If You’re a Californian, and You’re Stupid, Say “Aye” to Ed Rollins!

I was going to limit the title to “California Democrats” before realizing this was completely unnecessary, even though I’m really only targeting the majority who plan on voting to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

Apparently, the scheme to steal a large chunk of California’s electoral votes for the Republicans is now back, full steam ahead! Here’s a recent appeal from Ed Rollins for support for the newly re-packaged “California Counts” initiative posted on the conservative FlashReport blog.

According to his biography, Rollins is a former amateur boxing champion turned GOP political strategist. After reading his arguments in favor of this initiative, I can attest to the fact that he certainly thinks and writes like a boxer! Actually, there is something particularly fitting about the juxtaposition of the phrase “boxer turned GOP political strategist,” but I’ll leave that for another post!

I already did an extensive analysis of the arguments against this ridiculous measure, which included a breakdown of how the actual math affects the vast majority of California voters (as an aside, the post also includes my all time favorite accompanying image).

So here, I will just present a few Rollins gems followed by my comments:

Dear FlashReport Reader:

As you know as well as anyone, for the last several elections, no Presidential candidates of either party made an effort in California. They took our money but they did not use it to tell California voters about how they could best serve our great state or our great nation.

And they made a great effort to serve other states exactly how? With Swift Boat ads and threats that terrorists will kill us if we don’t vote Republican? No thanks, I’ll let them spend the money pestering other states!

Over 5.5 million votes were cast by Californians that HAD NO IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE 2004 ELECTION. In no other state did either candidate receive more votes than those cast in California. Furthermore, over $240 million was given by Californians and it was used to address issues in battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida not California!

Um, the “issues” being addressed in those battleground states, if I recall correctly, were that many votes had no impact on the outcome of the 2004 election, thanks to Republicans spending money to keep them from counting, and Democrats spending money fighting to count them!

This initiative is NOT about helping any one party or candidate and it is not about changing the system our founding fathers created for the success of our democracy. It simply makes sure that every vote cast in our state counts in the Electoral College.

What about Democrats living in Orange County whose votes won’t count if their district’s electoral vote goes to a Republican? Why don’t we just give every registered voter in the country their own electoral vote! That would be a lot of people who would have to attend the Electoral College on the voters’ behalf, and there may not be enough “non-voters” willing to do it, so we might have to hire some illegal immigrants!

For instance, in 1988, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis received 4.7million California votes but received ZERO electoral delegates from California. And in 2004, Republican nominee George Bush received over 5 1/2 million votes of Californians, but received ZERO electoral delegates from California.??? It has been over 30 years since presidential candidates have actively sought the votes of Californians. Without this reform initiative, they will take us for granted again in 2008.

OK! I’m convinced! I just can’t go on with the thought of being taken for granted by Michael Dukakis for another 20 years! Where do I sign the petition?

Top Ten Reasons Why Liberal Bloggers are More Vitriolic than Conservatives!

Think Progress explains how Karl Rove attacked liberal bloggers yesterday, and boy howdy, am I feeling the sting right about now!

“The Web has given angry and vitriolic people more of a voice in public discourse,” said Mr. Rove, who served as one of President Bush’s top strategists until he resigned this past summer, and is a noted technology nut.

“People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog,” Mr. Rove said during a speech about politics and the Web at the Willard InterContinental, a hotel just blocks from his former place of employment.

“I’m a fan of many blogs. I visit them frequently and I learn a lot from them,” Mr. Rove said. “But there also blogs written by angry kooks.”

He also claimed that liberals use more “bad words,” comparing sites like DailyKos and Democratic Underground to Townhall and FreeRepublic. The “netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion,” said Rove.

In response to Rove’s tirade against bloggers like me, I’ve put together my own list of the top ten reasons why liberal bloggers are more vitriolic than conservatives:

10. Most profanity learned after the fourth grade reading level!

9. Conservative angry kooks all too busy with their radio and TV shows!

8. No opportunities to let it out on the floor of the U.S. Senate!

7. More passion comes from actual beliefs than from Richard Mellon Scaife’s checkbook!

6. Some scientists say it’s just a natural cyclical rise in vitriol, not caused by human liberal bloggers!

5. Official Republican talking points pre-screened for swear words!

4. Conservatives just resting between Clinton presidencies!

3. Need to seem dangerous enough to keep Bill O’Reilly from “coming to your house!”

2. Bungled response to 9/11 changed everything!

And the top reason why liberal bloggers are more vitriolic than conservatives:

1. Conservatives prefer to get their “personal release” in public restrooms!

Torture is the Best We Can Hope For!

In defending their votes for Michael Mukasey - an otherwise seemingly respectable man who somehow deliberately refuses to label waterboarding as illegal torture - Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have made a clear statement about the standards to which they hold our country:

From Feinstein:

First and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales.

From Schumer:

Under this administration, (the) nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration.

In other words:

We should give President Bush everything he wants, because he could want something worse!

So tell me, Senators Feinstein and Schumer:

What could be worse than losing your rights of habeas corpus with a President who can declare you an enemy combatant and waterboard torture you without fear of prosecution, and who would like to give legal immunity from murder to the private mercenary army on his payroll?

Yeah, I suppose Feinstein and Schumer could be commended for providing enough oversight to protect the country from the equivalent of a President Jeffrey Dahmer, or a President John Wayne Gacy. So far, George Bush hasn’t been allowed to cook and eat his enemies and store their bones under the White House!

Nice job, Senators!

If Chauncey Gardiner Had Been An Warmonger!

In the 1979 movie, Being There, Peter Sellers plays a mentally-retarded gardener whose simple-minded platitudes about gardening, combined with behaviors learned from watching television, are so mistaken for homespun wisdom that he ends up being considered as a Presidential candidate.

Substitute brush cutting for gardening, and Neocon warnings about terrorism for television, and you pretty much have George W. Bush! Like Sellers’ character, Bush has the ability to live his life based on a few simple sayings that he applies to every situation. Among the simple life rules he appears to follow are:

• Jesus loves me and wants me to be rich
• Stand by those who say I’m great
• I’m the decider
• No taxes.

There are a few others, but certainly no more than his remaining countable digits (and probably even with his shoes on!)

Lately, the “No taxes” idea seems to be the one he’s applying to the SCHIP debate, as he staked out his most recent position:

"If they keep passing this legislation, I will keep vetoing it," Bush vowed, saying the latest version is even more expensive than the first, which he vetoed October 3.

(snip)

"I'm going to use my veto pen to prevent" Congress from raising taxes, the president promised.

