On Richardson

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is doing the dollar hustle in Manhattan this week. he is also trying to get some media attention with a shot on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" (Comedy Central) show this evening. The New York Observer's Jason Horowitz found Governor Richardson in a bar... but it's a good thing. Horowitz reports:

Mr. Richardson, whose long and impressive résumé in government and foreign affairs has earned him enough attention to gain him thinking-man’s-dark-horse status in the crowded field of Democratic nominees, is working hard to break into the elite club of front-runners, which includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

He served 15 years in Congress before acting as Energy Secretary in the Clinton administration and turning in a generally admired stint as U.N. ambassador. He is the first major Hispanic Presidential candidate, and his two terms as governor of traditionally Republican New Mexico are another asset—especially because, as he informed the young crowd sipping pints of ale Monday night, “We elect governors in this country.”

Read about the man who should be the next president here.

Once Upon a Time......

There was a rising political star named Barack Obama. One day Barack decided he wanted to be president. So Barack tried to convince all th people that he was the bestest, smartest, candidate. Then Barack decided to tell all the people the story of his life. Except.. it wasn't his life...Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Obama's gaffes start to pile up
One stump line sounds similar to John Edwards'

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, 46 days old on Tuesday, has run into some speed bumps, created because of a series of missteps magnified because he is under microscopic scrutiny.

It's too early to say whether the gaffes slow Obama's momentum -- or if they become barricades, extracting a more significant price for the Illinois Democrat's White House bid. They are getting noticed.

Consider the items that have been accumulating since Obama announced on Feb. 10:

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together "because of what happened in Selma." Obama was born in 1961.

• Obama told Larry King on CNN -- asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers -- "We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that."

Obama did not know what he was talking about. Any professional media consultant can manipulate images on video. Turns out the creator -- unmasked last week as a political operative who worked for a firm overseeing the technical side of Obama's Web site -- made it at home on a Mac.

read all about it here

WIND SPRINTS...

Here are a couple of articles that agree with my assessment that this political campaign will be a sprint, not a marathon:

From the Hartford Courant:

Bowing to a national trend, Connecticut would join two dozen states in holding an early "Super-Duper Tuesday" presidential primary on Feb. 5 next year under a plan endorsed Tuesday by high-ranking state Republicans and Democrats.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are expected to join Connecticut in abandoning their shared primary date of March 4, 2008, as states across the country adopt an ever-earlier presidential primary calendar, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz
"The reality is the race will be over by the time we were voting in March," Bysiewicz said.

read the rest of that article here.

And the Wall Street Journal focuses on money ( what else is new?)

Lawmakers Join Hunt To Bag Big Donors Early
By Laurie P. Cohen
Word Count: 1,439

The unusually early and intense fund-raising push in the 2008 presidential campaign is spurring congressional candidates into a hasty money chase as well, just two months after the current class of lawmakers was sworn in.

The sheer number of campaigns hunting for seed money has intensified the competition to tap big donors before they bump up against either legal or self-imposed caps on what they can give during the current election cycle, fund-raisers say. The rematch between Democrats and Republicans for control of the House and Senate is also ratcheting up what has become a perpetual campaign-finance cycle.

Horse Race

David Yepsen is the reporter's pro in Iowa. Here is his take on the latest poll numbers:

The numbers show that since January, Edwards has added 15 points to his total while Hillary Clinton has dropped 1. She and Edwards are now locked in a statistical tie for first place in the survey.

This poll was conducted before the news that Edwards's wife had a recurrence of cancer. Will that help him or hurt him? (PREPARE TO FIRE CLICHE` .. FIRE!)

ONLY TIME WILL TELL!

GIULIANI TIME....

New poll:

Fred Thompson -- the former Tennessee senator who now plays a New York district attorney on the NBC show 'Law and Order' -- is mulling his biggest role yet. The Republican is considering a bid for the White House and the latest Gallup Poll of GOP hopefuls puts him in third place behind Rudy Giuliani, who saw his support plummet 13 points, and John McCain.

As I said previously, Giuliani's support "will go up like a cannon ball... and down like a cannon ball." It is only Republican political desperation that makes him even slightly appealing at this early juncture. It is certain that political opposition research is being put into high gear by both Democrats and Republicans.

Teach Your Children Well....

But we have done a damned poor job of it.

Take a look at this report in today's (3/26) NYTIMES on kids who are dumped into daycare so that mommy and daddy can get another Volvo.

We've made our kids a political football, or to be more accurate, a politically correct football, and no one has been willing to call off the game. Driven by a confluence of historical forces, including rampant inflation as a result of the Vietnam War which put unprecedented pressure on families to earn additional income in order to maintain a middle class lifestyle, the Women's Liberation movement, and the liberal 50s upbringing of the baby boomer generation, so many families have, in essence, abandoned their children to "professional" day care and "care givers".

Any opinion that deviates from the conventional wisdom, which states that any attention given to a child is good enough, is derided as either old fashioned, or worse yet, designed to keep women in their place. One of the country's foremost child development experts, Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, feels that the development of our children should be of paramount importance, and that children should not be viewed as another middle class commodity.

I find it so odd that we, as a nation, place so much emphasis on children in so many respects (how often do you hear policies justified as, "it's for the children!"), but the reality is far different. We give them bad schools ( ever try to pass a school budget? When did football become more important than chemistry? Even better, when did it become the norm to call the smart guys "geeks"?), bad role models, garbage for food, thumb exercises for recreation, and we prematurely sexualize them.

Yeah, right, "we love children".

This is a youth culture and older people desperately try to cling to their youth. In a sense, "adults" haven't earned the right to be respected by our children. How many parents try to be their child's "friend"? How many "adults" try to desperately maintain their youth with unnecessary surgical procedures? How many "adults" try to dress in their children's clothes? How many " adults" are "Adults"?

Yes, no matter what we say, we hate our children.They need us to grow up and be adults. And we don't want to.

A Comment From a Reader...

Alex said...

Yeah, and I'm sure President Cheney would do a much more honest job...
March 26, 2007 7:58 AM

IMPEACH THE PRES??????

FROM A REPUBLICAN!!!!

This AP story caught my eye. I would not be surprised to hear impeachment talk from far left Dems, but such talk from Vietnam vet Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska brings a great amount of weight to the issue;

Updated:2007-03-25 21:18:25
Some See Impeachment Option, Hagel Says
By HOPE YEN
AP
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., believes President Bush could possibly face impeachment proceedings over his handling of the Iraq war.
AP
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., stopped short of calling for President Bush's impeachment.

Blog: Impeachment Whispers

Talk About It: Post Thoughts
WASHINGTON (March 25) - With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq , President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

KAA---CHINNNNGGGGGG!!!!!!!

Money not only makes the world go 'round , as the song in Cabaret says, it makes politics. Billionaire NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is finally letting out hints that he just might take a flier on the '08 race and toss some pocket change, like a couple of billion dollars, on a presidential bid.

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, has told friends more than once that his definition of good financial planning is making sure the check to the undertaker bounces when it's finally time to go.

So how does a billionaire spend all his money before he dies? In Bloomberg's case, he just might drop a cool half-billion on a long-shot bid to become the nation's first modern president from outside the two major political parties.

the rest of the story is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hillary Clinton shook her money maker last week and came up with big bucks,TEN MILLION BALLOONS, according to the NYDAILY NEWS. That's a lot of advertising time on TV in all markets. Hillary is blowing the doors off the Dem competitors as far as dollars and that will be the determining factor this year with so many states pushing up their primaries and compressing the decision making process. The candidate will be decided by the end of February , and that leaves a long, dry spell before the conventions, which will matter only for the free prime time they will afford the candidates.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With Hillary leading the Dem charge to the cash register, look for everyone else to say they didn't expect to raise that much money. The low-balling game is already underway across the political board. John McCain's people are already in the lead in this game, saying , "We started late." Get an excuse slip from your mommy.

Gentle Germans

This is kind of silly. A German judge, an an ultimate act of political correctness, i.e. a non-relativistic, culture neutral approach to reality, has decided that the Koran trumps German civil law. The judge was removed from the case. But you have to wonder about the thinking that led this jurist down this path.

Tiers on my PIllow...

The major press is always harping on the fact that the six Democrats running for President fall into two tiers, with the top tier consisting of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, and the second tier consisting of Biden, Dodd and Richardson.

