G.O.P. = Getting Out of the Party

CBS evening news released a poll last night showing people identifying themselves as politically independent at an all time high. Independents are up 25 percent from 1988.

CBS tries to paint this as bad news for both major parties, but astute observers ask where did these independents come from? The CBS poll clearly shows they are defectors from rebpubliCON party! In fact, CON identification is down 21 percent from 1988. Meanwhile, people identifying themselves as Democrats are basically unchanged during that time period.

Moreover, other CBS/New York Times polls show voters view Democrats more favorably than CONS, and feel the Democratic party will do a better job on important issues such as the economy and the war.

Over the past four presidential elections the GOP has won the popular vote only once, in 2004. At that time CON identification was 30 percent. However, given the dismal performance of the president and the current slate of CON candidates its unlikely the "grand old party" will sniff 30 percent support anytime soon.

Good luck in November CONS!

RepubliCONS: Sexual Healing Thyself

The Washington State GOP is calling upon the state legislature to open a special session to deal with sex offenders. About time! In fact, they should start with their own party which seems replete with sexual deviants. Bringing the likes of Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, former Florida Representative Mark Foley, Florida State Representative Bob Allen, North Carolina State Representative David Almond, and Former Utah County Commissioner David J. Gardner just to name a few to justice should keep the Washington GOP busy for years.

Fox News and Accuracy: Not So Much

Accurately reporting the facts seems a low priority at Fox News. Case in point, Fox has repeatedly identified republicans and democrats incorrectly. Most notably Fox identified Mark Foley as a Democrat. Mr. Foley, we all remember, is the republican lawmaker from Florida drummed out of office for inappropriate behavior with congressional pages. Later, Fox switched party affiliations for the two candidates in the 2006 Rhode Island Senate race, leaving the impression the republican was leading.

However, it appears quality control isn't high on Fox's to do list either. Just this last week, Fox ran a story about the criminal indictment of Representative William Jefferson (D-LA). Problem is the video accompanying the segment showed Representative John Conyers (D-MI), rather than Jefferson. Oops! Conyers was none to happy and demanded Fox apologize.

Fox News blamed the error on a young assistant picking up the wrong tape. So . . . it's not common practice for Fox employees to read video labels before its placed on air? Yikes!

Funny how Fox's quality control errors always seem to come at the expense of Democrats. Perhaps Democrats are justified in shunning Fox's offer to host a Presidential debate. God knows what images they would run during the broadcast.

Democrats, Beware Luntz's Praise

Frank Luntz makes his living manipulating words and phrases for maximum political impact. Urging candidates to use terms such as "death tax" to describe what is more accurately an "inheritance tax" is an example of his type of work. The beneficiaries of Frankie's efforts are often conservative, right wing candidates and causes.

So it was a surprise to see Frankie on CSPAN late last month saying nice things about Democratic Senator Barak Obama. It seems, Luntz likes Obama because he's running for President while providing a "positive vision" for America.

At first blush this appears to be rare Luntz praise for a liberal candidate. But when one remembers Frankie's work is to spin words for political affect, the comments are seen as a none to subtle slap at the remaining Democratic field, as well as all liberal voters.

How so?

Luntz's statement clearly implies the other Democratic Presidential contenders lack a positive vision for the country. In fact, during the CSPAN debate Luntz contrasted Obama's campaign with candidates like Hillary Clinton who in his opinion are running mainly on "anger." Frankie’s hidden message is clear, every Democrat save Obama is an angry, dangerous person who must not be President.

However, besides insulting the Democratic field, Luntz's faint praise for Obama also contains the potential to smear all liberal voters. Luntz clearly knows Obama may not win the Democratic nomination. If this happens, he'll likely spin the result as progressive voters' rejection of a positive future for one based on hatred and anger. In the process, he will have tared the Democratic nominee as someone picked for his/her anger toward conservatives, Bush, republicans, the troops, America, etc. Again the message is clear, the Democratic nominee is someone who should not be President.

Well two can play Luntz's game.

Ron Paul is by far the best republican candidate. From the last two republican debates, its obvious Ron is the conservative providing a sane vision for the country.

Thrown into the Brier Patch

In the movie Song of the South, the hero Brer Rabbit uses reverse psychology to escape the clutches of his enemies Brer Fox and Brer Bear. In the story, Fox and Bear have caught Rabbit after years of pursuit. Yet before they eat Rabbit, Fox and Bear discuss with Rabbit their cooking preparations. Skinning and boiling are two of the grizzly fates that await Brer Rabbit. Surprisingly, Brer Rabbit is calm when confronted with these futures. In fact, Rabbit welcomes being skinned, but begs Fox and Bear not to throw him in the brier patch, a dense thicket of branches studded with thorns and barbs. Rabbit continues, by all means boil me but don't throw me in the brier patch.

