Bridges, and the Funny Thing About Bad Goverment

President Bush dismissed today raising the federal gas tax to repair the nation's bridges citing fiscal responsibility.

"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

This comes a week after the highway 35W bridge collapsed in downtown Minneapolis during rush hour killing five people, at least eight are still missing. As a resident of the Twin Cities, and one who traverses its bridges frequently, this event has been, perhaps, more personal than to our nation's leaders. One does not expect a major bridge, in a major city, to collapse during rush hour. It's not only stunning but obviously unacceptable.

What is also stunning is that the press has quickly uncovered previous inspections of that bridge deeming it structurally unsound. Thus I am not sure which element I find more disconcerting: the collapse of the bridge, or the wealth of information on-hand warning us that such a thing could occur and was basically ignored. Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty twice vetoed compressive transportation bills, but more on that in a moment.

Since the collapse Pawlenty has been quick to point out there are 70,000 bridges across the country that are in similar condition. His point serves two purposes. One, to illustrate the dire condition of our nation's infrastructure while at the same time assuaging fears many people have about their own bridges. After 69,999 of these unsound bridges are still standing.

But how many of these bridges are in major cities? How many carry over 100,000 cars a day as the 35W bridge in Minneapolis did? Shouldn't some priority have been given to a major bridge when it is found to be structurally unsound? Our problem is not lack of information but leaders who lack the wisdom and judgment to make the right decision with the information they have. We now know that the 35W bridge inspections had been done and their findings turned out to be an accurate harbinger of the disaster. Still, our leaders choose to take their chances. That bridge, and the pages of findings about its deficiencies, is a symbol of how we govern these days. It is now a terrible tragedy; unfortunately, and unnecessarily, a recovery zone.

There's a funny thing about conservativism, which stokes a strong American distrust for government: operations which are conducted are done so poorly that one finds the distrust reasonable. When those operations are found to be woefully inefficient, comities are formed to plumb the depths of their incompetence, but nothing changes. Amazingly, the people usually know what needs to be done without the availability of official reports. They go to their executive leaders and ask to be taxed to create the funds needed for remedy and they are turned away in the name of fiscal responsibility. Thus bad government, trying to do things for nothing, creates disasters, which fosters more mistrust in the government. In this area President Bush, and Gov. Pawlenty have done a magnificent job.

In early 2006 the Minnesota legislature produced a transportation bill which was being pushed unilaterally from both sides, and notably by business leaders, a crowd not usually anxious for more taxes, who affirmed the poor condition of our state's infrastructure. Gov. Pawlenty swiftly and dramatically vetoed the bill while musing aloud, "How dumb can they be?" The people resurrected the bill as an amendment which was voted on, and rejected, in the 2006 elections. By November 2006 enough people had seen enough inefficiency in government to allow the no-tax, something-for-nothing crowd to have its day and in the end we are left with what we (don't) pay for. Since the 35W bridge collapse Pawlenty, to his credit, says he could accept a higher gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure upgrades. A changed man, perhaps, we will see if he has discovered the leadership needed to govern above people's base fears.

Top 5 Conservative Issues That Aren't as Bad as You Think

I'll admit, I kinda like Glenn Beck. His personal story is very compelling and admirable. After reading it I have to believe he's capable of empathy, unlike so many other conservatives who are sheltered, scared white men. So, I just don't get his take on certain issues. Immigrants not speaking English? Cartoon movies promoting gay rights? Is Boo Radley around the corner too? This country faces serious problems. I don't think things like people's willingness to come here to work is one of them. Having vanquished shadowy foes of Christmas, fearfuls are scrounging for the next big problem that isn't. I'll help them out, here's my top 5 conservative issues that aren't as bad as you think.

5. Immigrants who don't speak English. Not a problem? Unpossible! Not everyone who comes here speaks English right off the bat. Your family probably didn't. My great-grandparents spoke German. They learned English. It'll happen. Most Americans don't even speak decent English anyway.

4. The War on Christmas. Uh, right. The President sends out a Christmas card every year. We light a giant Christmas tree in New York City, a pit of liberalism, every year. We scuttle into Wal Mart and empty our pockets at the alter of capitalism in the name of Christmas every year. We do have a real war going on in Iraq that was ill-conceived and ill-implemented to the cost of thousands of lives. We'd better steal a win in the "War on Christmas" (and sell books about it), for morale's sake.

