Dick Cheney, Supervillain!

Yesterday’s New York Observer contained a great one-two punch straight to the heart of the secretive, self-appointed and stolen, shadow presidency of Dick Cheney.

As we learn more and more about his secret goal of expanding U.S. Military operations in the Middle East, including the possibility of nuclear war in Iran, it is becoming pretty clear that Dick Cheney has become a real-life version of some of the great fictional supervillains. His image now seems to belong right alongside of such notables as Lex Luthor, The Penguin, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (pictured above).

With new evidence that the devious Cheney may be certifiably insane, as suggested by recent news accounts that went something like this:

Speaking on a condition of anonymity, a “senior administration official” said, of Dick Cheney’s recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, “I’m the Vice President, and you’re not!”

Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t try to further conceal his identity by adding: "So go f**k yourself, before I shoot you in the face!"

Cheney’s underhanded and megalomaniacal schemes have brought the country, and the World, to the brink of self-destruction, and something dramatic may have to be done to stop him.

Unfortunately, it seems all we can hope for now is that some mild-mannered congressman (or woman) is secretly able to transform into a superhero in time to stop Dick Cheney from carrying out his dastardly and fiendish plans!

Somebody? Anybody? So far, all I’m seein’ are birds and planes up there!

Question!

Doesn't Cheney quickly leaving the base where he was a target embolden the enemy and at the same time hurt troop morale for all those soldiers who can't just pack up a get the hell out of harms way?

Shouldn't Dick just stay put - fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Great Gore Op-Ed

Richard Cohen has a must read Op-ed in today's Washington Post about Al Gore.

Here is how it begins:

Now, somebody ought to make a movie about Al Gore. I would call it "An Uncomplaining Life."
The movie would be about a man who did not quit, who came off the canvas after a painfully close election -- he won the popular vote, after all -- who accepted defeat graciously and tried to unite the nation, who returned to the consuming passion of his earlier days, the environment, and spoke endlessly on the topic, almost always for free, who starred in a documentary based on his speech and who Sunday night, before a billion or so people, won an Academy Award for his effort. This may or may not be a stepping stone to the presidency, but Gore gives us all a lesson on how to live one's life.

Libby Trial: Defense Counts on Jurors’ Imagination

Here’s my favorite line of the Defense closing argument, as blogged by Emptywheel, from lead Libby attorney, Ted Wells, when he began to whine about not getting to have the last word (with my emphasis):

Fitzgerald goes last. But I will tell you, and say to you now, there's an extreme disadvantage to Defense, because you're not able to respond to something that will come up. I don't get to respond, but this is an important trial, and I represent an important person, so I want you to think about how I would respond. I want you to be critical thinkers. If you hear something that is new, I want you think, what would Wells and Jeffress say that is new.

I don’t believe that “critical thinking” is the skill Wells is really lobbying for here. He might as well have said:

“If Fitzgerald makes an argument that is better reasoned and more compelling than the one we have given you, I want you to hallucinate the image of Wells and Jeffress giving an even better argument!”

There also seemed to be quite a bit of ego stroking in the Defense argument yesterday. In addition to reminding the jury that he represents “an important person,” Wells made a strange point of complimenting his partner:

We saw what was in essence a Perry Mason moment when my partner Bill Jeffress, one of the best lawyers in the country . . .

Frankly, if I’m a juror, this line feels a bit like watching a Broadway play and having one of the actors suddenly tell the audience that his co-star deserves a Tony Award for being one of the best actors in the country.

Let’s just say that I would be very reluctant to give a glowing review of that play, no matter what else I heard during the performance!

Libby Trial: Defense Covers the Pass, While Fitz Runs Up the Middle!

The first day of Scooter Libby’s defense seemed kind of odd. After nearly two weeks of hearing a nice clean prosecution case that basically ran the “Libby lied” theme down the defenses throat, Libby’s team blew through 7 witnesses on the first day while trying to show that Libby wasn’t leaking to every reporter he talked to. It was as if they were trying to defend all over the field, when the offense had not even bothered to throw a pass!

Fitzgerald, sensing that the defense was playing against a phantom game plan, simply let the defense witnesses pass through with only token cross-examination. One witness wasn’t asked any questions at all, while another got only one question. Even Bob Novak, whose defense testimony seemed ripe for shredding, was let off the hook with only about six or seven questions.

Basically, Fitzgerald didn’t seem to care if the defense proved Libby wasn’t leaking to everyone, or even that he wasn’t the primary leaker! Libby was indicted for lying! He was indicted because he was the one who “made up a story” to hide the connection between the leaking (regardless of who was doing it) and Dick Cheney - presumably at the behest of Cheney.

Any other defense witnesses besides the two men who were directly involved in the decision to lie about this connection - Libby and Cheney - are mere distractions to be moved in and out as fast as possible, in order to keep the government’s case fresh in the mind of the jurors.

The second day of defense started much like the first day, as the leadoff witness was in and out in a flash with only one question during cross examination.

But then, John Hannah, Cheney’s current National Security Advisor, was brought in essentially as a “surrogate” for both Libby and Cheney, as he was asked to describe both Libby’s pattern of forgetfulness and his intense, all-consuming involvement and in critical national security issues (the ones he could remember anyway) that made the issue of "Wilson's wife" unimportant. Finally, here was a chance for Fitzgerald to tear into a key defense witness!

But even here, Fitzgerald’s response was swift and precise (as blogged by emptywheel, with my comments in brackets):

Fitz: Scope of [Chief Of Staff] as you understood it. Part of it was to protect OVP and VP from public criticism.

Hannah: It's not the formulation I would use, Need to go out and truthfully defend office from unfair criticism.

Fitz: Especially important if it was directed at integrity of VP or OVP, and integrity of Admin, OVP, VP, in terms of Iraq.

Hannah: It would be important pushback, yes.

Fitz: Best time to see Libby was evening, particularly if you focus July 6. Fair to say during that week, if you said tomorrow morning take an hour or two to go out for coffee, he wouldn't take that time.

Hannah: It would be harder.

Fitz: If he gave someone [cough, Judy Miller, cough!] an hour or two, it was something Libby thought important.

Hannah: WRT me, yes.

Game over! After that, the Libby team decided to pack it in, announcing that neither Libby or Cheney would testify, and that the defense would rest its case after only a few minor pieces of supplemental evidence were admitted.

It didn’t seem like much of a defense, and it wasn’t – if the goal were to get Libby acquitted. But with the possibility of a pardon down the road, most experts see appeals dragging until the very end of Bush’s current term. And expect even more White House comments like “I'm not going to comment on the process of an ongoing investigation trial appeal.”

How Dick Cheney’s Dreams Differ From Other Peoples' Dreams!

Note: The "Sleeping Cheney" image was created about 10 months ago, while the "Sleeping Man" was created today - using a "Cheney in Prison" inset respectfully swiped from the brilliant Dood Abides.

Libby Trial: The Adventures of Scooter the Squirrel!

