A Mad Democrat

Lack of Posts

2006-04-03T14:42:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not posting, particularly when there's plenty to discuss.

I am currently in the midst of changing jobs and conducting an out of state move. The Mad Democrat will retun in a couple of weeks.

Thank you for your patience.

Shocking and Imprtant

2006-03-16T07:07:00.000-08:00

I've recently been reading Take It Back by James Carville and Paul Begala, after seeing the pair in an interview on television.

This book is very important for any Democrat who wants to make significant and meaningful change to read. It goes case by case, outlining lie after lie, smear after smear, smarmy tactic after smarmy tactic the Republicans have employed.

And, to give strength, it outlines ways to fight back - something the Dems haven't been doing.

The premise behind the book is giving Democrats a spinal transplant.

Be sure to read it....it is important stuff.

Head in the ground

2006-03-09T20:12:00.000-08:00

Our president doesn't believe the premise that Iraq is heading toward a civil war.

Nor does our secretary of state.

Nor does our secretary of defense.

Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Pace actually said things are going really really well -- though he wouldn't put a smiley face on Iraq.

Someone needs to give these people a swift kick in the ass -- maybe that would cause them to yank their heads out of the ground and get a fucking dose of reality.

Iranian Sabre-rattling

2006-03-08T07:38:00.000-08:00

The Iranian problem surfaces every few years...No doubt, they want nuclear weapons.

It was a problem a couple years ago when President Bush decided to commit significant financial and military resources to a war in which there were no weapons of mass destruction and no connection to terrorist organizations. Through his bull-headed insistence to invade Iraq, Bush has put the United States in a very difficult position -- having to deal with someone who wants to be a nuclear power and probably wants to harm us, but having to deal with them without the full might of the severely stretched U.S. military.

Some people try to portray Bush as being strong in foreign relations, but Iran is another case demonstrating how misguided and incompetent his foreign policies are.

Thanks to Bush, we've lost the support and respect of a goodly number of countries. Our military is stretched thin, thanks in large part to a war that probably didn't need to be fought -- and his lack of planning in Iraq is about to plunge the nation into civil war.

Meanwhile, the very top terrorists -- the ones who orchestrated an attack on the U.S. -- continue to walk free.

Thanks to Bush, our nation's safety is compromised and we now might have to face a nuclear Iran.

A dismal failure

2006-03-06T06:02:00.000-08:00

Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard and contributor to Fox News wrote a book called Rebel In Chief. In his book, he argues that President Bush is, among other things, one of the greatest American presidents.

I can't say anything against the book, as I've not read it. However, a recent BookTV appearance got me to thinking about a few things -- namely, what have we seen from the federal government under Bush's leadership, which Barnes calls visionary, and refers to Bush as action-oriented and a president who leads.

Here are just a few of Bush's accomplishments.

• He went to war on faulty, cherry-picked intelligence, duping the Congress and the American people into thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now, his argument is the ruthless dictator is gone. If that is the criteria, when will we invade Burma? North Korea? Syria? And a host of other nations?

• Under the Bush leadership, our nation's budget surplus, handed to him by President Clinton, quickly became our largest debt in history and continues to grow at an amazing rate.

• With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, earmarks have increased from 4,000 under Clinton to over 14,000.

• There was no plan for post-war Iraq. The result? There has been no post-war Iraq, and now the nation is on the verge of Civil War.

• Bush's approach to foreign policy has likely contributed to anti-American governments being VOTED into office, including in Palestine, Venezuala, Bolivia and elsewhere.

• The conservative, moral Republicans, under Bush's leadership, has become corrupt and embroiled in scandal at every turn.

• Wiretapping. Illegal. And our president doesn't even care.

• Ports. He didn't even know about this deal until he read it in the newspaper. May or may not be a bad deal, but the man should've been more involved. Besides, port security is a big joke.

• Katrina. He knew the levees were going to break before the storm hit. He was briefed on what was happening. Yet he did nothing but praise an unqualified joke of a director whom he appointed for bungling the entire operation.

• In the aftermath of Katrina, gas prices skyrocketed. We must all do our part! Except for Bush's butt-boys in big oil. Exxon posted record profits!!!!!

• This White House has attempted to operate in secret more than any other. However, this should be no surprise as it is the way Bush governed Texas. Not only in secret, but as governor, he ordered more documents sealed than any governor in U.S. history.

I could go on, but why bother?

More Port Security

2006-03-02T06:36:00.000-08:00

Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports on the planet, inspects 100% of all containers coming into its ports.

Surely the U.S. can do this! Currently only 5% of containers are inspected.

One good thing about the port security deal is that a very serious flaw in Homeland Security -- port security -- has been brought to the forefront. Maybe now, someone will do something to make the ports more secure.

More inadequate response

2006-03-02T06:23:00.000-08:00

An AP story has revealed that the Bush administration, and in particular President Bush and Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.

Video footage and transcripts from an August 29 briefing -- the afternoon before Katrina hit, shows a much different FEMA Director Michael Brown informing Bush and Chertoff that there weren't enough disaster teams. He also advised them of the severity of the storm, and told the pair the levees would not withstand the storm. He also expressed concerns about the Superdome's ability to withstand a Category 5 storm, and the ability to get help to those there if New Orleans did indeed flood.

The tapes show Bush and Chertoff to be disengaged and unconcerned. Bush asked no questions during the final briefing but said, "We are fully prepared."

Obviously he was wrong.

The tape shows a President who is further disconnected from reality. A president who doesn't listen to experts -- independent hurricane experts even told Bush New Orleans could not withstand Katrina -- and has his own skewed sense of reality.

Now, I'm wondering about the Brown crucifiction. Without a doubt, his background did not prepare him for the job Bush gave him -- FEMA director. However, video taped footage now reveals that he was trying to warn the President and the Homeland Security Director, that he was begging for the resources he felt would be needing, and that his warnings were not heeded.

Port concerns

2006-02-27T13:46:00.000-08:00

An intelligence report by the United States Coast Guard -- one of the few Homeland Security agencies who seem to know what the hell they are doing -- raises security concerns about DP World's administration of six U.S. ports.

Considering that President Bush first learned of this deal through a newspaper article, one wonders about the effectiveness of our domestic security programs.

The deal may be OK. The company may be honorable and not create any security gaffs, but more study is needed before turning the administration of the commercial districts of these ports over. Particularly in light of Coast Guard concerns.

DP World is owned by United Arab Emrites, a staunch ally of the United States. However, concerns have been raised due to the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for port security.

From the AP:
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Away

2006-02-27T13:45:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the lack of posts the last few days. I've been out of town and will now return to my usual level of frustration.

Turning ports over to who?

2006-02-21T13:11:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush has stated he'll use the veto to block any legislation that would prevent Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arabl Emrites, from taking control of six U.S. ports. The company would take control of these ports when it completes it purchase of the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Democrats and Republicans alike are in an uproar as are the Repbulican governors of New York and New Jersey.

The U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of all port security, but allowing this company to run the ports presents a very real danger to the United States.

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

This brings into grave doubts the Bush administration's claims that the UAE is a strong ally in the war on terror.

Bush's threat to veto any legislation -- which would be intended to protect U.S. ports -- is foolhardy at best and down right irresponsible at worst.

It is a scary situation that the President would put our ports directly in the hands of those who may cavort with the enemy.

Tipping point

2006-02-19T11:51:00.000-08:00

Certain Republicans and pundits are missing the point.

Cheney's shooting incident is no longer about an accidental shooting while hunting. Certainly, that does happen.

It is about an administration that has spent over a billion bucks on public relations and failed miserably in the way it handles information on any level -- from intelligence that leads us into war to informing the media the Vice President shot someone.

Bush's disdain for the media has resulted in the American people being more distrustful of government, and it is responsible for the highly caustic relationship between the White House Press Corps and Pillsbury Doughboy Scott McClellen.

We shouldn't be surprised by Bush's efforts to keep things secret. All you have to do is look at his term at Governor of Texas and see this is a man who simply doesn't want anyone to know what the government he leads is doing.

No Comment

2006-02-17T07:08:00.000-08:00

The last couple of days, Fox News has done something a little ironic.

They've filled a great deal of time criticizing the media for the coverage and concerns over the Cheney shooting flap -- and the mishandling of information that followed.

If this has no bearing and importance on policy, etc., as Bill O'Reilly literally screamed, maybe Fox News should let it drop.

To me the story wasn't about a hunting accident. It was a hunting accident. Happens quite often, though not with the Vice President of the United States.

The story was about an epidemic of the administration doing their best to hide information and dodge questions.

I'm not sure if there's a journalism or public relations degree with a concentration in "no comment," but if there is, I guarantee that Scott McClellen is an esteemed professor.

The number of things the White House will not comment on is astounding.

When they do speak out, such as Vice President Cheney finally did, they do so in a safe forum -- on Fox News, where they will be lobbed softballs in a safe comfy environment. But even there, they withold, side step and hemm and haw through their answers.

This is certainly the most closed administration of my lifetime.

Dear Mrs. Bush

2006-02-14T06:51:00.000-08:00

Dear Mrs. Bush,

I read with interest your dismissal of Senator Hillary Clinton's criticism of your husband's administration, and your statement that she should show some empathy for those in the White House.

Mrs. Bush, I have very high regard for you. In Texas, you've done more for literacy and reading than anyone. The Texas Book Festival, which you founded, is an incredible event that salutes the written word. You deserve a "day" named after you for your efforts in that regard.

But your comments about Sen. Clinton are off base.

Normally, I'd agree that a former first lady should show some sympathy, but Clinton is no typical former first lady. She is a United States Senator and has the responsibility to call things like she sees it.

Furthermore, I'd encourage you to think twice before you start throwing shots at any Clinton. The Bush family's prowress at politics pales in comparison to the Clintons, and Sen. Clinton would eat you for breakfast, and still be ready to take on your husband.

Think before you speak on political issues Mrs. Bush, for in this matter, you are simply out of your league.

A rare defense

2006-02-13T13:37:00.000-08:00

Those who are critical of the White House and its "response" to Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident are missing the boat.

It is rare that I'll stand up for the blunder twins, Bush and Cheney, however, in a press conference today, members of the media lost sight of the important issues when questioning Scott McClellan about the incident.

Yes, it looks bad when a private citizen -- in this case the ranch owner -- alerts the media to an accident such as this. However, I think someone with even as cold a heart as Cheney probably had something else on his mind when he accidentally shot a close friend.

I know I would.

The media is missing out on an excellent opportunity to discuss hunting safety in a public venue.

A quick Google search showed the difficulty in obtaining accurate data about the numbers of people killed and injured in hunting accidents. Certainly, Hunters Education Courses, offered nationally, have done a great job at reducing these numbers.

Still, and I'm not a hunter, an opportunity was missed.

And the media, already underfire from the White House and its public relations firm Fox News, looked stupid as they attacked the Pillsbury Doughboy in today's conference.

Wiretapping/Eavesdropping

2006-02-13T11:57:00.000-08:00

The debate over this issue continues.

What is interesting is that nobody is disputing that such a program is needed or is valuable. Democrats and Republicans alike agree on that point.

What Republicans don't seem to understand is that the manner in which the program is being conducted -- not the program itself -- is being attacked.

