Oversight & Enacting Legislation Not Mutually Exclusive

There was a rather curious opinion piece in the Washington Post today by David Broder, in which he criticized the Democratic majority for allegedly pursuing investigations of the White House at the expense of enacting legislation.

Revelation, not legislation?

As Broder wrote:

"Ten weeks into the new Congress, it is clear that revelation, not legislation, is going to be its real product.

"While President Bush threatens to use his veto pen to stop some bills and Senate Republicans block other measures from even reaching his desk, no force in Washington can halt the Democrats' investigative juggernaut from uncovering the secrets inside this administration."

Yet, following that, Broder comes up with the precise reasons why it is so important for the oversight investigations to go forward.

Why congressional oversight is so important

Regarding the prior lack of oversight, Broder observed:

"A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.

"You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?

"They will pay the price for the temporary breakdown in the system of checks and balances that occurred between 2001 and this year -- when the Republican Congress forgot its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.

"It was a fundamental dereliction of duty by Congress, and it probably did more to encourage bad decisions and harmful actions by executive-branch political appointees than the much-touted lobbying influence. In reality, many Republican members of Congress did not mind what was happening because they were able to get favors done in that permissive climate. Now, the Democratic investigators will publicize instances of influence by members of Congress, and the political fallout will not stop with New Mexico's Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson."

Referring to 6 years of an oversight-free presidency as simply a temporary breakdown is a bit naive. Looking at the chaos a leash-free neo-con cabal has brought to global affairs will surely demonstrate that.

To me, one cannot legislate without at first making an attempt to get at some of the truth...a truth long denied to Congress.

Broder even acknowledges that the new majority party is "stymied by Republican opposition." Besides, Democrats do not have veto-proof majorities, so how much legislation can they realistically seek to get passed, on Iraq, for instance? They cannot even bust a presidential veto on stem-cell research which has widespread bipartisan support.

Yes, Mr. Broder, they can multi-task

So, what is Broder's point, as he closes with:

"Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives."

There is no point, because oversight and enacting legislation are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, investigations that unearth unethical chicanery by the White House will more likely encourage others in the GOP to side with Democrats that seek reform and a change in direction.

Mr. Broder has to know that not only can investigations ultimately aid future legislation, but that Congress should be expected to have multi-tasking capabilities. So why does he seem so concerned that lawmakers may actually be doing their job?

Could it be that maybe we'll learn that the GOP was in bed with the press all along? That, somehow, the media was complicit in the scams perpetrated by Bushco?


Broder's column can be found here.

Warding Off 'The Coultergeist'

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has my favorite way of referring to Ann Coulter. He calls her "the Coultergeist."

Ann of the thousand slurs

The Coultergeist was in rare form Friday at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

After being warmly welcomed by her favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter made the following comment:

"Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Of course, that comment was greeted by the predictable adulation by members of the coven (audience) who think of Coulter as a rock star.

Equally predictable is the silence of the mainstream media. They continue to use her as a frequent guest and continue to bestow credibility upon her that she does not deserve.

Lukewarm rebukes and Edwards' response

And then, we have yet to hear the candidates distance themselves. Would Mitt Romney dare to distance himself from Coulter after receiving such lavish praise? Well, not until he has at least snared the nomination and then tries to reinvent himself as a true moderate for a general election.

Today saw some very mild rebukes from the various campaigns. The McCain and Giuliani camps issued statements deeming the comments "inappropriate." Romney's retort was even more pathetic, merely stating that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. It's still unclear if that comment was aimed at gay people or the Coultergeist, herself.

John Edwards' campaign team responded aggressively and creatively. According to CNN,

"Edwards' campaign posted the video on their Web site, and asked readers to help them 'raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry.'"

I think the response of the Edward's camp, using this as a means to generate money, was spot on.

The Phelps' model

Years ago, when Fred Phelps' clan began picketing funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS (a practice they later expanded to include picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq), a great idea was born.

I do not recall the group that initiated the practice, but the appearance of the hate-mongers was used as an opportunity to raise money for groups that fight hate and intolerance. It's possible that money was even being raised to generate funding for pro-gay marriage initiatives.

The tactic turned a negative into a positive. Since the group was going to picket anyway, and they were going to get their coverage, this somewhat defused the event by making clear that it would make money for the causes that those people so detested.

This move from the Edwards campaign works in the same way. It tells the Coultergeist that if she wants to continue to spew her hatred it will only make it that much easier for the Democratic candidates to raise money.

Further action

However, there are other things that need to be done.

We need to make sure that there is an 'appropriate' response from both the media and the other GOP candidates. A response with teeth in it.

In the past, Coulter has gotten away with outrageous comments and been allowed to remain a credible participant in the political process.

Media Matters always seems to set the right tone for responding. In this case, they asked the following:

"Will the media -- including the "mainstream media" figures Romney said attended his speech -- ask Romney whether he will repudiate Coulter's apparent endorsement?

"Will the media ask the other Republican presidential candidates and potential candidates participating in CPAC -- including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee -- whether they will seek the votes of the CPAC attendees who cheered Coulter's smear of Edwards?"

It's one thing for McCain and Giuliani to suggest that the comments are "inappropriate," and it's quite another to act upon it. It's one thing for Romney to talk about dignity, and quite another to be enriched by the person who makes a career of making undignified, hate-filled remarks.

What you can do

On a personal note, contacting any media outlet that continues to give Coulter a platform is a good start towards making the Coultergeist responsible for what she says. Contacting one's local paper, as well as one's local politicians, asking them to repudiate Coulter's comments, should also be part of a creative response.

Let her hate speech inspire us to activism. That is the response Coulter most dreads. Creatures like the Coultergeist always thrive most in the darkness, while the populace is in a deep slumber.

It's time to wake up.

Snow Job: Personification of A Bush Talking Point

There was a time when I would catch a televised daily briefing by Tony Snow, because I wanted to see how the replacement for Scott McClellan was able to improve on the former press secretary's excruciating performance.

That didn't last very long.

You see, Mr. Snow is far worse.

Snow piled high

Where once we just had a figurehead who could parrot talking points, but not speak out of the box, now we have a man who is very creatively mean-spirited, arrogant and uninformative.

