Office of the Independent Blogger

While the rest of the World comes together on Iran and understands that that nation needs to be confronted collectively, the intellectual elite in the United States continues to get it wrong. I’ve been a fan of Seymour Hersh for years, but I think his latest column is sillier than the ideas it claims George W. Bush is advocating.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

Before this, and after it, the article is about how we’re planning attacks in Iran and are already striking them undercover. If that’s true — and I’d be appalled if we weren’t running covert missions of sorts in Iran — then it’s true. There’s nothing wrong with planning for all possibilities, might I add. But as to those two paragraphs, I can’t see a way in hell that they’re legitimate. If those quotes are for real, from a serious source and that’s what Bush really feels, he’s the world’s biggest idiot. I just can’t believe that he’s that dumb. I’m not a defender of him as a rational and insightful leader who thinks with sophistication, but he’s not a caveman.

Victor Hanson, of the Hard Right, writes about how easy it might be to achieve victory in striking Iran.

Moreover, who knows what a successful strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might portend? We rightly are warned of all the negatives — further Shiite madness in Iraq, an Iranian land invasion into Basra, dirty bombs going off in the U.S., smoking tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, Hezbollah on the move in Lebanon, etc. — but rarely of a less probable but still possible scenario: a humiliated Iran is defanged; the Arab world sighs relief, albeit in private; the Europeans chide us publicly but pat us on the back privately; and Iranian dissidents are energized, while theocratic militarists, like the Argentine dictators who were crushed in the Falklands War, lose face. Nothing is worse for the lunatic than when his cheap rhetoric earns abject humiliation for others.

Further in the piece, he warns that emotions can work both ways, and Iran shouldn’t be counting on scaring the world into inaction because he might piss George Bush and Israel into action. It’s a very good point, but I’m not sure that the Bush Administration is planning an attack anytime soon, but then again, in 1996, we came within a hair from attacking Iran under Clinton, so anything’s possible.

Ultimately, if the Iranians push President Bush to war, he will do it and do it willingly. The British would very well join us, and I think the Germans and French might be counted on. As to the Russians, and the Chinese, their cooperation is unlikely considering their relations with Iran, but I find it very unlikely that they’d turn against Americans. I’m sure they would consider assisting, or at least not overtly interfering, for assurances that they won’t have their raw supplies from Iran taken from them. I think the point that Iran should cool their rhetoric is valid, but they should also cool their nuclear program and fast.

If they don’t cool their coup and drink their soup, they’re going to wind up with, as Hanson put it, “a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.” And thus Iran is stuck between Iraq and a hard place. But we’re between Iran and a hard place, and this chess game is deadly. Awhile ago, I read an article decrying Bush as a dangerous leader, and that when the day came that there’s another Missile Crisis like the Cuban, we’d be in serious trouble. Well that day has come, and I do hope President Bush can keep his cool throughout this. This entire situation with Iran is the most dangerous situation the world has known since at least the 1980s when Russia planned on invading Poland, if not 1994 when North Korea first came to the surface.

American Democrats today would categorize George W. Bush as the Second Coming of Nixon, and Republicans would call him Reagan’s Revenge. Might you be surprised to hear someone compare him to FDR, and not only compare the two men but say that they might be, quote, “the most alike of any two American presidents ever.” My first reaction to this was, “At least he’s not comparing Bush to Truman.” But then there was laughter. And finally, I thought, “He’s not completely off the mark. Bush is somewhat similar to FDR. They are both human beings, after all.”

Actually, he draws some parallels I’d never thought of before, but given that they’re of a, “George W. Bush is a rich white guy whose views developed over time unexpectedly and who was saved by his wife, which was similar to FDR’s life story” nature, I don’t particularly buy them. Similar life experiences don’t make men similar. Adolf Hitler and Bill Clinton both faced rejection from women at some point in their respective lives, I’m sure, but Clinton’s answer to this wasn’t like Hitler’s. Bush and FDR are very different men because they decided on very different choices throughout their Presidencies and lifetimes.

Surprisingly, that’s not the oddest article I’ve read today. Kathleen Parker weighs in today with “The Million Dollar Fetus,” an article so bizarre it makes my head spin. Apparently, a woman was pregnant and got into a car accident. Her body was damaged and she was given the choice between aborting the baby and having surgery to heal herself; wait twelve weeks, then have all her bones broken for X-Rays and maybe never have fixed bones again; or have an operation now but risk having a damaged baby. She opted for the operation and abortion, but is suing the guy she got into an accident with. For one million dollars.

