Let’s keep our eye on the ball people...

Iowa Caucuses tonight, here is my take:

When I say that they are done, I don't mean that they will drop out, but I that I think their chance of winning the nomination is done and over with.

GOP:

· Romney, needs to win Iowa to hold on in NH, if he doesn't, he's done...

· Thompson, not only done, never got off the ground

· Huckabee, could win Iowa, but won't even rate in NH, May play in South Carolina, but has little money to carry on for long without winning in Iowa... done

· Giuliani, idiotic strategy... done

· McCain, can't win, but certainly the most qualified of the bunch. He'll win NH if Huckabee wins Iowa and he gets over 10% in Iowa

· Ron Paul, hilariously done

Dems:

· Edwards, needs to win Iowa, or he's done

· Obama, probably needs to win Iowa, or he'll do his best Howard Dean fizzle. Obama is banking on a notoriously myopic and flakey group to carry him and they let Howard Dean down four years ago in Iowa. He could win and it would not surprise me, but I am skeptical of the young vote until they actually deliver. They have not delivered since McGovern in 1972.

· Hillary, will win NH if Edwards wins Iowa and she doesn't flop in Iowa. If Obama wins Iowa, she might be done. She might win Iowa, but I wouldn't bet on it. She will stay in for a while, but I don't see her winning anything if she loses both Iowa and NH. Dems tend to be all over the map, but they like to back a winner and like Kerry in 2004, if Obama wins both Iowa and NH, that's the ball game. If Edwards wins Iowa it will be harder for him to grab NH. NH would then be a toss up between Obama and Clinton, it depends on who comes in second. They both have the money to fight for a while, but Clinton has deeper pockets.

· Biden, good man, smart man, running for Secretary of State, done

· Dodd, good man, smart man, done

· Richardson, good man, smart man, possible VP candidate, done

MICHAEL MOORE ON THE FENCE: 'I am not endorsing anyone at this point'

Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March – four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Sen. Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Sen. Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do – and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Sen. Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil – including the root of global warming – is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

Zinger of the day and more on today's debate...

In today's Des Moines Register debate the moderator asked Senator Obama: "With all of the Clinton advisers on your campaign, how are you going to offer a clean break from the past?"

Hillary Clinton laughs loudly and then says: "I'd like to hear the answer to this..."

Obama pauses momentarily then lands the knock out blow by saying: "Well, Hillary, i look forward to you advising me as well."

Hillary Clinton wasn't laughing anymore after that.

I enjoyed the debate quite a bit today. I particularly enjoy hearing from Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson. None of these three men will win the Democratic nomination, but at each debate they have hammered home the fact that their collective experience on the issues, their fundamental understanding of the challenges we face. They may not end up as President, but it is nice to know that they are out there working hard for us.

Clearly, that last paragraph was loaded. I was purposefully pointing out that the three front runners in the Democratic primary as well as all the Republican candidates are simply not as well qualified. If public policy knowledge truly dictated who the next President would be then we wouldn't have to endure this putrid poor excuse for a beauty pageant.

I am not looking forward to seeing John McCain in the swimsuit portion!

A revolution of thought…

Do Americans need more money in their pockets (i.e. a tax cut) or do we just need to stop buying so much crap. This country faces serious challenges in the next decade. We face declining revenue due in part to reckless tax cuts as well as increased interest payments on all our outstanding debt to foreign creditors. As a nation, we have failed to offset this decline in revenue. This is primarily because our political leaders lack the courage to stand up to the various interest groups who fight tooth and nail for their piece of the pie (AARP, NEA, and Chamber of Commerce, I am looking at you). This is all occurring at a time when we face an increasing demand for our social safety net programs. Programs like Medicare, which will be placed under incredible financial strain with the impending baby boomer mass retirement. Other programs like Medicaid and SCHIP will also feel the squeeze due to the swelling ranks of Americans who lack health insurance. All of this reckless finance is occurring while the United States is pouring grotesque sums of money into the black hole that is the United States military. All so that we can prop up a dysfunctional regime in Baghdad under the guise of security.

This incredibly myopic view completely ignores that for the [false] perception of physical security (from those crazy Jihadists) we have triple mortgaged and then refinanced our economic security. The United States used to be the largest creditor in the world, but we are now the largest debtor. We borrow $800 million annually from Japan, South Korea, and even more disturbingly, China.

What is the solution? Well, Rudy Giuliani would tell you that everything could be solved with a few well placed corporate tax cuts. I am dubious. Fred Thompson would say that the solution is to simply tell baby boomers that the Medicare benefit that they had banked on will be unavailable because we can’t afford it (everyone burn your bras!). Ron Paul would say that the United States needs to close all bases around the world, adopt an isolationist foreign policy and then with the savings we will be able to shore up domestic programs. As ridiculous as all those solutions are, and they are, it is nothing compared to what is coming from the donkeys. Arguably this election cycle is idiot-proof for the Democrats. There has almost never been a more sure bet then 2008. Anyone who has watched any of the Republican debates knows that this crew of mental midgets doesn’t stand a chance on policy mostly because they willfully and proudly disdain public policy. Public policy, to the Republican presidential candidates, as synonymous with “Washington insiders thinking they know how to use your hard earned money better than you.”

This brings me to the point of this blog posting. Perhaps the Republicans are right! No, I have not fallen down and hit my head. I am quite alright. I am standing on one foot, touching my nose and saying the alphabet backwards. What I mean is, maybe Americans hate the idea of working hard only to turn around and pay a tax for that hard work. The taxation of income was first enacted in the United States in July 1861. Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about USD 10,000 today). In 1894 a tax act was found to be unconstitutional and the collection of income taxes was halted. This event led to the ratification of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. But I digress.

It has become the stated practice to place the largest portion of our taxation on production. Perhaps we should shift away from that paradigm. Why do we tax something like hard work that we want to promote? Perhaps in a time when our planet faces serious challenges from over consumption of goods and production it is time to instead place the tax burden on consumers. There are a number of ways to do this and they should all be discussed out in the open without fear of hateful vitriol and assertions of being a “tax and spend pinko.”

One potential shift would be to implement a Value Added Tax (or VAT) like many European countries successfully have. The VAT is levied on the added value that results from each exchange. A traditional sales tax is levied on the total value of the exchange. A VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer. This would be very effective in making the supply chain of many products more efficient (eliminating endlessly inefficient layers and middlemen). It is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone other than the person who actually bears the cost of the tax (namely the seller rather than the consumer).

