Is Sarah a Socialist?

If Sen. John McCain is so against "spreading the wealth" then I wonder if during a McCain administration he would get rid of things like the GI Bill, the mortgage interest deduction, and stop giving some states more than their share of federal spending.

Would a McCain administration mean what it says about socialism and no longer allow citizens of states like Alaska to pay only $4.8 billion in taxes while receiving $9.2 billion in federal government spending? Talk about socialism and spreading the wealth! Does the Alaska Governor know about this?

Surely the citizens of Massachusetts (who pay $63 billion in taxes yet only receive $55.8 billion in spending) might appreciate Alaska sending their money back to them. Maybe Gov. Palin could work on stopping that unfortunate socialism before her term ends. One of her first tasks could be to return the $260 odd millions Alaska got for that bridge to nowhere that Palin claims she said "No thanks" to.

Gov. Palin has never shown a real interest in news (she couldn't even name the Exxon Valdez Supreme Court case involving Alaska) so perhaps she has no idea that Alaska is a socialist state. According to the Tax Foundation Alaska taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Alaska citizens received approximately $1.84 in the way of federal spending.

In addition Alaska citizens share the wealth from royalties from the oil in the state. Should they really be "sharing the wealth"?

So does Gov. Palin know about all of this? Is Sarah a socialist? Maybe the press should ask her. Right, like that will happen. Elizabeth Hasselbeck says the media is sexist for attacking Gov. Palin. In reality the media is sexist for its lack of real questioning of her and her policies.

Despite a few limited interviews she hasn't been seriously questioned, which explains why she continued to claim that she said "No thanks" to the bridge. While this was pointed out, no one was willing to pull a Letterman and truly question her on it.

So will the media "grow a pair" and actually ask Sarah if she is a socialist? Don't hold your breath.

How Dare You Treat Me Like We Treat You!

Based on the whining by the McCain campaign and conservatives they are not happy with the media and Democrats commenting on the types of stories that the GOP used to feast over.

One only has to look at the commotion made over John Edwards' $400 haircut paid for by his campaign and the $150,000 the Republican Party paid to dress up Gov. Sarah Palin.

To Republicans discussing $150,000 is bad because there is so many other things going on, yet they had no plans laughing about the $400 haircut or John Kerry's windsurfing. So focusing on windsurfing is of the utmost importance but talking about $150,000 is bad journalism.

Unfortunately the GOP excels at this type of double standard. If the Democratic Party spent $150,000 on Barrack Obama's clothing would Elizabeth Hasselback be criticizing him?

But the GOP thrives on double standards. Over and over this year the McCain team has made dubious claims that probably win votes because the media won't go after McCain. But to those on the right, the media's role is not to report the news but to promote conservative news, just like Fox News.

Just look at the "Joe the Plumber" story. Originally a YouTube story that went mainstream when McCain pedaled his story during a debate. To conservatives, actually checking out the story was awful. Finding out that there were a lot of holes in his story and, if anything, the story supported Obama.

Yet the mere fact that the media uncovered that Joe would do better under a Obama administration was horrible to the McCain and their crowds who took in the story, hook line and sinker.

The morale of the story? Republicans expect and demand special, and unequal, treatment.

What Took So Long?

Apparently the biggest line of Wednesday's presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was when McCain's all but said "I know President Bush, I am a friend of President Bush, and Senator, I am no President Bush."

While McCain phrased the line a little differently, his intent was to distance himself, the current GOP nominee, from the current GOP leader, which somehow is supposed to be a good thing. After all, who wants to be compared to the leader of your party?

While throwing the current leader of his party under the bus may have comforted millions who have seen their country suffer under the potentially worst president in American history, one has to wonder why it took McCain so long to figure out Bush was a dud.

If anything the American people should be upset at McCain for his efforts on the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. If McCain were truly a "Maverick" and willing to go against his party he would have supported John Kerry. Instead he worked hard to elect possibly the worst president in American history.

For that reason alone, Obama's comparison of Bush and McCain is worthy. Also if the McCain campaign wants to complain about people Obama "pals" around with, the Obama campaign should point out that it is far more truthful to say that McCain pals around with Bush than Obama pals around with William Ayers.

Perhaps this year voters are actually going beyond cheap applause lines and look at the facts and that is why Obama currently has such a large lead. McCain's over the top accusations are not sticking, and in what probably was actually the best line of the night, Obama noted that it has gotten to the point where even Fox News is now disputing McCain's claims and Obama added "that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me."