It is absurd to me that the GOP can't say -- "Hey, the Dems have a problem with this. Heck, some Republicans have a problem with this. And half the American people have a problem here. Maybe we should at least take a look at this issue."

I could make this whole thing go away easily.

Form an independent, bi-partisan committee to look into this issue and the broader issue of domestic spying as it relates to terrorism. Let them study the matter and come up with suggestions, though frankly the FISA court has proven time and again to be fast and effective.

The closed-mindedness of the Republican Party is stupifying. They hear "We support the program but are concerned about the process under which it proceeded" and they think you want to do away with the program.

They don't listen to the critics who MAY have a good point. They don't see, much less consider, that there may be multiple points of views and valid opinions. And it never occured to them that many issues, particularly those in areas where we've never tread before, may not be black and white. Gray doesn't exist in the GOP vocabulary.

Instead they continue to stick their fingers in their ears and play the "we're right and you're wrong" game, following right in the footseps of the leader of the GOP.

Brownie spills it

2006-02-11T08:20:00.000-08:00

Katrina was a disaster marred by poor response at all levels.

However, the White House's claims of not knowing the levees had breached, nor knowing how bad it was, is subject to question now.

According to the AP:
Former federal disaster chief Michael Brown, the face of the government's listless response to Hurricane Katrina, said Friday he told top Bush officials the day the storm howled ashore of massive flooding in New Orleans and warned "we were realizing our worst nightmare."

More defiant than defensive, Brown told senators he dealt directly with White House officials the day of the Aug. 29 storm, including chief of staff Andrew Card and deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin.

The incompetence of the response is astounding, though. It starts right from the beginning with the President hiring Brown for this job -- one he was clearly unqualified to do. Brown's ascertions that the Department of Homeland Security may or may not be true. The Coast Guard, which performed and repsonded admirably during and after Katrina, is part of DHS.

However, I can fully understand Brown's accusation that Homeland Security keeps its focus on anti-terrorism and not on natural disasters.

What is clear is that the Bush administration, before and during Katrina, kept and ostrich-like head-in-the-hole mentality.

Former Republican Congressman and conservative political pundit Joseph Scarbrough is even more damning of his indictment of Bush. In a talk on C-SPAN's Book-TV, he said Bush aides had a debate on who would be the one to interrupt his vacation and tell him how bad things really were. Scarbrough said they had to put together a DVD compilation of television coverage to get the point across that he needed to do something.

As time goes on, I become more and more convinced we are under the leadership of one of the most inept and out-of-touch administrations in memory.

What the fuck is going on?!?

2006-02-10T06:50:00.000-08:00

According to the Associated Press, Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury yesterday that his "superiors" "authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq."

Considering that Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, that substantially limits the numbers of "superiors" he reports to.

I don't always agree with Sen. Edward Kennedy -- he's a bit of a polarizing figure to be a lead Democrat. However, he is absolutely correct with his comment about this matter. These charges, if true, represent a new low in the already sordid case of partisan interests being placed above national security. The vice president's vindictiveness in defending the misguided war in Iraq is obvious. If he used classified information to defend it, he should be prepared to take full responsibility."

The fact that Libby is claiming superiors authorized the leak is very disheartening and continues to cast further doubt into the honesty and integrity of the current administration.

Democrats need to realize there is more

2006-02-09T06:47:00.000-08:00

I was reading a story yesterday that Sen. Hillary Clinton was being attacked by a number of people within her own party. Why? Because of a $10,000 donation to a Democrat who is running against Rick Santorum.

Here's the problem. The Democrat who received the donation is pro-life.

One of my biggest problems with my fellow Democrats is they seem to have a narrow focus at times.

Look at the Alito hearings. The majority of the focus was on two things: abortion and presidential power. And if we hadn't had the recent wiretapping scandal, it would have focused on abortion.

Don't get me wrong, abortion is an extremely important issue and is often a key difference between Democrats and Republicans.

However, Democrats can gain valuable ground by not letting one issue divide them, and by developing platforms in other areas that are as strong as their pro-abortion stance.

Surely this is a GOP joke

2006-02-09T06:43:00.000-08:00

From the AP:

"Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay, forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing Wednesday as GOP leaders rewarded him with a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay, R-Texas, also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. The subcommittee also has responsibility over NASA — a top priority for DeLay, since the Johnson Space Center is located in his Houston-area district."

Why are they rewarding this guy? He's scum, a leech, who has illegally used money and crawled in bed with Abramoff.

Here's the best part. The seat on the appropriations committee opened because, from the AP:
"DeLay was able to rejoin the powerful Appropriations panel — he was a member until becoming majority leader in 2003 — because of a vacancy created after the resignation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham pleaded guilty in November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes for government business and other favors."

A guilty Republican taking the seat vacated by a guilty Republican. Now that's a Grand Old Party!

Boehner the Boner

2006-02-07T06:05:00.000-08:00

Rep. John Boehner, the new house majority leader, thinks he can reform Congress.

Yes, this is the same man who passed checks from lobbyists to Congressman on the floor of the House.

He is also number 10 among Congressmen in terms of privately funded trips. He opposes limiting such trips and why not? He's taken nearly 40 privately funded trips overseas since 2000.

According to the AP:
"PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign spending, says that 638 members of Congress made 6,689 trips in the 2000-2005 period, receiving just under $20 million. The top foreign destinations were Israel, Mexico, Germany and China.

By comparison, the government spent some $7.7 million in that period to send just House members overseas as official congressional delegations. At least that much also was on trips by lawmaker's staffs."

Granted, Congressmen do need to meet with people and often will need to travel. However, to allow private organizations pay for the travel questions the trip's service to taxpayers and the nation.

Boehner's pitiful responses to Tim Russert on Meet the Press showed nothing more than one Republican leader who has exploited the system and has no intention of changing things.

Afterall, reform would stop him from doing the things he does.

More Budget

2006-02-07T06:04:00.000-08:00

From the AP, not everyone is happy with the Bush $4.77 trillion budget.

From the AP:
But many Republicans were equally sharp in their reservations about the $2.77 trillion spending blueprint the administration unveiled on Monday.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., called Bush's proposed cuts in education and health "scandalous" while Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the extent of the administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.

Given the level of congressional frustration, administration witnesses, led by Treasury Secretary John Snow, were expected to face a tough sales job before various congressional committees on Tuesday.

Bush's spending blueprint for the 2007 budget year that begins Oct. 1 would provide large increases for the military and homeland security but would trim spending in the one-sixth of the budget that covers the rest of discretionary spending. Nine Cabinet agencies would see outright reductions with the biggest percentage cuts occurring in the departments of Transportation, Justice and Agriculture.

In addition to strict limits on most discretionary, non-security spending in the budget, Bush sought drastic cuts or total elimination on 141 programs that would produce savings of nearly $15 billion in 2007.

The targeted programs included 42 in the area of education ranging from drug-free schools to federal support for the arts, technology and parent-resource centers.

Those proposed cuts were coming at a time when the administration is seeking more spending to train 70,000 high school math and science teachers as part of Bush's new American Competitiveness Initiative designed to relieve anxiety about the country's ability to compete with emerging economic powers such as China and India.

Even previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health were not immune from the budget knife with overall funding essentially frozen and many individual programs seeing budget cuts. That brought objections from groups ranging from the American Heart Association to the American Diabetes Association.

Robert A. Rizza, president for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association, said Bush's proposed cuts in diabetes research and prevention "would weaken the federal resources needed to fight this national epidemic."

What is the man thinking????

Ah, the Bush Budget

2006-02-06T12:23:00.000-08:00

President Bush has proposed his budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1.

Bush's budget is $2.77 trillion and in the finest tradition of the Republican fiscal conservatives, it will add another $100 billion to the deficit, driving the nation's debt up to $423 billion.

The defense budget is a record $439.3 billion, which in my view is fine, given the needs to revamp our military. However, what I do have a problem with is the simple fact that the budget DOES NOT include the tens of billions estimated to fight the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration plans to ask for that money later.

Bush is proposing various cuts, but what is he cutting?
-Community policing programs
-Programs that fight violence against women
-Vocational education (aren't we trying to become more competitive?)

He's also proposing cuts to medicare, which provides health care coverage for the elderly and poor. He wants to supplement this with health savings accounts, but how do the poor get these established? His cuts in medicare will total $36 billion over the next several years.

Bush has proposed cuts in aid to our nation's farmers.

I am glad he is trying to cut some things, but disagree with what he wants to cut. The man needs a reality check about what it means to serve the people and re-evaluate his budget cuts -- and get serious about it.

With 14,000 earmarks, pork galore, and out of control spending in other areas, I'm sure the President could do better.

Reform?

2006-02-03T06:20:00.000-08:00

The headline of the AP story is: GOP Hope Boehner Will Quell Ethics Scandal.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, has replaced Tom Delay as house majority leader and the Republicans hope he's the one that can "reform" things.

Do we really need Boehner's form of reform?

As already reported on this blog, and quoted from Chris Wallace and Fox News transcripts:

"In 1995, you passed checks from tobacco lobbyists to other congressmen on the House floor while lawmakers were considering ending a tobacco subsidy. Since 2000, special interests have paid for 31 trips that you've taken. And in 2004, the student loan giant, the Sallie Mae Corporation, threw a fund-raising party for you while they were at the same time lobbying the House Education Committee you chair."

Truly, his own record reveals that we'll face more of the same.

No reform for the wicked.

There's a better way

2006-02-03T06:14:00.000-08:00

The theme of the Democrats' response to the State of the Union was "There's a better way." The response was given by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

Here's the problem. There is a better way, and there was a better way for Democrats to respond than to repeat a million times "there's a better way."

Where is the specific strategy? Where are the strong ideas, the true alternatives? If they have any, Democrats haven't put them out yet.

Please, Democrats, don't say there's a better way, SHOW us a better way!

Bush's State of the Union

2006-02-01T08:24:00.000-08:00

Last night was the State of the Union.

It was filled with more cheerleading for the war, the blatant and disgusting use of a dead soldier's family for applause, and a weak defense for bad decisions made.

It isn't that Bush is without some good ideas. Immigration reforms and fuel alternatives are excellent ideas. However, even in the few cases where he has a good idea, he offers no solutions.

The greater problems are thus.

1) The languishing war on terror.
The diversion that was Iraq has turned into a U.S. created haven for terrorists. American soldiers and Iraqis continue to die daily. So why not try Congressman Murtha's idea? Pull out most troops, leaving a 20,000-30,000 rapid deployment force nearby. Nothing else has worked.

Plus, Murtha's plan would allow us to have the strength to deal with other problems we face, such as other developing fronts in the war on terror, Iran and North Korea.

In regards to defense, our President is delusional. Forces are doing multiple rotations in Iraq, and the Iraqi contingent is heavily depending on reserves and National Guard, which Bush is proposing to reduce in number.

2) U.S. leadership in the World.
Leadership is not being bossy. Bush is bossy. Think about the following and how it applies to our relationship with the rest of the world under Bush.

The boss and the Leader:

The boss drives people,
the Leader coaches them.

The boss depends on authority,
the Leader good will.

