Remembering President Ford

With the recent death of President Gerald R. Ford, the media has done a lot of examination of Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and how it saved the country a lot of turmoil that would have resulted from a trial. Interestingly there is little comparison to all the problems caused by the investigations into President Clinton.

More than 30 years after Watergate many Americans still are a little troubled about what Nixon did, yet may be now willing to accept that the country was better off with the pardon. As Ford said when he took office, "Our long national nightmare is over." Yet merely five years after the 1998-99 impeachment hearings there was hardly a peep in the media and the public to note this anniversary. In addition, one only has to look at how impeachment is only an afterthought to any discussions regarding Hillary Clinton's potential run for the presidency in 2008, 10 years after the hearings.

In 1974 Gerry Ford took one for the country and pardoned Nixon because he placed the country over his personal interests. By comparison the GOP placed its personal interests about in 1998 was going after President Clinton. And while the investigations cost them at the ballot box in 1998, their harping on it may have provided the margin that allowed them to be in the lead in Florida in 2000 when the vote counting was halted.

An important part of Democracy is participants understanding and willingness to lose and turn over power following elections. Ford made a tough choice and lost a close election and probably had to think that the pardon was responsible for the slim margin of defeat. Years later, President Clinton conferred on Ford the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor for his service.

While President Jimmy Carter was a fine man, the nation may have been better off with Ford in office. Unfortunately this scenario repeated itself in 2000 when the Clinton impeachment probably contributed to Vice President Al Gore's loss. In this case there is no doubt that the country would have been much better off if Bush hadn't been placed in the White House.

It's hard to believe that the party of Lincoln and Ford is now the party of Bush.

Making the World...Less Safe?

When George Bush announced he was considering adding additional troops a lot of people probably thought "golly gee whilikers, why hadn't anyone thought of that before?"

Yeah, why hadn't that been considered before? Say during an election campaign, for instance in 2004? You say someone did discuss that? John Kerry? Surely not, the media would have been all over the story that the Bush administration is following John Kerry's recommendation. Right? Oh, yeah, right, we're talking about the Washington Typists here. Never mind...

However, let's go back to the way back machine. In early June 2004 Kerry said "more U.S. troops and a new president could be needed to win international support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq." And how did the Bush administration react? Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said the country would be "less safe" under Kerry's approach.

So is Bush now working to make the country "less safe"? Or was Kerry the only realist on the campaign trail in 2004 and the Bushies didn't care whether they were being honest, all they cared about was confusing the public just enough and just long enough to win the 2004 race.

Did Bush Listen to Kerry's Criticisms?

After watching George Bush blast Sen. Kerry for his criticisms of Bush over failing to study and do his homework on Iraq, Bush's recent actions leads one to wonder if Bush has realized that Kerry was correct and the only "Way Forward" is to do what Kerry said Bush wasn't doing.

For anyone who forgot, prior to the elections, Kerry told a group of supporters - '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.''

After more than three years of being unprepared for the situations that arose following the military victory, the Administration finds itself stuck in Iraq and witnessing daily incidents of carnage killing both Americans and Iraqis.

Finding his administration stuck in Iraq and the public turned away from his policy, Bush has recieved the Iraq Study Group report, visited with U.S. military commanders and also talked with others about "a new way forward."

So Bush is now is trying (at least make an appearance) to study hard on Iraq, to do his homework, and make an effort to be smart so he can find a “way forward,” as opposed to being stuck in Iraq.

So Bush is finally doing the things Kerry criticized him for not doing yet has anyone in the media connected the dots between Kerry’s comments and Bush's recent actions? Of course Bush may not be serious about education and actually have no interest in studying or doing his homework and if that's true the U.S. will remain stuck in Iraq.

So did Bush listen to Kerry's criticism or was Kerry was right? I'm guessing Kerry was right and perhaps that was why Republicans reacted so dishonestly to his criticisms.

Shocking! Media's Drubbing of Kerry Leads to Poor Rating

The media jackals latest point of interest is a survey by Quinnipiac University on the likeability of various potential presidential candidates and politicians. The Washington Typists have focused on the simple part of the story, Rudy Giuliani was the favorite of the 20 and John Kerry was 20th of 20.

Al Gore came in 14th and George Bush came in 15th, yet Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post talks about how in 2000 Bush was the more likeable and that's why he won. Right.

Well, why wasn't Gore, who defeated Bush by 500,000 votes in 2000 and won Florida if all the votes were counted, "the candidate voters were more comfortable welcoming into their living rooms for the next four years?" Maybe the Post should look in a mirror.

As John Harris (ex?) of the Post wrote in is new book: "A number of members of the Gang of 500 are convinced that the main reason George W. Bush won the White House and Al Gore lost was that Gore's regular press pack included the trio of Katherine 'Kit' Seelye (of the New York Times), Ceci Connolly (of the Washington Post), and Sandra Sobieraj (of the Associated Press)."

As the Daily Howler has pointed out about the Post's coverage - "Ceci Connolly made it up about Gore for twenty straight months. And on occasion, John Harris helped out."

Talk about an inconvenient truth! Unfortunately, the Post helps establish the public's view of a candidate and having someone like Ceci trash Gore enabled Bush to steal the election and lead the US to be stuck (yes, stuck) in a war in Iraq. (Hope she's happy with her work!)

By the same token, the Washington Typists were lead by the nose by the White House over John Kerry sarcastic comment about Bush getting the country stuck in Iraq and lead the charge to demand an apology to those who were either too disinterested or dishonest in learning what Kerry actually said. The Typists efforts played a large role in Kerry's poor rating in the poll.

Grand Old Hypocrites

Members of the Grand Old Hypocrites party were out in full force on Wednesday displaying an amazing, and little questioned, ability to lie and spin their way to attack Sen. John Kerry regarding their own inability to understand the English language.

On the Rush Limbaugh show, only days after Rush made fun of actor Michael J. Fox and his suffering from the effects of Parkinson's Disease, George Bush had the gall to say “Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words.”

Gee, was Bush speaking about Rush, or himself?

This also days after Bush disgustingly all but called Democrats supporters of terrorism. So according to members of the GOH, it is okay to make fun of people with disesases or suggest your opponent supports terrorism, yet it is wrong, very wrong, to tell a joke that can be misinterpreted by only the lazy or dishonest?

For example the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz joined other members of the Washington Typists in lazily repeated Republican talking points, calling Kerry's joke "a crack about uneducated soldiers." No doubt the GOH was pleased with his typing.

Laura Bush joined in, saying "we must conduct our debate here at home in a way that does not jeopardize our troops in harm's way,” and called for “conversations conducted with civility and respect.”

So implying your opponents are supporters of terrorism is a conversation "conducted with civility and respect"? Hah! If anything her husbands comments place U.S. troops in greater harm than a criticism of the president. But then, what does Bush care, other than doing whatever it takes to "win" an election.

