A few minutes ago Rick Sanchez, the host of the CNN show Rick's List, ended an interview by saying CNN would continue to follow the Sarah Palin phenomenon. My first thought was there is no Sarah Palin phenomenon. My second thought was that whatever is going on with Sarah Palin is a media driven thing.

Sarah Palin is not a majorly popular person among the American people in general or Republicans in particular. The latest poll showed that most American people do not think Palin is qualified to be President. Also, the latest polls of Republicans show that a large majority Republicans do not believe Palin is qualified to be President. I could understand the media making such a big deal about Palin if she were at least popular in the Republican Party, but she is not even that popular in the Republican Party.

Sarah Palin in and of herself is not a phenomenon. Without the media noone would care about her. Some would argue that even with the media noone cares about her. The media has been promoting her for more than a year and her poll numbers are just about as low as they were before the media started promoting her.

On John McCain's website there is a statement in which he claims he would reclaim money disbursed to earmarks in FY 2007 and 2008. Tonight, I talked with a person who does budget work and when I asked if such a thing was actually possible he said, flat out without pause, no. He claimed that it could just not happen and he was shocked that John McCain had made such a big deal about getting rid of earmarks in that even if he eliminated all earmarks it would only take $30 billion away from the deficit. In addition, the budget person said he was surprised that the media had not raised more questions about John McCain's talk about earmarks. Under the John McCain link look at the Comprehensive Spending Controls section.

Second, since picking Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee McCain has been talking about how much of an outsider Palin is. However, Politico published a story detailing all the Bush insiders that are or will soon be a part of Sarah Palin's staff. According to the article, key former Bush aides will now be working for Palin. One such individual is Steve Biegun who was a senior member of Bush's National Security Council. Biegun was also a national security advisor to Senator Bill Frist when Frist was Senate Majority Leader. Other members of the Bush team will be joining Palin's team.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/...
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAm...

Yes, CNN has decided to talk about the issue of politicians exploiting 9/11. However, they did not take on the man who has made his political career based on 9/11. They did not go after the man who claimed that his wife has interrupted a number of his speeches because after 9/11 they decided that they should never miss a chance to talk to each other, even though they were not married on 9/11. They did not take on the guy who claims that he should be elected president not based on his policies ( I am not sure he has even put out any policies), but because of 9/11. They did not go after the man who claimed that he had spent just as much or more time at ground zero than the rescue workers. No, CNN went after someone else for another reason. Who did they go after? Hillary Clinton, for taking a picture of herself wearing a gas mask at ground zero and using it in one of her ads.

This morning the Today Show finally discussed the remarks made by Rush Limbaugh in which he claimed that soldiers who were against the war were phony soldiers. Instead of just discussing the comments the Reporters alluded to the ideas that the Democrats were only attacking Limbaugh because they could not get anything done Congress and their rating was so low.

The segment started off with the reporter who conducted the story pointing that the Democrats wanted Clear Channel, the company that puts out Limbaugh show, to condemn him. She then read a statement from Clear Channel that stated, given Limbaugh's support for soldiers we find it hard to condemn him. The segment did actually show Limbaugh making the comments, but as the segment was ending the reporter, instead of talking more about Limbaugh, saying that the Democrats have not been able to get things done, they have a low rating, and it was unclear that they would be able to get the votes needed to pass the legislation condemning Limbaugh. Before and after the segment Matt Lauer asked if this was what Congress should be doing with their time. My question is why did they not ask this question when Republicans were pushing for the Senate to condemn Moveon.org.

Throughout the war in Iraq many Republicans have pushed for the war, called for the country to stay until the job was done, and criticized all who called for soldiers to be brought home from Iraq. Recently, Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling commented that he felt Hillary Clinton should keep her opinion on the Iraq War to herself. In addition, I learned that Schilling and at least one of his teammates had signs on their lockers with the peace sign and the quote "the footprint of America's chicken". I contend it is past time for people like Schilling to step up to the plate and either sign up for the military, sign up their children and family members, or sign themselves and their families up for militry duty in Iraq.

This war has raged on for too long with too many of the armchair soldiers rooting for the war, while not putting their or their families lives in danger. Now this country is at the point where if the war continues many soldiers will be sent back to Iraq for the third or fourth time. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are enough young Republicans to make up the 21,000 people needed to go to Iraq for the esculation; there should be enough for even more than the 21,000. There should be enough to take the place of all of the 130,000+ soldiers in Iraq.

This is not to say that people like Schilling do not have a right to make the comments they make it is just to say they should actually stand up for what they believe. If they support this war then they should be willing to fight the war. It is very easy to shout that you think a war is a great idea when neither you nor your family are getting shot at and dying. It seems that it might be a littler harder when you and/or your family members are the one paying the cost.

I contend the interview Bush conducted with 60 Minutes, which aired last night was incomplete. These are the questions I think the interviewer should have asked to President Bush:

1) Hasn't Iraq become closer to Iran after the war and all the things this administration has done?

2) Are you so willing to send more troops into Iraq because none of your family members, especially your daughters are not going to be affected by the surge in that they will not be in danger of being killed?