Another approach is the much hyped carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on sources of carbon dioxide emissions. It is an example of a pollution tax. This type of consumption tax has two key aspects that make it an attractive alternative. First it creates an incentive for consumers to purchase products or utilities which are carbon neutral. Second, this tax targets a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income).

The solution that I envision would probably include both. We could either severely cut the income tax and implement these tax alternatives to offset the revenue loss, or we could eliminate the income tax altogether and make the consumption tax the major method of collecting revenue for government services. It should be said that Mike Huckabee has proposed eliminating the federal income tax with a national sales tax and has been laughed out of the room. The press coverage has portrayed this idea as a sign of insanity.

This isn’t a perfect solution there should be debate about whether this approach is too regressive, but in the end the goal of these taxes is to bring to light the amount of consumption we engage in as a society and the extent to which that consumption is destroying our environment.

Our leaders need to have the courage to speak truthfully and openly about the very serious economic challenges that we face. That will not happen until the American people realize that we are collectively (rich and poor alike) sitting in a boat, drifting towards a huge waterfall and our reticence about even discussing tax policy is akin to throwing the oars overboard. If we don’t, at the very least, have the conversation we are doomed to second tier status. Then this country, which has for over a century stood as an example of entrepreneurial “can-do” spirit will cease to exist and will be replaced by a nation that panders to the lowest common denominator, debates triviality, and preys on fear to achieve power.

I am not optimistic.

The blogger returns... briefly?

This is an e-mail exchange that has been going on with a conservative friend of mine. I will update if it continues to be interesting.

On 10/16/07, B wrote:
Subject: Re: Environment

All,

Next time you are wondering why we can't save the environment....throw on an episode of COPS late on a Saturday night. Everything becomes much clearer.

B

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics

Actually the reason we can't fix the environment is because seemingly intelligent people like you vote for ass clowns like Fred Thompson... to quote rolling stone's latest article...

"You have to see it to believe it, the effect that Fred Thompson has on certain crowds. Reporters who describe his public appearances as "bland" and "uninspiring" and "vague" and "blurry" do so because they're looking for the wrong thing; they're looking for theatrics, for fire and brimstone, for that candidate who can get crowds howling for blood. What Thompson inspires is something much more appropriate for Americans of the TV age: He gets audiences purring in a cozy stupor. Their eyes glaze over and they end up looking like a bunch of flies happily lapping up their own puke."

If you'd like to read the whole article...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16546031/makebelieve_reagan

On 10/17/07, B wrote:

Lets review the alternatives:

Hillary-next....

Obama - Bright, well-spoken, but not enough political experience yet. I am also concerned that he intends on raising taxes to give more money away to lower income households.

1. Give stuff away doesn't work, and doesn't motivate people to work harder
2. Taxing those who make more and giving to those who make less sounds a lot like socialism. I find myself being hard working and upper middle class, but having to watch my spending carefully. Why? Because we tax too much and give it away. Don't believe me? I live in on of the poorest states in the nation....but has the highest taxes. This sense of entitlement in America has to go....

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics
cc: C

I agree on Hillary, though she is better then anything the GOP are putting up. She would destroy Rudy in a debate. "Crank Mad Catholic!!!"

Also, you should re-assess the "give away stuff doesn't work, and doesn't motivate people to work harder." statement. The welfare reform that was bi-partisan (though a big win for Clinton) changed the landscape of welfare in the United States. It was coupled with job training and educational entitlements. In short, it worked. A huge success! Also, this administration and the Rep Congress before 2006 did more "welfare spending" then any Democratic administration has. The difference is it is corporate welfare and contracts handed out under the guise of "public-private partnerships." These PPPs, if you study public policy, only work when heavily regulated by the government. This administration is not a fan of the deadly R word. Don't think we have privatized government services? Halliburton, Blackwater (when did the Marines stop providing embassy security?), there is a conference this week in Austin where there is talk about how to privatize services in our National Parks (how do you feel about that C?). The list goes on and on.

You're right; giving stuff away doesn't motivate people to work harder. Look at how lazy, bloated and inefficient corporate America is becoming. There is a reason why our efficiency lags behind even France! The difference between corporate welfare and individual welfare is that you are helping people who because of a number of factors cannot help themselves. If the market (invisible hand and all) truly function, corporations should not need government assistance to succeed. I support eliminating all corporate welfare (include subsidies for agri-business and no-bid contracts for government contractors, etc). I draw the line at services targeted at small businesses. By and large those work quite well. If you are going to have tax incentives for Con-Agra and mega corporate farms, I think family farmers should get them too. You will not find one analysis that says that family farming is less efficient.

Racism, classism, unequal educational opportunities, the devaluation of education in poorer communities, the lack of successful role models, etc, etc, etc. The list a barriers to success for the people who are the recipients of "welfare" goes on and on. You're right, hand outs don't work. But hand ups do. The data is there, though you won't hear any of it watching a GOP debate (or a Democratic debate, really). The GOP claims to champion individual rights. I can dig it; if the playing field is level. You should not hold yourself up as an example of someone who has overcome any form of adversity. You and I come from incredibly fortunate backgrounds. Our parents are very well educated, they were role models in the importance of education, we went to top notch public schools, we were taught that working hard makes the difference. That AIN'T the norm. Social services are necessary, if for no other reason than to deliver the type of America that is discussed at Republican Debates.

Just some thoughts…

On 10/17/07, B wrote:

FP,

Welfare: I would not call this a resounding success. If people are going to receive benefits, they should have to work to some degree.

Giving stuff away: You have conveniently (Democrat move) shifted the subject matter away from the people to corporations. If people aren't motivated, they won't work harder....the same for corporations. I have no problem with corporations paying CEO's millions of dollars, if the company is profitable and returning monies to their investors. I agree Corporate welfare needs to be assessed though.