How does a one term Senator like Obama make the first tier? Charisma? What Charisma? He is a media creation, pure and simple, and I think Senator Biden, put his finger on it, as well as his foot in his mouth, but saying Obama was "articulate" and "clean".

Well, Obama is articulate, but his experience in government is minimal, and a lot of others can speak from a more solid base of government experience. But the press can't say what they want to say, which is,"Obama is a handsome black guy who, yes, is articulate and can reach a white audience and isn't this wonderful and see how it proves that we, who support him, are not racists". Obama draws crowds of students? Oh, super! But students as a group have an abysmal record of meager voter turnout. The fact remains that Obama is not a credible candidate.

But look at the so-called "second tier" candidates. This is a solid bunch. I think each and every one of them has far more experience than the "first-tier" and each could make a serious case for the presidency. While Biden suffers a serious case of political "foot-in-mouth" disease, he is one smart guy with tons of foreign policy experience. Dodd is another class act with many years in the senate. Richardson has tons of experience as a congressman, UN ambassador, governor and international negotiator. And they say this guy is " second-tier'?.

What Biden, Dodd and Richardson don't have is the sine-qua-non of this "hyper election cycle": money. More than anything else, and more so than any other time, money will be the deciding factor for this election. With so many states pushing for early primaries, no candidate will have time to develop a stand on issues, or to get a fair hearing in the major media, and thereby develop a following.

In years gone by, a campaign meant a long slog though which we were able to determine the character of the candidate. Now, many states are pushing up their primaries so as not to be made irrelevant by the winners in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. So the presidential campaign is reduced from a character-testing marathon to a fifty yard dash that will be won by the candidate with the biggest wallet.

We get the government we deserve.

On Edwards-KUDOS!

John Edwards is a bit more left, or is campaigning a bit more to the left, than I like. But I give him kudos for the way he handled news of his wife's cancer. First he notified his family, then he and his wife held a news conference in which they gave a complete account of the state of her illness and prognosis. While it had been rumored that Edwards might, at a minimum, suspend his campaign, and possibly withdraw from the race, that was not part of the news conference.

So Kudos to the Edwards family for the honorable, loving and forthright manner in which they handled this issue. Best wishes to Mrs. Edwards in treating her illness, and best wishes to the family is dealing with it. Cancer impacts the individual , of course, but it also impacts the entire family.

The political slant? Here is a Democrat acting as the embodiment of "family values", and not some mealy mouthed politico who just issues platitudes about them.

On Hillary

Here's the deal: You can get Bill Clinton back as president, but you have to vote for Hillary.

Bill still has "IT".. More than 30 women paid $2,300 EACH for a "spinning " session (thats where they ride stationary bikes) that Bill promised to attend. As reported in the NY DAILY NEWS, the women got all dolled up in their spandex and makeup to meet the ex-pres. As one of the spinning babes is quoted as saying

"He was absolutely charming," said a long-legged blond, who like most of the women looked as though she had come fresh from the hairdresser, wearing more makeup than usual.

The more I read this story, the more I think that BIll on the campaign trail is like asking an alcoholic to be the bartender at a party and not expecting him to take a drink. As long as he is campaigning side by side with Hillary, he is safe. But once they go on their separate ways to cover more political ground, exactly how long do you think it will take before rumors start to fly that Bill is fooling around?

HOW THEY FIGHT...

Who armed the insurgents in Iraq? We did! Read this Washngton Post story on how we failed to secure millions of tons of ammunition in Iraq, ammunition that the insurgents are using to create those devastating IEDs that are killing our soldiers and feeding the insurrection GAO Faults U.S. Military Over Munitions in Iraq
Report Says Insurgents Took Unsecured Explosives

Let me start you off:

The U.S. military's faulty war plans and insufficient troops in Iraq left thousands and possibly millions of tons of conventional munitions unsecured or in the hands of insurgent groups after the 2003 invasion -- allowing widespread looting of weapons and explosives used to make roadside bombs that cause the bulk of U.S. casualties, according to a government report released yesterday.

Some weapons sites remained vulnerable as recently as October 2006, according to the Government Accountability Office report, which said the unguarded sites "will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region." For example, it said hundreds of tons of explosives at the Al Qa Qaa facility in Iraq that had been documented by the International Atomic Energy Agency were lost to theft and looting after April 9, 2003.

GIULIANI TIME....

Did anyone catch mayor Giuliani on Sunday when he spent a lot of time in the Yankees T.V. booth during the game? I didn’t hear what he had to say as I was doing something a bit more important ( like listening to Tony Bennett sing Frank Sinatra songs) so I was left with the visuals. Dressed in Yankees warm up jacket cap and glove, he reminds of a ten year old being taken to a ball game as part of a school group.



I was trying to buy some books on Giuliani from my local bookseller. Nothing was left on the shelves! I placed an order with Amazon and I was surprised that it would take more than a month to have them delivered. I wonder who is buying up all the Giuliani material: his people to keep all the bad stuff from being made public, or the opposition to get all the dirt, and there is plenty, on the former Mayor? To use a horrendous time-worn cliché, “time will tell .”

Let's turn the memory clock back to 1992. Remember when Hillary (or was it Bill?) said "Vote for him and get me free"? I think the Clintons are playing the same game,for some very good political reasons.



Read all of the political reports and what you see is "Bill and Hillary campaign together" or "Bill campaigns for Hillary", or . or

"With her husband at her side, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton last night pulled in more than $1 million for her 2008 presidential aspirations at a huge Manhattan dinner sprinkled with famous faces and political high rollers," Celeste Katz -The New York Daily News.

I started to ask myself "Why? Why is Bill always there?"



Well, it doesn't require a political genius to figure this one out. Bill is far more popular than the incredibly polarizing Hillary, so by having Bill front and center on the campaign trail voters can get the feeling that they can vote for Hillary knowing that Bill will be there. It's really rather brilliant. Women who might not vote for Bill because of his personal peccadilloes see Hillary at his side and figure that since she has forgiven him, they can, too. Hey, Clinton seems like a great president in retrospect so why not get the guy back into a position where he can project his incredible magnetism ( and do his lower lip-biting thing), bolster the wooden Hillary, make people think he is in on the deal to run the country ( "vote for her and you get me free.") and also provide some entertainment to the country. It will be like a combination of (insert soap opera of your choice) and "West Wing" . A real winner!

WAR WITHOUT END.....and a general for peace

here is someone you might not expect to try to stop another republican war. Former General and Democratic Presidential candidate Wes Clark is trying to prevent a war with Iran. Please take a look at his website.

STOPIRANWAR.COM

Check out this article inThe Phoenix

Is Clark thinking of another run at the presidency? One of the qualities he brings to the table is his vast military experience. No one could claim this Democrat was soft on defense! How novel! Do you think he could take the second slot on a ticket headed by Hillary? Do you remember the stories bruited about during the Clinton presidency about how Bill and Hillary despised the military? I can't think of Wes Clark settling for the the vice-presidency on a Democratic ticket, but what if they offer him the national defense portfolio? Then Hillary could be the mommy president while Clark was running the daddy vice presidency.

On Iraq-McCain vs. Hagel

There is an interesting story in today's (Sunday) NYTIMES which compares and contrasts the Iraq war positions of two Republican senators, John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Both senators were veterans of Vietnam, McCain was a naval aviator, Hagel an infantryman .Different Paths From Vietnam to War in Iraq

This hit home with me:

But Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s aide and co-author, said the senator’s year studying the war, his growing up in a military family and his 20 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee shaped his view that “when you go to war, you have to be fully committed to doing everything necessary to win it.”

“He very much believes you make decisions about force levels to support a strategy — and not the other way around,” Mr. Salter said of Mr. McCain, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but criticized the war’s strategy and execution.

Mr. McCain’s beliefs about the responsibilities of those in command come in part from his sense that civilian and military leaders “failed to speak up when they knew their tactics and strategy were wrong” in Vietnam, Mr. Salter said.

As you may recall, I have expressed my utter contempt for the way the administration conducted the war, irrespective of the fact that the war itself was unnecessary. ( I have often wondered whether getting the country into an unnecessary war fit the "high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold for impeachment delineated in the constitution.)

But where do we go from here? Set a date for withdrawal? Stay and fight? Fight whom? As John Kerry said many years ago, "How can you ask someone to be the last man to die for a lie"?

