Krauthammer actually endorsed John McCain on October 23, 2008, about 10 days before the election. However, he famously penned an OpEd on October 3, 2008 that basically conceded to contest to Obama as not only having run a far better campaign but even as being a reasonable candidate for a liberal. Krauthammer was not alone in his public separation from all things McCain - many conservatives at the time were doing the same if not fully endorsing Obama: i.e. George Will, Colin Powell. It would be difficult to argue that this highly critical statement of 'non-support' for McCain a full month before the election was less effective than the endorsement he gave 10 days before the event.

Nevertheless, I stand corrected. Thank you to tyngsalty at the SeattleTimes for the headsup.

Can you believe it? Krauthammer, a Fox News regualar, preaching about Madisonian norms?!

We should acknowledge certain recent facts as we discuss Mr. Krauthammer's editorial. For instance, Mr. Krauthammer endorsed Barrack Obama for President in 2008. While this does not disqualify him from rigorous dissent, we must admit that this is the devil he chose.

President Obama has always shown a public disdain for the journalistic style attributable to Fox News' management. The organization uses a completely different code of ethics and style than any other major news organization in America. Born from the same part of the world whose philosophies gave us the theory of Evolution, Rupert Murdoch's philosophy for Fox news is married with the ideals of both conservatism and the Republican Party. Because we are dedicated to freedom of the press in the U.S., there is nothing about our system that excludes the right of Fox News to take this perspective.

There is equally nothing wrong with President Obama, a Chicago politician of extraordinary skill, making a political move against a political machine. Is there anyone reading this chat that believes Fox is NOT designed to appeal to conservatives and Republicans?

President Obama is making the point that Fox News has been stepping beyond the bounds of journalistic ethics for some time now. It is one thing to report the news, both as fact AND as opinion, as an independent outsider who is looking in. It is another thing entirely to report either news OR opinion as an insider looking out. When you do that, news and opinion, especially the two combined, becomes useful rhetoric for the political opposition.

Presidents have often if not always criticized elements of the Press. While President G. W. Bush criticized and shunned the press relentlessly, especially in his first term, he gave unprecedented access to Fox News.

President Obama, when he was candidate Obama, refused to participate in a debate that was hosted by Fox News. He later conceded and participated, but he had made his point: Fox News is run by insiders looking out. It's business philosophy is to trumpet well-coordinated Republican talking points and to highlight News stories that emphasize and/or re-iterate these issues. Obama thinks Fox News is a political tactic by Republicans, not an independent News station.

It's fair to point out that the Obama administration does go on Fox News. They do engage with them and do interviews, but they are much more selective and deliberate than they are with all other news organizations.

In other words, they treat Fox News like a political arm of the Republican Party, because the channel uses much of its programming to reinforce if not directly state Republican political objectives at the exclusion of any other. An interview with Fox News is like being interviewed by the Republican Party. It's not like an interview with independent journalists.

All they are doing now is letting us in on what their policy is toward Fox News and we are watching Fox News trying to make big news out of this. The more noise they make, the less people are likely to understand what Obama is trying to say. We're even watching other journalists rally to their support. But, this is just a political move.

Obama and his administration will continue to engage with Fox News. The never said they wouldn't. They've simply said how they view Fox's philosophy as having a major political component, which makes them treat Fox News differently. Sometimes, they will exclude Fox News from a round of interviews, like during the Health Care weekend. Why would you go on Fox News? Not one Republican supported it. The Republicans had lied openly about "death panels" and set up protests like 9/12, all of which could not have been done without Fox News. To allow an interview on Fox News at that time was to invite your political enemy to attack.

At other times, they may favor questions of less political organizations, especially when Fox News has already shown an open bias.

If the press, which was once composed of independent parties covering the government, is now to become insiders whose message is controlled by the political wings of the elected officials these people are supposed to be interrogating, then it must be perfectly fair thar the opposition party's elected officials treat that press differently than an independent press organization.

That just makes sense to me.

In case you didn't already know, Judge Benjamin Settle was a Bush* appointment that received only a 'qualified' rating from the ABA, vs the highest rating of 'well qualified' or the lowest of 'not qualified.' Quelle surprise...

What if?

Assumption:

We live in a global economy.