I had taken a sabbatical from reading Dan Froomkin's White House Watch in the Washington Post. I am glad I checked out his column on Tony Snow today.

Froomkin writes,

"Snow's glib, confrontational approach to reporters -- rarely giving straight answers to even the simplest and most legitimate questions -- has made him a hero to Bush partisans and a darling of the right-wing media.

"But it's becoming increasingly clear that the fears that some journalists had when Snow first came to the job from Fox News last May have been realized.

"Not surprisingly, considering his background, Snow seems to treat his encounters with the press more like a cable show than as an opportunity to provide the public with a fuller picture of what's going on inside the White House. His prime goal seems to be to "win the half hour" -- which generally entails out-talking and mocking your opponent, rather than mustering facts and actually staking out a persuasive position."

Any doubts about the man's slanting and spinning are dispelled when Froomkin refers to his campaigning for the GOP and possibly running for office himself. How can this man claim any credibility?

Snow storm

As to his demeanor, and Snow's ability to factually represent the Bush administration's policies, Froomkin sticks in the dagger:

"From his very first formal briefing, on May 16, Snow has often put his foot in it. (At that one, he said his reaction to the 2,500th American death in Iraq was that 'it's a number' and he used a phrase -- 'tar baby' -- that some consider racist.)

"And he is frequently combative. As I described in my June 16 column, Snow often demands that reporters define the terms that he himself has just used.

"Sometimes, he picks fights over obvious facts. Case in point, at Wednesday's press briefing, he was asked about testimony from Bush's new spy chief that Osama bin Laden is alive in Pakistan and reestablishing training camps. Snow responded by suggesting that bin Laden might not really be the leader of al Qaeda."

If the snowshoe fits

As far as I am concerned, Tony Snow is the perfect man for the job. He seems to have the intellectual capacity of George Bush and the bedside manner of Dick Cheney.

In other words, Bushco has, as its mouthpiece, the man they truly deserve.

Now let's see if the White House Press Corps grows a set and starts poking through the press secretary's marshmallow veneer and come up with a little substance.

I won't hold my breath.


Dan Froomkin's entire column can be accessed here.

Bush To Wounded Troops: Drop Dead & Shut Up

Dissing our wounded vets

2 stories in the Army Times over the past week, by Kelly Kennedy, make quite clear how the Bush administration really feels about the troops who have sacrificed their health and, in many cases their limbs, for the George W. Bush war games.

On February 20th the Army Times reported that wounded vets were getting shafted on health care.

Kennedy detailed the experience of seriously wounded 20-year old Pvt. Robert Van Antwerp, who lost 2 friends in an explosion that "fractured his skull, ruptered his spleen and ripped out his colon."

According to the report:

"Yet when it was time for the Army to take care of him, one of its wounded warriors, Van Antwerp gave up before he even began. Rather than fight for a higher disability rating, he quietly signed for 20 percent — and no medical benefits — saying he knew he couldn’t do better. He inherited his father’s stubbornness, he said, and refused to ask anyone to pull strings based on his dad’s rank. Then his first medical board counselor, the person who would help him make his way through the medical evaluation board system, left. The second, he said, 'wasn’t on the ball.'

"'The Army is trying to give you the lowest amount of money possible,' he said. 'A lot of people are appealing, but I’ll be going to [the Department of Veterans Affairs]. I want to go home.'

"Van Antwerp is one of thousands of wounded troops rushed from the war zone for health care and then stranded in administrative limbo. They are at the mercy of a medical evaluation system that’s agonizingly slow, grossly understaffed and saddled with a growing backlog of cases. The wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are stuck in holding companies awaiting hearings and decisions on whether they will continue their military service or be discharged, and if so, at what level of benefits — if any."

That article painted a disturbing picture about how our wounded Iraqi and Afghani war veterans were essentially left to fend for themselves upon their return.

Understaffed and out of touch

Part of the problem is attributed to understaffing, but part of it is also attributed to a system that is certainly not set up to look after the best interests of the men and women who have sacrificed their bodies and psyches in service to our country.

Also telling is the total lack of empathy and reality from officials.

For example, that article referred to

"Col. Ronald Hamilton, commander of the medical center brigade at Walter Reed", who "beamed when asked about the work done through the medical evaluation board.'

"'I think it’s being handled extremely well,' he said. 'There are some outliers, where it takes longer than we would expect it to, but we’re not saying, ‘You’re at 365 days — we need to process you out.’ We’re trying to do what’s best for each soldier.'"

Sounds like a man after Bush and Cheney's own heart.

The attempt to punish the wounded and wronged

One would think such an expose would shame Bushco and his war machine to switch into high gear to make things right.

Well, they have switched into high gear all right...by punishing soldiers and going into cover up mode.

In today's article in the Army Times, in a report titled "Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet," Kennedy writes:

"Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.

"'Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,' one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity."

Additionally, patients are being moved to a building that will have much harder access by the media and media coverage has been shut down, under the excuse that it cannot occur while an ongoing investigation is taking place. According to the most recent report, planned projects by both CNN and the Discovery Channel have been suspended.

No comment?

Most telling, "as of Tuesday afternoon, Army public affairs did not respond to a request sent Sunday evening to verify the personnel changes."

Everybody should be petitioning their local representatives in Washington to have the administration answer this outrage.

Could it be any clearer how much George Bush and his chickenhawk warriors hate the troops?


The 2 Army Times reports can be accessed both here and here.

Patriot Games

The GOP, led by Smearer-in-Chief Dick Cheney, has once again played the 'treason card.' Only this time they're getting called out on it.

In an interview with ABC News earlier today, Mr. Cheney made the following unfortunate comment:

"I think (Rep. John Murtha's) dead wrong. I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy.

"The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to convince us to throw in the towel and come home and then they win because we quit."

In other words, if one does not support the misguided war-mongering policy of the Bush Administration, one is aiding and abetting the enemy. His comments cannot be taken any other way.

