I was in the middle of collecting my heaven points the other night when a lady called into whatever program I was watching to tell the host how much she admired Dick Cheney. I looked up from my computer. Wait, what? Is this a prank call? But no, the caller went on to say that Dick has “stuck to his guns” and she loves how he “is who he is”. This lady, who clearly shouldn’t have TV privileges in the nuthouse, likes that Dick refuses to change his rhetoric regardless of current events.

I shouldn’t be surprised though because I’ve heard a few other stupid people express a similar opinion lately. And again, feel free to replace “stupid” with “ignorant”. I can think of a few other words, but this site is for the children, so I try to keep it as clean as possible.  Anyway, so after my head exploded, I started wondering what might be wrong with this caller. What exactly is there to admire about someone who continues to say, believe, and do the same thing when they are proven wrong every single time, about almost everything?

Just as an example, does anyone believe I would be rewarded or admired at work if I “stuck to my guns”, but was consistently proven to be an idiot? Wouldn’t you start thinking I didn’t know what I was doing? Wouldn’t you’d start to believe that I wasn’t the right guy for the job?

- Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.

To be completely fair, I’ve never hated Bush. I just think that he’s been a terrible president. Which incidentally is the same thing I thought before the last election, when plenty of the recent turncoat right-wingers came out of the closet to pronounce him the second coming of Reagan, as if that was any sort of compliment.

Reading the editorial pages has become comical over the past year as conservative readers write in to express dismay at the direction Bush has taken the country. Well hallelujah and welcome to the real world people. Let me make room for you on the bandwagon. Lunch will be served in an hour. It’s crow, but there’s plenty to go around.

The story of this administration’s incompetence isn’t news to at least 48% of us. We’ve known for years. We watched one foul up after another while you were out with your friends at the “Global Warming is a Myth” rally sponsored by Exxon.

As if that wasn’t enough, I discovered over the Christmas holiday that someone I know is now sporting a huge Buck Fush sticker on their automobile. Now, this person has never been a Republican, but they’ve never exactly been political either. And thinking about it, they tend to see things in black and white, don’t really read, and often mangle the English language in new and scary ways. They’re against Bush? They ARE Bush. Talk about reaching out to your base.

Sadly, even after the wake-up call provided by the Democrats landslide victory in the mid-term elections, Bush takes one step forward and two steps back. There isn’t an easy way out for him at this point because his legacy will be based on Iraq. Remember that disaster? The one this administration said we were winning right up until the recent confirmation hearings when Dr. Gates was asked if he believed we were winning the war in Iraq. His reply? “No sir.”

Of course, I’m not really celebrating over here just because I knew something the other side didn’t. I know plenty of things they don’t know. And we’ll probably be dead before they find out. But someone is going to have to clean up this mess.  And although I don’t know who that will be, the t-shirts tell me it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.

But first, have a look.

I understood the meaning to be that all of this bad stuff happens to black people just because they are black, and they can’t do anything about it, but as soon as they want help getting into a better school (maybe uh…to help break the cycle of poverty), you’ve got whitey out there complaining that they want a handout just because they’re black. Yes, how ironical.

I didn’t give it much more thought than that until the next week when a black woman (photo included) wrote to the newspaper upset about the cartoon. The letter byline read “Offended by bias, attitude displayed in comic”. She described the cartoon as racist and complained about the insensitivity of the white sign holder.

I was pretty shocked by this development. Even more shocked after I asked the future wife for her interpretation of the comic and she had the same view as the letter writer. How could I be so wrong? Wrong? Me? Seriously?

The thing is though, I don’t think I was wrong. I’ve viewed a few weeks worth of Mike Thompson’s work and I’m convinced that he’s of the leftward persuasion. That alone may not mean anything, but combined with the visual clues, like the man’s sign, and his exaggerated clothes and hat lead me to believe that the cartoonist intended to make a point about the blinders some people wear when they view the world.

I downloaded a few “Made in the U.S.A.” logos the other day, and thought about adding them to something I was working on. Why not? I was made in the U.S.A, and I worked on that project in the U.S.A. But ultimately, it just felt ridiculous. One of those things you think about doing late at night, when you shouldn’t be thinking about doing things you wouldn’t normally do. Strangely enough, the logo might have been misinterpreted to mean something I wouldn’t have intended. Try to explain that to someone over 70.