"Racism, classism, unequal educational opportunities, the devaluation of education in poorer communities, the lack of successful role models, etc, etc, etc. The list a barriers to success for the people who are the recipients of "welfare" goes on and on. " People still have the opportunity to make choices, and the longer and longer excuses are being made, the less water they hold. While I do not discount these situations exist in all too much frequency, in cannot be used as excuse to be a criminal, not work, use drugs, not care for your family, or any of the other activities that continue to plague our social services system. Take a look back fifty years ago, and I guarantee you saw a fraction of this occurring. I am tired of the Democrats trying to make people feel guilty for being successful, and thus obligated to "share the wealth." People should feel their own obligations to help their fellow man, but not have to pay 30% of their income in taxes...to take care of people that make bad decisions, not people just caught in bad situations, but people that continue to make bad decisions and rely on others to help them.

B

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics
cc: C

Part one: You should look at the welfare reform from 1994... it really should be called workfare.

Part two: If people don't have skills they can't get jobs, motivation or not. You are right people should not get handouts. We need to use entitlements to empower people and create an incentive to learn, get trained, get jobs and move up. But in the mean time it is unacceptable for the "richest nation in the world" to let them fall through the cracks. The "sink or swim" mentality exists only in the United States. Even China doesn't have uninsured children! There is a segment of the population that will never be a productive part of society. That is true in every country. But ask yourself, why is that segment so much higher in the United States then other industrialized nations?

Part three: Ask African Americans how peachy things were 50 years ago. How about Hispanics? How about the rural poor? You are assuming a level playing field and level access to opportunity. Democrats don't hate rich people. Most of them are pretty darn rich themselves. I guess it is just a difference of opinion on the role of those who are most fortunate (and yes, you fit in that category) to care for their fellow man. If you feel guilty because of your status in the great order, that is your deal. I don't feel guilty at all, but then again I believe that my 30 percent in income tax is used to, among other things, provide old people and the poor and young poor and lower-middle class kids with health insurance. I feel it is my obligation, as a human being to not only share my wealth and help out those who are less fortunate then I am in this country, but everywhere in the world. That is a difference between you and me and it doesn't make me a better person then you. I hope you don't think I'm judging your beliefs.

There is a lot of validity in the idea that individuals need to help themselves. Trust me, I live in Texas, the most libertarian place I have ever been to. But there are homeless people who are homeless not because they are lazy but because they suffer from mental health and substance abuse issues. These people cannot help themselves until they are helped by others. Some believe that charities can serve that purpose, and I agree that they have a large role to play. But LBJ said it best: "I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make them happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills." You disagree with that and I respect that.

Here is my point. You and I agree that we want to spread prosperity to as wide a portion of the population as possible. We just disagree on the best way to do that. You want individual responsibility and I want to empower people so they can take that responsibility. I think we can both agree that we don't want to pay a penny more in tax then we have to. I think we can also agree that government has at least some role to play, even if we disagree on exactly what role that is. I come from the line of belief that government can be (not is, but can be) the best engine for empowerment. FDR, in his speech when signing the New Deal legislation said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” I think if conservatives could acknowledge that the government has a role to play and liberals could acknowledge that there is a certain amount of individual responsibility inherent in success then there could be a substantive policy debate that would produce fruitful results. To be honest, all I see is a shift in that the Democratic Party has become the party of fiscal austerity (it was Nancy Pelosi that re-instituted the PayGo system in Congress). Yes, there are still people like John McCain (who, by the way, is the best Rep. on policy) who still talk like fiscal conservatives, but they are becoming increasing rare. Discretionary spending (what your peeps like to call PORK) skyrocketed between 1994 and 2006. It didn't just double, I mean it skyrocketed!

And yes, there are still liberals that have never met a problem that they could throw money at, but Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not them. Really the only Dem running who is, is Dennis Kucinich. And he doesn't even show up on most polls of Dems. That is pretty telling.

Being President isn't about saying no. Ronald Reagan didn't say now and George W Bush didn't say no (as much as I wish they would have). Look at the political spectrum. In many ways Nixon would likely have been a Democrat in the current political climate. He created the EPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and so much more. He believed in a robust, but measured federal government. He expanded LBJ's Great Society.

We'll find solutions to our problems, but until then... Everyone sing!

Happy days are here again,
The skies above are clear again,
So let's sing a song of cheer again,
Happy days are here again.
All together, shout it now!
There's no one who can doubt it now.
So let's tell the world about it now,
Happy days are here again.
Your cares and troubles are gone,
There'll be no more from now on!
(repeat first chorus)

A quote for today...

"I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make them happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills."
-LBJ

The seasons of our lives

Rolling, tumbling, turmoil, and confusion
The path down was fast
And the way up is long
Stretching out before me like a winding dirt road
Lined with green trees on a warm spring day
Wildflowers blooming
The insects singing
The road should seem daunting
It is long
But all that matters are the course ahead of me
Step by step
There is no turning back
Behind me is winter
Cold, gray, unforgiving, and harsh
Staggering in the blizzards of yesterday
Still fresh in my mind
They should not be forgotten,
Even as my body warms
From the sun of spring
The planting of new seeds
Tilling the thawed Earth
And preparing to grow into yet another summer
Rejoice!
But never forget
Winters always come again
But if we prepare
The harshness will be diminished
And we can survive until spring comes again!

If you’re American, the President thinks you’re too healthy!

In a recent column, Paul Krugman discussed the “new” Bush administration health care system reform. He referred to it as “gold plated indifference.” The line that stands out to me most in his column is: “Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.” Truly, this new series of tax cuts is nothing but a not so subtle attempt to land the death blow to our employer provided health care system. There are many people, including myself, who have wanted this to happen for many, many years. But this group is incredibly diverse and brings together people with many different rationales for wishing for the collapse of this system. They include the George Wills of the world who refer to President Bush’s proposal as “revolutionary” as well as proponents of universal coverage who see the current system as being so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be totally destroyed and rebuilt. This latter group includes the likes of E.J. Dionne, Paul Krugman and Hilary Clinton (though good luck getting her to admit it after she took such a severe beating back in the early 90s).

The Bush administration has, simply stated, never identified a problem that couldn’t be repaired with a “well placed” tax cut and the invisible hand of the free market. But let’s take a closer look at what this proposal would do. It would essentially treat the health insurance industry like the home ownership industry and create a health insurance tax rebate of $7,000 per year for an individual and $15,000 for families. The problem with this is that many of the uninsured are not paying that much in taxes.

The President talks about taxing people who have, what he terms, “gold plated coverage”. The flaw in this reasoning is that he won’t just be taxing the rich but just about every blue collar worker who is a union member. Just about every electrical worker or day laborer or any collectively bargained worker has traded at least some pay for high quality health insurance. The President’s approach will punish these workers most of all.