Since this perspective is universally viewed, and because the need for a solution is pressing, defense for this assumption must be postponed. Thus, if a reader disagrees with the assumption, the remaining argument fails to take the initial pose needed to proceed convincingly.

Proposition:

To resolve the current market confidence crisis worldwide, there must be a unifying event.
The world is currently in a storm with two fronts: the global financial situation is in recession, and the U.S government has caused a collapse of confidence in a previously reliable system of market evaluation.

How did this happen?

How did the U. S. cause the collapse of confidence? Allow me to summarize a more enlightened viewpoint than my own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fidere...

Because the U.S. currency and economic system has been built on a foundation of regulation and self-scrutiny together with a protracted history of growth (over 50 years), much of the world, including the most recent contributor, China, has invested heavily into the long-term stability of the U.S. economic system.

Many different steps over a course of years by two classes of people precipitated this event. The first is a class of fraudsters. It goes without saying that many people come by large sums of money through fraud. Fraud is the antagonist of confidence. When fraud prevails, confidence erodes and vice-versa.

The second are a class of ideologues who believe that the government should not in any way oversee or regulate economic affairs. This is not to condemn those who believe this as a philosophy to be sound overall. This is only about those who, in the face of real hard evidence to the contrary in an individual circumstance remain staunch in their idealistic position without leaving room for the variables that life affords. That is what makes one an ideologue.

In the U.S. political climate since the mid 1990s, the Republican party has been increasingly composed of these such ideologues. Through a course of successive ventures which solidified their position and entrenched them against any negotiations or discussions (i.e. the overtaking of both houses of congress for the first time in over 50 years, the successful gutting of regulations in various industries including how public resources are used and distributed, how laws are applied and enforced and how financial institutions are composed and regulated).

The same cannot be said of the Democrats. Although there may be some that concur with the principle of abandoning government’s traditional role, they were not in power during the crucial years that created our current conundrum.

The years in question are from December 2000 to January 2007. Note that these years are marked by complete control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch by the Republican Party.

*I recognize that in December 2000, Clinton was President and Congress was Republican. However, they key event in question was legislature inserted into an 11,000 page budget bill that The Republican Congress passed and Clinton signed during his lame-duck period before George Bush took office (and after the Supreme Court chose George Bush as the victor in the election). Clinton was in no position to veto a bill while Congress was in recess and he had one month remaining to serve. It was up to the next President to determine if there were problems with the legislation that needed review, just as today Obama is responsible for reviewing legislation that has passed since his election in November at the very least.

The period from January 2001 to December 2002, when republicans had near complete control (the Senate was evenly divided, ensuring deadlock at the very least) there were two historic reductions in revenue by the U.S. government. Taxes were reduced by unprecedented amounts which caused the country to go into debt…a lot of debt. (Ironically, this is the issue the Republicans ran on in the 90s and won – that the U.S. should not be running a debt but balancing a budget. During a speech immediately following Reagan’s term in 89 at Pepperdine University that I attended, he espoused that his number one wish for the future of our government was to adopt a balanced budget – a goal Clinton and a bi-partisan Congress achieved a few years later).

The Republicans gained full control of both the Congress and Executive in total in January 2003. Note that, not only is that precisely when the Iraq War began (a multi-trillion dollar proposition originally billed as a low-cost affair that would pay for itself), but it is also when the first subprime mortgages began to appear under the fraudulent terms of Ameriquest. It is also when the S&P and Moore’s security ratings detached themselves from oversight responsibility and simply rated mortgages and derivatives by what they industry said the value was. Congress, for their part, removed themselves from oversight by defunding the SEC – the body that oversees and regulates securities. The Executive, full of ideologues mentioned above, was pleased with the downgrade in regulation and concurred.

Then, in January 2004, the wolves were turned loose. Massive defunding of oversight by the SEC permitted the growth of dubious firms that practiced fraud by praying on the elderly and less-affluent, selling them mortgages they could not afford with terms that required no money down and were structured like time bombs to explode a few years down the road with massive interest rate increases.

By doing this, they created monetary instruments with no value – because they had no equity. To explain, consider this: what is the value of a normal house sold to a normal qualifying individual? What is the value of that mortgage if things go bad? First, there is the value of the property itself. By reclaiming the property (foreclosure) a bank or funding body can recoup at least a portion of their investment. Secondly, there is the initial deposit required. Normally, a 20% deposit is required in cash for a mortgage. Why? So that, if things go badly, there is some value in the mortgage. This cash infusion along with the property value and the steady employment of the individual create the equity for a mortgage.