Maybe I’m going a little overboard here, but outsourcing feels like treason. Yes, I’ve heard the economic arguments, and that’s fine. Some yahoos don’t think global warming is happening, and that’s fine too. Maybe some of the jobs really are too low level to fill over here. But plenty of them are not. Maybe we want too much. Most companies that outsource aren’t in danger of going under if they don’t. It’s business over people. It’s money over national pride.

We have a lot of state pride in Texas. There are bumper stickers that say “Texan first, American if I have time”. Maybe that’s why people don’t like us. Or maybe it’s because your state sucks. You pick. But the point is, I’ve probably spent more time thinking about why I’m proud of being a Texan, than why I’m proud of being an American. The reasons are probably pretty similar.

I am proud to live here. If called to defend this country, I’d go. Yeah, it’s easy to say that, but I’d do what I had to do. You probably would too. Of course, that doesn’t include wars started by anyone whose name rhymes with shithead. Oh wait. I should say, that doesn’t include pre-emptive strikes based on a bunch of bullshit.

Yes, Bush is “from” here. It’s not my fault. Just like the Dixie Chicks, I’m ashamed that he’s from Texas. It’s a black eye that we didn’t need. Luckily, nobody is going to ban me from the radio for saying so. Feel free to have your own wrong opinion. But Bush isn’t America. America will probably still be here when Bush is gone. I’m not happy about plenty of things the government does, but I’ll stay home before I go to Europe and put on a shirt saying I’m from Canada.

I know that the political posts on this site are far from the most popular, and that a couple of you out there disagree with my politics, but I believe the “CIA leak” story goes beyond my personal beliefs. It’s really about how far one side will go, even when it involves a breach of national security, in order to further (or protect) their agenda.

The full story has been covered better elsewhere, so I’ll just give you the short, short version, in case you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

Ready? Joe, a former U.S. ambassador, went on a CIA sponsored trip to Africa in 2002 to see if Niger had sold uranium to Iraq in the late 90’s. Based on his findings, he reported that they had not. The next year, Bush launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, based largely on the “evidence” that Joe had reported was false. A few months later, Joe wrote an article about it in the New York Times that said Bush was full of shit. A month after that, citing “sources in the administration” a couple of reporters (Novak, Cooper) revealed that Joe’s wife Valerie was an undercover agent for the CIA. It was the perfect retaliation. You write something we don’t like, we see if we can’t get your wife killed. The problem? It’s against the law to knowingly reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent.

Joe suspected Karl, but couldn’t prove it. A special prosecutor began an investigation. The White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan issued denials and said he’d spoke to Rove personally, and that he wasn’t involved. He went on to say that “any suggestion of Rove’s involvement was ridiculous”. And, Bush (at the time) said he would fire anyone that was involved in the leak of a CIA operative’s name.

Today, McClellan was taken to task by a team of reporters behaving more aggressively than I’ve seen in years, while Bush is busy playing deaf. I say hallelujah. It’s about time that someone calls bullshit. How much hypocrisy can one nation digest? Read the article about the press briefing, or even better, watch the video. It’s classic.

The question now is, did Rove actually leak the name? Maybe not, but I’d say that in the very least, he acted incredibly inappropriately and should be dismissed. Will there be consequences? Considering this administration, I doubt it. After all, could Bush really survive the next four years without his “brain”?

Those of us that support progressive candidates and ideals spent time after the election reflecting on what went wrong. Adding insult to injury, my uncle asked at Christmas if I was planning on “wasting” my vote on Hillary Clinton in 2008, since I had wasted my vote on John Kerry. Although I’m not sure that one had anything to do with the other, the fact that my uncle wanted to discuss politics with me (however casually) was interesting in and of itself. This isn’t a guy who had EVER discussed politics in my presence, and had certainly never inquired about my voting habits. But fresh off a Bush victory, it was time to crow. How does one go about devising a plan to counteract the shifting balance towards people who don’t offer an opinion on anything until they feel legitimized by a majority of voters?

Just between you, me, and anybody related to me that might still be reading this entry, the real family scandal would have been if I had revealed to my conservative family that my traditionally conservative mother, had also voted for John Kerry.