3) Haven't you tried this tactic before with the result being failure? How is this time different? How can it succeed?

4)Why does it seem that whenever military leaders disagree with your plans for Iraq you just retire them until you find someone who agrees with your plan?

I find it interesting that the media and some Republicans decided to say that President Bush was reelected under a mandate when he was reelected in 2004 with only a 1% margin of victory, which turned out to lowest of any reelected president. However, now when the Democrats gained a major victory by retaking control of both houses of Congress while not losing any seats those some Republicans and the media say the Democrats should tread lightly and not simply the message the people sent them concerning Iraq.

Recently, John McCain was one of the Republicans who warned the Democrats to not simplify the message they were sent by interpreting it as the people saying they want the troops taken from Iraq at all costs. I do wonder how McCain can say this when all the polls show a majority of people either want all or some of the troops to come home. In addition, it seems that many family members of military personnel want all the soldiers to come home. It seems like many military families are getting upset with their family members being sent to war zones four and five times. Finally, it was reported that when Bush visited soldiers yesterday he was given a cool welcome at best. That should be enough to show that the Democrats would not be overstepping their bounds if they did fight to remove troops from Iraq. It seems that both the American people and the American military have grown tired of the Iraq War.

Today, at the blog Think Progress it was mentioned that in an effort respond to the American people's displeasure with Bush's plan to add more troops in Iraq Tony Snow, the White House Spokemen said Americans are out of touch with the reality of the war in Iraq. To Mr. Snow I say no, the American people are not out of touch with to progress or lack thereof in Iraq. No, the mothers, fathers, sons, daugthers, husbands, wives, brother, sisters, cousins, friends, and other community members are not the ones out of touch with the reality of the situation in Iraq. They are the people who see the soldiers, saliors, airmen, and marines ranging in ages from 17,18-60+ come home in coffins. They are the ones who hear the stories of how their children were captured, tortured, and/or mutlitated. They are the one who read the letters from their sons and daugthers about how the food makes them sick, how the water is not always that good, the equipment is not properly fitted or made, and how they are just heartbroken that their tour which was supposed to end today just got extended. They are the people whose family member died the day before they were supposed to come home or 10 days after their tour of duty was supposed to end. They are the ones to whom the 3,000 dead soldiers and thousands wounded are not just numbers or names. They are the ones to whom John Q. Public really has a name. They are the one to whom G.I. Joe is not good enough, his/her name is... They are the ones who know the 18 year old kid who had a scholarship to go to college, but decided to join the military only to return home in a coffin. They are the ones who know the losses and actually have to live with the losses every day of their lives. They are the ones to whom the one, two, three, four, or more blue and/or gold stars actually mean something. They are the people to whom those stars mean a scarfice is being made and yet another may have to be made. They are the one to whom those stars mean at least one son or daugther may never walk through the door again or at least one son or daugther will never walk through the door again. They are the mothers, fathers, sons, daugthers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, and other community members who have to see the kids they one knew, young, vibrant, and full of life move around with limbs missing. They have to look at them every day. In addition, they may have to think what would have been if not for Iraq. What about the former basketball player, the tall handsome football player who was a gentle giant, the beautiful cheerleader, the book worm who rarely took their head out of a book. Yes, see those people in the camaflouge uniforms actually had lives before they joined the military. The American people have to live with all that, while Bush and his team get to be isolated in the White House in Washington, D.C.

No, it is not the American people who are out of touch with the reality of the war in Iraq. They have to live with it every day. It is Bush who is still in the fantasy land thinking America did not lose 3000 young people or spend 100s of billions of dollars fighting the war in Iraq. I know he knows this country actually lost those soldiers, but for him it is just a number with no meaning. For others it is more than a number. He still gets to live in his fantasy world. It is Bush who needs to wake up out of his sweet dream and join the rest of America in living the reality of this war. It can be debated whether or not 20,000 troops in Iraq would make the situtation better, but it cannot be debated whether the American people are out of touch with the reality of the war. The day the blue and gold stars started going out and the day the first soldier was lost Bush lost that debate.

As of late many people in the media and across the country are asking if can bipartisanship will be able to work. The answer to that question is no. The reason is Bush does not really want bipartisanship and never has wanted bipartisanship. Bush does not use the same definition for bipartisanship that most people use. For most people bipartisanship is working together and making compromises in order to get things done. In most cases politicans try to do what is best for the country. For Bush bipartisanship is he coming up a policy and the Democrats just nodding their heads and doing what he said. For Bush bipartisanship is he telling the Democrats to jump and then the Democrats asking how high. Bipartisanship for Bush is the Democrats rolling over and giving him supreme power. None of the previously mentioned things are going to happen this time around so bipartisanship will dissolve very soon.

This time around the Democrats will ask questions about Bush's handling of the Iraq War, the economy, and other issues. This time around the Democrats will push a policy that helps middle class Americans. They will also stand up to Bush's horrible policies that have caused trouble for this country. Very shortly Bush will begin to claim that Democrats are holding up the Democratic process for partisan reasons. Very soon he will resort back to the smear politics he used in 2003 when Democrats first tried to question him. Bipartisanship will not last.