When mortgages were given to individuals with no down payment, the first leg of the three-legged stool was removed. Alone, this might be ok. But, there was fraud in the lending practice. Without SEC oversight and because S&P and Moore’s stopped actually monitoring instruments to rate them and instead trusted the companies, fraud entered into the picture – a lot of it. Companies, knowing they would not be scrutinized, lent to people whose jobs did not qualify them for the mortgage. They could pay it as long as the interest rate was 0 with no money down. Once the rate increased dramatically, they could no longer afford to make monthly payments. This fraud knocked out the second leg of the stool. But the third remained – the value of the property.

In January 2007, precisely when Democrats returned to control both houses of Congress (ironically due to the Iraq War mess, though the economic issue was more prescient), the truth about the fraud began to emerge. A fear among Wall Street Investors caused the value of many companies to plummet and confidence to fall. This occurred at the same times that many mortgages began to default due to the fraud perpetrated. As a result of this calamitous meeting of two unpleasant realities, the value of the properties that had been mortgage began to fall precipitously. Worse, there grew a lack of confidence in any valuation of the properties because the fraud had created a lack of trust. But, the solvency and reputation of the Central US Banking system reassured investors that their investments were secure.

By this time, the US economy was receding. The only principle holding investors’ confidence was the sound U.S. banking system’s backing of these institutions. That backing disappeared on September 12, 2008 when Henry Paulson, head of the Treasury, refused to back the sale of Lehman Brother’s to a potential buyer. They said they could not guarantee the value of their subprime mortgage investments (and there were a lot of them). Suddenly, investors looked at their current portfolios and did not know what the difference was between Lehman, Bears, Merril Lynch, etc. What’s worse, Lehman Brothers accounting was reportedly quarterly like everyone, but was scheduled a month ahead of most everyone else. Since the market had been declining, would all the other investment banks report disastrous losses in the coming month?

Confidence in the U.S. treasury and investment industry froze. There was no equity left in the many many subprime mortgages. Worse, current trends allowed (even encouraged) by the US Congress while in complete Republican control permitted instruments like subprime mortgages to be bundled with hundreds and hundreds of other instruments, so much so that separating them to value each became impractical. As such, all of the investment portfolios of all banks who held these combined instruments were called into question.

All lending froze…literally froze. With a US election one month away, the economy had completely frozen. When the outcome of the election saw the Republicans lose their last lever of control, the Executive, the Treasury made a final move of “harry-karry” when Paulson refused to dedicate the almost 800 Billion Dollars that the Democratic Congress had coughed up to restore confidence to bolster the subprime mortgage instruments. Instead, he said banks could do whatever they chose with the funds. Of course, this did nothing to restore confidence to investors. While it made some bankers very happy (and more rich), it did nothing to solve the problem and, in fact, made matters worse.

How do we overcome this problem?

Each leg of the stool must be replaced which will take time. The most important is confidence. Investors across the globe must initially believe that fraud is no longer being practiced. Second, the instruments in question must be weeded out of the system and revalued, then re-introduced into the system. This can only be done by the government, since all confidence has been lost in the private sector. This is why you hear about Bank Nationalization so much. The government must acquire, evaluate and re-distribute these toxic debts. Then, she can release them back into the private sector after the job is complete and confidence is restored. Finally, a system of oversight regulated by a broad swath of professionals who are mandated by law and chosen by both political and independent as well as global representatives must be established.

The first step is to realize that the value we had 10 years ago, the REAL value, is still there. All of the property, intelligence, people and resources are still there. While investors can see no bottom since they have no confidence after these horrible losses, the common person can see their house, the ground around them, their property, their jobs, their community and see that all this does have a great deal of value, even if an exact price can not be placed on it today. That REAL value is the bottom of this current crisis and is exactly where we should want to be.

