They really don't get it

Last week must have been defend the media week at the Washington Post. In addition to Dana Milbank's piece saying the media plays fair, on March 15 media critic Howard Kurtz, in John Kerry, Media Critic, continued the fantasy. After reading the piece you come away believing that they really don't get it.

Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.

...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done

Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.

Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."

The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.

They just don't get it.

They just don't get it

When Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran for president in 1988 against the first George Bush, he appeared on Nightline and after an unimpressive response, host Ted Koppel said "I still don't think you get it."

Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."

Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.

Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.

Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.

The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?

To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.

As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."

It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.

Apparently they just don't get it.

Where Did that News Scoop Go? To the MSM's Memory Hole

In a recent National Review column, Jonah Goldberg asked whatever happened to the story on the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Goldberg sniffs that "in the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth."

Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?

Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.

And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.

No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!

And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.

Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.

Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.

Million Dollar Outrage

The shallowness of conservatives' complaints against modern society and its extreme dependency on the Outrage Machine to stay in power was on display on Sunday at the 77th Annual Academy Awards show where Million Dollar Baby collected several Oscars.

Prior to the announcement of Oscar nominations, conservatives signaled that they would be outraged if Fahrenheit 9/11 (winner of the People's Choice Award as Favorite Movie) received nominations. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was left off the list of Oscar nominees, many on the right breathed a sigh of relief and possibly stopped listening to the Outrage Machine.

And without the Outrage Machine serving as a thought minder, people are able to think for themselves and make decisions on their own. As a result people I knew, who last fall had bought into the Outrage Machine, went to Million Dollar Baby with an open mind and ended up liking the movie.

Not knowing they should be outraged by the movie, they weren't, and if fact considered those who brought up the Outrage Machine talking points to be out of touch with reality. Without the thought minders telling them that they should be outraged they weren't. Given the freedom to think for themselves, they thought and weren't outraged.

This is both encouraging and discouraging. Knowing that the conservatives’ hold on power relies on making people outraged against their will shows the weakness of conservatives’ arguments. However conservatives, through talk radio and talk TV, has built an extensive Outrage Machine that, when running, is difficult to counter.

On Bended Knees

If anyone doubts that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has given up the fight to remain relevant, the February 25 Lou Dobbs Tonight show erased those doubts.

Rather than being a forum to bring news and information to the public, the show became a propaganda vehicle for the GOP. Substituting for Lou Dobbs was Kitty Pilgrim and she interviewed Charlie Jarvis, Chairman & CEO of USA NEXT.

USA Today reported that USA Next is the group that plans an initial $10 million campaign accusing AARP of a "shameful record of liberal activism," including backing gay marriage. USA Next had an Internet ad last week that asserted AARP supports gay marriage. It included a picture of two men kissing at what appeared to be their wedding over the words, "The real AARP agenda."

Laughable as it may seem that people would believe such nonsense, many of those involved in the USA Next campaign are alumni of the Swift Boat ad campaign which used lies and distortions to hurt John Kerry's presidential campaign and may have provided the key difference in Bush tiny win in Ohio which put him over the top.

So on Lou Dobbs, with a chance to challenge the ads, Kitty gave up and instead asked the following "tough question."

Let me ask you a tough one, though. Some of the your consultants advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That turned into a very, very ugly fight. Do you anticipate this becoming as vituperative as that previous problem?

Not 'while your Kerry ads were successful, they were discredited, and will that hurt the effectiveness of the new ads?'

Not 'why is you ad untruthful?'

Not even 'are you going to make this discussion as ugly as the presidential campaign?'

Instead it was - will this be 'vituperative,' like anyone is going to know what that means (containing or characterized by verbal abuse).

After turning the show over to Jarvis Kitty closed with Well, we encourage energetic debate on this program certainly.

We encourage energetic debate? Not on this day.

Chickens Come Home

Stealing the 2000 election U.S. presidential election apparently finally caught up with George W. Bush on Thursday as he figured out he really didn't have a leg to stand on when criticizing other countries' commitment to democracy.

For weeks Bush and the Right had implied that when he got to Russia he was going to give President Vladimir Putin a piece of his mind about upholding democracy. Unfortunately for Bush, foreigners read the news critically and are able to add 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.