Bush Attacks Troops

In a sign of desperation one week before mid-term elections that could effectively end his Presidency (six years too late), George Bush attacked a decorated military veteran in an effort to win votes.

Responding to criticisms by Sen. John Kerry that Bush and the administration didn't bother to study about Iraq, didn't bother to do the proper background work, or try to find out about the situation prior to invading Iraq. Bush ignored Kerry's criticism and lied about what Kerry said, implying that criticism of Bush are criticisms of the troops.

And in a further sign of desperation, according to the Washington Post, the White House tipped off television networks to when Bush would attack the military, so the comments could be carried live and make the evening news.

What Kerry actually said was "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. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So did Bush make the most of educating himself on whether there were WMDs in Iraq? Did he study hard enough regarding the situation in Iraq. Did he figure out the smartest approach to the situation? No, and so what happened? Bush got the military stuck in Iraq.

How anyone could think this was a criticism of the troops is unbelievable. However, Sen. John McCain bought into the lies, perhaps in hopes that by selling his reputation he can be President some day. In reality it will more likely raise questions about his ability to be a leader. For if he can't determine the meaning of such a statement than he has no business being president.

But this type of dishonest approach is typical of conservatives and the White House. However one has to wonder if anyone will figure out that if Bush believes that if Kerry's attack on Bush is an attack on the troops, then Bush's attack on Kerry is also an attack on the troops.

In actuality, the attack on Kerry is closer to attack on the troops since he actually served in a war overseas and Bush ended his military career with questions regarding whether he went AWOL in order to avoid a medical exam.

GOP Enlists Osama to Help with Mid-Terms

With the mid-term election only two weeks away, and polls showing the potential for the Democrats retaking the House and possibly the Senate, the Republican Party has called on an old ally to help them win elections.

As others on the web pointed out, on Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as "Osama's endorsement of John Kerry." But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

With it uncertain whether Osama would be willing to assist the Republican in 2006, reports in the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune say the GOP has decided to enlist him in ads. While the ads has lots of references to terrorists, and implies that Democrats would be a bad choice.

But what it doesn't say is that the GOP's Cut and Run strategy in Afghanistan has emboldened terrorists and it's Stay and Die strategy in Iraq has only lead to the deaths of many American's and Iraqis.

One could only imagine where the world would be today if the administration had taken the war on terror seriously and actually gone after the people who attacked the United States on September 11. Instead they went off on another directions, requiring the US to basically give up on the War on Terror before it was won.

Perhaps the reason the Administration didn't go after Osama is that if they captured or killed him then Iraq would not be viewed as part of the war on terror and being able to attack Iraq was more important that winning the war.

National Debt Up $574 Billion

The U.S. national debt increased by more than $574 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, a $20 billion increase over the previous year, according to figures from the Department of Treasury.

The Bureau of Public Debt reported that the national debt was $8.506 trillion as of September 29, the last business day of the fiscal year. The government had ended the previous year at $7.932 trillion, an increase of $553 billion over the year ending September 30, 2004.

This marks the fourth consecutive year that the national debt has increased by more than $500 billion and fifth that the increase was more than $400 billion. The last time the national debt increase was under $100 billion was in 2000 when Bill Clinton was President and the debt increased by only $17 billion.

One unusual note about the 2000 increase was that in the two weeks prior to the end of the fiscal year and the two weeks after the end of the fiscal year, the national debt ranged from a decrease of $12 billion from the previous year to an increase of $6 billion. Only on the last day of the year did the debt increase reach $17 billion.

The administration and the press, such as the Washington Post, are reporting that the federal deficit "fell" to a four-year low in the budget year that just ended at $247.7 billion.

The Post did report that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit for the current budget year will rise to $286 billion. Over the next decade, the office forecasts that the deficit will total $1.76 trillion.

One of the reason the administration reported lower numbers is that they were able to use Social Security to mask the deficit.

The Need to Fight Back

If Democrats want to learn what they need to do win all they do is watch President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace and (to ABC's recent alleged documentary on 9/11). The lesson is that one has to fight back as conservatives have no problem in dishonestly fighting.

During the interview Chris Wallace attempted to say that the only reason he was asking about Clinton not being able to take out Osama bin Laden was that FOX News viewers had it on their mind. To that Clinton raised the major point that the media is unwilling to discuss.

"Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression," Clinton said.

For years the Democrats have faced disinformation campaigns (homeland security in 2002, swift boats in 2004, and torture in 2006) and Republicans came out ahead in the first two elections. Unless they figure out what happen before, history will repeat as Republican have no other issues that could gain American's support, as Clinton pointed out happened in 2002.

"In 2002, our party supported them in undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror.

And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed. And they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn't pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it."

Democrats need to listen to Clinton if they are going to win this year - This is perfectly predictable: We're going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.

The causes of 9/11

Five years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the country and the media took a long look back at the attacks and noted the importance of the events. Perhaps one can tell the importance of an event by the amount of time people spend on remembering an event.

More than 200 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence the country annually celebrates the birth of the country. For more than 40 years the country has looked back on November 22 to remember where they, or the country, was on that fateful day.

Part of the fifth anniversary events surrounding the 9/11 attacks was a so called docudrama on ABC, called the Path to 9/11. According to news reports, the show seeks to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks, in part suggesting that the administration was preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky.

If correct, that reflects just as badly, or worse, on conservatives and the media for they are responsible for the excessive time spent on Whitewater/Monica. One has to wonder if the resources spent on this meaningless event were spent on finding and fighting terrorism, could 9/11 have been prevented?

Conservatives may argue that it was important to investigate but that argument falls flat when one considers how little was made of the fifth anniversary of the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. Oh, a few in the media remembered the event, if only in their mind to justify what they had done.

So if there was little or nothing to the Clinton investigations and conservatives believe that Clinton was preoccupied with the investigations, and that preoccupation with the investigations kept the U.S. from preventing 9/11, then doesn't it stand that those who pushed the investigations helped set the stage for 9/11?

So if we are going to assign blame, will the GOP, conservatives, and many in the media be held accountable for their role in allowing 9/11 to happen?

Funny Business in Ohio?

One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is that they make various claims and belittle people who don't swallow the claims hook, line and sinker. After awhile, when the claims turn out to be as valid as WMDs in Iraq, the administration changes the story to a new line, ignoring the old, leaving only historians and opponents to figure out the truth.

The latest news out of Ohio that that rather than destroying the ballots from the 2004 Presidential election as soon as they can following the 22 month waiting period, J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio secretary of state, has decided to wait.

The New York Times said that "critics, including an independent candidate for governor and a team of statisticians and lawyers, say preliminary results from their ballot inspections show signs of more widespread irregularities than previously known."

Those inspecting the ballots aren't trying to say that Kerry should be President, although one has to wonder if that was required. The Times reported that the investigation has not inspected all 5.6 million ballots in the election because the critics were not given access to them until January. That followed an agreement by the League of Women Voters, a plaintiff in another election suit against the state, that it was not contesting the 2004 results.

