make of this? I think the only logical conclusion has to be this - President Bush believes he is personally (not the presidency) is above all laws in this country. How else do you explain willfully ignoring laws to gain an objective and instead going well beyond the law to gain the very same objective?

I believe Bush has cast himself as the Messianic figure needed to lead not just this country, but the world toward Christian religious states. If that sounds scary or hyperbolic or just plain silly OK. That's the way it looks to me. I don't doubt that those around him are only too happy to play up this vision Bush has of himself. It furthers their own goals of having power and in some cases trying to remake the world.

This president isn't Lincoln and he isn't Roosevelt. I've tried to find some similarities. Maybe the Eisenhower and his Eisenhouwer Doctrine that referenced the Middle East has somehow been perverted by Bush, and used in his quest (conquest) to bring democracy and Christianity to the region.

Like I said there are Presidents and Wars, but they're not all created equal.

Bush's Speech and Coincidences

2005-12-18T21:58:00.000-08:00

It's late, and I know I wasn't impressed with President Bush's speech. It felt like more of the same to me. One entertaining little tidbit though is the coincidental visit by Cheney to Iraq.

Does anyone think his going there the very same day Bush gives his prime time speech is a coincidence? My only real question is this - when will the 35% of the population who seem to be brain dead Bush supporters wake up? It's almost like Bush and his crowd feels the need to out due themselves with ridiculous lies these days.

Is it just me?

Government Spying on Americans

2005-12-16T20:32:00.000-08:00

I'm not really all that surprised. Not with Bush or the NY Times. As someone has put it so well, we are very close to becoming a government of people and not of laws. And that is just one step (maybe we are already there) from a dictatorship. I'm really beginning to fear for the future of our democracy. I'm probably late to the party in some people’s eyes.

Jack Cafferty on CNN today during Wolf Blitzer's show pretty much defined how I am feeling these days. To Bush laws mean absolutely nothing. The man was angry and disgusted. I know he hosts a show on the weekend - In the Money - it's a business show. I wouldn't call him a liberal by any means. Watching today it's clear his vomit meter was running pretty high.

TAPPED - if only Memo

2005-12-16T10:48:00.000-08:00

Now, that's a memo that would actually give me hope that journalistic organizations in this country are intent on doing their job.

Here's a snippet from the post:

"Gentlemen, it is with grave concern that we point your attention to the report released yesterday by the CRS, which concluded that, contrary to numerous public statements by White House officials, the White House does in fact have access to far more intelligence than Congress."

"Thus, we feel we have no choice but to act jointly. Until you can pledge to us that White House officials will refrain from repeating these untruthful assertions in interviews on our programs or in speeches you ask us to air live, we regret that we can no longer extend invitations to White House officials to appear on our shows, and we will show far greater discretion in deciding whether to air presidential and vice-presidential addresses in the future."

If only....

A Compromise on the Patriot Act?

2005-12-16T08:38:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like the Democratic lead Senate plan to extend the Patriot Act for 3 months is going bye bye. Thank God for the Senate. Even under Republican control albeit with a really lousy leader, the fundamentalist right wing can't just ram any old thing they want through the chamber.

That said there are parts of the Patriot Act that are good and should be continued. It's a matter of will. Will the legislators actually use their brains to discern the parts that are helpful in fighting terrorism? I certainly hope so.

The Bush Administration so far has done a piss poor job from day one. Bush always likes to bring up 9/11 as a defining moment for the US. It was a defining moment for his administration too. It showed the American citizens that Bush and his crowd didn’t' care about fighting real international terrorism, and to this day they don't really care. Do they?

But, back to the Patriot Act. Let' hope there is a compromise that keeps the measures that are helpful and loses those that akin to a peeping Tom.

There's Cigarettes, and then there's Light Cigarettes

2005-12-15T20:49:00.000-08:00

"CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The Illinois Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a huge victory Thursday by tossing out a $10.1 billion fraud judgment against Philip Morris USA over the marketing of its ''light'' cigarettes." New York Times

Apparently the FTC had authorized such characterizations. So, technically Phillip Morris didn't break the law. Now, we know from studies that smokers of light cigarette inhale deeper and smoke more cigarettes so they end up getting about the same nicotine into their systems as those who smoke the real thing. But, that's not what the case was about.