3. Gay marriage. Not. A. Problem. If two people of the same sex want to get married it doesn't taint my marriage one bit. In-fact, by their own logic, it probably keeps traditional marriage much more sanctified. Hello, Ted Haggard, anyone? Here's a concept: go live your life and try to be happy. Each day has enough problems of its own.

2. Stem-Cell research. You believe life begins at conception? Fine, I'll allow that because, well, who knows for sure? But if that's your position then you view IVF as a literal killing field right? (Somewhere, a big dog barked....) Why is there an outcry on positive research conducted on embryos doomed to die anyway? The bigger issue, I would imagine, would be the practice that creates the embryos in the first place. Get it right.

1. The 10 Commandments. Our behavior wasn't that great when the 10 Commandments were up in schools and other public places. Those praying for the Commandments to be put back up probably can't even list them off, al-la Lynn Westmoreland. Besides, since when does legislating religion equal spirituality anyway? That idea has to make Jesus cry.

Just for fun, Top 5 major problems fearfuls don't want to talk about...

5. The huge federal deceit
4. The average American being in debt
3. The simple fact that countries/people we used to be able to push around now have the means to make our lives miserable
2. Health care reform
1. Iraq: the growing sinkhole

You Say Tancredo, I Say Bigot

I hadn't really felt like blogging much since getting back from Thanksgiving. And then Tom Tancredo opened his mouth. Tom Tancredo, Republican representative from Colorado, anti-immigration activist, bigot.

Tancredo was in South Florida joining the likes of media giants Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter at a four-day event called "Restoration Weekend" which concluded today. All of that conservative, nationalist testosterone (yes, you, Ann...) must have gone right to his head when he compared Miami to a "third world country" when using the city as an example of immigration run rampant.

"Look at what has happened to Miami. It has become a Third World country," he said. "You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a Third World country."

Colorado is 94% white, so it's no wonder Tancredo gets a little nervous about immigration. To him Chicago must seem like Canada, Maimi is the third world, and Hawaii must be another planet altogether. I'm surprised he even went to Florida for the conservative conference, he was practically in South America!

Tucker Carson, though not invited to the weekend dirge, was nice enough to give Tancredo the equivalent of a reporter's hand-job by vacating the floor on his show to gave Tancredo a chance to clarify himself.

Tancredo explained that "third world" is actually a compliment. He also reasoned that anyone who thinks "third world" is a racist term must be a racist. And then went on to describe Miami as a city riddled with poverty, corruption, violence, and poor education. So, I think what he's trying to say is that "third world" is really more like a back-handed compliment. It's a sly move to call someone a racist with logic that insults their intelligence. "Third World" means exactly what we all think it means, and exactly like it sounds: something less than our world; at best: developing; at worst: backwards. It is in itself a value statement on our status and "theirs".

Tucker Carson ate it all up with a spoon as the man love filled the studio. Atta boy.

The only problem is Tancredo is a notorious xenophobe and a staunch believer in tougher immigration laws. He's so far right on this issue he question's Bush's patriotism on the matter. Right before granting Miami third-world status, he lashed out at the White House's lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy. So, you can see his view of Miami is out of fear that America is being taken over by latin-Americans, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, those goddamn Canadians!

Miami looks like a third world country, which essentially means it resembles New York City in the mid-19th century, except that city's criminals and immigrants were mostly white. Miami's are mostly Hispanic. Are you scared too?

But have no fear, my friends, the case that America needs to be "restored" is being made by the same people who brought you the war on Christmas. Anything which is fundamentally a personal belief cannot be under attack. You see? It's like declaring war on the fact that your favorite blog is Thought Alarm. How can anyone steal that from you? Sure, your Wal Mart greeter might not wish you Merry Christmas, but that wont erase your belief if you have it? Will it?

The Christmas season is alive and well in all forms: religious and secular. Did you notice that holiday decorations were up by mid-November this year? Thanksgiving is now essentially a speed-bump as we fire up for our Christmas season.

Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall at David Horowitz's "Freedom Center" as people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Tom Tancredo stoke each others fires and lift the human spirit into a roaring frenzy of bigotry and fear. It almost makes me want to break out the eggnog and chestnuts. But while they were making merry I was spending time with my family, and now I have to buy Christmas presents. Funny how their war is a war on people like me.