I think this certainly is a "quagmire" in terms of purposes and means to achieve it . We seem to be careening down a road with no destination in mind and a blind man at the wheel.

On Baghdad

The situation in Iraq is a hell of alot more complicated than either the left or the right either care to admit, are willing to admit, or are able to admit.

Without a doubt we will have troops in that country for many years to come.Even Hillary sees the need for that. For those who are condemned with a half-way decent memory, the vision of American helicopters once again executing a Vietnam-style mass evacuation are not tolerable as we will once again have shown that we are not trustworthy in the long haul, as well as immature and incorrect in the short-term, tactical phase. It will be interesting to watch the effect of the troop surge (Is it really a surge? Seems more glacial to call it that.) watch Petreaus. He is not out of touch nor out of the loop.

Take a look at this from the NYTIMES Sunni Militants Disrupt Plan to Calm Baghdad

Of Interest

I saw this article on page three of today's NYTIMES. I had to think of all of the times various United nations committees castigated Israel, and here ,that country is doing more for Islamic refugees than the United Nations itself or other Arab countries. Interesting that this made page three and was totally buried on the internet edition of the paper.

Please read Sudanese in Israel Hope They Have Found a Home

Here are some passages:

In Egypt, their prior haven, they struggled with poverty and dismissiveness — and sometimes outright hostility — from the authorities. Some of them had been part of a Sudanese encampment in a Cairo park in December 2005, meant to try to pressure officials in the nearby United Nations office to relocate them. When they refused to follow the orders of Egyptian authorities to disperse, they were blasted with water cannons and dragged away. Twenty-seven people were reportedly killed in the melee.

and

The presence of refugees from the Darfur conflict, which the United States calls genocide, presents Israel with a particularly difficult problem.

Israel, founded in the shadow of the Holocaust, has felt a responsibility to harbor refugees — plucking Vietnamese boat people out of international waters, for example.

But now, government officials fear that if word spreads that Israel is a good place to settle, their country could be overwhelmed by large waves of refugees from Sudan and elsewhere in Africa. Mediterranean countries, particularly Spain and Malta, have been stunned by surging African migration, much of it illegal.

“Israel is endeavoring to be as humane as possible,” said Mark Regev, a Foreign Ministry spokesman. “Israel has a special understanding of the genocide in Darfur. We have a very real compassion for the refugees, and no one is being turned back.” But, he added, “Israel does not have the capability to deal with all of Africa’s refugees, so we have to be mindful.”

and

“I don’t think that the Jewish people can look the other way when such a horrible genocide is being conducted. It is our obligation to be as of much help as we can,” said Mr. Lapid, a Holocaust survivor.

[A group of Sudanese recently were taken on a tour of the museum at Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial. They stood silently, some wiping away tears as they looked at photographs of corpses and cases displaying children’s dolls and a mother’s final postcard. “It was very hard to see this, really shocking,” said a 24-year-old man who fled Darfur last year. “It reminded me of my own people. I hope one day we can have a museum like this in Darfur.”]

Theo Kaminer, who is coordinating the kibbutz movement’s efforts to take in the Sudanese, said the farms felt a moral obligation.

“If not us, who will help them?” he said. “No one else is lifting a hand. These people are refugees from a Holocaust.”

Happiness is a Warm Gub.. or .. The Second Amendment Follies-continued..

From a friend:

The reasons liberals seeks to restrict gun rights is simple. They basically don't trust "the people" because not all "the people" have the same exalted ideas they do. No one has ever been able to explain to me why the use of that phrase - "the people" - secures individual rights everywhere else in the Bill of Rights but not the Second Amendment. Moreover, while I realize there were changes in the order of the various amendments, no one has commented to my knowledge on the fact we're talking about the Second Amendment, whereas the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and so on is the Fourth amendment. Obviously, the Framers thought gun rights were kind of important, don't you think?

(I don't now whether they don't trust "the people". They sure don't seem to trust "the people" who don't precisely agree with them. I still don't understand why they seek expansion of rights, or rather the justification of non-specified rights, based on the Bill of Rights, yet something that is specifically expressed, e.g. the right to bear arms, is something to be restricted. Something else bothers me. While I wholeheartedly support of police departments in the fight against criminal activity, I have an uneasy feeling when the police are on the side of restricting rights. Sure, let's prohibit the sale of teflon bullets whose only purpose is to penetrate police bullet proof vests. But I have a degree of unease when the police are in favor of measures that smack of totalitarianism.

That being said, I have issues with the so-called "Handschue Agreement" which prohibits the NYC police form gathering certain intelligence information. Recent court decisions have prohibited the police from filming publicly held events. This goes far beyond the insertion of police into lawful political organizations for the purpose of collecting intelligence. -- TRM)

Happiness is a Warm Gub.. or .. The Second Amendment Follies

A right-leaning friend sent me two articles from a right wing internet site concerning gun ownership. One article related a stereotypical story of how a gun-wielding citizen was able to turn the tables on a mugger. The second story review some interesting happenings in Virginia where a newspaper used that state's version of the Freedom of Information Law to obtain and publish a listing of all citizens of Virginia who had a "carry" permit for a firearm.

All of this is a way of introducing my thoughts on gun control. Before I get into the subject, let's go to the source of the uncertainty about the issue, the second amendment to the Constitution (from Wiki):

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official Government publications.

I find it astonishing that I, as a law-abiding citizen living in New York City (blogging is not yet a crime), must go through an onerous, expensive and unnecessary procedure in order to obtain a license to own a handgun. As I wrote to my friend,

I fail to see how liberals, who are always calling for expansion of rights, seek to restrict rights in an area where those rights are stated, however poorly, in the constitution.

If they feel that there is, for example, a right to abortion, based on a woman's right to control her body, why don't I, a law-abiding citizen, have the ability to properly exercise my right to obtain a gun? I think there is a logical basis for an almost "libertarian" position, in the truest sense,than in a "liberal" position.

I find the issue of gun control rather interesting because it seems to be so poorly defined. What is gun control? Out west you can go into a store, pick out a firearm, go through the federal screening process and then pick up your gun within thirty minutes. There is no presumption that you are a criminal buying the weapon with the intention of committing a crime. But out west, they believe that process is onerous! IN New York pay $900 in nonrefundable fees and wait six to nine months for a decision. Oh, if you have political connections or if you are a movie star, no problem, just pick up your permit!

Gun control advocates say that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill (the assumption being that the target here is a person). That is a false assumption. Guns are used for hunting and for target practice. Now, I've never hunted, nor do I intend to do so, but i love shooting at targets, trap, and skeet. I object to the presumption that I am a crazed, incompetent maniac. It's like a neurotic mother saying "You'll shoot your eye out!" ( Great part of Jean Shephard's "A Christmas Story"). I think the trend of control of potential threats was reached in Britain recently when the British medical association proposed that kitchen knives all have rounded tips rather than sharp points. The points were better for stabbing people, you know! Of course, rounded tips don't prevent you from a slashing attack. maybe they really want plastic cutlery and while they are at it , they can ban all scissors except those plastic ones you use in kindergarten(and exactly how many people are in the hospital for "running with scissors"?

So why not make the standard one of personal responsibility? If you commit a crime with a firearm, mandatory jail time. How does that sound?

On HIllary

Did you read the Hillary Clinton interview in the New York Times earlier this week? Madame actually admits that the United States has security interests there, such as attacking Al-Queda and acting as a political/military counter to Iran.

I'm sure this comes as a disappointment to the "Out Now" crowd. Here she is, refusing to perform the left-mandated public act of self-flagellation over her vote for the war and now she says US troops will be there for the foreseeable future. How in the world will they support her if she wins the nomination? Or does the left swing all of its support to Obama? Or split its support between Obama and Edwards and thereby lessen its political impact during the primaries? Interesting. Let's keep watching for developments.

So There, Harry!

An anonymous reader responds to "Harry"

Well, then it's all over. Khalid Mohammed did it all!!The war on 'terror'-done, over. Anthrax--he was the secret guy. Katrina? Khalid , again! Let's declare the victory for W. this time--Mission Accomplished.

( Well, I fail to see any conenction here, but I'm glad anonymous feels better-TRM)

GIULIANI TIME....