Can we sue the FTC for allowing this advertising in the first place?

What the story on Romney?

2005-12-15T20:36:00.000-08:00

He's a one term governor from a northeast state. Never mind that he's a Republican. Does he actually think 4 years running Mass. is going to get him into the White House? And, though it shouldn't count that he's a Mormon, I tend to think it will.

I hope he lines up a new day job soon.

Taxing insanity

2005-12-15T12:12:00.000-08:00

Let me get this straight. The Republican controlled House of Representatives has voted to cut $50 billion in spending "over five years from a range of social programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, and federal student loans".

At the same time they voted to cut taxes $95 billion over the same 5 years. Over a third of this is a capital gains cut and "Because wealthy taxpayers tend to earn more through investments, the tax package would disproportionately benefit them. About 40 percent of the total tax relief would go to those with annual incomes of $1 million or more". That works out to about $38 billion of the tax cut. This is basically making money off of money you already have.

So, $38 billion of the money was going to go to social programs will instead go into the pockets of people who are ALREADY millionaires. And who said Republicans only care about the rich?

This is so disgusting, really. Have they no sense of decency?

Clooney (yes, the actor) speaks, but not for me

2005-12-15T11:28:00.000-08:00

George Clooney: "I hate it when smart men and women are saying, ‘Well, if I knew then what I know now.' The fact is: I knew it then and I don’t have national security clearance. . . Basically, the Democrat leadership was scared [of criticizing Bush] and it’s too bad, because it’s come back to haunt them."

I do think it's necessary to flesh out that thought. Did he know Bush wouldn't follow the congressional resolution he pushed through? Did he know Bush would cherry-pick evidence when citing reasons to invade Iraq? Did he know that Bush would have NO plan for Iraq after we threw Hussein out of power?

Looking back, I have to say that I bought the Colin Powell presentation to the UN. I thought that man had too much integrity to sit there and lie to the whole world.

I can honestly say "if I knew then what I know now" about the war I would have pushed my congressman and Senators to vote NO.

Should I have known better? Absolutely - I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 (or 2004). I think he's an idiot. But, I wanted to believe our government wasn't so inept, so thoughtless about human life, so careless with these countries citizens, its money, and our good standing in the world. I was foolish and I was fooled.

Can We Ban Torture?

2005-12-15T11:19:00.000-08:00

It looks like Congress is on board the McCain Torture Ban train. And it's about time. If reports are correct, the president is about to cave on the issue. That's not so surprising. I never thought for a minute that Bush's first veto would be of a bill that said the US doesn’t' torture people.

It's in the eyes

2005-12-14T20:30:00.000-08:00

The idea that there are in fact similarities between the Nixon and Bush presidency isn’t new. In fact there are more than a few posts out there in the blog world talking about this subject.

Let’s focus for a minute at the facial features:

Note the close set eyes, the half pouting lips. You can even see they both have US Flag pins on their lapels. Need I say more?

Robert Novak - speaker of the truth?

2005-12-14T11:06:00.000-08:00

I see that today Robert Novak did a little more talking about Plamegate. In a nut shell, he is convinced that Bush knows who the White House leaker is.

Now, isn't that grounds for impeachment? Did he not swear to uphold the law and defend this country? Certainly not coming forward with this information falls into one of those categories doesn’t' it?

And, now Bush has decided to accept responsibility for going to war on faulty intelligence. Isn't this just another way of actually avoiding responsibility? Bush has done nothing more than blame the CIA, etc. Not one word about the cherry picking of intelligence. Nothing about Cheney pressuring CIA employees. Nothing about Bolton pushing all the wrong buttons. Nothing about knowing that at least some of the claims he made were false.

Robert Novak may occasionally speak the truth, but I don't see Bush ever doing the same, unless it somehow helps him.

"I fully understand" that "I am not a crook"

2005-12-14T10:51:00.000-08:00

Those old enough to remember (or maybe learned it in school) will recognize both statements. Our current president loves to use the phrase "I fully understand/recognize" blah blah blah. When that phrase slips out of his mouth I know I'm about to hear either a talking point or an untruth, and most of the time it's both.

Our former president - Nixon - famously told some 400 AP managing editors that "I am not a crook". Of course we know how accurate those words turned out to be.

