What's good for the goose...

There's plenty of truth in this cartoon. How would Republicans act if a Democratic President had acted in blatant disregard of the Constitution as Bush has? Let's hope we don't find out with whomever is the next President using Bush's actions as precedent.

Yesterday's News Today

I see that both CNN and MSNBC (the actual TV version, Olbermann goes off here, couldn't find a CNN link) pick up on the story that I posted about yesterday in the LA Times that the White House, not the General, will give us the "report" in September about how things are going in Iraq.

Even that was in the second page of the LA Times article online.

See! I'm not crazy. It is important that the "Petraeus Report" won't be the "Petraeus Report," but instead another piece of White House spin and justification.

Well, at least I wasn't crazy this time.

Take another look at my post. Piece from Countdown below- in two segments.

"Wait until September."

This is what the Administration and its supporters keep telling us. Why? Because in September Gen. Petraeus will give us a report on the situation on the ground in Iraq.

A clear-eyed report from a top general reflecting military progress, right?

Maybe not...

From the LA Times (with the Pilgrim's emphasis added):

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government. And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

Given the honesty of the Administration, so far... no, wait.

Since the Administration has a reputation for accurate descriptions of military intelligence... not right, either.

Because of the capacities for self-criticism displayed by the Bush team... wrong again.

Let's face it, we won't get the truth.

The ball's in your court, congressional Democrats. What will you do?

Satire

Funny satirical commentary on our President's willingness to use fearmongering to get what he wants.

Perhaps not so funny since the Democrats caved in and gave the President his constitutionally challenged wiretapping legislation.

Democrats Fail- Again!

The Democratic-led U.S. Senate, amid warnings of further attacks on the United States, approved a bill on Friday that would allow President George W. Bush to maintain his controversial domestic spying program.

The Senate defeated, on a 45-43 vote, a Democratic alternative, which would have placed tighter controls on the spying and provided for independent assessments of the attorney general's implementation of the measure.

Rather than taking action to limit the actions of the President and Attorney General- to bring those actions within the limits of the US Constitution- the Senate has written yet another blank check to the Bush Administration.

Why? Not because of some real and imminent threat to the nation. The real reason: the President threatened to call the Congress back into session, eliminating or shortening the members' vacations.

For at least another six months the Attorney General gets to abuse the Constitution by conducting wiretaps without warrants, without oversight of those wiretaps for as much as 120 days, and where the oversight will not be on the specific wiretaps, but only on the general procedure used to justify the wiretaps. In other words, no restraint except for the competency of the Administration to determine true threats (don't get me started) and the ethics of the Attorney General ("Houston, we have a problem!").

Abuse of the Constitution and power by this Administration has been widely documented. But equal blame falls upon the Democrats for allowing this to happen. They have given in to the politics of the moment, pursued their own electoral self-interests, and failed utterly to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by strictly limiting the Bush Administration.

Update:
From the Washington Post

Privacy advocates accused the Democrats of selling out and charged that this bill gives the government more authority than it had under a controversial warrantless wiretapping program begun in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Under that program, the government could conduct surveillance without judicial oversight only if it had a reason to believe that one party to the call was a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. This bill drops that condition, they noted.

Democrats "have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they roll over and play dead," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Children's Healthcare Bill

It has passed in the Senate. President Bush- the man who campaigned saying Jesus was his favorite philosopher- has threatened a veto. That wild-eyed liberal Orrin Hatch (R-UT) supports it. Maybe Bush misunderstands the biblical passage beginning "suffer the little children..." (Mark 10:14).

Senate Passes Children’s Health Bill, 68-31
The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.

The vote was 68 to 31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Mr. Bush. The White House said the bill “goes too far in federalizing health care.”

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said, “To suggest that this is somehow socialized medicine is one of the most far-fetched arguments I have seen on the Senate floor. This care is provided by private physicians, using private insurance companies.”

The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill would cover 3.2 million uninsured children, including 2.7 million who are currently eligible but not enrolled. The House bill, it said, would cover 4.2 million children, including 3.8 million already eligible for benefits. In addition, both bills would provide money to prevent 800,000 children now on the program from losing coverage.

The current allocations of federal money, totaling $5 billion a year, are not enough for states to maintain their current programs.