When it comes to the former mayor, the rest of the country should speak with New Yorkers. A recently released Quinnipiac poll shows that current mayor Mike Bloomberg is rated higher(!) than "America's Mayor", Rudy Giuliani. This sure isn't a case of absence making the heart grow fonder as Giuliani's legacy grows dimmer and dimmer with time. It seems that New Yorkers are able to separate the reality of his eight years as mayor from his eight post 9/11 weeks.

Giuliani made a lot of enemies during his tenure as mayor, and certainly they will grow louder the longer he leads the current pack of Republican candidates.

Anyhow, the Quinnipiac poll shows that New Yorkers think that Mike Bloomberg is a better mayor than Rudy was, and they think he would be a better president than Rudy. Better yet, even the Republicans polled felt that Bloomberg was better than Giuliani in both categories ( Don't you hate it when the people like the Republican billionaire better than the Republican millionaire?.

Take a look at the numbers:

7. Do you think Michael Bloomberg has been a better Mayor than Rudy Giuliani, a worse Mayor, or about the same?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Wht Blk Hisp



Better 46% 28% 53% 48% 41% 62% 39%
Worse 16 26 14 15 20 8 24
The same 34 41 32 34 37 28 35
DK/NA 3 6 2 3 3 2 2



8. Who do you think would make a better president - Michael Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Wht Blk Hisp



Bloomberg 46% 29% 53% 49% 42% 59% 36%
Giuliani 31 60 22 32 39 17 38
DK/NA 22 11 25 19 19 24 25

Harry Sez...

I find it is absurd that Khalid Mohammed planned over 20 terrosits plots, including assinations of President Carter and Clinton. How gullible does the Bush Administration believe we are? Actually given the way the media is reporting these "admissions" are taken seriously. If this is true Kahlid must be the most amazing terroists the world has ever seen. He must have been so busy he never took a haricut. Have you seen a picture of this guy. Give me a break. Harry

(Harry and Alex are thinking along similar lines. I wonder how many others think that the release of Khalid Mohammed's "confession" was planned to get Alberto Gonzalez off the first page, or at least out of the top slot. On the other hand , perhaps Mohammed is engaged in a behavior not unknown to criminals: "Puffing", or making himself more important than he actually is. Give him a few more days and he might confess to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and tell us the whereabouts of both Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa. But the truth is that Mohammed is a bad guy, but now that we have him , what do we do with him? - TRM)

A Comment From a Reader...

From "Alex"

Front page of the NY Times March 15, 2007.

"Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess"


is just a coincidence that the superheros in the bush administration managed to get a confession out of this guy, while pushing the Attorney scandal out of the main headline?

We're being manipulated!

(Something to consider, Alex. These guys are such incompetent liars!-TRM)

A Comment From a Reader...

From "Alex"

Front page of the NY Times March 15, 2007.

"Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess"


is just a coincidence that the superheros in the bush administration managed to get a confession out of this guy, while pushing the Attorney scandal out of the main headline?

We're being manipulated!

Weasel of the Week Award!

The “Weasel of the Week” award goes to….

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez!

Our weasel earns his distinction for his now famous non-apology apology.

The AG had this to say about the firings of eight Assistant United States Attorneys because they didn’t toe the line and play politics with their investigation by investigating Democratic politicians instead of Republicans: “Mistakes were made here.”

Gonzalez didn’t say “I made a mistake.” He didn’t say, “They made me do it.”

He didn’t take the weight for this nasty bit of business. He didn’t point fingers at his bosses. Instead, “Mistakes were made here.” The mistake just sort of happened, you see. Nothing to get excited about. It was a “Things just happen, you know, so get off my back” kind of statement. No mea culpa. He could have said, “Damn, my bad”, then handed in his resignation and walked away from this already- in-shambles administration.

Nope. Instead we get, “Mistakes have been made here.” As in, “those gremlins will be swept out so that they can’t go on making mistakes like that. Bad gremlins!”

So come on up here Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, here is your Weasel of the Week Award! (and it’s only Wednesday!)

Another Comment

Like your blog comments tonight :) . Nothing like being misunderstood. goes to
show that people are closer in thought than we think when we TALK about WHAT we
believe as opposed to merely slapping labels on us or others.

It's surprising what we can learn from each other when we
are allowed to get past our labels.-TRM

A comment to my last posting....

Anonymous said...

You have one amazing schizophrenic friend!

Hey, sometimes it's a schizophrenic world!-TRM

You Can't Please Everyone......

I'm not making this up....

I received a private e-mail from a conservative friend in which he said, "You know, I agree with almost everything you said."

I received a private e-mail from a "liberal" ( he says "progressive") friend, "You know, i agree with almost everything you said."

Here is an amazing article I found on the MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute website. MEMRI is a very credible group that monitors media from Arab states and provides translations. Check it out at memri.org.)

Iraqi Columnist: What Is Happening in Iraq Will End in the Defeat of Terrorism and in the Region's Recovery From Its Ills

If this is an accurate translation, the writer is saying something very important: that the beginnings of a transition in Iraqi thought may be taking place regarding the future of that country.

There is a change in policy of this administration, as seen in change form outright belligerence to a willingness to talk to Syria and Iran. There was the installation of Gen David Petraeus as commander in Iraq.

Previously, I posted a report that said that Iraqis are trying to become more involved in rebuilding their country.

The question is whether these stories are real or whether they have been fabricated for propaganda purposes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An article by Dr. Abd Al-Khaleg Hussein was posted on reformist websites such as www.aafaq.org. In the article, the Iraqi columnist argues that President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq is already showing signs of success and that what is happening in Iraq will necessarily end in the defeat of terrorism and in the recovery of the region from its ills once and for all.

The following are excerpts: [1]

"There is nothing that [some] Arabs hate more than the word 'success,' when it appears in connection with the political process in Iraq. To wit: Every article by a reformist who wants the good of Iraq is met with the same unrestrained and pessimistic responses; he is scolded, his opinion is disparaged, he is accused of ignorance, etc. In contrast, anyone who writes an article indicating the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq is praised and glorified, and is characterized as having plenty of objective knowledge on the subject, and acute analytic skills. [These Arabs] want [to see] Iraq turned into piles of rubble in which the owls hoot at night, as their now-buried master, Saddam Hussein, [once] promised. Unfortunately, however, they are fools who know nothing about the logic of history. [They do not realize] that the heavy wheels of history will roll over them mercilessly, and that what is happening in Iraq is destined [not for failure], but for success.

The Arabs Consider It a Virtue Not to Acknowledge Their Mistakes

It is true that the Americans, like all other human beings, make mistakes - but [when they do], they do not give up, and they are not ashamed to sit down and reexamine their strategic plans from time to time in order to determine what went wrong. If they identify the mistake, they acknowledge it and look for an alternative [strategy], until they find the best and [most] efficient option. The Arabs, [on the other hand], consider it a virtue not to acknowledge [their] mistakes...

"When George Bush acknowledges that mistakes were made during the complicated process of liberating Iraq from a dictatorial, despicable, and barbaric regime and establishing a democratic and civilized regime in its place, the Arabs perceive his acknowledgement as evidence of failure and defeat, and [infer] that the Ba'th [party] is undoubtedly 'coming back.'

"The difference between the Arabs and the West is vast. The Arabs think with their [gut] and leave all fateful [decisions] in the hands of a tyrant who drives them like sheep towards the abyss. Their only role is to support the 'unparalleled leader' and to praise him. The [people of the] West, [on the other hand], think with their heads, without ranting. The leader is elected by his people after an intense battle [between candidates], in fair elections. Although he has extensive authority, he does not dare to act before the experts surrounding him - most of whom are academics - conduct intensive and comprehensive research. Plans are implemented only after thorough examination; even after implementation, they are constantly reexamined, critiqued, and amended - a [practice] considered highly shameful by the Arabs (since a [real] man never changes his mind or reneges on his word).

"After four decades of dictatorial rule, which deliberately sowed ignorance among the public, the process of replacing the regime in Iraq is not a [simple] one - especially since the country is surrounded by hostile and malevolent neighbors that wish to destroy it. This grand modernization plan - which seeks to bring Iraq, and the region [as a whole], out of the darkness of previous centuries into the civilization of the 21st century - is not a simple one. It will unavoidably be accompanied by mistakes, casualties, and severe upheavals, but there is always room for reexamining and amending [the plan]. This process must succeed because it cannot fail - for failure means a disaster not only for Iraq and the region, but for the entire world. The political process in Iraq can therefore [proceed] in only one direction: towards success, towards the defeat of terrorism and towards the region's recovery from its ills once and for all.