As the New York Times pointed out, "While raised, Western concerns about the decline in the development of democracy in Russia were muted after a period in which Mr. Bush heightened expectations with soaring language on the irresistible lure of freedom and democracy."

Using a trick William Safire used to do in his kooky New York Times columns, imagine you're in Vlad's mind as Bush is speaking. Don't you think the 2000 Presidential election crossed Vlad's mind, also how the GOP targets politicians who both support and oppose them, and how Bush avoids public town hall events with people who don't agree with him?

One could imagine ol' Vlad thinking Georgie was quite the hypocrite. Perhaps at that point Georgie looked into Vlad's soul and figured out he needed to shut up, now.

The Times pointed out "some political analysts took the public comments as evidence that Mr. Bush had ceded an opportunity to challenge Mr. Putin forcefully on his increasingly autocratic stand."

How could Bush challenge Putin? He has no moral authority to speak on democracy, a point some had predicted would happen because of the 2000 Florida debacle and Bush taking an office he lost, much like the guy in the Ukraine tried to do.

Bush may believe the 2004 election gave him credibility, but while half of Americans are willing to tolerate a hypocrite, the percentage isn't so high elsewhere.

Will the Chickens Come Home to Roost?

Ever since George Bush was awarded the 2000 Presidential election thanks to his brother's efforts in Florida (where Bush "won" by 537 votes despite having nearly 180,000 votes left uncounted), one has wondered if his fraudulent election would ever come back to haunt him.

Luckily for Bush the media has been too willing not to question him personally on this or many other topics. As Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing for the Washington Post, said in an online discussion It's amazing how he has avoided public confrontation about either the 2000 election or what is increasingly looking like widespread torture of Iraqis at the hands of our troops and spies.

Rather than finally being personally questioned by Americans or the American press, it might be left to those protectors of democracy, the Russians, to finally challenge his legitimacy face to face.

Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushakov, indicated in response to questions from the New York Times regarding Bush's upcoming trip to Russia and his plans to scold Russian President Vladimir Putin that "there are others who are highly critical of your electoral system."

Bush administration officials suggested that he was referring to such matters as ..... the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Bush in a recount dispute, effectively securing his victory.

More than four years later this could be the first real pointed questioning Bush has faced about his legitimacy. And as Froomkin pointed out - What irony it would be if Putin brought them up.

Magic Asterisk

The recent debates over the future of Social Security makes one wonders if George Bush has finally found Ronald Reagan's magic asterisk.

As David E. Rosenbaum of the New York Times pointed out "The budgets prepared by David A. Stockman, Mr. Reagan's first budget director, adopted what was called a "rosy scenario" - impossibly optimistic predictions about future growth, inflation and interest rates. They also included what was called the "magic asterisk" - a gimmick that allowed for the budgeting of unspecified, and never intended, spending cuts.

Starting in 1983 the Reagan administation began relaying on excess Social Security fund to limit deficits and slow calls for higher taxes. One wonders if in 1986 there had not been the Social Security fund to raid it the tax code revisions would have been different.

Instead Republicans relied on excess Social Security taxes to keep the deficit down and to champion irresponsible tax cuts in the new century. While the excess funds helped keep the deficit down, one would have thought that eventually there would come a day when they would have to be paid.

Apparently not. Conservatives are now preaching that there is no trust fund, just paper receipts. But if there is no trust fund, then nothing has to be paid back. In a Feb. 11 column, Dan Froomkin pointed out that Bush is now saying "Social Security's $1.8 trillion trust fund doesn't really exist."

But his best point was "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.

But now take this one more step. Shouldn't Bush therefore call for an immediate cut in payroll taxes, effective immediately?

If Social Security is really pay-as-you-go, and any excess payroll tax revenue just goes into the general fund, why are American workers paying more than it costs to run the program? Why should they overpay Social Security payroll taxes for one more minute -- if in fact it doesn't do the Social Security system any good at all?"

Maybe because Bush has found Reagan's magic asterisk?

Stealing is Wrong but We Won't Stop

One of the points the Republicans have made in their effort to "reform" Social Security is that the trillion dollars collected above the needs for the program no longer exists.

"There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any," a paper from the Heritage Foundation claims. Many conservatives go on to claim that in 2018 the Social Security system will no longer be able to cover its bills and will have to use the bonds in the trust fund. However, the government will have to raise taxes to cover those special government bonds issued to the Social Security system, causing great fiscal harm.

