A few signs of the times, & a calculated raise

I came across some pretty interesting signs of the times this week. The one above, via the Consumerist, was taken at a McDonald's drive-thru. It's not bad enough that the food puts you in the grave early if you eat enough of it, or that I feel horrible for days after eating it, but now I can't even get extra sauce to cover up the nasty taste of just about everything on the menu? Great - thanks for some recession love, ya bastards.

Of course, if McDonald's really wants to make things right, it would provide a crucifix (or, thinking cheaply, a prayer card) with each burger. And all food should be garnished with two Imodium™ tablets. Thus, short-term and long-term implications would be covered. Ahh, it never hurts to dream. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic - after all, what can we expect for a 99¢ burger?

More seriously, I'm sure you have all noticed a welcome trend leading up to the election...

I snapped this picture with my Blackberry™ Curve™ the other day on Kelly Dr. in Philadelphia. Pretty amazing that fuel prices have been plummeting leading up to election day. Gas prices have been steadily falling since late August, and in September they reached near free-fall status. They've been falling so far, in fact, that in some parts of Pennsylvania, including Berks County, where I work. On Friday, I noticed that a gallon was going for $2.75 in Kutztown, Pa., which would have been unthinkable even three months ago.

Heck, I was pleasantly surprised to see the price at left at a service plaza along the Pennsylvania Turnpike about a week ago, so my happiness has been spiking as the prices have been falling, especially since I commute 750 miles per week to my higher education job outside the Philadelphia 'burbs.

However, my point - I don't think the timing of falling gas prices is entirely coincidental. In fact, I think it's outright manipulation. It doesn't take a political scientist or pol to realize that Big Oil has big, BIG stakes in this election, and it's also pretty obvious which candidate Big Oil wants to see in the White House.

No matter who wins, I think we're going to see fuel prices rising exponentially after the election. The proof is already there to see, too; even energy groups are predicting rising heating oil costs this winter. Funny - gas prices are falling through the floor, as is the price of a barrel of oil, yet industry experts are predicting very high fuel oil prices. Do the math.

Something happened a few days ago that, in my mind, is a total manipulation of the government for political purposes -- the Social Security Administration announced a whopping increase of SS benefits.

From the Oct. 17 New York Times:

Social Security benefits for 50 million people will go up 5.8 percent next year, the largest increase in more than a quarter century. The increase, which will start in January, was announced by the Social Security Administration. It will mean an additional $63 a month for the average retiree, whose check will grow to $1,153 from $1,090. The increase is the largest since a 7.4 percent jump in 1982 and is more than double the 2.3 percent rise in January 2008. [Emphasis Mine]

First, I don't believe for a second that the Bush administration would ever enthusiastically give such an increase to retirees, unless it had plenty to gain politically from such a move. Conveniently, the announcement was timed to be 17 days from the Nov. 4 election.

The Bush administration, and most within the Republican Party, openly despise Social Security and have shown a propensity to do all it can to weaken the program, with the goal of ultimately eliminating it. Now, 17 days before the election, the biggest increase in benefits in 26 years is announced? I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.

Don't get me wrong - I'm totally for retirees getting a much-needed increase in their monthly checks. I'm just questioning the timing. Of course, if anyone in the White House press corps even had the temerity to question the timing, Dana Perino would scoff, saying, "the timing is totally coincidental." Yea, right. If Bush felt he could have gotten away with it, the increase would have been announced the Sunday morning before the election.

Just like the announcement of the verdict of Saddam Hussein was moved up weeks earlier than planned to the week before the '06 mid-term elections. When the then-White House press secretary, the late Tony Snow, was asked about it, he looked into the camera and said, with a straight face, that the administration "would never time such an announcement to interfere with an election."

There are other ways to manipulate the Social Security Administration, too, and the Bush administration is proceeding with full force. More on that a bit later.

3 Senate candidates who need our support

Al Franken, the former liberal radio talk show host, comedian and author, is running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota. His opponent is the Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. Since there's no Senate race to follow in Pennsylvania this election, I've been following this race the closest.

In short, Coleman has been nothing short of a Bush rubber stamp since he took office in 2002, and it's essential that progressives send him packing. I normally am not a big fan of sharing political ads (ad fatigue is quickly setting in with 16 days to go), but the one above is pretty damning about Coleman and his alleged "investigations" of war profiteering. Take a look at the vid, and drop by Franken's Website and make a donation. Even $5 or $10 can make a difference. The Democrats, regardless of whether Obama wins or not, need as many seats in the Senate as they can to reverse many of Bush's disastrous policies. (And the Senate needs new leadership to go along with a nice majority, too.)

Anyway, Franken, by most accounts I've read, has run a remarkably honest campaign, while Coleman has lamely attempted to use Franken's sardonic wit from his past gigs as a radio host, comedian and author to discredit him. So far, it hasn't worked - right now, Franken is up in the polls, holding a small lead. An average of polls by Quinnipiac, University of Minnesota and Rasmussen gives Franken a four-point lead, but he needs all the help he can get, because Coleman is getting plenty from the RNC and his corporate contributors.

Two other U.S. Senate races that bear watching and deserve our support...

In North Carolina, Kay Hagan is running against Republican incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole. In case you're wondering, yes, this is the same Dole who did a spectacularly bad job as chairman of the NRSC in 2006 in recruiting strong senatorial candidates to challenge weak Democratic senators. For example, She couldn't find anyone better than the detestable Katherine "Cruella de Vil" Harris to unseat mediocre Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. Even worse, Dole said Democrats were "content with losing in Iraq" on Meet the Press just days before the '06 election. (Anyone still wondering why the GOP got its collective butt kicked in '06?)

Here's hoping that Hagan sends Dole back to North Carolina, or Kansas, or wherever she says she's living, to be with another failed GOP presidential candidate, Bob Dole. Maybe she can help him spend all the money he made off of his Viagra ads (and help him use his medicine, too - eeeewwwwwwww).