Conclusion

It is no surprise to the author that ALL of the major factors contributing to the current crisis were implemented under the pens of the Republican Party. It should come as a surprise to no one that greed and idealogoy as well as some lingering social resentments and partisanship is what undermined our economy. In the 2000 election, the major theme of the Republican’s was “stop counting votes”, perhaps the most un-Democratic policy ever pursued. Any true Democracy wants every valid vote fairly counted. The Republicans accomplished their anti-democratic “stop counting the votes” meme by suing the Democrats in the Supreme Court (Bush v Gore…not Gore v. Bush) and winning with the support of 5 conservative Republican judges. The Republicans publicly courted the business community over societal interests through an abuse of lobbying that has seldom before been seen. A party who unilaterally entered into a war that, at best, was based on completely false information and, at worst, was deliberately undermining the autonomy of the U.S. so that oil and global US companies could profit.

Fortunately, we are finally arriving at a point where we can begin to see the big picture regarding the problem. Short term financial incentives, such as the 800 Billion Dollar law just passed in Congress, will help. But long term reparations will take many years. It is possible to see corrective measures produce positive results in as few as three quarters under new leadership, which allow for time for laws to be created, funds to be made available, oversight to be implemented, investments to be reviewed and rated, fraudsters to be caught and removed and sound business to resume. 2010 is an ambitious goal to see a turn around. The more likely scenario is that by 2012, the global economy should see recovery as apparent.

Question

Why have you voted for Republicans in the past? Did you know they were demolishing our economy actively? Were you’re / Are you’re primary political concerns value issues, such as loosening marriage license restrictions, advocating birth control measures and education for the poor, government regulation of the health care industry by standardizing insurance schemes and regulating medical companies, etc? If you had known 10 years ago what you know today, would you have felt the same way about the way you voted in 00, 02, 04? Finally, will you change what you consider to be important as you may election decisions in the future?

I hope, for all of our sakes and the sake of our children and future generations, that we eliminate religious rhetoric in politics and demand accountability, oversight and effective government for our great country.

Peace

I was reading the news about about how the news isn't reporting news about Iraq.

It's no wonder. After the 2006 election, when they really did some reporting on Iraq and even made the military change tactics, conservatives cried out that all the news from Iraq was bad news, when there was plenty of good news. Going into the next election, a Presidential election, the US Media is scared to death about being blamed by whoever ends up losing. It's happened before.

Tired of the constant bickering between Hillary and Obama, and worried by McCain's frequent senior moments about the war of all things, I started digging for news from Iraq.

One report told of the ubiquitous electricity problems in Baghdad. I wondered, do they enjoy TV as much as Americans? Does the Iraqi President come on and talk about problems with Turkey and Syria or maybe even Iran?

Truthfully, it must be miserable trying to live in a war zone with little to no electricity most of the year. I realized that, if I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't care at all what Maliki or any other Iraqi official wanted to say (sort of how I feel about Bush, but worse). In fact, I would want to hear from the rich Americans who are basically the Iraqi Army and Police who had caused all these problems with their terrible planning in removing Saddam. I would want to hear directly from the US President about what the plan is to fix this mess.

So, has Bush ever addressed the Iraqi people? Has he ever said how we were going to solve the electricity problem that we caused by blowing the place to smitherines in 1991? Has he given a speech to them about racial tolerance, the way Obama did last week for the US?

Wouldn't it be great if the next President was willing to talk directly to the Iraqi people and tell them what the plan is for them, instead of always insisting that any talk would compromise national security?

Even wars started for the wrong reason can go well. But, we've done nothing but f*@& the Iraqi people over. It's why the rest of the world hates us so much. All we seem to be able to do is break things really well.

If we're going to spend three trillion dollars for this project, I'd like to leave it looking pristine. I doubt that can be accomplished by a military that won't even listen to a gay man's perspective.

For anyone with access to electronic information (that's you and me), the world can change very quickly based on instant information. This isn't new - it started with the radio. But that was just a hundred years ago.

Long, long ago, it used to be that all information was shared in oral discourse. People memorized stories and stories became legends. This was undoubtedly easy for we humans to learn to do. I can teach my cat to make sounds that I make. I sing with the birds. I help people sing with their voices as a profession. It's safe to assume that humans learned language quickly - and regionally.

It was the Phoenicians who learned to write it all down. This was a difficult step to do, because it required inventing a language and requires others to know the symbols. Codifying a spoken language is a difficult thing. Imagine this: write down your favorite song in a way someone else will understand. Then have that person sing it back to you - not so easy.

