Office of the Independent Blogger

Karl Rove is very concerned over Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation and is sweating himself to sleep thinking about the indictment that some say is coming his way. Not only does he have Patrick Fitzgerald fogging his thoughts at night, he lacks the clarity that a handful of Congressmen have. These Congressmen are under scrutiny for taking bribes and hookers with good old Duke Cunningham. Rove’s worry is due to the uncertainty of his situation: “Will I be indicted and for what? Leaking the name? Perjury?” The Congressmen, on the other hand, have more knowledge about their predicament, and at least they don’t have to keep themselves up at night worrying about what they’ll be charged with, as they know full well that the utilization of prostitutes is not a provision of the Franking Privilege!

As I was writing this and reflecting on these scandals, I thought about the type of abuses that these men were guilty of. Rove’s abuse of power is linked to the inherent need to survive — the White House believed Ambassador Joe Wilson was a threat to their reign, and they did what all aspiring Monarchs do and went after his family, outing his wife. The Congressmen with the prostitutes and bribes, represented by Duke Cunningham, are linked to the ancient need to get as much of everything as you can — or, in other words, to greed. But I recently read On The Road, the famous Jack Kerouac novel, and it amused me how many politicians are, well, beatniks at heart.

In the novel, there’s a famous scene where Sal and Dean are conversing, and Dean says, “Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there.” “Where we going, man?” comes the reply, followed by, “I don’t know but we gotta go.” To me, that’s the characterization of the Bush Administration, especially. People have, in the past, talked about Bush having a vision and an agenda (if you recall, Time made Bush its “Man of the Year” by writing about his “Ten Gallon Hat style of leadership”), but that’s nonsense. The fact is that this is the most disorganized White House in modern history.

On Iraq, they entered the War with a rush that would make Jack Kerouac blush, and Allen Ginsberg cry. Isn’t it easy to imagine the Neoconservatives in the White House saying, “We gotta go, man” and the Pentagon saying, “Where we going?” to be met by an anxious, grinning Rumsfeld: “I don’t know, man, Iraq or something. Bring the minimum. There should be a welcome parade somewhere!” Or how about Economics. “We’ve gotta lower taxes, man.” “On what?” “I don’t know, man, we’ve just gotta put those suckers down!” There’s a lackadaisacal, act-on-impulse approach to government illustrated in the Bush White House. The approach is even evident in Bush’s approach to the 2000 campaign, a campaign he entered to reclaim the family’s honor, with no other real focus or reason. His campaign was a sham of buzzwords in ways that would make George Orwell blush.

This brings us to the 2008 elections in which Hillary Clinton is hailed as the frontrunner by consensus among the pundits, and everyone else should either shut up or understand that they’re merely there for amusement. In regard to this, people have to ask what does Hillary stand for? Surely on the Right there’ll be the obvious “Nothing” or “Liberal excesses of the 1960s,” if they’re feeling feisty. And on the Left, there’ll be “Iraq” and perhaps anger over the 1990s from the Nader Left. These things aside, what does she strive for — what would she do if she came to power?

It seems, in its own way, that Clinton considers herself worthy of the throne because her husband sat in it. She hasn’t unveiled any policies as a Senator, nor has she ever been particularly vocal about her beliefs, since her advisors have told her to be “shrewd,” “stay low” and only throw symbolic scraps to the Left and the Right on abortion, Iraq and every issue under the sun and moon. This cautious approach to running for President is the thing that will ultimately cost her, and the talk of Al Gore being the man at the toll booth on the electoral superhighway is increasing.

Al Gore is a man who is crusading for his true love, the environment, with a zest that would make Romeo blush, and he hasn’t been the least bit “calculating” with regard to his opinions: on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Congress’ pitiful refusal to confront Bush, Gore has been open about his views. It’s why the Beatnik Politicians currently in the White House and those being hailed as the second coming of Ghandi are in trouble.

A brief note: this is a bit of poetry I wrote about John McCain and Barry Goldwater. Who says political commentary can’t rhyme?
EDIT: this is a poem I am, in a lot of ways still fond of, but man…it’s such a sixteen-year-old’s poem.