And, you know, it raises awkward questions. Should the man have to carry a million dollar albatross over a tragic accident? Should the woman get nothing at all because it was an accident? Should we allow judges the discretion to award millions of dollars after an accident like this? Is money motivating her more than the loss of her unborn child? Should the Courts rule for her or against? A lower judge ruled against her, and now she’s appealed. If you’d like to share your attitude and perspective on this, feel free.

Frank Newport, who edits the Gallup Poll, has an article titled “Is Iraq Worth It?” in the LA Times, except that it isn’t a detailed analysis of the war’s worth — just a documentation of public opinion’s various shifts on Iraq. Either way, it’s a very interesting article, but it makes supporters of the War appreciative of the fact that Bush isn’t a poll-reading President. (Well, that’s an oversimplification. Bush is a poll watcher in regard to Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports and the Department of Homeland Security. My point is that he is, rightly, standing pat on Iraq in the face of a fickle public.)

You know who else is fickle? The Republicans. They’re spending so much time fighting the War Against Other Forms of Conservatism that they’re ignoring the War in Afghanistan — not to mention their own legislative goals. Chuck Grassley has killed a Congressional tax cut extension because, apparently, he dislikes a House member.

Speaking of House members and dislike, I’ve avoided the recent story out of Congresswoman McKinney’s House Offices because it hasn’t been particularly important to me, and in the long run doesn’t matter. Today, though, the Salt Lake Tribune has a funny article called “McKinney Flap Unleashes a Flood of Stupid.” McKinney wasn’t wearing her ID and was entering the House. The Security Guard, who was white (while she’s black) tried to stop her. She punched him, and then claimed he was a racist.

Are you the kind of person who sees racism in water and a police officer as someone to throw a punch at? Everything comes out to your outlook in life, and I think that question’s a better gauge of character than the old adage about half empty glasses.

The President sat at his desk, cursing his decision to run for President and damning the Electoral College. Perhaps he’d been drinking, but on today it didn’t appear likely. The President’s suit was crisp, his hair combed, his eyes wide, awake — and disillusioned. One day, when Bess Truman was upset with him, Harry wrote her a letter proclaiming that he longed for her, particularly after “doing a million things I don’t want to do every day,” and George W. Bush found himself knowing exactly what Truman meant by that on this particular afternoon.

His problem, today, was petty. His friends wanted to enjoy themselves at his expense, and asked him to charge their games to his credit card. George had never been able to decline — how could he say no to Tom and Dennis? — but now he was feeling wrong. How would his children feel if they knew what he was up to? How would his wife feel if she opened the most recent Congressional Record and read about the debts amassed? The guilt ate at him, but he couldn’t tell his friends what they didn’t want to hear. Or that was the popular consensus.

A part of him wished that the Democrats could be in control of the Congress. At least then he could turn his enemies down and not have to confront his friends. He had finally understood what his friends were feeling decades ago when they had to confront him about his alcohol problems. One night, after the millionth attempt at intervention, as he lay alone in the closet, his head resting on a soiled sock and his hair matted with dried liquor, the President told the bottle, “I wish I knew how to quit you.”

Now he was back to those days, except that the liquor was replaced by big spending and Congress was his dealer.

The President stood up and turned behind him, opening the curtains behind his desk to see the world outside, but all he saw were the no-longer-friendly faces of Secret Service Agents patrolling the lawn. They used to be his friends, but nobody stays your friend in Washington for long, he thought. Pretty soon, being President gets old and all you want to do is go home. George Bush longed for his Ranch, but now he knew that the time had come to do what he had to do.

He reached into his desk and took out the phone, his fingers tracing the old dial of the phone as he penciled in the number of Dennis Hastert. After a few rings the gravelly voice of Dennis Hastert came on the line, the first word spoken being “hello,” and Bush knew the time had come. “Dennis,” he said, “I wish I knew how to quit you. I wish I knew how to quit spending with you. But I’ve got to try. I’ve got to. So I’ve got to let you know. Next time you send me a bill — let me finish! Next time you — I said let me finish — send me a bill that has a bunch of costs I don’t want to pay, I’m not gonna pay them.”