Polling update

In an earier post, I noted that Obama was closing the gap between himself and Clinton in key states, but was still 15 points back in Iowa. A new poll finds Iowa a dead heat. Results below. Remeber that it is state by state victories, not overall national numbers, that will result in the nomination, and that the national numbers will likely change as a result of primary voting in the early states.

Washington Post?ABC News poll:

If the Democratic caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), who would you support?
NET LEANED VOTE:

Barack Obama 27
Hillary Clinton 26
John Edwards 26
Bill Richardson 11
Joe Biden 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Chris Dodd 1

Most recent corruption scandal

Bigotry

How's this for a sign that we still have some ground to cover in the US in terms of race issues?

From Baptists for Brownback (selections; italics in the original):

The Curse of Ham: Why Barack Hussein Oboma Will Never Be President

It is written in Rev 20:8-Satan shall go out to deceive all the nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth... As descendant of Canaan, Liberal Democrat, Barack Obama Hussein is indeed a liar for that there is no disputing. He has and will continue to with his lies to God’s children that abortion, blatant homosexuality, fornication, and socialism is fun and good. This does not however make him the great liar that God tells us is to be the Anti-Christ. It is Barack Hussein Obama’s curse of coloredness that will prevent him from ever being elected leader of a true Christian nation, one that is founded upon Christian principle by the chosen, fair-skinned people of God.

Bigotry abounds. From the repeated use of Obama's middle name Hussein (a tactic used repeatedly by Ann Coulter) to the obvious racism, here is an example of Christianity gone bad. Those of us who seek to practice the faith as Jesus would have intended must exercise constant vigilence and contend vigourously with such 'religious' hate groups.

Gonzalez Hearings

Firmly established on the boycott list

Glenn Beck continues to earn his place on the Pilgrim's boycott list, and is moving up in his bid for the Hall of Shame. CNN must be so proud.

In essence, according to Beck...

Al Gore = Hitler

(via Talking Points Memo)

You know, Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government.

"You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming....

"Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists that say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.

Obama today

Obama delivered a major speech on foreign policy today. I've not been able to find the full text yet (Obama's website is terrible about posting the text of speeches- nothing recent on the site), but Andrew Sullivan quotes:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for...

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission...

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

This again shows the folly of Iraq. Having pursued al-Qaeda aggressively from the beginning would have been appropriate and perhaps effective. Now those who would hurt us have been able to find themselves a new hide-out, and the American military is not prepared (because of Iraq) and the American people are not willing (also because of Iraq) to do what should have been done 5-6 years ago which is to have focused our military and intelligence resources on the true threat.

Recent dust-up

A small fight has developed between Obama and Clinton over whether or not to meet w/ leaders of certain nations- Iran and Syria- for example. Clinton appears to be Bush-Lite on this one, and that is no good sign.

Sometimes it's not enough to talk to one's friends. We have to deal with our enemies.

The Concord Monitor published this Op-Ed, and, like Obama, got it right.

The disagreement between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over whether to engage in dialogue with rogue leaders from countries such as Iran and North Korea points finally to a substantive difference in how they view themselves as national leaders.

Sen. Clinton believes that formal contact with such leaders, at least early in her presidency, would provide them with a propaganda opportunity, which would not be in our country's interest. Sen. Obama sees such an opening in communication as a refreshing departure from the current administration's approach of not talking to people it doesn't like. Sen. Obama points to Sen. Clinton's position on the issue as similar to President Bush's practice. Sen. Clinton counters that her opponent was being "irresponsible and frankly naïve."

We see two styles of presidential leadership, one traditional and one, well, audacious. Given the urgency of our times, Sen. Clinton's stance means that progress in mitigating differences with our adversaries while showing our allies a diplomatically emboldened United States would move too slowly. In that way, her position is too much like the president's.

Initiating and hopefully continuing regular diplomatic, economic and cultural exchanges with nations, even those with whom we disagree, may usher in ties and agreements that would benefit the United States.

The first step is for our new president to demonstrate courage and confidence by going head-to-head with any national leader and to leverage the quality of his or her integrity and intellect in the context of a reemerging America proud of its instincts and mindful of its interests.

Sen. Obama got this one right.