If that wasn't enough, it also had to be taught. The written word was imperfect because it varied with each author and often each copy, and it has yet to come together. Today, languages offer us much of the diversity we experience and, understandably, it challenges our realities.

Then, a German man, in an ingenious moment of clarity that's so monumentally simple it has perpetuated the memory of his humanness, Gutenberg invented the printing press. Suddenly, the legends could be written down. Now all you had to do was teach everyone to read! And the first thing that was printed? The Christian Bible. It's still the most printed book ever.

This did happen. We learned to read. You're reading. (I should say most of us have learned to read, since many people around the world are still live without reading at all.) This was when (many) humans became "enlightened." Such knowledge among all people gave birth to art, music, business, government, and urban development. We became much happier and we had a LOT of children.

It would take another several hundred years before the most curious among us would learn enough from reading and, thus, reasoning, to discover and invent new things: Ben Franklin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein et.al. Electricity. Light. Public utilities. Radios. TVs. Computers.

Our means of communicating knowledge has become so fast that it can't be imagined. For everyone who has learned to access and use this means of communication, the world is very, very big.

This access has happened in the past 30 years. But, something is different this time. This time, we don't have to learn a new language. This time, we don't have to learn to read. This time, everything is just out there for us to absorb in our minds and very little instruction is given.

The fact is that the Internet is like cable TV on steroids. Those who partake benefit greatly. Yet, there is a great divide, in the US at least, between those who either ignore the internet, don't have access to it or don't know how to properly search the internet to learn and those who do. It's the classic battle of the old paradigm verses the new one.

But surely we can agree on this: we are all electing our new celebrity role model. For at least the next four years if not twelve (that's 2020), we will have this figure in our living room and on every newspaper we see. We're all affected by the presence of electronics in our lives, whether TVs or computers (even if you have none in your home). We all want our next generation to be lead by someone who reflects what we are and what we hope our next generation will be like. And we want them to be outstanding on TV...don't we?

If there was one thing I wish we could all agree, Democrats, Republics and Independents alike, it would be that we all agree to proceed unafraid. What we crave together is to be engaged in what's going on. We have so much information now that we're all prepared to take action and move forward, so let's do it unafraid. We'll all be better for it.

Peace.

If there is one thing that never changes, it is reality. The Reality Based Majority that won the US Congress for the Democrats in 2006 was an educated bloc of voters that could see the reality of the Iraq War and its consequences on the US and could easily match reality to the politicians that told the truth about what was going on.

When the US population is educated with unbiased media coverage, the outcome of elections is predictable. In 1992, Clinton won because he was being honest about the economy and the media presented a lot of information honestly. (Remember Ross Perot's charts?) The Republican reaction to this failure to "get out the lie" was to create Fox News! However, in most other national elections of the past 40 years, the media have shown disdain for reality. They choose, instead, to trumpet falsehoods and confuse the electorate into voting against their own interests. The most recent example, the swift-boat lies told about Kerry, is typical. Other notable examples include Gore's "internet" creation, Dukakis' buffoonery, and Carter's character. From a safe distance, each of these falsehoods seems ridiculous, yet they actually decided national elections because the media failed to educate with the truth.

The Democrats have hung on to reality for about a year and a half, swinging with the winds of escalating climate change, escalating deaths overseas in war, escalating financial crises at home and escalating lies from Bush the Lesser. It is very difficult for politicians to embrace reality, because reality changes constantly. Politicians want consistency, lest they be called 'shifty' by opponents.

Today, the newly elected Democratic Congress let go of their hold on reality and asked their constituents and supporters to accept a bald-faced lie.

It seems much more difficult for Democrats to get away with lies than Republicans. Perhaps it is the soldier mentality of conservatives that both prevent them from learning the truth for themselves and compel them to support their leaders unquestioned. The Democrats have the more difficult position of appealing to activists and patriots (in the true sense of the word). Democrats are far from perfect, but they do seem to try harder to educate themselves to the truth.

As the media uses words like "capitulate" and "cave", loyal supporters and operatives among Democrats have distributed the word that this is Bush's War now. Sen. Reid said, "The Democratic Party will never, never, never give up."

