The Politics of Hurricanes

Watch you TV closely.

The Republicans are using Hurricane Gustave to their advantage and the Democrats are scrambling to come up with a response.

The cable news networks are going wall to wall with Gustave coverage and one of the prime stories is the impact of the hurricane, now in the Gulf of Mexico, on the Republican convention, which is being held several thousand miles north, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

But hurricane coverage has made it impossible for President Bush to attend the convention, as he gives the appearance of being caring and in charge. Bush's absence from the shin-dig gives McCain a graceful way of not being sen on the same stage as the unpopular Bush. Hurricane coverage makes it possible for the pols working the convention to appear caring and compassionate as they talk about conducting a minimum of politics and then turning the convention into a "service project" by raising money for the Red Cross. This is the perfect opportunity for McCain to show he is the Republican anti-Bush. Want to make bets on how long it will take him to fly down to that city once the hurricane passes?

And all the time the TV nets will be giving the Republicans all the free air time they can eat up, as they show how wonderful they really are, ceasing from their political business to care for the unfortunates in Louisiana.

In the meantime, all Barack Obama can do is talk about forming cadres of volunteers to go to Louisiana to help once the hurricane passes.

Even hurricanes are political.

McCain's Luck

John McCain won't have to share a podium with the despised George W. Bush during the republican convention. The White House just announced that due to Hurricane Gustave, Bush and VP Dick Chaney will be in Washington, or perhaps New Orleans rather than Minneapolis.

This is a great way for McCain to get out of being seen with Bush. I wonder whom he prays to? Yogi Berra once said, "I'd rather be lucky than good!"

Luck seems to be running McCain's way right now.

Minnesota Disaster?

No, I'm not talking about the upcoming Republican convention in Minneapolis this week in the face of Hurricane Gustave. I'm talking about the Senate race between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and his Democratic challenger, pundit and comedian Al Franken.

The latest Survey USA and Rasmussan polls in Minnesota show Barack Obama leading John McCain 47%-42%. With Democrats taking the last four presidential elections in that state, you would think they would have a good chance of coat-tailing its candidate for the Senate, Al Franken, but a look at those Senate race polls show Coleman leading Franken 44%-42%, a statistical tie.

Now, Minnesotans have a history of quirkiness in local elections. Who among us can forget the election of wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor of that fine state? But in this critical election year ( aren't they all?), can Minnesotans again be playing at the polls? More to the point, the Minnesota electorate seems to be decidedly unhappy with their current choices and they would rather have a third choice for the Senate seat, as the Associated Press reports in the Minneapolis StarTribune:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - A new poll finds that many Minnesota voters would at least consider voting for a third-party or independent candidate for president or the U.S. Senate.

The poll is sponsored by Minnesota Public Radio News and the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute.

It finds that 77 percent of the state's likely voters say they would consider voting for an independent or third-party candidate, while 21 percent would not and 3 percent didn't know.

The poll finds support in Minnesota for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader at 3 percent, while 1 percent supported Libertarian Bob Barr.

In the U.S. Senate race, Independence Party hopeful Dean Barkley registered 8 percent in a tight contest between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and DFL challenger Al Franken.

The telephone survey of 763 likely voters was conducted between August 7 and 17. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Considering the overall standing of the Republicans this year as well as the traditional liberalism of Minnesotans, Franken should have a healthy lead in the polls at this point. The Dems must be questioning themselves about their choice of Franken as their candidate.

The Sarah Palin Rohrsharch Test

The pundits are bloviating in high gear over John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, as they try to figure out whether it was a stroke of political genius or totally dumb and perhaps even politically suicidal.

Some of the "experts" think it was a grand move by this year's maverick to shore up his support with with right wing of the Republican Party by picking a dedicated right-to-lifer who puts into practice what she preaches, specifically, giving birth to a Down Syndrome baby while in her 40s. She is a dedicated pro-gun advocate and NRA member. She can claim feminist credibility for fighting corruption in the oil game in Alaska and its "good old boys" network. She is perky and cute, the Gidget of big time politics, being embraced by her Moondoggie, John McCain .

Other experts say Palin, who was a small town mayor and governor for only two years, is totally unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency.

The truth is both more complicated and more simple. Palin is really a neuter, who has no record of substance to stand on to claim the vice presidency. She is nothing more than an ink-blot that reveals the innermost political thoughts and desires of those who perceive her. If you want to see her as a maverick, you will. If you want to see her as a feminist, you will. If you want to see her as a right to lifer, you will. If you want to see McCain as a maverick for picking her, you will. If you want to see this choice as McCain's political suicide, you will.