Living in the Arid Zone Of

John McCain of Arizona
Lives in the Arid Zone of
Barry Goldwater’s Shadow
A place that glows like El Dorado
But all that glitters isn’t gold
And this space is bright and green
I’ve never heard it told
That McCain’s a weapon’s dream

People seem to be forgetting
The legacy they’d be getting
If they insisted on electing
The Senator from Arizona
Who lives in the Arid Zone of
Barry Goldwater’s Shadow,
A place called “Bald Bravado”

Some whisper that he’s mad
Driven so by the Vietcong
I say it cause he’s never had
A reason not to bomb
On Iraq — let us attack
On Iran — let flights run
On Kosovo — if it’s Clinton, No
On China — just give it time, duh

Years before Bush proposed invading
John beat the War Drums
His calls for War predating
Even the new Millennium
This is a Moderate Hawk?
He’s a man who can not talk
Without taking a Swipe
At Apples just not Ripe
For invading

McCain wants the form of Campaign Finance
I guess it’s from Saints that he’s Financed
John doesn’t know Jack! (Abramoff) (he does)
He only takes the Dollars of
“Good lobbyists” — at least he claims a nice stance!

Oh McCain — the man’s Untainted
What a way he’s been painted
By those with no need for acquaintance
With facts, who needs those
When a Senator is Sainted

McCain’s men so excel at Public Relations
That if his aides had been Stationed
In the Arid Zone of
Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Arizona
This would be a different nation

If you watch the Senate close
You might see Goldwater’s ghost
It’s over McCain that he hovers
Laughing at what the Media don’t cover

The subject of Goldwater’s Revenge
Is scarier than Stonehenge
But it’s hard to hear that story
When the press finds Itself adoring
The man from the Arid Zone of
Barry Goldwater’s Arizona

Goldwater called for us to Saw Off the Coast
If McCain said it, there’d be many toasts
To his wonderful charm
Because what’s the harm
In giving a ride to Goldwater’s ghost

McCain is a leader!
But I see him as addled
You see, my dear reader
Goldwater’s truly in the saddle

And Barry Goldwater never looked this good
Because Goldwater didn’t have a fawning press
And Goldwater never looked this good
While setting out to make a mess

There is a genocide going on in Sudan, along with a famine caused by that genocide. The people of the Sudan are being slaughtered, and the survivors are being starved. The rest of the world refuses to take action for a variety of reasons, each of them disheartening and all of them shameful.

The Bush White House won’t take any action over petty differences with the rest of the world over whether or not the Sudanese war criminals should be charged by the International Criminal Court. The United Nations won’t do anything because they don’t have the ability or the nerve. Europe, a continent that might as well be incontinent for all the testicular fortitude it displays to the rest of the world, simply lacks the nerve. Were this not a real tragedy, this type of farce could be a Shakespearean tragedy. Since it isn’t, it’s a peace keeper’s worst nightmare and a child’s haunting ghost.

Today, the storyline became twisted to a point that ties the mind and tortures the conscience. The United Nations had to cut food aid to the Sudan because the rest of the world is stingy. Yes, the United Nations stopped giving food to the Sudan because the rest of the world wasn’t paying its fair share into the fund set up for that purpose. The United States had, as if in an attempt to make some form of apology for its pathetic, petty response to the crisis, giving 188 million dollars to the goal of keeping human beings from starving to death after being savaged to death. In Europe, the only major country to make a contribution was Italy, giving up over a million dollars. France and Britain, the Germans? Silent. Silence is a business that the world is making a killing on.

The lingering silence in Europe, the refusal of the Bush Administration to intervene — these are sounds that combine to make a sad, sorry symphony worthy of Rwanda, of the Holocaust, of every sick nightmare you could ever wish to have never existed, and in whose victims names’ you’d swear that you’d never allow it again. The German mantra in the era after the Holocause being “Never Again,” the American President’s promise being “Not On My Watch,” the Reality of the Situation being the antithesis of their word and of everything good and moral.