Let there be no illusion, this plan is not designed to fix the problem. If individuals are given the same tax benefits as business, there will no longer be an incentive for employers to provide coverage. This will leave people to buy their own individual plans. If you have ever been covered by an individual plan, you know how bad that is. No coverage for pre-existing conditions, no employer’s HR department to help you navigate all your choices. The flaws with this logic go on and on.

Of course there are problems with the health care system, but this plan doesn’t try to deal with any of them. This is just an exercise in cost shifting. The real challenge is how to control the spiraling costs of coverage. This won’t happen by tossing everyone out on their own to fend for themselves. Everyone agrees that people should be more proactive in ensuring their health. Individual responsibility is a virtue and one that should be included in all facets of life, but we need to equip people with the tools that they need to take responsibility. You can’t just say: Individual responsibility and then throw everyone into the fire.

If we put everyone in one pool and set rates for everyone at the same level then we could, in essence, control costs for individuals. Then we need to look at the health care system and eliminate waste and fraud. There are a lot of middlemen in the health care system now. A national health system modeled on the Veteran’s Administration would cut down a lot of the administrative red tape.

This system does not need subtle change. It needs revolutionary change and we should remember that this President isn’t good at starting revolutions, but civil wars.

All Hail The Conquering Heroes and other news in review...

Dear Freak Politics,

Where the hell are you?

Sincerely,
A Reader

Many have observed that I have not posted to this blog since the 2006 midterm elections. For this, I apologize. The stinging rebuke dealt to the Bush administration took a bit of the bite out of my usual vitriol. I have a feeling that the piss and vinegar displayed in the past in this blog will be lacking. For readers looking for that, I apologize.

For those living on the moon, with their heads in the sand or just not paying attention, lets review what has happened in the time since I last posted. In the 2006 midterm elections the Republican Party, suffering a serious case of voter Bush fatigue were handed a solid thwacking. Two days later Rummy was ceremonially shown the door. And no, the door did not smack him on the ass on the way out.

Out with Good Golly Don and in with the un-confirmable Robert Gates. Last time he was up for confirmation (as CIA Director under Papa Bush) he met the ire of the Democratic Intelligence Committee members who deemed that he was simply unsatisfactory, based on his connection to Iran-Contra. Though he was eventually confirmed, he was forced to endure many difficult questions. This time, all he had to do was say one word (in response to being asked if we were winning in Iraq): No! That coupled with the fact that he is, never was and never will be Don Rumsfeld make him a perfectly acceptable candidate.

The Democratic majority in Congress selected its leadership. Aww Shucks McGee (Harry Reid) and Nancy “If you think I’m ugly now, you should see before my make-up” Pelosi. They have made many promises, and we will see if they can deliver. I am not confident in the Democratic leadership, but everyone deserves their fair shake.

The day after the election all the Midterm 2006 news banners were replaced with “all Obama all the time.” The 2008 election season is upon us. Hillzilla Clinton successfully scared all the other serious moderates out of the race (former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Senator Evan Bayh) and Barack Obama has energized the Democratic Party in a manner not seen since 1992. He did this while drawing a measured amount of praise from Republicans. His voice is promising but your trusty rusty blogger will take a wait and see approach.

The Iraq Study Group released its report to President Bush. The report included 73 recommendations. You have to ask yourself, did this merry band of old timers forget who our President is? Dubya probably got through the first 25 before going to play fetch with Barney. I’m not saying he’s dumb, but he is a walking learning disorder case study.

The President is reported to be considering a “troop surge” as we move into the new year. Apparently the President wasn’t lying when he said that he never reads the news. I am no military expert, but I don’t see a “surge” in anyone’s future. Where are we going to get the troops from? Are Chelsea Clinton, and the Bush twins going to enlist? That would bring the fear of good into any Al Qaeda heart, no doubt about it.

Finally, as the year comes to a close, the world is down one evil-doer. Saddam Hussein was apparently executed; hung high like in some Western movie (Middle East style). Now we will just have to wait and see if Iraq explodes in increased sectarian violence. But honestly, you have to ask yourself; could it get any worse?

Here is to wishing you a Happy New Year and hoping for a 2007 that sees Americans dropping the partisan hate and increasing the peace. In the immortal words of Rodney King and Reginald Denny: “Can’t we all get along?

I'm not holding my breath!

Keith Olbermann hits the nail on the head...

Everyone should watch this before Tuesday. It is a bit long but I ask you to sit through it, because it is absolutely, 100% right on!!! And please forward it to everyone you know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jslQiO8p3Sk&mode=related&search=

Once that ends, click on this to see the last two minutes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgMNPXhSteE&mode=related&search=

Everything relies on our ability to turn out the vote! Call everyone you know. Make them vote!

Thomas Friedman's Column from last Friday...

This one needs no explanation!

November 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.
They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.
Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

2006, the Year of the Macaca

One person who ran for President in 2004 was quote this week as saying:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The other said:

“If the Democrats win, the terrorists win.”

One of these statements was slander and the other was a guy who attempted funny when he really isn’t.

The big knock against Democrats and liberals in general is that we are smug and superior. We are, and we need to knock it off. John Kerry was right. He was talking about the importance of education. He was saying that it is important to learn and get a good well rounded education, because if you don’t, he asserts, you will be forced into the military.

Was he saying that the men and women that serve in the military are dumb? No, he wasn’t. He was trying to say that the President is dumb, and that has to be the lamest, most overused joke that there is. But the topic offers and opportunity for further insight and learning. There are really only two methods of achieving upward mobility in this country. The best option, in my opinion, is a good education. But the other option is serving in the military where you mature and learn important high tech skills that one can transition into upward mobility. I think that the Republicans that took offense were looking for a reason to say: “see, I told you they hate the military!” and the people in this country who were offended were looking for a reason to say: “see, I told you they are all northeastern elitists!” Neither is right.

Should John Kerry keep better control of his tongue? Yes. He has often proven unable to translate the complex thoughts in his head into clear and concise statements. He is a gifted, intelligent and conscientious man with the best interests of all Americans at heart. He is also a horse’s ass that should keep his mouth shut more often.