The latest Rasmussen poll has Hagan up by four points, but the race is still very, very close. Please drop by Hagan's Website to make a contribution - every dollar will make a difference in this race.

In Georgia, the thoroughly contemptible Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent Republican, is running for reelection against Jim Martin. Chambliss is the man who ran an incredibly mean-spirited campaign against Sen. Max Cleland in 2002, where his campaign ads criticized Cleland for not helping to defeat Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. (See video above) Of all of the incumbents running for reelection in the Senate, I'd like to see him bounced out more than any other.

Martin, another Vietnam vet, is running a pretty strong campaign, but he too needs our support. Two days ago, an average of three polls showed Martin running a razor-thin two points behind Chambliss. Martin is doing surprisingly well, and he's picking up plenty of support and endorsements, but he's also fighting an uphill battle against an incumbent with plenty of resources in party support and campaign cash.

Chambliss is yet another Republican on a very long list of GOP chickenhawks - a warmonger and Iraq War cheerleader who did all he could to avoid service in Vietnam in the 1960, receiving five student deferments (is he related to Dick Cheney?). Here's hoping that Chambliss' past embrace of Karl Rove tactics that helped him win his seat will come back to bite him this time around. Please drop by Martin's Website to make a contribution as well.

Please, even if it's just $5, support these three very, very important Democratic challengers - three keys to building a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

My Libby crystal ball

It's been a pretty memorable week in the world of Washington politics. But, the more I think about it, we can add "sad" and "injustice" to the never ending list of adjectives that should be applied to the Scooter Libby trial.

I won't hold the suspense - my prediction is that Libby never spends a day in jail. It's already obvious that his attorneys are planning to drag this out as long as possible. I'm not begrudging Libby that - it's his constitutional right to an appeal. But, I've read on some sites that Libby's final fate may not be determined until October 2008. Like that would be a surprise. Just like it was a huge surprise that the reading of the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was moved up to the Sunday before the election in November 2006.

Following the November 2008 election, President Bush has nothing to lose, and neither will has party, regardless of election results. Much like the president's father did on his way out of office with six Iran-Contra figures, Dubya may simply pardon Libby.

More on a potential pardon in a bit.

There are several tragedies in this case. First and foremost is Valerie Plame (right, with her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson), who did her duty as a civil servant for 20 years for the Central Intelligence Agency. She was outed by senior members of the Bush administration including Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, in retaliation for her husband's op-ed column in The New York Times. Wilson's column blasted the Bush administration for its wanton desire to go to war in Iraq.

[Quick aside: Wilson was sent by the Bush administration to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought Uranium yellowcake there for its alleged nuclear weapons program. It took Wilson about five minutes to discover that the allegations were based on forged documents and were unequivocally inaccurate. Despite Wilson's findings, Bush used the now infamous 16 words in his January 2003 State of the Union Address: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Bush said these words against the advice of Wilson, the CIA, the State Department and numerous other agencies and individuals. When Wilson's column appeared in the New York Times, the Bush administration was determined to not let him get away with it. So, revenge was taken on Wilson by conservative columnist Robert Novak's public revelation of Plame as a CIA agent. We now know that Novak was fed this information by Rove and Libby. Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a felony. For more reading on the Plame Affair, go Here.]

Testimony in this case revealed in intricate detail that Rove and Cheney were behind Plame's outing. However, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald (above), has announced that he doesn't plan to pursue any other charges in the case, despite the revelations that Cheney and Rove were right in the heart of the decision to smear Wilson and Plame.

I only have one word for Fitzgerald's decision to not pursue the matter further: Why?

Fitzgerald is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. I won't call him a failure, because he did win a conviction of Libby (above, with his wife, Harriet Grant).

I have a hard time believing that Fitzgerald is not taking marching orders from someone, somewhere. How else can one explain his failure to pursue chargers against Cheney and Rove? I'm not hoping for a political witch hunt here, (c. 1998), but what I do hope for is justice. Cheney and Rove broke the law. So, why aren't charges being filed?

There's now a big movement afoot on the 'Net, most notably on right-wing blogs and even some nationally respected publications, such as the National Review, to pardon Libby. The people who are hoping for a Libby pardon are short on memory and long on hypocrisy.

I'm not without sympathy for Libby on some levels, but he still deserves to be punished. I have no doubt that Libby is being hung out to dry and is being used as a scapegoat for this incident.

Libby should be punished because he was a willing participant in outing Plame, period. It should be noted that Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Without the testimony from various witnesses that revealed the activities of Cheney and Rove, Libby would never have been convicted. This isn't nuclear astrophysics, people.

Didn't we impeach a president for perjury once? Many Republicans thought that trying to politically lynch President Clinton was a grand idea in 1998. And Clinton's perjury was only over a blowjob, a private matter. Now, when national security and the lives of CIA agents are at the heart of a perjury conviction, a pardon is a terrific idea?!? Clinton may not have inhaled, but it's pretty obvious that some Libby supporters have.

The only hope that cases may be brought against Rove and Cheney will be at Libby's sentencing. If the judge throws the book at him, then perhaps Libby might have some very interesting things to say to federal prosecutors.

But, even that may not happen, if there's been a sweetheart deal between Libby and his former superiors. [Read: Someone from the administration blowing in Libby's ear: "Hey Scooter! If you are found guilty and are sentenced to prison, you'll be pardoned. Now keep your mouth shut."]

If Bush pardons Libby, there may not be any legal recourse, other than voters doing something about it by making the Republican Party suffer... in 2010! The president has the Constitutional right to pardon whomever he likes, and every president has done it. But, there are questions - can he or should he pardon someone who was a senior administration official? Of course, that didn't stop President George H.W. Bush from pardoning Iran-Contra figures Caspar Weinberger, John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams. So, who knows how a pardon or potential pardon could play out?

My favorite part about a pardon for Libby is this - right-wingers who work for Fox State TV like Sean Hannity won't be able to spin a Libby pardon by getting on TV and blabbering something along the lines of, "I don't mean to bring up Clinton, but Marc Rich..."