He later enforced his desire to keep things simple, with the demand that Congress send him single-issue legislation:

"There are now reports that Congressional leaders may be considering combining the Veterans and Department of Defense appropriations bills, and then add a bloated labor, health and education spending bill to both of them," he said.

"Congress should pass each bill one at a time in a fiscally responsible manner," he said. Bush also urged Congress to send him a "clean defense appropriations bill and a war supplemental bill."

At this point, the Democrats should use Bush’s expectation of simplicity to their advantage, by saying the following:

Look, if we can’t afford to provide the medical care necessary to keep kids healthy long enough to pay off the debt for the Iraq war, then we have no choice but to “pay as we go!” Then, they should chop up the elements of funding the war and send them to the President one by one, each with an associated tax that will cover the cost in a fiscally responsible manner that won’t burden the kids whose health care we can’t afford.

Send him legislation that includes the estimated cost for Haliburton, along with a “Halliburton Tax,” and another with the estimated cost for Blackwater, along with a “Blackwater Tax.” They should send him legislation approving funds for a phased troop withdrawal, without a tax (since removal of troops will spare future generations the cost of extended military activity, so they will have it to pay for health care) , but include another separate bill for any costs associated with an ongoing military presence in Iraq, along with a “War tax.”

Then, sit back and let Bush be the Decider!

(hat tip to Swopa for reminding me of one of my favorite movies right at the time I was looking for an opening for this post)

The Ballad of Dick Cheney’s America

I recently had the opportunity to see a live performance by The Tiger Lillies, whose song, “The Crack of Doom,” is performed in the video above. They were quite brilliantly strange, and as I listened to them sing this song, all I could think of was Dick Cheney’s twisted view of the world and what it has done to the country.

They later evoked the entire Republican party when they sang “Hamster!” (click through and select "listen to this song" if you aren't easily offended!)

Jane Harman to Blogoshere: “Got a Better Idea?”

Obviously George W. Bush isn’t the only petulant, childish, simpleton running around the Capitol these days. In fact, he might not be any worse that what the Democrats have to offer! The following exchange recently took place on Daily Kos, beginning when Drational criticized some of the Democrats pushing hardest to accede to Bush’s demand for retroactive immunity for the Telecom industry, including Jane Harman (D-Capitulation).

Jane Harman was removed from her position on the HPSCI after the Congressional changes in November 2006, yet according to a WaPo article today, she is engineering a Democratic capitulation on retroactive immunity behind closed doors:

And as Democratic leaders push their own legislation to rein in the wiretapping program, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) has been quietly exploring avenues of compromise with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee. Centrist Democrats hope those talks can dovetail with the Senate intelligence committee's own bipartisan measure on surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Harman then responded with her own post on Daily Kos that included the following classy rebuttal:

What rubbish! For those like me who insist that the President’s domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority. That's why I'm working with Republicans. Got a better idea?

Naturally, this led Kagro X to not only rip her logic to shreds (including the highlight below), but opened the floodgate for hundreds of comments, many of which contained better ideas and a better understanding of how the whole “constitutional democracy” thing is supposed to work! (my emphasis)

In fact Rep. Harman appears to conclude that the Constitution will from this point forward forever be hostage to the necessity of a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, because that's what it will take to overcome the newly-minted version of the president's "inherent powers" that he has been permitted to accrue. The president can authorize anything he wants to, in the name of "national security," and the Congress will only be able to stop him by passing a law that says he's wrong, and overcoming his veto of it.

How can it be that the average pseudonymous progressive blogger or commenter (not that I consider Kagro X "average," by the way!) seems to have a better grasp of how the government is supposed to work than many of the people elected to run our country? And can we please, please, please replace Jane Harman with someone who “has a better idea?”

Which is More Frightening?

George Bush recently made the following, highly disturbing, statement:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Dick Cheney followed a few days later, with this one:

“The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences,” Mr. Cheney said, without specifying what those might be. “The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

This leads me to wonder!

If you are one of those other nations Dick Cheney says the United States is joining with, what would frighten you the most:

Iran having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon?

Or Dick Cheney having control of a whole bunch of actual nuclear weapons?

Any of our many international readers care to weigh in on that question?

If Elected, Hillary to “Give Back” Executive Power?

Sometimes you hear something you just can’t believe, no matter how much you want to believe it:

I think I'm going to have to review everything they've done, because I've been on the receiving end of that," she said. Ms Clinton stated it was "absolutely" conceivable that, as president, she would give up executive powers in the name of constitutional principle.

I guess that’s why her recent actions seem to be enabling a “surge” of executive power – so she can eventually follow Bush’s lead by reducing executive power to “pre-surge levels” and taking credit for a reduction that really isn’t?

Just a wild-arsed guess!

Happy Islamo (Fear-Mongering-to-Promote-American) Fascism Awareness Week!

After reading and hearing Josh Marshall’s commentary on this latest goofball effort to “rock the nation with the biggest conservative campus protest ever,” I noticed there was an affiliated noontime event at San Francisco State University, featuring former TV weatherman and current right-wing talker, Brian Sussman. Wondering how, exactly, the guy known for calling Barack Obama a “Halfrican” would provide a “wake up call” for the students at SFSU, I decided to jump on MUNI and go see for myself.

I arrived a bit late to find that there was an admission charge for non-students, so I chose not to contribute to what was essentially a fundraiser for the College Republicans - particularly since I would be compelled to join what appeared to be well more than half of the audience standing in silent protest with their backs to the speaker.

Undoubtedly, those willing to pay attention to Sussman’s speech heard enough to keep them scared shitless, and convinced that the best thing America can do to improve the lot of the poor, oppressed Muslim women is to start bombing Iran! Of course, all of the Muslim women I saw in attendance appeared to have proudly taken their place as part of the protest in back of the room!

As I sat on a bench near the entrance to the hall, eating a plate of Filipino food I had purchased from a table in front of the multicultural student activity center, I did get to watch a couple of guys enter the hall looking like the quintessential College Republican dorks they obviously were. I guess somebody had to show up to provide token applause to simulate the sound of students being rocked with a wake up call!


(You’ll have to settle for this visual approximation from the archives, as the light was too poor to get a decent shot with my Treo!)

A Rare Chance to Spar with a Conservative Critic!

It’s been a while since I got to debate with a genuine conservative commenter on this site, so I can’t pass up the chance to make sure his (anonymous) voice “sees the light of day,” along with a few points in response. Here is the completely unedited comment (to my post on Al Gore):

So what is your DU name? You sound like enough of a moonbat to be from Democratic Underground. Ypu want Gore to run AGAIN? You really do like the public ridicule of backing a loser like AlGore. Yeah I know this will never see the light of day. You libs always either moderate every single word of anyone that disagrees with you or edit their post in a lame attempt to make them look silly. Oh well, Democrats are not known for being very tolerant to other beliefs anyway.