However, after eight months inspecting 35,000 ballots from 75 rural and urban precincts, the critics say that they have found many with signs of tampering and that in some precincts the number of voters differs significantly from the certified results.

Gee, right on time. One would hardly be surprised to eventually find out that John Kerry did win Ohio, and therefore should have been President. Is it ironic that the current president talks long and hard about developing democracies in the middle east yet his team has harmed democracy more in the United States than most people ever will.

Democratic Party representatives said that the the investigations haven't found anything new, although one has to wonder if they also don't want the truth uncovered as it would show that the election should have been contested.

The Kerry Edwards team pledged to support the idea of every vote would count and every vote would be counted but it appears they may have gotten rolled by Rove Inc. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire figured that out and is the reason she is governor

Conservatives: Faked Photos Bad, Words OK

After reading columns by outraged conservative columnists about the Reuters photograph that was altered one has to believe that conservatives are lucky that the media and public have such short attention spans.

When the enhanced photo was discovered, conservatives went after Reuters. However, to its credit, Reuters ended it's relationship with the photographer, pulled all of his photos to look for other potenital problems, and tightened editing procedures for photographs from the conflict and apologized for the case.

That's a lot more than you can say about many conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin who had no qualms of using manipulated quotes by Democrats yet screamed about the altered photos. Perhaps she believes what's the big deal over a little faked smoke, sorry, faked words?

Compare conservatives' reaction to the manipulated photo and then look at how they reacted the manipulated Al Gore comments regarding the Internet. Yes, the famous alleged comment that Gore "invented" the Internet. Using that term is about as honest as using the doctored photo, and even worse today since the term has been discredited.

The "quote" came from an interview on CNN where Gore said During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. As Snopes.com pointed out in discrediting the inventing claim, if President Eisenhower had said he had created the interstate highway system, it's doubtful he would have been ridiculed.

Instead, despite defenses from Vinton Cerf, called by some as a founding father of the Internet, and Republican Newt Gingrich (Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet) Eric Boehlert found that during the 2000 election and counted more than 4,800 television, newspaper and magazine mentions during the campaign of Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet.

What conservatives knew is that the media is lazy and would accept the faked term "invented" and so they could easily continue to use it in the future. So the next time you read the words "invented the internet" or "earthtones" (a whole nother story) think about the double standards about why it's wrong to fake photos but ok to fake words.

The GOP's Favorite "Democrat" Goes Down

The "Blinders for Bush" crowd are in full-scale denial this week with the primary election in Connecticut and win by Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman.

To the "Blinders" crowd, the election was solely about the Iraq War, not about anger about the complete utter disaster George Bush has been as president and Sen. Lieberman's role as a Bush enabler.

Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the New Republic, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says of Lamont "he does have one issue, and it is Iraq."

George Bush, why he's not an issue and in fact in the 1,400 word plus article it is 1,300 words in before Peretz bothers to mention Bush, and then only in passing.

To the true believers, Bush can do no wrong and he's not the reason people are upset enough to try to vote a senator out of office. In reality, more than the 49 percent who voted against Bush in 2004 or 51 percent in 2000 are upset at what's been going on.

As Dan Froomkin pointed out, according to the latest Washington Post poll, a near-majority of Americans -- 46 percent -- strongly disapprove of the job Bush is doing. That's strongly. Another 12 percent somewhat disapprove.

So nearly 60% are upset and so the only way people could take it out on Bush was to vote against Lieberman, GOP's Favorite Democrat. Now, as Lieberman said he would, and just as Bush did in 2000, Lieberman will disregard the will of the people .

Perhaps if Lieberman had been a true Democrat and fought Dick Cheney in 2000, today he would be Vice President and thinking of running for President in 2008 rather than a losing in a primary.

GOP Breaks Down, Admits Bush is Bad

One of the criticisms of the Democratic Party is that they offer nothing but attacks on Bush. At least that's the script that the media is pushing.

The problem lately it that it's not just Democrats who are criticizing Bush. Just look what a Conservative Republican candidate for the Senate told Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

On the Iraq war: "It didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace." On the response to Hurricane Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

At first the candidate didn't want to be identified, but since Milbank's article mentioned that Senate Leader Bill Frist walked by during the luncheon with reporters, it was inevitable his identity would be unveiled.

The candidate was Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland, fighting an uphill battle to win an open Senate seat in Maryland. Because of that some wondered if the comments weren't intentional, to give him some credibility with Democratic voters in Maryland, who outnumber Republicans.

Whether or not there was a political calculation to the comments, one should look at what Steele said and consider that perhaps EVERYTHING the Democrats have been saying for the past six years has been correct. Bush is a disconnected, uncaring and incompetent President. It just took Hurricane Katrina for people to open their eyes, according to Steele.

"In 2001, we were attacked and the president is on the ground, on a mound with his arm around the fireman, symbol of America," he said, between bites of hanger steak and risotto. "In Katrina, the president is at 30,000 feet in an airplane looking down at people dying, living on a bridge. And that disconnect, I think, sums up, for me at least, the frustration that Americans feel."

But for anyone following the news, none of this should come as a surprise. As Rolling Stone reported, a panel of historians voted Bush the worst American president. So now that pretty much everyone now admits Bush is a failure, can we stop with the "all Democrats do is attack Bush."

Paying Back Lieberman

Perhaps former President Bill Clinton could have repaid Sen. Joe Lieberman for his 1998 Monica Lewinsky speech by making a similar speech on Monday condemning Lieberman for his support of George Bush. It's hard to tell which was more disgusting, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky or Lieberman with Bush.

There are some that say Lieberman's speech helped Clinton and the Democrats for providing the outrage many Americans were feeling toward the president, thereby ending the desire for retribution except among the most extreme Americans. It was no surprise that most Americans supported Clinton and that his approval ratings were double of that of Bush.

Most Americans were smart enough to figure out there is large difference about lying or misleading the public about a personal failure in one's personal life than lying or misleading the public about sending Americans to die in a foreign country.

Too many in the media are painting Lieberman's trouble solely to his vote regarding Iraq. Today Lieberman says he is in the fight of his political life. It's too bad he didn't think that the 2000 Presidential election was the fight of his political life.

Instead in the debates with Cheney he was unwilling to challenge dishonest statements like that in his road to riches that "the government had nothing to do with it," Cheney said -- a remark that overlooked that his firm had received more than $2 billion in federal contracts for support of American troops on peacekeeping missions."

Cheney and many on the right were disdainful of Lieberman in 2000 but today it's interesting that those on the right now support Lieberman. Funny these were the same people who were calling him Loserman in 2000.

They Just Don't Get It

Stung by criticism from bloggers and others over a lack of will to truly examine the rise of the right wing media and how the MSM has cowed itself over the years, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has looked down from his ivory story and attempted to determine what is going on in the streets.