Why? Because Libby was an attorney for Rich, and he worked for a time behind the scenes to get Rich exonerated following his conviction in 1983 on income tax evasion. (Incidentally, I'm sick to death of hearing about the Marc Rich pardon. Yes, Clinton pardoned him, but it was for tax evasion. A serious crime, but many presidents have pardoned many people for far worse. See the paragraph above, or read about the Nixon pardon. And Clinton did make a condition of the pardon that Rich pay a $100 million fine, and it's not like he doesn't have the money. I've read he's worth well over $1 billion. Oh, and all of those Clinton pardons? Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress appointed Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White to investigate. Just like Kenneth W. Starr before her, she found nothing amiss about the Clintons.)

There's also a strong possibility that there's some PR at work here, too. It's one of the oldest PR and political tricks in the book, and it goes something like this: Leak a controversial idea to the media, let the outrage come forth, and it will die down by the time we actually do what's being proposed.

The media is dropping the ball on this one - everyone is already acting like a Libby pardon is a inevitability. It cannot be, should not be, and if it does happen, the American public shouldn't take it sitting down. But, only time will tell.

Circle November, 5, 2008, on your '08 calendar when you get one. That's the day after the election, and if the election is decided by the next morning (!), the countdown will be on until the end of the Bush Presidency. (Wait, we already are counting down - 683 days left in this administration!) The countdown will also then be on until the Bush pardons, too.

Fitzgerald photo and one beneath it - AP
Bottom Image "The Counts" - Wonkette

One final year-end award...

Yea, yea, I know I'm behind, but it was a busy week between Christmas and New Year's, and I wanted to offer you one more of my inaugural year-end awards. This one is for Political Video Clip of the Year. I narrowed it down to two, and I couldn't decide between them. So, once again, I bring you the co-winners of Political Video Clip of the Year. ...



This one got a lot of play on my blog just prior to the election and the day of the election. It's awesomely done, and the choice of soundtrack for this gem couldn't have been better. Watch it once more, and enjoy.

The only bummer from this video, when I watch it now with a few months hindsight, is that Ned Lamont didn't prevail in Connecticut. So, Congress (and Connecticut) is stuck with Joe Lieberman for another six years.

And the other winner, in two parts...



And part two...



It was even tough to pick from the many great, courageous "Special Comments" that Olbermann gave his viewers in 2006.

It strikes me how apropos this video is, months after Olbermann delivered it. The one thing that has changed is the wholesale slaughter of John Kerry in the mainstream media; the right-wing noise machine has moved on to bigger and better fish --- namely Nancy Pelosi and company, now that they are in power.

Keep up the awesome job, Keith. There are too few voices like yours today, who would dare to question this administration, much less slam it for the disastrous decisions it has made, at home and abroad.

Final thoughts on mid-term election

Now that the election has been over for a few weeks, I thought I would offer up some final thoughts on what it all means. I spent a ridiculous amount of time watching, reading and writing about the election, so many things struck me as particularly poignant.

I found the whole media outcry and outrage over John Kerry’s comments amazing. Yes, he unleashed a goofy gaffe, but when taken out of context, it sounded a whole lot worse than when you listen to it in its proper context, it’s not nearly as explosive or insulting to troops as the GOP noise machine made it out to be……Hey, didn’t you used to be the Contract With America?……So much for the Republicans’ “October Surprise,” i.e. – Kerry’s gaffe. I have conservative friends who really thought Kerry’s ill-advised goof would “fire up the conservative base” and bring out the right wingers in droves to help the GOP retain control of part or all of Congress. Not this time……Is it me, or did some leading polls & pollsters turn out to be remarkably accurate? For instance, Stu Rothenberg, a respected Washington, D.C. pollster who frequently appears of CNN, predicted a 51-49 Senate, and lo and behold, that’s what we got. The Votemaster at www.electoral-vote.com predicted a Democratic majority in the House, predicting 231 Democrats, 198 Republicans and six ties. We still don't know the exact number in the House yet with a few recounts pending, but he was pretty close; and he too accurately predicted a 51-49 Senate controlled by the Democrats. Looks like these two guys will get lots of attention in 2008. The Votemaster also came very close to calling the '04 presidential election, so he's establishing a nice little track record - his site uses an incredible number of polls as a predictor, so it's not just opinion.

Anyone else heard about the 18,000 votes missing in Florida? It's a textbook example of why we need election reform. I urge all of you to write your legislators, both federal and state, and tell them that the time to reform is NOW. I can guarantee you that I will have lots and lots more about this very soon, complete with a form letter to write your legislators and more of what all Americans can do about this to demand reform. Why should we wait for the next electoral disaster or controversy to get something done? Our very democracy is undermined when we have such incidents. I'm sick and tired of hearing about problems at polls every election; people being denied the right to vote, machines not working, etc. It’s inexcusable, especially since there are two years between every major election. Has anyone every heard of rehearsal? How about a dry run?

What enrages me even more is right before and election, when I see stories in the news about election officials "anticipating major problems." I always ask myself, why weren't these problems anticipated months, if not years ago? It's high comedy that the U.S. Government is always sending people to other countries to monitor elections, yet we can't even take care of our own elections here.

Something else caught my eye during the election – Arizona is now giving away cash jackpots in order to get people to the polls. What a joke. Considering what went on at electronics stores this weekend, maybe offering a Sony PlayStation 3 would have been a better strategy. The fact that state governments have to entice people to the polls is laughable and inexcusable. It's another reason people around the world must be laughing their asses off at us – the most powerful and influential democracy in the world has to give away money to entice more people to the polls. In other countries, people are dying and fighting for the right to vote and have their voices heard, yet too many Americans take it for granted.

I have high hopes for the Democrats, now that they control both houses of Congress, but their success is by no means assured, nor is their continued control of Congress. As my friend Jim, a conservative, said to me right after the election, "It’s put up or shut up time for the Democrats now." Right you are, Jim. They've been complaining about the Republicans for so long and have been out of power for 12 years (save for a short time in the Senate earlier this decade), that it's time for the donkeys to deliver. And at times, what they will do is block President Bush from what he wishes to do. Opponents will decry it as "obstructionism," (many already have, like the bloated, gambling-addicted Bill Bennett) and sometimes that may turn out to indeed be the case, but I call it "checks and balances," one of the principles this country was founded on. Gone is the rubber-stamp, Republican-controlled Congress, that in most cases moved legislation right on through that Bush wanted passed. What's more, and I know it isn't fashionable to say it, but payback has got to be in the back of the minds of some Democrats, specifically when it comes to confirmation of Court of Appeals judges, and maybe even a Supreme Court justice. (There have been rumors that Justice John Paul Stevens is considering retirement, but I hope he holds out until 2009.)

I not so fondly recall the politically dead Rick Santorum, in 2000, saying that there was little reason to bring President Clinton's Court of Appeals judges up for a vote with an election looming. Honestly, that sort of hubris came back to bite the Republicans in the ass once George W. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court. Since then, Republicans have done nothing but bitch and complain about judges not being brought up for a vote. What goes around comes around. Who will turn the tide by turning the other cheek? Don't look for that from this Democratic Congress; Bush has done little with judges other than trying to push through extreme conservatively nominees, and he's met with little success. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next two years.

The time for ethical reform is now, and I hope the Democrats take this very seriously. Americans want radical change to a political system rife with corruption, influence peddling and dirty money. So far, so good, as leading Democrats, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Above, center pic, on left) to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (above, right pic) and also

Barack Obama (above, left pic), but once January rolls around, it's time for deeds, not words. I'm sick to death, as are most, of all of this corruption in Congress. It's time for dramatic reform, and I'm not completely confident that the Democrats will pull it off. Neither party has shown a willingness to completely overhaul our system to remove the influence of money. I'll have more very soon on ethical reforms in a separate post – my Wish List for this Congress. History has also proven that power corrupts, and Democrats certainly aren't immune. One of the biggest causes of the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 was a corrupt Democratic Party that had ruled the House for 51 years & that had many scandals of its own.



I get a kick out of hearing Republican pundits saying how "the Democrats will overreach." I don't know what they are basing that on, unless you look to the Republicans victory in 1994, when they tried to impose their political and religious beliefs on all Americans. U.S. voters mostly yawned, reelecting Clinton in 1996, and voting for Gore in 2000, but not getting the leader they wanted. Check out the clip above of Newt Gingrich, who made it his and his party's priority to railroad Clinton. Mission not accomplished.

The media "coverage" over Congressional leaders since the election has been pretty entertaining. I’ve already blogged about it at length, but the coverage has been a joke – chiefly the "liberal media" making a big deal about the power play between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha, whereas Trent Lott's selection as Senate Minority Whip has gotten very little play. In the last few days since Hoyer's victory, this "controversy" seems to have died down. Hopefully, Pelosi and Hoyer will find a way to get along – press reports have detailed how the two historically have not been the best of friends. But, since the coverage has been so ridiculous, it's hard to gauge how accurate this supposed rivalry is.

Of course, the biggest issue of all is the War in Iraq, and where we go from here. Almost daily, when I watch the news or read articles about the war and what politicians are saying, I think to myself, almost every time, "This is another Vietnam, you idiots!" I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating again - Vietnam analogies have been wildly overdone, but not always. As time goes on, the similarities grow more and more stark when you compare the two wars: seemingly no way to win; calls for more troops by politicians who are too afraid to say we're "losing"; a civil war in both cases (Iraq is headed there, if it isn’t there already); not knowing who we are fighting or who the enemy is; insurgencies in both cases; rising combat deaths for a cause that isn’t really supported by the American public (a trend that is increasing by the day); a bitterly divided public over whether we should be there in the first place; and politicians who support the war declaring that if we leave, America’s security will be threatened. It's that last point that perhaps rubs me raw the most. In Vietnam, it was the faulty and ultimately false Domino Theory – if Vietnam fell, all of Southeast Asia would also succumb to Communism, thereby threatening our security. Never happened.

In Iraq, we're told that if we leave now, our security will be threatened. That's probably truer than in the case of Vietnam, but what is the alternative - our staying there indefinitely, with our troops in a shooting gallery? Of course, many who support this course of action point to Germany and Korea as similar examples of this type of commitment by our armed forces. That's just incongruent - how many of our troops were killed in Korea or Germany last year?

Arizona Senator and presidential wannabe Judas John McCain is calling for an overwhelming number of troops for Iraq. That's NOT the answer. And I'm sick and tired of people saying that we shouldn't investigate why we went into Iraq in the first place. That's unadulterated bullshit. More and more evidence streams forth every day that this administration, led by President Bush & Dick Cheney, leaned very hard on the intelligence agencies to come up with intelligence to fit their policy – invading Iraq, which was this administration's policy BEFORE 9-11. And it's not merely political pundits saying that, it's former administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.

Speaking of why we went into Iraq and other Bush screw-ups, I'm somewhat peeved that Democratic Party leaders have publicly stated, both before and after the election, that impeachment is "off the table." I'm not saying that Bush should be impeached, but there are several things that need to be investigated, and wherever those investigations lead, so be it. To come right out and say that impeachment is off the table before anything has even been looked into is premature and foolish. And the public not having the stomach for impeachment isn't an excuse, either. Congress has a Constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch. However, maybe declaring impeachment is off limits isn't a bad thing - if by some crazy circumstances Bush were to be forced from office, we'd have Dick Cheney. I'd rather have Saddam Hussein.