Sarah Palin - political Rohrsharch test.

A 51%er Writes

If there is anything that most, if not all, women can recognize at 100 meters, it's the slightest hint of Patronization. Chosing Lalin as the Republivan V-P candidate REEKS of same and it has to be the most blantant example I have seen in a long time by either political party. No woman with an I.Q. greater than a brick will see this selection than for what it obviously is and will vote accordingly. I will further predict that this selection will backfire on the Republicans the closer we get to the election. It does warm the heart though to see that the Republicans FINALLY, some 24 years after the Democrats chose a woman as a candidate for V-P, finally got around to acknowledging the other 51% percent of the US population. Way to go Republicans!

A Short Play for Two

I found this while checking out the Votemaster early this evening:

The Veep: A Short Play in One Act

Sometimes fiction is a better vehicle for getting inside someone's mind. Besides, it's all we have. Here is a short play for two actors. Let's call them Schmidt, a tough, savvy consultant, and McCain, a candidate. All names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Schmidt: McCain, Get your ass over here and look at this map.

McCain: It's the U.S. with the states red and blue. Seen it before. What's your point?

Schmidt: Obama's gonna win all the Kerry States. You have a small chance to pick off New Hampshire but 60% of the people think you're pro choice. When they find out you've been pro life for 25 years, forget New Hampshire.

McCain: Where does that leave me?

Schmidt: Bush won 286 to 252.

McCain: Fine with me.

Schmidt: But wait a minute. Obama campaigned like crazy in Iowa. Won the caucuses big time. You barely set foot in the state. The people of Iowa take their caucuses very, very seriously. You insulted them. Make that 279 to 259.

McCain: I still win.

Schmidt: We're not done yet. Obama has been leading in New Mexico all year. State's full of Latinos. They preferred Clinton but they're still Democrats at heart. I think we're toast there. Now its 274 to 264.

McCain: A win is a win. Still better than Florida was.

Schmidt: Yeah, but now Obama is just 5 EVs short of a tie (which means it goes to the House and he'll win there) and 6 EVs short of a clean win. Look, there are six swing states this time: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. We have to win all six of them. Can't lose a single state or we're dead meat.

McCain: I'm a fighter. You know that. The gooks couldn't break me. I'll campaign like hell in all six. Don't worry.

Schmidt: I'm worried. We're 50-50 on all six. It's like flipping a coin six times and getting six heads. One chance in 64, roughly 2%. We have to do something dramatic. Something that will throw all calculations out the window. Something that completely shakes up everything. Something that gives us a fresh start. Gotta hit the RESET button.

McCain: Have something in mind?

Schmidt: Yeah. Pick a black or a woman for Veep.

McCain: You mean I can't pick Joe? He's my friend and a great guy.

Schmidt: Half the convention would walk out. Besides, Jews aren't a novelty any more. Thank Gore for that.

McCain:. Shit. But blacks are fine with me. Colin Powell is a great American and one of the most respected people in the country.

Schmidt: He doesn't want the job

McCain: No sweat. Condi's the smartest woman I know. Mind like a bear trap. She'll run rings around Biden at the debate. She'll say: "I've been there. I talk to Putin every week. You're just an old windbag"

Schmidt: She's got "BUSH III" emblazoned on her forehead. And Obama is a happily married man with two adorable little girls, Condi's a single black woman who is apparently not much into families. Won't work. What about Kay [Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)]?

McCain: She's tired of the Washington rat race. She wants to go back to Texas. Be governor or something, you know like Ma Ferguson.

Schmidt: Ma's husband, the governor, was impeached and convicted. Ann Richards would be a better role model. What other women do we have?

McCain: Jodi [Rell] and Olympia [Snowe] are smart and popular but pro choice. The Base distrusts me already. They'd mutiny.

Schmidt: Elizabeth Dole? Susan Collins?

McCain: With either of those we lose a Senate seat. I don't want to have 60 Democrats to deal with over there. Reid might grow a spine. Can't encourage that.

Schmidt: Lisa Murkowski?

McCain: Her dad appointed her. She won on her own later, but I don't need to deal with nepotism and cronyism. Smells like Bush. I'm a maverick, remember?

Schmidt: Got it. Some businesswomen? Sarah Palin?