Cheney just following Bush's lead

One can hardly blame Mr. Cheney for feeling he was safe to make such brazen remarks, because he knows the GOP has gotten away with it every single time. In fact, Cheney's comments are in lockstep with the following remark that that other great war hero, George W. Bush, told an audience at Georgia Southern University, shortly before Election Day:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

The 'scare America' strategy failed miserably for the neo-cons in the last election, but they continue the mantra today.

Fighting back

What I find refreshing is the Democratic response and the fact that the media is choosing to cover it. Amazing what majority status will do in effecting news coverage.

Nancy Pelosi, responding to Cheney's comments, said

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country."

I first feared that Pelosi was giving Bush too much credit. Surely she remembered his comments as well.

However, what is really going on here is that the Dems are finally shining a light on the dangerous un-American comments by the neo-cons and calling attention to how truly unpatriotic those comments are. Additionally, those comments are finally resonating.

Considering that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the Bush war games, they will be even less pleased when they are told opposition to the Bush escalation makes them cheerleaders for al Qaeda.

When pulling out is a good thing

To add to the unreality of Dick "the insurgency is in its last throes" Cheney, are his comments regarding Great Britain.

This is what Cheney told ABC newsman Jonathan Karl, regarding British plans to reduce troops by 1600 over the next few months, to a level which could be as low as 5,000 troops come summer:

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well.

"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels."

What I am still waiting for journalists to challenge Cheney on is the question of why those troops would not be redeployed to other parts of Iraq, where increased troops are allegedly so badly needed.

The fact that British troops will soon be down to an even more miniscule presence should really cause us to examine the utter lunacy of the Bush 'surge.'

Maybe we should retire the phrase 'coalition of the willing.'

How about the 'dissolution that is chilling?'

Trying to prevent the next invasion

The neo-cons will continue to run our country straight into the ground, unless we take a stand at every turn and put up some roadblocks.

In that respect, what Speaker Pelosi did was dead-on.

We have to make sure, in this case, that the media will continue to report on challenges to such horrendous comments by the Bush/Cheney cabal.

Maybe they will even have the spine to make some challenges of their own.

Before Bush attacks Iran.

Anna Nicole Smith & The Vampires

Anna Nicole we hardly knew ye.

Outside of the shallow, tawdry, self-obsessed side you paraded in public, that is.

I do not deny that the latter part of your life was reduced to tragedy. No new mother should be greeted by the death of another child, in the hospital room, no less.
And, of course, your death was especially untimely.

I'm not sure why you were so far away from your 5-month old daughter when you died, but I'm sure you had your reasons. Your daughter, hopefully, was being well-cared for.

The story that sucked the life out of all other news

Anna Nicole's death occurred on Thursday, February 8th.

As of February 9th, 3095 troops had died in Iraq. On the 9th, the New York Times, to their credit, listed the names of the 2 most recent victims, 24-year old Joshua Frazier and 20-year old Jennifer Parcell.

However, that is about the only place where you'll read about those 2 victims of a war for oil. You certainly won't hear about them, or any of the other victims on the 3-ring circus we call the cable news outlets.

No, on CNN, MSNBC and Fox, you will barely even hear about Iraq.

Why?

Because ever since her demise, it has been all Anna Nicole Smith, all of the time.

Vampires to the left, vampires to the right

It's not even just the vampires in the news media. Apparently, certain allegedly 'progressive' pundits also think this was the only story. More than one genius who posts on The Huffington Post thought it would be cute to write a column stating that he was the real father of Anna Nicole's unfortunate daughter.

Seriously, there was nothing more important to write about?

So, in that spirit, here is my piece on Anna Nicole Smith.

Sorry it can't be 24/7 like the cable news networks, but I'm not looking to achieve ratings.

I just hope some of the people who have chosen to make this an ongoing circus will actually begin to realize that there is a 5-month old little girl whose life is being ruined before it ever has had a chance to truly begin.

So go ahead Brent Budowsky...go ahead Ken Levine...get those hilarious pieces about paternity out of your system.

I am sure that a greater point is probably being made, especially by Mr. Budowsky. I did see some semblance of media parody in the piece.

Tragically-shortened lives I would like to read about

To be quite honest, I find the Smith story repugnant. It does not deserve to obliterate some of the truly important ongoing stories, so that America can get its fill of salaciousness.

If I want to read about somebody who has recently died a tragic death, I would at least like to see a couple of sentences written about Mr. Frazier or Ms. Parcell.

Something tells me it would be far more compelling and meaningful.

Something else tells me it's never gonna happen.

The Straight And Narrow World Of Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard, the right-wing evangelist who gave added meaning to the word 'hypocrisy,' has been miraculously cured of his homosexual urges.

That's right. After 3 grueling weeks of counseling, Rev. Haggard has announced that he is "completely heterosexual."

Any straighter and he'd be a ruler

No shadings of Kinsey here. No possibility of being the teensiest bit light in his loafers. No bisexuality. This man is not taking the Anne Heche highway. No more hard feelings at the thought of getting a massage from male prostitutes who only advertise in gay magazines. Nope. Haggard is 100% over it. Can you say Hallelujah, thank you Jay-sus?

For those who somehow missed the initial story, which I covered here, Mr. Haggard was fired as pastor of his church and resigned his position as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, after gay escort Mike Jones revealed that the good reverend had paid for sex and also indulged in crystal meth.

After stonewalling, Haggard finally admitted to what he referred to as "sexual immorality" with Jones, but regarding the meth, claimed he didn't inhale.

According to the latest revelations, the fact that Haggard's homosexual contact was allegedly limited to a single male prostitute is helpful confirmation that this man would much prefer to engage in a Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes-style relationship...with Katie, of course.

Coming soon to a self-hating gay man near you

What is scary about pastor Haggard opening up to select members of his flock, and the Denver Post, regarding his plans, is what he is preparing for.

According to the paper, Haggard and his wife will be taking online courses so that they both can eventually earn master's degrees in psychology.

You see where this is going, don't you?

Quicker than you can say, 'Jesus I can make a lot of cash off of self-loathing individuals,' do not be surprised to see Haggard promising to cure others of the dreaded curse of homosexuality.

That future course was being hinted at by H.B.London, a counselor for the homophobic organization Focus on the Family.