One thing I am encouraged about, before the Democrats even take over, is Nancy Pelosi's statement that her number one priority as Speaker is ending the War in Iraq. Well said. And notice what she’s not saying, if you click the link and read her comments, and that’s ending the war in Afghanistan. Finding bin Laden should still be a #1 goal in the War on Terrorism. All I ever hear about is how the Bush Administration has kept us safe since 9-11, but my argument (and I hope it will be one of Democratic leaders in Congress) is that we should be safer yet, and we would be, had our government not spent $350 billion on a misguided, unnecessary, preemptive War in Iraq.

Now that the election is over, the '08 campaign has officially begun. Of course, the day after the election, CNN conducted a poll asking who voters preferred in a Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, race. McCain led in that poll 48% - 47%. It's essentially meaningless, though, with just under a year-and-a-half to go until the primaries really heat up, and about 14 months from the Iowa Caucus. But, this January will be very interesting, because that’s when the biggies are expected to declare whether they are running or not, including John McCain, possibly Hillary and Barack Obama.

I have reservations about both Hillary and Barack. Clinton is simply too divisive – I would vote for her in a nanosecond and think she would make a tremendously successful and effective president, but, more than anything, I think most Democrats want a candidate with a real shot to win the presidency. I fear that Clinton is not that candidate. I really like Obama, but I have reservations about his lack of experience, but he makes up for that in other ways, including his eloquent speeches and his tremendous talents as an orator. Obama had this to say at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, about the War in Iraq and the use of force:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

When you contrast that against the Bush Administration's handling of the War in Iraq , it's pretty stark, They haven't done most of what Obama rightfully calls for when sending our troops into battle.

I don't have a good inkling about who will run and get the nomination in either party, but my early favorite to run is Al Gore. I'm sure many, many people on both sides of the political divide will roll their eyes at that name, but '08 will mark eight years since his last campaign, and I believe he's learned many hard lessons. Plus, Gore has brought the number one threat to all of humanity, global warming, to the forefront of public discussion. There's no question that global warming will be an enormous campaign issue in the '08 race, and it's due in no small part to Gore's tireless efforts. Whoever the Democratic Nominee is, it'll certainly be a Democratic strength in the campaign. Bush has done nothing to combat the problem at all, even going so far as to break a '00 campaign promise to enact mandatory carbon dioxide emissions.

As far as John Kerry running again, I'm lukewarm at best. The last thing the Democratic Party needs is another Adlai Stevenson. He ran a horrific campaign in '04, surrounding himself with inept people. If he does make another run, I certainly hope he makes better decisions this time. He's rightfully stated that his October gaffe won't affect his run. It shouldn't. It's yet another sad example of the media blowing something out of proportion. Even Newsweek, a publication I normally enjoy and like for its balanced reporting, said Kerry's hopes in '08 were likely dashed by his gaffe. What a load.

Anyway, the '08 election seems like an eternity now. We all have bigger things to focus on first. I'm expecting the Democrats to give America the change we've all voted for; I pray they deliver.

Yo, Carville - to the Dean's office!

Would James Carville and Howard Dean just shut up already? There's nothing worse than sore winners, an that's exactly what these two sound like right now. I wonder how much they'd be whining if the Democrats had been unsuccessful?

To be fair, I don't know all of the facts, but I think Carville (Above) makes a number of good points. To leave that much money on the table is inexcusable, especially when there were some very close races. I was very disappointed that Lois Murphy didn't prevail in her race vs. Republican Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania's 6th District, a district I used to reside in. The race was so razor thin, I wonder if a little more infusion of cash by the DNC would have helped. It sure wouldn't have hurt.

Murphy was the victim of lots of Republican dirty tricks, too, including Robo calling by the Republican National Committee.



But, Dean deserves his due, too. The man's got balls and a backbone, something Democrats were sorely lacking when Terry McAuliffe was chair of the DNC. McAuliffe is a very smart businessman, but he couldn't deliver for the Dems. A pick-up of six governorships and both houses of Congress looks mighty good on Dean's résumé, and those pick-ups will play a critical role in the '08 election, too.

Dean's also a good fundraiser, but as Carville rightfully states, you can't leave money under your mattress in an important election, either. Money will play a critical role in '08, but it will come down to the party nominees, too. More on that in a bit.

A good comedic look at the election

I had to bring you this - a pretty good comedic round-up of last week's election. Enjoy!

Bill O'Reilly "Analysis"

Okay, I'm not quite done bringin' you some analysis of Tuesday's election. Hannity and Matalin kill me - I could listen to these two all day, and then have even more fun shooting holes in their bullshit.

Hannity is about as distorted as it gets, and I have no idea which universe he's been livin' in these past six years, but it hasn't been in Bush's America. He wonders why Democrats polled better on tax cuts, reducing the deficit and spending? How about because they've failed miserably at all three, for starters.

-You have to love Bush's tax cuts, if you're a millionaire. How many of those were polled? Probably not many because there AREN'T many when compared to our population of 300 million.

-Reducing the deficit? Hmmm - how has the deficit done since Bush took office? Just asking.

-Spending - typically not a Democratic stronghold, I'll admit, but show me one spending bill that Bush has vetoed. I'll save you the trouble - there isn't one! The one and only Bush veto to date is his misguided, religiously driven veto of a stem cell bill in June of this year.

Oh, and one other thought - controlling spending and reducing the deficit are "bread and butter" Ronald Reagan?!? More like Miracle Whip - as in, that's what Sean is using to come up with that premise. Spending and the deficit spiraled out of control under Reagan and only came back down to a balanced budget under Clinton (and he had to shut down the government twice to get the budgets he wanted). Part of the deficit's problem under Reagan was his fetish for missile defense - a fetish that has rubbed off on President Bush, too, costing us hundreds of billions.



Here's a little more Bill O'Lielly. Yep, Bill's got it allll figured out, as usual. If he's this bad at political analysis, it's too bad I'm not better looking, because I could do worlds better than him. So, just the war cost the Republicans? And Abrahamoff? How about Foley? Hastert? Haggard? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The lies? Good 'ole Bill-Oh is looking for one or two easy reasons to package to his viewers, and it's not nearly that simple. But, you keep agonizing, Billy boy, and I'll keep laughing.