On the other hand, the desperation of George W. Bush is becoming readily apparent. I was glad to see that he retired the tired and, well, true “stay the course”. But he as replaced it with the equally un-insightful “Democrats win = terrorists win”. Nothing could be more ridiculous. The President says that he believes that all the members of Congress (Democrat and Republican) are patriotic, but still insists on using statements that tie the Democratic Party with weakness, failure, surrender and implicitly terrorist sympathy.

The good news is that his slanderous bilge is not sinking in.

My question for the mainstream media is this, is the John Kerry quote the “political story of the week” or should it be the George W. Bush quote, which has largely been ignored?

Freak Politics 2006 Midterm Election Predictions.

The United States House of Representatives will swing over into Democratic Control. I believe that Paul Krugman's analogy of a levee and a storm surge is quite good. If the storm surge is enough to breach the levee it will flow far inland. I believe that the surge will be very large indeed.

I am predicting that the House split after November 7th will be:
Democrats: 228
Republicans: 207

An advantage of 21 seats, letter the Speaker battle begin!

The United States Senate is a little more up in the air. As we know, the Democrats need a net 6 seats to recapture control of the Senate. News today reports that the Republican National Committee has pulled it’s money from 5 of the 7 key races. They have pulled money from Rhode Island, Ohio, Montana, Virginia, and Michigan. They are pouring all their resources into Missouri and Tennessee believing that this creates their best chance to hold onto the Senate. I believe that this is a mistake, perhaps the first mistake that the Rove political strategy team has made. Hal Ford in Tennessee is young, charismatic and pragmatic. He should be able to hold off Bill Corker in the battle for Bill Frist’s seat. Missouri will be close too, but I believe that Claire McCaskill has enough momentum.

I am predicting that the Senate split after November 7th will be:
Democrats: 52
Republicans: 48

An advantage of 4 seats, don’t mess it up Majority Leader Reid!

The Dems will win in Rhode Island, Connecticut (likely Lieberman), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia. The only question mark in this is Virginia. If the Democrats had a good candidate this would be a no brainer, but James Webb is a terrible campaigner and has been unable to build momentum to build on Macaca’s mistakes!

I don’t know much about all the Governors races, but I am predicting after November 7th the split will be:

Democrats: 30
Republicans: 20

The tidal wave of 1994 has finally rolled back!

What’s wrong with our mothers?

It has been quite some time since I posted. The problem is that I am rather burnt out on politics at the moment. I can’t begin commenting on politics until the election is over. Everything we hear is spin and spin has little or nothing to do with reality. The reality is that our country has made mistakes in the last 15 years regarding terrorism. Everyone of every political leaning has made mistakes. President Clinton made mistakes and President Bush has made and is making mistakes. What we see in the face of the November 7th election is a load of drivel about how if you vote Democratic you are emboldening the terrorists and hate your country. The other side says that if you vote Democratic all your problems will go away. I think most intelligent people, regardless of the ideological views knows that both assertions are utter BS! Enough about that…

Today, instead, I want to focus on an issue that has been of particular interest to me. That is gender and American culture. I recently read an article by Lonnae O’Neil Parker that appeared in the October 15th Washington Post. Ms. Parker, an African American mother explains why she does not allow her 12 year old daughter to listen to new hip-hop. The article is excellently written, and as the father of a new baby girl and a fan of hip-hop and rap, I took particular interest. I won’t waste too many words summarizing what Ms. Parker says (since she wrote it better then I ever could), but suffice it to say that she talks about growing up loving hip-hop and growing up with hip-hop and then one day coming to the realization that the love affair she had with this musical form of lyrical poetry had become unhealthy and abusive. It is something that I have felt for a long time but having a daughter really brought it to the forefront. I am struggling to know how to proceed.

Aside from the fact that 90% of hip-hop (or music in general) is total crap, hip-hop is actively contributing to our culture of misogyny. It has created a culture of acquisition and success = wealth, violence = cool that is seen as emulated by a vast majority of boys and men of all ethnic groups. 50 Cent is seen as cool because he was shot 9 times and lived, regardless of the fact that he was a drug dealer and was shot because he was a cancer on society. Is 50 Cent talented? Without a doubt! Is it sad that he uses his talent to demean women and glorify a sad lifestyle like dealing drugs and murderous mayhem?

Hip-hop and rap are not the only perpetrators of misogyny in our culture. All forms of music are to blame, as are video games, movies and fashion. Politics is an incredibly sexist line of work too. Look at women of note and influence of politics, women like Hilary Clinton, Condi Rice, and Nancy Pelosi. They are forced to subvert that about themselves that is feminine in order to appease men (and far too many women) that believe that women and the “feminine outlook” is too emotional and/or irrational to govern effectively. Does anyone think that our country and our world wouldn’t be a better place if our mothers were in charge?

In the world of business, the Hewlett Packard scandal is a perfect example. Carly Fiorina has been demonized for her “poor” leadership at the large IT company. Board Chairwoman Patricia Dunn is being crucified for a crime that men commit daily. Let’s not forget that she may not have to have resorted to spying on other board members if they hadn’t been hiding information from her to undermine her leadership. Martha Stewart’s trial for insider trading became a cable news frenzy. Why? Not because she broke the rules, but because she was a woman breaking the rules. Women make up a pawltry 16% of CEOs in this country, despite being 46% of the workforce! 90% of Fortune 500 companies had no female executive officers.

To some extent women must be responsible for their own empowerment. Maureen Dowd wrote a column a few months ago about women reclaiming derogatory words like slut, thus neutralizing them. I think that while it is ok for them to not see them as derogatory men still do. Porn stars and strippers believe that they are empowering themselves by using their body as a means to exert control over men. Even if I did accept that premise, which I don't, their use of their body in this endeavor only weakens women who want to exert control using their minds. The Gloria Steinem generation of feminists insisted that their should be no difference between men and women and that they are 100% equal in every way. I reject that too. Women and men are different in many ways. Should they be equal? Yes. Are they the same? No. Men and women, speaking in general, approach issues differently. That is a good thing. A well functioning family has a feminine and a masculine voice. This country's leadership should too. Our culture should be dictated equally by the feminine and the masculine. Men are never shy about weighing in with their point of view. Women should be allowed into the discussion as well. Their equal voice will strengthen our society.