But as economist Paul Krugman says. "the only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning."

Excess Social Security funds helped cover the Reagan and Bush deficits and if the government hadn't been able to take the excess money from the Social Security fund then they would have had to borrow it from other sources and, whether in 2018 or some other time, the government would have had to raise taxes to pay for that borrowing.

But conservatives like to claim there's no money there. If so, doesn't that mean that the government basically took money it wasn't entitled to? Isn't that stealing? And if that's stealing, shouldn't it be stopped today?

Oh, but then the Bush Administration would actually have to admit what Fiscal Failures they have been and it's doubtful they would want to do that. No, the Bush Adminstration will keep taking the extra money but have it's minions claim it's disappearing. That's dishonest or unethical, but then those are words the Bush Administration lives by.

Fiscal Failure

During the 2004 presidential campaign George Bush talked about cutting the deficit in half by the time he left office. With the budget deficit estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office this week, that goal will join others empty promises.

Two weeks ago conservatives like Larry Kudlow were boasting how the deficit was going down this year and complaining that the media was going to ignore this. Unfortunately for Mr. Kudlow the CBO pointed out that while the basic deficit will be $368 billion, below the $412 billion deficit of 2004, additional $80 in war spending will push the deficit to around $450 billion.

The White House, in fuzzy math mode, argues that the $368 billion plus $80 billion extra spending will actually only lead to a $427 deficit. Perhaps there is a magic asterisk that will account for the other $21 billion.

So after turning a surplus in a deficit, Bush is now failing to stem the deficit, which isn't a surprise to any Democrat as they could have told anyone who would be willing to listen that Bush's economic legacy would be turning surpluses into long term deficits. However he was smart enough not to tell people what he really stood for.

Mission Accomplished

In an effort to make the world safer the Bush administration attacked Iraq, despited the opposition of several key figures from the 1991 Gulf War. So how has it turned out?

According the Washington Post, Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground, so apparently everything is going just great.

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank......Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. ..as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops."

I feel safer, don't you?

Calling President Gore

Republicans in Washington state are unhappy with the close election where a Democrat won after two recounts. Since the vote didn't go their way, they want a revote.

Saying the Governor’s election produced "no clear victor at a time our state needs a strong decisive leader in Olympia" Republican say Washington needs to re-vote the election: one simple ballot style; one clear set of counting rules; with everyone watching very closely."

How cute, one simple ballot style, one clear set of counting rules. Gee I bet President Al Gore would like those standards. They would have given him a 291-246 electoral college victory to go along with a 600,000 plus popular vote margin.

But I'm sure the GOP sees 2000 differently. Afterall if George Bush can claim that a nearly 600,000 loss as a mandate, then a 100 vote victory for Democrat Christine Gregoire must be a landslide.

Nightmare on Conservative Street

Following the revote in the Ukraine and the completion of the vote counting in Washington state, one has to wonder if a number of conservatives aren't getting a good night sleep these days.

It's not that they aren't sleeping well because they fear that Sen. John Kerry will be able to overturn the results in Ohio, rather they may not be sleeping well because of the fear that the day is coming where the mantra "count every vote and every vote counts" becomes an accepted standard in the United States.

Afterall, if the state of Washington and the country of Ukraine can work to make sure that the will of the voter is respected then that kind of view could spread to every state, county city and township in America. No longer will it be acceptable to stop counting before all votes are counted.

One can only imagine the nightmares conservatives have. One would be that it's November 2000 and the presidential election won't be settled until all the votes are counted. Deep down in most conservatives' hearts they know exactly what that means and one can only imagine the cold sweat that causes.

What Would the RIght Done to Gore?

Ever wondered what would have happened if Al Gore had been allowed to win the Presidential election in 2000? Afterall, only extremist challenge the fact that Al Gore got more votes nationally than George Bush. It was only through Jeb Bush's assistance in Florida that Bush was able to edge ahead by around 530 votes and "win" Florida's electoral votes, despite leaving nearly 180,000 votes uncounted.

What if those 180,000 votes were counted? GOPers point out that Bush would have won if the four county recount was allowed to continue, however that ignores the fact that Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the recount, would have allowed more of the 180,000 ignored votes to be counted. And the result according to the review - Gore wins.

Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

So Gore won. What would the Right have done next? One only needs to look to Ukraine where the "winning" side apparently is pulling a page out of the Right's 2000 playbook. For those who forgot, GOP congressional aides staged a fake riot in Florida in order to stop the recount Miami Dade County.

Seeing how well that worked, in a story in the Washington Post, Ukraine Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych said that he would not accept a victory by his opponent in the Dec. 26 rerun of Ukraine's contested presidential race and that his supporters were likely to turn out into the streets en masse to block such an outcome.

"Even if Mr. Yushchenko wins, he will never be a president of Ukraine," Yanukovych said in a 45-minute interview at his campaign headquarters in Kiev. "The people who voted for me, they will never recognize him. They are talking about it even now."

Yep, that's what conservatives would have done in America. Right and wrong were, and are, never important to conservatives, only winning. They would have fought tooth and nail to capture what they didn't win, despite the harm it would have done to the country they allegedly love.

So were the Democrats right not to fight? While it may have protected America in the short term, in the long term it may allowed 9/11 to occur, it allowed Bush to turn the world against us, and it pushed the country financial chaos. So in an attempt to be "good Americans," Democrats allowed great damage to be done to the country.

Why We Count

A few conservatives who apparently don't understand democracy or what happened in Florida in 2000 are wondering why some Democrats and others are pushing for recounts in Ohio.

The Wall Street Journal's online OpinionJournal said some of its readers "have written us asking if there is a possibility that the Democrats actually will manage to steal the election." (You mean like the GOP did in 2000?) No, the Journal blamed the vote recount effort on bitterenders not willing to accept Bush as president;others pushing to establish permissive standards for future close elections; and an attempt by Democrats to go after promising conservative blacks like Ohio's Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

In the Journal's proud tradition of turning a blind eye to reality, the Journal misses the point.

Yes, some people (i.e. most of the world) have a hard time accepting that a majority of Americans could be so foolish that they would vote for Bush. And permissive standards are only bad if you believe the idea that in America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted is radical or unAmerican. But it is the conservatives and the GOP who are playing the race card so that Republican Hispanics and blacks can not be criticized, for if Democrats dare to do so, then they are racists. So Clarence (beating inmates in Louisiana isn't cruel AND unusual) Thomas and Ken (sorry, that's only 70 pound paper) Blackwell can not be criticized

But the real reasons people want to count all the votes is the knowledge that because not all votes were counted in Florida in 2000, George Bush was installed as president. Despite Jim Baker's false protestations that the vote in Florida was fully counted and then recounted, a number of counties only checked their totals and did not recount the vote and Bush ended up ahead by around 600 votes while 180,000 were left uncounted. If all votes were counted, Gore would have won.

The Journal had the right idea that one party is trying to set standards for future elections, except that it is the GOP that is trying to set a bad standardsfor future elections. If the GOP can intimidate Democrats into not standing by the idea of "count every vote and every vote counts" then it will be easier to steal future elections.

Yes, Kerry was right on that also....

George Bush is trying to soothe the damage uncovered by the recent Q&A with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by troops in Kuwait. The major damage is that this is yet another episode (luckily after the election) of how the Bush Administration has messed up again.

After Rumsfeld was bombarded with criticism from U.S. soldiers based in Kuwait, Rumsfeld promised more would be done to protect military forces. Bush U.S. troop concerns about inadequate equipment for Iraq combat are being addressed

As Reuters reported the latest complaints put the administration further on the defensive. Bush had rejected charges from Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry in the campaign for last month's election that military forces in Iraq did not have sufficient protection.

Of course the Bushies tried to say Kerry voted against body armor by pointing out that Kerry voted against the $87 billion defense bill covering Iraq after seeing his admonition making the rich pay for the war defeated. So was the vote against armor or the payment scheme? The following is what Kerry said:

When say I voted for it, I was willing to vote for the $87 billion providing we paid for it! Providing we asked Americans to sacrifice, all of us together. So Joe Biden and I...brought an amendment to say, Hey America—rather than have a $690 billion tax cut for everybody over the next ten years who are earning over $200,000, why don’t we take just $600 billion, and that way we pay for the war right up front and not add it to the deficit. Guess what? George Bush said no. The Republicans said no.

Oh yeah, we were wrong on that also

On his way out the door, Tommy Thompson, soon to be former Director of the Health and Human Services, decided to say the Bush administration is screwing things up.