Amusing GOP Reactions to Tuesday

I'm not exactly sure how to take the clip above, but in the end, I take it that Rush was telling his listeners that he's been lying to them because so much is at stake? Is it possible that Rush could have any lower credibility? Drugs, lies and hypocrisy - what's next, Rush? Funniest of all is that there are a significant number of people out there who will believe whatever he tells them, circumstances or evidence be damned. Isn't that the definition of a cult? Ahh, whatever.

I do get a kick out of the conservative reactions to the Tuesday election. This campaign season opened my eyes to many things, and one of them is that I should try to listen to differing voices to better shape my own views. So, on Wednesday morning, I gave it a go - if for no other reason than to listen to conservative crybabies whine and sulk, much like liberal talking heads have been doing since 2000.

Among my favorites on Wednesday was Sean Insannity. This guy really is a piece of work, who will spin just about any event, fact or quotation to shape his political views. I won't even bore you with a bunch of Hannity's blarney, but the gist of it can be summed up this way:

1. Democrats will overreach and will suffer the consequences in '08. (Maybe he's drawing comparisons to the GOP, who wildly overreached following their being swept into power in Congress in '94, but that's just a guess.)

2. He mentioned Reagan about a dozen times in the hour I listened to him. That always gets me laughing - Reagan did a bunch of great things, no question, but to hear conservatives tell it, Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War and is responsible for everything great that has happened in America in the last 30 years. Something tells me that if Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter could figure out a way, they'd portray him as having influenced how the Constitution was written, too.

3. This one is my favorite example of all - Hannity rattled off a list of incumbent presidents and how they've done in the 6th year of their presidency. Take a read on Hannity's misleading facts:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate; In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate; In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate; In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats; and Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Fair enough, right? First, at the top of his show, on first mention, Insannity mentioned "President Ford's sixth year." He didn't have a sixth year, genius, since he served from Aug. 9, 1974, the day Nixon resigned, until January 20, 1977, the day President Carter took office. And one shouldn't include '74 anyway, since that was the first post-Watergate election - of course the GOP was going to get its clock cleaned, especially after Ford pardoned Nixon in September 1974. So, including that year was dumb to begin with. Later on his show, Hannity corrected himself, saying "Nixon/Ford's sixth year." Okay, no one's perfect, Sean, but especially you.

One thing that Insannity neglected to mention that pokes a big hole in his line of "6th year of the presidency" line of reasoning - President Clinton's Democratic Party, in 1998, the 6th year of his presidency and the first election since the Lewinsky scandal broke, had these results: no loss in the Senate, and a pick-up of five seats in the House. This made President Clinton, under the cloud of impending impeachment, the first president since James Monroe in 1822 to pick up seats in the 6th year of his presidency. Whoops.

Ann Coulter, on her Website weekly screed, took a more disingenuous approach to citing the Clinton numbers, writing "During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections."

So, Ann rattles off the same laundry list that Hannity did on his radio show (who copied off of who here?), but when it came to Clinton, she just added up the numbers from his two mid-term elections, since her whole "sixth year premise" didn't add up; Clinton's party added seats in his sixth year. Your readers may not know any better, Ann, but I do.

Okay, I'll wrap this up, because I could cite amusing Republican reactions all day, but why bother? But, one more, and I'd be remiss not to include this one. Written by Jonah Goldberg, it appeared this week on the National Review's Website:

How Bush Should Handle Loss
By Jonah Goldberg

I think James Baker and Dick Cheney should take Bush out to the woods around Camp David. After 24 hours in a sweat lodge, he should be given only a loin cloth, a hunting knife and a canteen of water. Bush should then set out to track and kill a black bear, after which he should eat its still beating heart so he can absorb its spirit. He should then fly back to Washington in Marine 1. His torso still scratched from the bear's claws, his face bloodied and steaming in the November chill, he should immediately give a press conference at which he throws the bearskin on the front row of the press corps, completely enveloping Helen Thomas, declaring, "I'm not going anywhere."

This will send important messages to Democrats and well as to our enemies overseas, who are no doubt high-fiving as we speak.

##

Hilarious!

CNN's Cafferty rips Bush

Okay, I'm a bit behind on blogging, I know, but call it a post-election hangover. I just haven't had the energy the last few nights to write much, but I'm returning to form and will have lots to say this weekend.

Anyway, here's a clip of Jack Cafferty ripping the president right before the election, and in my view, rightfully so. Why? Because Cafferty lays out in pretty painful detail how the president has not kept his word - about "nation building," the reasons for the Iraq War, NSA spying, and on and on (the list could be much, much longer).

I'll have a separate post very soon about Bush's latest reason for the War in Iraq - OIL! As if, Mr. President. We knew it all along, you jackass, and for those of you out there slow to learn, go back and look at one of the only places our troops guarded when the Liar-in-Chief declared "major combat operations are over" under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. I'll save you the trouble - it was the Iraqi Oil Ministry, presumably because the oil was going to pay for the war. Three plus years, 3,000 American lives and $300 billion later, there ain't that much oil under all of Iraq to repay us the cost of this stupid war in blood and money.

Pelosi's speech gives me high expectations

This is another one I meant to post the other day - it's presumptive Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's comments late on election night. Notice the blatant LACK of gloating that many expected. I'm quite certain she won't be the devil incarnate that many Republican lawmakers and pundits made her out to be.

My favorite Karl "Rovism" from this election just completed: "San Francisco Values." That one reminds me of "Massachusetts Liberal," a tag that was repeated over and over about John Kerry in '04 and Michael Dukakis in '88.

For instance, in the first 100 hours the Democrats are in power in the House, Pelosi wants to pass a minimum wage increase, and also implement the 9-11 Commission's recommendations. Sounds awful, doesn't it?

I'm sure there will be mistakes, but I have high hopes for her. Let's hope she doesn't blow this opportunity for her, and her party. I'm betting she won't.