To break the silence, five Congressman staged a protest today and found themselves in handcuffs as a result. The worst thing, however, might just be that there are no handcuffs for those whose faith in God is so skewed as to allow hell to burn without giving those innocents caught in its fire so much as a prayer.

John Kerry wants to be the President, and the articles urging him not to run are starting again, as are the attacks on his beliefs and priorities. I won’t lie or equivocate — I do not want John Kerry to run for President, and I’m sure he won’t win. Beyond that, Kerry’s a link to the past, and in terms of electoral politics, no more. He’s the same man he was in 2004 — the same man who appears wishy washy, calculating and fickle. As a man, Kerry’s decent and honorable, but he’s weak on the stump and aloof. Campaigning in Massachussetts isn’t the same as running for President, and losing the Presidency isn’t the same as winning. In today’s day, you only get one shot unless someone rescues you by making you their Vice President (or if you win the Popular Vote). Kerry doesn’t have the latter and can’t count on the former.

John Kerry, in 2008, is set to play two roles: a supporting actor in a major film, who can do a ton of good behind the scenes, or he’ll be a liabilty, dragging the Party in a Kerry-centric direction because that’s what Bob Shrum advises him to do. Don’t run, Senator — be a supporting actor. John Kerry isn’t Morgan Freeman — he’s Wesley Snipes.

“Don’t Hate, Be Taxxy” is Michael Kinsley’s message about oil companies, and it’s quite the message. Giving it a read, it’s hard to dispute the idea that raising taxes on that industry would be beneficial to the country at large.

Don’t Spin, Be Informative seems to be new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s view on the Press Secretary’s job, and he’s set to bring an informative, independent act before the Press Corpse every morning. Now, to shift focus a bit from one Secretary to a predecessor: Ari Fleischer, the former Press Secretary, is out advising Tony Snow: “Don’t Inform, Be Spinny.”

Actually, in reading Fleischer’s account on the Press Secretary position, I cringe a tad. His account is one of how the television camera has led to a decline in the quality of press briefings, and he writes about the combative nature of the modern press secretary position. My first thought? “And this is what some people want to bring to the Supreme Court?” The second: the press corpse and the White House need to wake up and understand that their jobs are to request information and supply it, respectively, or deny it. It isn’t to assault each other. That’s why God gave us editorials. And blogs.

Don’t Praise, Be Critical. What’s that mean? Rolling Stone has a piece, “The Worst President in History?” that’s worthy of a read. As is this rebuttal.

For my money, “Worst President Ever” is a relative matter that can’t be decided by any one person and it’s up to us all to decide who that one is for us. I don’t buy into the “Buchanan is the worst!” talk, and the man I lean toward — Warren Harding — had a handful of major successes in foreign policy, followed by millions of failures. It all depends on what you’re looking at.

The fine art of pork-barrel spending is not only alive and well in today’s Washington but also being taken to great new heights by the Senators from Mississippi. Essentially, they want seven hundred million dollars to move a few train tracks a couple of miles north. It’s the largest earmark in history, and that about says it all.

In other financial Congressional news, Arlen Specter is threatening to cut funding for the NSA’s wiretapping program. Maybe Specter should take the initiative on pork-barrel spending and tell his fellow Senators that he’ll introduce expulsion motions against those who support such extravagent pork as the one mentioned earlier?

I’m surprised no one in the Congress has ever asked to expel a Congressman for spending. Such an attempt wouldn’t succeed, but it would bring attention to the issue from the public and it would lead to embarrassment for those like Ted Stevens and Trent Lott. I’m going to write my Senators and recommend this, as the fear of the public has to be instilled into the Credit Card Congress before they bankrupt us all.

Briefly, there are a few news pieces that merit a looksie. Karl Rove has been called before the Patrick Fitzgerald Valerie Plame Scooter Libby Grand Jury (mouthful!) for the fifth time, and it very well might be the first step in the prosecution of Karl Rove. Patrick Fitzgerald is the type of man who dogs his opponents in hot pursuit until the bitter end, and even when you think he’s not after you, he is. Karl Rove should be very afraid.