The boss inspires fear,
the Leader inspires enthusiasm.

The boss says: “I”,
the Leader says: “We”

The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown;
The Leader fixes the breakdown.

The boss says: “Go”,
The Leader says “Let’s go!”

- H. Gordon Selfridge

3) The Economy.
Yes, Bush has created 4 million jobs, but we have the same number of jobs now that we had in 1995.

Furthermore, we are wracking up a national debt -- debt owned by China, Japan, Germany and others -- at a record pace. The ENTIRE war on terror is being paid for by loans.

He talks about not wanting to burden our grandchildren, but he's burdening them with a crushing debt that will be impossible to pay off.

4) Entitlements.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Something must be done about these programs and there are many options. It is time for Bush to provide some creative thinking to come up with solutions that ease their impact on the budget without cutting these necessary services.

Things that were interestingly absent from the State of the Union:
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Officials leaking the names of spies
• The horrid federal response to Katrina
• Staggering debt
• Outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas
• Unfunded federal mandates local government must pay for.

And the fact that many of the things he tried to take credit for -- record low crime, record low welfare, etc., started under the Clinton administration.

His state of the union was full of hot air and offered little hope for the next three years.

1776

2006-01-29T17:45:00.000-08:00

A reading of the book 1776 would do George W. Bush some good.

He likens the terrorists we face as some enormous enemy that is on the verge of destroying us. It is a scare tactic. Yes, we are in danger from terrorists and others, but let us put things in perspective.

In 1775, King George of England made a decision...to crush the American revolution.

That same year, General George Washington had Boston surrounded. There were some 20,000 British troops there. Washington had 14,000 and most of those were not professional soldiers. They were rag-tag, undisciplined and untrained.

To make matters worse, British ships were on the way with reinforcements -- an armada of 400 ships. It gets better. Enlistments in the Continental Army were set to expire at the end of 1775 and Washington had no clue how many soldiers he'd have going into 1776. That number of 14,000 would drop to 9,000 before growing again.

The point is there is no period in American history in which our nation was in greater danger. In the year that followed, our troops suffered defeat after defeat and had to sneak across the Delaware River in the middle of the night to stay alive. It was the closest, most critical moment in our nation's history.

Today, we are beset by dangers. Some of these, such as the leftist, anti-American regimes that have been elected into office in Latin America are due to the bullying by President Bush. Likewise for the alienation of our European allies.

And yes, terrorists pose a threat. We must remain ever vigilant and on our guard against their evil.

However, we must also remember in the late 1700s a group of people put it all on the line to form an independent nation. Who knows how many Americans would've been executed as treasonous if we had lost that war.

They risked all for a reason. For civil liberties and a way of life. I think our president has forgotten that.

Petulance and arrogance

2006-01-25T14:40:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush just completed a three day sweep of speeches trying to stem mounting criticism for his domestic spying program.

Like a petulent child, he keeps screaming his version of "mine" over and over with the chant "I'm keeping America safe."

Bull shit.

The man has insolently and indignantly broken the law and said he's going to continue doing so.

He even tried to bad mouth the courageous person who leaked his illicit activity, a person who should be a true hero.

If the President took the time to read and use that brain of his, he'd understand that he INCREASED risk to Americans by going into Iraq, a country that posed no immenint danger, had no weapons of mass destruction and no connection to Al Qaeda prior to the invasion.

If he took time to read, he'd realize that the bi-partisan 911 Commission has ruled unwaveringly that we have failed to secure America against a further terrorist attack.

If he listened to anyone but his closest mis-advisors, he'd realize he has alienated true allies, including Arabs, who could help us win this war against terror.

There are many things he can do to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans, to keep us safe. Domestic spying is one. But it is law that you must get a warrant in this country, and it is a law designed to protect us from those who threaten our civil liberties. To protect us from people like Bush.

Those members of Congress who are sitting idly by, either in dumb support of, or indifference to, this matter are guilty of allowing the very values of our nation deteriorate thanks to a man who wants increased power for himself. The should be ashamed of themselves for letting things get this far.

Track the terrorists down. Even in the U.S. Spy on them! But get the warrant!!!! That's the law.

Bush and his supporters, including GOP butt-boy Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, are trying to defend and redefine the matter. The Attorney General! The chief law enforcement officer of the United States is trying to defend the breaking of a law, a violation of the Constitution.

Bush's arrogance, short-sightedness and disregard for those laws he finds inconvenient are further endangering this nation, driving us down a path toward disaster.

He needs a wake up call. Or better yet, the spoiled child needs to be taken over his daddy's knee and get yanked back in line. For this is what we are -- A nation led by an arrogant, immature, stubborn reactionary with utter disdain for the very rights our forefathers fled England, and fought Endland -- the most powerful nation on the planet at that time -- to have.

And remember what Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Government Waste

2006-01-22T13:37:00.000-08:00

On Sunday's Meet the Press, some figures from a Wall Street Journal column were shown. These figures were provided by the independent organization Citizens Against Government Waste.

The opinion piece was written by Rep. John Shadegg, R-AZ, and a candidate for House Majority Leader.

Consider...
In 1994, Republicans promised to control government spending and clean up Washington. They then won the majority in the House and Senate and have controlled Congress since. Also, they've been in the White House for five years.

Total federal spending has grown 33% since the "more fiscally responsible" GOP took control.

In 1995 there were 1,439 earmarks. In 2005, nearly 14,000.

Every year, the Republican Congress adopts a budget and every year it exceeds the budget.

So, where is this fiscal leadership the Republicans are so well-known for?

Visit www.cagw.org. It contains a plethora of information on government waste.

Candidates for House Leadership

2006-01-18T11:11:00.000-08:00

Fox News Sunday interviewed the three candidates for House Majority Leader this past Sunday.

In a break from it's usual questioning of Repbulicans, Fox actually had some tough accusations -- maybe it was because there was no Democrat to pick up.

Read this, copies from the transcripts from Fox's web site with Chris Wallace questioning the candidates.

REP. ROY BLUNT, R-MO, ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
WALLACE: All right. Now that Tom DeLay has stepped down, Republicans are saying — and you just said a moment ago that you have to show that you're the party of reform. You have to show that to voters. But some question whether you are the man to do that.

Let's take a look. In 2002, you tried to insert language into the Homeland Security Act to help Philip Morris tobacco while you were dating that company's lobbyist. Since 1999 you've received at least $429,000 in campaign contributions from lobbyists. And your campaign committees paid $485,000 to a firm linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Are you the one to clean up the House?

BLUNT: Well, I'm pretty sure that last figure is absolutely not accurate. But in terms of cleaning up the House, you know, the fact is that I have set or met the highest standards in the history of the Congress on that wall of separation between people who are in your family and the work they do.

My wife works for Philip Morris. She really works for Kraft Foods, which is part of that company now. She doesn't lobby anybody in the House of Representatives. That's about as strict a standard as you can get. It's the strictest that's ever been set by anybody.

In terms of that legislation that you mentioned in whatever year it was, that's since been passed by both houses of the Congress. It was good legislation. I wasn't trying to slip anything in. The New York Times is the only paper that's ever actually got that story right when they pointed out a letter from the majority leader at the time, Dick Armey, who said the leaders were working on this and we all worked together.

This was not something I was trying to do on my own. It was good legislation, since been passed by both houses. It was the right thing to do. We decided collectively it wasn't the right moment to do it. The sinister part about that story was somehow I was trying to slip that in. It just was not true. Look at the New York Times. They got the story right. The Washington Post got the story wrong.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, R-OHIO
WALLACE: All right. As we mentioned, lobbying reform is one of the big issues in this race and a big challenge for the Republican Party between now and November. And while we mentioned that Congressman Blunt has some baggage from the past, frankly, so do you, sir. Let's take a look at that.

In 1995, you passed checks from tobacco lobbyists to other congressmen on the House floor while lawmakers were considering ending a tobacco subsidy. Since 2000, special interests have paid for 31 trips that you've taken. And in 2004, the student loan giant, the Sallie Mae Corporation, threw a fund-raising party for you while they were at the same time lobbying the House Education Committee you chair.

Same question I asked Congressman Blunt, are you the right man to clean up the House?

BOEHNER: Chris, in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, if you'll recall, I led an effort to help close the House Bank, close the House Post Office scandal, expose the dine and dash practices in the House, and worked to make Congress live under the same laws as all other Americans.

I've been in the middle of this reform effort for a long time. The checks on the floor was a big mistake, and I regret it. But I worked hard to change the rules of the House to prohibit this practice in the future. I've got a long record of being — of reforming Congress, and I think we need more reforms to make sure that there's transparency in the relationship between those who lobby us and members themselves.

REP. JOHN SHADEGG, R-AZ
WALLACE: Congressman Shadegg, we've been talking about your two rivals' history with lobbyists. Frankly, you have a history, too, and let's put that up on the screen, if we can.

You've returned $6,900 in campaign contributions from sources connected to Jack Abramoff. You held fund-raisers at sporting events in suites provided by an Abramoff associate. And in 2002 you wrote to the interior secretary taking a position that benefited Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.

Question, are you the man to clean up the House?

SHADEGG: Well, my record is dramatically different, quite frankly, than theirs. That number for me is a fraction of what it is for either one of them. But I never took a dime from Jack Abramoff.

What happened in my instance was there was one individual who happened to have previously worked for the House who came to me and proposed each of those events. I had no idea that Jack Abramoff was involved in any way, shape or form. And more importantly, the minute I discovered last year, in December, that there were links to Mr. Abramoff, long before he was indicted, I returned all of that money either to the tribes that were involved or gave it away to charities with regard to the money that came from Abramoff's associates.

Neither of my opponents have returned all of that money. And indeed, you know, I believe my record in terms of the level of taint that's there is dramatically different from either of them.

You can draw your own conclusion about whether things will actually be "reformed."

Justification and the law

2006-01-17T07:17:00.000-08:00

I took an online poll recently regarding the surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens.

It's first question was very interesting...without considering legality of this incident, do you think the President was justified in wiretapping phones.

Hmmm. Well, I have to answer yes to that question. If there are American citizens who are talking with the enemy, we should know and we should spy on them.

Of course the second question asked if he needed a court-issued warrant to do so, and naturally the answer is yes.

It seems that Bush is the type of president who, when he feels something should be done, he goes and does it, without regard for the law, process, reputation of the United States, etc.

This is a prime example.

Yes, there are people in this country, citizens and non-citizens, who need to be spied upon. But there is a legal mechanism in place to do so. And more than anyone else out there, the President of the United States should uphold that legal mechanism.

Iraq

2006-01-15T07:25:00.000-08:00

Paul Bremmer appeared on Meet the Press Sunday morning. I think he demonstrated many of the problems of Iraq and this administration.

First, his favorite answer to Tim Russert's questioning was avoidance. Russert repeatedly showed discrepancies and direct contradictions to Bremmer's statements in his books, memos and interviews.

Second, Bremmer demonstrated that the United States did not know:
•Where the weapons of mass destruction were.
•The extent or impact of looting.
•The extent of the insurgency

He made it clear that the United States simply did not know enough about Iraq before we went in. Of course, he denied any such thing.