However, Song of the South viewers quickly understand Rabbit wants to be thrown into the brier patch. Fox and Bear being somewhat mentally challenged, fall for Rabbit's trick and chuck him into the patch. Rabbit lands singing "born and bred in the brier patch" leaving Fox and Bear dumbfounded as their meal escapes through the tangle of branches.


Unfortunately, George Bush should have been reading Song of the South rather than My Pet Goat when America was attacked on 9/11. If he had, the United States might be on its way to "escaping" the Iraqi brier patch.

Case in point, in a recent statement Al Quaeda's number two man Ayman al Zawahiri trashed the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq. Calling the bill evidence of American "failure."

RepubliCONS and other right-wing hacks pounced on Zawahiri's statements in an attempt to paint Democrats as playing into Al Quaeda's hands. "See," they say, "Pulling our troops out is exactly what our enemies want. We must stay in Iraq."

Yet, Zawahiri's statement should strike most thinking adults as akin to Brer rabbit's cry "Don't Throw me in the brier patch!" Zawahiri wants America to stay in Iraq and take more causalities. Like Brer Fox and Brer Bear, President Bush threw Zawhairi back into the patch when he vetoed the timetable bill. Sadly, American troops will likely pay for the President's lack of a well read childhood.

Bushies to America: Do as I say!

This past week, the Senate passed a $122 billion Iraq War spending bill. In most years, a multi billion war appropriation would have republicans wetting their pants with joy. However, this bill contains a provision requiring the withdrawal of most U.S. forces by March of 2008. This has our fearless leader incensed. We expect there to be no strings on our on-the-ground personnel he says. The basic gist of the argument is that people in the field have a better understanding of problems and a greater appreciation for how best to solve them. While this logic overlooks the fact that Congress does have Constitutional oversight authority over the executive branch, it does have some validity. People closer to the problems, often know best how to solve them.

However, the no strings requirement doesn't seem to apply to state side civil servants. Nor does the bar on meddling in local decisions pertain to Bush administration politicos. In fact, Bush lackeys not only second guess the professional judgement of "on-the-ground" federal personnel, they appear empowered to overturn decisions that conflict with the Bush admin's questionable world view. Case in point, Julie A. MacDonald, a political hack in the Interior department repeatedly altered the scientific field reports of professional land managers to the detriment of endangered species. Ms. MacDonald made these changes despite the fact that she has no, repeat that NO formal education in natural sciences. In other words, she lacks any qualification to second guess the judgement of wildlife managers. But according to the administration this is totally hunky dory.

In a nutshell, Bushies think Congress' Constitutional oversight of local managers is bad, while meddling by political appointees in the work of stateside local managers is good. Go figure.

Under New Scandal Management

Previous Presidents used various methods to deal with political scandals. Public relations blitzes, legal maneuvers, stonewalling, cover-up and/or ultimately time have all been employed by the executive office.

The Bush administration appears to have developed a new tactic for dealing with its scandals, even more scandal. In the past few days the Walter Reed disaster, the US Attorney firings, the Valerie Plame outing have all come to light, any of which would have politically devastated previous administrations.

Yet, the above have pushed other troubling revelations off the public's radar screen. We hear little about the Pentagon's assessment of Iraq sectarian violence, the FBI's patriot act violations, General Pace's homophobia, Scooter Libby's conviction, the Halliburton Dubai move, and the disarray in the Vice President's office which were part of the collective consciousness just days ago.

Given all we've seen the past several months, its anybody's guess what new scandal is in the wings to push this week's news out of the headlines. God help the United States!

General Pace, better vote Democrat!

Yesterday, Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality and adultery are equivalent immoral acts. Pace went on to say that the Pentagon should not condone immoral behavior. One wonders if General Pace would serve under republican presidential pretenders John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani or Newt Gingrich. All three have admitted marital infidelity.

Ann's Tough Week

Ann Coulter, right wing hack, had a bad week. First, she drops the f-bomb during the CPAC convention, then a number of newspapers drop her. She tops off the past seven days with this editorial pile.

Ann's thesis is that with the Scooter Libby conviction it's now illegal to be a republican. The conviction, according to Ann, is a travesty of justice against all republicans and as such, Scooter should be pardoned. Curious the piece doesn't mention her own legal troubles. Ann might want to take a little advice. Instead of wasting time on her irrelevant ramblings, perhaps she should work on her own pardon petition.