McCain: Carly [Fiorina] is great on economics, but she nearly she ran her company into the ground so the board fired her and then gave her $40 million so she wouldn't feel bad. The 20,000 people she fired aren't too keen on her. Meg Whitman did a fantastic job at eBay but nobody's ever heard of her.

Schmidt: So Palin's the only one left? What about her?

McCain: I met her once, at a governors meeting. Cute as a button. She ran for Miss Alaska. Came in second. I woulda voted for her. But it's a real Hail Mary pass. She's popular up north there where the sun never shines (except for some minor problems when she tried to fire her state trooper brother-in-law). She was pregnant with a Down syndrome baby and didn't abort him. The Base will love that. Her hobbies are riding her motorcycle and hunting moose. The coal miners in Appalachia will go wild over her. How fast can we print a million 8x10 color photos of her for their lockers?

Schmidt: Fast. But what about her experience. I mean, she's only been governor a year and a half. What did she do before that?

McCain: I think she was mayor of some village with six igloos. Who cares? I think you're right we have to shake things up completely. Change the game. The Base will eat her up on abortion, the Hillary fans will see that we respect women (unlike their guy). We grab the mantle of reformers. The white guys will be transfixed by this hot chick who hunts moose. I get to be Maverick-in-chief. Sounds like a winner.

Schmidt: What about the debate with Biden? What if the moderator says: "What would you do if Russia invaded Georgia again?" and she says: "I'll get on Air Force One and fly to Atlanta immediately."

McCain: Most Americans can't find Georgia the state on a map, let alone Georgia the country. I'll get Lugar to tutor her on foreign policy. He knows everything about it. I'm sold. Let's go for it.
Curtain falls.

Well, maybe that wasn't the exact dialog, but the core idea is true: they had to do something dramatic to have a chance and picking a woman was probably their best shot. And most of the candidates had some flaw or other. Palin had the fewest problems.

Alex Writes...

Re: McCain's only line of attack.

He's still got:
- Obama is a celebrity
- P.O.W.
- Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making $42K or higher (in his campaign's response to Obama's acceptance speech)
- Obama's responsible for higher gas prices
- P.O.W.
- Sen. Biden is a misogynist for beating up on Gov. Palin in the VP debate
- P.O.W.

Plus, don't discount that image could put the G.O.P ticket into the White House in '08.

What got Bush elected in '00 was the fact that he'd be more fun to have a beer with than Al Gore.

This November, those same voters are comparing a true Maverick and a beauty queen with a Secret Muslim.

I think Palin's an insipid choice, but I have little confidence in the American people doing the right thing.


Alex,

All true. I didn't say the "experience" angle was his only line of attack, but his strongest. He was set up to use Hillary's 3a.m. ad, which was quite successful. McCain has just given up that weapon with nothing to show in return.- TRM

The Vagina Vote

All the pundits are scratching their heads over John McCain's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. I suppose in some ways that it makes some sort of sense. I can picture McCain thinking, "Boy, I'll show them I'm a real maverick by doing something incredibly stupid and at the same time shoring up support with the looney right wing and with women."

Unfortunately for McCain, this choice absolutely neutralizes his most effective line of attack against Obama, specifically, Obama's lack of experience on the national and world stage. you should note that the choice of vice president has been practically irrelevant in recent years. Sure, John Kennedy picked the powerful Texas Senator Lyndon John as his VP, but can anyone say they voted for George H.W. Bush because he picked Indian's Dan Quayle? Do you remember how Lloyd Bentson absolutely mopped the floor with Quayle when he unleashed his famous statement, " Senator, I knew John Kennedy, and you're no John Kennedy!" Bush won.

So McCain's choice of Palin is both interesting but, at best, irrelevant. At worst, it could be a "Tom Eagleston" type of pick with Palin under investigation in her home state form certain improprieties. A reader sent me this interesting blog from a native Alaskan:

“Is this a joke?” That seemed to be the question du jour when my phone started ringing off the hook at 6:45am here in Alaska. I mean, we’re sort of excited that our humble state has gotten some kind of national ‘nod’….but seriously? Sarah Palin for Vice President? Yes, she’s a popular governor. Her all time high approval rating hovered around 90% at one point. But bear in mind that the 90% approval rating came from one of the most conservative, and reddest-of-the-red states out there. And that approval rating came before a series of events that have lead many Alaskans to question the governor’s once pristine image.