The recent moves by the Texas legislature, while disappointing, are simply a fact of life for those of us living in a large part of the United States. I happen to believe that the proposed regulations are founded on fear and ignorance, and will ultimately come down on the wrong side of history, but politics are almost never about who is right. Bush and his team played a better game, and they won the election, but the result was as much due to politics and perception, as anything else. Pa Ferguson, governor of Texas in the early 1900’s, was famously elected by fashioning himself as “Farmer Jim” and capturing the rural vote, even though he had never lived or worked on a farm in his life.

The “new conservatives” (not to be confused with traditional conservatives) practice a brand of politics that targets specific groups with inflammatory issues, and then appeals to the lowest common denominator. Votes have never been simply a reflection of ideology, but rarely in history have groups so often voted against their own best interests.

Political parties have historically come in and out of power, but lasting change has most often been brought about by progressive ideals. And it will be again.

The boy king speaks. His time ran out before he got to the part about blowing sunshine up his ass.

“The administration I’ll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what’s best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.”

Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses “the truth” to the exclusion of others.

This recent challenge to heed the truth of the Bible reminded me of an email I received a few years ago. It included a letter written to Dr. Laura regarding her controversial statements about homosexuals. I’m sure it made the usual rounds, but in these troubled times, it’s worth sharing.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination….. End of debate !

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of specific law and how to best follow them as a true believer.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident that you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times believes that we disagree on more than simply what America should be doing (the war, economy, etc.), but also on the very definition of our nation.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people’s sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn’t trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us – instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

The difficulty in accepting the results of this election for people who share a similar ideology to my own, is in understanding how a president with such a miserable economic record, who has presided over a terribly mismanaged war, could be re-elected. Was it his reputation as the worst environmental president in history? The lost jobs?

Perhaps the truth is simply that voters felt more comfortable with who they believe him to be and what they perceive as his vision for the country. It’s notable that a study done by The Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International Studies at the University of Maryland shortly before the election found that a majority of Bush supporters could not correctly identify his positions on most domestic or international issues. Maybe they saw in him a return to “traditional” values, where the rest of us saw a hard turn to the right led by Christian fundamentalists bent on legislating their morality. Maybe the guys who wrote the bible forgot to include hatred, discrimination and intolerance as immoral acts.

I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all that I can.

I run for the presidency because I want the Democratic Party and the United States of America to stand for hope instead of despair, for reconciliation of men instead of the growing risk of world war.

I run because it is now unmistakably clear that we can change these disastrous, divisive policies only by changing the men who are now making them.

I do not lightly dismiss the dangers and the difficulties of challenging an incumbent President. But these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary election.

At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to moral leadership of this planet.

- Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

I’m not usually interested in identifying myself according to labels, but rather according to my beliefs. I believe in a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. I believe that gay rights are as fundamental as civil rights. I believe that protecting the environment is our greatest responsibility as human beings. I believe that the death penalty is ineffective and wrong. I believe in social programs. I believe in gun control. I believe in the fairness of a progressive income tax system.

It’s hard to argue that Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic, have been anything but a complete failure. His incompetence has led to the largest deficit in U.S. history, the first net loss of jobs since Hoover, the alienation of our allies, and a crisis in Iraq where one did not exist. He is widely considered the worst environmental president in history. I do not value a president who looks like me or sounds like me above one who will do the best job. I do not feel more secure under the watch of a president who talks tough about war, but who did everything possible to avoid real service. I do not feel comforted by a statesman whose main talking points come from West Texas bumper stickers and Clint Eastwood movies.

I have confidence that John Kerry will be able to restore fiscal responsibility, create new and better paying jobs, deliver a practical health insurance plan that is affordable and accessible, protect the environment against big business and oil, and better protect the United States by making intelligent decisions and securing the support and respect of our allies.

It’s also clear that Kerry will protect abortion rights, and support gay rights. He has made it clear that he wants to expand stem cell research and funding, which I support. He will maintain the separation of church and state, and make the protection of our civil liberties a priority, not an afterthought.

I believe that John Kerry can restore honesty and integrity to the office of president. I believe a change is needed to restore our moral leadership at home and abroad. I believe you have to admit mistakes and recognize the truth to be an effective leader. I believe that talking about compassion is not the same as having compassion. I believe that John Kerry understands that what affects one of us, affects us all.

I believe that hope is more powerful than fear.

The simple truth is that Kerry won. He made his points better than Bush, he looked and sounded better than Bush, and he controlled his emotions better than Bush. Think I’m nuts? Take a quick trip around the major news sites and look at the polls. Tune in to a couple of cable news shows, and listen to what the analysts are saying. Bush was looking for a kill shot tonight, a chance to ruin any presidential credibility that Kerry had, and he failed. Not only did Kerry look and sound presidential, but many have commented that someone without any knowledge as to the current president would have likely guessed it was Kerry.

Bush has never been a particularly skilled speaker, but his plain and simple routine seems to resonate with Joe Average out in rural Alabama. And honestly, maybe that guy thinks Bush won the thing running away. It’s impossible to educate people this late in the game. As Yogi Berra once said, “There are some people who, if they don’t already know, you can’t tell ‘em.”

Keep in mind that foreign policy was supposed to be the strongest area for George W. Bush. He won’t exactly be able to roll out “strength” as the reason he’s the best man to stimulate the economy. His exasperation won’t help create new jobs in this country. No reasonable person believed Bush could run on his miserable record and hope to win. Instead, his campaign has focused around a ridiculous assertion of leadership. Some people have been so blinded by this notion that they have lost sight of the facts.

Apply the qualifications and ideas of each candidate in a way that hits closer to home. Do you own a business? Do you run a company? Imagine that Bush took over for a year and applied his policies to your business. What would be left when you returned? Is that a risk you would be willing to take? The United States is our company. We are the board of directors, and our votes count. The future is now.

The local news ran segments today with Ann Richards and Gary Mauro, who each ran against Bush for governor of Texas. They both mentioned that the problem with debating Bush is that he doesn’t really debate. He uses lines from his stump speeches where he feels he can make them fit. If you watched his performances versus Gore, you know what I’m talking about. If the moderator asks too many follow up questions (like about affirmative action) he isn’t really sure what to say.

A person can read anything they want (even badly), but that’s not the same as making an argument.

CBS News link via Boing Boing.

That creative application of the truth (read: load of crap) might pass muster, except that documents surfaced this week from one of his commanding officers that not only said otherwise, but also made it clear that pressure was applied from outside sources to have his poor performance glossed over. Of course, I’m sure that officer is just another Kerry supporter looking to screw Bush in an election year. Oh wait, Colonel Jerry Killian, who wrote the report in 1972, has been dead since 1984. Well, there goes that theory. The case is only made further by Ben Barnes (Texas Lieutenant Governor, 1969-1973), who has publicly admitted that Bush was one of the many sons of wealthy, prominent men that he arranged to have admitted into the Texas National Guard during Vietnam.

Now, just like you, I’m amazed that we’re still talking about Vietnam considering all of the more topical issues at hand, but Bush and his cronies insist on making it an issue. What else could they have done to counter Kerry’s military record? Nothing. So instead, they play this passive aggressive game of supporting “independent” groups, and then taking several weeks to call for an end to the attacks. Do you see how that works? The damage of the ads has been done. As if the Swift Boat Veterans Who Are Full of Shit (SBVWAFS) wasn’t bad enough, Dick “Deferment” Cheney hit the crowds this week with the news that a Kerry victory would mean an attack by terrorists. No, I’m not kidding.

There are drastic differences between the mudslinging being done by both sides. The attacks launched against Kerry have come mostly from conservative leaning veterans upset about his post war politics. The attacks against Bush have come from official transcripts and other documentation. And what does Bush counter with? Incomplete payroll records with large portions blacked out. The evidence shows that Bush never reported for duty in Alabama. Incidentally, the evidence also shows that the Alabama National Guard didn’t even fly F-102’s at the time, which is the only plane Bush was trained to operate. The evidence shows that Bush failed to follow a direct order and submit to a required physical. The evidence shows that Bush didn’t report for duty in Boston while attending Harvard Business School, as he was ordered to do.

The evidence shows a six month gap in his service record that can’t be accounted for by the White House, except to say that Bush must have done his duty since he was honorably discharged. It’s actually a recurring theme. New evidence is released and Bartlett rattles off the same line about Bush being honorably discharged. Well that’s great Dan, except for all of the evidence suggesting that Bush had a few connections in higher places. And what about the report written by Colonel Killian? Well Dan Bartlett says he can’t figure why Bush doesn’t have records that back up that version of events. Oh c’mon Dan, sure you can.

I’ll put aside the revisionist history and ridiculous declarations about Dubya’s “vision” for the next four years. You don’t need to have grown up in Texas to know horseshit when you see it. Or hear it. I wonder if helping to stall the economy with tax cuts for the rich was part of his vision four years ago? How about the bogus war in Iraq? Was that part of the vision? What about running up a record high deficit? Still part of the vision? The right wing partisan politics that divided the country even further? The wasted opportunity to grow stronger in our alliances? Oh right, all part of the vision. I’m afraid of what this administration would do with four more years to implement their vision.

Meanwhile, Frist took the opportunity to tell a story about the time his father came to visit him shortly after his election to Congress. Apparently his door read “William Frist”, and the old man took exception to the slight. It should have read William Frist, M.D.! William Frist is not just another man, he is a medical doctor. Well sure enough, Bill had it changed, and now it’s a constant reminder that he’s better than you. Okay, I paraphrased a little. The real question is, does he write William Frist, M.D. on the sign up list at Super Cuts, or just Bill? Shouldn’t they be on notice that he’s “committed to healing and helping people”?

Of course, healing and helping people can require a great deal of training. During medical school, Bill would often adopt cats from his local animal shelter. Isn’t that nice? Old stone heart giving a loving home to our furry friends. I’m all warm inside. Oh wait, I forgot about something. Bill wasn’t adopting a pet. He took them home and experimented on them to practice for school. I can’t be sure, but that must be part of what compassionate conservatism is all about. I wonder if he passes the “beer test” that the Republicans use to compare Bush and Kerry. Would you be interested in having a beer with William Frist, M.D.? Let’s see, his eHarmony profile reads, “Hardline conservative medical doctor from Tennessee seeks beer buddies. Interests include cultivating pompous attitude, telling stories about Dad, and experimenting on pets.”

I suppose I could offer a post with more substance to refute his preposterous contentions, but I’ll pass. I will mention that I laugh every time I hear a wealthy conservative talk about tort reform. It’s become great sport this year because John Edwards is a former trial lawyer. That’s right, a trial lawyer. It’s not just a buzzword at election time, but a true representation of ALL THAT IS UNHOLY. We’ll just ignore the merits of his particular cases, and the endorsement of several former adversaries who vote on both sides of the fence. Didn’t you hear me? John Edwards is a former trial lawyer. I wonder how many pets you have to adopt to get that job.

Apparently Obama’s keynote speech at the DNC electrified more than just the Democratic base. Somehow it managed to turn the Illinois senate race into a national affair. And if that’s the case, why choose a candidate from among the 12.6 million people actually living in Illinois? Instead, jump a few states over and select a fairly well known conservative talking head that just happens to be black.

Yes, what a coincidence. The Chicago tribune reported:

A former GOP presidential candidate and conservative radio talk-show host, Keyes was pushed in recent days by Republicans who felt his stands on the issues sharply contrast to those of Obama, who the party has attempted to portray as too liberal for most of the state’s voters.

Who are they kidding? Alan Keyes is the only candidate whose stand on the issues sharply contrasted to Obama? And they had to go to Maryland to find him? Adding insult to injury, the Republican State Central Committee has apparently said that race wasn’t an important factor. Uh-huh. Sell crazy somewhere else.

I’ve never been a supporter of carpetbaggers who choose to run where the votes are. As much as I like her (and I do), I didn’t support Hillary moving to New York to run. It’s more difficult to gain residency status for tuition than to run for a Senate seat from a state you don’t live in. In a move that fits perfectly with the traditional Republican hypocrisy, Keyes is reported to have taken Hillary to task for making the same move he is now considering.

The truth is, I don’t think it’s going to make a difference. Obama is too good a candidate, and has too much of a head start. This last ditch effort by state Republicans is sad desperation, and in my mind, the damage done by their maneuvering will compound the damage done when they lose the seat.

So basically I’m saying, go Alan go!

Was Slim-Fast unaware that they were hiring a comedian for the job? Did they somehow miss her previous comments about Bush, or her other political commentary? If you want a “safe” talking head, hire Billy Crystal.