While conservatives may have been energized by McCain's attacks, early post debate polling showed it didn't play well with the American public. CNN and CBS polls both showed the public thought Obama won the debate, giving the Democrats a clean sweep of the debates. It's so bad that after the debate McCain could be heard telling Obama what a good job he did.

Maybe even John McCain has figured out Obama is better than four more years of the same. Why did it take so long?

Is It Over?

Has the 2008 presidential election effectively been decided? This morning Real Clear Politics, which tracks polls from all sources, moved Virginia from the "Toss Up" category to "Leaning" toward Sen. Barack Obama, pushing his estimated total of solid and leaning states to 277, seven more than the 270 required to win the Presidency.

Based on their reviews, Obama has solid support in states with 221 electoral votes and now with Virgina, has states leaning toward him with 56 electoral votes. So the question is, will the five Obama leaning states (Washington, New Mexico, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin) remain leaning or will they move back to toss up, bringing the campaign back to life?

Even if one of the states move back to toss up, the situation is dire for McCain. If you change the toss up states based on the current polls, Obama would finish with 364 electoral votes and McCain would have 174.

With Virginia now leaning toward Obama McCain is faced with the prospect of winning all tossup states and taking back some Obama states, not an easy prospect and probably the reason he going back on the attack.

McCain Blinks

Did Sen. John McCain walk to the edge of the political abyss Tuesday night and turn back? After watching the presidential debate one has to wonder.

Gone Tuesday night were the ridiculous claims that Sen. Obama pals around with a terrorist; gone were the "who is this guy"; and gone was any mention of his running mate, Sarah "Slimes" Palin. Instead McCain ended up spending a lot of his time talking about another Democratic senator (Lieberman).

While McCain declined to get out of the gutter for a night he did make the comment of the night, pointing to Obama saying "that one," raising questions about just how happy McCain is faced with the prospect of the only way of winning was to go ugly.

With that vision McCain blinked and pulled back from attacking. Some commentators said that the format of the debate prevented him from using personal attacks against Obama.

Dishonesty & Dishonor - or Sarah Slimes

If there is any doubt left regarding that John McCain would do anything or say anything to become president, that doubt was removed on Monday as he unleashed his pit bull to bring their dishonesty to a new level.

Perhaps unwilling to do the heavy lying himself, and perhaps much too busy watching the Dow drop 800 points at one point, he sent Sarah "Slimes" Palin out to criticize someone Obama met and worked with a few times.

Never mind that the relationship McCain had with Phil Gramm was much more odious and destructive for the American economy, McCain has looked at the polls and figured out he is going to lose big time unless he can get the people to stop thinking about issues and focus on the trivial.

The ironic thing is that McCain was the victim in 2000 of ugly and untrue campaigning by (p)resident Bush and one might think McCain would not do onto others as he would wish them to do onto him. Instead he probably was told "either you go dirty or you lose."

And so McCain, he of the "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war" has apparently decided to change his message to "I'd rather lose my honor than lose this election."

Exposing the Gimmick?

Chris Matthews once famously and disgustingly said former Vice President Al Gore would lick the bathroom floor to be president.

Tonight, with the Vice Presidential candidate debate, we will find out if Matthews should have been speaking about John McCain.

Viewers will get to see if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the next chapter of George "all hat and no cattle" W. Bush. To many, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was little more than a gimmick designed to attract women and conservatives voters and the Washington Post is reporting polling is now showing that the people are turning against the gimmick.

Any doubt of this was on display during the recent interviews with CBS's Katie Couric where Palin embarrassed herself, John McCain, the Republican Party, conservatives, and America through her inability to name any Supreme Court cases she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, the inability to name newspapers or magazines she read, or the rambling and incoherent answer she gave regarding why Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience.

Amazingly, Palin couldn't even remember Exxon v. Baker, which for most people wouldn't be a surprise except it involved Alaska and the Exxon Valdez and Palin criticized the ruling earlier this year. Perhaps her excuse is that someone in her office just put her name on a release.

What must foreign countries think of her, and us, that we would potentially entrust the most powerful position in the world to someone without experience, knowledge or interest in events? We tried that in 2000 and the results have been disastrous. Do we really want to try it again?