George Bush appears to be pursuing a Socialist agenda. Can you believe it? As one step toward lowering gas prices, he’s calling on Congress to repeal tax credits to big oil. I thought tax “credits” were the answer to everything? What about those poor business leaders in the oil industry — how will they afford their humvees? Maybe Bush doesn’t care, seeing as he’s pursuing Socialism, after all! But that’s not all — to counter his new leftward tilt, the President is threatening to veto a spending bill for Iraq and New Orleans. I guess he figures that Iraq and the Gulf Coast can fend for themselves?

Of course, his threatened veto isn’t something to take seriously. Bush has been threatening to veto spending bills from the beginning, and he signs them in the end, sticking true to his Communist core. Maybe Tony Snow will be able to help him clear up his mixed messages, but I doubt it. The only answer to the President’s rose-colored view on red-letter spending is to give him a pair of glasses that work. Or a calculator with which he can sort out his “fuzzy-math” budgets.

Barring that, the only other solution is clear: to give the job to Phil Gramm! Dear Bush, no.

On the President’s lap sit a variety of issues, and pre-eminent on the lap of Bush are atoms, as in nuclear material. George Bush is crazy in love with nuclear material, and that has led thirteen of the nation’s most prominent scientists to write the President about the need to take nuclear weapons off the table with Iran, preventatively. The message there echoes that of Arthur Schlesinger, which is probably a bad thing in the President’s eyes. Either way it’s the right advice, and I do hope someone in the White House is giving it to him.

On Bush’s table is also the issue of nuclear energy and energy in general along with global warming, and there’s an argument to be made for nuclear energy instead of coal power as our nation’s way to charge up. To me, it appears the most sensible course of action. I don’t have the numbers offhand, but I would imagine that instituting nuclear power plants all over the nation would do much more for the cause of eroding the effects of global warming than would simply and solely some sort of regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from cars. Of course, that too must be done, as well.

George Bush is being Jimmy Cartered as we speak, seemingly by history and his own party. The Daily News draws the comparison and launches the attack, labeling Bush’s latest comments about gasoline prices (”The American people have got to understand what happens elsewhere in the world affects the price of gasoline you pay here”) as being the equivelant of “You’re on your own,” and that being the same as Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech. Perhaps it is, but I don’t think so. Congress is more to blame for our issues with energy than anyone, because no matter what the President wants to do the Congress won’t allow it — although, with that, I am referring to nuclear energy and a pullback from coal and carbon emissions. As far as gasoline prices, nobody is willing to do the right thing and raise a fifty cent gas tax which would lower demand for gas and, thus, lower prices for it.

Not only are atoms and gas prices on the President’s agenda, but he’s got Snow on his lap. Tony Snow, that is. Yes, Tony Snow, the Fox News commentator, has joined the Bush Administration as Press Secretary. My first thought about this is that it puts light to the lie that there’s a right-wing conspiracy at Fox News to help Conservatives: a conspiracy is discreet, and this is out in the open!

Kidding aside (we all know and will always know that Rupert Murdoch is the right’s attack dog), Tony Snow becoming the Press Secretary is a good thing, provided they carry through on their commitments. What does that mean? That Bush stick with his promise to give Snow “a seat at the table and all the access he wants and needs, including walk-in privileges” because otherwise Tony Snow is just another warm body meant to throw off the press, and that doesn’t do anyone good. For Bush to be successful from here on out as a President, he’ll have to let Rove roam the prairie and Bolten to bolt the doors shut on those who have closed the door on sound policy (mainly Rove). In addition, he’ll have to keep Snow warm instead of letting him go cold.

President Bush’s Impeachment may very well be imminent.

The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois’ 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

By all means, look at the link and read the rest, which includes a summary of the bill and the actual text. This news is particularly stunning, and in my view it’s appalling. Most Democrats and some Republicans likely take heart from this, as thirty percent of the American public supports impeaching President Bush, but my first-thought is to heed caution, caution caution. And a rule change for the House of Representatives to ensure that this never happens again.