My point? I see interesting and scary parallels between the two presidents. Both ended up with a bunker mentality. Some would argue that has always been Bush's state of being, but regardless, they both found themselves in that situation. Of course, Nixon went on to resign in the face of certain impeachment, and we can't hope for a repeat with Bush, though if there was ever a president who should be impeached and thrown out of office it's Bush.

It will be interesting to look for other signs of similarities. A really nice one would be the resignation in disgrace by the VP. Cheney is no Agnew though. In fact he's a lot worse. Let's hope Fitzgerald or someone gets the goods on him.

Our Secret Detainee Camps

2005-12-13T20:44:00.000-08:00

It appears our government spirited away its prisoners fromcamps in Poland and Romania when word got out that they existed.

Now, the leaders of those two countries are left denying that we were ever there. I guess that how allies treat other allies.

The Comeback Kid?

2005-12-13T14:56:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton as president, but I sure wish I was. I'm actually talking about our current president.

A couple of polls have him up a bit, and sadly the MSM have taken it upon themselves to starting throwing around the phrase "comeback". I knew this would happen. A new poll out today from Zogby today suggests that the media is premature. Let's see if they manage to report on the Zogby poll. After all, it will get in the way of the current "story".

Time to get the word out through the internet and blogs, and force the news corps to actually report on facts, even if they ruin a perfectly good "comeback kid" story.

DeLay on the Spit

2005-12-13T14:44:00.000-08:00

Is he done yet? Can we stick a fork in him? Maybe it's just me, but I have this visceral dislike (maybe it's even hated) for the man. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about him. Is it because he was an exterminator in his other life? Oh wait, he is still one - it's humans he goes after now.

Reading the news these days does give me hope that the days of Tom DeLay are numbered. I'm not sure what the Supreme Court can do exactly about DeLay's illegal re-districting of Texas. I don't see how you undo those consequences now. But, just the have it undone in some manner would be good.

I also see that the prosecutor is subpoenaing bank records, etc. in the money laundering case against DeLay. Let's hope they find something.

As for my "hatred" of DeLay, I know it's not nice, it's not Christian, but it FEELS so right....

A New FAKE Journalist

2005-12-12T09:44:00.000-08:00

I see that the Washinton Times has a new "journalist". Conservative lobbyist Chris Horne has morphed into journalist Chris Horne.

What so interesting (surprising? disgusting?) part of this is the fact that this is a well known guy. And, from what I read, not a very nice one either. Hats off to Think Progress for staying on top of the right wing games used to manipulate news coverage of Bush.

The Iraqi's and American's agree one Thing

2005-12-12T09:22:00.000-08:00

A majority of citizens in both countries want the US military out of Iraq. So, what's the hang up? To me it doesn't even matter what reasons are given. A case can and has already been made by Rep. Murtha that our military was assigned the task of getting rid of WMD's and Hussein. Being as there were no WMD's and Hussein has been deposed, our military succeeded in their assigned task - brilliantly I think.

Our failures come from the fact the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC have attempted to assign the military a non-military task. Somehow our soldiers are now "soldiers for democracy and the American Way" Asking the military to perform tasks they are not intended nor trained for has set up an impossible situation. It's been so long since their military victory that we tend to forget what a good job they did in their assigned task.

Bush’s big mistake (in Iraq) was not pulling the troops out the day he stood on that air craft carrier with his "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign behind him. But, that time has come and gone now - our standing in the world is damaged badly, and our military is stuck in Iraq.

Let' get behind the politicians calling for a rapid phased withdrawal and get out of Iraq now.

The Death Penalty

2005-12-11T22:24:00.000-08:00

Living here in California, the death penalty has once again taken over the news. This time it's in the guise of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. And, as usual, it's not actually about the individual, it's about the death penalty itself.

Let's assume "Tookie" Williams has done lots to redeem himself, writing books, working against gangs. The thing is, that has nothing to do with the fact that he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death back in 1981. Being a "different person" today is irrelevant to the issue. And to my mind, if he has really become a more redeemed person, he himself should step forward and accept responsibility to his actions 26 years ago. Isn't that what "responsible" people do?