The sweet taste of victory

Yesterday can only be described as both a crazy and historic day in American politics. It's a day I'll always remember, much like the day after President Clinton triumphed over incumbent President George H.W. Bush in 1992, but yesterday wasn't quite that sweet. Okay, it wasn't close, but it is second in my fondest political memories. Rummy "resigns," Webb wins Virginia, the Democrats now control Congress.

Webb takes the race, but Allen hasn't conceded. But, with AP & NBC News calling the race, the pressure's on for Allen to submit. His concession could come as early as tonight.

Yesterday, I took the day off from blogging to just relax, and crash very early last night. On election night, I went to bed just prior to the announcement that Jim Talent lost his bid for reelection in Missouri, so I woke up to that with a big cheer. Before retiring last night, I was reasonably sure that John Tester would win in Montana, and I saw that Jim Webb had pulled ahead.

So, I was pretty hopeful when I got home last night, and then, THE news - AP called Webb the winner in Virginia, followed by NBC News. To nominate myself for Understatement of the Year, this was/is big news.

Oh, and I haven't even gotten to Donald Rumsfeld yet.

But, I'll get to that all in due time - I've got so much to blog about in the last few days, it's tough to figure out where to begin. I have to get to class in a little bit, so I'll just offer up a few pictures, with lots more to come later today...

Okay, it's not exactly "Dewey Defeats Truman" as far as historic newspaper covers, but yesterday's Philadelphia Daily News made me laugh and was worth a picture.


I got this a few weeks ago in the mail, and I love it - my Bush Countdown key chain. 725 days to go, people, and make no mistake, the early jockeying for the nominations of both parties has already started. After the holidays, the announcements will start; Barack Obama has already announced that he will make his intentions known in January.

Anyway, get your own Bush Countdown key chain at http://www.xpressyourview.com/, and enter VICTORY in your shopping basket and save 20 percent off your order.

But, before I go, I'll leave you with this, until later today - a piece in the current issue of Vanity Fair. It's a stunning indictment of Bush's Iraq policy and includes comments from Richard Pearle and Kenneth Adelman, two of the Iraq War's neoconservative architects.

Neo Culpa

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

By David Rose
Vanity Fair
November 3, 2006

I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away.

Three years later, Perle and I meet again at his home outside Washington, D.C. It is October, the worst month for U.S. casualties in Iraq in almost two years, and Republicans are bracing for losses in the upcoming midterm elections. As he looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Having spoken with Perle, I wonder: What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think? If the much caricatured "Prince of Darkness" is now plagued with doubt, how do his comrades-in-arms feel? I am particularly interested in finding out because I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East.

I expect to encounter disappointment. What I find instead is despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration the neoconservatives once saw as their brightest hope.
To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush.

Kenneth Adelman, a life-long neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell." And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked can't do. And that's very different from let's go."

I spend the better part of two weeks in conversations with some of the most respected voices among the neoconservative elite. What I discover is that none of them is optimistic. All of them have regrets, not only about what has happened but also, in many cases, about the roles they played. Their dismay extends beyond the tactical issues of whether America did right or wrong, to the underlying question of whether exporting democracy is something America knows how to do.

I will present my findings in full in the January issue of Vanity Fair, which will reach newsstands in New York and L.A. on December 6 and nationally by December 12. In the meantime, here is a brief survey of some of what I heard from the war's remorseful proponents.

Richard Perle: "In the administration that I served [Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan], there was a one-sentence description of the decision-making process when consensus could not be reached among disputatious departments: 'The president makes the decision.' [Bush] did not make decisions, in part because the machinery of government that he nominally ran was actually running him. The National Security Council was not serving [Bush] properly. He regarded [then National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice] as part of the family."

Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute freedom scholar: "Ask yourself who the most powerful people in the White House are. They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes."

Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy: "[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity."

Kenneth Adelman: "The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."

David Frum: "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

Michael Rubin, former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer: "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves." By failing to match his rhetoric with action, Rubin adds, Bush has betrayed Iraqi reformers in a way that is "not much different from what his father did on February 15, 1991, when he called the Iraqi people to rise up, and then had second thoughts and didn't do anything once they did."

Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

Kenneth Adelman: "The problem here is not a selling job. The problem is a performance job.… Rumsfeld has said that the war could never be lost in Iraq, it could only be lost in Washington. I don't think that's true at all. We're losing in Iraq.… I've worked with [Rumsfeld] three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas. I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don't know. He certainly fooled me."

Eliot Cohen, director of the strategic-studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and member of the Defense Policy Board: "I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up drifting toward is some sort of withdrawal on some sort of timetable and leaving the place in a pretty ghastly mess.… I do think it's going to end up encouraging various strands of Islamism, both Shia and Sunni, and probably will bring de-stabilization of some regimes of a more traditional kind, which already have their problems.… The best news is that the United States remains a healthy, vibrant, vigorous society. So in a real pinch, we can still pull ourselves together. Unfortunately, it will probably take another big hit. And a very different quality of leadership. Maybe we'll get it."

Dems in da House!

The Democrats have done it! Put differently, you could say Bush (and Iraq) played just as much a part in the GOP's loss of the House as Democrats did. The Senate is another matter; as Howard Dean said on TV a little while ago, there's still a long way to go for Democrats to capture the Senate.

It will be very interesting to see how Nancy Pelosi is greeted in Washington as the country's first female Speaker of the House. Now, people who have painted her as a "San Francisco Liberal" (Do Republicans ever tire of using the "L" word?!?) have to work with her to pass legislation.

I laughed like crazy listening to Bill Bennett, the gambling addict Republican blowhard, who predicted "gridlock government" in the face of a Democratic takeover in the House. Ridiculous - that's just a spoiled Republican attitude stemming from a rubber-stamp Congress that would pass basically whatever Bush and Rove wanted. Now, Democrats will have a voice. That ain't gridlock - it's accountability and oversight over the Executive Branch.