And, with a few words, the Democratic leadership have detached themselves from the Reality Based Majority and, in so doing, have divided the majority itself. Blind followers of Democratic rhetoric try to sway realists into believing the lie, but their consciences can not. The typical accusations fly quickly that realists are being divisive and, ironically, unrealistic. "We didn't have the votes. This is the best we could do." We hear the excuses and wonder why that is not the message given to the media? Why must we digest and regurgitate the lie that, "This is Bush's War now" and "(we'll) never give up!"? Why is it wrong to tell the truth, even if it hurts. Isn't it the truth that sets us free? Aren't we the truth-tellers?

By choosing a lie, Democrats discredit themselves, much as Bush has done for the past 6 years (albeit, very slowly). Pundits and prognosticators suggest that the Democratic leadership is being very wise in planning to win the 08 election by loosening the rope and letting Bush hang himself. They don't seem to take into account that Bush will no longer be running for election.

The obvious question is, did the "Democratic Leadership" consult any of the Democratic Leadership? or the Presidential Candidates? There are only 2 or 3 among them who think this is a good idea. The rest are all publicly bashing their own party as gently as possible. Yet, when the Reality Based Majority points out the mendacity of saying, "the leadership is being smart" at the same time as almost all the leaders oppose this action, Democratic loyalists and campaign personnel begin to pummel the truth-tellers with insults and slurs.

"Why are you trying to hurt the Democrats?" The questions repeat themselves over and over. "Why are you doing this to us?" The questions are rhetorical, because the asker has already drunk the kool-aid. They simply can not accept that their leaders have just given 120 Billion Dollars to the Iraq War and, by so doing, have purchased a large investment in the endeavor. It becomes obvious that the innocent realist has become the scapegoat for a very bad decision by the "Democratic Leadership."

Reality based voters are still out there, but they have certainly lost the majority with today's decision to buy shares in the Iraq War. There are obviously plenty of Democrats who do not mind having blood on their hands, as though this is the only way to win against the villainous Republicans. While freedom from tyranny often comes with a blood-price to be paid, every battle has two sides - and it is the truth-tellers who will prevail in the end.

Will the truth re-emerge as political capitol once again? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

In 06, I donated quite a bit to the Democrats, every time with the caveat that, if they win, they'll stop the war and control Bush.

It only took me 20 seconds to say, "I told you in 06 you had my support so you would stop Bush and end this war. Now, the Democrats have caved to Bush the Lesser and you want my money? No way. You should be asking the White House for money - that's who you are supporting, after all. Don't call me again until you get a spine."

I can only imagine that they are starting to get a lot of calls like this. I'm very sad about this. The Republics were finally on the defensive, raising less money, fighting off legal charges, etc.

Now that the Democrats have shown they are not really serious about ending the war, I believe the tide will turn again. I'm sad that it has happened so early, but it's the just fruits of the Democrat's inaction.

I've written Reid, Pelosi and my senators and representatives to let them know they've lost my support once they sign their name to fully fund the war. The blood of many Americans and many more Iraqis are now on their hands.

Shame on you, Democrats. Shame on you.

Peace

What Cindy and her supporters did for Americans and soldiers today helped me realize something that had been hidden beneath a Rovian veneer and seems all to familiar.

Bush is pushing for an acceleration in the War. Why? Politics: it's the only reason Bush has ever made a decision. Otherwise, he would do nothing.

Once the Democrats sign on to this acceleration, they will be as culpable in the current crisis as Bush, inoculating the Republicans for 08 (Rove?).

There is a catch: we must fail.

Any rational person can perceive that the only increase in military presence that would have any positive impact at all would need to be a massive increase and reassertion of some governmental duties.

The Democrats have been being made to look as though they have no options except to cut off funding, since the President is charged with administering the military. Yet, the Democrats, perhaps with good reason, might be reluctant to cut funds for the military endeavor that has trapped 140000 troops in Iraq during a civil war.

We have been made to believe that the Democrats must fund the military and support anything Bush chooses because, to do less would be to deprive the troops. (Rove?)

The day has finally come and the power is shifting hands. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi may now sit in the oval office and tell Bush to withdraw from Iraq today or face certain impeachment. While they're at it, they should warn him against using signing statements under the same threat.