McCain Defending the Sanctity of Republican Principles

Peter Baker has written an article in the Washington Post about loyalists turning on President Bush. That puts an official stamp on what I've been saying since the elections.

There's a long list of former believers renouncing their faith in the President. I've gleaned some choice quotes.

"People expect a level of performance they are not getting." - Newt Gingrich

"There are a lot of lives that are lost. A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful." - Neoconservative Kennith Adelman who in 2002 described the task of liberating Iraq as "a cakewalk."

"If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially establish an occupation, then I'd say, 'Let's not do it." - Richard Perle who once said, "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much," about George W. Bush, leader of the war in Iraq.

And last week John McCain found new religion too. He announced his intentions to run for president in 2008 by saying, "We lost our principles and our majority. There is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first."

Now, I'm trying to figure out what these principles are. Spending is up, the debt is up, the government is bigger than ever. All of these principles were slain at the alter by Republican adherents. And all of these things are, of course, the result of an illicit affair with the seductress from Babylon--Iraq.

But let's backtrack for a second. In 2000 these believers in principles nominated Bush, who had almost zero government experience. He won the election and surrounded himself with people like Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Everyone seemed pleased. 12 months after 9/11 the rush was on to invade Iraq. Still, no worries. Iraq was invaded and the mission was announced as accomplished two months later. Three years later we are still there and a few weeks ago you'd be hard pressed to find any Republicans who thought their principles were violated.

But McCain is now doing what is politically prudent, employing the Rush Limbaugh defense that he will no longer carry Bush's water. So, I suppose we will hear no more rhetoric like this:

"I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” - McCain on March 23, 2003

"They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight." - McCain's 2004 RNC speech.

“Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” - McCain in December 8, 2005

Call me crazy but I feel like the Republicans are only sorry that they lost their principles because they got caught. People had finally had enough of corruption, lies, aggression, thoughtlessness, conceit, and contempt. It was like being married to a cheating spouse who also pathologically lies about while promisesing the moon. You're a good person, you want to believe in people, and that trust got abused. After six years we finally threw the bums out. Now people like McCain are tired of selling their services?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Senator McCain is a good man. I once heard him on NPR talking about Ernest Hemingway and he was thoughtful and pleasant. But I do have to question his sincerity and judgment, the way I must question anyone who still has a Bush / Cheney bumper stiker on their car. Are they insane? Are they blind? Do they just not care?

I saw McCain on "This Week" and George Stephanopoulos asked if we should continue the Bush tax cuts. McCain believes we should. Then Stephanopoulos pointed out that McCain voted against the tax cuts. McCain admitted he did, for good reason--you can't cut taxes during war, and there was no curb on spending. Stephanopoulos then wanted to know how those two principles are consistent--voting against tax cuts for good reason but then wanting the tax cuts extended. And McCain said that's how things currently are and they should stay the same.

Sound familiar?

I suppose when you get down to it, that is what conservativism is all about--fear of change. And in that sense McCain may be staking out bold new ground, years behind any potential Republican candidate. Top that, Giuliani!

What Republicans don't get is that it's their lack of hindsight that people find dangerous. Their lack of an ability to take a complex and changing world and formulate a pragmatic position for tomorrow, is a dangerous framework to formulate policy from. This is all evident by their inability to see the principles behind the war in Iraq as the real problem. Illogical is the desire to cut taxes while fighting a war. Impudent is the belief that we can nation build and disregard the very root of terrorism. And irreconcilable is the notion that smaller government is better but the government should also be spawning new governments.

The Republicans can be likened to the new Bond in Casino Royale. You can't stop them. They churn forward, through walls, over barriers, past explosions, never looking back. But when the goals themselves are so easily betrayed by their own adherents, what does that tell you? When the resulting action is a mismatch of fundamentalism, stubbornness, and failure, the machine must be terminated.

Don't believe the hype, all this talk about defending principles. While they were busy defending marriage, they traded their own true love for a charlatan from Texas.

Any other thoughts?

Bush? I Never Knew Him!

According to a recent Newsweek poll Bush's ratings have tumbled to a new low. Only 31% of people asked believe he is doing a good job. At this point it's like beating a dead horse, or picking on the slow kid at school. Sad, really. But it's music to my ears, and gives me faith that we are moving in the right direction.