Even the best of presidents have had to work with opposition in Congress to accomplish their goals; Ronald Reagan had to work with a Democratic Congress, and Bill Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress for six of his eight years in office.

With a few races left in the Senate, Democrats even have an outside shot at winning control. I hate to sound like a political pundit, but America has spoken that it wants change - now let's see if President Bush is listening.

So far, so good...

I've waited a long time for this night - Rick Santorum has been routed in his bid for re-election to the Senate - he just conceited (okay, just kidding - "conceded") to Bob Casey Jr. Slick Rick's no dummy, though - his speech tonight was very conciliatory in the vein of Al Gore's concession speech following the 2000 election; after all, Santorum wants a political future. I would not at all be surprised to see him run for governor some day, but if he does, he'll have to modify his tone - at present he's on the very far right, and Pennsylvania has many Democrats skeptical of him at best. Thankfully, I won't be living here by the time Ed Rendell's second term is over.

Was this even a race? Ed Rendell gave Lynn Swann a 70s Pittsburgh Steelers-like blowout today, and that was no surprise at all. When you have zero experience holding elected office, it's a tall order running for governor of one of the biggest states in America. I've said it before and I'll say it again - we don't need our own Jesse Ventura - we need real ideas & experience, and Swann had precious little of both. He's a nice guy, but Swann is no governor.

How much joy can a guy handle in one night? Katherine Harris (above) got her ass kicked in her Florida Senate race, getting slaughtered at the polls to Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson. Sweet - she can go back to her country club life in Florida. Her appearance on MSNBC yesterday had me laughing - "You're all going to be surprised tomorrow," she boasted. Yea, we're all surprised, Harris - surprised that nearly one million people in Florida voted for you. Now that's scary. Your time is up, Katherine, and I couldn't be more delighted. Like many Democrats, I will never forgive or forget the 2000 election. Speaking to that election one more time, how in the world could a sitting Florida Secretary of State co-chair Bush's 2000 Florida presidential election effort? Apalling, and one more reason we need to fix our electoral process.

There are still several U.S. House races I'm following, but so far, it looks like Pennsylvania may contribute to the cause of trying to take the House.

And the winner is...

...the now-infamous Osama bin Laden "tick-tock" ad as my worst Republican ad run during this election. This one should offend any voter - Democrat, Republican, Independant, it doesn't matter. This is typical of what Republicans have run on since 9-11 - smear and fear. We'll see soon enough if it works.

Today's the day - get out & vote!

Photo from Huffington Post

Today's the day! Get out there and vote - do it loud 'n proud - it's the single most important thing you can do to make your voice heard and to make a difference in our country, regardless of your political views.
Before I go, I'll leave you with two quick video clips - another Keith Olbermann commentary on today's mid-term election, and the Freedom video one more time. I've blogged ad nauseum about the Freedom clip, so no more now; and the Olbermann clip is very good - he hits it right on the head and expresses most of my feelings about what's at stake today. I know I'm being redundant when I say for the millionth time - well done, Keith O.



And the "Freedom" video...

Respected pollster predicts blue Senate

This is a few days old, but it's noteworthy because Stu Rothenberg, a respected bi-partisan pollster, is predicting the Senate will go Democratic. I'm cautiously optimistic about the Democrats' chances in the upper house, though. But, I look at it this way - three months ago, I never, ever expected the Democrats to have a shot at the Senate, and I was just hoping against hope that the Dems could get control of the House, if all the stars were lined up perfectly. Now, they have a shot at both. Almost any pollster you hear except the most rabid Republican will tell you the House will go Democrat, and at this point it would be a major political upset if that does not happen. For the Democrats to even have a chance at the Senate is a shocking turnaround of fortunes for both parties.

We'll soon see how much Stu knows his stuff.

Latest voter suppression tactic: Robo-calling

It appears that Republicans have a new voter suppression tactic - Robo-calling. In short, this tactic involves computers from Republican campaign offices placing telephone calls to supporters of their Democratic opponents.

The messages begin with mentioning the Democratic opponent, leaving the impression that the phone call is coming from the Democrat. Often, voters will hang up. In many cases, if the voter doesn't listen to the entire message, the computer will automatically call back, sometimes ten times in a row, until the voter listens to the entire message. Only at the very end of the message will a voter hear that it comes from the Republican Party.

When the scenario above happens, often the result of these harassing phone calls is that people will say they won't vote the "Democrat" who "keeps bothering them with robo-calls."

The video clip above is from the 6th Congressional District in Illinois, where Democrat Tammy Duckworth is running against Republican State Senator Peter Roskam. I hope Roskam is sleeping well tonight. I'm hoping Duckworth pulls it out - not that I follow all of these House races, but this one has gained national attention - Duckworth, a major, lost both of her legs in Iraq, and the war is the #1 topic among voters, increasing Duckworth's chances.

These Robo-calls are hitting close to home, too. Lois Murphy, a Democrat, is running against Jim Gerlach, the incumbent Republican stooge for George Bush. The two are fighting for Pennsylvania's 6th Congressional District. When I heard Murphy speak at Kutztown University a few weeks ago, she mentioned her supporters are also receiving robo-calls, and they are not coming from the Democratic National Committee, or her campaign.

Oh yea - anyone else troubled by Rick Santorum's comment while he was campaigning in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, that Olbermann reads early in this piece? "Democrats have polls, we have workers at the polls," said Santorum. What the fuck is that all about?

Speaking of what Santorum is insinuating about, the ease with which the Diebold Voter Machines can be hacked is a serious threat to our democracy. Yes, it's probably too late to do something for this election (unless evidence of serious discrepancies occur, but don't count on the media to cover it - they sure as hell didn't in 2004), but we can never again have a presidential election like 2000 (and yes, in 2004). But, that will be a topic for lots of posts later this week. Back to the robo-calling...

These phone calls are despicable & should be banned by all political parties - one more reason this country desperately needs election reform. Let's hope the Democrats hear us after the election on this issue.