What our country needs are more women (not women pretending to be men) in positions of influence. What do I tell my daughter about her future and about being a woman when our society tells her that being a woman is inferior to being a man? What do I tell her when our capitalist society tells her that in order to lead she must repress everything about her that is feminine? What do I tell her when popular culture says she has to look a certain way and dress in sexy clothes? I want to teach my daughter that she can be President of the United States or CEO of a major corporation. I want her to know that there are no limits to her potential or her future. Is that naïve?

What is it that intimidates our society about strong, proud, confident, feminine women? Are our mothers so scary?

The Good, the Bad, and the Dumb!

I have spent the last few weeks on the sidelines of the debate over torture of Al Qaeda detainees and the Bush administration ridiculous notion that we can simply choose to re-interpret Article III of the Geneva Convention regarding torture. This issue is so ridiculous that I am almost afraid to wade into it. Does anyone aside from our President, and his kiss-ass chorus, think this is a good idea? It sure doesn’t appear so. Former generals and diplomats, including Bush’s own former Secretary of State Colin Powell have said that re-interpreting the Geneva Convention is a terrible idea, and still they push forward.

The Rubber-stamp Congress, lead by the extraordinarily mediocre Bill Frist, has stepped forward to tout a “compromise” that was reached last week. What happened with the last compromise between Congress and the Bush administration? The President signed the bill and added a signing statement making it clear that he would only follow the law when it did not interfere with his powers as commander-in-chief (which when dealing with Al Qaeda is always). On This Week Frist was asked about specific torture techniques, he responded that he would not address hypothetical scenarios because then the terrorists would win. I kid you not, fair readers; Bill Frist can’t even answer a question about a potential hypothetical without the terrorists winning. I fear that we are in worse shape then I originally thought if Mr. Nobody, Bill Frist, answering a direct and clear question, for once in his life, would enable the terrorists to win.

So, let’s talk about these signing statements that the President attaches to bills that he signs. He, and his merry men, claim that this is a normal procedure followed by every President since Thomas Jefferson. Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked this question on September 17th: "But isn't it the Supreme Court that's supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?"

Snow’s response? "No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself." OK, I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I have read the Federalist Papers, which clearly explains what the Framers intended when they drafted the Constitution. For those who have not read them, here are a few quotes to mull over.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Papers No. 78:
http://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed78.htm
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts ... It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 47:
http://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed47.htm
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

So, let’s review. Torturing Al Qaeda terrorists is OK and we can re-interpret the Geneva Convention any way we want until we find a way to make it OK. And the President of the United States doesn’t have to listen to Congress and is, in fact, the best judge of what is Constitutional or not, not the United States Judiciary. This is what happens when you put a single-mindedly idiotic person in the White House!

The President is trying very hard to make everyone focus on the War on Terror in the larger sense so we don't focus on the quagmire and civil war occurring in Iraq. Voters of the nation, DO NOT LOSE FOCUS!!! Voting against the Bush administration and the lap dog Congress is NOT un-patriotic. The terrorists will not win if we have dual party rule. You all know that I don't make endorsements. Vote for the Democrats, Greens, Natural Law, or Libertarians if you want, just get the neanderthals and troglodytes of the Grand Old Party out of Congress!

You are a bad man, a very, very bad man!!!

All I ever hear about is what good men Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee are. I have unloaded on Joe Lieberman already, so today I will set my sights on the honorable Senator from the state of Rhode Island. Lincoln Chafee was appointed to his seat after the death of his father, Senator John Chafee, died in office in 1999. He won re-election in 2000 and is up for re-election this year.

Lincoln Chafee is a member of the Grand Old Party, just like his father, representing the very blue state of Rhode Island. Like his father he is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate bordering on liberal. He is opposed to the death penalty. He favors a woman’s right to choose, funding for embryonic stem cell research. He is a deficit hawk who is not opposed at the outset to raising taxes. He takes these decisions on a case by case basis. He opposed President Dumb ass’ (I mean Dubya) fiscally foolish tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans. On paper Chafee could almost be a candidate worth voting for. So why do I loath him? That is because he is a Republican.

It may be that he stands on the ethical and just side of most all issues, but he still votes for the Republican Party leadership in the United States Senate. That means that a vote for Lincoln Chafee is a vote for Trent Lott and Bill Frist. Trent Lott, a man that said the country would be a better place if more people had agreed with racist, anti-integration Presidential Candidate and Senator Strom Thurmond. Bill Frist, a surgeon who decided to diagnose Terry Shiavo based on a few minutes of videotape. A vote for Lincoln Chafee, in spite of his heroic resistance to his own Party’s foolhardy stance on the War in Iraq and the struggle against Terrorism, is a vote for continued George W. Bush and Dick “Shoot my friends in the face” Cheney. It is a vote for the continuation of an impotent legislative branch and the continued domination of the executive branch.

Lincoln Chafee is a man who votes his conscience on legislation in the United States Senate and when electing a President (he wrote in the name of Dubya’s papa), unfortunately he doesn’t vote his conscience when electing Senate leadership.

I don’t know much about Sheldon Whitehouse, but I do know one thing about him; he’s no Republican. Fresh blood is needed. We need a strong and oppositional legislative branch. There has never been a more important time to be a blatantly partisan liberal. Our ideas are better. But honestly, even if, like the GOP says, Democrats had no ideas; no ideas are better than BAD IDEAS and stubbornness.

We need a Congress that will ask hard questions and fight back when the President tries to re-write our Constitution. To quote a very wise man: Mr. President, I knew James Madison, James Madison was a friend of mine, you sir and Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzalez are no James Madison.

Cut!

Print!

The End of the World As We Know It and I Feel Fine…

Improving our educational system is a priority and focus in our society. Without a doubt the American people are the least educated and least intellectually interested people of any developed nation on the planet. What is the root of this problem? People blame politics and politicians for the state of affairs and to a certain extent they are to blame for bad policies. But the people of this country are to blame for the bad politicians. Even the 30% of the population that never shows up to vote is to blame. The problem is that no one likes the smartest kid in the class. Anyone who was every that kid knows this first hand. As a result we end up with dunces and class clowns like George W. Bush and George Allen as leaders.

A co-worker of mine made an interesting statement the other day. She said that those people who are not themselves educated not only do not see the value in education but they also actively scorn education. This seems like an accurate observation, and it is troubling. We think that the solution to all our problems is to simply better educate people. Conservatives advocate for laws like No Child Left Behind to hold schools, teachers and student accountable. Liberals want to just throw more and more money at the problem thinking if we pay teachers ever more money things will inevitably get better. The solution to this problem is very daunting indeed. This challenge is particularly difficult if you must first convince the students of the value of education. In many communities becoming educated in synonymous with “selling out” or losing some cultural credibility.