Looking back at my (seemingly ancient) times as a high school debater, I remember a term for a strategy occasionally used by lazy or overmatched competitors when they had to debate the “affirmative” side of a policy issue. It was called a “Squirrel Case.” Very roughly described, it consists of taking a position so obscure and unexpected that even a meticulously prepared opponent would have done no research that would help rebut any element of the proposal.

My debating partner and I often happened to fall into the “lazy or overmatched” camp, but we were quite successful on the affirmative side with a “squirrel case” related to Prison Reform (the official debate topic for my junior year). In our proposal, we argued for a treatment regimen for convicted violent offenders based on the combined use of chemicals (such as sodium pentathol) and intense hypnosis, a la “A Clockwork Orange,” in order to completely eliminate the need for incarceration.

Because we didn’t do any substantial research into potential arguments for the “negative” side, we routinely got our rear-ends handed to us by scrawny, bespectacled geeks with enormous filing cabinets full of material, but their files didn’t help them much when we were lucky enough to draw the affirmative!

One week into the Scooter Libby trial, I am starting to suspect that the Libby team may be trying the equivalent of a “squirrel case,” instead of the vaunted “faulty memory defense” that has been their more public strategy, and the one that Fitz has clearly built his case to overcome.

During a lengthy argument before Judge Walton on Thursday, Fitz lobbied to be able to show video of Scott McClellan press conferences about Libby, and he repeatedly referred back to one of the big surprises of Wells’ opening statement. From Emptywheel’s play-by-play:

Fitz. For Wells to argue that this is about Libby being thrown under the bus, when that's not in the GJ, and this is, then why can't I do that.

And

Fitz. Mr Libby never testified to this "throwing under the bus concept." That's not in GJ.

And Wells spelled out, in more detail, an argument that seemed to come out of the blue during his opening statement:

Wells. Let me explain purpose of it. Fitz repeatedly argued that Bush made statement that anyone involved would be fired. My response to that, in terms of Libby, he was not concerned about job, he was concerned they were scapegoating him. What we're going to argue in response to govt's argument, he was concerned about scapegoating. He acted like an innocent person, went to VP and asked to be exonerated. That's what VP will say if he testifies. It goes to motive. They want this transcript in to go to motive. They want to say he was afraid of losing job. Only an innocent person, I would argue, would go to VPUS, to say that he was worried about scapegoating.

In a case where the primary focus has been whether or not Libby knew about Valerie Plame before he said he learned about it from Tim Russert, Fitzgerald has methodically set out to establish, through a parade of witnesses describing conversation after conversation, that Libby was preoccupied with Wilson and Plame before he talked to Russert. For Libby to be able to testify credibly that he mistakenly thought he learned about Plame from Russert after all of these conversations seems nearly impossible.

Frankly, I think the Libby team has known it would be impossible from the beginning, even as they were floating the “faulty memory” defense and filing motions foreshadowing this defense, all the while intending to stake their chances on the argument that he was “completely innocent” of any wrongdoing, had no motive to lie, and that everything that he did was out of a desire to avoid being “scapegoated!”

I don’t think Libby is going to testify. According to Judge Walton, that would be “suicide” to his “faulty memory” defense, but I don’t think that’s his defense. I don’t think there was ever any intention of Libby testifying, which is why Wells’ opening statement began with the line: “My name is Ted Wells and I speak for Scooter Libby.”

All of the government witnesses have been grilled by Libby lawyers about their own memory shortfalls, as if to set the stage for Libby to claim he has similar shortfalls. That won’t work, because there are too many witnesses, and too many conversations, about Wilson and Plame.

Emptywheel thinks that Cheney won’t testify despite claims by Ted Wells of what Cheney will say - because by testifying, Cheney would have to perjure himself or end up confirming the prosecution’s narrative of the case. Frankly, I don’t think Libby can afford to have anyone even remotely involved in the so-called “War on Wilson” testify, because Fitzgerald knows enough to make any of them have to commit perjury or further incriminate Libby!

From the beginning, Libby’s real goal was to try to get at least one juror to sympathize with him and his stated desire to avoid being “scapegoated.” At least one juror would have to see everything else as either due to:

1) misunderstandings from poor note-taking by forgetful reporters,

2) a grudge between the CIA and the Office of the VP, or

3) deals made with the prosecution by people who were trying to save their butts.

But from the beginning, Libby's defense would have to be done only with "character" witnesses who weren’t actually involved in the Wilson matter.

And from the beginning, Libby's defense would have to be done with an argument that was not foreshadowed in the Grand Jury testimony or the pre-trial posturing, so that Fitzgerald’s case would have left the door open just a crack - at least one large enough for a squirrel to squeeze through!

Libby Trial: The Credibility Gap

This post by Pachacutec from a couple of days ago is a really fascinating take on the personalities of Judge Reggie Walton, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and Lead Defense Attorney Ted Wells, as they are revealing themselves in the courtroom during the Libby Trial.

The points I’d like to highlight are a couple of early interactions between Walton, Fitzgerald, and Wells that sum up what I think is happening:

Outside of the presence of the jury, it seems Wells may have lost a minor credibility point or two with the judge, and Walton's opinion matters.

(snip)

late this week, Walton more or less called bullshit on Wells over a matter of the defense team's ability to review what turned out to be a rather small stack of documents in time to cross examine Cathie Martin. From emptywheel's notes: "Walton: I thought we were talking about reams and reams of documents. With all the lawyer power you got over there I don't think you'll have a problem." D'oh!

Moreover, with even greater animation, Walton declared it would be "suicide" for Libby not to testify in his own defense if he wants to make a case about his faulty memory. That, after all, was the point and the presumption behind all those months of painstaking CIPA hearings.

(snip)

Let's start with what Reggie Walton said of (Fitzgerald) on the record, outside of the presence of the jury, calling him one of the most scrupulous prosecutors he's ever had before him.

The Libby team went through many months of trying to set up a defense, based on faulty memory, which would allow them to tell a story that is consistent with testimony of the prosecution witnesses – but that still leaves room for reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally lied to the Grand Jury.

Unfortunately for Libby, after the first few witnesses’ testimony – mostly about the intensity of Libby’s interest in Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger - it is clear that Libby will not be able to offer such a story. And it is clear that there is considerable risk in having Libby try to tell it!

Thus, Wells has had to resort to “Plan B,” which is to try to impugn the credibility of ALL of the prosecution witnesses. He is trying to say that Ari Fleischer has an immunity deal and is going to lie to save himself. He is trying to say that everyone at the CIA has a grudge against the OVP and is going to lie to get revenge. Basically, he is trying to say that everyone else is committing perjury in order to wrongfully convict Libby of perjury! And he is trying to find ways of introducing the issue of faulty memory, which he wants to be able to apply to all of the reporters or journalists who may testify for the prosecution (particularly Tim Russert), without Libby’s testimony!

But it seems clear that Judge Walton will have none of it.