The Post quotes London as saying:

"Many of us that go into the healing, helping professions do so out of some sort of dysfunction or traumatic event in our lives, and we want to do what we can to help other people avoid what we've gone through. He is certainly gifted and intelligent and has an intuitive side to him. And he has life experience. Those are good credentials."

Besides, what better way for Rev. Haggard to hook up with closeted gay men?

Opening the floodgates

Either way, let's hope the 'completely heterosexual' comment is not the start of a trend.

Otherwise, next thing you know, we'll be hearing from Michael Jackson, announcing that he isn't really white. Perhaps Mel Gibson will wax poetic over the joys of circumcision and declare that it was actually a good thing that the Jews killed Jesus. Yeah, Michael...gotcha Mel...and yes, Ted...we get it. You've got the cure.

Praise the Lord.

And pass the KY, please.

Vacation Break

Planning for a much-needed break this week has kept me away from updating...which is actually too bad, because there is much I want to write about. Our Decider-in-Chief, neglecting to address Katrina in his State of the Union speech, as one example.

I am leaving for my trip and will not be in a position to blog while I am away.

It will be hectic when I get back, but the blog posts should return the 2nd week in Febuary.

Thanks to those who have been coming in and checking out the posts. Hopefully, some of you will take time to see some of the archived posts from the past year-and-a half.

Sen. Brownback: God's Chosen Candidate?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was not the only candidate to announce a run for the presidency on Saturday.

Senator Sam Brownback, an advocate for the right-wing extremist element of the GOP, threw his hat in the ring as well.

Makes McCain look left-of-center?

The most interesting thing about the Brownback candidacy is that he suddenly makes the other GOP nominees seem like liberals by comparison.

For example, the Washington Post has Gary Bauer's ludicrous take on the subject:

"There are really two primaries taking place simultaneously in the Republican party. One, for center-left candidates, is being fought out between Giuliani and Senator McCain. On the conservative side, nobody has captured that crown yet, but Senator Brownback will be a major competitor."

Only somebody speaking in forked tongues could refer to John McCain as a candidate of the center-left with a straight face.

The 3-antis

Thus far, Sen. Brownback, a Methodist who converted to Catholicism (okay, so not all evangelicals will be thrilled) has defined himself by his opposition to 3 things. He is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research and anti-gay.

In his 17-minute speech to announce his candidacy, the Senator Kansas had the right code-words to reach out to those that reside in the religious right. He re-iterated those points on the Internet.

On his official campaign website, Brownback makes the following policy statements:

We believe in a culture of life—that every human life is a beautiful, sacred, unique child of a loving God.

We believe in justice for all—at all times.

We believe in liberty.

But the central institutions that best transmit these values—the family and the culture—are under withering attack.

Somehow, I do not think that Sen. Brownback sees gay lives as beautiful. He probably doesn't think that justice extends to Guantanamo Bay. I seriously doubt that Sen. Brownback intimately knows of any family that is under 'attack.' And what candidate does NOT believe in liberty?

Also anti-manimal

Lest we forget, Sen. Brownback authored that notorious legislation that sought to prohibit mating humans with animals.

'The Human Chimera Prohibition Act of 2005' would have outlawed the following:

`(a) In General- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce--

`(1) create or attempt to create a human chimera;

`(2) transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb;

`(3) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb; or

`(4) transport or receive for any purpose a human chimera.

This is a man who has seen "the Island of Dr. Moreau" one too many times.

The Brownback paradox

One interesting conundrum regarding Brownback.

The senator is virulently against federally-funded stem-cell research. As recently as last week, he equated it with murder:

"The House of Representatives fell well short of the votes they would need to override a presidential veto of legislation to increase taxpayer funded research that destroys human life."

and this:

"We all want to find cures and treatments for the many diseases and maladies that affect millions of Americans, but there are better options than research that kills nascent human lives."

In that same press release he equated support for stem-cell research with support for human cloning.

How ignorant. The man repeats the lie that these embryos are somehow being harvested for the procedure, as opposed to ackowledging the truth that the embryos that would be used are already available from fertility clinics. They are embryos that will be disposed of anyway, with no benefit to the millions with incurable and debilitating diseases.

And yet, Brownback allegedly made a vow to "end deaths by cancer in 10 years," in his speech on Saturday.

Really, Senator! How exactly do you propose to do that given your passion to thwart science and medical research?

Something tells me that he may be the only candidate, outside of Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer, to suggest the laying on of hands as part of a campaign platform on health care.

Oprah Should Be Ashamed

This has nothing to do with Iraq. Or illegal wiretapping. It has nothing to do with the Hillary or Obama conundrum. Or McCain vs. Rudy.

It has to do with Oprah Winfrey.

And it tells you all you need to know about what is wrong with American media coverage.

Oprah gets the dirt

According to AP, and Winfrey has to be thrilled with her scoop, the mother and stepfather of apparent kidnap victim Shawn Hornbeck speculated, on Oprah's show, that their son had been sexually abused during his 4 years with suspect Michael Devlin.

Craig & Pam Akers say that "they have not asked their son what happened on the advice of child advocacy experts." Yet, they see nothing wrong with then suggesting, on national television, that he was indeed, molested.

Here is how the exchange was described:

"OK, I'm going to go there and ask you, what do you think happened? Do you think he was sexually abused?" Winfrey asked Craig and Pam Akers, parents of 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck.

Both nodded and said, "Yes."

What on earth was the point of that exchange? For whose edification was it done? The titillation of the viewers?

Did anybody consider what that boy must be feeling to have that media molestation forced upon him?

The answer is that this boy was the last person anybody considered.

Questions I would like to see answered

As for Mr. & Mrs. Akers...

Do you think they asked their son if he wanted that to be trotted out for public consumption?

What 15-year old, whose identity is very well known, would want to be made a spectacle of in this way?

Have the parents, who were told that they shouldn't even discuss the topic with Shawn, considered what sort of damage they were doing by making this statement on Oprah's show?

Did Oprah consider the consequences of her question? Or was it sweeps week?

Blood money

I would really love to know what Oprah's people paid for their exclusive.

And I am wondering if everybody feels that they have gotten their money's worth.