Faced with a potential disaster tonight conservatives have tried lowering the bar for success by Palin to the point where if she doesn't embarrass herself it will be a success. But with even that lower bar conservatives have decided they need to "work the referee" in order to protect Palin by alleging that moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS is biased because she is working on a book titled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."

FOX News is asking whether Ifill can be "fair and balanced" in the debate. Truthfully, given the nature of conservatives Ifill should have seen this coming as nothing is ever fair in their world unless they are given an advantage, but for FOX to be questioning whether someone is fair and balanced is like a loan shark criticizing interest rates on credit cards.

In the end the questions don't matter, Palin will give a number of snappy, mean spirited responses which the public will either fall for or decide her story has become tiresome. At best Republicans can hope Sen. Joe Biden makes a mistake to hide her performance or that concern about conservative complaints that Biden attaced Palin makes him pull his punches in the debate.

We shall see.

McCainonomics 101

Sen. John McCain gave a preview of his view of economics when he talked about how his running mate sold the Alaska governor's jet on eBay.

"She took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on eBay," McCain said. "And made a profit."

Except Alaska sold it for $2.1 million after buying it for $2.7 million. To most people that would be a loss, buying high and selling low. But for McCain that was a profit! Apparently that may be his secret plan for balancing the budget, treating deficits as surpluses.

There was another problem with the story, the jet WASN'T sold on eBay, state officials said they sold it through a broker.

No Thanks MEANS No Thanks!

One of the biggest applause lines Gov. Sarah Palin makes is the claim that she "told Congress thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

But that line appears to be false and apparently Gov. Palin didn't say "no thanks" to the money Congress gave Alaska, just spending the funds on other projects. Since she didn't really say "no thanks" to the money, the public should demand she live up to her word and give back the money. Afterall, no thanks MEANS no thanks, not just no thanks - but I'll take the money anyway!

Will voters contact Gov. Palin and tell her to give back the money? Or contact their Representative or Senators? Perhaps the House or Senate Transportation Committees could hold hearings on where the money went when she said "no thanks." As member of the Senate Committee I'm sure Sen. John McCain would be supportive of his colleagues looking for this money.

What is the Bridge to Nowhere? In 2005 Congress approved a $223 million earmark for the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island, home to only a few people. However, the bridge was criticized by many people, including Sen. McCain, as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects.

Yet despite all the complaints, in 2005 (a year before Palin was elected Governor) Congress approved Alaska the money for that bridge and another bridge, only eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the bridges. The change did not save the government any money. Instead, the $442 million was turned over to Alaska with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to spend it on any transportation projects, including the bridges.

In September 2007, long after Congress approved the money for Alaska, Gov. Palin finally gave up on the bridge, saying "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

Gov. Palin blamed the bridges demise on Americans, saying “much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."

So you and I are at fault for not allowing her to build the bridge no nowhere, however I doubt It's Your Fault is not much of an applause line.

McCain picks Mooseport Mayor as VP choice

After months of decrying Sen. Barack Obama's supposed "lack of experience," Sen. John McCain decided to confirm the image of the GOP as a party of the hypocrites by basically picking the Mayor of Mooseport as his choice as Vice President.

Gov. Palin who had been in office as Governor of Alaska (the 47th largest state) for less than two years was a surprise choice for many, perhaps even Palin. Asked in July about the speculation that she was being considered for the VP spot Gov. Palin gave a window into McCain's judgement.

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" Gov. Palin said.

Just image if a Democrat gave that answer! It would replayed more often that Howard Dean's scream.

But apparently for the Mayor of Mooseport and the GOP, that answer is just great since you are a Republican.

Democrats stop bringing knife to gun fight

Watching Sen. Barack Obama's acceptance speech and the Democratic convention and the criticisms of both George Bush and John McCain one came away thinking, finally, the Democrats are no longer bringing knifes to gun fights.

In the past, perhaps concerned about the inevitable loopy criticisms from conservatives, Democrats shied away from criticising Republicans and then watched as they got butchered by conservatives. Tonight it was different.

From saying "Enough" to "It's not that John McCain doesn't care, it's that he doesn't get it," Obama made his points that the last eight years have not been good for the country.

The only disappointment was that the Democrats didn't figure this out four years ago. Perhaps that is why Sen. John Kerry's speech on Wednesday night was rated so high. Rather than a nice speech, Kerry told the truth, and for Republicans, the truth hurts.

"Never in modern history has an administration squandered American power so recklessly. Never has strategy been so replaced by ideology," Kerry said. "Never has extremism so crowded out common sense and fundamental American values.

"Never has short-term partisan politics so depleted the strength of America's bipartisan foreign policy."

People wondered if only he had spoken like this in 2004 how much would he have won by. A lot, but unfortunately he didn't enough and the country suffered over the past four years.

Be Careful of What You Wish For

Over the past few months conservatives and members of the GOP (Grumpy Old Party) all but dared Sen. Barack Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, figuring any success that additional troops in Iraq have provided would make Obama look bad and his idea of pulling out troops seem questionable.

Instead Obama was photographed time and time again with foreign leaders, giving Obama the impression of being presidential. Add to that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, was quoted as saying that he backed the senator’s plan to bring home all US combat troops within 16 months, and American TV viewers were treated to scenes of troops eager to meet with Obama, and Obama looking like a statesman while reviewing the mess in Afghanistan.

And all of this before Obama even got to Germany where 200,000 people came to hear him speak in Berlin. But Sen. John McCain had his own foreign "trip," eating lunch at a German sausage shop.

Somehow the idea of large crowds scare conservatives. Perhaps it destroys the myth that liberal policies are not popular and instead shows that conservatism is of limited appeal. Afterall the only way George Bush could have adoring crowds was to screen the crowds to limit the average American from attending. Nothing like being scared of your own people.

The key for Obama though will be turning the large crowds into large voter turnout. If people don't think the election will be close they might not vote.

A Nation of Whiners?

Sen. John McCain has said economics isn't his strong suit, so it's not much of a surprise that he selected former Sen. Phil Gramm as his economic advisor. Gramm, also known as Foreclosure Phil, has been described as "a guy who helped screw up the global financial system," seems perfect as McCain's financial advisor.

Gramm's never been one to apologize for his economic failings and on Thursday he solidified his rank as a Republican when he said the United States had "become a nation of whiners." He later complained that he was referring to leaders not the public. Right, when Sen. John Kerry told a joke about Bush, the right wing nuts convinced the public he was talking about the troops so its hard to be sympathetic. Did Gramm and his staff defend Kerry for the nuts mischaracterization? I doubt it.

Perhaps they are whiners because they don't feel they are treated fairly by their employeers or the government. Gramm apparently has a different view of who should be whining. In an article in the Wall Street Journal Gramm said "I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history."

Only $158 million? When is enough enough? Is there no line where people look at the good of the whole as opposed to the good of the few?

Economic cluelessness or carelessness is rampant in the Republican party and also in the McCain campaign. On Social Security McCain said “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed,” he said.

What the REAL disgrace is is that Social Security taxes are not all going to pay benefits, or being saved, but rather being used by the government to give the illusion that the deficit is lower than it is and allow the Bush Administration to avoid raising taxes to pay for the tax cuts they passes and the war in Iraq.

Now that's a economic disgrace.

Fox News Bullies

George Carlin spoke about the seven words you can't say on television. Apparently according to the New York Times the seven letters that the media avoid typing is Fox News.

According to the New York Times articles, Fox News people are such jerks that the media self censor themselves to avoid having to deal with Fox. As David Carr wrote in the Times article, "as crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years. Honesty compels me to admit that I have choked a few times at the keyboard when Fox News has come up in a story and it was not absolutely critical to the matter at hand."

Perhaps the best example was when a New York Times reporter repeatedly tried to get a comment from Fox News on a ratings story but couldn't get his calls returned yet "in a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him."

This harkens back to how "The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, the Times reported.

One can only assume all of this is part of conservatives efforts to skew the news. After all conservatives expect the media to be conservative and are upset when that doesn't work. Liberals expect coverage to be balanced and are upset when it isn't.

That is why Fox News is the media of choice for conservatives and NPR is the media of choice for liberals. By continual complaining about coverage, conservatives are able to bully the media into reporting their version of reality because it is no longer worth going after the facts. And once the media is bullied into submission, the new "reality" becomes accepted.

Perhaps rather than "We Report, You Decide," Fox News slogan should be "We distort, You're Deceived."

Why Clinton Lost

In today’s reviews of why Sen. Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential Nomination one of the points you won’t see much made is the role of George Bush and the 1990s media.

George Bush, the 1990s media? What has that got to do with the Democratic race? A lot, however the mainstream media will focus on Clinton’s mistake of trying to win it by Super Tuesday and the right wing media (almost the same as MSM) will claim people are finally realizing the truth about the Clintons.

No, for a number of people the thought of extending the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency of the last 20 years was too much to take, especially with the idea that there is another Bush (Jeb) out there. The Bush presidencies were so bad, and the 1990s media were so irresponsible (and believed themselves above questioning), that a number of people decided that it was time to move on.

The early rejection of Sen. Clinton was a rejection of Bush and his war, which Clinton probably to her regret, voted to authorize. In addition, people were concerned that if Sen. Clinton were the nominee all the right wing extremists would come out of the woodwork to fight her. And after watching the media of the 1990s, one can imagine the media would gleefully join in the “Hunting of the President, Part II.”

You have to wonder if Sue Schmidt, of the Washington Post, took one of the buyouts when figured she wouldn't have a chance to come back and use her journalistic butcher knives and go after the Clintons.

If anything, the string of victories Sen. Clinton put together at the end of the campaign season show there is still a great deal of desire for another Clinton administration. The problem was that the Clinton’s didn’t understand the hesitancy people would have in giving the media another crack at them or opening the door for another Bush term.

Would President Snippy Have Listened?

One of the biggest White House talking points about former press secretary Scott McClellan's book has been "Why didn't Scott bring up his concerns when he was here?" bringing up an image of poor old George Bush just waiting for someone to tell him the truth.

But in the words of the White House attack dogs, "That's Not the George Bush I knew."
To suggest that Bush would have listened to criticisms is preposterous, ridiculous and for a White House official to offer such a suggestion is tantamount to lying, or possibly remorse that they didn't boot the non-believer out years ago.

In 2005 Newsweek pointed out Bush doesn't tolerate dissent in his administration ["A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president.."] however you don't see that point made in McCellan stories that include the White House talking point that McCellan should have made his views known.

As a reporter, if a White House official makes such a claim and expects the reporter to publish it, shouldn't they ask at least "so Bush would have listened?" Instead too many follow the Charlie Gibson "it was not our job to debate them" mentality.

But since apparently no one in the media is questioning that ridiculous idea, even Sen. Bob Dole has jumped into the fray saying that McClellan "should have spoken up publicly like a man." At least Dole offered also the suggestion that McClellan could have quit. That was the better question. Bush never would have listened, the only option staff had was to quit.

Unfortunately the Bush Bubble was pretty thick and apparently it took a while for McCellan to detoxify. So for all those who believe that McCellan should have spoken up one assumes that they are now urging all White House officials to be up front and frank about any and all concerns they have. I'm sure John McCain will enjoy that.

Is it Something in the White House Water?

With the news that former Bush Press Secretary Scott McCellan has written a memoir stating that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" he joins the legions of former officials who have come to their senses after leaving the White House.

According to the Washington Post and Politico.com, McCellan's book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. Wow, call Mike Wallace!

The sad thing is that this isn't news. Only the disinterested, dishonest and delusional have believed that the Bush Administration has been acting ethically, honestly, or in the interests of the American public.

While some may praise the McCellan's courage in finally stating the truth, it is four years too late. Where was McCellan in 2004 when he could have made a difference? Taking part in the Bush political propaganda campaign that tashed Sen. John Kerry by just enough to allow Bush to win the 2004 election.

Among the gems that apparently are in the book, McCellan writes that “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

Some? McCellan also writes that "The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

One can look back and see all the warnings that the Bush Administration would be a failure and the American people tried to avoid it, electing Al Gore president in 2000. Unfortunately the will of the people was overturned, as displayed in RECOUNT.

Apparently the only questions left is when will Jim Baker join the crowd and apologize for his role in this disaster?

Will Florida Repeat its 2000 Fiasco

With the HBO movie RECOUNT set to be run on Sunday and Sen. Hillary Clinton in Florida trying to compare the Democrat's plan on not seating Florida delegates at the 2008 Democratic Convention to what happened in Florida in 2000, one has to wonder if Sen. Clinton needs to watch the movie.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Clinton said Florida voters "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner."

Yeah, the nation learned that the person in second place in both the popular vote and the electoral college can bull their way to the White House by taking advantage of Florida's mismanagement of the electoral process.

As the Washington Post pointed out, all of the Democratic candidates agreed to boycott January primaries in Florida and Michigan after the states violated party rules by selecting early dates. Nonetheless, the elections were held and Clinton won both, though Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan.

In 2000 thousands of votes in Florida weren't counted for various reasons and as a result the intent of the voters was subverted. In 2008, with the knowledge that their vote wouldn't count because Florida again screwed up an election by going against the party's rules, one has to wonder how many Obama votes were lost?

By complaining that the votes of those in Florida who voted aren't being counted and should be, no matter how inaccurate they may be, Sen. Clinton, is imitating the GOP of 2000 who urged that special preference be given to the military ballots that didn't comply with the rules.

Bush’s "official" margin of victory in Florida was 537 votes. Citing the Florida Department of State’s web site, the New York Times reported that without the overseas ballots counted after election day, Gore would have won Florida, and thus the White House, by 202 votes.

Perhaps the win at any cost mentality being displayed by Sen. Clinton is what the Democrats need. In 2000 it was Bush, not Gore as many conservatives implied, who was willing to do what ever it took to take the White House, whether or not he deserved it.

Counting Florida's votes could allow the state again to let a incomplete election help select a president. Why Democrats are willing to allow Florida to mess up another election by mismanaging an election is unfathomable.

Unfortunately it may happen and isn't it ironic it may happen just as a movie about the first disaster comes out. One can only hope someone watches, and learns. Otherwise history may repeat itself.

Thanks to Florida's fiasco in 2000, Bush got the White House. With Florida's fiasco in 2008, Sen. Clinton still has a shot at the White House.

Bush Lies Again

If people wonder why this blog is called Elephantlies, one only has to listen to George Bush on Tuesday explaining why gasoline prices are so high. Bush was continually wrong and the only question was whether he knew he was wrong and lying, or was it just that he doesn't study, isn't very smart, and is intellectually lazy?

Well, Bush did get us stuck in a war in Iraq, so maybe he's not too smart. But when Sen. John Kerry pointed out Bush isn't bright, conservatives jumped all over Kerry's "joke" so that can't be right. As result the only answer is that Bush must be lying, right?

Don't believe me? Let's go to the tape and look at a report on Marketplace, one of the few places that looked into the story and as a result all but called Bush a liar.

Bush: One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand.

Oil Analyst: The U.S. market is well supplied.

Business correspondent Bob Moon pointed out that "analysts have been reporting that gasoline reserves in this country have been on the rise since October and in recent months, we've got more stored up than we have since the early 1990's, so as Shook points out, we've got enough on the supply side. Then you've got demand and that's actually been falling since last July. None other than the Bush administration's own Energy Department now says the demand for gasoline here is on track to see the first annual drop in consumption in 17 years."

Bush: Another reason for the high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery.

Analyst: We're expanding refining capacity in this country. We have probably more than half a million barrels of new refining capacity per day under construction right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see another 100,000 barrels per day of new capacity announced in the next six months to a year.

But how are the current refineries operating? Moon pointed out that "We're actually using less gasoline lately. Well that means refineries here in the U.S. have actually been cutting back on production because their margins are tightening up."

So why is gas going up? Possibly that the dollar continues to drop against other major currencies. And why is the dollar dropping? Because of the policies of the current administration.

But would Bush tell the truth and say the reason the price of gas is increasing is his administration's fault? No, because elephants lie.

Who has contempt for the non-elites? The GOP

When Barack Obama's "bitter" comments came out prior to the Pennsylvania primary, a number of conservatives were outraged about the elite comments Obama had and how out of touch he was with the common people and questioned whether he respected the people.

But the people who have the real contempt for the American people is the Republican Party. One only has to look at Florida. It was bad enough when Jeb Bush's administration helped determine the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in favor of his brother, now the state has passed a series of laws that effectively limits efforts to register people to vote.

The New York Times is reporting that the League of Women's Voters of Florida sued state election officials on Monday to challenge a law that fines voter registration groups for losing registration forms or returning them late.

This, along with the Supreme Court's decision on Indiana's Voter ID bill that deals with non-existent voter fraud, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comment on the courts' gift of the presidency to George Bush - "get over it. It's so old by now" shows the contempt conservatives have for Americans.

Scalia and others may pretend that their actions are based on laws and concern for laws, in reality their actions are little more than rationalizations for self serving actions.

Rather than questioning if Rev. Wright loves American, maybe one should ask why the right hates America and Americans.