After a quick looksey, Kurtz pronouncesd in a column in the Post that the Left's complaint is Why aren't you on our side? and the Right's complaint is Why can't we get an even break? What a joke. One only has to look at the favorite news organizations of the Right (FOX News) and Left (NPR). Which offers complete and balanced coverage (NPR) and which plays on one side (FOX - Republicans)?

Actually the Right wants it both ways - they want the media to be on their side (FOX News) and if not they complain that they don't get a break. What a crock!

Once and for all, this is the way it is - conservatives expect news coverage to be slated in favor of conservatives (i.e. Fox News) and get mad when it isn't. Liberals expect complete coverage (NPR) and get upset when it isn't.

But in the mind of pundits like Kurtz, asking tough questions of Republicans is akin to taking the Democrat's side, a point he made when Arianna Huffington complained that Tim Russert of Meet the Press gave GOP Ken Mehlman the traditional "E-Z Pass.

For years the Left has been pushing the media to just to do their job, not be a one-sided propaganda machine such as the Right has established with FOX News or the Wall Street Journal editorial page (which even the paper's news staff thinks it off the wall. - "They're wrong all the time. They lack credibility," said one Journal reporter)

For example, remember when the White House press corps woke up one morning earlier this year and decided it was okay to ask tough questions. Jon Stewart on The Daily Show joked that "We've secretly replaced the white house press Corps with actual reporters!"

However the Right has been pushing the media to cover the news from a right-wing perspective (attack Clinton, give Bush the benefit of the doubt) and it worked. Even the Post once upon a time admitted that in a column by John Harris.

Yet when liberals read stories like Harris's and get upset, the Kurtz's of the world call them "angry." One could live with the angry tag if the media would then apply the term "crazy" to the Ann Coulter's of the world, but too many in the MSM just laugh off comments by Coulter and Limbaugh.

In the end it's election year so the MSM wants to seem "balanced," or balanced in the eyes of Fox News so don't expect much to change.

Big Bang Goes Boom

The Bush administration's idea that the way to get peace ran through Iraq was what Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. called "the Big Bang" theory.

"Installing a democratic government in Iraq would force a new dawn. Newly empowered Muslim democrats would reform their societies, negotiate peace with Israel and get on with the business of building prosperous, middle-class societies," Dionne wrote of the Bush administration's plans.

So how's that working out? Un huh, just great. Well I'm sure the Republicans will want to review this during the upcoming election. Right. Or as Dionne describes the GOP's plan, For the next 3 1/2 months, they want the choice before the voters to be binary: staying the course and being "tough," or breaking with President Bush's policy and being "soft."

Must be nice to be able to demand that people not examine your competence in order to determine your fitness. Kinda like CEOs. You get paid a lot no matter how bad you are. Well Bush is called the CEO president.

Emptying the Lockbox

When George Bush was on his ill-fated campaign to privatize Social Security in 2005 one of his campaign stunts was to visit the Office of Public Debt Accounting to find the collection of Treasury Securities that make up the Social Security trust fund.

During his visit Bush said that there was "There is no trust fund -- just IOUs." Other conservatives pointed out that the Social Security payroll taxes are collected, but spent by the government and that privatization was needed to strengthen Social Security.

One might think Bush would have thought more about why those hard-earned payroll taxes were not being saved. Instead this week Bush signed into law a $70 billion tax cut, which will only lead to increased deficits and a less solvent Social Security.

This comes only two weeks after the government released reports showing both Social Security and Medicare would start taking in less money than it spends earlier than previously projected.

Even with the Social Security Administration taking in more money than it spends, it still isn't enough to cover the GOP's drunken sailor spending habits so all the tax bill does is increase the national debt. Conservatives try to claim that tax cuts actually bring in more revenues but that has been discredited.

The Washington Post pointed out that even conservative economist dispute the claim, one saying that tax cuts only replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Conservatives also like to point out that taxes are predominately paid by the rich, without considering their share of income or factoring in payroll taxes. Even when one doesn't factor in payroll taxes, the conservative Tax Foundation's promotes government statistics that show only the very, very rich pay more than their share.

For instance the top 6-10% of tax payers receive 11.18% of income and pay 11.48% of taxes; the top 11-25% receive 22.5% of income and pay 18.04% of taxes; and the top 26-50% receive 21.15% of income and pay 12.6% of taxes.

So why are we mortgaging our future to make the very, very rich richer?

Papers? What Papers?

In 2004 when former Clinton advisor Sandy Berger was accused of taking papers from the National Archives the Right was indignant, yet today there doesn't seem to be much of a concern about Republican lawyers taking papers to prevent them being reviewed by the public.

According to the Washington Post, a newly released report from the National Archives inspector general's office shows that federal investigators failed in their first attempt to nail down what happened to the file, which became a flashpoint in Roberts' otherwise smooth confirmation process.

The Post added that the lawyers working for the White House were allowed to bring personal belongings with them into the room while they worked, investigators wrote. The lawyers also were left alone in the office with the records for as long as 30 minutes while they participated in conference calls with the White House, the report said. All of which is unusual.

Berger was fined $50,000 by a federal judge for illegally taking classified documents dealing with the terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration out of the National Archives. And the Republican lawyers? The Post points out that the White House has declined to reveal the identities of the lawyers who conducted the document review, and their names and those of archives officials were redacted in the inspector general's report.

In addition, in the Roberts case, officials had to try to figure out what was in the missing papers. In the Berger case, he returned copies of the papers he took.

So in both cases people take papers from the National Archives that they weren't supposed to. One gets fined. The others? The White House says that there’s no evidence that anybody reviewing the files engaged in wrongdoing.

Maybe they were just smarter about taking and destroying the paper trail.

Party Like It's 2000

If you listen to conservatives bray about the economy one would think that we are approaching Clinton era economic prosperity. Instead, more than five years after taking over the White House, a few economic indicators are approaching levels last seen in 2000.

Last week the Dow Jones Industrial average reached a high of 11,640 and the Treasury Department announced that the difference between revenue and expenses in April was $118.9 billion, leading conservatives to complain that Bush is not getting credit for the current economic situation.

Yet any in-depth look at the complaints show that at best the economy is producing some numbers similar to the end of the Clinton-Gore era. The Dow Jones hit its all-time high of 11,723 January 14, 2000, nearly 100 points above the recent high.

While it is easy to look at the Dow figures, the surplus number are harder to examine and so the latest conservative "complaint" is that the media is underreporting the April budget surplus numbers issued by the Treasury. Yet a number of media outlets took the Treasury numbers hook, line and sinker and proclaimed that at $118.9 billion the government had a huge surplus.

However in 2001 the Government had a surplus of $189 billion so the $118.9, while encouraging, is nothing to write home about. (See chart for comparison of April surplus to overall annual revenue, compared to the increase in the national debt.)

