"30 Percent Express" To Run Again

Sen. John McCain travels to New Hampshire today to formally announce he is running for president. As one of the main backers of America's involvement in Iraq's civil war, McCain is hoping to secure the "Stay and Die" mantle currently held by Bush, Cheney & Co.

Previously McCain believed the way to win the presidency was by trading in the "Straight Talk Express" for the "30 Percent Express." However now the Washington Post says that his "goal is to broaden the definition of McCain's candidacy, which has been singularly focused on Iraq."

But after watching his painful appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show one has to wonder if McCain can broaden his support much beyond the dead-enders still supporting the war. The most painful part of the McCain's appearance was the realization that it took a comedy show to finally debate some of the important issues of the day with the leaders who are behind those issues.

This was the second day in a row that The Daily Show was at the forefront of breaking news. On Monday, in addition to an insightful skit with John Oliver on the Gonzales hearing, Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine and one of the journalists who faced going to jail over Karl Rove leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, was on the show to explain why important questions were never asked of Rove.

After Stewart pointed out a number of questions that were never asked of Rove and Cooper agreed they were good questions, Stewart was left asking "do you know any reporters - because you could ask them to ask him about it?"

So the "Straight Talk Express" has jumped the rails and turned into the "30 Percent Express" and main people asking tough political question are on the Comedy Channel. Not quite the civic lesson people expected.

Irresponsible, not Incompetent

One of the buzz words Dick Cheney likes to throw around regarding Democrats is "irresponsible." Apparently after working in the Bush Administration Cheney has extensive first hand knowledge of what constitutes irresponsible actions.

Last week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress, or tried to, but unfortunately could remember little more than his name, saying some variation of "I don't recall" more than 70 times.

So what Bush's response? "The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," he said.

Previously White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush "was pleased with the attorney general's testimony" and continues to have "full confidence" in him while at the same time Republican Sen. Tom Coburn suggested Gonzales resign.

One of the common views of the testimony was that this was just another example of incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration, after all Gonzales, as the nation's Attorney General and leader of the Department of Justice, answered many questions with "I don't recall."

But in reality the key to this situation is Bush's statement that Gonzales answered the questions "in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job." I.e. Gonzales did not answered the questions but gave the appearance that he didn't lie.

While people may think Gonzales came across as incompetent for not remembering basic facts, instead this is yet another example of irresponsibility on the part of the Bush Administration. Incompetence implies that a job failed because of a lack of ability. Irresponsible implies not being held accountable.

At the end of the day the administration got rid of the "Justice" Department Attorneys who weren't considered "loyal Bushies" and Gonzales will get to stay on. So outside of a little criticism for irresponsible action the Bushies will pay little or no penalty for their irresponsible actions. As the Washington Post wrote "the White House appears to have concluded that Gonzales has done nothing to merit firing."

Apparently loyalty trumps honesty, which is irresponsible.

Bush thumbs nose at Democracy

One of the biggest lies about the reasons George Bush invaded Iraq was that he wanted to bring democracy to the country. That's extremely difficult to believe considering the complete lack of respect Bush has for the democratic process.

From 2000 when he and his minions subverted the will of the people to mess with the results of a presidential election in order to get a candidate who lost the election into office (and then pass along the view that he, not Al Gore was the victim of election mischief) to the recent announcement that he would bypass the Senate to install a GOP donor as Ambassador to Belgium.

The nomination of Sam Fox, who gave $50,000 to the discredited Swift Boats Veterans for Truth campaign, appeared to be in trouble last week when Bush pulled the nomination in the face of stiff opposition. However, in reality he decided he didn't need, nor want congressional approval to do what he wanted, and just went ahead and made a recess appointment.

"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," said John Kerry.

The purpose of the recess appointments was to allow a President to make an appointment in cases when the Senate wouldn't be in session, not to bypass the Senate. President's for years have made appointments but during the Clinton administrations recess appointments were treated as illegal. Today the GOP probably would cheer the action they so hated.

The difference is that Clinton was appointing qualified individuals whose views weren't Republican. Bush appointments are for people who, in many cases (John Bolton) don't have the qualifications or temperament for the job for which they are appointed.

In the end the appointment of a GOP donor to an ambassadorship isn't a horrible action, however it is a symptom of an attitude and view that this administration has used to the detriment of this country.

The key is whether the country can hold on for 21 more months and whether Americans will elect someone who will clean up the Bush/Cheney mess.

Bush Insider Says Kerry "Was Right"

George Bush once said that he would not withdrawal from Iraq even if "if Laura And Barney Are The Only Ones Supporting Me."

According to the New York Times, Bush is getting closer to that stand as Matthew Dowd, one of Bush's insiders has decided that "Kerry Was Right." However, if the right wing had their way its doubtful anyone would know.

The Times reported that Dowd wrote, but never submitting an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

Dowd, a former member of Mr. Bush’s political brain trust from Texas worked to get Bush to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

The Times pointed out that "in television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing 'a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq. But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said."

Great, another insider who knew in 2004 that Bush was wrong and shouldn't be elected, yet kept quiet. It's not surprising that Dowd has soured on Bush. He just joins a number of other former administration officials who, after working for Bush, have soured on him.

The interesting thing will be to see if the right ring press will cover this story. Fox News web site is avoiding the subject, other than carrying a reference that Chris Wallace had brought up Dowd's comments, without mentioning the words "Kerry was Right" during Fox News Sunday.

Senators, I'd like to ask you both about those comments from Matthew Dowd, the first member of the president's inner circle to break with him publicly. He says that Mr. Bush has failed to reach across the partisan divide and is ignoring the will of the American people when it comes to Iraq.

Nothing about Kerry being right though, not that is a surprise. It's doubtful anyone else on the right will carry it either. Apparently conservatives believe if they ignore the truth, it's not the truth.

Anyway its not like the media would cover a Democratic insider, say like Dick Morris, bashing his former boss. Nope, that would NEVER happen.