If we are serious about wanting smart government we ourselves need to smarten up. We need to stop voting for troglodytes and the extreme medicocity available in our society. America, it is your fault that your politicians are, as we say time and again, stupid, insipid, corrupt and uninspired.

Mao Zedong the former communist ruler of China had a phrase that he used when advocating for a constant struggle for making society better: continual revolution. I’m not advocating communism for this country, but a little revolutionary change might do us some good. Not a violent uprising but merely the striving to make America better. The problem with this plan is that Americans are led to believe that we live in the greatest nation in the world. We are fed a line about cultural superiority and how great we are.

Yes, America is a great country. Yes, this is a land of opportunity that has enabled people to create better lives for themselves. The problem is, if we force feed people that we are a perfect nation then people will not see the need for change, but look around, this country is screaming for change. Hurricane Katrina taught us that the developing world exists right here in the United States, in the Lower Ninth Ward and too many other communities just like it around the country. We have politicians who can place anonymous holds on bills in the Senate, like Ted Stevens of Alaska blocking a bill that would create a searchable database of government grants and appropriations, I guess he doesn’t want anyone to know about his bridge to nowhere.

So where do we begin? Do we need to start with education? Do we start by proactively pushing to hold elected officials accountable? I worry that if education is the place to start, this country will get a lot worse before it gets better. Education is absolutely vital, but how do we convince kids who have grown up in families where education is not a priority of that fact? How do we inspire kids to study math and science so they become the innovators of tomorrow? Who will be our Galileo? Our Louis Pasteur? Our Jonas Salk? How do we inspire kids to study literature, philosophy and the humanities so they become the great thinkers of tomorrow? Where is our Aristotle? Our Adam Smith? Our Thomas Jefferson? Who will be the great philosopher of this generation?

Yes, this country has been founded on the principles of liberty and opportunity. Yes, this country offers great opportunity to its people and to the immigrants that come to seek out our way of life. But we have people who do not have the appropriate level of knowledge and/or respect for our history running this country. As we have at periods throughout our history, we have strayed from the ideals of liberty, freedom from tyranny, and equality. At what point is it ok to close our borders to those in the world who seek to be American? Why was it OK for the Irish, Italians and Chinese to come and still maintain their cultural and national identities but it is not ok for those coming from Latin America? Many of our greatest inventors, scientists, thinkers and theologians were immigrants. Have we decided that this is not a tradition that we value? How can we expect to lead the world when we do not intend to serve as the great melting pot where ideas and discovery are encouraged and nurtured?

Our leaders tell us that we are at war. They compare Iraq and the struggle against Islamo-fascism (notice they still consider them one and the same) to the great struggles against Nazism and Communism. The Bush administration and its lapdog the U.S. Congress tells us that we are at war. Perhaps, instead of trying to fit everything that is happening into a historic paradigm we should be moving forward with our eyes ahead and realizing that old nomenclature doesn't fit the current context. War is obsolete. ideological fundamentalism without a nation state is absolutely nothing like Nazism or Communism. We can't kick off a new arms race and bankrupt Al Qaeda.

As a prerequisite for safety the government has told us that we must voluntarily surrender some of the civil liberties guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. Do we have to allow the U.S. government to spy on us in an uncontrolled and unregulated fashion to protect us from some unseen and totally frightening danger? Is the threat of terrorism real? Yes! It is absolutely a reality of the new world that we live in. Are we safe? Yes, most of us are probably safe. Has the military helped us achieve safety? Not in the slightest. George W. Bush said that we fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in the United States. Senator Joe Biden made a great point this week; does anyone think that Al Qaeda can't fight both in Iraq and the United States?

Is the threat of terrorism real in the rural Midwest or Hana, Maui? No, it isn’t and to manipulate peoples fear by asserting that it is, is criminal. Fear is a powerful tool of control. Fear is the way the Bush administration has scared us away from regime change at home for the last four years. Most pundit, conservative and liberal think that scare tactics will fall flat this fall. We have been desensitized to the fear.

Here is one more question to ponder moving forward: if we win the struggle against ideological fundamentalism by surrendering the civil liberties that make this country great, can we really call ourselves that winners? Or have we lost that which scares our enemies the most?

The "V Speech" from V for Vendetta

V: Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
[carves V into wall]
V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
[giggles]
V: Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?
V: I'm quite sure they will say so.

Droopy Dog gets fired

Every Connecticut Democrat’s worst fears were realized last night when primary loser Joseph Lieberman announced that he would buck the wishes of the majority of his Party and run for re-election as an independent. It doesn’t surprise me. My father, when speaking about Lieberman, pointed out that he stands on the Democratic side of most issues. This cannot be debated. On a woman’s right to choose, gun control, the environment, and education he has always been a leader in the Party. But, as the New York Times pointed out, on the defining issue of our time, the war in Iraq, Lieberman has made some in the Republican Party look downright progressive.

I do not question whether Lieberman is a good man, an intelligent lawmaker or an ideological Democrat, what I do question is his loyalty to the Democratic Party. He has no loyalty. He sells himself as a Democrat who can work with Republicans. This is no time to be working with Republicans. Working with Republicans has allowed the President to cuckold the legislative branch. It has allowed Bush to cherry pick laws and interpret them as he sees fit. It has allowed for the systematic role back of our civil liberties with no meaningful debate. It has allowed a culture of corruption to grip the nation’s capital. It has created a climate where no one is held accountable. Well, Lieberman was held to account for his actions last night.

The Senator will run as an independent and he will then likely line up with the Democratic Caucus, but the message is clear. The American people will be holding their elected officials accountable for their behavior in Washington. On the whole, this is a bad omen for Republicans. I know on the surface that it appears that the Democrats are running to the left. But they are not. Ned Lamont is not a left wing ideologue. He is a moderate that happens to oppose a very unpopular war. In that way, he is a progressive.

In 2000 life was looking good for Joe Lieberman. He was Al Gore’s choice for a running mate, a moderate Democrat with a lot of public policy credibility. Droopy Dog Lieberman has been a mainstay in Connecticut Democratic politics for 35 years. Connecticut is no borderline Democratic state. The Constitution state is very solidly blue. So, how did the wheels fall off the wagon in such a dramatic fashion?