The Madness Of King George

George Bush, the worst leader this nation has ever seen, keeps getting away with murder.

After taking a month to allegedly listen to all sorts of expert opinion on the best way out of the morass we have created in Iraq, Bush has come up with a perfect solution....send more bodies in.

More than 21,500 troops, to be precise.

Forget the fact that he has yet to apologize for, or even acknowledge, the fact that our invasion was based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. Now he just wants to plug in more bodies and see how things fly.

Martyr complex

King George I does not seem to care that he is unpopular. He has little use for public opinion, because he thinks that only he knows what's best for this country.

Maybe it was all those years of military experience that made him what he is today.

Oh, I forgot, he couldn't even account for where he was during his stint in the National Guard.

The stubbornness of this man, to be so rigid as to be unable to recognize flawed decisions, and then be further incapable of attempting to correct course, is unmatched.

A final solution?

And then, there is his warped logic for this increased number of troops.

In his televised address on Iraq on January 10th, Bush made the following observation:

In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

So, let's see. When we have cleaned out neighborhoods, losing troops in the process, not to mention countless Iraqi lives, the violence returned when we left.

What is supposed to prevent that from happening again?

No matter how many troops we put in, unless we are planning on keeping a permanent occupying force, the same thing will happen.

Or is the goal to assist Maliki with a little bit of Sunni cleansing? Are we simply allowing the Shiite death squads to step up as we step down? Somebody please explain.

Continued ineptitude

Bush, who let Afghanistan fall back into disarray, is concerned about the violence that will occur if we leave. Interesting how he never considered what might occur, before removing Saddam Hussein.

Al Qaeda never had a foothold in Iraq until we moved in. His father knew what would result from an invasion, but Junior was probably more concerned with how he could secure Iraqi oil and reconstruction money for his corporate cronies.

I hope that the Democrats do all they can to minimize the destruction this madman has wrought upon America, and the world, because of his disastrous foreign policy.

As for his latest game of 'trust me'...

George Bush has lied about Iraq from the beginning. Why should we believe him now?

With Friends Like These: The Demonization Of Nancy Pelosi

It's only the first day of Nancy Pelosi's term as Speaker of the House, but for weeks the knives have been out.

Some of the reaction has been predictable. Nobody expected the GOP to suddenly turn nice, or bipartisan, as the minority party. Cable outlets like Fox, CNN and MSNBC have been almost as obvious in their determination to tear Ms. Pelosi down, before she even has had a chance to settle into her new position.

But then there are the others. Like Lawrence O'Donnell, for example.

The O'Donnell Hatchet Job

I will focus on Mr. O'Donnell, because he to me represents everything wrong with both the media and allegedly progressive politics.

It is telling that O'Donnell's accomplishments are listed in his Huffington Post bio in this order:
Executive Producer "The West Wing"
Panelist "The McLaughlin Group"
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

I bring up O'Donnell because of a nasty piece of butchery he had on HuffPo earlier this week, titled "Pelosi Needs An Agenda For 100 Weeks, Not 100 Hours."

Incredulously, the man whose visibility is due to his weekly appearance on a show known for people shouting soundbytes all over each other, writes:

Nancy Pelosi's first legislative move as Speaker of the House is a mistake. A big one. She is going to cram all the feel-good, easy-to-pass, politically popular legislation she can think of into her first hundred hours without any idea of what she's going to do for the next hundred weeks.

Sorry, but this stands as one of the most profoundly ignorant ramblings I have seen written about Pelosi anywhere.

Does Mr. O'Donnell think that after the first 100 hours Speaker Pelosi was planning to take a vacation at hour 101?

Obviously, the 100 hours strategy was, as much as anything, a rhetorical device to make a loud statement that this Congress is going to be all about action, as opposed to the prior group that got nothing accomplished.

After years of being relegated to the basement, Democrats now have a chance to take the lead. What better way to start than to put everyone on notice that the work hours of Congress have been changed (which has been done) and that those changes will include by starting on projects important to most Americans.

When O'Donnell writes that Pelosi has "no idea what she's going to do for the next hundred weeks," it is petty character assassination.

Does this man not realize that the various committees will be beginning their own investigations into the behavior of the Bush administration these past 6 years? Does O'Donnell not understand that maybe it does not make all that much sense to list the entire rundown of exactly what Pelosi will be doing for the next 100 weeks. Does he really think that after 6000 minutes, the Democrats will have played all their cards and the carriages will turn into pumpkins?

As a man who spends a weekly stint on a show designed for people with no attention span, that like their messages delivered in staccato, shouted sentences, does Mr. O'Donnell even believe what he writes?

The False Argument

Under the guise of giving her his wise counsel and direction, O'Donnell amplifies his beef, writing:

Pelosi's hundred-hour agenda is a smart one; it's the hundred hours that's the problem.

The biggest minimum wage increase in history is long overdue and very popular with voters. Why cram it into a frenzied legislative session with a bunch of other bills that will have a claim on headline space? Why not let the minimum wage increase have a hundred hours all to itself?

He's kidding, right?

The minimum wage has been debated to death. America wants the increase. The votes are obviously there. We need 100 hours on this?

Thoughtless sabotage

Whatever Mr. O'Donnell's intentions, I am offended that he chose to attack and discredit Pelosi before she had even served a single day as Speaker.

In the same way I am tired of hearing the voice of James Carville, I grow equally sick of self-important rants such as the O'Donnell HuffPo piece.

I am beginning to think that all those guest spots on the myriad of political and cable shows has caused the talking heads to lose touch with reality.

On shows like the McLaughlin Report, it's all about who can shout the loudest and make the most outrageous statements.

Blog posts like the pre-emptive hit O'Donnell put on Pelosi will surely make him more valuable to the producers at Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

However, they do nothing to aid the Democrat's cause in Congress.

It is sabotage, pure and simple.

Breeding: The New GOP Strategy?

Chris Cillizza, who writes on politics at the Washington Post, is always good for a chuckle. However, today, he has outdone himself.

Cillizza, whose allegedly impartial writings often have a distinctly right-of-center slant, has found a beam of hope for demoralized Republicans.

They're breeding faster than Democrats.