There is no doubt in my mind that many Alaskans are feeling pretty excited about this. But we live in our own little bubble up here, and most of the attention we get is because of The Bridge to Nowhere, polar bears, the indictment of Ted Stevens, and the ongoing investigation and conviction of the string of legislators and oil executives who literally called themselves “The Corrupt Bastards Club”.

OK. She's cute and looks good on TV. Ok. She knows how to use firearms. Ok. She's a mom with 5 kids, the youngest afflicted with Down Syndrome. Ok. She is not qualified to be vice-president. Ok. It is a blatant appeal to women and at the same time, to the Republican right wing.

But in this day and age, the candidate's choice of vice president doesn't matter.

Back

I spent the last two weeks visiting Israel for the first time.

I am convinced that all people are middle east experts. I am also convinced that all middle east experts are wrong.


I'll put my thoughts together in the coming days and share them with you.

I didn't follow the Olympics much, and caught what I could of the Democratic Convention.

Away

Your favorite Radical Moderate will be away for two weeks, refreshing body, mind, and soul. That means I will not be covering either the Democratic or Republican conventions. I'll be around 7,000 miles east and I'll give a full report upon my return.

Let's hope everyone takes a step towards peace.

I'm a dot!

Television at its Best

Two items on TV this weekend that were worthy of the medium. Three, really, if you count the Olympics.

I hope you caught retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS this past Friday. Bacevich, currently a professor at Boston University, focuses with laser-like precision at some of the core problems of the United States today. It requires more audacity than I have, and Lord knows I have more than my share, to summarise Prof. Bacevich's positions. But I do urge you to go out and read his book,The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism and think! I look forward to doing the same. (And here are some more works by Prof. Bacevich.)

Pastor Rick Warren hosted individual conversations this past Saturday night, seen on CNN, with the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, and the presumptive Republican Presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain. Of course, Pastor Warren asked questions from a religious perspective, and while I believe religion really has no place in government, I appreciated the fact that he did not play that petty and disgusting game of "gotcha" that debate moderators engaged in previously. Pastor Warren did not play to the lowest common denominator. There was no attempt to titillate. There was no attempt by Pastor Warren to show how much smarter he was than either candidate. It was refreshing and informative.

Finally, the Olympics. I love this quadrennial display of pure athletic skill and grace. Sure, there are events that don't belong on a world stage, such as beach volley ball. But the power, grace, strength, and speed on display is truly magnificent. So, Bravo! Mike Phelps! Brava, to the American female gymnasts. And "Well Done!" to all the competitors who gave their all in the water and on the field.

Cold War Redux

Apparently, all of the oil money flowing into Russia has caused them to become bold and attempt to reconstitute the old Iron Curtain Bloc.

Look at their move into Georgia. And now they are saying they are going to mete out punishment because the US and Poland struck a deal on the placement of defensive missiles in the latter country.

Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian general staff told reporters Friday that the agreement exacerbates U.S.-Russian relations that are already tense because of fighting between Georgian and Russian forces. He said the deal “cannot go unpunished.”

And in the strongest threat Russia has issued in reaction to plans to put elements of a missile defense system in former Soviet satellite nations, the Interfax news agency quoted Nogovitsyn as saying Poland was risking attack.

“Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent,” Interfax quoted Nogovitsyn as saying.

This follows on the heels of the US Czech Republic deal to place the radar systems for that missile shield (if it works!) in that former Soviet captive state. If you recall, the US offered the Russians an incredible amount of access to the radar system to assure them that the system was designed to counter an Iranian missile threat and the Russians said "Nyet!".

From a Russian perspective, which historically is a paranoid one, they may be seeing a US attempt to encircle them by placing military systems in Poland, The Czech Republic, Georgia, Khazakstan, and the other former Soviet states in Eurasia. This view however, ignores the fact that these American bases are also directed towards the areas where we perceive the threat to currently reside: Iran and Pakistan. If the US had intentions of striking at Russia, the opportunities were present just after the collapse of their empire, and yet the US took no such action. In fact, US and Western policy has been to draw Russia into the rest of the developed nations world economy and system of politics. Can that policy be called an abject failure? With KGB apparatchick Vladimir Putin in charge, the answer must be "yes".

NY GIANTS--The Great Four Minutes !