Frankly, I can live with Bush for two more years if he is stepped upon the whole time by Democrats and lawyers. I don't mind dangling the threat of impeachment over his head and making him heel for two solid years. Put his sorry ass out in public and make him speak. Let him impeach himself with his stunning mastery of English - especially improvisation.

But MAKE him withdraw troops.

The Democrats have a LOT of power. We must insist that Reid and Pelosi USE IT!

Peace

An unusual alignment of the political stars has left supporters of Democrats dazed in their enormous victory - and changes. As the dust clears and reality sets in, we are overwhelmed by the many differences that we have yet to realize.

In the background of this election season, a monumental shift took place. The likelihood that another Supreme Court justice will be appointed by Bush is very high. With a new Democratic Senate, an important oversight layer has been added to protect the court from fundamentalist judges.

If a vacancy on the Supreme Court should occur in the near future, the Senate confirmation battle will be explosive. The ramifications will surely galvanize a certain segment of the electorate for the 08 elections. But, before the 06 election, there was no way to prevent a fundamentalist ideologue judge from being appointed save a politically unsavory filibuster.

It's interesting that discussing the Supreme Court never came up during the 06 election. The reason the familiar Republican meme of activist judges failed to materialize is twofold:

1. The Democrats made almost NO mention of the possibility of taking the Senate during the 06 campaign. The Republicans remained haughty in assuming they would keep the Senate. Neither party was keen on talking about the Senate turning over.

2. The Democrats received a political gift in the Foley scandal, because it immunized them from the dastardly "fear gays" theme. The revelations from a proud gay man revealing truths about Ted Haggard, the homosexual drug-addict minister that heads the Evangelical christian movement, also helped by muting the megaphone of the Evangelical movement. The environment prohibited Republicans from indulging in another favorite meme: the Liberal Activist Judges threat.

Few political prizes happen instantly, but this one did. Today, our US Supreme Court is a little safer from being taken over by Fundamentalist Judges.

June 1982 - Saddam questioning a suspect immediately after a failed assassination attempt in Dujail. 150 people were sentenced to death and executed, which has now been declared retaliation and a crime against humanity.




November 5, 2006 - Saddam pronounced guilty of crimes against humanity for the execution in Dujail in 1982.


October 2006 - Rumsfeld has complete authority and is doing a heck of a job, says Bush.

The knee jerk reactions are all stepping up to the plate in response to Haggard's resignation from the National Association of Evangelicals.

"Homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures," the evangelicals association says on its Web site. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin that "brings grave consequences in this life and excludes one from the Kingdom of God.
ABC News

(As a Christian, I wish these declarations would use biblical citations when such interpretations of scripture are made. To my knowledge, the New Testament says nothing of the earthly consequences of intra-sexual practices and reserves judgment on who gets to spend an eternity in Paradise to the good judgment of God. In fact, it specifically prohibits humans from making such predictions. Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.)

Progressives who resent the hypocrisy of these people will be tempted by haughty "I told you so" responses. Jesus himself was quite vocal in his condemnation of hypocrites. Matt 23:33

But, the real lesson is much more human. Haggard was born into a generation of gay men who learned to deny themselves, even hate themselves, but they could never escape the reality of their sexual orientation. They pursue satisfying carnal relationships in secret, betraying vows and lying to themselves. Most closeted gay men in these churches have lived with such shame for so long that they are no longer able to make wise, honest decisions.

Evangelicals should learn one lesson from this if nothing else. Many of the people you know and love are gay. Most of them live secret lives out of fear and shame and guilt that eventually becomes hypocrisy. If you are truly straight, then you know it. What you should do is to start loving your brothers and sisters. Stop making them feel threatened by the religious traditions and start healing serious emotional wounds that lay just beneath the surface of the person in the pew beside you.

Video Preview

Hacking Democracy

This cautionary documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either.

--

This isn't about bitter grapes over the `00 or `02 or `04 election.

This is about the future - the `06 election.

Everyone who bothers to vote should be VERY concerned about this problem. It would be just as easy for future elections to be rigged by Democrats if that's what makes money for companies like Diebold.

The only way to make them honest is to make them OPEN.

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Simple software that any amateur could figure out. Security will be provided by EYE WITNESSES from all parties involved watching the whole process take place.

Hell, let's start having elections for Voter Defense Officers in every precinct just like we do with judges.