Anyone not wearing Blindfolds for Bush isn't surprised and most GOP true believers no longer pay enough attention to the news, or listen to FOX News, so there will be little questioning of the administration..

So what did Thompson say? Besides Sen. John Kerry was right? Lets see, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out that Thomson said he wished Congress had given him the authority to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices under the new Medicare prescription bill. This was only a central question in the debate over the far-reaching legislation. Billions of dollars in potential savings were at stake. But the White House line was that this would lead to price controls, so Thompson waited until the bill was law and he was halfway out the door before sharing.

So the government will have to pay a great deal more for drugs, increasing the deficit and possibly raising taxes long term. The VA is able to negotiate on prices, just not HHS.

This is a major example of the incompetence of the Bush administration for which the American people will have to pay for years. But no matter, but gay marriages for people like Mary Cheney won't be permitted.

Failing the Global (Credibility) Test

In discussing America's right to preemptively attack another country, Sen. John Kerry said during the 2004 debates that "you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Republicans were quick to make fun of Kerry claim for a need for presidential actions to pass a credibility test but recent actions have shown that the Bush administration has failed the global test.

Consider what Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post said regarding Iran (one of three members of the Axis of Evil) and the European Unions attempt to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The EU's problem is that they don't trust the Bush administration approach on Iran. Even Bush's most reliable ally, Tony Blair, has jumped ship on this one. The real-world effect of the failure to find WMD in Iraq is on display in today's agreement. In the face of U.S. skepticism, most nations want to bolster the United Nations not bypass it. With little credibility and many skeptics, the Bush administration is effectively on the sidelines now. This is ironic because the Iranian nuclear ambitions more developed than Saddam Hussein's. But because of the invasion of Iraq--and its chaotic aftermath--the world is even less willing to check it.

So as a result of Bush's failure to pass the global (credibility) test of getting his countrymen and the world to accept his actions, the world is less safe. Congratulations George and Karl.

Calling Natalya Dymitruk

Anyone listening to Red Radio or Fox News who doesn't buy into the GOP storyline must wonder why someone like Natalya Dymitruk can't work for those networks. And network officials must be nervously wondering if there is a Natalya Dymitruk among their midst.

Who is Natalya Dymitruk? Acording to the AP, viewers watching state-run Ukrainian television after last week's presidential runoff heard the official declaration of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's victory. But the hearing-impaired got a radically different message.

"The results announced by the Central Election Commission are rigged, do not believe them," Natalya Dymitruk told UT-1 viewers when asked to relay the declaration in sign-language.

State run media in Ukraine have been pushing the Red State, Soviet backed candidate, over the Blue State, western backed candidate. Looking at how the media played the election, one has to wonder if they viewed Karl Rove's and the GOP's playbook and decided to model their coverage after Red Radio and Fox News.

Blue vs. Gray

For all the talk of Blue and Red states, questions about voting in Alabama over a constitutional amendment and a map of the states won by Kerry and Bush make me believe that we should be talking Blue and Gray and not Blue and Red.

Voters in Alabama apparently rejected a proposed amendment would delete unenforced sections of the constitution that mandate racially segregated schools and allow poll taxes, once used to discourage blacks from voting.

As Newsday put it When voters refused to approve a constitutional amendment that would have erased segregation-era wording in the state constitution requiring separate schools for "white and colored children" and referring to poll taxes that once disenfranchised blacks, Alabama was dragged into a confrontation with its segregationist past that illuminates the uneasy race relations of its present.

The amendment had two main parts: removal of the separate-schools language and the removal of a passage - inserted in the 1950s in an attempt to counter the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling against segregated public schools - that says Alabama's constitution does not guarantee a right to a public education.

Leading opponents, such as Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles, said they did not object to removing the passage about separate schools for "white and colored children." But, employing an argument ridiculed by legal experts, Giles and others said guaranteeing a right to a public education would have opened a door for "rogue" federal judges to order the state to raise taxes to pay for better schools.

If anyone thinks this thinking is limited to Alabama, consider these maps, which basically show that Bush won the slave states and Kerry won the free states. The only changes were that Kerry barely lost Ohio and Iowa, picked up Maryland and Deleware but lost Indiana.

One has to wonder what has gone wrong in Indiana.