By referring to Fitzgerald as “one of the most scrupulous prosecutors he’s ever had before him,” Walton is putting Wells on notice that he does not believe that Fitzgerald would manipulate witnesses just to get a conviction. He is basically saying that he believes Fitzgerald’s witnesses are credible, or Fitzgerald would not rely on them.

By stating the view that it would be “suicide” for Libby not to testify, Walton is sending a message to Wells that Libby is going to have to sleep in the same bed that he has been making for the last few years.

Libby Trial: You Can’t Be Sure Where Lightning Will Strike!

The two biggest bombshells of the opening day of the Scooter Libby trial were Libby’s signals of intention to “throw Karl Rove under the bus,” and his admission that his boss, Dick Cheney, directed him to “put his neck in the meat grinder.”

In one of the earliest posts I ever wrote on this blog, I speculated that Libby seemed to have chosen to make himself a “lightning rod,” in order to deflect attention from higher profile conspirators like Rove and Cheney.

At the time, this made a lot of sense (to me, at least), because with Fitzgerald’s intense investigation, someone had to be the firewall to prevent Fitz from moving up the chain of command where the political damage would be more widespread. And Libby’s actions were so blatant and obvious that they could only be intentional!

Libby was a perfect candidate because he was high enough in the chain to be trusted to play his role, but not well known enough to be permanently identified with Bush/Cheney/Rove era. Eventually, I posited, Libby would be pardoned and remembered by most of the general public only vaguely, in questions like, “ G. Scooter Liddy - wasn’t he one of those Watergate guys?”

But much has changed since Libby agreed to be the firewall between Fitzgerald and Cheney and Rove. Among those changes are:

• The President is now in freefall, and desperately trying to salvage some kind of positive legacy. Dick Cheney is the guy who was pulling the strings that led Bush to the brink of going down in history as the Worst President Ever, so he may no longer have the juice to influence Bush into giving Libby, Cheney’s henchman, a pardon.

• A civil lawsuit filed by Joe and Valerie Wilson creates additional legal peril that Libby might have to bear alone, if found guilty of criminal charges. Unlike a criminal conviction, the President can’t pardon an award for civil damages.

• Karl Rove is no longer the untouchable architect of a permanent Republican dynasty! In fact, with a party desperately trying to rid itself of the stench of the last six years, Turdblossom seems a likely candidate to be made to embody all of the negative Republican stereotypes, as he is flushed away in order to try to get a clean start with the American public.

So now we know that Libby no longer wants to be the fall guy! After he set himself up to be a lightning rod to protect the others, Fitzgerald said “OK, I’ll bite. Let’s see how many jolts you’re willing to take for Cheney and Rove?” Apparently, it’s not that many!

Libby now wants to cast himself as a pawn, albeit a hard working, highly influential and important - but extremely forgetful - pawn! For Fitzgerald, who undoubtedly recognized Libby’s initial willingness to sacrifice himself to shield the truth, Libby’s change of heart is a victory in itself.

Fitzgerald was the umpire trying to see what was going on, and Libby threw dust in his eyes. Fitzgerald could see, but not prove, what was going on through the dust, so he indicted Libby for throwing it. Now, Libby seems willing to reveal at least some of what was going on, particularly regarding Cheney and Rove, in order to save himself.

But here is where the baseball analogy falls short! In baseball, there is no instant replay, and the umpire’s initial judgment must stand. However, in a criminal investigation, Fitzgerald can still go back and make the correct call. Hopefully that will mean eventually hearing him say the magic words:

Cheney and Rove, You’re Ooouuuuttttt!!!!!

Damn I Lost the Pool!

I always look forward to Seenos' posts wondering - who will be the last "American Idiot" to stand by GWB and his disastrous administration. Well my favorite has just dropped out of the race. And honestly George - when you lose Toby Keith - it's time to resign.

Can I hear one last FUTK!!!!

Photos of the Day

"I'm the decision maker and I have decided that you are going to give me a sponge bath."

"I know its in there somewhere." George Bush examines X-Rays in hopes of locating his heart.

Libby Trial: Opening Statements

Before opening statements on Tuesday, there had been some questions about the fact that Prosecutor Fitzgerald was given one hour, while Libby’s lead attorney, Ted Wells, got two hours.

The reason was probably pretty basic: Fitzgerald has a simple case. Remember his baseball analogy during the indictment press conference. Fitzgerald was the umpire trying to see what was happening in the game, and Libby threw dust in his eyes. Thus, his case is simple. Here is the dust. Here is the evidence that Libby threw it.

Wells’ task, on the other hand, is much broader and more complicated. He is trying to say a number of things that will confuse the situation for the jury.

a) Scooter doesn’t remember having dust in his hand.

b) Scooter is an honest, hard working guy who was pushed into a dust cloud to protect someone else.

c) Scooter was so preoccupied with all the complicated things going on in the dugout and in the clubhouse that he didn’t have time to worry about what the umpire was seeing, so why would he throw dust?

All of those arguments take time to set up. Fitzgerald can show the jury a crystal clear glass of water, while Wells has to bring out a bag of dirt, dump it in the water, stir vigorously, and then keep stirring throughout the trial in order to make sure nothing settles.

But this all plays into Fitzgerald’s hands, for a number of reasons:

• Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald will be seen by the jury as the guy who is trying to help them see things clearly, while Wells will always be the guy trying to confuse them.

• Fitzgerald’s simple case, based solely on Libby’s lies, has seemed to cause Libby to grow more resentful of feeling like a scapegoat, making him more likely to point fingers and incriminate others as a part of his defense.

• Fitzgerald has every reason to know what was really going on in the dugout and in the clubhouse, so as Wells trots out all the other “players,” along with the “Manager” (Dick Cheney), to establish what Scooter was so preoccupied with, Fitzgerald will have the opportunity to grill them about what else Scooter, and they, may have been preoccupied with.

When the dust settles, I suspect that Fitzgerald will have more than just enough evidence to show that Scooter threw dust in his eyes. He will be able to show who was doing steroids in the clubhouse, and whether the Manager was coaching his team to slide into home plate with cleats up in order to hurt any opponents of the Bush Administration!

Emptywheel’s summary of Fitzgerald’s opening statement
Emptywheel’s summary of Wells’ opening statement - Part 1, Part 2
MSNBC’s Wrap up.

Libby Trial: Selecting a Jury

As jury selection continues in the case of U.S. vs Libby, I thought I’d highlight a couple of good sources for anyone who wants to review.

Firedoglake has some amazing live blogging by Pachacutec, who is with the press corps, watching the proceedings on live video monitors. The comments are fascinating, with many notable experts such as Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel), and even Joe Wilson himself, weighing in.

Pach’s daily recaps are a good overview, as are similar ones by David Corn at The Nation

Another interesting read is the official list of questions being asked of potential jurors. Two notable themes in the list are a set of questions about jurors’ feelings about the Bush Administration and Dick Cheney in particular, and a set of questions about their feelings regarding the nature of memory.