At one point though, he actually said You don't go in and disagree with the President, and he hinted to not being honest with the American people when he said, You tell the President one thing, and the American people something else.

The entire statement is just bothersome to me.

It's just a joke

2006-01-13T06:02:00.000-08:00

Judge Alito will get nominated, no problem

How do I know this? I can count. In the Senate there are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 Independent who tends to vote with the Democrats.

That's not the joke. These confirmation hearings of the Judicial Committee are the joke.

These hearings, like the Judge Roberts hearings, are not about finding out if a person is qualified, and perhaps learning a little about his judicial philosophies -- which is what they should be about.

They are about two things -- grandstanding for your constituency and trying to get the guy to screw up -- or not screw up. And the Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans.

I watched some of both confirmation hearings and I came away with a far better understanding of what the Senators on the committee felt the judge should be -- but not so much what the nominee himself felt.

The Democrats will attack, lambast and accuse to the point that Alito's wife is driven from the hearings in tears. And that is shameful.

The Republicans pat the man on the head, sing his praises and ask no questions with any depth. And that is shameful.

The whole process is a big joke.

A couple of funnies...

2006-01-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

I was at a drug store last night and picked up a couple of birthday cards.

One had a photo of the president on the front with the caption, "President of the United States, Commander in Chief, and Leader of the Free World." Open it up and it says "Doesn't that make you feel better about getting older?"

The second again had a picture of the president and a caption that said, "I'm taking a moment away from education reform to ask you this question." Open it up. "Is you having a good birthday."

Gave me a laugh.

Alito

2006-01-10T12:58:00.000-08:00

The hearings have begun.

Sammuel Alito is an experienced jurist with a good deal of knowledge of Constitutional law. Certainly, if you exclude ideology, he is more than qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

However, Alito is just another decision that Bush didn't think out fully. And that could result in a windfall for Democrats.

With the Harriet Meyers debacle, Bush nominated someone with no experience. With Alito, he nominated someone with plenty of experience and who fulfills Bush's vow to appoint conservative judges.

However, it is Alito's experience that may hurt the GOP.

You see, Alito has written, judged and spoken on the issue of Roe vs Wade and abortion. It is clear he is a pro-lifer. That's fine and dandy -- people should believe what they want. But do Repbulicans no realize that another pro-life judge is going to hurt them when it comes to women's votes?

Another area is Alito has expressed support for a strong executive branch. We already have an executive branch that is breaking the law with illegal wiretaps, holding prisoners without charging them, operating secret prisons and doing a number of other nefarious activities.

Surely the proponents of civil liberties are concerned...and surely that will cost them votes.

I believe Bush will get what he wants -- a court that is decidedly conservative. He'll make good on his campaign promise. But at what price? He may be shocked at what voters think of his decisions.

Finally got it figured out

2006-01-09T06:32:00.000-08:00

I have sat here for several years watching the Bush administration take on more and more executive power unchecked, growing more and more untrustworthy and more and more out of touch with the American people.

I have watch someone who reminds me way too much of a spoiled child who MUST get his way or ELSE.

I disagree with many policies of the Bush administration, especially when it comes to Iraq, which I contend was originally not part of the war on terror, and on the economy.

But the thing that bothers me about the whole situation in Washington nailed me this weekend.

On Sept. 11, 2001 we were attacked by terrorists. In the time that followed, Americans were angry, scared, and on edge.

I think the Bush administration took advantage of that to get the things they wanted. I think they took advantage of us and our emotional reaction to the 911 attacks.

And that's just wrong.

Look at what all happened. The Patriot Act passed with no dissent and hardly any discussion, and certainly without any consideration of our civil liberties. War in Iraq was authorized. Horrible intelligence was allowed to be used to make decisions that would get thousands of Americans killed. Secret prisons. Holding prisoners without charging them. No warrants.

Unlimited Executive Power.

Bush got it by preying on people who were scared.

That is just wrong. That is NOT what the United States is about -- not that Bush would understand that.

A response

2006-01-09T06:28:00.000-08:00

About a week after the domestic spying story broke -- I wanted to wait and hear all sides -- I wrote to both of my U.S. Senators, one of whom is also Majority Leader Bill Frist.

In my letter I expressed concern about the matter, reminded the Senator of the reason for checks and balances, and stated that I support an investigation into the matter. I concluded by encouraging more congressional oversight of the White House.

Here's his response which came in via e-mail late last week:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our homeland security. It is an honor to serve you as Majority Leader in the United States Senate and a privilege to respond to your concerns.

As a Senator, I regard communication with concerned citizens like yourself as one of my highest priorities. A representative body that is out of touch with its constituents cannot function effectively. With your help, we can ensure that Congress remains well-informed and accountable for its actions.

A deliberate attack on the United States and our continued war on terror requires all of us to reassess how America will confront new threats to freedom and democracy in the United States and around the globe. We must continue to explore and analyze new ways to protect and defend American citizens and interests while maintaining our precious freedoms.

I appreciate having your thoughts concerning the important balance that should be struck between security and liberty. Please rest assured that I am committed to safeguarding our liberties as the United States Senate considers new measures to protect our homeland.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate

I appreciate his response, though I feel the letter is a blow off. Just thought I'd share.

More proof he's out of touch

2006-01-07T20:16:00.000-08:00

There is yet more proof that President Bush is out of touch.

An IPSOS poll shows that 56% of Americans want a court order for spying.

Bush disagrees but finally, Congress is challenging him. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who chairs the judicial committee, is promising a investigation this year. Other Republicans are upset too.

Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries.

On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued.

The NSA's activity "may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," the 44-page memo said.

It is yet another piece of proof that the president does not care about the desires of the majority of Americans and will continute to do whatever he wishes.

Questions concerning the economy

2006-01-06T12:41:00.000-08:00

There are many indicators that the economy is going well, however, one of the major indicators still concerns me: our rampant national debt.

One of the things the GOP campaigned on is their ability to control spending and offer a fiscally responsible government. Compared to what?

When President Clinton left office, he gave this nation a surplus. President Bush and the Republican controlled congress have squandered that and run up an alarming debt.

Just as with personal finances, when one is deeply in debt, and that debt is rising, one is not in a good financial position.

If the president wants us to truly have a strong economy, he absolutely must get spending under control and begin paying down the debt. Maybe he can call Clinton for help on this one.

Bye bye Jack

2006-01-03T10:55:00.000-08:00

So, dear old Jack Abramoff, a Republican sweetheart and lobbyist, has pleaded guilty to what? Federal charges for conspiracy commit fraud, tax evasion and mail fraud. He could go to jail for up to 30 years.

What's more, there's concern about what's next. Abramoff has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors on an investigation that could implicate as many as 20 congressmen and/or their aides.

It is rumored he's named Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, as one who has "received gifts." Also investigators are looking into Abramoff's involvement, and trips, with Rep. Tom Delay, the embattled congressman from Texas, who of course, has done nothing wrong.

I seem to remember the GOP campaigning on their honesty and their bringing values back into government.

To paraphrase a now-infamous Bush quote -- You doing a heck of a job, Republicans!

Comes to mind

2005-12-27T07:00:00.000-08:00

Just a few quotes that come to mind these days.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."
-- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-- James Madison in The Federalist

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin, Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q. XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 2:163

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:445

The problem as I see it

2005-12-26T15:09:00.000-08:00

I've been giving some thought to this deal about domestic spying without warrants. Here's what's wrong with it.

The president says he does it to protect us from terrorists.

Well, these constraints, things like getting warrants, exist to protect us from government.

Bush seems to have forgotten that.

No warrants is first. Then it is a short step to arresting someone and holding them but not charging them. Not allowing them legal representation. Secret prisons. Torture.

Starting to sound familiar?

It should. All these things are going on at the hands of the Americans and with the OK of the President.

And what's worse is that folks are standing aside and protecting the Republican party and the Adminstration at the expense of the very things the United States stands for.

The War On Terror

2005-12-21T07:12:00.000-08:00

President Bush cites the war on terror and protecting American lives as his reason for, well, everything, from invading Iraq to illegally spying on U.S. citizens.

What is he really doing, though?

Iraq
At one time Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He was reigned in by what was essentially an 8-year air war waged by President Bill Clinton. However, Bush and company said he posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. We still have found NO proof that he had WMD when we invaded or that he intended to invade the U.S.

Bush will argue that Hussein wanted to get WMD, but who doesn't? Iran, Syria, North Korea and plenty others want them, yet each of these nation's are treated differently than Iraq. Why?

9/11 Commission
The 9/11 Commission went on television and said when it comes to the report, the United States earned more "F's" than "A's". They talked of homeland security funds being used to air condition garbage trucks and buy body armor for dogs.

They said, "God help us if there is another terrorist attack."

Why is the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission Report so much different than Bush's proclamation that we are safer? Has Bush even read the report?

Domestic Spying
The problem isn't that the man spied. The problem is he did it illegally. And his defense of his actions is, as Sen. Kerry said, "lame."

He did it illegally and there was a legal mechanism in place for him to do what he wanted to do. Already, one judge from the special court has resigned.

Not only is Bush not protecting us, but he's tearing down our civil liberties in the process. Way to go!

More on the president's illegal activity

2005-12-20T10:13:00.000-08:00

The President claims that the congressional leadership was fully vetted on the NSA's secret domestic spying program -- engaged in illegally without proper warrants. At the time they were notified, Congress leaders were required by law to keep their mouths shut -- a law they obeyed.

Now, the White House is falling prey to a Congress that can speak, since the story has gone public.

Several leaders say they expressed their reservations to the White House.

Check out this link for a hand written note from Sen. John D. Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senat Intelligence committee:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/051219rockefeller.pdf

Others, including former Sen. Dashelle, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid have all said pertinent parts of the program were excluded from their briefings and/or they expressed strong concernes for the program.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has promised hearings in the matter.

The President said the person who leaked the story to the New York Times engaged in a "shameful act."

I'm sorry, but the shameful act is that of the president who has blatantly broken the law and has stated he will do so again.

He is a criminal and Congress must exercise its oversight of this White House.

Illegal

2005-12-18T05:31:00.000-08:00

The President now admits to secretly spying on those in the U.S. and says he'll continue to do so.

This is simply an illegal activity. The President is breaking the law.

When it comes to U.S. citizens, there are laws that require warrants be obtained.

Even for non-citizens, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set up a special court where by the federal government can obtain warrants to conduct surveillance on those in the U.S. suspected of engaging in, or aiding, terrorism.

Why is the President unwilling to follow the laws of the country, the laws he is sworn to uphold?

This is a serious matter and one that deserves and demands the attention of Congress. After all, if Congress can impeach President Clinton for getting a blow job from a fat woman and then lying about it, surely this is worthy of action.

Total disregard

2005-12-17T07:20:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush has showed further disdain for, and a willingness to set aside, the Constitution of the United States of America in the latest scandal -- that he authorized wire taps and other survellance without a warrant.

Foreigners are one thing, but he authorized this on United States citizens as well. This is most appalling.

The United States Constitution is designed to protect all citizens. It establishes rights for all citizens, not a select few. Warrants are required for a reason -- to ensure that you are not arbitrarily targeting someone without due cause. And that argument can now be made in light of the fact that it has now surfaced that the White House is keeping files on anti-war protesters.