Dennis Hastert, who was also sitting at his desk in the Speaker’s chamber that Tip O’Neill and Henry Clay had previously sat in, found his indignation rising. “Listen, George. You don’t know how to quit me, and your threatened veto is a brokeback. You won’t veto because you don’t know how to quit.” The phone went dead, and George Bush cried without letting the phone go. When Hastert was right he was right, but Bush would have to be strong. He resolved to be strong. He had to be strong for the Love of Richard Nixon, he thought to himself, before renegging on his own personal vow. “How many budgets did Nixon balance?” he asked himself.

As his thoughts turned to Republican Presidents past, none of whom having felt compelled to balance a budget in their terms, he remembered that he had to quit his Treasury Secretary, too. Conservative Republicans insisted on it, and he was in their doghouse enough as it was! He took the phone he had used to tell Hastert who the boss was — or to be told who the boss was? — and dialed Treasury. Getting a “This phone number is not in service message,” he buzzed Josh Bolten and asked him to dial for him. Bolten did it easily, without a problem, and Bush felt his resentment rise but gave a polite thanks. “Next time don’t dial T-R-E-Z-U-R-E,” Bolten said. “If you need help, call…err, buzz me.”

The President called the Secretary of the Treasury and received a hello. He opened his mouth to ask his resignation, but the words didn’t come. John Snow wondered if he’d just been prank called when Bush finally spoke words that nobody expected. “Dennis wants me to spend more money on him, but I don’t think I can. You make the money, right?” he babbled. “You could quit making money if I asked you too, right, and then I could say, ‘Hey, I’m brokeback, don’t ask me for money’?” John Snow told him that he could, theoretically, but didn’t want to go down that road. “It would be disastrous, Mr. President. You should just learn how to quit the Congress’ spending.” “It’s my spending too, John,” the President said, before bidding his Secretary farewell and hanging up.

The President realized that, for the millionth time in 2006 alone, he’d forgotten to ask for Snow’s resignation. “The Beltway’s wondering why I haven’t fired Snow, but the truth is that I don’t know how to quit him. I just can’t. The beltway will have to understand that I just don’t know how.” He remembered that he got Cheney to fire Paul O’Neill, and then wondered whether he should go down that road with Hastert.

Sitting back, thinking about the many ways to quit his problems, the President cursed the Senate for shelving immigration reform, and he thought about that little bastard who told him he should be ashamed of himself yesterday. He looked to his desk, his windows, his portraits of 42 and 41, before muttering softly, “I wish I knew how to quit you.”

Since the news yesterday that Bush authorized Libby to give classified information to reporters, Republicans have been defending the President on the grounds that “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘a leak’ is.” If by “a leak” we mean that water was coming in through the roof, Bush is free. If by leak we mean that he gave classified information to a reporter through a subordinate, it’s fine, says John Podhoretz and his friends, because Bush was “fighting back” against “a slander” (the charge that he lied us into war) and that, further, it wasn’t a leak of classified information at all.

Technically, the President can declassify something by revealing it, and that makes it unclassified. So Bush and Libby were well within their boundaries to give up classified information, because in giving it up they declassified it. I’ll bet the CIA is really happy about this, too. The Republicans are splitting hairs over the minor details of the classification process. Bush leaked documents through his Vice President’s best friend and hypocritically stated for ages that he hates leaks.

He circumvented the traditional declassifying process, too, by refusing to go through the process and unilaterally giving up information without anyone’s consent, despite any possible CIA objections, for the sake of politics. If Bush didn’t technically leak anyone, he showed himself to have water in the brain and politics in his heart rather than good government. At the least, he’s been shown enough times this year to be a shamelessly dishonest man, and the message that the Right is sending on this is wrong. “If the President leaks it, it’s no longer classified!” is such a shifty shady dodge to the question of whether or not the President should be playing politics like this.

How Corrupt is the UN? asks a commentary in Commentary and it’s a fair enough question. I do think that more transparency is needed at the UN, with more reform, but I don’t think this is evidence of inherent corruption or excessive corruption. No organization as large as the UN could ever be spotless, after all.