Not sure how Cillizza was able to scoop everybody else on this groundbreaking story, but today he writes the red states are bursting with potential new voters and, with careful redistricting, could actually increase their representation after the 2010 census.

Idaho: More Than Just Potatoes

Citing U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Cillizza writes:

At first glance, the numbers appear encouraging for Republicans. The ten states with the highest percentage population growth between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006 -- Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Georgia, Texas, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and South Carolina -- were carried by President George W. Bush in 2004.

And if that isn't scary enough, he adds:

Regionally, too, the highest population growth is in areas that are Republican-red. The states comprising the South gained 1.5 million people over the past year, and the region now accounts for 36 percent of the national population. The West picked up more than 1 million people in the same period and now makes up 23 percent of the population; the Midwest gained 281,000 people and represents 22 percent of the nation's population total. The Northeast, which produced Democratic gains in the House and Senate in 2006, added just 62,000 people and is now the smallest region of the country with 18 percent of the population.

The breeding advantage?

I just knew that those anti-choice states that were forcing little Abigail to carry Uncle Henry's unwanted love child to term were only looking out for the greater good; GOP domination.

Actually, I am looking for the bible thumpers to start salivating over the fact that an embrace by Democrats of same-sex relationships may be hurting our chances of spawning.

Obviously, these statistics, devoid of context, are meaningless. After all, who's to say that a population shift by Democrats into redder turf might not result in a less polarized political landscape? Maybe it will turn some red states blue.

Cillizza seems to think that the GOP will be able to capitalize on redistricting to safeguard future majorities.

However, if all else fails, they could always fall back on the time-tested strategy of placing pods under our beds.

For the full text of the Cillizza column, click here.

Iraqi Bloggers React To Saddam's Execution

Who better to comment on the execution of Saddam Hussein than bloggers from Iraq.

"I cried for all those he tortured, those he killed"

As expected, one of the most personal and passionate reactions came from the blog of Neurotic Iraqi Wife who has been a previous subject of this blog.

NIW writes:

I hurried to my room during lunch break hoping to catch up on news. And there it was, right before me, the video footage of his hanging. I slumped on my bed, and I began to cry. Yes, I cried. A surge of emotions overwhelmed me. I cried, I cried cuz he never got to see the Iraq I envisaged in my mind, I cried. I cried for all the years he forced my family and millions of others to desert their country and live in an endless yearning, I cried. Yes I cried. I cried for all the 35 years he ruled, I cried. I cried, I cried for all those he tortured, those he killed. I cried for all the blood he shed, for all the hatred he bred. Yes I cried. I cried and cried.

She adds:

Saddam should have been interrogated infront of the whole world. Saddam should have answered the WHYs? that all the families of the martyrs wanted to ask. The WHYs that all the Iraqis wanted to know. WHY DID YOU SLAUGHTER US? WHY DID YOU HATE US? WHY DID YOU DESTROY US? WHY, WHY and WHAT FOR? Instead of the theatrical fiasco that took place which they claim was their way of justice, they should have asked him WHY?

3 more trials for Saddam

From blogger Hammorabi:

Now and after he was executed for only a drop of his crimes which is the Dijeel issue in which he killed and tortured many Iraqis from Dijeel in 1980s, after this Saddam will face three trials.

The first one which may start immediately after his death is the trial of God which will bring every deed even if it is part of an atom.....

The second trial is the Iraqi trials about the crimes of Saddam via his supporters. One of them is going on now about the Infal crimes and still some to come.

The third is the trial of the history by the coming generations and this will be hard trial and may continue for hundred of years to come.

The execution video

The blogger, Healing Iraq, includes the execution video that was shown on state-run Al-Iraqiya TV. It goes right up to, but does not include the actual hanging.

In a more journalistic approach, Healing Iraq writes:

The Shi'ite executioners and witnesses were reported to have danced around Saddam's corpse after he was hanged while chanting Shi'ite religious slogans. The same situation was reported from the Green Zone by Al-Arabiya TV reporters who said members of the current Iraqi government were also celebrating. Iraqis took to the streets in Sadr City, Najaf and Basrah. Some carried portraits of Muqtada Al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the new strongmen of Iraq.

Protests took place in Tikrit, Baiji, Fallujah, Ramadi and Garma, but so far there have been no violent reactions. Instead of visiting relatives or going out to parks, people had to stay home out of fear. According to an Iraqi law expert interviewed on Al-Arabiya TV, It is against Iraqi law to schedule an execution on an official or religious holiday, but he conceded that this was obviously a political decision.

I hope the execution of the tyrant brings relief to the families of his victims.

There are still many dark days ahead in Iraq.

Here are the links to Neurotic Iraqi Wife, Hammorabi, and Healing Iraq

Who Is Joe Lieberman Kidding?

Is Joe Lieberman out of his mind?

The Independent Senator from Connecticut has an Op-Ed in the Washington Post titled, "Why we need more troops in Iraq."

"The war is winnable"

His rationale, in a nutshell, is that "the war is winnable."

Lieberman writes that "we want victory," because "Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism."

Senator Lieberman, who do you suppose created this hotbed for terrorists? Saddam Hussein? Oh, I see. Dopey me, I thought Al Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq until we got Hussein out of the way.

Lieberman seems to think that a great new strategy would be to send many more troops in to train Iraqi death squads...oops, make that police...and get those extremists under control.

Where has Lieberman been?

Where was Lieberman for the past 4 years, when it came to speaking out on the doomed strategy of the Bush administration...a 'stay the course' nightmare that has so far cost the lives of nearly 3,000 American troops and thousands of Iraqis?

Where has Lieberman been on seeking to insure that the billions earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction actually was properly spent on rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed, rather than lining the pockets of Halliburton and friends?

Why does Lieberman continue to insist that 'winning' in Iraq is akin to winning the illusory war on terror?

If you believe the garbage he spews, you believe that the violence in Iraq is primarily the result of Iran and Al Qaeda stirring the pot, rather than any deep-seated hatred between the Shiites and Sunnis.

Shamelessly invoking 9/11

Right from the get-go, Lieberman plays the Bush shell game of confusing the war in Iraq with a war against Islamic terrorists.