Department of Injustice Part 3

The DOJ IG report continues:

We determined that Goodling’s Internet searches used the search
terms that Williams provided, which focused on political criteria.
Goodling kept the search string intact, but added terms when assessing
candidates for certain positions, such as IJs, when she added the terms:
“or immigrant! or immigrant! or asylum or DHS or ICE or border! or alien!
or migrant! or criminal! or justice or judg!” We also found that this
search string was included in an e-mail Goodling sent to the OIPL
employee, dated December 5, 2006, in which Goodling instructed her to
use the search string for all candidates she was asked to screen.


In addition, Goodling admitted in her congressional testimony that
she accessed www.tray.com and other web sites to get information about
political contributions made by candidates for temporary details,
immigration judges, and other positions.



In the matter of hiring Assistant United States Attorneys, the report concludes:

we believe that Goodling violated federal law
and Department policy, and committed misconduct, when she
discriminated against EOUSA detailee candidates based on political or
ideological affiliations.

But as those cheesy TV commercials say, "But wait! There's more!" Because Goodling not only vetted AUSA's, but also those Immigration judges! Back to the IG's report!

We determined that, under the process implemented by Sampson
and followed by Williams and Goodling, the OAG solicited candidates for
IJ positions and informed EOIR who was to be hired for each position.
The principal source for such candidates was the White House, although
other Republican sources provided politically acceptable candidates to
Sampson, Williams, and Goodling. All three of these officials
inappropriately considered political or ideological affiliations in
evaluating and selecting candidates for IJ positions. For example, we
found that Goodling screened the candidates using a variety of
techniques for determining their political affiliations, including
researching the candidates’ political contributions and voter registration
records, using an Internet search string with political terms, and asking
the candidates questions regarding their political affiliations during
interviews.
In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and
Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and
Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological
affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions
protected by the civil service laws.

Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it
also caused significant delays in appointing IJs. These delays increased
the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing
an increased workload and a high vacancy rate. EOIR Deputy Director
Ohlson repeatedly requested candidate names to address the growing
number of vacancies, with little success. As a result of the delay in
providing candidates, the Department was unable to timely fill the large
numbers of vacant IJ positions.
We also concluded that Goodling committed misconduct when she
provided inaccurate information to a Civil Division attorney who was
defending a lawsuit brought by an unsuccessful IJ candidate. Goodling
told the attorney that she did not take political factors into consideration
in connection with IJ hiring, which was not accurate.
In addition, we concluded that Williams provided inaccurate
information to us concerning her Internet research activities.
Because Goodling, Sampson, and Williams have resigned from the
Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department
for their actions described in this report. Nevertheless, we recommend
that the Department consider the findings in this report should they
apply in the future for another position with the Department.

So there you have it. Violations of law by the religious, conservative wing of the Republican Party. Their delaying actions in hiring Immigration judges caused massive problems in the immigration system and problems processing legal and illegal immigrants. And all AG Mukasey can say is that there was a break down in the system??
What an insult to our intelligence! The so-called breakdown in the system consisted of clearly defined Republican policy that encouraged illegal activities in the Department of Justice. And they get away, Scot-free , as we used to say. So much for the republicans as the party of "Law and Order!"

So the next time you need a purge, stay away from the Ipacac and just think of how the DOJ is now the Department of INjustice.

Department of Injustice Part 2

Ms. Goodling had authority over hiring for both political positions and non-political positions and there are important distinctions in how those two hiring tracks are handled. Some background on the hiring process from the IG report:

It is not improper to consider political affiliations when hiring for
political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law
prohibit discrimination in hiring for Department career positions on the
basis of political affiliations.
The Department’s policy on non-discrimination is contained in the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.1(a) of 28 C.F.R. Part 42,
Subpart A, which states:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to
eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status,
political affiliation, age, or physical or mental handicap in
employment within the Department and to assure equal
employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for
employment (emphasis added).

The report goes on to say:

Our investigation demonstrated that Goodling sometimes used for
career applicants the same political screening techniques she employed
in considering applicants for political positions. In addition, she used for
candidates who were interested in any position, whether career or
political, the same political screening she used for applicants who
applied solely for political positions, and some of these candidates were
placed in career positions.

And how did dear Ms. Goodling do this? The IG report quotes her aide, Angela Williamson, who said of Goodling:

Williamson typed from memory the list of
questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other
questions, the list included the following:
Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social
Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone
currently or recently in public service who you admire.
We found that this last question often took the form of asking the
candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court
Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person
for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling
asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”

Sounds rather political, don't you think? But there is more.

Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed
that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice,
President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’
political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated
he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and
commented, “but she’s pro-choice.” Another candidate commented that
when Goodling asked him to name his favorite judge, it seemed to him
that she was trying to “get at my political views.”