BILL RYAN
Concord

On the big screen

I don't know much about this movie, but I saw this trailer today. May have some value. It seems to come from the perspective that the war was mismanaged. True. Truer still is the position that it should never have been begun in the first place.

Key to remember

National polls often don't count for a lot in the primary season run for nominations. Early results in New Hampshire and Iowa can change the national numbers overnight- making a candidate who performs well in those states seem like a potential winner, drawing skeptics into his/her camp.

For example, on the Republican side, Guliani is well ahead in national polls among declared candidates, but Romney is ahead in New Hampshire and Iowa. Could he turn wins in those states into momentum for a nomination?

On the Democratic side, Clinton has been leading both in state by state races and in national polls. Is this changing? Check out the New Hampshire numbers where Obama has closed a gap that has been as wide as 20 points to create a race now tied (31% each). In South Carolina, Obama has closed a gap as wide as 24 points to take a 4 point lead (33%-29%) over Clinton. Obama still trails Clinton by 15 points in Iowa (30%-15%)- the only state where Edwards shows any real strength.

If Obama were to win or come in a very close second to Clinton in 2 of 3 early races, he may be able to get Denocrats off their 'default' position. He may seem a more viable candidate- a candidate people can not just like, or wish they could vote for, but a candidate they can envision, and vote for, as the next President of the United States.

Here's why I watch Obama closely

His analysis matches mine on the world situation.

Obama on some issues

Obama responds to some critics from within the party in debates. Some useful thoughts, and a sense of Obama's appeal to some.

This piece is obviously by an Obama supporter- if not obvious throughout, certainly so at the end. But it does show us a couple of things:

1. The attacks on Obama show how credible insiders think he is as a candidate. They are playing politics the way it is played in contemporary America- attack and drive up the opponents negatives.

2. He has positions on issues that are developed and thought out. This clip shows a discussion of his position on a war in Iraq before the invasion, and a discussion of his health care proposal (which would likely be a premier issue were it not for the war in Iraq).

So... this is a campaign/propaganda piece, but still retains value.

I know this is from Fox News...

but I knew Frank Luntz when I lived in Washington, DC some years back. He's a Republican, no doubt, but he knows how to seek the truth in these focus group settings. He's a Republican strategist that I believe you can listen to and get a good perspective on candidates of both parties (although he can pander a bit when he gets on set with some of the more ideological hosts).

In this clip, he gets people to get at a key issue in the upcoming election (people are responding to last night's debate)- trust. Who can we trust?

President Bush has lied to us about matters of great significance. President Clinton lied to us, and while he lied over personal matters of less significance, he lied under oath and this broke the law. Will the sins of the husband visit upon the wife? Fair or not, I think people are going to ask themselves if they want the prospect of 8 more years of a Clinton White House.

Obama may seem vague at time. I know people question his experience (but remember what the experience of Cheney and Rumsfeld brought us). But what he does seem to put on the table is honesty. More so than any of the other Democratic candidates- except perhaps Biden, but you have to listen to him for hours to hear his truth.

Trust. Keep and eye on this issue as we move through the campaign cycle.

Filibuster

Source: Matthew Yglesias

I've always opposed the filibuster rule in the Senate, and the use of the filibuster by any party for any cause. The filibuster is anti-democratic, undermines representative government, and causes ridiculous horse-trading in the Senate (on issues often unrelated to the filibuster that feather the nests of certain Senators and are often wasteful of our tax dollars).

Recently- before the Democrats takeover of Congress- the Republicans were decrying the use of the filibuster- or its threatened use- to delay judicial appointments. Remember all the "up or down vote" ads?

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Republicans are perfectly willing to do what they thought politically reprehensible only a couple of years ago, and now the Democrats are whining that the Republicans are doing what they, the Democrats, did.

Trent Lott was wrong about virtually everything else as majority leader, but he was correct about the so-called "nuclear option." Correct in a limited way- as the nuclear option, as I recall, related only to judicial appointments.

I don't like the metaphor of a "nuclear option," but I do wish the Senate would change its rules. Let a vote on the issues that matter to Americans happen. Don't hide behind procedure. Above all, get to work for the American people.

A (dis)honor well deserved

Recent poll results:

Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove.