The New President

The New American President will spend months of each year, maybe even three or four, overseas, each year. Like it or not, the power of the American President can impact much of the world. Yet billions of non-voting constituents never get a visit. In 1900, this would have been absurd. How could a President communicate? Such an overseas adventure would lead to fair charges of domestic neglect. But today, with the kind of communication/conferencing equipment available within the White House budget, nothing of the sort need happen. Air Force One has served as a communication center for decades, but once it lands, it is as immobile as a building.

Can the Republicans Win Wihout The Union

In 2000, the President only won 5 States of the 21 State Union that President Lincoln had with him in the Civil War. New Hampshire is unlikely to vote for the President again. Ohio and West Virginia, which the President won in close races in 2000, were originally the beneficiaries of political-minded steel tariffs, tariffs which have since been repealed. Missouri barely went for the President, and Indiana, home of the 1915 incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, is unlikely to swing to the Democrats. Where is the heart of this white supremacy? I can hear it. I would stop it.

Bush, Corruption

Who purged the Florida voters? Who removed 10s of thousands of innocent people from the Florida voting rolls before the 2000 election, while only managing to remove a few hundred actual felons (a 95% failure rate)? Why, ChoicePoint, of Alpharetta. Who did the President decided in his infitinite wisdom to put in charge of the background checks for the 10s of thousands of new Transport Security Agency screeners? Why, ChoicePoint, of Alpharetta. Who allowed almost 2,000 people with bad records to get hired for airline security? Why, sleazeball, shit-eaters ChoicePoint, of Alpharetta. Thanks to C-SPAN for mentiong the AJC article on Choice Point. I'm rarely kind to Pedro, I doubt that will ever change, but he did alert me to that story. The best way to say this is that the same people the Bush's hired to disallow innocent people from voting was used to allow criminals to do airport security. Fucking Fun With Safety!

C-SPAN this morning

Democrat State Senator from South Carolina deftly handles a racist argument from a committed Republican. Scott Ritter, he is still right, and being attacked. Wes Pruden, shamelessly twice repeats a lie, taking his shit-filled mouth and attempting to form words that Scott Ritter would utter.

Paul, Matt, Brad, and Eugene

First, someone on the Volokh Conspiracy blog makes this absurd statement that Bush is "liberal." The fundamental problem here of course is priorities. I can't say Clinton cut the military budget brilliantly, but Bush has certainly inflated it uncontrollably. Claims somehow that Bush's foreign policy, if you can swallow this, is "Wilsonian." Wilson, you might remember, founded the League of Nations. Bush sent international war criminal (by association) John Negroponte of Iran/Contra fame to be our representative to the United Nations. Bush tends to act like international law does not exist. Certainly Bush's execution of foreign nationals (both Canadian and Mexican) in Texas, violating their rights under the U.S. ratified Vienna Consular Convention of 1968. What was Bush's excuse for being an international murderer? He said Texas hadn't signed that Treaty. Why didn't the press excoriate him, telling this (expletive never inserted) Bush that Texas didn't have to sign the treaty, because it is part of the United States of America. Clinton wasn't famous for clumsy protectionism or massive budget expansion. Compared to the straw man Democrat of Republican imagination, Bush is a great Democrat. I would make the argument that Dean is a great Republican. Against wars based on lies, fiscally sensible and self-constrained, not tied to to any special interests (watch his AG). It is almost absurd that Matt Yglesias would respond to this claim. Paul Krugman says that so far the President hasn't rolled back any of the the New Deal yet. Where has Paul been? What about Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the repeal of most of Glass-Steagal? What about the gutting of PUHCA? These are fundamental building blocks of the New Deal, not just OAS/DI. According to Eisenhower, the people who wanted to repeal the New Deal were a bunch of "stupid" Texas Oil Millionaires and Haroldson Lafayette Hunt (first oil Billionaire, also of Texas). All tending to extremist religious views (heck, their money comes straight from god, right? no work, no sweat, just cash). I like Ike. At least I agree with most of Brad's commenters, who ascribe Matt's seeming naivete to youth. Matt, if Bush is re-elected, we get another war. Think about it. Wouldn't take him even 49% of the vote to think we had endorsed his new plans.

Corporate Fascist Future

I just had a picture of it, helped along by this article from Afrika,No Basically, in the future the UN, or its replacement, will have a force drawn largely from poor nations enforcing the will of the rich ones.