OK. Here goes:

• Al Gore is 3-0 in presidential elections where he was on the ticket, so I didn’t have to edit your reference to him as a “loser” to make you look silly!

• Not only am I not a member of Democratic Underground, I’m not even a Democrat. I rarely visit DU, and I have never posted or commented there.

• I’m completely agnostic on Gore’s potential candidacy. I’ll vote for him against any of the current GOP loonies (and without plugging my nose like I would for Hillary), but even if Gore threw his hat in the ring, I might not vote for him in the Democratic primary (which my State allows for voters without a political party) – particularly if Obama ever decides to start drinking what Chris Dodd’s been drinking!

• I completely agree with you that “libs” are not very tolerant of those who believe in discriminating against gays, brown people, non-Christians, and children who can’t afford health insurance!

I Don’t Know if Gore Will Ever Enter the Race, But . . .

I’ve just got to make this preemptive strike anyway, particularly considering that he is now currently leading a Democracy For America “Pulse Poll” as a write-in candidate.

Remember the lunkheads who brought us this evil bit of deception?



Yeah, that was back in the “good old days,” when the worst thing about Al’s choice of running mates was that his name sounded like “Loserman!”

Well, if Al Gore does somehow end up as the Democratic nominee, you can bet that the same right-wing nut jobs will be looking for a way to slime Gore once again. It may be a more difficult task this time, but they will certainly seize on anything they can use to try to make him look bad.

If Al’s name rhymed with “Betray-Us,” you can bet someone would take the childish, name-calling approach to the new Nobel laureate, but I’m guessing they would again wait for him to name his running mate, who could quite likely end up being Barack Obama.

In fact, there’s already an organization formed to push the pairing as “The Dream Team,” as they sell T-shirts, buttons and bumper stickers promoting a Gore-Obama ticket. If their efforts prove to be prophetic, I can only guess what the anti-Gore psychotics will come up with to try to convince their weak-minded colleagues to fear a Gore presidency.

So I’m going to get there first:



If I end up seeing anyone trying to make a buck selling this logo, they are liable to get a little visit from Left-Over Security! That’s right. To borrow another phrase from Bill O’Reilly, try to slime the Dream Team with a mean-spirited, ugly lie like this logo, and Left-Over’s legal team will be “comin’ to your house! WE’RE COMIN’ TO YOUR HOUSE!!”

Disclaimer: I am actually aware of the fact that I probably can’t copyright a political slogan. However, if you do end up seeing some article about how “Joe Wing-Nut” came up with such a clever slogan (shown above) that it’s selling like hotcakes at church bazaars, Klan meetings, and corporate boardrooms, please send the author my way, so I can at least prove that these idiots are as predictable as, well, Republican incompetence!

Best Daily Trivia Fun Fact Ever!

Two nights ago, I rented and watched the movie, Death of a President, which tells the fictional story of a future assassination of GWB, and what might happen in its aftermath. It is a fascinating movie that I highly recommend. Focused primarily on the events before and after the shooting, the film is brilliantly edited to be extremely realistic without being gratuitous.

Also, it was not lost on me, as I watched the beginning of the movie, that the hypothetical date of the movie’s namesake event was today, October, 19, 2007!

I wonder if that made it into a Presidential Daily Briefing!

Republicans Hate the Sick Kids! OK, Now What?

Conservatives like to say that the United States has the best trained military in the world. I won’t argue with that characterization, and I will certainly say that they are much better trained to deal with their predicament in Iraq - than America’s sick, uninsured kids are in dealing with their afflictions!

So, the Republicans (and 2 Dems) chose to stand behind Bush’s veto of SCHIP, heading off health insurance for a large number of lower income children, all because our Jackass-in-Chief thinks it’s too expensive to provide the sick, untrained kids with the support they need to be safe!

Clearly, then, our highly trained military can deal with any inconvenience caused by Congress heading off any funding not directly related to bringing them home from Iraq! At least as well as the sick kids Bush and the Republicans were so eager to keep from having health care, right?

At this point, Congress should simply refuse to provide any more funding without an immediate phased withdrawal, and any time Bush whines that “the Democrats don’t want to provide the money needed to keep our troops safe,” Democrats should simply ask him this question:

Who is better able to handle a necessary restriction of funding: our highly trained military, or the sick kids you just cut off from being able to get health care?

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Also posted at Daily Kos

Scariest Halloween Decoration Ever!

My neighbor just decorated for Halloween.

If this doesn't scare you - Nothing will!

Who Do You Choose to Honor?

In the small town where I live, citizens got together and pooled a large number of small donations in order to put up a bronze statue of a local accordion player who founded a popular festival that still continues over 10 years after his death. The Festival, and the man we honored for starting it, both epitomize an eclectic, fun-loving, warm and humorous nature that, in many ways, defines the character of our town.

This is just one small, personal, example of how a decision to honor someone can speak volumes about what you stand for as a community or an organization. There are many others I could chronicle, but that is not my intention here.

The profound importance of choosing someone worthy of honor is a reason that I’m fascinated, and a little shocked, by the decision of Southern Methodist University to host the George W. Bush Presidential Library. Apparently, progress on the library is moving quickly, with the aid of some high profile Bush promoters apologists.

This is an institution of higher learning, with a stated commitment to “freedom of inquiry,” choosing to honor a President who not only doesn’t believe in science, but promotes policies detrimental to scientific knowledge and scientific research.

This is an institution touting a “focus on leadership,” choosing to honor a President who knowingly lied to start a war that has resulted in thousands of needless deaths of both American troops and Iraqi citizens, and who actively labeled those who questioned his policies as unpatriotic.

This is an institution with an open policy on “human rights,” choosing to honor a President who has deliberately eroded civil rights for Americans, and sanctioned the systematic abuse of others, in violation of some of the founding principles of our nation, and of international laws.

I didn’t really know much about SMU before – only that they were located somewhere near Dallas, TX, that their sports teams compete in the Conference USA, and that their mascot is a Mustang.

Now that I see who they are choosing to honor, I think I know how I will think of them in the future:



Image of accordion player from Michael Amsler of the North Bay Bohemian (formerly The Independent.)

Image of SMU Tee from my demented imagination (and perhaps soon to the Left-Over On-Line Store near you, or not.)

Some Media Expert!

For a guy who makes his living as a so-called “media critic,” Howard Kurtz seems a bit of a dunce when it comes to using the media to promote his new book, The Reality Show, which is billed as “a freewheeling, intimate account of life atop the media pyramid.”