"What are the indications that Bush's strategy in Iraq is succeeding and that Iraq's enemies are being defeated?...

"The failure of [the attempt by Muqtada] Al-Sadr's faction to boycott the Al-Maliki government. This faction, which has six ministers and 32 representatives in the [Iraqi] parliament, tried to extort Al-Maliki's government. Two months ago, they [tried to] force [Iraqi Prime Minister] Mr. Nouri Al-Maliki to make meeting with Bush in Amman conditional upon an American announcement of a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq. Al-Maliki refused, and in response, [Al-Sadr's people] ordered their ministers and MPs to resign in hopes of embarrassing the government and sabotaging the new plan.

"[Al-Maliki's] response was the opposite of what the leaders of the Al-Sadr faction had expected: He did not capitulate. [As for] Bush, he not only refrained from presenting a schedule for withdrawal, but decided to send more troops (some 21,000 American soldiers) to Iraq, in order to help the government eradicate terrorism and defeat the militias. Instead of sticking to their boycott, Al-Sadr's [people] scurried to rejoin the government, when they discovered... that the situation would [actually] be much better without them. They swallowed their threats, became silent, and [slunk] back [into the government], full of remorse. There can be no doubt that [both] the order to boycott and [the order] calling it off came from their master, the leader of Iran, who pays their salaries.

"We have repeatedly written and warned that Iran and Syria are behind the support for the terrorism in Iraq, and that unless this support is removed, the suffering of the Iraqi people and the region's problems will continue. The American administration has finally understood the danger, given it top priority in its strategy in Iraq, and translated [this understanding] into action by sending [more] naval forces and additional minesweepers to the Gulf to confront Iran. Iran's immediate response was to ask Saudi Arabia to mediate between it and the U.S., in order to remove the threat of war hanging over it and avoid receiving a crushing blow. [Iran] also expressed willingness to help stabilize Iraq. In addition, increasing criticism [has been heard] inside Iran against the vindictive [Iranian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: [People] warned that he was leading the country to disaster, and demanded that he be restrained."

The Leaders of Iran and Syria Must Understand the Reality

"Let me emphasize once again that the political process in Iraq is irreversible, and it is inconceivable for it to fail - regardless of whether the U.S. is headed by George W. Bush (a Republican) or by some [other figure] from the Democratic Party. [Even] if the American administration changes, the foreign policy of the U.S. and of the other Western countries will not change, since success in Iraq is success for the whole world and victory for the voice of reason and wisdom - while failure [in Iraq] is a disaster not only for Iraq but for the whole world.

"It is therefore inconceivable that this process should fail. The leaders of Iran and Syria, and all the deluded among the Arabs or anywhere else [in the world], must understand this reality and act accordingly, and minimize their losses by putting an end to the Iraqi bloodbath and listening to the voice of reason and conscience. Otherwise they will bring a grave disaster upon themselves and upon the world."

---

[1] http://www.aafaq.org/report/aa/2227.htm January 25, 2007.

Touchie-Feelies

This is how the American electorate chooses a president: not by intelligence, not by issues, but by "trust".

This latest poll confirms a poll done four years earlier that shows the "touchies-feelies" in the lead. I suppose a teddy bear could be elected president. I've highlighted some of the most important sections.

Hopefuls' character trumps policies

Poll: Hopefuls' character trumps policies
55 percent say they consider honesty, integrity as most important qualities
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:42 a.m. ET March 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate’s character.

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates’ stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

“Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is,” said Ken Mehlman, chairman of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. That campaign based its voter targeting and messaging strategies on the character-first theory.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found honesty was by far the most popular single trait — volunteered by 41 percent of voters in open-ended questioning.

The results might have been different had respondents been forced to choose between either issues or character. But this survey allowed people to volunteer any “qualities or characteristics,” and a minority seized on issues.

The findings are consistent with an AP-Ipsos poll from September 2004, when 38 percent of voters chose honesty as the most important quality when picking a president. That was more than any other factor. At the time of that survey, a majority of voters found Bush to be honest.

Trust in Bush declines
But in an AP-AOL News poll conducted in January, only 44 percent said they thought Bush was honest.

His decline in the category of trust is widely attributed to the fallout from the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The drop is most prominent among people 30 to 39, suburban women, married women with children and people with household incomes in the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket.

Bush’s collapse in the character test should serve as a warning to the 2008 presidential candidates. Character matters, voters say, and they already are sizing up the field.

Among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Arizona Sen. John McCain 35 percent to 22 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had 11 percent, followed in the single digits by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Giuliani leads the pack among voters who look first to a candidate’s character, issues and leadership qualities. The only area when McCain pulls even to Giuliani is among voters who cite experience as the most important quality or characteristic in a president. (Giuliani's rating will plummet once his political enemies start releasing information about his tenure as NYC Mayor and the electorate learns the whole truth-TRM)

Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.

Clinton leads Obama among voters who mention honesty and strong character, compassion, intelligence and stance on issues. The former first lady is tied with Obama among the small number of respondents who value experience, a surprise given Obama’s short stint in Washington.

Policies may not get candidates elected. But politicians can use their policies to connect with voters at a gut level.

‘Campaigns are essentially character tests’
Former President Clinton’s book-length economic blueprint showed voters he would work hard to tackle problems they cared about. His empathy was a winning trait in 1992.

Bush won re-election in 2004 when most people were opposed to the war in Iraq. He used the against-the-grain war policy to cast himself as a strong, decisive leader. It worked until voters started doubting his honesty and competence in 2005.

“Modern day presidential campaigns are essentially character tests, with character broadly defined to encompass a mosaic of traits — looks, likability, vision, philosophy, ideology, biography, communications skills, intelligence, strength, optimism, empathy, ethics, values, among others,” said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of California.

Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University, said the 2008 field faces many challenges in the character contest. The top half-dozen or so candidates have had their honesty or integrity called into question already, including relative newcomer Obama.

“The problem is it’s almost impossible to find a human being who lives up to the expectations of voters. Everyone has things they’ve done that they’re not proud of,” Schmidt said. “Nobody’s character is perfect.”

The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For Democrats and Republicans, it was 4.5 percentage points.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17565154/page/1/

On Iran

Iran is another place that will disappoint the smash and burn crowd.
News reports out of Iran indicate that the economy is in shambles, with unemployment and inflation the major worries. Think of it. The economy of one of the world’s major oil producers is in shambles. Will the failures of the country's economy force the mullahs to rein in their out of control president?

Ahmadinejad challenged for control of Iran's economy


The best way to deal with Iran may be constant, unrelenting economic pressure. The question is whether the west has staying power, and whether Russia and China see a defanged Iran to be in their interest.

Western culture took deep root during the time of the Shah and even though it hasn’t been obvious in the climate of cultural revolution, it still exists. (The Communist Chinese regime underwent tremendous cultural repression under Mao Tse Tung and now western influences are found in all major Chinese cities. Things do change!)

Recently, women were arrested for demonstrating for their rights,
Iranian Women Are Arrested After Protests Outside Court

What is important to realize is that after the Iranian revolution, such a demonstration would have been impossible.