Nor could Ms. Goodling claim that she was unaware of the prohibition of using political criteria for non-political jobs:

The evidence also indicates that Goodling knew she should not ask
applicants for career positions the same questions she asked of
applicants for political positions. For example, an AUSA who interviewed
with Goodling in September 2006 for a possible position in the ODAG
said that Goodling told her there were two types of positions potentially
available, political and non-political. Goodling told the candidate that if
she was interested in a political position, she would ask her separate
questions, which included questions about political activities and voting
history.

Ms. Goodling was very,very thorough in her vetting of candidates.

We found that Goodling’s Internet research on candidates for
Department positions was extensive and designed to obtain their political
and ideological affiliations.16 We determined that while working in the
OAG, Goodling conducted computer searches on candidates for career as
well as political Department positions. Goodling used an Internet search
string in her hiring research that she had received from Jan Williams,
her predecessor as the Department’s White House Liaison. At some time
during the year Williams served as White House Liaison, she had
attended a seminar at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel
and received a document entitled “The Thorough Process of
Investigation.” The document described methods for screening
candidates for political positions and recommended using www.tray.com
and www.opensecrets.org to find information about contributions to
political candidates and parties. The document also explained how to
find voter registration information. In addition, the document explained
how to conduct searches on www.nexis.com, and included an example of
a search string that contained political terms such as “republican,”
“Bush or Cheney,” “Karl Rove,” “Howard Dean,” “democrat!,” “liberal,”
“abortion or pro-choice,” as well as generic terms such as “arrest!” and
“bankrupt!”

When Williams left the Department in April 2006, she sent an email
to Goodling containing an Internet search string and explained:

“This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.”
The string reads as follows:
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a
candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or
charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra
or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or
controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or
layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict!
or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired
or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or
controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or
firearm!



SEE PART 3

Department of Injustice Part 1

This article in the NY TIMES ran once and it seems that everyone then forgot all about the issue.

Mukasey Won’t Pursue Charges in Hiring Inquiry
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Tuesday rejected the idea of bringing criminal charges against former Justice Department employees who improperly used political litmus tests in hiring decisions, saying he had already taken strong internal steps in response to a “painful” episode.

Two recent reports from the Justice Department inspector general and its internal ethics office found that seven department officials — all but one now gone — had systematically rejected candidates with perceived “liberal” backgrounds for what were supposed to be nonpolitical jobs and instead picked conservative lawyers.

In a speech Tuesday morning to the American Bar Association in Manhattan, Mr. Mukasey condemned the political abuses in his most forceful language to date, saying “the system failed.”

"The system failed"???? We aren't talking about sanitary plumbing in a house! We aren't talking about a computer network. We aren't talking about the subway after a downpour.

What we are talking about is the political corruption of an integral arm of the United States Government. We are talking about an agency that should be at the forefront of guaranteeing fairness for American citizens. Unfortunately, DOJ has suffered through some sad times. Who among us can forget Attorney general John Mitchell and his role in Watergate? While AG Mukasey was not involved at the time these latest actions took place, his down playing of the severity of the criminal activity spelled out in the Department of Justices's Inspector General report is loathsome.

I spent a bit of time going over this report. Allow me to introduce you to one Monica Goodling, who had a primary function in this dirty business. According to her entry in Wikipedia, Ms. Goodling prepared for her position of responsibility thusly (N.B. All Bold in quoted sections of the I.G.'s report were TRM's):

was a 1991 graduate of Northeastern High School in Manchester, Pennsylvania, and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1995 from Messiah College. After completing her bachelor's degree, Goodling continued her education at American University,[2] but she then transfered to the Regent University Law School, where she received her Juris Doctor degree in 1999. Regent University was founded by Pat Robertson, and it advertises itself as "America's Preeminent Christian University".