When he appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Kurtz trotted out a laughably simple-minded attempt at praising the major network news organizations for their gallant efforts (after about four years of complicit cheerleading) to buck political pressure and show the violence actually occurring in Iraq!

A more detailed critique of his arguments is found here, but I want to highlight a story he told at the end of the interview (with my emphasis to simulate his tone of voice):

Here‘s another quick example for you; CBS‘s Lara Logan, who just won an Emmy, in fact, for her tough coverage in Iraq; she was asked by her CBS boss ifs she could find some lighter stories or some more positive stories from Iraq. She was actually asked to do a piece on whether female soldiers were keeping cyber-pets online. She emailed back saying, I would rather stick needles in my eyes than spend one second of my time on that story.

You can watch the full interview below, or simply take my word that he really thought he wowed Keith’s viewers with his dramatic punch line! OK, it was a good story. I’m not sure he proved much with it, but it was a good story – certainly one that most “non-media-insiders” wouldn’t have heard, and I figured, with six books to his credit, he’s probably got a million of ‘em!.


Howard Kurtz’ new book

So later that evening, I’m watching The Daily Show, and who turns up as a guest but Howard Kurtz? He gives a similar argument about the network news media to a skeptical John Stewart, before quickly changing the subject at the end so he can finish with a dramatic flourish that will close the deal on anyone wondering if they should run out and buy his book.

You can watch that flourish below, or simply take my word that it was the same exact Lara Logan story, practically verbatim and with the same practiced vocal inflection, that he told Keith Olbermann just a few hours earlier!



Now here’s my question: If you are presenting yourself as the Ultimate Media Insider, wouldn’t you be expected to know that many of the same people who watch Countdown would be tuning in the The Daily Show, so if you are making the rounds, you won’t get the same bang for your buck with the same “get a load of this” punch line?

Instead of looking like an “in-the-know” expert, Kurtz ended up looking like the guy who memorizes a single joke and then tells it to everyone he meets for the rest of his life no matter how many times they may have heard it . . . from him!

Any bets on whether he included the same story in his book?

The Party of Closeted Homophobes

Last week I suggested that the Democrats should put the Republicans on the spot over the Larry Craig situation by forcing them to vote on the issue of discrimination against (suspected) gay Republicans. It seemed like a perfect opportunity to both highlight Republican hypocrisy and show that the Democrats are willing to act with the empathy they accuse Republicans of lacking - toward a very confused and disturbed man!

Consequently, it was nice to see Howie Klein thinking along similar lines in this overview of the whole closeted homophobe scene that has become an enduring image of the Republican Party leading up to the 2008 elections.

The Republican Wives Club

Is it just me, or do the spouses of all three leading Democratic candidates seem smarter and more articulate than any of the actual leading Republican candidates? And do the spouses of the four main Republican candidates seem pretty much relegated to being seen and not heard?

While the Democratic spouses are substantially engaged in the respective campaigns, we rarely hear a peep out of Cindy McCain or Ann Romney (though both were involved enough to contribute their favorite recipes to their husbands’ campaign websites!)

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson’s website barely even mentions he has a wife, named Jeri – with an “I,” but not with her own biography. Apparently, she was simply born as Fred Thompson’s wife!

And Rudy Giuliani’s wife (Number 3), aside from interrupting his campaign speeches with calls to Rudy’s cell phone, seems to be kept as far from the actual campaign as possible, perhaps because of a reputation that led her to be called “The Princess Bride” in this article from Vanity Fair. As for her background, the article notes:

It seemed that she had gone to Pennsylvania State nursing school, as The New York Times once reported, but she had not. She completed two years of nursing school, but left hospital work before a year was up.

Not surprisingly, that doesn’t stop Giuliani from puffing up her credentials on his campaign website:

In 2006, Mrs. Giuliani was awarded New York University College of Nursing ™ “Humanitarian Award” in recognition of using her nursing identity for humanitarian work and charitable endeavors as well as for being a powerful voice that enhances the visibility of nursing and elevates the profession.

Sounds like Rudy thinks Mrs. Giuliani’s “nursing identity” is something akin to Clark Kent’s “reporter identity!”

I suppose, in some ways, mate selection can be seen as a metaphor for the difference between a Democratic and Republican administration. With a Democratic administration, you get people with intellect providing competent and articulate counsel to the President. With a Republican administration, you get people who may look good in a photo op, but serve only to stroke the President’s ego (or something!)

Larry Craig: Still Guilty, Still in the Senate, and Still “Not Gay!”

Apparently, Larry Craig is willing to take his chances that Mitch McConnell doesn’t really want an ethics investigation into the secret hidden sex lives of Republicans!

With his guilty plea to “disorderly conduct” upheld, Craig finds himself in the situation that as long as the Senate doesn’t investigate him, he really can’t be found any more guilty, and he probably can’t be any more embarrassed. So why not try to stick it out?

The Democrats should be so happy to have Craig remain as the current poster boy for Republican hypocrisy that they should, just for fun, propose legislation that would make harassing calls for resignation and job discrimination by removal from key committees based on suspected sexual orientation, qualify as hate crimes.

Of course, Larry Craig would probably vote against it!

Mitt Romney Is His Own (Not So) Secret Admirer!

Apparently, a nice head of hair and a strong jawline aren’t as much of a campaign asset as a fat wallet when it comes to the Mitt Romney campaign! To quote T-Bogg:

Romney has discovered that Republicans don't understand the finer points of tithing and so he is dipping into his private stash to keep up the illusion, much like sending himself flowers at work, that he is desirable.

I’ve long been fascinated with the way the mega-wealthy and mega-successful Romney always seems like kind of a putz, showing no noticeable intellect or genuine charm that would explain his rapid rise up the economic ladder; and which, in turn, has enabled him to buy his way onto the political ladder!

However, I think I understand now, after reading the amazing book, “Fooled by Randomness,” which could have included Romney on its cover! The opening sentence by one reviewer captures my epiphany about Romney:

In Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a professional trader and mathematics professor, examines what randomness means in business and in life and why human beings are so prone to mistake dumb luck for consummate skill.

In a particularly interesting observation, Taleb describes how people who consistently mistake their own good fortune for skill, while riding a wave of fortuitous circumstances and claiming credit for randomly occurring trends, tend to become prone to careless mistakes that, when fortunes change, cause them to “blow up” spectacularly!

“Burning” millions of his personal fortune on a hopeless Presidential run might not qualify as a complete blow up, but if Taleb’s theory holds, Romney is likely to attribute the loss to “bad luck,” rather than the fact that most voters don’t think he knows his ass from a hole in the ground! And, therefore, an even bigger Romney "blow up" will remain a good long-term bet!