Also in 2000, before Bush could this program of tax cuts and spending spree, the national debt increased by only $18 billion. So far this year the debt has increased $427 billion with five months to go. With the best tax collection month in the books, is a $700 billion increase in the national debt possible?

(Yes, the media says the deficit is only up $184 billion so far this year and may come in under $350 billion, but since conservatives always complained during the surplus years of the Clinton administration that one should really look at the increase in the national debt, surely they would want us to do the same now. (And for an even more bizarre view, see the views of Treasury Secretary John Snow.)

When someone mentions the increase in gas, conservatives are always quick to point out that according to inflation it has not increased that much, if at all. So how come no one wants to adjust the April surplus numbers? Perhaps it wouldn't make Bush look that good?

The only reason the April surplus numbers look as good as they do is that federal revenue has been down in recent years so comparing the April surplus to Annual revenue, the $118 billion surplus represents a larger percentage than if federal revenue had been increasing over the past few years.

So are we back to Clinton era prosperity? No, only by borrowing heavily and mortgaging the future are we getting decent economic numbers, as opposed to responsible economic policy setting the stage for long term progress.

Can't Handle Colbert

After ignoring Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night (try to find any mention of Colbert in the Times article) but finding the public flocking to the Internet to view the clip, the Washington Typists have decided to say Colbert "fell flat" perhaps in hopes that public won't be tempted to check it out.

Instead, just as Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire signaled the end of that show, could Colbert's performance may change the way the media acts?

The problem with Colbert's talk was that it hit too close to home for Bush and the media, leaving them unamused. But what did people really expect? Colbert's shtick is to act like a conservative blowhard who thinks he knows a lot but in reality is clueless, perhaps a little too much like Bush and the many in the media.

And so when Colbert makes the follow statement, media people are not amused.

"Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

The reaction of the press was probably similar to Tucker Carlson on Stewart after he had reduced the show to ashes.

"Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny," Carlson pleaded to Stewart.

Anyone who has watched The Daily Show probably has seen a skit that may have been over the top and one ends up feeling slightly sorry for the person being interviewed because of their cluelessness. Saturday night was not one of those days. Perhaps the video skit, replayed on The Colbert Report Tuesday night to good reviews, went on too long, but the speech was funny.

The problem conservatives and the Washington Typists face is that the Internet gives people the chance to both view the performance and read the transcript. So while the media can claim it wasn't funny, just as thousands later viewed Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, thousands have also viewed Colbert's performance and found the following comments to be funny or satirical.

I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term.

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist, telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American! I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.

We can't forget the man of the hour, new press secretary, Tony Snow. Secret Service name, "Snow Job."

Snow Job

So the media spin for the day, which several in the media have picked up hook, line and sinker, is that Bush picked an outsider to be White House Press Secretary.

Tony Snow, an outsider? You've got to be kidding. Just because he wasn't on the official White House payroll doesn't mean he isn't an insider. After all he works for FOX and that's little more than a GOP propaganda machine.

Just look at some of Snow's experience: commentator for FOX News and as host of his own radio talk show; director of speechwriting for the first President Bush; editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Times, and substitute host for Rush Limbaugh.

What few in the media are willing to say out loud is that FOX and the various right-wing radio shows are little more than extensions the GOP or White House, so Snow has been working for the White House for quite a while now.

If the media was really interested in this story they would examine the relationship among FOX and red radio and figure what a huge propaganda machine it is, and one that the GOP can utilize without paying for it, and during election years, have it count against any campaign spending limits.

A few in the media say Democrats are helping Bush on the Snow hiring by pointing out that Bush is willing to bring in someone who has criticized him. And while Snow's comments on Bush are fun to read, maybe the reason Bush had to ignore Snow's criticisms is that since he's at 32% approval rating it was probably impossible to find someone who hadn't criticized him.

So rather than showing that Snow is an outsider, perhaps hiring a so-called "critic" shows that even the hard core are now criticizing Bush.

Conservatives Complain about Frankenstein

After spending years acting like spoiled, unbehaved, or angry children, conservatives have decided that society is angry. But rather than actually act like grown ups and take responsibility and help fix the problem they helped create, they are now working to hide their role in creating the angry society.

The latest example is the new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's complaints about comments made about him. After spending years belittling and degrading others Snow had the gall to write a column "We need a pause button for the insult industry" where he asked "Where do such passions come from?"

Gee, Tony, I don't know. Maybe from listening to you, as American Street pointed out, or your budy Rush Limbaugh, whose comparison of former Senator Tom Daschle to the devil may have inspired threats against Daschle, or Jerry Falwell's or Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial page long term crusade against President Clinton.

While one might think that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, apparently conservatives believe that by attacking, rather than admit responsibility, is the best political move.

Recently Daniel Henninger of the previously mentioned Journal's Editorial page also complained about the Internet and liberals without mentioning the Journal's or conservatives role in degrading today's political discourse.

Now it's no doubt that the Internet is a wild and uncouth place in many areas. The question is why? Could it be that after eight years of relentless and unfounded attacks on Clinton, followed by the media's War on Gore, that the public now thinks its OK to act that way? If so, isn't it a little hypocritical to complain about what one helped create?

CIA Determines Scapegoat

With the announcement by a lawyer of fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy that she had neither the access to the information she is accused of leaking nor did she leak the information, one has to wonder if the CIA determined who to blame by looking at campaign contributions rather than evidence.

If true, then a statement by political hack turned CIA director, Porter Goss potentially passed along was dishonest or disinformation by alleging that McCarthy "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

NBC reported that "a defense source tells NBC News that while McCarthy may have failed her polygraph on the issue of having unauthorized contacts with reporters, she did not fail the question about leaking information on the secret prison system."

The CIA says unauthorized speaking with the media is grounds for dismissal, McCarthy's lawyer said that was why she was terminated. However it appears Goss decided to go the extra mile in order and found a Democrat to blame for the leak. (Maybe the classified information McCarthy leaked is that the Bush administration is incompetent, although I'm pretty sure that information was declassified long ago.)

So at Goss's CIA outing a fellow agent is OK but telling the media about secret prisons is cause for finding a scapegoat. That must make CIA agents sleep well at night knowing that their job is secondary to the political whims of the Bush administration.

But with Bush's approval rating dropping to the freezing range and stories on the prisons winning Pulitzers, it may have become extremely important to find a scapegoat. McCarthy appeared to be a good one, donating money to Democrats and John Kerry. One has to wonder if the CIA's investigation was limited to running CIA employee names through Fundrace.org until they got a hit for someone contributing to Sen. John Kerry.

During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Jay Rockefeller questioned whether Goss would be politically objective after reviewing a series of attacks Goss made on Kerry on security issues yet didn't attack Republicans.

With Sen. Kerry getting high marks for his recent public statements lately and the American people abandoning Bush, perhaps this is Goss attempt to get back at Kerry and Democrats.

Or perhaps there is actually something to the CIA is claim. Unfortunately, the history of dishonesty the Bush Administration has built up leads one to question anything and everything they do.