Goodling worked alongside Tim Griffin as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign. She joined the Department of Justice's press office after George W. Bush was elected president. She moved to the department's executive office, which is responsible for budgeting, management, personnel management and evaluation, later becoming deputy director of the executive office.[3] Ms. Goodling was hired by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan to work in the executive office. [4]

After less than a year, Goodling moved again, to the attorney general’s office, working as the White House liaison.[3] According to David Ayres, senior chief of staff to Attorney General John Ashcroft, "She was the embodiment of a hardworking young conservative who believed strongly in the president and his mission".[5] But according to Bud Cummins, one of the fired prosecutors and an Arkansas Republican, “She was inexperienced, way too naïve and a little overzealous".[3]

After moving to the Attorney General's office, she retained some of her executive office authority over personnel matters. Goodling's authority over hiring expanded significantly in March 2006, when Gonzales signed an unpublished order delegating to Goodling and Kyle Sampson, his then chief of staff, the power to appoint or dismiss all department political appointees besides United States attorneys (who are appointed by the President). The delegation included authority over interim United States attorneys (who are appointed by the Attorney General) and heads of the divisions that handle civil rights, public corruption, environmental crimes and other matters.[3][6][7]

SEE PART 2

American Military, American Presidency, American Democracy

A number of interesting and important issues are raised by retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich in his new book The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism. Here is an excerpt, courtesy TomDispatch.com

To appreciate the full extent of the military crisis into which the United States has been plunged requires understanding what the Iraq War and, to a lesser extent, the Afghan War have to teach. These two conflicts, along with the attacks of September 11, 2001, will form the centerpiece of George W. Bush's legacy. Their lessons ought to constitute the basis of a new, more realistic military policy.

[...]


Reconfigure the armed services to fight "small wars"; empower the generals; reconnect soldiering to citizenship -- on the surface each of these has a certain appeal. But upon closer examination, each also has large defects. They are the wrong lessons to take from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[...]

So the first lesson to be taken away from the Bush administration's two military adventures is simply this: War remains today what it has always been -- elusive, untamed, costly, difficult to control, fraught with surprise, and sure to give rise to unexpected consequences. Only the truly demented will imagine otherwise.

The second lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan derives from the first. As has been the case throughout history, the utility of armed force remains finite. Even in the information age, to the extent that force "works," it does so with respect to a limited range of contingencies.

Although die-hard supporters of the Global War on Terror will insist otherwise, events in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated definitively that further reliance on coercive methods will not enable the United States to achieve its objectives. Whether the actual aim is to democratize the Islamic world or subdue it, the military "option" is not the answer.

[...]

Here we come face-to-face with the essential dilemma with which the United States has unsuccessfully wrestled since the Soviets deprived us of a stabilizing adversary. The political elite that ought to bear the chief responsibility for crafting grand strategy instead nurses fantasies of either achieving permanent global hegemony or remaking the world in America's image. Meanwhile, the military elite that could puncture those fantasies and help restore a modicum of realism to U.S. policy fixates on campaigns and battles, with generalship largely a business of organizing and coordinating matériel.

The four lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan boil down to this: Events have exposed as illusory American pretensions to having mastered war. Even today, war is hardly more subject to human control than the tides or the weather. Simply trying harder -- investing ever larger sums in even more advanced technology, devising novel techniques, or even improving the quality of American generalship -- will not enable the United States to evade that reality.

[...]
But the problem lies less with the army that we have -- a very fine one, which every citizen should wish to preserve -- than with the requirements that we have imposed on our soldiers. Rather than expanding or reconfiguring that army, we need to treat it with the respect that it deserves. That means protecting it from further abuse of the sort that it has endured since 2001.

America doesn't need a bigger army. It needs a smaller -- that is, more modest -- foreign policy, one that assigns soldiers missions that are consistent with their capabilities. Modesty implies giving up on the illusions of grandeur to which the end of the Cold War and then 9/11 gave rise. It also means reining in the imperial presidents who expect the army to make good on those illusions. When it comes to supporting the troops, here lies the essence of a citizen's obligation.

Andrew Bacevich will discuss his new book -- and the limits of American power in the Bush era -- for a full hour on "Bill Moyers Journal," Friday, August 15th. Don't miss it.

The Democratic Party-The Eve of Destruction?

This story just moved from the Los Angeles Times. Barack Obama is giving Hillary the opportunity to have her name placed in nomination before the Democratic Convention in two weeks.

Obama is quoted as saying:

"I am convinced that honoring Sen. Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong, united fashion," Barack Obama said in a statement issued jointly by their two press offices.

Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne has this take on developments:

Because the Clinton campaign failed to anticipate the importance of delegates elected through caucuses rather than primaries, her operatives regularly argued that Obama's caucus triumphs lacked the same weight as her primary victories.