Did James Inhofe Use the Same Loophole as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

In his recent appearance before students at Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drew much laughter for his announcement that there are no gays in Iran.

My first reaction, on hearing of Ahmadinejad’s statement, was to think back to the day when Oklahoma Senator James “Global Warming is a Hoax” Inhofe made a similar boast about "the entire recorded history of his family" on the floor of the United States Senate.

Now, from the UK Guardian, we find out how it is that Ahmadinejad can make such a statement. Apparently, in addition to the fact that homosexuality is punishable by death, Iran has widespread tolerance for transsexuals, leading many gays to seek gender reassignment surgery in order to fit their leader’s characterization of the country as “having no gays.”

So I couldn’t help but to revisit the family of Senator Inhofe, and wonder if he and Ahmadinejad were using the same rhetorical trick. I’ll let you decide, based on this photo I was able to dig up from a recent Inhofe Family Reunion:


(click to enlarge)

One More Time for the “House of Reprehensibles!”

So now I’ve been censured by the democratic-controlled House, as well as the democratic-controlled "Sin-nate" for "disrespectful" name altering. And on the same day the Democrats in the Senate brought us one step closer to a war in Iran, as they went along with Cheney’s pipe dream (AKA: Lieberman’s wet dream!)

At least there was one useful thing to be learned from the Democrats today:

Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, a veteran Democrat, recounted how he left the Republican Party during the era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., and said that lawmakers have an obligation to criticize their allies as well as their enemies when they go too far.

Thanks for the inspiration, Rep. Obey! I can now regale my friends and family with the story of how I left the Democratic Party during the era of Democrats enabling war crimes and censuring those who oppose them!

Of course, I still won’t be voting for Republicans any time soon, but I no longer consider myself someone trying to change the Democratic Party, of which I’ve been a member for all of my 28 voting years, from within!

Nor will I be flocking crawling to Ralph Nader! As a “decline-to-state” voter in California, I can still request a ballot that will allow me to vote in the Democratic Primary, if I feel there is a compelling candidate (or a really scary candidate!) on the list of Democrats. I can still contribute to individual candidates of any party, or any group (like MoveOn.org), if I feel they adequately represent my views.

Aside from that, the Democratic Party can sit on it and twirl remove me from their ranks! Anyone care to join me? Perhaps when “decline-to-state” voters outnumber the Democrats and Republicans, candidates in both parties will have to start listening to their constituents for a change!

Are the Presidential Candidates a Crystal Ball for the GOP?

Despite their many flaws, the current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls appear to be good for something! They may be acting as a bellwether for how the GOP will treat George W. Bush when he is no longer in office.

I’ve touched on this theme before, when I wrote about an expectation of increasing irrelevancy for the post-power Bush - despite Karl Rove’s behind the scene efforts to build him a legacy.

I’ve also heard the other side of the argument: that his daddy’s rich and powerful friends will take care of him. But I’m not so sure! These people became rich and powerful by being opportunistic. Will they still show the same support for Dubya when he no longer has the opportunity to keep enriching them with more wealth and power? I doubt it!

Is there any reason to think that a man barely suited to be the decider of what brush to cut, and having a popularity rating worse than O.J., will be of more benefit to a business arrangement than he is to a political campaign? Not likely!

At this point, I like to compare Bush to the trainer who is tolerated, and even liked, because he’s the one who currently feeds the bear! But when he’s no longer in a position to keep providing the food, and the bear gets hungry, he’s quite likely to end up being lunch!

What The Senate’s Recent “Censure” Means to Me!

As both a member of MoveOn.org, and a blogger who angrily posted the "General Betray-Us" moniker well before the MoveOn.org ad appeared in the NYT, it is quite a thing to know that I've been censured - by the same Senate that has, for nearly seven years, rubber stamped every illegal and immoral thing this President could dream up!

So, frankly, I don't give a damn about the "Sense of the Senate," because as a group, the Senate has repeatedly shown that it has no sense at all! As a group, it hasn't a shred of credibility on what is right or wrong for me or anyone else to say or do. None!

If I were running MoveOn.org, I would have immediately responded by taking out another full-page ad in the NYT, condemning the "U.S. SIN-ate" for complicity in war crimes!

Here's How Much the Public Has Turned Against the War

I'm deep in the sea of conspicuous consumption that is Las Vegas, and what do I find? A new line of shoes in one of the exclusive stores that all feature prominently displayed peace signs. It seems peace is now trendy among those who shop for $400 shoes!

Yeah, What He Said! (Almost!)

In a recent post, I offered a 3-paragraph summary of what the next President would do about Iraq if we were living in an ideal parallel universe. The next day, Barack Obama gave a great speech and, probably without even having had a chance to steal them from our site, basically included all of my major components.

Read the whole thing on Obama’s website if you haven’t already, but here a sampling (with my emphasis):

On the Moral Obligation to Clean Up Our Mess:

President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.

(Obama has been criticized by some on the Left for suggesting that he would leave troops in Iraq, rather than bringing them all home and letting the Iraqis deal with their own problems (including those we helped create.) Personally, I think those critics are a bit unrealistic, and that there is something to be said for Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule.” The key is to get those remaining troops enough help from our allies to keep them safe while actually making a difference in cleaning up the mess we’ve made.)

On Diplomacy:

We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.

(Unfortunately, although this seems like a “no brainer,” the Bush Administration has repeatedly shown that even “no brainers” can be ignored by those lacking both brains and compassion for other human beings. They have also shown that nations seeming to act without compassion are unlikely to be successful in their diplomatic efforts.)

On Punishing War Criminals:

Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart.

(While I’m glad Obama specifically mentioned war crimes in his speech, I think our eventual ability to engage in successful diplomatic efforts will require the World to know that those who engage in (or authorize) mass violence anywhere, will be brought to justice. That means Bush and Cheney, as well as Iraqi tribal leaders involved in the insurgency!)

The Gambler

There was recently a running discussion at Needlenose comparing the Bush/Petraeus effort to extend the Iraq occupation to the desperation of gamblers begging for more chips so they can stay at the table.

Fubar added the discussion of an interesting game that simulates market behavior during a bidding process and shows how players can be trapped by their own self-interest into making decisions that end up becoming increasingly detrimental, yet being unable to stop.

In the same spirit, and fitting my arrival yesterday evening for a week in Las Vegas, I offer another related analogy:

I also see Bush as a gambler, not sitting at a table but at a slot machine. He’s willing to keep throwing more and more silver dollars (soldiers’ lives) into the machine, thinking that he might eventually win back his rent money (future legacy), even as he is slowly losing everything he owns (the last 28 percent or so who approve of him.)