But, back to the death penalty. It's an ongoing issue in the state, and I have more than a passing interest. There is a man who has been sitting in San Quentin on death row since 1982 for the murder of my Aunt Vi. Personally I want him dead.

The death penalty is a farce in this state. I don't care who these murderers become in the intervening decades after their convictions. If the death penalty is to mean anything it has to come a lot quicker than after literally decades of appeals.

Rove's Memory

2005-12-11T22:10:00.000-08:00

Looking at the emerging details from the new Fitzgerald grand jury inquiry, it feels like the noose is beginning to tighten again around Rove's neck. The way I am reading this, Rove's lawyer, Mr. Luskin apparently talked to Fitzgerald for the express purpose of loosening that noose.

Fitzgerald appears to be looking at the possibility that he was sold a bill of goods. Hence, the subpoena of Luskin before the grand jury. Novak (the other one) has called into question the truthfulness of Luskin's statements. That leaves us with a couple of possibilities.

Luskin himself might be caught in a lie; maybe not perjury, but I think a sworn officer of the court is held to a higher standard and he could be charged with something. Rove's behind the scenes efforts to save himself, i.e. throw his lawyer to the wolves doesn't appear to be working. That could place him back in jeopardy of an indictment for perjury.

As to the original source of this investigation, the Plame leak, who knows where that stands. The Bush administration may have told just enough lies to avoid a direct indictment there. And that's a real shame.

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up."

2005-12-09T18:15:00.000-08:00

These words come from North Dakota Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy. I guess he's not happy with Dean's words. He's probably not alone on that count. And, he's probably not happy with the many discordant Democratic voices speaking lately on the issue of Iraq.

The Republican's little web ad was pretty silly, but we gave them the ammunition. These wounds are self-inflicted. At some point, someone has to stand up and take the reins of the Democratic Party. I don't have a favorite actually, though I tend to like what Harry Reid says most.

What do most Democrats think?

Some deaths just hurt more than others

2005-12-09T10:36:00.000-08:00

"I will give you an interesting statistic. The number of people who have been killed in action in Iraq is 1,664. It's a lot. The number of people who have died over there are another 446."

That comment was made by Donald Rumsfeld on PBS's The News Hour on Wednesday.

Interesting statistics? So, ONLY 1664 were killed in combat. Those other 446 dead soldiers don't really count - they would have died anyway. There mere fact that he is reduced to quantifying the value of those killed in Iraq is nauseating.

But, it tells the families of those 446 that their family member's death doesn't actually count in our "war on terror". How much more insulting can the Bush administration get? Is there nothing it won't do, won't say to try and save itself from taking one iota of responsibility for this mess?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - my governor

2005-12-09T10:14:00.000-08:00

It's hard to know who going to show up for work each day. Is it the Arnold who is pro-choice, and supports environmental legislation? Or the Arnold who picks foolish fights with nurses and teachers? Does he lean left today, or turn right today?

I see he picked a former Davis staffer for his chief of staff. And, it ticked off the Republicans pretty badly. One conservative group is calling to withhold their endorsement of Arnold in the 2006 governor’s race.

Is it possible another Republican might run against him in the primary? Right now I would give the possibility long odds, but I hope someone does. That would pretty much guarantee a Democratic governor next year. Because, the only person who could beat Arnold in a primary would be pro-life, and that is a loser in this state.

So, my Christmas wish is for a challenger to beat out Arnold for the 2006 Republican nomination as governor.

Fretting over Polls

2005-12-09T08:39:00.000-08:00

I love the polls that have Bush losing popularity - and I hate the ones that show him getting it back. So, the recent New York Times/CBS poll was not one to love. But, I follow Rasmussen Polls daily too. In my opinion, they lean pretty consistent right. Their polling on Bush has him dropping again after a short tick upward.
These are Bush's numbers as of today:

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern

RR	Bush Job Approval
RR	Approve	Disapprove
Today	43	55
Dec 8	44	54
Dec 7	45	53
Dec 6	46	52
Dec 5	48	52
Dec 4	47	52
Dec 3	46	53
Dec 2	46	54
Dec 1	44	56
Nov 30	46	53
Nov 29	45	54
Dates are release dates. Surveys conducted on preceding three nights.
Earlier Results for RR Premium Members
RasmussenReports.com

Rasmussen Reports

It's a good poll to watch, if only to see what a right leaning poll says about Bush. When he is down in this poll, I am confident that he is really down.