More Lying From The RNC

Ed Gillespie actually said Bush's efforts in Iraq brought Libya to the table. Will the shameless lying ever end? If you read this blog you already know that's a fucking lie. Ed Gillespie is a militarist apologist. But his attacks on Senator Kerry are outrageous. However, they will be used in the campaign. Don't vote for Kerry, he has too much of a record.

Bush Plays Politics With Your Life

Hezbollah, a group that played a central role in ejecting Isreali troops from Lebanon, has set up schools and hospitals in Southern Lebanon. If there has been a single Hezbollah attack against Israel proper, I would be surprised to learn of it. Hezbollah started with a lot of support from Shi'a Iran. Iran, please note, is really the only center of Shi'a Islam in the world. Despite these long-established facts, and despite the fact that Hezbollah has never threatened nor attacked any U.S. Interests,yet the new counter-terrorism organizatoin chart gives Iran/Hezbollah it's own special set/group/section/division. How come the Department of Justice is failing so miserably at terrorism. Haven't they had two or three years, like me, in the wake of 9/11, to re-analyze what threats exist to Americans? The Bush Administration is playing with your lives. Look under "International Terrorism Operations Section II" under "Deputy Assistant Director Counter-Terrorism(CT) Operations Branch"

Goldman's Fed Prediction

Goldman has predicted that the Fed won't raise rates till 2005. Makes sense to me. Greenspan raised rates 6 times right before the 2000 election, cut rates 13 times after the President was elected, and would certainly never raise rates going into another Bush election. A great story that the press completely fell down on is how politicized Greenspan's Fed has been of late. However, on the other hand, there is an off chance that Greenspan, a libertarian and long-time friend of O'Neill, will actually decide to fuck Bush before the election by raising rates in August.

Hope

Blair being let off the hook by Lord Hutton is, on the surface, very good for for the President of the US. Perhaps some of Lord Hutton and Alistair Campbell's most out-fucking-rageous claims, that the Intelligence services never disagreed with the 45 minute claim, will send a few more US intelligence people, in the know, into paroxysms. Maybe someone with power actually cares about Americans. Certainly not the fucking President.

Intelligence Failure?

Success of Stupid

Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter, USMC, was right about everything. Yet still the press tries to pretend he doesn't exist. Why? It is very inconvenient! Here is a person that was speaking the truth, and yet they pretty much all treated him like dogshit, lending credence with unrelated images to false claims by scurrilous Presidents. Dear Mr. President, It is not legitimate to start a war for any reason relating to your person. Ex-Presidents, fathers though they may be, do not rate the protection of an all out war against a Sovereign Power. Sorry no one explained that to you before, but personal reasons are not to be used in your Office. Sincerely, Joshua Narins

"Imminent" Red Herring

True, Bush never said imminent. He never said antiestablishmentmentarianism, either. But the law that was passed to 'legalize' the invasion of Iraq said that Iraq was an existing threat, not an imminent one. Imminent means it might come soon. Existing means it is already here. So FUCKING what the President didn't call it imminent. The Congress voted, and the President signed a law saying it was far worse than imminent. Don't like my reasoning? Explain yourself. But even without that, we still have the fact that the President was telling Senators that Saddam Hussein HAD the capability to send unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) armed with biological or chemical(nuclear?) weapons, launched from ships nearby the U.S. coastline. That's what the President was scaring the Senate with. Fear-mongers are tyrants, FYI. That's what Bush was lying about to the people that counted. That's not an imminent threat? That's not an outright fabrication? Wake up, Mr. President.

Questions that should be asked

If Saddam did not intend to co-operate with the United Nations fully, why, on the eve of the promised war, would he destroy all of his best missiles? No fucking explanation, is there? That didn't stop any fucking idiot asswipe warmongers, did it? No, they scrambled a bit, then a bit more, then pretended it never happened. There was no television media discussion, at the time, that the missiles, in fact, had been on the table during UNSCOM. That, in fact, Saddam did not have any secrets related to the Al-Samoud II.

Why This Election Must Be A Referendum On Iraq

What Democrats don't understand is that if we don't make the election a referendum on Iraq, we are going to get beat. Iraq is an issue which crosses lines. Lots of Republicans are going to vote for Dean because Dean balances budgets, Bush and Kerry don't. Dean was against the war, Bush and Kerry were for it. Please, Democrats! Please!