In case we miss the connection, he writes: "How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. "

Raising the spectre of 9/11 to justify shedding more blood and tying up all of our resources in Iraq. How noble of Senator Lieberman.

Pressure tactics

What's even scarier is that this piece would not have been written if this self-deluded megalomaniac didn't intend to use his independent status as a bargaining chip to make sure he gets his way in the newly configured Senate.

I hope that those Connecticut voters who put this dangerous man back in office now begin to at least partially understand the consequences of their actions.

And I hope that Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and crew do not let him get away with it.


The Lieberman column can be found here.

Iraq: We've Failed. Now What?

There was an interesting quote today by new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. According to AP, Gates said,

"But as the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

We've already failed

What both Gates and the Bush administration don't seem to understand is that we have already failed.

Sectarian violence has spiraled beyond any control. More Iraqi and American blood is spilled daily. The billions spent in reconstruction have resulted in very little improvement in the Iraqi infrastructure, with massive fraud by contractors going unexamined to this point.

Additionally, Afghanistan, by all accounts, is falling apart, thanks to America's lack-of-interest and diversion of resources into Iraq. The Taliban has regained a solid foothold and opium production is funding the terrorists.

Is this not failure?

Violence in Iraq at an 'all-time high'

I realize that the media has a very short attention span, but how can no news about Iraq, outside of the Gates quote, make the front page of CNN today?

How can the mass rounding-up of victims not be an ongoing story, for at least the short-term?

Couple the continued bad news with a Pentagon report that says in the most recent 3 month period being measured, through November 10,

"attack levels - both overall and in all specific measurable categories - were the highest on record."

Changing the mindset

Obviously we are in the midst of stunning failure, so why do the Bushies, and their enablers in the media, keep bringing up scenarios of what might happen 'if we fail?'

We need to change our mindset.

We need to admit the fact that our policy to democracize Iraq, and raid Iraqi resources for corporate profit, has been a debacle.

Acknowledging that failure of policy, we need to then determine how to best alter our course with the least amount of further bloodshedding and regional instability.

In other words, it's not taking endless tests to determine if the patient might indeed, fall ill. It's recognizing that a sick patient has been made even sicker by the incorrect, invasive treatment and, being cognizant of that fact, doing all we can to try and halt the progress of the disease.

Bah Humbug...Computer Crash

Just a quick note to let everyone know that my home computer has crashed. I am working to fix the problem, which seems to be more serious than first appeared.

Between trying to do that, and the busy holiday season, it may be a few more days until the next entry.

But I'm not going anywhere!

Hope everybody is doing well and looking forward to some interesting times ahead, now that the Democrats will no longer be relegated to the basement.

Ho-ho-ho.

The Wit & Wisdom Of Jack Kingston

As many of you already know, one of the first changes in the way the House will be conducting business come January is longer work hours. The upcoming House majority leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer, delivered the news last week.

The Congressional workday, which had become a Tuesday through Thursday affair, along with huge blocks of additional time off, has resulted in a workload of just 103 days this year. As the Washington Post correctly pointed out, "that's seven days fewer than the infamous 'Do-Nothing Congress' of 1948."

Rep. Hoyer has put Congress on alert that the House workday will now run from 6:30PM Monday through 2PM Friday. Rep. Hoyer also said that some of the extended holidays will be a thing of the past.

Considering that the current Congress was so lax that 9 major spending bills were left unresolved, a move some said was deliberately done to lock-up the upcoming Democratic majority for a time, the lengthened work week was absolutely the right thing to seek.

However, not to Republican Rep. Jack Kingston.

Most Inane Quote Of The Year

In a widely reported comment, that will surely come back to haunt him, Kingston said,

"Keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

He really said that.

I was so taken aback by the utter crassness of his comment...at his total lack of political acumen for having the audacity to utter those words...that I sought to find out a little more about this great orator.

Here is some of what I uncovered.

The 'U' Word

Rep. Kingston, who serves on the Appropriation Committee’s Agriculture Subcommittee, has an issue with what he refers to as a new "urban-based" Congress, which he is telling farmers, is going to be out to undercut our nation's agricultural interests.

According to the Southwest Farm Press, here's what Kingston told the Southern Crop Production Association in their annual meeting last week:

“Now, we have a new Congress that has more of an urban base, and the urban newspapers have decided that one of the problems with the national budget is spending for agriculture programs. So I believe we’ll have a lot more skirmishes over subsidies and the movement toward fuel independence.”

I must have missed something.

Were districts redrawn before this election to allow for more 'urban' representation? Or is 'urban' a code word for something else? Ethnicity and race, perhaps?

Unless he was referring to non-existent, city-friendly redistricting, he's got some explaining to do.

Minimum Wage

Rep. Kingston is also one of the fiercest opponents of raising the federal minimum wage.

That same Southwest Farm Press article, which reveals that Kingston was "rated by the National Journal as the 'most conservative House member' in 2005," had this Kingston quote on changing mimimum wage laws:

“The Democrats have promised to raise the minimum wage. I oppose it. In 1980, 15 percent of U.S. workers were on minimum wage; today, it’s just 2.5 percent — of which 15 percent are teenagers, 40 percent have never held a job in their lives, and 30 percent are part-time."

Interesting how using stats can dehumanize, isn't it?

What is Kingston's point, teenagers, or first-time job-holders are not deserving of a liveable wage?

As for the 30% part-timers that Kingston refers to, has he considered that this is quite often a worker's 2nd job because they cannot make ends meet?

The minimum wage has been at $5.15 for the past 9 years. How can anybody think that this is a wage that people can live on? Plus, each year, the spending value of that wage declines. The Democrat proposal to raise it to $7.25 is the least we should be doing.

Kingston, though, is allegedly more concerned about business owners, adding "A government-controlled, government-mandated wage generally means small businesses are going to lose jobs. When the minimum wage is increased, there’s a wage push in all directions,and that’s what causes a wage/price spiral."

What Kingston didn't refer to, but CNN did, back in June, is that, Congressional salaries over the the past 9 years have increased by $31,600, which would translate to a gain of $15 an hour, for a 40-hour work week.

Imagine what that translates to with the current work schedule?