FOX = GOP?

If anyone had any questions about whether FOX News is biased one only has to look at recent media reports about the relationships between the GOP and the FOX News network.

In one episode a FOX News anchor praises a questionable political hit job, while in the other two FOX news staff are rumored to be under consideration for White House Press Secretary.

In the first, in an article on FOX News anchor Brit Hume in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that former President Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry said that Hume would sit in the front row during press briefings doing crossword puzzles and that "If you tried to slip a little spin in, he'd suddenly erupt and say, 'Wait a minute!'

Wow, what a great reporter! Yet Kurtz also mentioned that Hume and Fox News were among the first to jump on the charges by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record, with Hume pushing the controversy day after day.

As the lead panelist on "Fox News Sunday," Hume said in August 2004 that the book by the Swift Boat Veterans "is a remarkably well-done document. It is full of detail. It is full of specifics. The charges that are being made of Kerry, of irresponsible and indeed in some cases mendacious conduct in his service in Vietnam, are made by people who were there."

Remarkably well-done? For a GOP political piece of spin it may have been remarkably well done. As a journalist piece it was hardly well-done. Factcheck.org pointed out the multiple problems with the book and the veterans stories and even the Post has pointed out the problems, yet Kurtz failed to point out, or challenge, Hume on the problematic book. Maybe crossword puzzles are getting harder these days.

It's doubtful Hume's views surprise anyone, even though they go against the networks "fair and balanced" slogan. Reasonable people instead probably think Hume's on the GOP's payroll. He may not be but his coworker soon may be. FOX News reported that one of the people the White House has approached as a possible replacement for McClellan is FOX News Radio host Tony Snow and the Washington Post said Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and former spokesman for the U.S. civilian authority in Iraq, is also among those being considered.

One wonders if Snow, a frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh and GOP cheerleader, will have to take a pay cut to go on the "official" GOP payroll?

White House Needs New Lackey

Perhaps the pressure of being a White House lackey finally got to be too much for Scott McClellan, who announced today he was resigning as White House Press Secretary.

Since July 2003 years McClellan has been the face of the White House, spouting its half truths and distortions, helping his boss retain his job in spite of the administration's overwhelming incompetence.

In typical dishonesty, stupidity or cluelessness, Bush said of McClellan at the resignation announcement, "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity."

The question now is would anyone want to hire someone who basically soldout for a spot in sun, or as Pink Floyd wrote in Wish You Were Here..

...did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Time will tell.

Perhaps Rumsfeld Should Stay

One of the points that hasn't been made during the discussion over whether Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign is whether Bush would appoint a more qualified or competent person to replace him.

The same point should be considered during the discussions over the talk of impeaching George Bush. What would that accomplish? Make Dick Cheney President? Please. If there is one person who would do a worse job as President than Bush it is Cheney.

While people have an interest in holding government officials accountable, the Bush administration, whether through planning, arrogance, or stupidity, aren't very good about personnel issues and there is no guarantee that a replacement would be any better. One only has to look at the number of people who told the truth and left while the yes-men or true believers stayed around to continue their destructive impulses.

One such example was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in who in The Price of Loyalty, wrote that efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."

And just look at who Bush picked to replace Andy Card as Chief of Staff - Josh Bolten, who helped oversee the transition of budget surpluses to massive budget deficits as White House Budget Director.

One could hope that getting Bolten out of the Budget Office might mean that a more competent person would step into the role, but that would involve Bush picking a more qualified person as opposed to a true believer.

So rather than pushing Bush to install good people in his government, perhaps the public should be more interested in using the power they have at the ballot box to put good people in government.

Free Speech Scares White House

One of the ironic, or hypocritical, aspects to the Bush administration's profession of love for liberty, freedom, and democracy overseas is how much they apparently despise it when it takes place in the United States.

The recent decision to attempt to silence, or counteract, former military personnel over the administration's failed Iraq policy is only the latest example of an administration that came to power by short circuiting democracy and has worked to curb freedoms over the past five years.

In the past, when a Democrat such as John Kerry would criticize the administration over Iraq, they would face attacks on their patriotism and intelligence, such as Zell Miller did in a truly disgusting and dishonest speech at the Republican Convention in 2004.

But today the administration is faced with a growing chorus of criticism from former military officers, some of whom served in Iraq and saw first hand the folly of implementing a plan by people who didn't understand the situation and didn't care to understand the situation.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort.

A number of people have pointed out the comparison with Vietnam when the military kept quiet and saw a war disintegrate. Apparently not wanting that to happen again, several retired officers are speaking out.

Maybe they believe that if more people like John Kerry had spoken up during the Vietnam War, fewer Americans would have died. And that prospects probably scares the Administration. Just imagine if someone in the media were to put 2 and 2 together and figure that out then Kerry's Vietnam criticism could be viewed in a whole new light and his current views would also gain credibility.

And who wants to be in office when everyone knows the other guy would be a better president. Nearly half the country figured that out long ago, the worry for the White House is that more than half might now have figured it out. Look what a recent poll found out:

Unhappiness with Bush is so pervasive that 49 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry if the 2004 presidential election were held today, to 39 percent who say they would vote for the president.

The End to Charmed Political Lives?

With the announcement by former House Minority Leader Tom DeLay that he would not seek reelection, apparently the charmed life of a number of Republicans is coming to an end.

DeLay, according to the Washington Post, will step down from the House rather than face a reelection fight that appears increasingly unwinnable. This, only a few days after a former top aide plead guilty and apparently decided to cooperate with investigators.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist already had decided to not seek reelection and apparently is looking forward to not being in the Senate. In an article in the New York Times, Frist said that he loved being leader but that he would find it liberating to leave.

Apparently Frist feels that in the Senate people aren't getting the proper view of him. "The real Bill Frist, they don't really see," whined Frist, who wants to run for President in 2008. Oh what a shame. I mean if people were to get an realistic view of Senators then John Kerry would be President and John Edwards would be Vice President.

At the top of the charmed food chain is George Bush and he is already prevented from seeking another term, although he actually only won one term as President so you have to wonder if he might go to the Supreme Court and argue to be allowed to win a second term.

Instead Bush apparently is going down in flames with approval ratings in the '30s and even military men criticizing his administration. In remarks Sunday on NBC, General Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps, a former commander of the Central Command who retired in 2000, said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable and should resign for tactical mistakes in Iraq.

With an election approximately seven months away, and prospects of a Republican loss growing larger everyday, one might think Bush would decide to clean house. But that would involve admitting his house is dirty and that is something he is unlikely to do.

In the past Bush, DeLay and Frist survived by changing the storyline and attacking others but at this point it is difficult for people to look away from the mess in Washington, meaning the charmed life for the three and their groupies may be about over.

What Report? Oh That Report

Faced with declining poll numbers and a public that has grown suspicious the administration has decided to attack the messenger, or the media, which is always a crowd pleasing activities among the red staters.

While some might think that the more than 2,000 Americans deaths since the start of hostilities in Iraq is important, apparently a bigger issue with whether the media is accurately reporting what's going on in Iraq or are just a bunch of negative nellies.

But leave it to the press to do a poor job of defending themselves. In the Sunday's Washington Post Ombudsman column (unbelievably titled The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq), and a Monday column (A Turning Point In Iraq) by Post media critic Howard Kurtz, the issue of whether the media was being too tough on the administration was reviewed.

There were laundry lists of examples but after thorough review, well very little was decided. It's just too bad there isn't a neutral party to review of the situation in Iraq to tell us if things are better or worse off than people believe.

Oh wait, there is such a report! Last week Keith Olbermann on Countdown reviewed a U.S. State Department report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which Olbermann pointed out had been released at a news conference earlier this month, with Secretary of State Rice herself delivering the opening remarks, the 23 pages on Iraq stating unequivocally that even a highly selective inventory of the terrorist attacks in that country during the last year could barely begin to catalog all the violence.

Quote, 'Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. A illustrative list of those attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence,' the report also stating that the attacks were being waged by any number of people, not just insurgents, for any number of reasons.

So basically things are horrible over in Iraq and if the State Department is to be believed, perhaps even worse than the picture the media is painting.

So why is the media reporting on a study that shows that their reporting probably skewed? Who knows. Perhaps they don't want the public to know how bad it really is over there.

Crybaby Conservatives

Not satisfied with control of all three branches of government, talk radio, and business, conservatives' complaints have lead them into a featured role on the mainstream media.

Apparently some in the media haven't' been following the GOP script over the past few year and have ventured into digging into stories and reporting facts as opposed to a what's presented on the All-Spin Zone, also know as Fox News.

Unlike the 2000 Presidential election when, like good little boys, as the American Prospect recently wrote, "the MSM deputized itself judge, jury, and executioner for [Al] Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, spinning each day's events to portray the stolid, capable vice president as a wild exaggerator, ideological chameleon, and total, unforgivable bore.

Lately, like a Rip Van Winkle who awoke from a conservative spell, the media have been rising off their knees and questioning the administration. Knowing this day would come, conservatives have been complaining for years about lack of representation in the MSM, hoping they could infiltrate and overtake this habit of looking for the truth.

So in effort to balance well-reported, thoughtful work (which, if anything supports conservatives more than liberals) the Post knuckled under and opened its website to a Republican operative and not surprisingly he immediately act like as a traditional conservative, complaining about how conservatives are treated well and how they don't get enough respect.

Unknowingly, Red America gave an inside glimpse of itself and its supporters when it attempted to criticize a Toronto Star story on sociology study that explained that said Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

Well, duh! Just look at George Bush. He loses the 2000 election but like a spoiled baby he gets his way and the White House. And just as a spoiled baby grows up to be a spoiled brat, Bush now demands he get his way, whether or not it's good for the country.

Perhaps the country could hire the SuperNanny to straighten out Baby Bush, but instead just as parents can only look forward to when their spoiled brat leaves home, America will be left to count the days until the Crybaby in Chief leaves office.

Update - It's worse than it sounds! Joe Conason of Salon and the Howard Kurtz of the Post give the full story.

Don't You Dare Do to Us What We Did to You

Apparently conservatives have come up with a plan to rally conservatives around the failed "p"residency of George Bush. Basically it involves criticizing Democrats for considering "censuring" Bush.

While there is a little talk of impeachment, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feinfold is pushing a motion to censure Bush over wiretapping. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz pointed out "most Democrats believe Bush probably did break the law in approving warrantless eavesdropping" but the resolution "is scary to most senators with D."

Why? Because Republicans can use their TV and radio talk shows (Ok, they aren't owned by the GOP but they might as well be) to stir up their voters by claiming things like censure motions and impeachment are political ploys and only hurt the country. Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman said "This is raw partisan politics."

Right, and like the Clinton investigations weren't? Apparently investigations into a person's private life are not partisan politics but an examination of whether a president acted illegally is partisan politics.

If that seems confusing it would be simpler to understand the the GOP position is basically it's always OK to investigate Democrats and never OK to investigate Republicans.

So Now Book Smarts Are OK?

After a presidential campaign spent criticizing Sen. John Kerry and Democrats for sophisticated and nuance responses to issues, all of sudden with the uproar over the ports deal, administration apologists have discovered the need for sophisticated, or "book smarts."

On Hardball Wednesday night, conservative columnist Kate O'Beirne said the problem with the Dubai port deal was that those investigating the deal were actually hindered by their sophisticated understanding of how ports operate, i.e. they were too smart to deal with the issue.

At the end of the day, and after a thorough investigation, perhaps the port deal is a good one. After all one has to think that if Bush's political underlings weren't involved, perhaps the deal was actually determined on its merits.

And former President Bill Clinton is working with Dubai on how to promote the deal so one has to think that if people using the often maligned book smarts are in favor of the deal then there must be something to it.

Or maybe not, but we may not know yet. Democrats, who for years have tried to govern and run for elections based on book smarts rather than on emotion have gotten beaten at the ballot box, might be excused for raising questions based on the appearance of a deal.

Conservatives, on the other hand made their living belittling book smarts and science on many issues and so for them to all of sudden use book smarts as the answer is hypocritical. But it's not a surprise as few have said the governing conservatives have principles.

In an excellent column describing the differences the between the current White House resident and the last President, Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out that the Administration will take 45 days to review and explain the deal but Bush probably won't be able to explain it to the public.

Especially not now that the Washington Post is reporting an investigation into a second Dubai firm set to take over precision components used in aircraft and tanks.

As Fineman put it Suddenly, it's a complicated, gray world out there: the kind that a Bill Clinton would feel at home in, and could explain.

You know, someone with book smarts.

The Fear Monster Bites Back

Karl Rove must be burning the midnight oil these days. After years of burnishing the image of George Bush as the person who would protect Americans, recent events in Iraq and in Washington must be causing Rove to come up with a new playbook to replace the Fear and Security one he has used too long.

In mid-January Rove outlined his "view" of the differences between Republicans and Democrats saying "At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Despite this comment being ridiculous to start with (Democrats were the one who helped push for the Department of Homeland Security while Bush and the GOP took the U.S. into a war that has destabilized the Middle East), Rove's comments were more about appearance rather than reality.

Rove probably knew he was being dishonest but his goal was to outline how the GOP would portray itself and Democrats, not how they actually were. And based on history he had every reason to be confident. Afterall, despite numerous news reports that showed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 the average the average viewer of FOX News was significantly more likely to have misperceptions than someone who got their news from NPR.

The problem for Democrats is that too often people believe what they want to believe, which was the company line the GOP was pushing, rather than reality.

Today the tables have turned as events based on reality and appearance are taking over the news. With Iraq moving toward civil war and the news that the administration is proposing a UAE government firm take over major operations at six U.S. ports, more Americans are starting to question the Administration.

As Pat Buchanan said on the recent McLaughlin Group "When Bubba in Mississippi woke up and found out Arab sheiks are taking control of our eastern ports, it was all over for Bush."

For those who wanted to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the port deal, perhaps it was fine, but after being bludgeoned for years for acting based on thinking rather than emotions is it any wonder why Democrats are opposing Bush on this, and they may have a good case. One can only image the ad Karl Rove would have made against a President John Kerry if he had done EXACTLY what Bush had done.

So the problem for the Bushies is how to talk about security without having people think about the disaster in Iraq and Arabs running our ports. The old conservative line "be afraid, be very afraid" has come back bite the administration.

Heck of a job Bushie!

Trip Outside the Bubble

George Bush stepped out of his protective bubble on Tuesday and found out reality and his view of reality don't always match up and that he and his programs are not popular.

In retaliation, expect the wing nuts to mount a full scale attack on those who pointed out the king has no clothes, basically saying that a funeral was no place to speak the truth, no matter how relevant or appropriate the criticisms were.

Bush was at the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Atlanta where other past presidents and religious leaders paid tribute to the live of Mrs. King and her late husband. During the tribute, the Washington Post pointed out that former President Jimmy Carter delivered some of the most pointed comments, noting that Martin Luther King Jr. had been "the target of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance" in his day. The remark raised the issue of a controversial eavesdropping program that President Bush authorized to combat terrorism but that some critics have charged violates U.S. law.

Conservatives complained that was inappropriate comments for a funeral, yet Bush had no problem, as the Post pointed out, recalling the threats and bombings aimed at intimidating her husband, and the rifle shot in Memphis that ultimately ended his life.

Apparently it is OK to talk about some of the troubles that Dr. and Mrs. King faced, just not the ones that are relevant today and raise questions about the current administration.

So as a result expect conservatives to make the point that dissent is tolerated, just not anywhere where people are paying attention, such as a public funeral. Also expect a lot of comparison about the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002 and how Democrats acted poorly. But also expect a lot of lies. As Al Franken pointed out, conservatives made mountains out of ant hills in 2002 and turned that funeral into political opportunity, leading to the election of Republican Norm Coleman to replace Wellstone.

This time the only question is who conservatives will retaliate against for speaking the truth.

State of the Union Address

The State of the Union address George Bush should have given...

My fellow Americans. I come to you with distressing news. The state of our Union is not good. Your government, under my direction, has utterly failed you in almost all areas.

You are being governed by a culture, not of life, but of corruption. That corruption, and a general lack of interest in policies we don't believe in, has led you to be less safe today because my administration has encouraged our enemies and alienated our allies.

And for many of you the future does not look promising. My party, the Republican Party, which has controlled all branches of government for the past few years, lacks the discipline to control spending without doing so on the backs of the poor. As a result we turned a budget surplus into long-term record deficits.

In addition, my fellow Republicans are in the middle of what many have called one of the biggest corruption scandals in many years. While I and others have dishonestly tried to say that Democrats were equally involved, in reality Democrats saw their contributions decline among the involved tribes once my fellow Republican Jack Abramoff got involved. Luckily for me that is a point the media has for the most part ignored.

Another area we have ignored has been Afghanistan. More than four years ago Osama Bin Laden organized an attack against this great country. Our reaction was to pursue a half-hearted commitment to finding him in Afghanistan and instead went after Saddam Hussein to finish what my father and his cronies would not.

Instead of pursuing a strategy to "Finish Afghanistan First," we needlessly involved ourselves in a war that might have been avoided. Our occupation has enraged people throughout the world and destroyed a once-in-a-lifetime reservoir of goodwill afforded to us after 9/11.

But we didn't forget 9/11. Domestically we turned 9/11 into a political opportunity, as a way to question the patriotism of those who dared to question us. In this area I can stand here tonight and say we were very successful. Through a dishonest and distasteful campaign I was able to get a tiny majority of voters to support me and my radical agenda.

Another election is only 10 months away and I can assure you that while we may forgotten, or never learned the lessons of 9/11, we will not forget how to use 9/11 to overcome our inherent weaknesses.

You see if votes were counted accurately and completely in 2000 I would have never been President. It was only through the efforts of members of my party and justices on the Supreme Court that we were able to overcome the will of the people.

Tonight I am pleased to say we have another soldier to help us in future battles with the approval of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I can't tell you how good it made me feel to hear his views opposing the one-man, one-vote principle.

For those of you who believe our callous, dishonest and uncaring actions will hurt us in November, remember we have spent the last decade working to ensure that elections turn out in our favor.

Even though our reaction to Katrina, our bungling of the budget surplus, our damaging of the environment and any number of other failures might enrage voters, until talk radio raises these subjects we won't have to worry.

We don't care because we don't have to. Thank you.

New Feature - Really Bad Cartoons

If no-talent partisan conservatives can get their inaccurate and questionable cartoons run by the main stream media, why can't a no talent liberal get the the same treatment. In a new feature, Really Bad Cartoons will follow the lead of the right, except be truthful.

They Just Don't Get It

It took a near riot by disgruntled readers of the Washington Post but Deborah Howell, the Post's Ombudsman, finally admitted she made a mistake in saying that Jack Abramoff contributed to both parties. Unfortunately apparently neither she nor the paper understood why it took a near riot for the newspaper to respond.

Instead the Post should have seen this coming. Howell had made a series of errors and questionable statements in previous columns, raising readers hackles, but when readers complained to anyone at the Post who would listen, they were told they should give her a chance.

The problems started in December when she criticized Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column, calling it highly opinionated and liberal. The resulting tussle was played out on media blogs but Hit-and-Run Howell never addressed it again.

Next up she apparently didn't like, or responded to conservative critics of a Post story that the poor were overly reprented in the military because of a lack of other economic opportunties. In The Whole Story on Military Recruiting she accepted the Pentagon's and Rand Corp claim that the data in the story, part of which supplied by the National Priorities Project, was based on only 20 counties and so 'the data are clearly not representative.' The NPP said "Ms. Howell was told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the people she spoke with were wrong, that the NPP analysis was based on the entire population of recruits, not just a sample."

Next up on Howell's Hit Parade was A Few New Year's Resolutions, where she said "The liberals seem to expect The Post to be the house organ of Moveon.org." This is a standard conservative talking point, more fully examined previously.

To date, the only error she has addmited was her comment in Getting the Story on Abramoff that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

But she didn't take back her statement that Post articles had said "that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."

Apparently she could admit to one mistake. But the bigger mistake was hers and Post missing the point the bigger point, that as Bloomberg pointed out, that Abramoff's tribal clients gave money to Democrats after he began representing them, but in smaller percentages than in the past.

So, shouldn't the story have been "Abramoff helped cut tribal donations to Democrats."