To give this some perspective the lowest ratings for previous presidents were:


36% for Clinton*
35% for Reagan
29% for Bush 41
28% for Carter
23% for Nixon

*impeached

Rounding out the cadre, Dick Cheney, who is probably insane or, at best, an out of control cyborg high on its own power, has an approval rating of 31%; Donald Rumsfeld, who might be the most hated man in America, resigned with 24% approval.

All indicators show that the mid-term elections were lost by the Republicans rather than won by the Democrats. Reasons cited for the Democrats' success include the botched war in Iraq, Bush's crappy Presidential skills, out of control spending, and poor Republican leadership in congress.

The blog Agnoiologist (which is an excellent name by the way) notes correctly that this election was not a rejection of Republican principles as much as it was a rejection of Bush himself.

"This election wasn't a rejection or approval of any set of principles," it says. "This election was a rejection of incompetence. The people were angry at Bush. He had failed with Katrina and failed with Iraq. The Republican party was corrupt, as evidenced symbolically by the Foley scandal. It wasn't a rejection of any of the principles of family values, etc -- it was the corruption of the principles."

True. One only has to look at traditional Republican fanboys for corroboration to the new belief that Bush may be the worst thing to happen to the Republicans since inception.

And so the debate among ideologies is very much alive in America. The metaphorical witch may be dead, but we still have to figure out how to get home. Most Republicans will now say they only supported Bush as a matter of circumstance. But Bush, to many, represented a wonderful mix of Christianity and politics, heady nationalism and values, and this very mix is why he is able to view the world in such stark blank and white terms, an attribute too intoxicating for most conservatives to deny.

He painted the picture himself--you are either with him or you are against him. Just as Jesus said, "he who does not gather with me scatters."

Bush's good vs evil world view, stoked by a sense of messianic destiny, are what got us into such a deep mess. Bush's actions betrayed his belief that he answers to only Jesus, and those who are with him. Terrorists, Saddam Hussein, liberals...they are all enemies of this country, and therefore enemies of Christ. And so they can all be dealt with harshly and God will sort out the mess in the end.

He had so many followers and now they are falling away. Is it really just a simple matter of disowning him? Weren't they his followers? No? Really? No? Surely they were his followers? No!

Somewhere a rooster crows.

You can't simply divorce yourself from Bush, unless you are also willing to divorce yourself from religious fundamentalist thinking in politics, nationalism, and the neoconservative axiom that we should use our power to promote our values around the world.

Thomas Jefferson was invoked much during this campaign. His is an axiom, that the government which governs least governs best, is one everyone wants to claim. The Republicans have brutally driven this lesson home in a most ironic fashion, by trying to govern as much as they could get their hands on, including other countries, and leaving a trail of wreckage in their path. The hope was, probably, that God would bless the whole endeavor, but people like Ted Haggard, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley distracted Him.

If we have learned anything it is that what a person uses as a basis of judgment is extremely important. We have also learned that we can not possibly enact the mandates of neoconservativism, no matter how high flung they may sound. So I would like us to try some sober judgment for a while. Some pragmatism. Some empathy. Between the extremes lies the reality you and I live in. Let's govern there too.

Most people think with the Democrats in control of congress Bush will not be able to get much done over the next two years. That, alone, is reason enough to have voted the Democrats back into power. I have no doubt hamstringing Bush will pay unseen dividends at a level even the most gnostic pundit can't divine.

I hope the Democrats will use this chance to prove that other ways are better. We need to invest in education. It should not take six years for people to see fundamental character flaws in a man like George W. Bush. We need to invest in health care and raise the minimum wage. Our rate of poverty is unacceptable. We should employ the traditional Christian principle of working on the plank in our own eye before removing the dust from our neighbors. The answers to terrorism, the environment, poverty, are all found in cooperation, not isolation.

Rush Limbaugh: I Feel Liberated

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for 15 minutes and already two incredible things have occurred. One, Donald Rumsfeld is gone. Two, Rush Limbaugh feels liberated.

I wondered how the GOP ministry of propaganda would proceed in the wake of a stunning defeat at the hands of the Democrats and I didn't have to wait long to find out. Rush Limbaugh posted a message on his web page that said he felt liberated.