Apparently, the Libby team is either hoping that jurors will accept Cheney’s credibility over anyone who testifies against Libby, or they are hoping to use Cheney’s lack of popularity to keep anyone with half a brain off of the jury!

This headline seemed to capture it all:

Libby Seeks Jurors Who Trust Cheney

That's quite a task! From the looks of most polls on approval ratings, they might as well be seeking monkeys who can write computer code, or jockeys who can dunk a basketball, or WMD in Iraq – but hey, they are entitled to their strategery, such as it is!

As for memory, it sounds like the Libby team wants jurors who would believe that it is transient, and that Libby could reasonably “remember” things that are inaccurate.

To me, this question from the official list says the most about the Libby strategy:

Is there anyone who feels that a person could not honestly say something about a matter he or she truly believes to be true when that person several months earlier actually said something totally different about that same matter?

Paraphrased, this question could be shortened to “Can a person honestly believe his own lies?”

An interesting bit of information from Firedoglake had to do with the fact that reporters in the courtroom (there are only two at a time) have said that Libby has been taking copious notes throughout the proceedings. I guess this could either be seen as his meticulous nature, which is at odds with the defense that he carelessly forgot what he told people . . . or he could be trying to set himself up for what I will refer to as “The Memento Defense.”


Image from Wonkette

Maaarrrrrttttyyyy!!!!!

Sometimes karma is a beautiful thing!

Turns out that with a Marty Schottenheimer team, all you have to do is stay with them until the playoffs . . . and then you can count on them to self destruct!

I guess the Chargers shouldn’t have put so much emphasis on peaking during "Raider Week!"

For those who don’t know and haven’t guessed, Marty Schottenheimer hates the Raiders - a team that he says “will always self destruct in the fourth quarter.” Admittedly, in recent years he’s been right - although most opponents haven’t even had to wait until the fourth quarter!

But consider this:

With 200 regular season wins as an NFL coach of 3 different teams, Schottenheimer is the winningest coach ever not to take a team to the Super Bowl.

And the least winning coach ever to take a team to the Super Bowl?

That would be Bill Callahan, with only 15 regular season wins as an NFL Coach (and now out of the league), who took the Raiders to Super Bowl XXXVII.

That’s Bill Callahan – 1, Marty Schottenheimer – 0.

Choke on that, Marty!

Hey Arnold – STFU!

There’s an old saying in football that even when you are way behind and there is no realistic chance of winning the game, you still want to “give it everything you’ve got.” As a matter of pride, you need to “leave it all on the field.”

Well someone needs to tell Arnold Schwarzenegger that war is not a f--king football game!

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Arnold showed his command of world politics.

"I think we should give it everything," Schwarzenegger responded when asked in a pre-taped television interview whether he supported Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops. "We should give it everything in order to be victorious."

In the interview, . . . Schwarzenegger said he does not want the U.S. to "pull out of this war as losers."

Great! Arnold wants to “give it everything we’ve got!” 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Arnold wants to send another 21,000 and “leave them all on the (battle) field” - in order to avoid having to pull out as a loser.

I’ve got an idea! If we are going to give it everything we’ve got, how about giving Arnold? He’s supposed to be the God-Damned Terminator! Let’s “give” Arnold, and let him haul his brittle-boned, narcissistic, bad acting, steroid ridden, flabby ass to Iraq to show us how not to pull out as a loser!

And while were giving it everything we’ve got, let’s give Chuck Norris to Iraq too!

The Bush Surge – In a Nutshell!

That is - the Bush/McCain/Lieberman Surge Escalation – in a nutshell!

And if he doesn’t actually have enough troops for a “Surge,” will he have to downgrade his strategy to a "Trickle?"

Or a "Leak?"

Let’s just go all the way, and call it what it what it undoubtedly will be, a "Piss" strategy, as in:

Pissing away more American lives!

Who’s Pointing the Finger Now?

Why is it that the people who often find their way into positions that allow them to loudly and publicly condemn others are often secretly involved in the activities they are condemning?



Take Mark Foley, the head of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, who gave fiery speeches calling for tougher laws to protect children from internet predators, but who was actually using instant messaging to set up dates with underage congressional pages.



Or Ted Haggard, the preacher of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, who frequently proclaimed the evils of a homosexual lifestyle from the pulpit, while carrying on a series of methamphetamine-fueled trysts with a gay prostitute.

Both of these men worked very hard to achieve highly successful careers that allowed them to talk about, think about, and obsess about something in themselves that they were trying to keep hidden from public view. Their public scorn for their own secret behavior allowed them each to live out a hypocritical lie, until each was eventually discovered.



So what does this suggest about NBC Dateline’s Chris Hansen? As a correspondent for NBC for 14 years, Hansen has recently become a household name as host of the popular “To Catch a Predator” series, where he moves from town to town luring potential sexual predators to houses where they are arrested - but not before he can shame them in front of his camera crew!

Now let me be clear - I have no problem with a carefully run police sting operation designed to arrest these people.

But why does it have to be done with the sanctimonious Hansen and his camera crew crouching behind the drapes, and then running out to show everyone in America how much these alleged predators look like their friends and neighbors?

It’s bad enough that we are being conditioned to suspect anyone who looks different from us, or doesn’t share our religious beliefs, of being a potential terrorist. Do we need to fear that our co-workers, schoolmates, neighbors, and even relatives, are sexual predators too?

Of course we don’t want our children exposed to real predators! So, by all means, catch those individuals and prosecute them to the full extent of the law!

But don’t turn the process into a TV reality show, so that the same people who secretly dream of becoming an “American Idol,” or of “Dancing With the Stars,” can secretly dream of watching their neighbor being frog-marched to jail!

And please give Chris Hansen something else to obsess over for a while! I’m really starting to wonder about that guy!

Bush's New Plan - Different From His Old Plan - But Probably Not His Last Plan!

The BBC is reporting that President Bush is nearly ready to announce his new strategy in Iraq. According to an administration source Bush is planning a speech to the nation centered around the theme - "Sacrifice".

You know what that means - despite our collective weariness after the holidays ........................

IT'S TIME TO GO SHOPPING!!!!

Bush Finally Attends a Funeral With a Flag Draped Coffin!

He should have had to attend 3000 of these.

What I Was Going to Say About Saddam’s Execution . . .

. . . was something to the effect of captioning this photo, “One down, one to go!”

But after reading Hunter’s brilliant “Requiem for a Bastard,” I’ve changed my mind.

Terminator 4: Ski Pole Versus Femur (The Real Story)

Left-Over’s last post got me thinking more and more about this whole “Arnold broke his femur” story. Here is the most descriptive explanation I can find of the injury, from the man who witnessed the accident.

Adi Erber, a ski instructor who often skis with the governor when he visits Sun Valley, told the biweekly Idaho Mountain Express that Schwarzenegger's pole got caught underneath his ski and the governor tripped over it while standing near the half-pipe on the Lower Warm Springs trail.