If the Democracts win a national victory next week, they should take little comfort in having the backing of the majority of their voting constituents. Rather, they should realize what it took to pull it off and vow to fix the problem while they have the power to do so.

McGavick criticizes Bush over Iraq war
Distancing himself from the president, the latest TV ad by the Republican candidate for the Senate is critical of the progress in Iraq.

By Matthew Daly
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Washington state's Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Mike McGavick, stepped up efforts to distance himself from President Bush by accusing the president of failing to understand voter frustrations about the Iraq war.

"President Bush isn't getting our frustrations. It's time to be decisive - beat the terrorists," McGavick says in a new TV ad running this week. "Partition the country if we have to and get our troops home in victory."

The new ad, which is running statewide, follows recent comments by McGavick that he would have voted against the Iraq invasion if he'd known there were no weapons of mass destruction. McGavick also urged Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The president on Wednesday repeated his support for Rumsfeld, saying he was doing a "fantastic" job.

HeraldNet News

---

It's an odd concept of victory to think we'll "partition the country...and get our troops home" unless he means a victory for the troops and their families to finally be out of harms way. The problems in Iraq aren't going away any time soon and the "sweep it under the rug" strategy is too cowardly to then declare victory. It sounds like a talking-point Saddam Hussein would have used.

No matter what happens next Tuesday, Karl Rove will go down in history as a master of distraction.

Every time a major story breaks, and often before it even happens, the White House issues an off-topic issue as a distraction.

The signs of this are pretty clear. First, you must have a major problem facing the White House regarding publicity (i.e. revealing there were no WMDs, release of damaging information about the war, etc). Second, you must provide a distraction that is simple to understand and distracts the majority of Americans; whether they agree or disagree does not matter and neither does veracity. It must be evocative and emotional. Finally, you must get all Republican broadcasters trumpeting the same meme with emotional vigor - no holds barred. Provocation is encouraged.

The most recent example was so effective that it remains elusive to many who are reading these words. When Bob Woodward released "State of Denial", it was a a bombshell. It was right on the mark of criticizing the Administration regarding the Iraq War. If you consider the order that events occurred, you can see a pattern that has become familiar.

Woodward's book was released early. This happened because a leak to the press of the contents threatened to lessen the sales of the book in its initial release. The book's release occurred over a hectic weekend with pundits reeling and without a successful retort.

By Monday, Mark Foley was being thrown to the wolves. Yes, times were that desperate. It's not the first time Republicans have aggressively played the "gay card." Foley's peccadilloes with pages were undoubtedly known by Rove and his minions. It's worth noting that all of the players in this revelation are either sleeping peacefully at home or on a private ranch. No one has been charged with a crime. Hastert is still at the helm of the House, in spite of Pelosi's last minute effort to take advantage of this signature Rovian distraction.

As a result, we have spent an undue amount of time inspecting the Congressional Page program when it has just been revealed that our leaders have launched an illegal war and put our military at serious risk. All of us are guilty of playing into this distraction. Being evocative is a central feature of the best distractions.

Now, with days left until the election, and nothing but bad news on television for the Republicans, Rove has turned to righteous indignation over a misrepresentation of Kerry's words. First, he twisted what Kerry was saying, then he got every partisan mimicking the theme that Democrats hate the military. It's ideal since it rials Democrats into the familiar defensive role and gives Republicans, who have no problem ignoring reality, a rallying call.

"Apologize, John Kerry!" they yell. "Why don't you want us to win the war?"

If our brave military in Iraq and abroad want Kerry, who served among them 40 years ago in the trenches of Vietnam, to apologize because they feel offended by what Bush says Kerry says, then let them all know that Kerry never said anything he meant to hurt the military and he humbly apologizes to his fellow soldiers.

Kerry wants to help our military in Iraq. Is Bush trying to help our military in Iraq? Will Bush be apologizing for mistakes he's admitted making that put their lives in REAL harm's way? Kerry doesn't hold the keys to the White House. The 2004 election decided that for us all. The keys are held by Bush, and he will be commander and chief for two more years.

The question today is, do you want him to continue unchecked, or do you want to get some real questions answered and some real action taken to complete our mission in Iraq and bring our soldiers home?

I don't want apologies from a senator in Maryland. I want answers from the President and I want the Democrats to have the power to ask them.