No Pressure

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has really stepped into it. Specifically, Senator Domenici has admitted that he contacted U.S. Attorney David Iglesias last year about an ongoing corruption investigation that included at least one Democratic lawmaker. Domenici now regrets making the call, but categorically denies he pressured or threatened Iglesias on the course of action the investigation should take. Sounds simple, right?

Unfortunately, there is the little matter that in 2006 Senator Domenici called upon the Department of Justice to fire Mr. Iglesias. Oops, that doesn't look too good.

Senator Domenici alleges he made the call for removal long before he contacted the U.S. Attorney about his ongoing corruption investigation. Okay, this makes everything hunky dory again, right?

Unless . . . one considers that Senator Domenici now was in a position to significantly shape the investigation. How so? Well, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the Senator dropping his call for removal if say, the investigation went in a particular way. Gasp! Unfortunately for Mr. Iglesias he didn't change the investigation and ultimately was fired.

Congress has now gotten involved and hearings will begin Tuesday. Mr. Iglesias has been called to testify. Congress should ask the former U.S. Attorney if he felt Senator Domenici was asking him to alter his investigation in trade for his job. Unfortunately, it's unlikely the good Senator from New Mexico will be required to attend. Shame, it would be nice to see Mr. Domenici give his side of the story under a little pressure.

Katrina Take Two?

President Bush recently toured the tornado torn South exuding compassion for those who have had their lives turned upside down. The White House's new found compassion is an obvious response to its incompetent handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. While the President's walk among the people is touching, actual on-the-ground assistance is what is truly needed. People shouldn't hold their breath on fast action. More than a year after the Katrina disaster several areas of New Orleans including its 9th Ward still need debris and wreckage removed. Further, vital service such as gas and electricity have yet to be fully restored.

During his remarks to tornado survivors, President Bush stated "Out of this rubble will emerge a better tomorrow." Given the President's disastrous Iraq war, his response to Katrina and approach to issues such as climate change, many Americans are hoping the country will see a "better tomorrow" out of the rubble of this administration.

From GOP Reject to Presidential Candidate?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, recently appeared on Fox News Sunday. During the interview, Chris Wallace asked Mr. Gingrich about a possible presidential run. Unfortunately, for Mr. Gingrich a new Fox poll found that more than 60% of the country will not vote for the former speaker. When asked about these high negatives, Mr. Gingrich blamed bad press and what he cryptically termed "some mistakes" during his time as speaker. By mistakes could he be referring to his disastrous decision to shut down the federal government in a pissing match with President Clinton? Or perhaps he means his ethics scandals or personal failures?

Regardless of whatever "mistakes" Mr. Gingrich is referring to, the Republican party forced him out of his leadership position after his handling of the misguided Clinton Impeachment, which ultimately led to Republican losses in the 1998 midterm elections.

Mr. Gingrich is dreaming if he thinks the country has forgotten his dismal House leadership. As such, any Gingrich presidential run would have to answer the following: if he wasn't good enough to lead his own party, why should Americans trust him to lead the country?

Romney's Blind Spot

Willard "Slick" Mitt Romney made it official, he's running for President. His campaign centers on transforming a broken system in Washington DC. In his announcement address, Mr. Romney put it bluntly "We have lost faith in government." Lucky for us he's riding to the rescue.

While Mr. Romney's speech was long on a vision of "innovation and transformation" to magically restore lost faith, his vision contains a significant blind spot. Mainly, he failed to identify even a single factor contributing to our nation's current state. Can Mr. Romney restore a nation's faith, if he doesn't see the reason for its loss?

How can it be Mr. Romney can't see the source of the problem? Perhaps its because he doesn't want to recognize the fact that for past six years the republican party, his party, has exercised nearly unlimited control of the country's executive, judicial, and legislative powers. What has America gotten from republican leadership? In Mr. Romney's words, a government "clogged with petty politics and stuffed with peddlers of influence."

In his announcement, Mr. Romney identifies the types of people (Washington insiders, non-governors, non-business owners) that are incapable of turning the situation around. He may want to add one more category to the list: member of the republican party.

Democratic Sizzle, Republican Fizzle!

With the announcement over the weekend of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the President, the Democratic field now appears set. What a field it is! Any one of the top three candidates (Clinton, Edwards, or Obama) would make a far better President than our current leader. Buzz surrounding the Democratic field has never been higher. See here, here, and here.

Compare that to the republicans' current slate of candidates. All have significant PR problems. The flip flopping duo of John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani are falling all over themselves to attract the extreme right vote. Good luck John and Rudolph playing the republican base for dupes. Meanwhile Willard "slick" Mitt Romney appears to have fallen off the radar screen, and finds it hard to convince party faithfuls he's their guy. As such, a lack excitement surrounding the republican field has them infighting to attract attention.