Is Dean on the way Out?

2005-12-08T13:56:00.000-08:00

I know, the mere thought is sacrilege to many. Especially the Net Roots. But, is he doing the job we hired him to do? That is an important question. If he is a major spokesperson for the party, than he's not doing his job. The Democrats are speaking with too many voices. In other words too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

If he is a leader working to raise money? On that count he seems to be doing a pretty decent job. At least compared to past years. We never raise money the way the Republican's do, so that is a false comparison.

Is he a leader working to expand the party into all 50 states? On that count he seems to be having success.

But, back to being "the face of the party" - I think he does as much damage as he does good. That' my opinion.

Is Howard Dean good for the Democratic Party?

Cable News

2005-12-07T09:57:00.000-08:00

I watch CNN's World News Hour pretty regularly, and I think it gives a balanced view of the news. Particularly when talking about US news it strives to discuss and report both the administration's as well as the European/world views on issues.

Today Bush spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations and made what seems to be a very poor attempt to somehow compare Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Saddam Hussein. It did not appear to go over very well. Of course it wouldn't and shouldn’t because the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. This silly comparison must have been thrown into the speech by Bush's new PR professor.

If the American people think we're fighting WW2 all over again maybe they will get behind the President, support him, and ignore all the bad news and deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens. That's a big if - mostly because the Iraq war looks so much more like Vietnam than WW2

Bush's "major speech on Iraq" and Iraq plans

2005-12-06T09:20:00.000-08:00

Bush spoke about Iraq again...in another major speech. He's trying to get control of the issue back. The problem is he can't quite bring himself to speak the truth. He quoted Lt. Col Todd Wood several times while talking about the Iraqi army. He didn't use whole quotes however. John Carlson of the Desmoines Register did the actual interview and any quotes that were not 100% favorable to the administration were conveniently left out.

For example, Wood is quoted, "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own" by Bush, but the rest of the quote is, "But until they are properly equipped, they'll need our help." That changes the whole tenor of the quote.

And, of course we have the news that the 35 page National Strategy for Victory in Iraq was written mostly by a professor who studies opinion polls. It's one big piece of propaganda. What a surprise.

Just when you think he can't possibly sink any lower as a human being (and I'm being pretty generous right now including him in Homo sapiens) he proves there actually is NO depths to which he won't sink.

It's time to say Good Bye Republican control of this country.

2005-12-06T09:03:00.000-08:00

It looks like Tom DeLay will be going to trial next year. That's a good thing. Even better, he may lose in the 2006 election.

That's a lot of ifs, but things finally seem to be falling into place to get rid of the Bug Man. He is just the first of many I hope. Frist is already gone - a lame duck who couldn't ever run the Senate.

The swirling scandals of Abramoff look to be coming to a boil - who says a watched pot never boils? It's about time too. I think there' going to be lots of congressmen caught up in this little mess.

Then we have the Fitzgerald investigation. There's another pot that simmering at the moment, but seems about ready to boil over again.

What to do about rabid homophobic hate groups

2005-12-05T21:06:00.000-08:00

I see that "American Family Association" and "Focus on the Family" are going after large companies that support equal rights for gays and lesbians. This is a full frontal attack on equal rights for gays. They use phrases such as:

Ford Motor Company Supports Homosexual Marriage Movement
You are probably unaware that Ford Motor Company is a major supporter of the homosexual movement, including homosexual marriage.

from AmericaBlog

And, things like this

“Focus on the Family has elected to end its banking relationship with Wells Fargo, motivated primarily by the bank’s ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda. These efforts are in direct opposition to the underlying principles and purpose of Focus, and thus a decision of conscience had to be made, and a stand taken.

from the awful Focus on the Family

These groups have the least Godly behavior I have ever seen. They must be exposed for the haters they truly are. More than that, this behavior is becoming the excepted norm for the religious right, and the Democratic Party has to stand up as one and loudly proclaim, "Of course we support equal rights for gays and lesbians, just as we support equal rights for women and minorities of all kinds." Its way past time that the Democrats stood for something more than trying to protect themselves. They end up being not much better than the overt haters if they don't defend equal rights for ALL Americans.