Attempting to put this news in historical context, the Associated Press reported the following:

Historically, corporate backlashes are not limited to left-leaning celebrities. More than 25 years ago, singing beauty-queen Anita Bryant lost her job as a spokeswoman for Florida orange juice after she mounted a crusade against gay rights.

What? On the “left” we have Whoopi making fun of Shrub’s last name, and on the right, a crusade against gay rights? Oh, that’s the same. Well yeah, except for the part where Whoopi doesn’t like an elected official, and Anita Bryant waged a war on equality and human rights. Maybe I’m being overly dramatic.

I don’t buy into this bullshit that says famous people don’t have a right to give their opinion on politics. In fact, I think that with their level of visibility, opportunity, and influence, they owe it to their respective demographics to be heard. Editors Note: I’m trying to work “bullshit” into every post.

Do I need to mention that he’s voted Republican his entire life? I’d preach to him from my liberal pulpit if I thought I could undo 70 plus years of propaganda. If only he’d listen when I tell him that Bill Frist is the anti-christ.

I was thinking about that story yesterday when I read the transcript from the interview Laura Bush gave on the Today Show. You won’t likely be surprised to learn that she claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Kerry/Edwards refuse to give her husband (who she refers to as “the president”) credit for the war in Iraq, and that Dick Cheney is the only legitimate candidate for vice president.

Perhaps she operates under the blind faith rule, as does my brother, which says that you just defend your spouse, no matter how documented the evidence, or how blatant the cover up. That’s possible. Or maybe, it’s all political posturing, and she actually agrees that “the president” is a lunkhead and his administration is a joke. Or maybe she truly believes this bullshit, and she’s even dumber than he is.

One of the more fascinating things about the First Lady is that when she was Laura Welch, she was also….drum roll…..a DEMOCRAT. Hissss. I know, it’s pretty shocking. If they had married young, and she was still searching for a political identity, that would be one thing, but she was 31 years old. It begs the question, why the switch? A true change in ideology? It’s a legitimate question that somebody should be asking.

I’m also aware that Kerry’s wife only just recently switched her party registration from Republican to Democrat. Since she was formerly married to a Republican senator and had otherwise been a Republican her entire life, I’m willing to cut her some slack. It’s also old news that she disagrees with various parts of her husband’s platform. Imagine that, a dissenting opinion from a political spouse in an election year.

There are times that members of both groups can come together and share in a mutual befuddlement regarding the actions of the Board of Regents. The Battalion reported today that the school continues to be “very” interested in landing the George W. Bush presidential library. Somehow, no matter how many times I say that last part, it never sounds right. If you wanted to name your restaurant the George W. Bush Chicken Shack, I could get behind that. Or perhaps, the Shrub School of Cheerleading. But any university that would consider adding “presidential library” after W. Bush has to seriously question their commitment to education. The stigma from an affiliation of that nature would do little to further A&M’s goals in regard to the Vision 2020 project, and would almost certainly hamper diversification initiatives.

I’m not terribly familiar with the whole process involved with presidential libraries, but I can make a few assumptions based on this news. Apparently you can be a complete dumbass, unsuccessful your entire life, lose an election and be appointed to the office by the Supreme Court, preside over an administration that is an utter disaster both internationally and domestically, and yet still have major universities fight over where you will keep your “papers”. Was that a run-on sentence?

In the middle of what is surely one of the most conservative states in the nation, lies the most progressive and cultured city in the Southwest. An anonymous poster described it as “an oasis of liberalism, anarchism, leftism, nihilism, and many other isms in a state that is for the most part an inhospitable desert to anyone to the philosophical left of George W. Bush.” I’ve always found it particularly amusing that state officials, elected by mostly conservative voters, are sent to work in the devil’s backyard.

But I digress. This is supposed to be about the movie. Based on the press in the weeks leading up to the release date, I might have expected the narrative to delve further into the details of the power relationships that define the Bush family. Instead, the documentary mostly skimmed the surface, but I wasn’t disappointed since plenty of the most damning evidence was included. There was certainly plenty of humor, mostly arising from candid moments caught on tape. I might never erase from my mind the image of Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense) putting his comb in his mouth before using it to slick his hair to one side. It probably didn’t help that he spit in his hand to finish the job.