"I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why," he says. "I no longer am going to have to carry water for people who I don't think deserve to have their water carried."

Carrying water implies that Rush was somehow indentured to the Republican party; that they could buy and sell him; that his relentless shilling, mocking and lying were the result of circumstance rather than a flaw in character.

I guess there's nothing compared to the liberating power of a Democratic victory. This, then, is how the conservative talking heads will proceed and attempt to rebuild.

1. The Nazi defense: we were only following orders. Conservative mouth pieces will now say they never really believed in Bush, his ability, his vision, his mandate, they never believed the very words that have been spilling from their mouths these six, dark years. They were compelled to go against their will because serving a twisted Republican party was still far better for America than letting liberalism win. The Hannities, the Coulters, the Ingrams, the whole lot, they were just victims of a faulty Republican party that hijacked their beliefs and distorted it into a type of political terrorism.

2. Bush will be the scapegoat. This ill wind started to blow shortly before the election when top neocons, to a man, placed all blame squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his inept administration. This, after mountains of evidence, years of results. Again, the fault is not an inherit character flaw, but circumstances. The neo-conservative belief in using American power to promote moral values at home and in the world is not itself flawed. In the same way many high-ranking Germans believed Hitler took good ideas and blew them away with his insanity and ineptness.

It's looking like the last days of the Third Reich and we're just getting started, folks. The Democrats came into town and Rumsfeld tried to jump out an open window, while Limbuagh and company are singing a completely different tune. We've turned over a rock and the exposed bugs are scrambling for cover.

The light...it burns !

GOP Races to Get Out of Iraq...Emmotionally

The GOP is racing to get out of Iraq, emotionally. Ohio Republican Deborah Pryce, is the latest in a string of leaders distancing themselves from the war, in an ongoing fight to see who can support the troops the least.

The war in Iraq now polls so badly that people like Mrs. Pryce are withdrawing from Iraq, emotionally, even if they have openly supported it for years. Pryce made the attempt by telling CNN Radio, "What's happening in Iraq is not a direct reflection on me."

This is akin to a political cut and run in the final days of the 2006 campaign. People like Mrs. Pryce are essentially saying: I voted for the war, I supported the war, but now that 60% of Americans are against the idea I want them to know the war has no reflection on me. This is, of course, insane talk.



I believe the Iraq was is a direct reflection on all of us. It is certainly how the world views us, (Ah, that pesky world....), it's certainly carrying a steep price tag in lives and dollars, and I believe your opinion on the war is a direct link to your discernment.

You certainly can't be in favor of the war, and put your own pro-war speeches on your web page, and then try to sell the lie that the war is no reflection on you. You certainly can't ask the American people to give their sons and daughters for the cause, to give billions of dollars for the cause, and then ask that they not debate the war...can you?

"I voted to give the president the authority to use force in Iraq; that doesn't mean I'm always happy with what I see, but I can think of nothing worse for our troops or our prospects for success than having 435 members of Congress second-guessing our commanders," Pryce wrote.

I can think of a few things worse for our troops:

1. Believing that debating the war is harmful to the troops.
2. Sending the troops into a war that can't be openly debated.
3. Sending the troops into a war in such a state that we can't debate openly in front of them
4. Sending the troops into a war with no exit strategy
5. Accepting vague and unmeasurable benchmarks as an exit strategy
6. Sidelining someone like Colin Powell (who actually has fought a war with Iraq)
7. Supporting those who told us that Iraq was a grave threat
8. Showing no signs of discernment or hindsight while conducing the war
9. Supporting those who said they had a plan to keep America safe, which involved sending troops to Iraq, and are now admitting that plan really sucks
10. Supporting those who would rather support Don Rumsfeld then the commanders
11. Really believing that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror
12. Believing that doing anything else in Iraq, other than what we are currently doing, means "losing" in Iraq.
13. Really believing that fighting the terrorists in Iraq means we don't have to fight them in "every street in America"
14. Letting Dick Cheney speak.
15. Saying things like "losing" or "coward" or rubber stamping for those who do
16. Letting troops fight in Iraq for freedom and then trying to keep freedoms from Americans...doesn't that kind of negate what they're doing in Iraq?
17. Getting the troops stuck in Iraq while North Korea builds a nuclear weapon. Nice move.
18. Raising defect spending on the war because of reasons 1 through 12, which our troops will have to pay off
19. Swiftboating someone a vet like John Kerry, or supporting those who do
20. Using the war in Iraq to get elected then saying it has no reflection on you

Rumsfeld: I Just Work Here

When you went to bed last night you were a little worried about those John Kerry comments weren't you? While you slept the political tooth fairy left something under your pillow. House Majority Leader John Boehner has effectively neutralized the situation by saying that the Generals, not Don Rumsfeld, are responsible for the troubles in Iraq.