"He fell on his ski pole, and the impact broke his femur," Erber told the Express.

Having done a fair amount of skiing myself, I decided to break it down:

This is a ski pole:



And this is a femur:



If the two come together with opposing force, it doesn’t take a structural engineer to guess which one is more likely to break. I’ve broken a ski pole, and it snapped like a twig! I still have the handle in my garage as a souvenir of the experience. It wasn’t pleasant, but only the pole was broken.

For reference, I weigh 155 lbs and have 17.5 inch thighs surrounding each femur!

These are Arnold’s approximate measurements (from a page of one of his archived websites).

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Nickname: The Austrian Oak
Born: July 30, 1947
Birthplace: Tahl, Graz, AUSTRIA
Residence: California, USA
Height: 6' 2"
Arms: 22"
Chest: 57"
Waist: 34"
Thighs: 28.5"
Calves: 20"
Off Season Weight: 260 lbs
Competition Weight: 235 lbs

The numbers are probably somewhat different today than from his competition days, but you get the picture – someone nicknamed “The Austrian Oak” having thighs more than 2 feet in circumference, should not, even at age 59, have a femur that is more brittle than a ski pole!

Published reports of his surgery also include an additional hint as to what really happened:

The procedure was performed by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Kevin Ehrhart, who also. . . repaired President Ronald Reagan's broken hip in 2001.

So Arnold’s operation was performed by the same guy tapped to repair the 90-year-old Reagan’s broken hip? A specialty, perhaps?

My guess as to what really happened? Arnold tripped over his ski pole and fell – probably onto an icy slope where his hip hit the ice and shattered like a wine glass - much like my grandmother’s hip shattered when she tripped over her walker (like Reagan, she was also approaching 90 at the time!)

But Arnold, the man once known for proclaiming his desire “to be the best-built man in the world," could not admit to an injury more common in 90-year olds, so he says he “broke his femur!”

At least he could have gotten his instructor to say he was injured "while ripping a sick 540 Reverse Tail Grab on the half pipe while moshin' to Green Day on his I-Pod!"

No! Although numerous articles pointed out that the Sun Valley trail named after Arnold is a black diamond “expert” run, Arnold’s injury happened while he was standing on the Lower Warm Springs Trail, which is listed on Sun Valley’s interactive trail map as a green circle “bunny” slope!

Can you say "fragile?"

Arnold's Broken Hip???

Has anyone else wondered if Arnold actually broke his hip instead of his femur? After scanning several articles about the incident and subsequent surgery - I have my suspicions about what actually happened.

The ski instructor who was with Govenator at the time is on record stating that:

"He was trying to take off again and he tripped," Adi Erber, a ski instructor who was with the governor, told the Los Angeles Times. Erber described the fall as a "freak accident."

The femur is the largest and strongest bone in the human body. It would be pretty difficult to break just by falling over. However, many elderly people break their hips when they loose their balance and land awkwardly. Despite Arnold's strange tan, and even stranger orangey hair color - he is 59 years old. He's no spring chicken.

The Governors press office seems to be keeping a tight reign the details of the incident. I can only guess that they decided a "broken leg" sounded much better to the incredibly vain Schwartzenegger than a "Broken hip".

George Explain Your New "Surge" Strategy to this Little Girl!

Heather Martin - When Are You Coming

Whammo Speaks For Me!

This has been flying around the internets lately, and for good reason! I’ve had the opportunity to see Austin's Asylum Street Spankers perform this song live on a couple of occasions, so I’m glad that they are getting wider attention for this gem.

Enjoy!



By the way, Whammo is the guy with the cowboy hat and the ponytail!

Photo of the Day

Vice President Dick Cheney - Out enjoying a day of fishing . . .



. . . with his friend, Dick Whittington!

Is the Argument Over Global Warming Misdirected?

Noted intellectual giant, James Inhofe was at it again, with Wednesday’s hearing entitled "Climate Change and the Media."

(Inhofe) convened a hearing with witnesses who share his view that the media has hyped coverage of climate change. "Hysteria sells," the chairman grumbled at one point. "Scare tactics should not drive public policy," he said at another, pressing his view that rising Earth temperatures are mainly a natural, cyclical phenomenon.

One of the benefits of living with a scientist is that I am often called to challenge my initial (sometimes emotional) reactions in favor of a careful weighing of the available evidence.

In our discussions of “global warming,” my partner has frequently made an argument that, in light of Senator Inhofe’s repeated denials of the presence of global warming, makes a lot of sense.

The argument is that the focus should not be on "the presence of global warming,” but on “the increase of greenhouse gases.” The rationale is that the scientific evidence for global warming is inconclusive enough to continue allowing people like Inhofe to make arguments against it. Because we are talking about millions of years of history and cyclical weather patterns, it is not possible for either side to definitively “win” the debate.

On the other hand, there is clear scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are being produced at skyrocketing rates (click here for source). There is clear evidence that such gases trap infrared rays that could heat up the earth like the sun heats up the inside of a car. This makes it a debate about chemistry and physics, rather than a debate about history!

One way of looking at the issue is in relation to the decision on whether to eat trans fats – a topical comparison considering the City of New York’s recent ban on their use in restaurant food preparation. If you want to convince someone to restrict the intake of trans fats in their diet, you would not try to argue that scientific evidence proves they will have a heart attack in the future. That would be silly, and easily ignored by anyone who is determined to use history (I haven’t had one yet! Other people have eaten trans fats and not had them!) to maintain their current diet.

On the other hand, a scientific factual presentation of the existence of trans fats, and how the body processes them, leaves little room to argue that they should not be eliminated from the diet whenever possible.

People like Senator Inhofe are always going to be able to find historians to present a feasible-sounding (to him anyway) argument to maintain our current diet of greenhouse gas production.

But let’s see him produce some scientists who would argue that increased production of greenhouse gases doesn’t increase the risk factors for a global climate heart attack!

The Real Iraq Policy

Looks like Josh Marshall agrees with my earlier assessment on Bush’s real goal regarding Iraq:

One other point we shouldn't go too long without restating. With his policy of no troop increases and no troop decreases, let's all understand that President Bush's real policy is stasis -- no 'winning' or 'losing' or escalating or withdrawing. It's about fighting any fight, carrying any burden to keep kicking this can down the alley until January 2009 so he can say the disaster he created is someone else's fault. That's not hyperbole or trash talk. That's really the policy.

Or, as I put it:

Bush has already gone on record as saying he believes we will be in Iraq beyond the end of his presidency. His recent call for “one last big push to win in Iraq” is yet another indication of his “run out the clock” strategy. He is going to make sure that when it comes to leaving the chaos created by his war, he’s not going to be the decider!

How We Should "Go" in Iraq!

On the Eve of the official release of the Iraq Study Group report, I’d like to return briefly to the recent Pentagon review that came up with a set of possibilities that have been dubbed “Go Big,” “Go Long,” or “Go Home.”