Joe Lieberman has always felt morally superior to Democrats and Republicans. He holds himself up as a pious, holier-then-thou example. Joe Lieberman has always been far to judgmental for many on the left in the Democratic Party. His ability to work collaboratively with Republicans has sold well with independents but has never sat well with the left wing of the Party that, for hook or for crook, decides primaries. Somewhere along the way Joe Lieberman allowed vanity and pride to cloud his judgment. Yes, we send Senators to Washington to vote their conscience. Yes, it is a bad precedent when they start voting according to polls instead of following their own hearts and minds. That is why the Connecticut primary is an excellent re-affirmation of what is right with the American system. Lieberman stuck to what he believes. The Democrats in the state of Connecticut disagreed and they fired him. Democracy done right. Are you taking notes Iraq???

Honestly, what is the alternative?

I would hope that by now I don’t need to point out that I abhor violence. It is absolutely the worst way to solve a conflict. Armed conflict to resolve that which cannot be negotiated to settlement should only be used as the absolute last resort. I believe we are getting there now. Unfortunately we have been fighting in Iraq for over three years and in Afghanistan for almost four years. That is what I would call and world class case of jumping the gun. Perhaps if we had engaged in the war on terror and our response to September 11^th “correctly” we would not be where we are now. But that is not where we are. Neoconservative idealists, in all there wisdom, or lack thereof, decided that we could force American style democracy on the world. They believed naïvely that a people would appreciate and respect freedom and liberty even if they did not have to struggle for it. Well it hasn’t happened and it appears they are struggling now, but not for democracy. They are struggling for power and for money.

The problem in Iraq is that the Shia feel that they are owed for “time served”. The Kurds feel the same way. And the Sunni are petrified that part of what these two other groups feel they are owed is the lives of a bunch of Sunnis. That is not a totally irrational fear. If the situation deteriorates into a free for all, I would not trade places with the Sunnis for all the Humus in Lebanon.

As Thomas Friedman pointed out in the New York Times this week; it is time for Plan B. Our “plan” in the Middle East is not working. As the Big Lebowski would say: “The goddamn plan has flown into the goddamn mountain!!!” That can hardly be considered a surprise since there was no clear plan that anyone could point to, aside from the gut feeling of President Bush. The level of ineptitude is mind boggling. Can I just point out that Presidents have been impeached for less severe crimes (not that I am advocating that, yet).

The chaos in Iraq and the quagmire that we have found ourselves in has made it so that the United States is completely unable to adequately address other issues in the Middle East and elsewhere. The reason we can’t get serious about Iran and their threat is because we are bogged down. Likewise with Lebanon, Afghanistan and North Korea, we are stuck in reverse watching the situation in these volatile countries deteriorate. Then let us not forget genocide in Darfur and unrest in Somalia. Want to talk about two countries which are definitely harboring Al Qaeda… The Sudan and Somalia have to be right up near the top.

The problem is that we had no real friends in the Middle East before Israel started blowing Lebanon back into the stone ages (not a long journey in the Middle East). Critics cry out that this is weakening the U.S.’s standing in the region. Honestly, could it have gotten any weaker? I patently reject the notion that the violence is creating more anti-Israeli sentiment. Perhaps the governments in Egypt, Jordan and the Kingdom of Saud would be willing to tolerate a Jewish State in the region, but the people have not come around to that viewpoint. Nothing that Israel has done in the past four weeks has exacerbated that situation, the anti-Israeli and anti-Western sentiment has been there and it isn’t going away any time soon. If tomorrow we let the Islamic world wipe Israel off the map they would still hate us. That is because they don’t truly hate us. They just hate. They hate there lack of economic opportunity. They hate their lack of freedom. They hate their authoritarian governments. We are just the easiest target for that hate. Don’t think for a moment that before the west got to the Arabian Peninsula that the tribes loved each other. To disprove that you need only open the Quran to realize that the tribes have been warring over all manner of things for centuries. To declare that this is an age old religious conflict misses half the story. The best explanation is that this region of the world is very, very hot and there is very little water.

The Islamic Middle East hates Israel for many, many reasons and the “oppression” of the Palestinians isn’t any of them. They hate that Israel is a functional country with a healthy economy. They hate Israel because they have a functional agriculture industry. They hate Israel. Saudi Arabia gives between $80 and $100 million per year in economic aid to the Palestinians. In 2005 alone the United States pledged $274 million in aid to the Palestinians. That number went down and rightfully so, in 2006 after the Palestinian people elected Hamas into power. Even with that setback, the U.S. still pledged $150 million. If the Saudi’s care about the Palestinian people, why not give more? It’s not because they are not short on cash. No, the Saudi’s give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as well as funneling money to groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

Now all these numbers don’t mean that much. The U.S. gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel, including selling them weapons on the cheap. There is no doubt that the United States has taken sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We’ve made our bed. Now we have to lie in it.

The Israeli response does appear to be an overreaction, but Hezbollah is spurred on by the Muslim “street”. The people of the Islamic world want this conflict. No Islamic government is willing to champion it. In steps Hezbollah to fill that void. David Brooks (and I truly hate to agree with him) said in a column last weekend: “Many of those calling for this immediate cease-fire are people of good will whose anguish over the wartime suffering overrides long-term considerations. Some are European leaders who want Hezbollah destroyed but who don’t want anybody to actually do it. Some are professional diplomats, acolytes of the first-class-cabin fundamentalism that holds that “talks” and “engagement” can iron out any problem, regardless of the interests and beliefs and fanaticisms that make up the underlying reality.

“The best of them have a serious case to make. It’s true, they say, that Israel may degrade Hezbollah if it keeps fighting, but it may also sow so much instability that it ends up toppling the same Lebanese government that it is trying to strengthen.

“They point to real risks, but if a cease-fire is imposed now, there won’t be only risks. There will be dead certainties. If Hezbollah emerges from this moment still strong, it will tower like a giant over the Lebanese government. Extremist groups around the world will be swamped with recruits. Iran’s prestige will surge. The defenders of nation states and the sponsors of Resolution 1559 will be humiliated. Israel’s deterrence power will be shattered.”

To the critics of Israeli policy regarding Hezbollah I ask simply: what is the alternative?