Hahahahahaha! Good morning, world!

Yes, that's right, Don Rumsfeld, the man who sent too few troops to Iraq, sent them with inadequate equipment, sent them in with no plan as to what to do after the fall of Saddam, is not the droid you are looking for.

When things were going were going well--that short, heady period when we were fishing Saddam out of a spider hole--Rumsfeld was "in the cockpit" against the war on terror, his war. But now? Hey, man, he just works here, OK?

In an interview Wednesday on CNN, Boehner said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer replied, "But he's in charge of the military."

"The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president," Boehner, an Ohio Brownshirt, said.

Ahh, those hapless Generals are the ones to blame. They're the ones who got us into a land war in Asia.

It's a little disheartening that the Brownshirts don't even understand the chain of command, since the military is their bread and butter. It's not like it's top secret or anything. In fact it's available at Fox News. But they understand enough to know that spin rolls downhill, a pattern that has been far more effective than anything Bush, Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld have been able to come up with.

The Brownshirts are also circulating a report that we are winning on the Eastern Front. Just ride it out, it'll be fine.

Brownshirts Subdue Heckler at George Allen Event

A heckler who confronted Sen. George Allen at a campaign appearance Tuesday was put in a chokehold and slammed to the floor by three Brownshirts in an incident captured on video.

Mike Stark, a liberal blogger, deviant, and first-year University of Virginia law student, approached Allen at an event in Charlottesville, loudly asking, "Why did you spit at your first wife, George?" according to witnesses.

Three men, members of the Storm Divison, commonly referred to as Storm Troopers, immediately grabbed Stark, dragged him backward and slung him to the carpet outside a hotel meeting room.

Did You Hear the One About the Kids Stuck in Iraq?

John Kerry started a firestorm with Republicans
when he flubbed a joke directed at President Bush. Study hard and stay in college or you'll end up "stuck in Iraq" he told students at Pasadena City College.

It is unclear if Kerry's statement has led to increased casualties in Iraq but the administration's response was so swift you'd think Kerry had sent the troops to Iraq with inadequate body armor.

"Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who’ve given their lives in this,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said. “This is an absolute insult.”

Kerry pulled a Nolan Ryan, met the charge, and bashed Snow's face in.

"This is the classic GOP playbook,” Kerry said in a harshly worded statement. “I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium.”

Kerry suddenly felt better than he had in years. "He really needed to get that off my chest," an aide reported. But Republicans were quick to point out the sensitive nature of our marines.

"Our soldiers need John Kerry's support, yet John Kerry offers nothing more than disparaging commentary," said House Majority Leader John Boehner.

This hits on an important topic. Discouragement of any type of criticism on how the war is being executed is pedestrian at this point. We are reminded almost daily that the troops need our support and many of us have responded with ribbons on the back of their cars, and flags on the 4th of July. The White House says our troops need not only this but also absolutely no sign of uncertainty as we commit more money and more lives in Iraq. While there seems to be no correlation between war criticism and US casualties rates in Iraq the previous 2,816 deaths have all been absolutely linked to the flawed decision to invade Iraq in the first place. And that is, ironically, the very thing we are not allowed to even think about. Kerry's comedic timing might suck, but he refuses to apologize because the greater evil was perpetrated three years ago, and has been since effectively been perpetuated.

But how much political damage has been done by Kerry's remarks?

"He has already cost us one election. The guy just needs to keep his mouth shut until after the election," a top Democratic strategist said Tuesday.

This certainly seems like a badly needed opportunity for the Republicans to wrap themselves again in nationalism and question the Democrat's commitment to "win" in Iraq. It's certainly a chance for someone to defend the troops honor, which the President did today by calling them "plenty smart." Yes, even his compliments are built from ruins of poor grammar. But, as in all things for the last six years, it's the spirit that counts, right?