But the kicker is that this gambler is so deluded (stupid), that he refuses to notice that the machine he’s playing is so broken that the reels aren’t even spinning any more!

New England Patriots: The GOP of the NFL?

So it sounds like Karl Rove is working for the New England Patriots now that he’s left the White House!

I always thought something was fishy when the Patriots rose from obscurity to win the Super Bowl, behind an unsung rookie, Republican-poster-boy, quarterback, in the same year that we got stuck with the "Patriot" Act!

It just seemed a little too obvious, so now I’m not surprised to find out just what the Patriots are willing to do to keep winning:

This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell wrote in a letter to the Patriots.

This may be an insignificant, isolated event that has no affect on the future prospects for a Patriots season in which they are a huge favorite to win the Super Bowl. On the other hand, given their connection to the GOP (Belichick is also a Republican donor), it could also be the tip of a huge iceberg of deception that reaches from this incident all the way back to the secret, improper, and unethical influence on the NFL referees’ interpretation of the Tuck Rule!

I'm just sayin'

Bush Policy to Bequeath Huge Disaster to Successor

Via Digby, I found a couple of articles that really go hand in hand.

The first is an analysis of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony for what it reveals about Bush’s real goal in Iraq at this point:

The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.

The second is a brilliant discussion of what America’s response to 9/11, led by this President, says about us – and how low Bush’s policies have taken us as a nation:

Like a vibration that causes a bridge to collapse, the 9/11 attacks exposed grave weaknesses in our nation's defenses, our national institutions and ultimately our national character. Many more Americans have now died in a needless war in Iraq than were killed in the terror attacks, and tens of thousands more grievously wounded. Billions of dollars have been wasted. America's moral authority, more precious than gold, has been tarnished by torture and lies and the erosion of our liberties. The world despises us to an unprecedented degree. An entire country has been wrecked. The Middle East is ready to explode. And the threat of terrorism, which the war was intended to remove, is much greater than it was.

Clearly, Bush’s successor is going to have a monumentally difficult job - one that almost seems impossible to envision. Nevertheless, here’s my somewhat utopian suggestion on where to start:

On Day 1, announce that the invasion of Iraq was a horrible and immoral mistake, but because the American people enabled it, we have an obligation to the rest of the World to follow through in order to help bring some degree of safety and security to the Middle East and to the rest of the World. Announce that we can’t do it on our own, and that we need to engage our friends in helping to undo what we have created, for the benefit of all of us. Announce that we will immediately turn Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. over to the International Criminal Court at The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes - as a sign of good faith.

On Day 2, begin a major diplomatic effort to build a real coalition of nations united to fight terrorism throughout the world, starting in the Middle East (we could call it, say, the “United Nations.”) Perhaps, with the involvement of troops from many countries, in a model similar to the one used in the Balkans, we might actually be able to bring positive change to the region. If we can’t do it together, then the only option would be to pull out and focus, still in coordination with our partners, on containing the violence so that it doesn’t spread to the rest of the World.

On Days 3 through Infinity, be honest and gracious with those who contribute to the coalition, and be fair but firm in coordinating discipline for those who don’t. Hope that over time, our integrity and consistency will allow trust and admiration to replace scorn and derision from the partners we will need in order to keep the World safe!

Well, that, and ponies for everyone!

My Question for General Petraeus

General Petraeus had already stated that the surge has produced “mixed results.” In his testimony today, he clearly tried to emphasize the positives and downplay the negatives. That’s natural, I suppose, but as with any investment with mixed results, what really matters is the net gain or loss.

Before Petraeus even got started, Swopa zeroed in on the most important question that would not be asked during today’s testimony about balancing the bottom line of this war:

Was the essentially non-existent political progress in Iraq the last six months worth 700 American lives? What progress can you guarantee during the next six months that will be worth another several hundred American lives?

Here's another one as I take a different tack in trying to appeal to those who might take a more conservative traditional self-centered approach to defining the bottom line:

You have described "mixed results" during the last six months in Iraq. Considering both the positives and negatives, and based on the “net yield rate” in terms of improvement during that time, how many more years would you estimate that we will need to keep spending $177 million per day in order to reach our goals there?

Even if you are one of those people who views your own life as nothing but a race to accumulate the most and best investments, the fact is that the Iraq occupation is a loser from a pure investment point of view (unless, of course, you're a war profiteer!)

I mean, how long would you keep investing in a mutual fund hoping to reach your retirement goal if the net progress toward your goal after five years suggests that you may never be able to retire?

Can She Write?

I wrote an earlier post about the many books written by the Presidential candidates (or their ghost-writers.) In a way it’s good to know what kind of writers are vying for such a powerful position, because I figure someone who can put together a decent sentence, at the very least, is bright enough not to refer to the citizens of Australia as “Austrians!”

So I just received a fundraising letter from the Hillary for President Campaign, and, despite her bestselling book, I’m starting to have my doubts about her writing ability. For example, here are the first two paragraphs (with my emphasis on the phrases that would be ripped to shreds by any freshman English teacher):

Dear (Seenos),

The campaign for President has started earlier and has become far more intense faster than any one expected. Our campaign has been filled with excitement and energy, and we have made some amazing progress.

The importance of early supporters has never been greater. And that is why I am writing to you today to tell you how critical your active participation is in, what I believe is, one of the most important campaigns of our lives.

Now I’m being a little nit-picky, of course, but considering that this is the candidate who is widely considered to have the most prepared and professional campaign staff, and the one with the most experience and least potential for mis-steps, this doesn’t bode well!

The letter then goes on to discuss, in somewhat annoyingly repetitious detail, the fact that she really needs money soon because of the many early primaries in delegate-rich states -a “larger number of key states than we originally expected.” As if the first few mentions aren’t enough to drive the point home, she begins her wrap up by restating:

It will be incredibly expensive because there are so many big states holding their primaries in such a short period of time.

Too bad there aren’t a lot of five-year-olds with wads of spare money lying around to donate to Hillary's campaign!

And then, she goes for the closer:

I truly appreciate you taking the time to let me make as clear and compelling a case as possible for your active participation in our history-making campaign.

If I have persuaded you to support my campaign, I hope you will take the important step of demonstrating that support with a generous donation right now.

Well, at this point, Ms. Clinton, all you’ve done is made a clear and compelling case for me not to buy your book!

Larry Craig 2: Return of the Un-Gay! [Updated]

There’s certainly plenty of head scratching going on as people try to figure out the reasoning behind Larry Craig’s announcement that he may take back his resignation, after earlier announcing his intent to try to take back his guilty plea.