Further, please take a look at an important report from Lara Secor of the New York Times in the January 28, 2007 magazine section entitled "Whose Iran" (It's quite long and a fee access item, so take the 14 day free trial to log in and read the piece in its entirety). But let me quote from its concluding paragraphs:

Iran is not a poor country. It is highly urbanized and modern, with a sizable middle class. Oil revenues, which Iran has in abundance, should be channeling plenty of hard currency into the state's coffers, and in fact the economy's overall rate of growth is healthy and rising. But as Parvin Alizadeh, an economist at London Metropolitan University, explained to me, what ultimately matters is how the state spends its influx of wealth. The Iranian government has tried to create jobs swiftly and pacify the people by spending the oil money on new government-run projects. But these projects are not only overmanned and inefficient, like much of the country's bloated and technologically backward public sector; they also increase the demand for consumer goods and services, driving up inflation.
Ahmadinejad has continued this trend. He has generated considerable personal good will in poorer communities, but hardly anyone I asked could honestly say that their lives had gotten better during his presidency. He fought to lower interest rates, which drove up lending, leading to inflation and capital flight. The government cannot risk infuriating the public with the austerity measures that would be required in order to solve its deep-rooted economic problems. But as long as its short-term fixes continue to fail, the government will go on being unpopular. The last two presidents have lost their constituencies over this issue. And so officials seek to distract people from their economic woes with ideological posturing and anti-Western rhetoric. Not only has this lost its cachet with much of the Iranian public, it also serves to compound Iran's economic problems by blackening its image abroad. ''Iran has not sorted out its basic problem, which is to be accepted in the international community as a respectable government,'' Alizadeh said. ''Investors do not take it seriously. This is a political crisis, not an economic crisis.''
For a Western traveler in Iran these days, it is hard to avoid a feeling of cognitive dissonance. From a distance, the Islamic republic appears to be at its zenith. But from the street level, Iran's grand revolutionary experiment is beset with fragility. The state is in a sense defined by its contradictions, both constitutional and economic. It cannot be truly stable until it resolves them, and yet if it tries to do so, it may not survive.

Good News From Iraq?

Always follow the money. This is news not to be ignored. If people are willing to use their money (or our money) and their energy for their own improvement, could things turn around?

Iraqis Seek Role in Rebuilding Their Nation

Letter to a Friend

Recently, I asked a friend to contribute to my blog. He asked whether I wanted interesting news articles or opinion. Here is my response to him:

Why don't you do some personal opinion first, supported by other sources if you'd like? I suspect you might come from a slightly different political area than I do and it would be nice to air differences in a civil manner.

I hope you saw the letter I posted from a friend. He accused me of being a "liberal" I suppose I am in some things. Then again, I suppose I might be more conservative in other areas. Labels are easy devices used to separate people, to identify "us" from the "enemy", rather than to understand issues.

I mean, in real-life situations, what does "liberal" or "conservative" mean? My correspondent accused me of being a liberal, but I believe in my second amendment right to bear arms. It puzzles me that liberals are always fighting to expand rights, but in an area that, at best, is murkily worded in the constitution, yet here they seek to restrict rights.

I have not touched on abortion yet. It's a very complicated issue when you study it seriously, and truth be told, I think both sides have a kernel of truth amidst all of their chaff.

I think a woman should have the right to choose. But why do the pro-lifers get their knickers in a twist about sex education and birth control and the "24 hour" birth control pill, measures that could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? And why don't they talk about funding pre-natal programs and after birth and child care and education and schooling programs for the children they want to see born? And why do so many "pro-lifers" seem so eager for the death penalty?

So while I stand with "pro-choice", I wonder if those folks really appreciate the sanctity of life, and that abortion should be a last resort.

As I said, I haven't touched that issue.. but this letter seems to be suitable for posting!

So join the fun!


TRM

CHINA WATCH

Here is an important story:

China to Open Fund to Invest Currency Reserves

Here is a great paragraph:

Some analysts say the formation of the new agency means China is moving away from heavy reliance on investing in United States dollars through Treasury securities, and that could affect American interest rates, which remain low in part because of China’s huge bond purchases.

The Chinese will be going after the raw materials that have powered their economic engine. It is through their economic reforms that the political powers have retained control over the government.

“They’re not going to be looking for financial assets, but energy assets and natural resources, minerals, things China desperately needs,” said Jing Ulrich, an analyst at J.P. Morgan.

China needs the same raw materials that the US economy requires and that probably will result in a conlict between both nations in obtaining these materials and in the way we play out the excercise of our competing interests around the world. Since the Chinese government controls a significant portion of the American debt through its purchase of billions of dollars of Treausry bills, they will excercise an unseen influence on American policy. Failure of the Chinese to continue to finance our debt will result in increased US inflation and unemployment, somethng no administration can afford. Look for China to exert influence in oil producing regions worldwide and Africa.

Letter From a Friend

I have read your "blog". I got lost in the extensive, and gratuitous rhetoric, but I guess you are a liberal?? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I noticed two things. You jumped to different subjects with abandon like you were screaming your thoughts. Second, you were getting no comments.

The information/allegations you presented could probably be understood by less than 80% of the voters. Possibly less. Wake up. People vote with their emotions. That's why the Democrats were in power for 40 years. A child molester could be elected president if he looked like a rock star and went to Harvard. Obama is looking good even though he is a thinking mans horrorshow.

And My Response

Me? A LIBERAL??? HELL, NO!!!! As I said in my first post, my liberal friends think I’m conservative and my conservative friends think I’m liberal. I think labels like liberal and conservative are meaningless as I can fit into various categories depending on the issue. Moreover, they can divide us and make us appear to be entrenched in positions that we really don’t hold.

Yes, I like to review different subjects. I got some very nice comments on an engineering/physics article I linked to.

I have been getting comments, but people have been sending them to me directly instead of posting to the blog where their views are shared.

I pretty much agree that Obama should not be a player and that he is pretty much a media creation.

Thanks for reading it and thanks for your comments. Hope you continue to read it.

NEWT...It Takes a Scorecard

I love these stories about Newt Gingrich confessing to yet another affair.

Dobson: Gingrich Admits Affair During Clinton Impeachment

The author of the Republican’s “Contract with America” led the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton. Sure, Clinton was a dope, but he kept his business to himself (in a manner of speaking). Gingrich displays audacity beyond measure as he commences his political cleansing process in order to run for president. Why else would he make his confession to ultra-conservative Dr. James Dobson on Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” program? I’m sure Gingrich will check himself into a 30 day rehab program and then have a soul baring cry on Oprah.

Ok, I’m doing some serious lifting from Eric Alterman’s “Altercation” blog on Media Matters , but he lifts from other people, so, what the hell….

“About this affair of Newt's: I can't quite keep up with how many times he has been unable to maintain God's standards. I wrote a piece about him when I worked for Rolling Stone but I can't find it, so instead, some background.

From Scoobie Davis, here:

Here's a summary of Gingrich's family life:

1) Gingrich marries his high school teacher, Jackie, who was seven years his senior;

2) Jackie puts Gingrich through college and she works hard to get him elected to the House in 1978 (Gingrich won partly because his campaign claimed that his Democratic opponent would neglect her family if elected -- at that time it was common knowledge that Gingrich was straying);

3) Shortly after being elected, Gingrich separated from his wife -- announcing the separation in the hospital room where Jackie was recovering from cancer surgery (the divorce was final in 1981); Jackie Gingrich and her children had to depend on alms from her church because Gingrich didn't pay any child support; 3) Six months after the divorce, Gingrich, then 38, married Marianne Ginther, 30;

4) "In May 1999, however, Gingrich [55] called Marianne [48] at her mother's home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce." This was eight months after Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis;

5) In 2000, Gingrich, 57, married ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34, with whom he was having a relationship while married to Marianne.

From "The Gingrich Divorce and Its Repercussions on the Right," by Ann Gerhart, The Washington Post, December 18, 1999:

Newt Gingrich met Marianne Ginther in 1981 at a fund-raiser. She was 30. She had just broken up with a married man and father of three whom she had dated for some time. Gingrich was still married to Jackie, his high school biology teacher. He had married her at 19, partly to get away from his stepfather's domineering ways; she was seven years his senior. They had two daughters, now grown. Gingrich served divorce papers on her as she lay in bed recovering from surgery from ovarian cancer. Within months, he married Marianne.

His timing remains impeccable. In May, Gingrich called his mother-in-law to wish her a happy birthday, then asked to talk to Marianne, who was visiting. He told her he wanted out. He did not tell her that he had a patient mistress waiting in the wings.
[...]

In early summer, Marianne's friends called to tell her that Gingrich and Bisek were going about hand in hand. The Star tabloid made a splash by stalking the couple outside Bisek's Arlington town house, then tailing them to a French restaurant in Great Falls for a confrontation. Other tabloids chimed in. But the really big guns came from Gingrich--through his attorney.
He charged that the affair began because he and Marianne had been separated for six years, starting in 1987. This shocked not only her and his parents but also all the opponents who saw Marianne Gingrich on the campaign trail.