Why? Well, the first reason is that impeachment is a careful, methodical and, yes, painfully slow issue. You can not launch impeachment proceedings in an election year without smoking gun evidence, and any premature impeachment is doomed to fail. The House of Representatives moved slowly to impeach Nixon because they knew that if they worked too fast, it would appear like a witch hunt, and that would be doomed to fail. Not only that, but it would give Republicans a chance to say, “They impeached Nixon and found nothing!” making any future impeachment for future crimes or larger revelations impossible. You taint the legitimacy of the Congress and of the process if you impeach willy nilly.

The second reason that this is a bad idea revolves solely around the idea of witchhunts. President Clinton was hard-pressed to avoid impeachment because the Gingrinch Who Shut Down the Government was determined to be the Gingrinch Who Impeached the President and Vice President, and he was dealing with hard-ball politicians. Despite this, he staved the Impeachment off for several years, and by that time it was clear that there was nothing removable about his behavior. You let the states do this, and they’ll impeach Presidents without notice and turn this nation into a banana republic.

You think that’s funny? Far-fetched? Had a South Carolinan legislator found this rule during the Clinton years, I’m sure he’d have been impeached much sooner. Why should we give states with Far-Left or Hard-Right political bents a tool with which to assail any President they dislike on criminal grounds because of political differences? It’ll lead to gridlock and erode the distinction between a state’s responsibilities and the federal government’s.

The third reason is that there’s no reason for the national government to be forced into action like this by statehouses, as it interferes with federalist thought — or, at least, modern federalism. The federal government is stronger, and should be. There’s no reason to give the states this sort of power, and I’d urge the House to change their rules immediately so as to keep impeachment proceedings the way they always have been: as a staple of the House’s diet, not a tool to be used at whim by statehouses.

Now, to close, let’s make a distinction. I’m arguing that Impeachment as illustrated by this obscure, never-before-used-rule is wrong and should be prevented with a rule change to eliminate it. Should George Bush be impeached? Perhaps, and I lean toward an investigation, at the least. Just not like this, no way. After the Clinton Years, it seems everyone’s got their own post-Modern idea of Impeachment, but I don’t. It was wrong in the 1990s, and it would be just as wrong now.

Ted Kennedy is a “throwback” to an old era where you “tried to get things done,” the Washington Post writes today, and he’s a “Tyrannosaurus Ted accordingly. The article is about Kennedy’s habit of working with Republicans in a bipartisan manner, and this is truer of no other Senator in the last five years aside from, perhaps, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, on one hand, works with the Republicans on foreign policy, mainly, while Kennedy works with them on all sorts of things but foreign policy.

These are, if not in those exact words, awfully close to the current Washington whispers. He doesn’t understand the way things work these days , you’ll hear. You can’t cooperate with these guys the way he’s used to doing. You work with them and they’ll just roll you in conference, or trot out the 30-second spots against you. Or both.

Look what happened to Kennedy — so the argument goes — when he teamed with President Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind Act: The president failed to deliver the promised funding. It happened again when Kennedy began working with Republicans to craft a Medicare prescription drug bill, only to see it hijacked in conference, when it was too late to stop it. Fool Kennedy once, these Democrats say, shame on Republicans. Fool him three times, shame on us.

The way I see it, Kennedy is wrong to join the Right on these issues because it’s nonsensical and naive to. The House of Representatives tilts so far to the right that they might fall on their axis and break their cheeks if they take one misstep (isn’t that happening already, politically?) and anything accomplished in moderation on the Senate Floor is likely to be destroyed in conference. There’s nothing wrong with working with your opponents, but everything’s wrong with expecting them to keep their committments when the nature of their caucus won’t allow it.

Policies, not people, are what’s wrong with the Bush White House, argues Robert Samuelson in Newsweek, but I don’t buy it. It’s Karl Rove hijacking the Legislative process that’s ruining legislation, or it was until Josh Bolten stepped in to stop that.

The prize for stupidest editorial of the day goes to Newt Gingrich for his opus, “Our Majority is in Jeopardy.” What is it about? Nothing with regard to the headline, that’s for sure. Since we’re talking about prizes, Pat Buchanan is out calling any leak of classified information treasonous, and bemoaning the granting of a Pulitzer Prize to the woman who ran the article on secret CIA prisons. In other news, he still thinks Richard Nixon the greatest President since Caligula.