Through his secret CIA prisons and his bullying attitude toward other nations, Bush successfully alienated the U.S. from many allies.

Now he is proving that his administration cannot be trusted by Americans -- the people he is sworn to protect.

And what about his oath, the one where we swears to defend the Constitution? Obviously that does not apply to him!

Circumventing the law to spy on our citizens. Keeping secret files on those who disagree with you and your policies. This smacks heavily of McCarthyism, or better yet, totalitarianism.

President George W. Bush is further proving himself to be a disgrace to this nation and to the office he holds.

The need for open records.

2005-12-15T14:02:00.000-08:00

House Democrats are calling for a an investigation into big oil, when the executives of five companies said they did not think they participated in Vice President Cheney's that issued a report outlining the White House's energy policy in May, 2001.

The problem is it seems that several oil companies, who would have a definite bias and self-serving interest were involved. However, the Vice President refuses to release the names of private companies that were on a task force recommending public policy.

That is just plain wrong and another indication that the Bush administration would much rather not be questions, and therefore would rather do things "in the dark." How can the public know what's going on? This is exactly why "Sunshine" laws were passed all over the nation.

Both Bush and Cheney have long histories of involvement with oil companies. Heck, oil is how the Bush family made its fortune. That combined with their reluctance to discuss the task force and the oil company's massive profits while they sky-rocketed prices after Katrina makes the whole thing stink.

Division on Torture

2005-12-11T19:10:00.000-08:00

Sunday, Sen. Bill Frist said on Fox News that the Senate and the White House will reach an agreement on Sen. John McCain's amendment to the defense appropriation bill that would ban the use of torture.

McCain's is refusing to yield to the Bush administration his demand that the amendment contain language that states no person in U.S. custody should be subject to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Frist suggested on Fox that it would be ok to "degrade" a terrorist -- not torture, just degrade -- to obtain information. And he feels that an agreement can be made.

However, Frist is forgetting a couple of things. In the normally bitterly divided senate, the McCain amendment passed 90-9. I think that is a very clear indication of how the legislative branch wants our government to work.

Furthermore, McCain is fighting hard against the White House on this, and he has backing from within his own party, along with all the Democrats. Sen. Lindsey Graham, an influential Republican Senator from South Carolina said on "Meet The Press" Sunday "We're not even close to a deal."

According to the AP:
Discussing negotiations with the administration, Graham spoke of "a breakdown along how to best protect the troops. There is a philosophical difference here."

Vice President Dick Cheney, arguing for fewer restrictions on prisoner treatment, has lobbied Congress to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from any anti-torture measure.

"The vice president is not the vice president of torture. He is trying to create exemptions, in my opinion, to protect our people who go too far," Graham told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Because the way to protect your people is to adhere to the rule of law. The way you win this war is to embrace a value system different than your enemy," the senator said.

Think it's not political?

2005-12-09T06:54:00.000-08:00

War and decisions related to going to and waging war should never be about politics.

I find it interesting that the Bush administration is using the war in Iraq to try to benefit them politically.

For month after month, President Bush has repeated his mantra -- no time table for withdrawl. The only criteria will be that Iraq can take care of itself.

As casualties in Iraq continue to grow at a Vietnam War pace and Bush's popularity is hovering in the low 30s, and a mid-term election is right around the corner, do you think politics entered Donald Rumsfeld's statement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be able to return home after the upcoming Iraqi election, and that more could come home last year?

The timing of it is waaay too suspect. Two weeks ago, it was "no timetable," and now there is the beginnings of one?

Bush is missing something important in all those polls that say the war was a mistake and he is untrustworthy and general a schmuck.

60-65% of Americans feel we should stay in Iraq. I mean, we started their mess, we should clean it up.

But it sounds to me like Bush is going to abandon the Iraqi people to save the GOP. That tells me he lacks the courage to stick with his decision OR it may mean that his decision to go to war was pure politics anyway.

Torture

2005-12-08T05:10:00.000-08:00

October 26, 1967.

A young Navy officer is flying a bombing mission over Hanoi. His plane is hit and he bails out, landing in a lake and breaking both arms and a leg. He manages to crawl ashore where is he beaten by a mob. He's then taken to the infamous Hanoi Hilton, where, for 5 1/2 years he's beaten, tortured and kept in solitary confinement.

Conditions were bad enough that twice he tried to hang himself, only to be cut down by guards.

This is a brief part of the story of Sen. John McCain.

McCain has been very vocal in his opposition to torture and I respect him for that.

Torture has always and historically been a very poor method of obtaining information from those captured in wrong. Far more times than not, any information gleaned is filled with errors and half-truths, or just flat out wrong.

There are a variety of psychological techniques that the world does not consider torture — sleep deprivation is one — that have proven far more effective.

Why doesn't the administration understand this?

You see, Sen. McCain has attached a "no torture" amendment to the current defense appropriations bill. While the Bush administration says they don't condone torture, they are working like the dickens to block McCain's amendment. Why?

I'm appalled that we are even having a discussion on whether or not torture is OK. Torture will only make the terrorists fight harder. It will make them treat our captured service men and women that much worse. And it will make the rest of the world think we are nothing more than a cruel bully.

Something fun

2005-12-01T07:47:00.000-08:00

There's a web site called www.dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com. You can buy all sorts of bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. there. I thought I'd share a few of the slogans found on them...

Bumperstickers:

Who would Jesus Bomb?

Clinton and Monica
Bush and Iraq
Which one is harder to swallow?

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
--Thomas Jefferson

If you are not outraged,
you have not been paying attention.

My child is an honor student,
but my president is an idiot.

Critical Thought
The Other National Deficit

When did "extreme right"
become conservative?

I support our veterans.
I voted for one.

November 2, 2004
was NOT the second coming.

There are others, but here are two that are food for serious thought:
A sweatshirt that quotes:
Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country." Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichmarshall, quoted at the Nuremburg Trials.

and

Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

What's wrong with a secret prison?

2005-11-30T06:07:00.000-08:00

The European Union is in an uproar over the revelation that the CIA has been operating secret prisons in certain parts of Europe and keeping various terrorists there. What's their problem with a few secret prisons?

After all, we're in good company when we keep our enemies in secret prisons. Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Nazi's, Cuba, and a number of African dictatorships have kept secret prisons over the years, and frankly, found them quite convenient to hide captured enemy.

Oh yea, if the prison is secret, you don't have to worry about those pesky things like laws, human rights, restrictions against torture and the Geneva Convention.

So what's the big deal? This is the United States -- the nation led by the man who lied about the reasons to go to war, who had bullied half this world, throws around our superpower force like it is a child's plaything, has yet to come out and really blast the use of torture in this war and has yet to hold anyone in authority accountable for acts of torture that may have been committed by our forces.

Eh, the European Union needs to relax...it's all cool. Dubya has it under control.

Honesty?

2005-11-29T07:34:00.000-08:00

Frist, Delay, Abramoff, Libby. Didn't these guys campaign in part on their honesty?

Now this, from the Associated Press:

After months of insisting he had done nothing wrong, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (California legislator) tearfully acknowledged taking $2.4 million in bribes, saying: "The truth is I broke the law."

The eight-term Republican and former Vietnam fighting ace pleaded guilty to graft Monday and resigned, admitting he took money mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.

I really don't have anything to add.

The case continues to come apart

2005-11-29T07:27:00.000-08:00

Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, has aired concerns about the case for going to war in Iraq saying he now doubts whether President Bush's administration presented an honest case for going to war in Iraq.

-----
From the Associated Press:
Wilkerson said he had believed that intelligence supported the view that Iraq had or was seeking to build weapons of mass destruction, and when none were found he accepted the argument that the administration had simply been fooled.

Lately, however, he said he had been troubled by disclosures that an informant known as Curveball, who supplied information about alleged mobile biological laboratories, was not reliable, and new information casting doubt on statements made by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaida military instructor, claiming support from Iraq.

Al-Libi's information, Wilkerson said, "led Colin Powell to say at the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al-Qaida and Baghdad."

It now appears, Wilkerson said, that al-Libi's statement "were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorized by Geneva (Conventions)."

"More important than that, we know that there was a Defense Intelligence Agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation," Wilkerson said. "We never heard about that."
-----

We see a continuation of doubt and concerns about the administration's honesty in regards to the information they had regarding Iraq and its weapons programs and alleged ties to Al Qaeda. More and more, it seems the Bush administration wanted this war and cherry-picked its sources and information to craft the argument for war. Now, more than 2,000 American military servicemen are dead and more than 400 U.S. civilian workers and contractors are dead and we have to doubt the reasons as to why they went over there.

That more Republicans aren't expressing their concerns is mind boggling and outrageous.

More who avoided war

2005-11-27T07:01:00.000-08:00

Here's more Republican leaders, and conservative talking heads, who've managed to stay out of war. Hmmm.

President George W. Bush -- enlisted in the air national guard. We think.
Dick Cheney -- Five deferrments. Said he had "other priorities."
Scooter Libby -- Protected us from the Vietnamese who might have invaded Yale
Karl Rove -- Did not serve...was of age to go to Vietnam.

Seeing a trend yet?

Donald Rumsfeld -- Yes, he served in the Navy, but when Korea broke out, he quickly went to college, rather than going to fight.
Paul Wolfowitz -- This Deputy Secretary of Defense has never served in uniform.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) -- How in the world did this member of the Armed Services Committee get out of serving in World War II -- he was drafting age!
Gov. Jeb Bush -- Yep, of age to fight in Vietnam. I guess he was too busy plotting how to rig Florida so his brother could win the presidency.
Rep. Tom DeLay -- He's said he wanted to serve in Vietnam. Not sure why he didn't, he was old enough. Hmmm.
Newt Gingrich -- need I say more
Rep. Dennis Hassert -- said he had bad knees so he went to college instead of Vietnam. Wait, he wrestled in college though. Hmmm.
Sen. Trent Lott -- Well, at least he was a cheerleader in college. Of age to have served in Vietnam.

The list goes on.

Hey, how about all those pro-war pundits you see screaming their hypocritcal heads off on Fox and on conservative radio.
Here's some who did NOT serve our nation.
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Bill Kristol
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Joseph Scarbrough
Michael Savage

Would these people be so hawkish if they'd been there themselves? Maybe, maybe not, but I can guarantee you they'd think a little harder about sending our men and women overseas to fight. I merely find it ironic that many of the most pro-war folks have never bothered themselves.

Casting Stones

2005-11-26T06:12:00.000-08:00

Rhetoric against those who oppose the war in Iraq is quite harsh these days.

Columnist Ann Coulter this week called Democrats "gutless traitors who long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated and driven from the field of battle."

Vice President Dick Cheney has attacked critics of the war. President George W. Bush has attacked critics of the war. Other Republicans -- Jean Schmidt and others -- have too.

Here's the problem -- the most vocal critics of the war have never stepped up themselves.

Bush's silver spoon got him into the air national guard during Vietnam -- and I still don't believe he ever even drilled. Cheney got five deferrments. Think Coulter or Schmidt has ever served?

There are a number of Veterans in Congress -- 154 to be exact. They include Democrats, Republicans and even Congress' lone independent.