And then:
For six years, Gingrich, 56, two-timed his wife with a blonded-up, French-horn-playing Agriculture Committee staffer. His thing with Callista Bisek, now 33, was going strong through the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 that turned the Congress over to Republican majorities. It kept up through the Republicans' "Contract With America," Gingrich's 10-point plan to turn America to the right values. It steamed along during his ascendancy to speaker, when he gestured toward his proud wife in the balcony and called her his "best friend and closest adviser," adding, "If I listened to her 20 percent more, I'd get in a lot less trouble."

On it played through 1996, when Marianne campaigned vigorously for her husband, beamed from his side and shook countless hands. It stood strong while Marianne underwent the trauma and disappointment of unsuccessful in-vitro fertilization. While Gingrich lambasted the president at every opportunity for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, while he successfully orchestrated the first presidential impeachment in a century, he was committing adultery himself.

Not that his wife ever knew, she said, even though both she and Gingrich had talked frankly of trials in their marriage, even though Bisek's name surfaced publicly in a 1995 Vanity Fair profile of Gingrich. (The young Hill aide was mentioned coyly as "a favorite breakfast companion.") When Gingrich told Marianne he wanted a divorce last May, she described herself as "blindsided" and "shocked."

David in Iraq

I first read about Lt.Gen. David Petraeus a couple of years ago when the Times published a series of articles about his successes in dealing with the Iraqis in his area of operations while he was with the 101st. Now he is in charge of the whole shootin' match in Iraq. He seems to be one of the first guys in charge who is willing to talk truth about the situation there. Iraq will be a big disappointment for the smash and burn crowd because this mess will be solved only through a combination of diplomatic, political and military action. U.S. Commander in Iraq Sees Long Commitment

They say General Petraeus is one of the smartest guys in the army, and he has a Ph.D from Princeton. Wiki-Petraeus

Following his initial tour in Iraq, Petraeus was put into a position to turn "lessons learned" into something far more useful. Petraeus is said to be the father of the Army's new field manual(FM 3-34) on dealing with counterinsurgencies. I've already downloaded the available version and I expect I'll take a look at it this weekend. But it seems that this adminsitration might have done something right for a change by putting someone in charge who has an idea on how to get the job done. But as my wife says, "There is a world of difference between 'late' and 'too late.' " Is Petraeus "too late"?

The U.S. politics can play out in an interesting way. If, by election time,the public perceives that the situation in Iraq has "stabilized", a Republican candidate then becomes more viable. "Stabilized" means that things are quiet, irrespective of whether that quiet comes about through Petraeus's efforts, or because the bad guys think we are soon leaving town anyhow and when we do, it's party time.

If Petraeus is "successful", will the Democrats be perceived as pacifist cut-and-runners? Since the candidacy of George McGovern they have been perceived as being weak on defense issues and there is no sign that they can change public opinion on that issue in the near term.

The Democrats are trying to get around the defense wimp label with a resolution calling for increased money and medical care for the troops, and greater troop strength in Afghanistan, while at the same time calling for a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. It's a delicate game they are playing.
Democrats Propose Iraq Pullout in 2008

On the other hand, if Petraeus is not " successful", the public may overcome its reluctance to once again give the government into the hands of one political party, so you can look for the Democrats to control the presidency and to increase their control over both houses of Congress.

Urban Renewal- Saudi Style

I ran across this article and found it interesting for several reasons.

First, it seems that the Saudis are doing a great job in trashing one of Islam's holiest sites.

Second, and more important, it deals with international politics. It stuck me that the Sunni Saudis have always claimed that they were the rightful and able protectors of Islam's shrines. Can this trashy Mecca development be played up by the Shiite Iranians to de-legitamize the hold the Saudis have on these sites and by extension, on Islam itself?

Take a look Mecca Journal
The Price of Progress: Transforming Islam’s Holiest Site

New Military Vehicle Keeps Troops Safer

You might already be familiar with this , but i just the saw the news that the military thinks this is a great machine for keeping the troops safe. It's a vehicle with a unique design that deflects explosive blast way from the crew.It's pretty neat!

Pentagon Orders Mine-Resistant Trucks

Even though Oshkosh Trucks is awarded the contract for the major production the design came from this company

FORCE PROTECTION, Inc.

Poker for Journalists

This one looks like it could be another major scandal for this administration. For those who claim the NYTIMES is a liberal paper (and i think it is), you have to wonder why they pushed this all the way to page 20. But let's follow this one about the fired prosecutors.

Inquiry Into Ouster of U.S. Attorneys Moves Toward Subpoenas at Justice Department


The question is a serious one : Were these guys fired for doing their jobs and going after corruption, Republican corruption, and were they called off their investigations by politicos?

Remember, the Democrats control Congress, and with that control comes subpoena power.

Support Our Troops!!!!

Finally! Finally! Finally! The news is coming out about this administration's treatment of its beloved war heroes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06medical.html?ref=us

TIMES

Today the commander-in-chief named a high-level panel to look into the shortcomings of the military health system and the way that health care is delivered to veterans through the Veteran's Administration.

HOO HAH! What a joke! Those who have been in the system know how this administration has short changed our soldiers, sailors and aviators who have been in harm’s way. It is typical of this administration to do the stupid thing: Hey, let's start a war AND cut funds for military medical care!

The facts are undeniable, I quote from Paul Krugman's 3/5 column in the NYTIMES (buy the Times!):

"... since 2001, federal outlays for veteran's medical care have actually lagged behind overall national health spending.”

To save money, the administration has been charging veterans for many formerly free services. For example, in 2005 Salon reported that some Walter Reed patients were forced to pay hundreds of dollars each month for their own meals.

More important, the administration has broken longstanding promises of lifetime health care to those who defend our nation. Two months before the invasion of Iraq, the VHA, which previously offered care to all veterans, introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in the health care system. As the agency's Web site helpfully explains, veterans whose incomes exceeds as little as $27,790 and year, and who lack 'special eligibilities’ such as a compensable service connected condition or recent combat service, “will be turned away.”

If Paul Krugman is a bit too "left" for you, how about a retired Army general? On the Op-Ed page of today's (3/6) NYTIMES, Major General Paul D. Eaton lays out the problems and some solutions for military health care. He says, "The train for this wreak left the station a long time ago.” Other points:

1. The Congress needs to spend more to research brain injuries.
2. The military needs to better track its soldiers and their needs.
3. Privatization is a failure.


So you have to admit that the evidence is pretty clear that this administration is great for waving the flag, but when it comes to taking care of the true defenders of this country, the Bush administration is playing a game of three card Monte.

... Connecting the Dots...

A couple of seemingly disparate thoughts came to me today and I wondered why they all seemed to come at the same time.

Let me lay them out for you and see if we come to the same conclusions.

1. Rumsfeld wants a smaller, leaner "more lethal" military
2. General Shinseki is publicly chastised for saying that we will need fore than 400,000 soldiers for an Iraq invasion
3. Rumsfeld says you go to war with the army you have (oops. didn't mention that we were the ones who were determining the time and place of the war.)
4. Troubles with military and veterans medical care

That's it! Classic Republican small government thinking!

A smaller, supposedly more lethal force by definition results in a smaller military which means smaller expenditures for military and veterans' medical care! (Starve the Beast! Cut the budget and the government will shrink! Damned entitlements!) So let's go to war with the army we have and use a small force because the overall costs will be smaller!

The problem with this Republican thinking is that it displays a serious misunderstanding of what war is all about. At its brutal heart war was, is and always will be about two guys with rocks in their hands trying to brain each other. The only things that have changed are the number of guys involved and that the rocks work from a lot further away. An elegant, electronic lethal force will have to fix its elegant electronic lethal weapons when they break down, and when those weapons break down, it means all the fancy electronics become nothing more than fancy rocks or clubs. It always boils down to the individual soldier with his simple weapon. Irrespective of your feelings about the war itself, in Iraq, we didn't have enough of those guys to do the job properly. It was the cost-cutter's war, the Republicans way of war.

You can't ever have too many boots on the ground

Poker for Journalists- Two Boobs Beat Seven Federal Prosecutors

The Anna Nicole Smith story (if it was one) kept off the front pages the story of how this law and order administration fired seven federal prosecutors for not adhering to the company line by actually trying to fight crime. The problem was that the crimes were committed by Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06prosecutor.html?ref=washington

TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06cnd-attorneys.html?refTIMES=washington



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06inquire.html?ref=washington

TIMES

So while Anna Nicole's remains decay into a toxic waste pool, let's play catch-up.