“Go Big” refers to the option of dramatically increasing troop levels – an unfeasible proposition considering current troop availability and the additional cost that would have to be absorbed by a rapidly increasing national debt.

“Go Long” refers to the option of basically continuing to string things along with the current, or slightly reduced, troop levels - in the hope that some sort of miracle will result in something we can eventually claim as “victory." It is an option perhaps more appropriately named “Go Fish,” except that the card we would be hoping to draw has probably already been removed from the deck!

“Go Home” refers to complete troop withdrawal, and would undoubtedly leave years of continued violence and chaos before there would be any hope of improvement - solidifying a legacy of failure in Iraq for Bush/Cheney and, unfortunately, the American people who put them in power.

A fourth option, which I call alternately “Go Wide” and “Go Real,” is the one I hope the American people will eventually choose, although it seems a remote possibility. Both elements would need to be present for it to work, and it goes like this:

“Go Wide” refers to expanding involvement in Iraq peacekeeping efforts to include a true international coalition that would work in partnership, using military, financial and diplomatic means to clean up the mess. It is basically the option that should have been used in the first place, if it had been considered necessary by a real coalition to remove Saddam from power and enforce peace long enough for a democracy to take hold.

Unfortunately, “Go Wide,” on its own, is no longer feasible, since no other country would be willing to help clean up the mess made by Bush/Cheney as long as these arrogant pricks are at the helm! That’s why we would need to include another element.

“Go Real” (a variation of “Get Real”) refers to the act of accepting 1) that we (the American people) have a problem, 2) that we created the problem, and 3) we will do what is necessary to rectify the problem in order to be worthy of accepting help from the international community.

It is very simple. We need help from the rest of the world in order to clean up a mess we made for ourselves, but that also affects them. In order to redeem ourselves, we must admit that we made a mistake by allowing Bush/Cheney to pursue an unnecessary war, using unnecessary and probably illegal means. We must remove them from power and turn them over to the International Criminal Court, where their deeds can be judged according to international standards. We must apologize, and then hope we can form a real coalition to enforce peace in Iraq, more along the model of what was accomplished in the Balkans.

I’ve written before about the possibility of Bush and Cheney taking over the cells once inhabited by Milosovic, Etc. Rumsfeld and others have already been charged with war crimes (PDF) in a German court. Ultimately, although discussion of war crimes and the tactics underway in Germany may seem pointless to some in this country, it may be the case that embracing them will be the only way for the American people to recover from the disaster of Iraq!

No Traveler Left Behind: A Guide to Passing the ATS Exam

As an American who has traveled abroad 5 times in the last 26 months, this recently revealed program got my attention.

Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.

(snip)

Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

I’m not sure how I scored during my recent trips, but using careful investigative techniques and some common sense, I’ve been able to put together the following list of tips that might help improve your ATS score:

Where You are From: Good: Provo, Colorado Springs, anywhere in Texas; Bad: San Francisco, New York, Boston.

How You Paid for Tickets: Good: American Express Corporate Card, Gift of Jack Abramoff, Sale of stock options; Bad: Rolled up wad of dinar, barrels of oil, gay sex (not applicable if you are from Colorado Springs.)

Motor Vehicle Records: Good: Hummer H2, Ford Escalade with gun rack, 69 Chevy Impala with Jeff Gordon decal; Bad: Volvo Bio-Diesel, No registered auto (just a bicycle.)

One Way Travel: Good: Never left U.S. without returning immediately after 7-14 day luxury cruise; Bad: Multiple “one way” flights out of the country while returning, presumably, via open-water swim.

Seating Preference: Good: Two adjoining - to fit extra large derriere; Bad: In cockpit, next to pilot.

Meal Ordered: Good: McDonalds’ Big Mac and "Freedom" Fries (supersized), 40 oz. Steak (extra rare), Gefilte Fish (farmed with dolphins); Bad: Vegetarian, Puppy steak, Chicken with extra bones, preferably sharpened.

Happy Traveling and good luck with your scores!

My Solution for Iraq

This week we learned that the bi-partisan (cough - cough) Iraq study group will report their findings next week. We also learned the Pentagon's new slogans for the next faze of the Iraq debacle as they floated - "Go long", "Go Big" or "Go Home" - which was recited countless times by the dutiful corporate media.

Now everyone who reads our blog knows that Seenos and I are quick to use sports analogies to make a point. However, we are just ordinary citizens trying to make people think. The men on the ISG are statesmen with years of foreign policy experience. Those at the Pentagon are career millitary professionals. Their solution should be bipartisan, thoughtful and complex. Instead it seems they may have boiled our national strategy to fix one of the most colossal foreign policy blunders in U.S. history into a two word slogan.

And how long did it take them to do it? 9 Months!

Then, President Bush announced on Thursday that he would not withdraw troops from Iraq no matter what his hand-picked Iraq Study Group suggests.

So after much deliberation, here is my solution to end the Iraq war - and it involves sending only one more troop into harms way.

Find the biggest female soldier we can and send her to Baghdad as soon as possible.

Because everyone knows................

It ain't over til the fat lady sings!

Bush's Legacy: An Alternative to the Think Tank!

After pondering George W. Bush’s plans to raise $500 million to build a library and think tank at SMU in order to “shape how history views Bush’s legacy,” I can’t help but wonder how this is going to help.

On the surface, I think Arianna has it right when she says that the donors need to be transparent, but really – how is a think tank going to help “polish” a Bush legacy which will consist of little more than failure in Iraq and a bleak economic future for all but the wealthiest Americans?

Here's a better idea that might actually work:

First of all, Bush should go ahead and raise the $500 million.

Then, he should take $499,995,000 of it and set up a trust fund to help the families of troops injured or killed in Iraq.

Finally, with the the other $5,000, he should use it to set up the George W. Bush Presidential Dunk Tank!



What else is he going to do when he is no longer President? Travel the World building good will toward America like Bill Clinton? Work on projects to house and feed the poor, like Jimmy Carter?

I don't think so!

At least this way, he can give the ordinary Americans who were hurt by his policies the chance to feel good again, if only for the time it takes to throw a couple of balls!

Also posted at Daily Kos.

What I Think the Iraq Study Group Will Find.

If you look at the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, what do you see? James Baker, a noted Bush family fixer; and Lee Hamilton, the same Democrat tasked with giving a “bipartisan” look to a 9-11 Commission that was determined to reach a politically acceptable, if not thorough, conclusion on what should be done in response to the terrorist threat.

Is there any reason to expect anything more with this group? I’ve heard lots of talk about how the ISG will serve as a vehicle for a change of course in Iraq, basically an excuse to give up “staying the course” without being seen as “cutting and running.” TPM has posted a good overview of the predominant assumptions about what the ISG will do. They mostly involve coming up with a miraculous new solution that will save Bush’s bacon.