For my part, there is what I think is going on, and what I hope is going on:

I think he still intends to resign. However, he's probably been reminded by his attorneys that he made a mistake by resigning too quickly, giving up the small bit of leverage he had against the Senate Ethics Committee (by his threat to try to stick it out and turn the whole Senate into a circus!) My guess is that he was advised to use that leverage to head off any further investigation that might uncover new evidence against him. So far, the committee says they won’t call off the investigation. However, by hanging around rather than resigning, Craig can increase the pressure on them to do anything to get him to leave, including ending the investigation.

Realistically, at this point, I’ve got to think that Craig must be happy just to have his family still willing to buy his apparent charade. If he can cut off any further probes into his behavior (no pun intended), he can at least keep that part of his life intact.

As for overturning the guilty plea, I think this has the same hollow sound as O.J. Simpson vowing to “catch his wife’s killer!” Saying it keeps a tiny shred of doubt alive, so that he can have something to cling to during the rest of his life, but actually doing something about it is another story!

After listening to the tape of the arrest, there is no way he’s going to want to risk having to defend his actions in front of a jury of his peers. His own defense – that he panicked and agreed to a hasty guilty plea “to make it go away”- is a confession in itself! Clearly, the fact that he immediately knew the seriousness of the possible charges is an indication that the customs of “public bathroom cruising” were well known to him!

I mean, jeez, if I happened to be sitting in a stall tapping my foot to an imaginary I-Pod, and I accidently touched some guy’s foot near the edge of the stall, I would just apologize. If a hand holding a police badge appeared under the divider, my first reaction would probably be to ask him to explain exactly why in the World I should need to know that I was crapping next to a police officer!

Until I heard about Larry Craig, I wouldn’t have known: a) that I had done anything wrong, or b) that it might have had some sexual connotation. I certainly wouldn’t respond by saying “You solicited me” or “I don’t do those types of things because I’m not gay!”

On the other hand, what I hope is going on is something quite different. I would love to see Larry Craig try to clear his name at any cost, in defiance of Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP attack dogs who were so quick to turn on him.

By keeping the attention of the media, and the country, on his efforts to regain control of his reputation, he could turn the Republican Party, heading into the 2008 election season, into something very entertaining indeed.

The situation reminds me of the genre of movies where a protagonist spends the whole film trying to discern potential allies from those who are actually murderous, flesh-eating zombies – members of the Undead (who, of course, we know are actually dead!)

If Larry Craig is suspect, but continues to deny that he’s dead gay, then any of the Republicans are suspect too, even if we know they would deny that they are dead gay. The only way to know for sure is to always be ready to catch them feasting on human remains trolling for illicit sex in public bathrooms!

Could be a real thriller of a campaign season!

[Update] I don't usually get to gloat so soon (or ever, really), so I've got to add this new twist coming out today:

An ethics committee member, who spoke Thursday on background because of confidentiality rules, said it would be virtually impossible to conduct an investigation in a few weeks, and therefore the panel will not act if Craig resigns soon.

Small consolation though, because apparently my "hoped for" scenario ain't gonna happen!

How Stupid Would Californians Have to Be?

I started wondering when the residents of my state elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their Governor, but this poll on the recent proposal to split California’s electoral votes really has me worried:

The Field Poll found that 47 percent of registered voters back a change to California's system for electoral votes, with 35 percent opposed. Republicans generally support the change more than Democrats.

When pollsters explained the political implication that Democratic presidential candidates might lose some electoral votes under a proportional system, the numbers changed: 49 percent supported the change and 42 percent opposed it (my emphasis).

In-f**king-credible! You can argue for a national popular vote all you want, and I’ll be right there with you. But for any State with a clear majority of Democratic or Republican voters to consider a proposal like this, without having it apply equally to all other States, is patently ridiculous!

If you are a Californian who plans on voting Democratic in 2008, and you consider this a reasonable proposal, please consider the following “back of a napkin” analysis:

According to the most recent statistics, California has about 15.6 million registered voters and 55 electoral votes. That’s 285,000 voters per delegate. Currently, Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably this proposal would give those 19 delegates to the Republican candidate. That’s 19 x 285,000, or the approximate equivalent of 5.4 million votes.

If you are planning to vote Democratic in 2008, voting for this measure would potentially negate your vote, plus the votes of every other Democratic voter you have ever known, or will ever know, in your life! Hell, it would probably negate the votes of every Democratic voter you, or anyone else you know, will ever know in their lives! For most people, it would probably even go so far as to negate Kevin Bacon’s vote!

And the main argument presented in favor of the proposal – that it would increase California’s influence by encouraging candidates to campaign here? Absolute horseshit!!!

Consider that California currently has 55 electoral votes, and assume that under this proposal 19 of them would go to the Republican candidate, with the remaining 36 going to the Democratic candidate. If this measure were to pass, 19 Republican votes would cancel out 19 of the Democratic votes, leaving the state with the fifth largest economy in the world with the same electoral clout as the State of Michigan, which currently has 17 electoral votes; and exactly half of the electoral clout of the State of Texas, which currently has 34 electoral votes!

Any Democratic voter in California who even signs a petition to get this measure on the ballot deserves to be immediately lobotomized!

Not that I’m advocating lobotomies, mind you, because that would certainly increase the pool of Republican voters, and if this measure passes and the Republicans pick up another 6 congressional districts, California would be reduced to the electoral clout of the State of Utah!

The Owners’ Always Think They’re Cute!

Karl Rove has penned his expectations for the eventual legacy of George W. Bush.

But rather than quote Rove, I’ll simplify it all for you by substituting this quote from the owner of Elwood (pictured above):

Elwood, a two-year-old Chinese Crested and Chihuahua mix, has been crowned the world's ugliest dog, a distinction that delighted the mutt's owners.

"I think he's the cutest thing that ever lived," said Elwood's owner, Karen Quigley, a resident of Sewell, New Jersey.

Nothing more from Rove is necessary!

Craig Watch - Day 2

Senator Craig is STILL NOT GAY........................................YET!

Great Moments in Blog Advertising

One of the funny things about blogging is the fact that the medium allows placement of ads based on automated searches of content – usually specific text or links in the blog posts or comments. I’m not sure exactly how all of this works, but apparently these searches are not very good at judging the context of the links or phrases used to place the ads.

I’ve written a series of posts ripping Mitt Romney, including one where I mocked him for placing campaign ads on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where the audience most likely thinks him to be a complete phony, flip-flopping, idiot! Shortly thereafter, ads started popping up on Left-Over for the pro-Romney book, A Mormon in the White House: Ten Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. I’m sure our readers have those books flying off the shelves!