The Temperance Movement has a new member, and some of its previously private supporters are now making waves.

Eight Major Generals of the Military have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign with a new man joining the chorus today, and apparently there are more waiting in the wings to speak out. Couple that with the Congressional Leadership warning Bush about Rumsfeld, and there’s a hefty opposition to Rummy. George Bush’s response to the staggering strength of the Temperance Movement is out, and it’s as follow: “I don’t do leadership based on opinion polls. I do it with my faith in God.” Yes, the President did say that today, and it’s a tad humorous, certainly when you put it into the current context. You see, I don’t know if anyone’s explained it to him, but Donald Rumsfeld isn’t God, George. Fire him.

As everyone knows, strength is something that can be found in numbers, but not always. Hundred million dollar lawsuits don’t bring strength to Maury Povich much like thirty two percent approval ratings don’t help the average President, but George Bush isn’t the average President. Charges of incompetence and lack of evidence serve as spinach to Bush’s popeye, bubba, and he wouldn’t have it any other way.

I feel mildly like a tool to be using Bob Novak’s articles lately, but he’s been pumping them out like he’s got an agent to out and there’s been some good, non-CIA unauthorized information in them. Newsweek, and myself, have confirmation: Rove has been clipped. If the Presidency’s second term is cursed, as some believe it is, then the Republican President’s Chief of Staff-ship is cursed, too, for Republican Presidents have fired their Chiefs and replaced them quite consistently.

As far as curses go, we come to the situation in Iran, which is a heavy cross to carry for everyone involved in the situation, and Arthur Schlesinger, the famed historian and former Kennedy advisor, weighs in.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’ ”

This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don’t . However, both Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, veterans of the First World War, explicitly ruled out preventive war against Joseph Stalin’s attempt to dominate Europe. And in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy, himself a hero of the Second World War, rejected the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a preventive strike against the Soviet Union in Cuba.

The rest of his piece paints the situation with Iran as dire — not for the potential posed by an Iranian nuclear program, but for the tragedy of an American assault on Iran, for his contention is that it would lead to a destruction of the world and deterioration of our moral authority in the global community. This, naturally, is fair enough, although I’d never read it posed as well as by Arthur.

On that note, while we’re talking about moral authority deteriorating, Watergate’s sequel is alive and in full effect.

To Republicans, the New Hampshire phone-jamming incident is an isolated case of political dirty tricks that took place more than three years ago. To Democrats, it’s a scandal with echoes of Watergate that may reach all the way to the White House. Republican leaders are facing questions stemming from a criminal case involving efforts to suppress voter turnout in a U.S. Senate election in the state in 2002. Republican John Sununu won that race over Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, helping Republicans retake control of the Senate.

The facts, on the surface at least, are suspicious: dozens of phone calls to the White House by a man later convicted in the case; the national Republican Party agreeing to pay more than $2.5 million in legal bills; phones jammed on Election Day, not only of Democrats but of a firefighters’ group, in the first U.S. congressional elections since the Sept. 11 attacks. Democrats say that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff may even be involved.

Even a few months ago, I’d have never imagined that this sort of phone-jamming incident would be occurring in today’s Washington, but I shouldn’t have given Bush that much credit, I guess. What’s the difference between Karl Rove and Chuck Colson? One of them claims to have reformed himself, while the other wants to firebomb Iran!

The Wall Street Journal is calling Bush the “dissident President” and heralding him for standing alongside freedom. What a cursed article, and the terms “Bush” and “standing up for freedom” shouldn’t be uttered in the same sentence until the White House comes clean about the phone jamming, someone gets fired over Valerie Plame, and Donald Rumsfeld resigns. Wait, no, no. “Bush” and “competence” shouldn’t be uttered in the same sentence until then — Bush and “freedom” shouldn’t be uttered together until George Bush learns not to apologize for our free press in our free country.