Many of the "gutless traitors" who are arguing against the war are combat veterans. Two of the most vocal, Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Murtha both distinguished themselves somewhere Schmidt, Coulter, Cheney or Bush will never distinguish themselves -- on the field of battle fighting for this country. Their decorations tell the story and their Purple Hearts prove they put it all on the line.

Instead of criticizing, they should perhaps listen. These combat veterans have something to say and they can say it from a unique perspective that the administration and most pundits can never understand.

Now, the way out of this mess is pretty simple. Very few are calling for a complete and immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Even Murtha's proposal did not suggest that -- the Republicans merely twisted it that way.

Most folks believe pulling out now would create an unfathomable mess. However, this would help.

Bush needs to articulate benchmarks for when we'll start drawing down troops. Not a timeline, but benchmarks. "When we have XXXX fully trained Iraqi troops, we'll pull out this many troops. When we have a reduction in violence to this level, we'll pull xxx troops out." That sort of thing.

Interestingly, Condy Rice said we could probably start to see a reduction next year -- an election year -- one which the Republicans are quite worried about.

Hmmmm.

A quote

2005-11-23T09:33:00.000-08:00

Here's one I love. I read it in Time Magazine's notebook, as a response to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I like guys who got five deferments (during the Vietnam War) and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
John Murtha, PA congressman and decorated veteran, on Cheney's lack of service.

You go John.

Why don't YOU go on Medicare

2005-11-23T05:29:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, November 22, Fred Barnes, a high ranking member of the Republican public relations machine since he's the editor of the ultra conservative Weekly Standard and a Fox News analyst, suggested that GM retirees should all go on Medicare instead of using GM's health insurance provided to retirees.

Bush's Medicare overhaul is an absolute nightmare and Barnes should know that.

The plan resulted in a high premium increase -- something seniors on a fixed income can certainly afford.

Last week, while talking to someone who deals with medicare as his profession -- and he has trouble figuring it all out -- he revealed you must go online to enroll. Now, I know that our 65-year-old and up demographic have paved the way in Internet usage....COME ON! Seniors are not active Internet users. The prescription plan, something which was desperately needed, is the most confusing and expensive aspect of Medicare, with a sliding scale of co-pays that makes no sense.

Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Medicare program, pointed out that while premiums were increasing, the new program would boost Medicare payments to private health providers by $46 billion over 10 years and would boost payments to private pharmaceutical companies by $100 billion over the same period.

The bill originally failed by a vote of 216 for and 218 against, however the Republican leadership refused to allow this vote to stand and browbeat Republicans for three hours to change their votes. A subsequent roll-call vote resulted in a victory for Bush and his drug company buddies and a defeat for seniors in this country.

A sudden turn about

2005-11-23T05:24:00.000-08:00

All of a sudden, the administration and its cronies are talking a different game on the war in Iraq.

Suddenly, it is ok to criticize the war or the policies surrounding the war. Condy Rice is now saying troops will be home "fairly soon."

What's going on?

The GOP will try to spin it one way...that the war is going well and that Iraq is on the path toward being able to defend itself and put down the insurgency without us.

The truth is much simpler.

A mid-term election is coming. The President's approval ratings are so low he's worthless in terms of campaigning for Repbulican candidates. Support for the war continues to erode and more and more Americans believe the President misled the country into war.

Add to it the simple fact that the GOP is immersed in controvery, indictments and investigations, and you can understand why Republicans are starting to get very very nervous.

All the things Bush campaigned on are coming undone.

The simple fact is the Republicans are doing what they vehemently accused Dems of doing: using the war for political purposes. And that is shameful.

Open mouth, insert foot

2005-11-22T08:09:00.000-08:00

Democrat Congressman John Murtha called for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. In response, Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt said, "she had received a call from a Marine colonel, who 'asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.'"

Here's the problem for ole' Mean Jean. Congressman Murtha is a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps. He's a decorated war veteran who fought in Vietnam and is recognized as one of the foremost military authorities in Congress. So maybe, just maybe, when he suggests something, before popping off at the mouth, Mean Jean should learn who she's dealing with.

You may disagree with Murtha's motion, but he's got a point and he's got enough authority and expertise to be worth at least hearing out...not insulting.

Instead, she ran off and made Repubicans look foolish, a task getting easier and easier.

Tax cuts not creating new jobs

2005-11-15T06:41:00.000-08:00

President Bush is pushing for a Thanksgiving vote to make his tax cuts permanent. He claims they are going to lead to a robust economy and job growth.

However, a new study contradicts this.

The study, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market" ( http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/ThanksgivingReport_pr.html ), examines the administration's claim that tax cuts create jobs.

Here are some of its findings:

-- Reviewed over a six-decade period, changes in tax policy have not resulted definitively in job creation or job destruction; they have no predictable effect on jobs.

-- From June 2003 to December 2004, the administration promised its tax-cutting policy would create 5.5 million new jobs-but only 2.6 million were created, even though 4.1 million would have been expected without any special economic stimulus.

-- The weakness in job creation during an economic recovery that we are currently experiencing is unprecedented since World War II.

-- The number of good quality jobs (defined as those paying at least $16 an hour, providing employer-paid health insurance, and providing a pension) has remained flat at 25 percent of all workers.

-- Black employment is at 89.6 percent, compared to 95.2 percent for whites.

-- Latino workers average more than $10,000 per year less in earnings than whites, and the gap is increasing.

-- While there is no evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, there is considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-choking deficits.

It is plain that President Bush's economic policies are helping only the wealth and not us "regular" people.

"Contrary to what President Bush and his tax policymakers are saying, tax cuts do not automatically create jobs. Tax cuts are just one of many things that can affect job growth," said Liz Stanton, director of research at United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and a co-author of the report.

"President Bush's Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, far from delivering on the promises made to create 5.5 million new jobs, has carved out a new low in job recovery after a recession." said Scott Klinger, another co-author and director of UFE's tax policy group. "The president's tax-cutting policy is a failure in this regard, and we need to recognize it as such."

Well said Scott.

Bush & Veteran's Day

2005-11-15T06:37:00.000-08:00

It was a sad Veteran's Day, at least where President George W. Bush appeared.

Rather than using his time to salute America's men and women in uniform, he used his speeches to shore up the slumping support for the war in Iraq. How pathetic to take a day meant to honor a group of people and use it instead to try to pump up your own approval ratings and war support.

What makes it even sadder was that at one point in his speeches, he went after Senator Kerry and comments he made during the presidential campaign.

Mr. President, the campaign's over, you won. Will you please join us over here in the real world?

Crybaby Frist

2005-11-07T04:38:00.000-08:00

I am dismayed over the reaction of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist over the closed session the Democrats forced last week.

Frist's comments were: The Senate "has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," he said. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas." Never before had he been "slapped in the face with such an affront," he said, adding: "For the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid."

His temper tantrum belonged on a playground coming from a 5-year-old, not from a leader of the U.S. Senate.

The simple fact is a lot of people in this country have questions about why we went to war in Iraq. Many believe that the Bush administration lied or exagerrated on the points of weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. For more than a year, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been trying to get to the bottom of this with no luck - often being waylaid and delayed by Republican leadership and the White House. And this after we are bogged down in a war that has cost us more than 2,000 American lives and 15,000+ injuries.

So the Democrats forced a closed session, which they are legally and fully allowed to do under the rules governing the Senate.

Why is Frist so pissed off? The Democrats did nothing wrong and they are the ones who should be so angry, because the Republican leadership does not seem to want us to get to the bottom of the intelligence that caused us to go to war in Iraq.

Well, we're waiting!

2005-11-02T05:58:00.000-08:00

In July 2004, President Bush vowed on national television to "fire anybody" in his administration who may have had a part in leaking Valerie Plame's name.

Scooter Libby resigned, but wasn't fired. Maybe the President didn't have enough time to fire him.

What of Karl Rove? He was involved but the President has done nothing? Why? What can you do to one of the men who really runs thing? What of Vice President Cheney?

Bush needs to remove Rove and call for an investigation into Cheney's involvement. This would be in keeping with his Oct. 26, 2000 campaign promise of "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves."

He's not doing this. He has chastised and taken to task NONE of the growing list of Republican leadership that is under fire. He is afraid to show true courage and leadership by doing the right thing. Instead, he keeps repeating that he is focused on the work of the American people, but the American people are losing faith, trust and confidence in the President because he can't control his own party.

Come on Mr. President. Be a leader and spank those in your party who are screwing up. If you have the guts.

Don't you just feel safer?

2005-11-02T05:55:00.000-08:00

This is a short post.

President Bush couldn't help the Tsunami victims. Had to call in daddy and President Clinton.

President Bush couldn't help the hurricane victims in Louisiana and Mississippi.

He can't catch Bin Laden.

He can't balance a freaking budget.

But he's going to save us all from the bird flu.

I feel better already.

Bush shows true stuff

2005-10-31T07:13:00.000-08:00

President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Certainly, Alito has the judicial and constitutional law background to do the job. But I doubt that was what was on Bush's mind. Alito is a staunch conservative, a choice sure to do what Bush wants -- and that is to shore up his flagging support from the right.

Alito is in the mold of Antonin Scalia and is sometimes called "Scalito."

The court now swings in a conservative direction and I'm certain the radical right is rejoicing...they get exactly what they want...control of everything so they can impose their will on the American people.

But will it work? Alito makes two -- two conservative white men to serve on the nation's highest court, slapping women and minorities in the face. Those who intimately understand women's issues - women - are terribly outnumbered on the court. The same for those who truly understand minority issues and civil rights issues. Think Roberts and Alito have ever had civil rights problems? Nope.

Bush has made a political move in a non-political arena. He is running for cover behind the radical right because he can't handle the fact that he is screwing up this nation. He made a nomination that will serve the radical right, not serve America. And that is shameful.

Miers resigns

2005-10-27T06:12:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers resignation is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, it shows that the Bush administration has lost some of its strength. There was a time when the president could push through anything, no matter how much Republicans were against it, they went along with it. Obviously, that is not the case here.

I believe it also shows just how pre-occupied the Bush administration is with the various investigations, scandals and other problems -- difficulties in Iraq, a sluggish economy, plummeting approval ratings, etc. Afterall, the White House could not mount an effective campaign to push through the nominee.

Here's the bad side. It will show, when Bush makes his next appointment, that he is beholden to ultra-conservatives. He insists he'll pick someone who will not legislate from the bench, but that is exactly the type of person he'll pick -- a judge who will offer a conservative interpretation on the issues. So much for Roe vs Wade, so much for right to privacy, so much for civil liberties and so much for anti-discrimination laws of all manner.

Delay, Delay

2005-10-21T12:56:00.000-07:00

Congressman Tom Delay (R-Texas) has asked the judge that would hear arguments on his conspiracy case to recuse himself because he's donated to Democratic causes, and to moveon.org, which Delay's attorney claims is anti-Tom delay.

This particular judge, according to Delay's attorney, can't be fair because of his political involvement.

Now, let's talk political involvement.

Harriet Miers is a republican. She is a lifelong follower of George W. Bush, and she has worked in his White House...yet she can be a Supreme Court Justice, a judge on the highest bench in the land.

Delay is squirming for a reason -- because the grip is closing in on him, and although they'll never admit it, I'm wondering if more than a few Republicans are taking steps to distance themselves from the embattled former House Speaker.

His attorney's action not only showed the continued hypocrisy of the Republican Party, but also showed that one of its leaders, Tom Delay, has no faith in the judicial branch of government.

So he resorts to politics to get out of trouble. Very typical.

Come on guys!

2005-10-19T07:04:00.000-07:00

The Republicans are floundering as its leadership becomes more and more involved in various investigations and indictments, and the party is starting to split from the President, particularly in terms of the Harriet Miers nomination, and is still reeling from the botched Hurricane Katrina response.

The President's approval ratings are at an absolutely stunning low level.

Now is the time to strike for Democrats Â strike while the iron's hot, as they say.

However, the Dems are still sitting there with the iron up their rears.

We have no real leadership in the Democratic party. A huge mistake was made when Nancy Pelosi was elected House Democratic leader over Harold Ford Jr. Pelosi is far enough left that she can't bring the moderates in. Harry Reid, well, he's just a joke as he tries to make some sort of stand in the Senate. And Howard Dean, well that ship has already sailed.

The real proof of our lack of leadership is the simple fact that we have not put forth an agenda. Here's how we will handle these issues! Here's our stand and why we're making it! Here's what we believe and why!

But no. The Republicans are stumbling and we have a chance to make some real ground. Soon, the GOP will recover and start pushing again, and we'll still be wondering what happened to the hot iron.

We as Democrats need to get it together, develop a message, and get it out there.

That, though, will take real leadership.

Finances 101

2005-10-19T06:50:00.000-07:00

Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes both sit on the panel of the GOP's public relations firm, Fox News. They are also editors of the Weekly Standard, an ultra conservative political magazine. Frankly, I thought both had lost all capacity for independent thought and were President Bush's yes-men (the only kind of person you can be around our President) until they came out against the Harriet Miers nomination.

This past weekend, I was watching BookTV and there was a discussion with Kristol and Barnes -- the occasion was the 10th anniversary of The Weekly Standard magazine.

During the discussion, Kristol made the comment that the economic growth of the 90s - the balanced budget, the surpluses, welfare reform -- well, basically all Clinton's financial accomplishments, were actually Republican agenda items pushed through by the Republican majority in the House and Senate.

I remember it differently. Then President Bill Clinton put those ideas to public discussion, he campaigned on them, he WORKED WITH both parties to get balanced budgets and reform passed.

Clinton showed true leadership.

If such items were a Republican agenda, we'd still be experiencing them. Instead, we're going backwards.

President Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill, though he bribed his way to reelection with a tax cut. Conservatives like to say that Democrats want to "tax and spend," but it was Clinton, not Bush, that balanced the budget and created a surplus. Even before the war in Iraq, our government, which has a Republican White House, a Republican House and a Republican Senate, had put our nation in debt -- a debt that is growing.

Even with an expensive war and massive expenses from Hurricane Katrina, our Republican leaders still want to cut more taxes. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to pay less taxes, but quite frankly, the last tax cut didn't do a whole lot for me. I don't have a nicer car, I don't live in a nicer place, and my take-home pay didn't increase to a level that made any real difference.

Bush and the Republicans don't understand a simple equation.

Revenue - Expenses = Profit

When your expenses are larger than your revenue, your profit is negative, a deficit -- for accountants, it is (profit). And that's what we've got...a losing equation.

So someone, please, explain to me how the Republicans are better for us financially, because I simply don't see it.

Bush said what?

2005-10-18T07:38:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the Iraqi elections, President George W. Bush has made several comments about the Iraqi people exercising their democratic rights and choosing for themselves. He said this is in defiance of those who would change government violently.

I almost had to laugh.

Here's the problem.

Bush is a government toppler and on three occasions he's proven he'll use the U.S. military to make the change in a foreign government, and on another occasion, he proved he'll use aid and other types of pressure to cause change.

Four countries have had a change of leadership under the purview of the Bush administration: Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia and Haiti.

Nobody can argue that something needed to happen in Afghanistan and Liberia Â both nations were led by tyrants and oppressors. Likewise for Iraq. In all three of these cases, Bush sent troops in. Fortunately, American soldiers did not have to fight in Liberia.

These three nations bring up a point, though. Bush will criticize terrorists and insurgents for using violence to change the government, but that's exactly what he's done! The least Bush could do is stop being a hypocrite about this point. It is not about whether we were right or wrong for going into those nations...that is a different debate. The point is Bush will scream and yell that there are those who want to use violence to overthrow nations, then he turns around and does it himself.

Haiti is a different matter. Jean Bertrand Aristide was the democratically elected president of that country. Yes, Aristide's administration was immersed in scandal and corruption. Does that remind anyone of a political party in power in a well-known superpower? Aristide was not a good leader, but he was ELECTED by the people of HAITI. Two years ago, Bush forced him out of office -- that's right, Bush pressured a democratically elected president of a foreign nation to leave office.

I think it is wonderful that the Iraqi elections appear successful, that violence was reduced and the people of that nation are speaking out. In the end, it will be up to them to determine their fate. Likewise, I'm happy for the Afghans, who seem to be trying to move forward with their government and their first-ever elected president.

But that's not what this blog is about. It's about point out the fact that President Bush's foreign policy is hypocritical, short-sighted and imperialistic. Bush has proven to be the most hard-headed, spoiled, bully of a President in ages.

Now that we've toppled the governments, these emerging democracies should be allowed to form in their own way, based upon the unique needs of the people, geographical considerations, culture and heritage, and a ton of other factors we don't understand. U.S.Democracyy works because it meets the unique needs of our nation and people. We don't hold a patent on democracy. We shouldn't have been involved in the writing of Iraq's and Afghanistan's constitutions, but we had to protect our interests (ahem, oil), didn't we?

We should now be supporting these fragile democracies and helping them grow in their own unique way, because while our way is the best for the United States, it may not be the best way for THEM. Until we have a president who understands this, we'll continue to be embroiled in wars and looked down upon by much of the world.

At the very least, when he invades someone and topples theirgovernmentt, Bush should criticize others for doing the same.

Harriet oh Harriet

2005-10-13T07:58:00.000-07:00

When watching or listening to conservative pundits, I'm hearing an interesting turn of phrase over and over. Something like, "Bush shied away from the fight conservatives were looking forward to."

That statement, which comes up repeatedly, makes me wonder. Were the Republicans and their ultra-conservative puppeteers just wanting to pick a fight, or are they actually interested in getting the best person on the Supreme Court? It sounds to me like they want a fight, adding to the divisiveness in our country.

When elected, Bush said he was going to unite the country split by two very close Presidential elections. He has done nothing to bring the country closer, and it seems his party could care less about doing so.

Harriet Miers may become an inadvertent unity candidate. Certainly she'll get a number of Republican votes and it sounds like a number of Democrats like her. However, criticism continues from both sides.

And now Laura Bush has weighed in, accusing some of Miers' critics of being sexist. She may be correct, but like her husband, she doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that Miers has NO judicial experience, that the right feels she's not conservative enough, and the whole nation knows that Bush did nothing more than appoint a buddy to the Court. Nepotism at the highest level.

This alone proves a point. The Bush clan are out of touch with America. And they are more and more becoming out of touch with their own party.

Harriet Miers, Part II

2005-10-10T07:02:00.000-07:00

Even Republicans know President George W. Bush is losing his political capital.

His nomination of Harriet Miers is coming under vicious fire from the right. Even the most vitriolic of conservatives, folks such as Ann Coulter and Bill Kristol, two who blindly preach conservative mantras, are casting criticism in the direction of the President.

I think for them it is more than just Miers and her nomination though. I think in their hearts, they realize Bush is losing control.

The Republicans were in a powerful position to dominate national politics for many many years. However, a few things have happened.
• Iraq. Not going so well, is it. Loss of life mounts and folks are still pissed about the whole weapons of mass destruction thing.
• We are failing miserably at dealing with the prospects of nukes in Iran and North Korea. Did we attack the wrong countries?
• Osama bin Laden sure looks good in that U.S. jail, doesn't he? Sheesh....will we ever find him? Didn't Bush say something about hunting him down and bringing him to justice?
• Miers nomination getting botched.
• Senate Leader Bill Frist coming out AGAINST the president and his party on stem cell research.
• Frist, now former Speaker of the House Tom Delay, Vice President Dick Cheney, his chief of staff, Karl Rove, Jackk Abramoff and other Republicans involved in scandals and investigations involving everything from insider trading to conspiracy to commit money laundering to CIA leaks and more. Woohoo!
• The woeful response to Katrina.
• Slow resonse to the Tsunami.

Hmmm...now wonder the Republicans are worried...they are being led ineptly right into problem after problem.

Wow

2005-10-10T06:53:00.000-07:00

Political problems and partisan bickering aside, we live in a great nation.

I am motivated to say this by one simple headline.

The United States was slammed by Katrina and Rita. Monumental damage was caused and who knows what the final price tag in dollars will be.

Despite the immense expense of rebuilding New Orleans, southern Mississippi and other areas, when this devastating earthquake hit Pakistan this weekend, killing an estimated 30,000 so far, the U.S. was there, pledging, according the aforementioned headline, $50 million in aide. I'll be surprised if the figure doesn't rise.

Shortly after 9/11, a Canadian newspaper columnist, I wish I could remember his name, wrote a column stating the world should respond to help the United States. Why? Because time and time again, when disaster strikes, America is there for the world. We've rebuilt nations after war, rushed in in the wake of natural disasters and given billions upon billions to help others.

Sure we've made mistakes. The government's response to the Tsunami and to Katrina was horribly slow and woefully too small initially.

But we've always been there for our fellow man throughout the world. Every time something happens and a nation says "I need help" in the wake of a natural disaster, the United States has answered.

There are plenty of policies of the administration I don't agree with. However, looking at what we offer in situations such as the one in Pakistan, it is one of the things that makes me proud to be an American.

Tom, shut up

2005-10-03T20:44:00.000-07:00

Tom DeLay has been indicted, again. Following last week's charges related to conspiracy to violate campagin laws, he's now charged with consipiracy to launder money and money laundering.

DeLay has been everywhere having a screaming hissy fit like a little child.

How does it feel Congressman? Your accusations that this is just dirty politics is nothing more than a taste of your own medicine. The GOP is under fire like never before. DeLay, Bill Frist, Brownie, and others are being looked at, investigated, and/or are the subject of inquiries. It's charma after the anti-Democrat witch hunt of the mid-90s.

Maybe DeLay's innocent. I don't know. But if he his, maybe he should shut his hysterical mouth and let the facts do the talking. Everytime he speaks, he does nothing but inflame the division in this country.

Harriet Miers

2005-10-03T20:38:00.000-07:00

President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day 0'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I know little of Miers' political views and beliefs. Likewise, I know little of her legal views and interpretation of law. Why? She's never interpreted the law.

Our president has appointed someone who has NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE to be a Supreme Court Justice. To me, this is another example of a man who has poor judgement when it comes to appointing people.

Miers may be a wonderful person with a sharp legal mind. However, she's been a loyal follower of Bush, working in his White House, and probably knew him far longer. After all, she has many years experience in Texas.

Call it cronyism or nepotism, but the simple fact is another Bush insider has been appointed, this time to the highest, most powerful court in the land.

Should be interesting to see how someone who has never been a judge will act as one of the nation's highest judges.

Give that man a Brownie!

2005-09-28T08:11:00.000-07:00

I love how Washington works.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned because he simply bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina in a big big way. FEMA's response was a huge black eye to the administration, yet they must still have some sense of loyalty to the man.

How else do you explain the fact that Brown is remaining on as a "consultant" to FEMA and still drawing his $138,000 salary?

Brown is trying his best to shift the blame to the Democrats, specifically Louisiana's governor and New Orlean's mayor, and I doubt anyone is denying that they could've possibly done more to get more people out. But what? Even the evacuation of Houston, in a state that was supposed to "have it together," turned into a highway nightmare that cost lives.

The simple fact is, as Republican Congressman Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., committee chairman, said, "It's not like we're talking about the Department of Motor Vehicles here. We're talking about the federal agency charged with coordinating response to massive disasters."

The federal agency charged with coordinating response to massive disasters.

But is the cluster that developed really Brown's fault?

Only partly.

It was the Bush Administration that allowed someone woefully unqualified to take the helm of FEMA. It was the Bush administration that gutted FEMA's budget, weakened our national guard and over-committed regular troops to wars over seas.

Brown, FEMA and the federal government knew that the possibility of a disaster far beyond the ability of state and local officials to handle existed in New Orleans.

Democrat Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, questioned Brown. Jefferson, whose district is New Orleans, said he found it "stunning" that Brown blamed the media and state and local officials of Louisiana for the federal failure after a mock hurricane drill in 2004 showed that they would be unable to handle the situation if the levees were breached. "No matter how it's described, the help didn't come," he said.

The levees were breached, and the locals couldn't handle it, exactly as FEMA had been forewarned.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff is sidestepping questions about FEMA, an organization whose director he supervises. He is also avoiding questions about federal contracts being awarded in the wake of Katrina - including a $568 million debris removal contract awarded to AshBritt, a Pompano Beach company that was a client of the former lobbying firm of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a big buddy of President Bush.

While Bush said he accepts responsibility, does he really mean it? What is he going to do to restore the FEMA budget so it can react in a timely manner? Will he make it a priority to hire the most qualified people for the job, rather than put buddies and pals into positions?

And, when will he call an independent probe into the Katrina response? Probably never, since the current Congressional committee investigating is Republican heavy and eager to blame Dems.

Life goes on as usual in George W. Bush's America.

Don't blow it

2005-09-20T06:22:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the GOP's ineptness at handling the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Democrats are in a unique position Â they currently enjoy a 12-point lead 14 months out of the mid-term 2006 elections.

Here's the deal, though. The Democrats could blow it...they often do.

The Republicans bought votes with a tax cut. They committed us to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The over committed the National Guard to duties overseas, in Iraq.

Now is the time for Democrats to strike. If President George W. Bush hadn't squandered a historic budget surplus in his efforts to bribe us with tax cuts, the economic impact of Katrina on the national economy may not be so severe. If he supported responsible exploration of alternative energy sources, the impact may not have been so great on our gas prices. If he hadn't committed the National Guard, they may have been where they were needed -- at home ready to help. If he hadn't hired a person as FEMA Director -- a person whose previous qualifications included president of a horse association -- the response may have been quicker.

The Dems need to fashion a strong, unified message. That message needs to pound home the fact that the Republican Party has failed miserably in responsible leadership and in protecting American lives. Democrats need to hit that message hard and couple it with solid, specific ideas of how things will be different with a change in power.

Roberts hearing

2005-09-15T07:53:00.000-07:00

I have no doubt that John Roberts will be fairly easily confirmed as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Here's my concern. Roberts is a young man and presumably will fill the role for a long time -- probably decades. The problem is Democrats aren't being allowed to grill him on issues of concern. Everytime Sen. Biden or Sen. Kennedy starts a tough line of questioning, the judiciary committee chairman, a Republican, steps in.

I have great concerns about certain issues the Supreme Court is wrestling with -- abortion and right to privacy among them. While I don't expect a nominee to make a statement that may limit his decision-making as a judge, I would like to know his views on current decisions in those areas and his interpretations of current law.

Why can't we question him hard? If Roberts chooses not to answer a question, that's his choice, but a potential Supreme Court Chief Justice doesn't need the Republicans protecting him -- if he does he doesn't need to be on the court.

This raises a bigger issue, though. You can't question. Can't do it. The time to question after 9-11 is never now. The time to question the response to Katrina isn't now. Obviously you can't question Roberts.

Why don't the Republicans want to be questioned on their actions and decisions? What do they have to fear? What will the American people discover about their leadership?

These are the questions I'm wondering.

Lacking leadership

2005-09-15T07:48:00.000-07:00

While I appreciate the fact that President Bush has stepped up to take responsibility for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it isn't enough.

Bush was narrowly re-elected in part on the idea that he was a strong leader who could keep us safe. Is that why the head of FEMA was woefully unqualified to do the job? How the heck did he get the job in the first place?

The entire administration has been just stupid during this disaster.

Barbara Bush's remarks about those in poverty were plain insensitive and revealed much about her mindset. Screw the poor!

President Bush was able to stay on vacation for 3 days after the storm hit.

Where the heck is Cheney?

Rice went on a shopping spree in New York.

Rumsfeld took in a ball game.

We have no leaders in the White House. These are not people committed to serving this nation, only themselves. I am very disgusted with them and hope we see a major political shift during the mid-term elections and the next Presidential race.

The Hurricane

2005-09-05T08:53:00.000-07:00

Ok. President George W. Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina. However, his reaction, much like the terrible tsunami, was incredibly slow.

How long does it take for a president to decide to come off yet another vacation to deal with a disaster? Several days if you are President Bush.

The simple fact is that he could easily do whatever it is he needed to do from Crawford, however, he's supposed to be a leader and he needed to be back in Washington DC BEFORE this storm hit. The nation needed a leader, but of course, Bush likes his vacations.

The simple fact is the federal government is the only agency that has the ability to respond to a catastrophe of this magnitude, yet it wasn't ready. The president was still vacationing.

And when he finally arrived in Mississippi, what did we see? A blatantly staged photo op -- the President along with the governors of Mississippi and Alabama, with Coast Guard helicopters as a backdrop, "discussed" the damage with television cameras directly in front of them. Do you want an initial discussion like that on television? Only if you are "playing" the compassionate conservative.

But the compassionate conservative wasn't ready. He didn't leave vacation. He did not lead. But he is the leader and the pitifully slow response rests directly on his shoulders.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

2005-08-24T12:00:00.000-07:00

Unless of course the victim is the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. And when I say elected, I mean by the people of his nation in a U.N. observed election. This is a man who was re-elected in 2004 with 58 percent of the vote -- more than our president mustered.

The moral compass of our nation, Pat Robertson, called for Chavez's assassination.

Now, today, Robertson says his comments were misinterpreted. How? Pat, you said very clearly, "If he (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Our Republican-controlled government has downplayed Robertson's comments with simple statements such as Robertson's remarks "do not represent the views of the United States."

Where is the condemnation from the right? Doesn't "Thou Shalt Not Kill" mean anything? Even the GOP's public relations firm, Fox News, downplayed the incident referring to it as insignificant.

Only one Republican leader, Bob Dole, has stepped up to the plate, publicly calling Robertson's comments "stupid" and "ludicrous."

Imagine the level of condemnation that would come if a Democratic religious leader -- say the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jessie Jackson made such comments. There would be no end.

Of course Robertson's the same guy that said a meteor could hit Florida because of Gay Days at Disney, and that feminism causes women to kill their babies, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

Yes, Pat Robertson. Our moral compass. Founder of the Christian Coalition. Man of God.

And an advocate of political assassination.

The Iraqi Women

2005-08-22T10:07:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, the GOP's public relations firm, Fox News, had various experts on to discuss the Iraqi constitution.

Of concern is the role of Islam in the Iraqi government. Naturally women's groups are worried about this. Islamic nations have a habit of limiting women's rights.

Thanks to two wars with the United States and protracted war with Iran, the male population of Iraq has been depleted. According to some statistics, women now make up 60% of Iraq's population.

Twice on Fox News, once on Sunday and again on Monday, I heard these "experts" say that democracy can work without women having the right to vote.

The United States cannot allow this. Surely President Bush's grand vision for spreading democracy includes full equal rights for women. Surely the 2500+ U.S. soldiers who have died didn't die for Iraqi men only.

The concern of women's rights groups and 11 female U.S. Senators is language that says women's rights are preserved unless they conflict with Islamic law. Hmmm.

One cannot argue that the United States can't get involved in the writing of the constitution of Iraq. Already, we've made certain that the trade/commerce portions of the constitution favor U.S. corporations.

Let us step in and make certain that the rights of ALL Iraqis are preserved in their difficult constitutional process.

The Marriage Point

2005-08-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

Rick Santorum was on the talk shows a couple weeks ago and in the course of his right-wing ranting, he went on the attack of gay marriage. Attacking gay marriage is a favored tactic of those on the right, and it is a trap we on the left have fallen into time and again.

If Jim and Bob get married, that's not the threat to the traditional family and traditional family values. The threat are the factors contributing to the 56% divorce rate in this country. Gay marriage is not a factor in that rate.

Republicans attack gay marriage for one simple reason -- It gets the nation behind them and makes Democrats look bad.

Instead of Democrats countering with claims that the Republicans are just a bunch of homophobes, let's counter with something else...how about a meaningful program or approach that will truly preserve the family and traditional family values. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is -- perhaps it is a Republican stronghold of faith-based initiatives, maybe more readily available and affordable marriage counseling. Who knows?

What I do know is, right or wrong, gay marriage is not the reason the American family is struggling. There are far deeper reasons.

And every time we Democrats let the Republicans lure us into an argument over this issue, we step right into it. Then, we're left to wipe the crap from our shoes while the entire country thinks the GOP is the only one with morals.

Yet, the American family continues to suffer.

Why am I mad?

2005-08-10T12:35:00.000-07:00

So, just why am I a mad Democrat? A couple of reasons.

First, Republicans, particularly those on the far right, have successfully portrayed Democrats and liberals as anit-christian and anti-American. You listen to some of the drivel coming from the likes of Karl Rove and others, and you'd think that we just want to see the nation destroyed. You'd think we want the American family to come to an end. You'd think we'd want to crawl into bed and counsel terrorist, after, of course, we've just given them our country.

Horse crap.

I'm a Democrat and a liberal. I served in the military and would do so again if my nation asked. I am a christian. I believe in family values, the importance of prayer and strong community foundations.

But I'm pissed at the Democrats too. Why? Simple. They won't fight back. They are too busy cowering in the corner begging the right not take another swing. About all we can muster is Howard Dean, and then we pray he won't wig out on us again. We need to stand up. Get a message together. Call Republicans on the carpet and retake the country.

Yea, I'm angry at both sides. I need a voice.

This will be it.