The experiences of regular people will probably stay with audience members the longest. The story about the patriotic lady in Flint, Michigan who lost her son in Iraq was particularly moving. Having encouraged him to join the military to escape their economically ravaged town, she blamed herself for not understanding what Bush was leading us into before it was too late. A large portion of the audience was in tears as she read the last letter her son sent home, only a week before his death. In it, he questioned why they were in Iraq, and prayed that Bush would be voted out of power. Her husband, who quietly comforted her throughout the interview, commented at the end, “he’s dead…and for what?”

There is plenty more I could discuss about the movie, but I only intended to offer commentary, not a review. I’d encourage anyone with an open mind to go see it. Michael Moore doesn’t hate America, as a soon to be released documentary would have you believe. He loves it so much that he’s not afraid to say that something is wrong.

There was a loud and nearly unanimous round of applause as the credits rolled. I found myself wondering who would have thought four years ago that this might be the most important election of our lifetime?

Bill Clinton came along during my adolescence. I admired his charm and wit, as well as his vast knowledge of the issues and obvious intelligence. But what I liked most about the man was that he seemed curious about the world. He had many of the same questions any reasonable person would have, and he wasn’t afraid to admit that even though he didn’t have all the answers, he’d love to talk about it.

Some people say that Clinton’s legacy was tarnished by the scandals during the later years of his presidency, but I’ve never thought so. It’s possible that I’m morally bankrupt, but I didn’t find his “crimes” to be so shocking or extreme. I might have liked him more for proving so human and fallible. There are people that claim to like Bush for similar reasons. Apparently his bumbling speeches and goofy smirk make him a regular guy, which is fine, but don’t confuse “fallible” with “complete dumbass”. People who believe responsibility goes hand in hand with intelligence or resolve, really don’t know much about the human condition.

The Guardian reports:

Tenet spoke to CIA personnel at a late-morning gathering at the CIA auditorium. “It was a personal decision, and had only one basis in fact: the well being of my wonderful family, nothing more and nothing less,” he said, according to a CIA official who was willing to describe Tenet’s talk with CIA workers but only on grounds of anonymity because Tenet had spoken for himself.

Bush kicked in his heartfelt kudos this morning. I’m getting misty just thinking about it. Of course, no questions were taken after the announcement. This comes as a real surprise from a guy who has held fewer press conferences than any president in the modern age. Sure, tell me about how it’s because he’s all business. I’ll tell you about how he’s taken more vacation days than any president in history.

Of interesting note, the Guardian also reported that retired Adm. Stansfield Turner (former CIA Director) thought Tenet was pushed out. He had this to say:

“I think the president feels he’s in enough trouble that he’s got to begin to cast some of the blame for the morass that we are in in Iraq to somebody else, and this was one subtle way to do it”.

Most people have probably heard by now that GBu had a minor accident on his bike out in Crawford and scraped his face up. This is news? So he got going too fast on his BMX and had an accident. It’s happened to the best of us. I should have sent my brother over there to laugh at him. In a related story, I fell asleep on the floor in the living room Friday night and got a carpet burn on my wrist. Ouch.

Of course, this story pales in comparison to the pretzel choking incident of 2002. I mean, the man passed out for a few seconds. That’s entertainment! A few seconds more and Dick would have came out of the oxygen coffin and starting pressing every red button in the control room.

Since it turned out to be a false alarm, the veep should have used the extra time to see a chiropractor about that bent neck. Okay, I can’t verify that he has a neck, but his head appears to have been attached a little crooked. If anybody knows about this being a common side effect of selling your soul to the devil, let me know. I don’t want to come off as unsympathetic.

The girlfriend thinks that this was bound to happen after the photos from Abu Ghraib were released. Maybe so. But do these groups really need an excuse to murder the innocent? What statement are they really making? What effect do the accidental deaths we have caused over the past year have on this retaliation?

Why is it so hard to remember a time that we were not fighting terrorists and reading about executions?

I don’t have a problem with providing relief for couples who paid more in taxes after marriage. And even though the Republican plan is fiscally irresponsible, what really bothers me is that a tax relief bill introduced when Congress was managing a budget surplus has now been passed against a deficit.

I can’t balance my own checkbook, but that’s fuzzy math.