Kerry's statement is the most recent in a string of emboldened Democratic attacks.
Jim Webb, who now leads in Virginia, easily fended off negative comments by faltering incumbent George Allen. Allen read some sexual passages from a book Webb wrote. Webb pointed out that was nothing compared to the raunchy lesbian sex in Lynn Cheney's book Sisters.

Touche.

President Bush has been out stumping but his poll numbers have actually fallen. Bush has become the star of numerous Democratic campaign adds since it was discovered that very few Americans like or trust the President.

Republicans are trying desperately to find a foothold as the mountain comes down around them. They carefully painted these elections around two issues: taxes and terrorism. Now that both are blown they've raised an old specter to aid them--gay marriage.

"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."

Man, first desegregation and now this?

Republican strategy over the last week can be summed up as such: The infamous "plan" to keep America safe is now on hiatus for re-tooling. And, on Halloween, they're up to their old tricks trying to convince people that their sacred marriage is under attack by gays, lesbians, and activist judges...oh my! Uh, let me clue you: your marriage is falling apart because you suck at being a husband or a wife. OK? Get over it.

The Democrats have clearly learned though. They too have found a marginalized group and pinned the fears of a nation on them. Yes, they've got the Republicans against the ropes with a week left before the elections. It almost doesn't even seem fair, a guy like Kerry tossing Snow out of the ring like that. But it is incredibly fun to watch.

Handling Iraq with Rubber Gloves

Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial hits shelves today, but a storm surge of information has already preceded it. It contains scathing information about Don Rumsfeld's decision making during the Iraq war, and Condoleeza Rice's incomprehension of the possible Al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11.

Donald Rumsfeld, incapable? Responsible for the deaths of thousands of our young men and women? Condi Rice wearing blinders before 9/11 and acting as a shill afterwards? These are things we already knew but now Woodward has put his official seal on things. I'd be happy but it's all so sad.

Our President, of course, loves them both to death. Don's doing a good job, right? Condi's doing a good job. We're sending Condi to Israel to patch things up over there, etc. Bush has even turned to taking advice from Nixon's national security advisor Henry S. Kissinger. No, this isn't like Vietnam. No, this president is not like Nixon, right?

Check out the WP story on all of this.

I liked the part about Rummy being indecisive and paranoid and having a severe case of "rubber glove syndrome" not wanting his finger prints on decisions. And can you blame him? The guy makes baaaad decisions.

This November it's time for a change. Send as many of them packing as you can.

Anniversary Near, 9/11-Iraq Connection Rises from Ashes

The president is on a public relations offensive this week, reminding the country that we are still at war on terror and at war in Iraq.

“The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they’re not madmen,” Bush said. “They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane.”

Speaking before a crowd of military officers and diplomatic representatives Bush pressed home his thoughts about terrorists.

Bush cited a “grisly al Qaida manual” found in 2000 by British police which included a chapter called 'Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages.' He said the manual bore an eerie resemblance to a 2002 Justice Department memo advising the White House how to legally torture al Qaeda terrorists.

“It is obvious what this means,” the President said. “The terrorists are trying to use our own tactics against us. They will fail.”

Bush then began the precarious task of trying to connect 9/11 and Al Qaida with the current effort in Iraq. The politically essential connection between Iraq and 9/11 took a serious hit on August 21 when Cox news reporter Ken Herman asked the president what Iraq had to do since 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered.

That clip can be seen here.

Since then the White House as worked very hard to make sure Iraq has something to do with 9/11.

On August 28, Vice President Dick Cheney tied the two together while attacking Democrats. “They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, but the terrorist hit us anyway.”

On September 2 Bush declared the war in Iraq to be vital to the war on terror as part of the strategy to fight terrorists abroad.

Yesterday Bush cited what he said was a captured al Qaida document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said the document described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department, and an execution unit.

A hostile take over? Standing-up a governing body? Creating education, services, and instilling justice? Bush’s point was clear: the terrorists want nothing less than to reshape Iraq in their own image.

Bush’s speaking tour comes during the White House release of a 23-page summary of the U.S. approach to combating terrorism which declares “America is safer, but we are not yet safe.”

The President, like the document, will offer no fresh plans about how to turn things around in Iraq or the war on terror or how they're related.