It seems that some Republican heavy hitters were involved in trying to keep the good guys from going after the bad guys. A few calls to the White House and the good guys were without jobs.
See what the TIMES has to say

(Hey, it's just easier for me to link to the TIMES. I can also do the Washington Post and a few others, but give me a break. I have a regular 9-5 job and I do this in my spare time!)

On Hillary

She's doing it again. When Hillary ran for Senate in New York, she traveled all over the state in her non-campaign campaign that she called her "listening tour." Now she is traveling all over the state in the course of her "conversation" with the electorate. Mark Leibovich details her listening, conversation, and penmanship.


TIMES


And Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Hillary is shaping her candidacy to appeal to women.

TIMES


Why is it that I don't believe a word Hillary says?

Pay Me My Money Down.....

A quote from The Note:

"The Boston Globe's Susan Milligan looks at the front loading of the primary schedule where "[a]t least 19 states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to the first Tuesday in February," and has former RNC chairman Rich Bond's assessment, ""It's insane. It's going to be a de facto national primary.... It's going to mean that the candidates with the highest name recognition and the most cash on hand are going to have a huge advantage over the rest of the field."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/06/states_may_force_megaprimary_winnow_the_2008_field_earl

GLOBE
With al due respect to Ms. Milligan, much of the analysis in here is arguable, at best.

Bill Brock opines in a Roll Call op-ed about the consequences of states moving up their caucuses and primaries, which leaves "most Americans out of the process, emphasizing money, surface appearances and media appeal over careful analysis."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_88/guest/17311-1.html (no link- it costs $)


Again, sounds to us like it is possible that MORE Americans might get to be part of the process than in the past."

Note to "Note" guys: I think Milligan is right. More Americans might be part of the process. On the other hand, by front loading all of the primaries the possibility of scrutinizing all the candidates over the course of a campaign is eliminated. Once that happens, it's all a matters of who has the most money and the best media coverage.

POP QIUZ!!!

Name the nine Supreme Court justices without looking it up! I know which one you are going to miss!

Joe Lieberman... Democrat!

From " The Note":

The Hartford Courant's David Lightman looks at the struggle of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to calm the ire of his critics, and tries to answer the questions, "Why does Lieberman incite such anger? Why doesn't he get more credit for trying to bring people together?"

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joe0306.artmar06,0,5912122.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state


COURANT

It Was Fifteen Minutes to Shabbos..

That was the start of the quote from Barack Obama’s pastor. Read the whole story

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
TIMES-OBAMA

Rock and Roll Hootchie Coo!!

NERDS ROCK!! Read this mega-cool story in the TIMES and see who shows up at the end!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/nyregion/06ink.html?ref=nyregion

TIMES-ROCK STARS

GORE REDUX

Democrats unhappy with the possibility of a Hillary candidacy are looking for a hero. Will they turn to the failed 2000 candidate, Al Gore?

They said Al Gore was groomed for the presidency, but maybe everyone believes it except Gore himself. His 2000 campaign was a disaster. He didn’t know what he was, what he stood for or where he wanted to go. He allowed anyone and everyone to tell him which clothes to wear, what to say, and what to do. Remember the articles which said he wasn’t an “alpha male?" Gore allowed himself to be picked apart like Prometheus on the rock. You had to ask yourself whether Al Gore really wanted to be president.

On the other hand, Bush knew the value of the prize. Bush and his people wanted the presidency. When the issue was in doubt, Bush et.al. went and got family consigliore Jim Baker and they went to the Republican-picked and packed Supreme Court.

When crunch time came in Florida and Gore had to fight like a starving junkyard dog, he didn't. Instead, Gore dithered and diddled away the time and tried to pick and choose which districts required the vote recount rather than demand a recount for the entire state. Then he played the gentleman, and quietly withdrew “for the good of the country."

Gore’s adherents now look to him as the party’s savior; the anti-Hillary, if not the elected one, then the electable one. He was the guy who was right all along. Gore played the tease with a mock announcement of his candidacy at the Academy Awards. When given the chance for a Sherman-esque declaration, he declined to do so.

Maybe Gore feels that he can bide his time and thereby put himself into the winner's circle. Does Gore think that he can wait and pick up an Academy Award here, a Noble Prize nomination there (if not a prize itself), and then waltz in and save the party from Hillary? It would mean priceless free media coverage, better then any declared candidate possibly could garner, and all without the muss and fuss of raising money, putting an organization together, and actually running a campaign. As Chris Lehane said recently, it’s a lot better than spending time in Holiday Inns in Iowa.

They used to call him “Prince Albert.” Maybe Gore doesn’t want to run for election. Maybe he wants a coronation!

GIULIANI TIME....

The Washington Post's Dan Balz catches up with me on the Giuliani boom:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301022.html?referrer=email

GIULIANI TIME....

Given that Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative Republican, how can he win the nomination of his party without the support of that core group?

Is the right wing of the Republican party as disheartened as it appears to be from reports out of the CPAC convention? If the right wing can not find a hero around whom it can coalesce, it might just sit out the campaign. If that happens, admittedly a big if, Rudy’s “warm fuzzy” quotient could make him more attractive to Republican primary voters, irrespective of his previous positions. The possibility of Rudy being the candidate goes up especially if the electorate feels threatened by terrorist activity, and thus it feels compelled to elect a strong leader.

So why not John McCain as the part standard bearer? McCain may be played out. After his years in the senate, his accommodations with the Bush administration, and his trying to play both sides of the Republican spectrum, he is seen as just another politician rather than the driver of his old “Straight Talk Express.” That and the fact that he will be in his early 70s, may spur the rank and file Republicans to look for a new face for the national scene. That new face may be Rudy.

Confidence Interval, Margin of Error and all that dumb stuff......

When you read the results of the latest Newsweek poll on Rudy Giuliani, make sure you get to the last paragraph. On second thought, I know you won't do that because you just want to skim through all the results, so let me give you the most important paragraph right here:

The NEWSWEEK Poll, conducted Feb. 28-March 1, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for questions based on all registered voters and plus or minus 6 percentage points for results based on registered Republicans and Republican leaners. In conducting the poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,202 adults aged 18 and older.

Read that part of the story which states people really don't know where Rudy stands on some of the important issues. The majority of Republicans polled considered themselves to be social conservatives, and their opinions are sure to change when they find out his history of support for such issues as gun control, gay marriage, and a woman's right to choose an abortion. As I said before, "Up like a cannon ball and down like a cannon ball." Right now, Rudy is the leader in the poll for giving the voters the "Warm Fuzzies".

Compare and Contrast

The Iraqi’s are fighting each other over 15th Century issues yet control a significant portion of the 21st Century’s most important fuel.

Here is a report that says Sunnis were killed for talking to Shiites;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17433717/



And here is a story about mixed Sunni-Shiite marriages under pressure
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300647.html



And here our ambassador to Iraq praises the new agreement on how the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites will share oil revenues and thus promote a more stable state
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201143.html


I suppose it is fortunate that they are not fighting their 15th Century feud with 21st Century weapons.

KETCHUP......

Obama and Israel

Barack Obama addresses AIPAC and comes through unscathed. Ha’Aretz has the story

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832668.html

and

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

___________________________________________________________________________________

All together now…. Awwwwwww


From the Washington Post

Conservatives Look for a Winning Hand

Lack of Candidate to Rally Around Has Key GOP Constituency Feeling Glum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201636.html

From The Politico

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2967.html


___________________________________________________________________________________


Giuliani time….

New polls show Rudy leading other Republican candidates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17435176/site/newsweek/

His poll numbers kind of remind me of a line from a favorite movie ("The Right Stuff")

"It goes up like a cannon ball and.. it comes down like a cannon ball."

Once the scrutiny starts and the opposition research gets released, I don't see how his poll numbers will stay high.

___________________________________________________________________________________

On Hillary

On the good side of the ledger, Hillary isn’t playing the “Mea Culpa” game the Democrat's left wing is demanding of senators who both voted for the war and currently are presidential candidates. On the other hand..well, read what she has to say about presidential powers…

“Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,” she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.”

Read the whole story in the NYTIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?ex=1329454800&en=5aef73581e63e4ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

___________________________________________________________________________________
Joe Liberman, DEMOCRAT!

The Democratic Party’s left wing targeted Joe Lieberman. He’s still a senator and he’s still a Democrat. Better than others!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2906.html