But here’s my favorite so far, captured in a screen grab from The Huffington Post, with headline coverage of the Larry Craig scandal, which has dominated the site for a couple of days. Take a look at the banner ad on top of the screen, and the alternating version which I’ve pasted on the bottom. Apparently, the high frequency of references to “leg moving and foot tapping” have gotten the attention of the Pharmaceutical Industry!


(click to enlarge)

Craig Watch - Day 1

Breaking!!! This just in - Senator Larry Craig is still not Gay.

Yesterday at his now infamous press conference Senator Larry Craig stated unequivocally that "he is not Gay - nor has he ever been gay". What he didn't rule out however, is becoming gay in the future.

So I have decided to count the days until Senator Craig becomes gay. How long do you think it will take?

The Party of Old White Guys

The generational shift away from the Dinosaur Party keeps building:

The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said.

Today, "on every single issue, Democrats are doing better with young people - no matter what the issue is," said Greenberg.

Catherine Brinkman, 28, of Foster City, who heads the California Young Republicans, said she hears from many of her Republican friends who say, " 'Look at our (presidential) candidates compared to the Democrats: They have Hillary, everyone knows her ... and you have this phenomenal (senator) out of Chicago, who is African American and energized.' "

The perception is that "we're still selling the same old white guys," Brinkman said.

I guess the “M.C. Rove” strategy for winning back young voters to the GOP wasn’t quite as brilliant as Karl thought it was!

Punxsutawney Alberto!

During a brief press conference this morning announcing his resignation, Alberto Gonzales emerged from his hole, saw the shadows of reporters wanting to ask him questions, and, like Punxsutawney Phil, immediately returned to his hole. Guess that means we get six more weeks of Summer!

(I realize that I'm mixing my small furry mammal metaphors here, but watching Gonzales literally sprint away from the press after his prepared statement made me want to honor the occasion with one more posting of the "Gonzo-weasel!")

What does “Legitimate Debate” Mean to You, Mr. Bush?

In your recent speech to the VFW, you chose to include this reference to Vietnam (with my emphasis):

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech.

(snip)

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left.

While you’ve received plenty of criticism over this comparison, including the validity of your assertion of “legitimate debate” about the value of American military presence in Vietnam, I’m willing to accept your premise for the time being, and agree that there is legitimate debate.

My question to you, Mr. Bush, is the following: Knowing what you know now - that there is legitimate debate – and if you were in a position to be the decider, would you immediately send troops to Vietnam, or would you have that legitimate debate first?

I ask this because after recently watching the 1994 video of your own Vice President describing, in great detail, the argument against invading Iraq, it is obvious that there was “legitimate debate” then too!

To refresh your memory, here’s Dick Cheney presenting the other side of a clearly very legitimate debate that could have taken place before you decided to invade Iraq!



In the presence of legitimate debate about the Vietnam War, you are asking us to keep an open mind about the ultimate value of our presence there. However, when it came to the rush to start calling yourself a “War President” by invading Iraq, “legitimate debate” was not only ignored, but labeled unpatriotic, by you and your minions!

So what, exactly, does legitimate debate mean to you, Mr. Bush? Your legacy is going to be that you ignored legitimate debate, and bumbled into the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of our country!

About that, there will be no legitimate debate!

Beauty is Only a Book Jacket Deep!

They say you can’t tell a book by its cover, but can you tell a candidate by his or her book’s cover?

That’s the question I had when I was reminded by The Huffington Post that just about every Democratic and Republican presidential candidate has released at least one, and often several, books in the last couple of years.

It was fresh in my mind after seeing John McCain on The Daily Show hawking his newest, Hard Call, and wondering how a guy, during a nearly decade-long presidential campaign, and having a supposedly full-time job in the U.S. Senate, finds time to write five books!



I got my answer when Jon Stewart held up the book so I could see the name of “co-author,” Mark Salter. Turns out Salter has “co-written” all of McCain’s books. Curious about what else Salter has written during his career, I checked on Amazon, where it appears that he may have made a career as a full-time McCain co-author, since there were no other titles to his credit (unless he’s also the Mark Salter who contributed to The Rough Guide to Poland!)

I then checked the covers of all of the other candidates’ books, and determined that, with the exception of Chris Dodd’s Letters From Nuremburg (co-written with Lary Bloom), and John Edwards’ Four Trials (co-written with John Auchard), none of the others lists a co-author (although John Edwards’ latest two books are anthologies that he either edited, or co-edited.) Overall, I was impressed. That’s quite a lot of literary achievement (at least by page volume, since I haven’t read them all) among the candidate pool.



And then I dug a little deeper into my good friend Mitt Romney’s book, Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership and the Olympic Games. Despite listing Mitt as the sole author on a cover featuring his manly mug covered by a dusting of snow (or perhaps dandruff), Turnaround was actually co-written by a Timothy Robinson, who according to this article, turns out to be Mitt’s nephew. Feeling a little sorry for Mr. Robinson at the lack of proper credit for his contribution to Romney’s vanity memoir, I looked him up on Amazon, hoping he had a substantial body of work in which his name actually appears on the cover.

Sure enough, in addition to co-writing the book for Romney, Timothy Robinson has penned a large number of children’s books on the Mormon faith, including The Nauvoo Temple Stone, which he described in a 2002 interview as an effort to help children grasp the significance of a reconstructed temple known as the “Mormon Mecca,” and about which he had this great comment which actually foreshadowed his later work on Romney’s book:

Well, I guess it’s kind of odd to have a stone be the central character in a book!

And another, whose title is in line to be recycled when Robinson eventually helps recount the story of Romney’s presidential campaign:



Of course, unlike his book about personal glory where he takes all the credit, when it comes to a book about failure, you can bet Mitt Romney will be quick to try to find a way to let someone else take his lickin’ for him!

The Petraeus Betray-Us Report.

For months, the President has been using General David Petraeus as a shield against criticism for his Iraq debacle. In this excellent column, Dan Froomkin cites the many times when Bush deferred to Petraeus as the one who would provide “an objective assessment” of progress on the ground, as Congress evaluates the surge in September.

Then, we found out that the tensly awaited “Petraeus Report” would be written by White House aides; and that the White House, despite its denials, had been pushing to limit Petraeus’ report to Congress to a “private briefing.”

Now, today, we learned that Petraeus will address Congress to answer questions about the report he won’t be allowed to write, on September 11, 2007 (no small irony there!)

Frankly, I won’t be surprised if, come September 11th, what Congress gets is nothing but a cardboard cutout of General Petraeus, with the flapping lips of a White House flunky, answering questions through a hole where his mouth should be!



Artist's Approximation