Because Obama overwhelmed Clinton in many staunchly Republican states, he was said not to be the choice of real Democrats and swing voters in states such as New York and California, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Some of the memos suggested, without quite saying so, that Clinton's voters were more inherently virtuous than Obama's. After all, she was the candidate of the constituency her pollster Mark Penn labeled the "Invisible Americans," the descendants of Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority." The white working class, especially less well-to-do women, was with Clinton. Obama had the well-educated voters, that crowd Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew saw as "effete," and, of course, African-Americans who would have been part of Clinton's base against any rival except Obama.

And there is that Penn memo that speaks of Obama's "lack of American roots." Clinton thankfully declined to take up this idea, but John McCain's ads are now subtly toying with it.

The more Obama's victories were cast as less than real, the more passionate Clinton's own supporters became about the injustice of her defeat. A minority of her supporters threatens trouble at the Denver convention unless Obama gives her a roll call vote in which never-say-die Clintonites could express their loyalty one last time.

Obama has already given the Clinton forces a night for Hillary and part of a night for Bill. In truth, he has little choice in a nearly 50-50 party, but the Obama people have to be frustrated with the Clintonites for not recognizing how far he is going to give them their due.

Yet some of the Clinton folks still think that Obama has not been respectful enough of the Clintons and their historical contributions. Bill Clinton is clearly put out. This perceptive politician has to be more aware than anyone of the mistakes he and his wife's campaign made. That makes the whole thing harder, for him and for Obama.

Obviously, Obama hopes that placing Hillary's name in nomination will quiet the Clintonistas and assuage their anger for his winning the party's nomination. Obama is very,very wrong in this assumption. What he is doing is taking a pile of straw, pouring some gasoline on it in the form of having Bill Clinton take a prominent speaking roll, and then having Hillary hold a lighted match one millimeter from the explosive pile while Obama is saying "See, I'm in control and it's safe!"

This move might very well blow up in his face if the voters at home watching on T.V. see a split and angry Democratic party forming its quadrennial circular firing squad. The electorate's utter disgust could lead to more ballots marked for McCain, as the undecided and independent voters wonder, "This guy can't stand up to Hillary. How is he going to stand up to Putin?"

Russian War Motives- Oil or Ethnic Politics?

Is the motive for Russia's Georgia invasion political or is it oil? Witht eh Eurasian rim a noted source for oil, don't discount the Georgia move as the first Russian action on its side of the Oil Wars of the 21st Century.

Take a look at this prescient 2006 article in Asia Times:

The United States' global energy-control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed "democracy" by Washington. But while it is preoccupied with implanting democracy in the Middle East, the United States is quietly being outflanked in the rush to secure and control major energy sources of the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.

The quest for energy control has informed Washington's support for high-risk "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in recent months.

[...]

Some in Washington are beginning to realize that important figures might have been too clumsy in recent public statements about both China and Russia, two nations whose cooperation in some form is essential to the success of the global US energy project.

[,,,]

If the trend of recent events continues, it won't be US-style democracy that is spreading, but rather Russian and Chinese influence over major oil and gas supplies.

Some in Washington are beginning to realize that important figures might have been too clumsy in recent public statements about both China and Russia, two nations whose cooperation in some form is essential to the success of the global US energy project.
[...]

Next Thursday, member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by China and Russia, will reportedly invite Iran, currently an observer, into full membership. Even if full membership is postponed, as has been mooted, the fact remains that Russia and China both want to seal closer cooperation with Iran in Eurasian energy cooperation.

The SCO was founded in June 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Its stated goal was to facilitate "cooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific-technical, cultural, and educational spheres as well as in energy, transportation, tourism, and environment protection fields". Recently, however, the SCO is beginning to look like an energy-financial bloc in Central Asia consciously being developed to serve as a counter-pole to US hegemony.

Here is an interesting articla from the April 2007 edition of Oil and Gas, a trade magazine, on the strategic importance of Eurasia:

Since pipeline capacity will be unable to transport the desired quantity of Turkmen gas in 2010, a new pipeline should be constructed. One possibility is a pipeline along the Caspian seashore through Kazakhstan and Russia to Ukraine. The pipeline's length will be 3,000 km and cost an estimated $3 bln. Due to likely delays casued by tensions between competing interests construction of the pipeline would probably not be completed until after 2010.

Taliban, Terror, Afghanistan and Pakistan- Life is Tough All Over

While we are all looking at Georgia and Iran, Abu Muqawama has eyes and ears a bit further East. What's going on in the home of the home of Al Queda, is Pakistan over and done for, and to quote one of my favorite lines from the movie Apocalypse Now, "Who's in charge here"?
Take a look at this posting.