This is from a man who supposedly cares about families?

It's a good thing that the Democrats are making increasing the minimum wage a priority and have refused to increase their own salaries until that wage increase is passed.

Kingston On A 'Booming' Iraq

Finally, here is the wit and wisdom of Rep. Kingston on Iraq. He thinks reporting on Iraq is not as upbeat as it should be.

Once again, from the Southwest Farm Press:

“'Since 2003, 33,000 businesses have filed for licenses in Iraq; there are 44 television stations, where there once was just one; over 100 newspapers, where there was just one; and a port, never used under Saddam Hussein, that now handles 40 ships a month. All this we never hear about.'

"Noting that the United States is at war with Sunnis and Shiites 'who’ve been fighting for thousands of years,' he said, 'if we don’t have the staying power to remain in there for 10 or 15 years, we ought to be realistic and say, This is not a war for us.’"

The 'Family' That Kingston Cares About

Since it seems apparent that Kingston would have no problem asking families let their loved ones remain in harm's way for 10 or 15 more years, I would love to ask him one question...

Just what kind of work week does Kingston think our soldiers are enjoying during their tours of Iraq?

It's certainly a helluva lot longer than 103 days out of the year.

The only family that Rep. Jack Kingston truly cares about is his own.


(If you would like to read more about the wit and wisdom of Jack Kingston, and respond to him directly, please note that he has his own blog which you can access here.)

Heather & Mary: 2 Mommies, Dearest

'Tis the season of Mary and her child. However, in the case of Mary Cheney, this will hardly be an immaculate conception.

It was hard not to enjoy a chuckle when hearing the news that the poster child for same-sex cowardice and hypocrisy, Mary Cheney, was going to be having a child with her lesbian partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

This target is way too easy

In an earlier blog post I celebrated the fact that nobody was buying this first-class fraud's autobiography, "Now It's My Turn."

Anything you ever wanted to know about the self-absorption of Mary Cheney could be found during the Bush re-election campaign. Confronted by a new wave of homophobia, where state upon state added anti-gay marriage initiatives to the ballot as a lure to trample the Dems by stomping on the backs of gays and lesbians, Mary became enraged. Unfortunately, not by the bigots that have sought to brand gay relationships as evil and undeserving of spousal and parental protection.

No, Mary Cheney was enraged that John Edwards would dare to mention the fact that she was a lesbian. It was not an outing, she had already served as an openly gay liason to the gay community for a beleagured Coors Brewing Company. Yet, Cheney and the rest of her loathsome family, turned on the phony dramatics to portray themselves as alleged victims of dirty politics.

This disgusting human being did her damnedest to help re-elect a man, who has made it abundantly clear that he feels gays and lesbians are second-class American citizens, and whose family units have absolutely no value. The party her father is proud to represent would truly have no qualms in officially codifying discrimination against her by amending the Constitution.

With friends like these...

So how are all her dad's buddies greeting this newfound revelation of lesbian motherhood? How is the welcome wagon treating old Mary?

Concerned Women for America are most certainly 'concerned' about her. According to AP

"Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America described the pregnancy as 'unconscionable'. 'It’s very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father,' said Crouse. 'They are encouraging people who don’t have the advantages they have.'”

How about that Ms. Cheney? I guess that rules out the CWA sending you a bassinet.

Then there's Carrie Gordon Earll from Focus On The Family. Earll feels the pregnancy is not such a terrific thought:

"'Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea,' said. 'Love can't replace a mother and a father.'"

Something tells me that Earll may have to skip the baby shower.

It will be interesting to observe comments from these pious purveyors of morality in the coming days. I hope Ms. Cheney gets a long, hard look at the people she has chosen to cast her lot with.

Tea with Ann Coulter is probably out of the question.

The GOP's Pander Triplets

With all the silly banter about Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being the only 2 'serious' potential presidential candidates for the Democratic ticket in '08, I was relieved to see somebody focus on the GOP side of the aisle for a change, if only to stop the banality.

An interesting piece found at MSNBC discussed the 3 front-runners and suggests that they are pandering to social conservatives, since their records have allegedly not been conservative enough, to date.

In a piece by NBC political reporter Mark Murray, former N.Y. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are accorded the position as front-runners. Murray ends his piece by quoting Steven Forbes' former campaign manager, who predicts that one of these 3 will win.

In the meantime, Murray writes how each of the 3 pols has been at odds with social conservatives in the GOP and what they have done to pander more to that party's base.

I am providing that info below in summary form, for quick reference when the true debates begin. Unlike Murray, I do not use the term 'pro-life,' preferring the more accurate term, 'pro-ban.' Otherwise, this is a distillation of his points.


Mitt Romney

Prior Positions
*Pro-choice
*Pro-stem cell research funding
*Gay-friendly (not in this piece, but his metamorphosis is detailed here)

Pandering
*Pro-ban
*Opposes stem cell research funding
*Seeks a state Constitutional Amendment to overturn gay marriage in Massachusetts, trying to force the issue onto the ballot.


John McCain

Prior Positions
*Pro-ban, but on record as saying he would not repeal Roe v. Wade
*Relatively quiet on his personal pro-ban stance
*In favor of guest-worker progam for illegal immigrants
*In favor of expanded funding for stem cell research
*Referred to Rev. Jerry Falwell as 'evil'

Pandering
*Spoke out in favor of South Dakota's aborion ban (with some 'caveats,' as the article states)
*Received a major pro-ban endorsement, allegedly over his willingness to enact legislation to ban abortions
*Gave commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University


Rudy Giuliani

Prior Positions
*Pro-choice
*Stem-cell Research: In favor of Federal funding
*Pro-civil unions. (Additionally, during marital difficulties, moved out of the Mayoral mansion and shared space with a gay couple he was friends with)

Pandering
*Campaigning for Ralph Reed last May. It may not be enough, as one right-winger is quoted, suggesting that Giuliani run in the Democratic primaries.

Did Somebody Say 'Flip-Flop?'

All I can say is, the party that exploited the term flip-flop is going to have a whale of a time defending the integrity of their positions come '08 if one of these 3 gets the nomination.

To read the original Mark Murray article, point your browser here.