Bring on the campaign!

Will the real republicans please stand up?

You've got to hand it to republicans, they never let reality come in the way of their propaganda. Case in point, GOP mouthpieces are pushing the line that Democratic candidates in the recent mid-term elections "ran as republicans to get elected." Click here.

This might come a surprise to some former legislators such as Richard Pombo, Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum or George Allen who ran as true conservative republicans and often labeled their Democratic opponents as "weak" and without ideas.

Republican apologists can spin their crushing November defeat any they want, but the truth is simply this, in each of the above races Democratic candidates defeated staunch republican opponents by running to their left.

State of the Union, Ugh!

Random thoughts on the President's State of the Union. What a mess!

Intro
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; (such as the national debt, climate change, or the war?) to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on (Can the Democrats quote the President on this come the elections in 2008?)-- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.

Budget
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. (Certainly, if one makes deep cuts to social programs. Given that the defense department and entitlement programs such as social security and medicare take up roughly 2/3 of the budget, there isn’t much left to balance the budget with but social programs like those designed to protect the environment, better education and improve labor conditions.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. (Interesting that Republicans, the “fiscal responsibility” party wern't able to do this over the past six years.) We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (During the Clinton administration the budget actually ran a surplus. The current administration shoots for balancing the budget three years after its out of office. How bold!)

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. (It's odd the President didn’t veto a single one of the earmarks that did make it to his desk! Rejecting those might have been a good first step in bringing the budget into balance and given him some credibility on this matter.)

Immigration
We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Republican Tom Tancredo’s Presidential bid just took it in the shorts.)

Courts
A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Really? Where in the Constitution does it place this requirement on the Senate?)

Terrorism
In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful (and a few unlawful) and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

Iraq
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. (Nearly two thirds through his speech before the President finally mentions the most pressing issue on our time.) Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. (What happened to mission accomplished?)

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence (Can you say code word for civil war?) in its capital.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. (It appears the president doesn’t recognize the authority of the judicial branch in the fight on terror.)

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Do you feel a draft?)

What the president didn't mention is just as interesting such as drilling in ANWR, New Orleans and its recovery after Katrina and the recent Chinese missile crisis and speaks volumes about his priorities.

Conservatives: Salad Bar Historians

Like many conservative pundits, Dinesh D'Souza appears to be a salad bar historian. He picks only those events that support his hair brained theories, leaving anything that might undermine his argument.

Case in point, D’Souza claims the actions of Presidents Carter and Clinton paved the way for the 9/11 attacks. D’Souza clearly overlooks other seeds to 9/11 such as America’s involvement in the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Premier and the installation of the dictatorial Shah. D’Souza also disregards America’s secret missile deals with Iran during the 1980’s, and its support of Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan. As well as, the U.S. pullout of Lebanon after terrorists blew up a military barracks killing 241 American servicemen.

One wonders why D’Souza didn’t include these events in his analysis of 9/11 precursors. Perhaps it’s because all happened under Republican administrations.

Emotional Road to the White House

Ann Coulter appears to have an emotional disorder making her incapable of understanding the feelings of others. Get this, Ann actually believes the buzz around Senator Barack Obama's potential run for the Presidency is really liberal amazement about his ability to “walk and talk.”

Unfortunately for Ann and other conservative Presidential hopefuls, America's feelings toward Obama have nothing to do with his strolling or speaking skills. Rather, citizens are excited about an Obama candidacy because of the inspiring vision he presents for America.

While Ann may have difficulty grasping others emotional response to Obama, hers is obvious. FEAR! For she certainly knows, no current or even potential Republican candidate can hope to match Obama’s capturing of the public’s imagination.

Early Retirement

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) annoucned today he will not seek a third term in office.


The fact that the GOP lost the Senate probably didn't have anything to do with his decision. Yeah right! One can't help but wonder how many more R's (are you reading this Saxby Chamblis, Norm Coleman) will decide to "retire" once their minority status truly sinks in.

What Would Bush Have Done?

On Fox News Sunday, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asserted that a Democratic resolution opposing the President's escalation in Iraq would be like Democrats passing a resolution opposing further action in Europe right after the D-Day invasion. Kristol simply ignores the countless Republicans who are likely to support this resolution as well. However putting this aside, it's odd Kristol would want to compare Iraq to WWII given the United States defeated much stronger enemies in less time than the current war in Iraq.

Thankfully Roosevelt, rather than Bush, was in command during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the United States might have been bogged down in a war with Mexico.