So what can the Iraq Study Group recommend that will be of any benefit to the Bush presidency? Most experts see Iraq continuing to deteriorate, at least over the next few years, no matter what we do. So, for George W. Bush, who has to ride out the next two years of living with his failed policies, a miraculous solution will have to be political and not tactical.

Here is what I expect to happen.

Much like the 9-11 Commission carefully detailed preventative steps to head off future terrorist attacks, but without drawing any attention to the secret desires personal failures of the Bush administration that led to 9-11, the IRG will detail some strategic adjustments that US troops can perform in Iraq to minimize the violence over the remaining two years of the Bush presidency, presumably with the goal of ending US troop involvement “as soon as possible.”

This will serve several political purposes hidden behind the tactical sounding recommendations. It will validate, at least from Bush’s perspective, the decision to stay in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. It will allow him to continue looking forward and ignoring the lengthy string of blunders and lies that led us into war in the first place. If the Democrats push for a more rapid withdrawal, and are successful in that effort, he will be able to blame any short-term decline (that will most likely occur throughout the rest of his term in office) on the Democrats.

If he is successful in using the IRG report as justification to stay in Iraq rather than admit incompetence defeat, Bush will be able to pass on the responsibility for choosing to withdraw troops to his successor. In other words, if things go badly once troops are removed, he can claim it was because his successor didn’t stay long enough. If things go well, he can say it was because he followed the recommendations of the IRG and set the stage for a successful withdrawal of troops.

Bush has already gone on record as saying he believes we will be in Iraq beyond the end of his presidency. His recent call for “one last big push to win in Iraq” is yet another indication of his “run out the clock” strategy. He is going to make sure that when it comes to leaving the chaos created by his war, he’s not going to be the decider!

And neither is the Iraq Study Group!

Unfortunately for the troops who will continue to die or be injured in the meantime, the only miraculous solution that would be of benefit to them is one that gives no consideration to politics!

Meet the New Conservative Jon Stewart!

Apparently Fox has scoured the country to find the best conservative comedic talent available, and the here’s the guy they think will balance out the biting satire of The Daily Show by mocking the ridiculously hilarious blunders made by Democrats – like trying to raise the minimum wage, provide affordable health care to lower and middle class families, and stopping our troops from being needlessly killed in Iraq!

Sounds like quite a task, so Kurt Long must have a stellar resume to be trusted with such responsibility. I decided to check it out as posted at the website of his talent agency, Omnipop. Now Kurt Long may be a really funny guy, given the chance to work with good material, but nothing on his resume suggests that he’s ever been given that chance! Of the two major roles for which I was able to find a plot summary, the humor potential sounds a little sparse.

Soiree (Film)

On his 30th birthday, David tries to reconcile with his estranged wife Angela, but she brings another man to the party. In front of their friends, Angela informs her husband that she will have open affairs with other men throughout the remainder of their relationship. David murders his wife and goes to prison where he is forced to spend the rest of his days as a "cell bitch". Or does he?

I suppose I should note that Long did not play the lead role in the film, so I can only assume that he must have played David’s wacky prison sidekick!

Games Across America (Television)

Comedy reality series that travels the United States in search of our nation's oddest events and craziest competitions. Hosted by funny man Kurt Long, the series has been in production for almost 2 years and has covered everything from Beer Pong in Manhattan to Roller Derby in Texas.

OK, so Beer Pong sounds like a barrel of laughs, but Roller Derby? I guess it might have been one of our nation’s oddest and craziest competitions – if the show were airing in the early 70’s!

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find anything related to his lead roles in the films “Tightie Whities” or “The Lay Off.”

But then, I might just have been looking on the wrong websites!

Who's More Delusional? (The Sequel)

In an earlier post, I posed one version of this question.

Is it John Mark Karr, who thinks he accidentally killed JonBenet Ramsey despite negative DNA tests, and witnesses who insist he was 600 miles away at the time of the murder?

Or is it the President of the United States, who gave the following answer (with my emphasis) to the first question asked by Brian Williams in an “exclusive” interview from the streets of New Orleans?

I will tell you this, that when it's all said and done, the people down here know that I stood in Jackson Square, and I said we're gonna help you, and we delivered.

Today, I pose a similar question.



Is it OJ Simpson, who thinks it appropriate to publish a book entitled “If I Did It, Here's How It Happened” about two murders he still claims he did not commit?

Or is it the President of the United States, who made the following assertion from Vietnam, the site of a 15-year war that we never really won, about his war in Iraq.

We'll succeed unless we quit . . . The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it.

I’ve got more to say later about why the President is so determined to stay in Iraq, but I couldn’t resist asking this question again in the meantime.

Hey, That's Not Cool Dude!

On the eve of the big game between #1 Ohio State and #2 Michigan, I couldn’t help but notice this article about probably the most politically incorrect rock concert in history.



Sure, Bo Schembechler had maintained a sense of humor about the hardcore band, The Dead Schembechlers. But now that he has died, what was perhaps one of the great band names of all time is not so funny anymore. At least for a while! Of course, it is a moment that was destined to come sooner or later, and according to this description of Schembechler's medical history, the safe bet was sooner.

"It was probably not a heart attack; it just stopped working," Dr. Shukri David said. Schembechler had a heart attack on the eve of his first Rose Bowl in 1970 and another one in 1987. He had two quadruple heart-bypass operations, and doctors implanted a pacemaker to regulate his heartbeat after he became ill during a (radio)taping on Oct. 20.

So, unfortunately for The Dead Schembechlers, the band will have to carry the baggage of having a particularly un-cool name for a while. That is, unless they follow my suggestion, which is to temporarily rename the band, at least until Schembechler’s memory is suitably honored, and his body is laid to rest.

Perhaps they could go by something like:

The Dead Cheneys!

Al Franken Having Fun......d

Here is a great clip of Al Franken taking apart John Fund on HardBall. Enjoy!

Joe Lieberman's Current Extortion Scheme

Let me get this straight. First, Joe Lieberman assures Connecticut voters that his intention to caucus with the Democrats is a "closed issue." Then, he goes on Meet the Press to emphasize that he considers himself an Independent Democrat – with a capital “I,” and a capital “D” - and points out that when Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, he was allowed to keep his seniority and committee chair positions. Then, he reveals that he “would not rule out the possibility” of switching to the Republican Party!

Clearly, this is all part of a plan to extort his way into making sure that he loses absolutely nothing by being rejected by his own parties’ voters in the primary, and then flipping them the bird in a selfish attempt to retain his seat by appealing to Republicans.

To this strategy, I have only one piece of advice to the Democratic leadership.

DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH EXTORTIONISTS!

Really – who cares whether the “Independent Democrat” caucuses with you as long as he is going to vote with the Republicans whenever his “independence” tells him that another Bush rubber stamp is in order? The bottom line is that a “paper majority” in the Senate means nothing if the votes go the other way!

Realistically, legislation won’t be passed without the agreement of a strong Democratic majority in the House anyway, so even if Lieberman were to defect and give the majority back to the GOP, it would not mean that all is lost. In fact, such a move might even solidify the determination of voters to keep on surfing the current wave of GOP revulsion by voting for Democrats in 2008!