Let’s backtrack, since I didn’t talk about this before. When Chinese President Hu Jintau came to America recently, a woman outside the White House heckled and told Bush to tell Jintau to stop persecuting people for their religious beliefs in China. What’d she shout at Bush? “President Bush, stop him from killing” and “President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong.”
The woman is now being charged with a few crimes, and it’s ridiculous. If China wants to silence dissent in its own country, that’s one thing. But nobody has a right to dictate the terms of America’s freedom while in America, nor do they have the right to not be offended, ever.

Bush should pardon the woman for her “crimes” and later thank her for speaking up against a brutal regime. Every shot against Dictatorship, no matter how small, should be encouraged. And if Bush cared for freedom, he’d not bend over backward because the Chinese entourage insists on it.

Robert Novak is known for two things: outing a CIA agent in one of his columns, and for his column itself, which is usually filled with interesting tidbits from the top tier of the right wing. In his latest column, he writes that Conservatives are happy to see Rove’s recent downing in rank, that Carlos Gutierrez is being looked at for the Treasury Department, and that George Bush has appointed his ex-girlfriend to be an Ambassador. Wow. Maybe he once dated Donald Rumsfeld, and that’s why we’re stuck with him?

George Bush is now on record as saying we’re going to have a tough summer at the pump with gas prices. Quite the nugget he’s dug up for us. If only he’d acknowledge that the Republican Party is going to be cut down violently this November, I might have some faith in his insider information.

Old States, New Threats, is the headline of Robert Kaplan’s latest article, and it’s worthy of a read. I certainly buy his premise that an evil state is more dangerous than al-Qaeda. Let’s get real here. al-Qaeda may be dangerous, but not without states to support it, whether that be financially or with weapons, with guns or with nuclear materials. Besides that, there’s only so much that a group of five thousand people on a multi-billion person world can do. It’s a testament to the flaws of the Bush Administration that our current society views terrorism as a greater threat than states such as Iran, North Korea or Sri Lanka.

Newsweek pipes into our current national dialogue with an article about our long-term plans in Iraq, something that should be a surprise to no one. Rightly or wrongly, the United States will be in Iraq to some capacity — and probably a significant capacity — for quite a long time. That much should be obvious to anyone who understands the nature of foreign policy in America, and who understand history since 1945.

Osama bin Laden is urging Islamisists to go to the Sudan and fight a peace-keeping force. In other news, bin Laden lives in a cave and Saddam Hussein is in jail. bin Laden seems to be getting quite lazy in his cave, if you think about it. I mean, why not just urge war in the Sudan — why not do it globally? Perhaps bin Laden is strategically re-aligning? Or maybe it’s just another sign of the fact that al-Qaeda is on the run and in decline, if not effectively castrated.

Some people believe that lobbyists are causing the problems in Washington, while others think that it’s the every-two-years election cycle for House members. Katherine Harris displays another thing that might be causing trouble, and that’s having sex on the mind. And in Harris’ case, it isn’t just intimacy on her mind, but sleeping with the press. I thought that’s what Democrats — and John McCain — did, resulting in a liberal media?

Not only was Harris cozying up to just any reporter, it was a College kid, too. Incidents like this give hope to boys like me that one day, Katherine Harris might want to take my questions. Harris is an example of leadership and shows that being a House member can be fun! How nice it must be to curl up with someone on the House floor and canoodle — very romantic.

I am aware that this post is heavier with sexual entendres than Harris’ face is with makeup, but that’s okay. When you’re dealing with a carnal Congress that loves screwing people over, it’s all right to be explicit. Besides, I’m only making a point as to the nature of the Republicans we’re dealing with — people who pretend to be puritans but cuddle on the floor of the House. How do Republicans get away with this? By promising to outlaw sex toys in South Carolina. Maybe that’s Karl Rove’s next platform to run on?

Or maybe it’s because we’ve got people with goals such as those listed above that our country’s wallowing in so many problems?

The New Republic today writes about the Rumsfeld situation, and it’s an excellent piece.