Besides, after what just happened to the six GOP incumbents who were just swept out of the Senate, how hard to you think it will be to pick off a few moderate Republican votes from those who are eyeing their own re-election bids in 2008? In other words, who needs Lieberman when his presence in the Democratic caucus may well be the equivalent of a football team allowing an opposing defender into their huddle?

SCREW THAT GUY!

Oh yeah, and as to Holy Joe’s pledge to push for the creation of a Federal Office of Public Integrity, I’m all for it! Why don’t we have them start with an investigation into the conflict of interest created when congressional spouses work as lobbyists?

Did California's Major Newspapers Bet Their Lives on Schwarzenegger's New Image?

After most of the major newspapers in California endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s re-election bid, it was a foregone conclusion that he would return for another term as Governor. Clearly, he is still such a media darling that editors were willing to overlook political flip-flops of the highest order, believing only the latest sweet nothings that Arnold decided to whisper in their ears.

Here’s a quick run-down of opinion from some of the major publications throughout the State:

Los Angeles Times:

In the last year, the Republican has formed relationships with legislative leaders that focused the usually fractious and often obstructive Democrats on a productive agenda. . . If he is re-elected, the governor says, "we're going to continue in a bipartisan way."

Sacramento Bee:

In a time when the nation is wracked by deep partisan divisions, he is the candidate most likely to lead California away from partisan warfare and into a future focused on entrepreneurship, education and opportunity.

San Francisco Chronicle:

The climate of cooperation in Sacramento can be traced directly to the conciliatory tone struck by Schwarzenegger on the night of last year's special-election debacle. . . . Schwarzenegger said the message from voters was "you fix it" -- by working with legislators -- in Sacramento. The most dramatic adjustment was to his attitude.

San Jose Mercury News:

Schwarzenegger's conversion involved process, not principles. He is an ambitious man who likes to win. He discovered that success as governor lies in being a collaborator, not a Terminator. We'd expect more of the same in a second term.

Clearly, all of these newspapers are betting that the real Schwarzenegger is the moderate, bipartisan, leader that emerged during the 2006 campaign season. Personally, I still think it is more likely that Arnold’s preferred agenda is the one promoted shortly after he assumed the Governor’s office in the first place! This was when he thought he could force his desires on political opponents through his personal popularity and the initiative process! The major media, on the other hand, seem to have accepted the idea that Arnold came into office and started with “Plan B,” but then later reverted to “Plan A!” If that assertion turns out to be wrong, there will be very little credibility left for these media outlets to sell.

Here’s what my local newspaper, to which I have subscribed for the last 17 years, had to say as they endorsed Schwarzenegger for another term:

The Schwarzenegger of 2006 has shown the moderate, problem- solving approach that made him popular in the first place.

Since he can’t run for another term, it will not matter to Arnold if all of these newspapers are wrong in anticipating more of the “Schwarzenegger of 2006.” However, if Schwarzenegger reverts back to his previous agenda of attacking working families and public employees - in favor of corporate interests - I hope it will matter to these newspapers!

If that happens, I will begin the process of expressing my disgust by cancelling my long-time subscription to my local newspaper - as their reward for choosing to enable another Schwarzenegger con job!

Photo of the Day

"Heck of a job Guys"

Oh George, Can We Measure the Drapes Now?

VOTE

EVERYONE VOTE!!!!



[Ed Note: I've been saving this image for the right moment, and somehow this seems like it - seenos]

An Open Letter to REI

[Ed. Note: This letter was e-mailed to REI on October 30, 2006. There is a response from REI indicating that their inclusion on the list was a mistake and that they have asked ABC Radio to remove them]

I have been a member of REI for many years, and have always considered your stores to be among my favorite shopping destinations. Your website was one of the first ones that I ever placed in my favorites list. I have owned Visa Card sponsored by REI for the last decade - so in addition to speaking highly of your company to my entire social network, I advertise for you every time I use my credit card! I greatly appreciate your selection of merchandise and the high level of enthusiasm and expertise among your employees.

In short, I have always viewed your organization as a model company in every respect.

However, I am deeply troubled at discovering your name on a list of advertisers, like Microsoft, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart, who have specifically requested that none of their commercials air during Air America programming!

I realize that you have a right to advertise where you choose, and frankly I don't hear a lot of your ads on any radio network - but if REI, in fact, took action to specifically avoid advertising on Air America, there can be no other interpretation of this action than as a political statement (since your products certainly seem to appeal as much to those on the liberal end of the spectrum as the conservative end, if not more so!)

Do you also restrict your ads from radio stations that air conservative programming?

As a long time member and supporter, I would like a response that assures me that I am not supporting a company that discriminates against radio programming that is consistent my political views.

Otherwise, I will have no choice but to put great stock in the fact that companies like Campmor and Sierra Trading Post do not appear on the same list!

Another FOB (Friend of Bush) Outed as a Hypocrite!

To borrow a phrase from the President, when the history of this election season is over, John Kerry’s botched joke “will be merely a comma!”

Looks like the most recent conservative scandal is fully capable of dominating media coverage over the next 5 days. Reverend Ted Haggard (almost rhymes with Swaggart) – an evangelical leader on a par with James Dobson in terms of White House access, and a gay basher of the highest order - has been accused of paying a "male escort" for sex for the last 3 years.

According to 9 News in Colorado, Haggard has stepped down as pastor of the New Life Megachurch, but is denying the charges. However, the accuser, Mike Jones, claims to have recorded phone calls and a letter to back up his story, and has agreed to take a lie detector test.

This article from Harper’s Magazine describes the full influence of Rev. Haggard, and includes the following revelation.

Pastor Ted, who talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday, is a handsome forty-eight-year-old Indianan, most comfortable in denim. He likes to say that his only disagreement with the President is automotive; Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas Pastor Ted loves his Chevy.

I guess you can add one more disagreement to the list, Pastor Ted, because it looks like you also drive a male escort with a full head of hair!



[Update] OK - so Pastor Ted isn't denying ALL the charges! I guess the lesson to be learned is that, when it comes to Republican scandals:

Today's Denial = Tomorrow's Confession.

Oh yeah, and I wonder what James Dobson has to say today!

Creepy Photo of the Day

Tony Snow is an Idiot!

Today in the White House press briefing Tony Snow continued to claim that John Kerry was insulting the troops as the the gathered media laughed out loud.

In one answer Snow showed just how stupid he is:

Snow :"Why doesn't Senator Kerry, rather than saying, I meant to put in the word, "us" -- and you try to put in "us" here, left out the word "us" -- and if you don't -- if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. Where does "us" fit in? You don't "us" get stuck? I don't understand. It just -- it doesn't scan here.

No you dumb F--K. "YOU DON"T GET US STUCK IN IRAQ"

And you used to call yourself a journalist.

Is anybody buying this crap?