In fact, if you think there is no hope in Iraq, it’s better that Bush not fire Rumsfeld. That way, Bush supporters won’t be able to pawn off blame on people who took over too late to do any good. Imagine, for instance, if John Kerry had won in 2004. It’s unlikely Iraq would be any better today than it is now, but it is very likely that Republicans would be blaming Kerry for the mess. Keeping Rumsfeld has the virtue of clarity. Sending him off to his New Mexico estate–with a “thanks-for-a-great-career” pat on the back, if not a presidential medal of freedom (L. Paul Bremer and George Tenet both have them)–would almost be too kind. Simply serving as secretary of defense in the ugly days to come might be the worst punishment of all.

But if you do think there’s hope for Iraq, Rumsfeld must be fired immediately. And, since Bush presumably still does, it is amazing that he can’t see the political logic staring him in the face. Bush prides himself on his loyalty. And, in certain circumstances, it is indeed admirable. One of Bush’s finest moments came after he was walloped in the 2000 New Hampshire primary by John McCain, when he assembled his top advisers in a room and told them that he took all the blame, and no one would be fired. If Kerry or Al Gore had shown that kind of loyalty to the people who ran their campaigns, they might have gotten some in return–and one or both might have become president.

My first comment is actually off the matter at hand (Rumsfeld): Paul Bremer and George Tenet deserved their Medals. Al Gore might have become President, too, if the Supreme Court had not interjected, Katherine Harris were not a fraud or Ralph Nader hadn’t run. I loathe the blame-Al-Gore-first mentality of certain Democrats. Those two points aside, the piece is right on about hope-for-Iraq and Rumsfeld, and its later conclusions are intellectually stimulating. His suggestion for a replacement — Brent Scowcroft. I like it, but as the paper puts it at the end, “America badly needs such a leader in these grim times. Unfortunately, it has George W. Bush–and likely Donald Rumsfeld, too.”

Aside from this piece, there isn’t much new news in Washington, although a little noticed scandal is gaining traction.

A little noticed scandal in New Hampshire about phone-jamming is gaining traction. Initially dismissed as a petty political trick, it led to the trial and conviction for telephone harassment last December of the New England political director for the Republican National Committee, James Tobin. That in itself would barely register on anybody’s radar except Tobin was represented by one of Washington’s white shoe law firms, Williams & Connolly, and his legal fees were $2.5 million. The Republican National Committee picked up the tab, which suggests this may not have been a rogue operation. Was Tobin’s high-priced defense an effort to keep him from ratting out his contacts in the Bush White House? The RNC has said it paid Tobin’s legal fees because he is a long-time supporter and because he has maintained his innocence. Tobin is appealing his conviction.

Meeting with reporters over breakfast Wednesday morning, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said an examination of Tobin’s phone records revealed “hundreds of calls” between the White House and New Hampshire party operatives at the time of the phone-jamming on Election Day 2002. “I don’t think they were discussing the weather,” Dean said. The stakes were high in ’02. Democrats controlled the Senate by one vote and the White House was determined to regain the majority. In New Hampshire, Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican John Sununu were in a tight race for the Senate. Get out the vote operations were critical to both sides, so when Democratic workers arrived at five key centers to find their phone lines jammed, they suspected dirty tricks.

They were right. The jamming was traced to an Idaho telemarketing firm. The fee for the jamming service, reportedly $15,600, was paid by the New Hampshire Republican Party through a Virginia consulting firm. Public records filed by the state GOP show three checks, each for $5,000, conveniently arriving to cover the charge just before the election. One was from Tom DeLay’s Americans for a Republican Majority; the others from Indian tribes that were clients of the now indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Shaheen lost to Sununu by just under 20,000 votes. Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman was White House political director at the time. He says a high volume of calls with field operatives is routine on election day, and that he had no knowledge of the phone jamming. Dean is dubious. “Let’s put him under oath and find out,” he says.

Can you say, “Watergate”? The idea that the Republicans are fighting for their survival in Washington isn’t hyperbole at all — and now the idea that they’re fighting for survival takes on new meaning, as crimes such as these, traced back to the White House and possibly publicized by Democratic investigations should the Party re-take either house, might very well lead to devastations for Republicans.