As everyone knows by now, I despise John McCain. Here, we have a list of his flaws and his errors, but we also have the promise that Mitt Romney will have a boost in the Presidential race from health care reform in his home state of Massachussetts. It’s excellent to see a Republican taking the initiative on health care, but it’s not likely to amount to a great deal. You see, it opens him up to shameless lies from the Right that he’s a Socialist during the primaries, for instance, and don’t think it’s beneath the Right. Just go to the year 2000 in South Carolina for that. I think all the stars are lined up against Romney, personally, and I think common sense is against McCain. Unless his old enemies have decided to fold and join him, which Jerry Falwell has.

Falwell sure is stupid. McCain says a few nice things to him and suddenly they’re friends? Falwell can go out and support him? If I were Jerry Falwell, and John McCain were courting me, I’d say, I say old bean! I must express astonishment at your claims! Are these facts, or a clever ruse? and John McCain would say, “Yeah really! I really want to be your friend. Get me elected.” And I’d say, “No.” But I suppose Jerry Falwell doesn’t stand by his dislike and distrust of McCain, like McCain no longer thinks him an “agent of intolerance.”

I don’t think I can look at Republicans with a straight face anymore. Not with the way they allow McCain to roll them over and pat their stomaches as if they were the dumbest dogs on the block. I’m looking at you, Falwell. (And I sent him an email letting him know.)

As Slate so bitingly puts it, We’ve finally found the Leaker!

What everyone with half a brain outside of the Beltway has been talking about for the last several years has been “confirmed” inside the Beltway by Patrick Fitzgerald Court Documents saying that George Bush okayed leaks of classified information to reports regarding Iraq as a way to counter-attack critics of the War. If not direct proof that Bush ordered the outing of Plame it is evidence that Bush set the wheel in motion down the slippery slope by authorizing his attack dogs (and Cheney’s) to maul critics of the War using classified information. The Trial of Scooter Libby is just going to get uglier from here, that’s for sure. Karma can swing to and from you like a pendulum, and the truth always comes out. When it does, the pendulum lowers and so does the blade, and it’s all over for you.

Calvin Coolidge made a name for himself by letting his policies doing the talking and not saying much else. When Jimmy Carter admitted to having had “lust in” his “heart” on several occasions during his marriage, his wife’s answer was a curt, “Jimmy talks too much.” George W. Bush does, too, but in this case, he’s been caught running his mouth on something far more serious. Bush declared in 2004 that despite the War on Terror “wiretaps need Court orders”, and after his NSA program proved that to be false, the Emperor was proven to have no clothes. Bush famously declared on the Today Show that nobody could’ve anticipated that the levees would break, before it was shown that he clearly knew. Now his clothes are off with Scooter Libby, and they’re in for an adventure with Patrick Fitzgerald at the Courthouse.

It’s amazing that a Conservative Republican President doesn’t know how to keep cool like Coolidge and keep his mouth shut.

In other Bush news, he’s nominated a replacement for Mike Brown, and it’s the current acting head. Apparently he couldn’t find anyone in the Ranching Industry to replace the Horse-Breeding Brown, so he decided to go with what he had. Can’t you just imagine the questions he’ll be getting at his Confirmation hearings — “Excuse me, sir, do hurricanes mean more to you than your clothes? How much more?”

While I wonder if it occurred to Bush to offer the job to James Lee Witt, the Clinton FEMA Director who everyone has praise for, I think Paulison is a solid choice to replace Brown. At least he has experience irrelevant to breeding horses.

French people are known for two things, their cheese and their peaceful society, but I’ve never cared for either. Kraft Singles have always had a soft spot between my broad loaves while I hold a fondness for America that can’t be replaced. France has been up in flames with riots for a long time several times over the last year, and they’re rioting again over legislation that makes it easier to fire a bad worker. France is on fire, and they continue “negotiating” with those rioting in their streets. A teacher who happens to be a friend of mine once told me that the French were just going through the going pains of an emergent middle class of minorities like Americans did in the 1960s, but if that’s true, I do hope they hit puberty soon.

It’ll be nice to have an ally with a little testosterone, you know?

The French need a Richard Nixon-type leader, minus the Criminal Element. Think of Jacques Chirac as Lyndon Johnson, with good strong ideas but who is crippled by his own weaknesses, and then think of Richard Nixon and how, despite his hard line Rhetoric, he helped instill the Great Society into our Society and refined the better programs of Johnson. Nixon administered Johnson’s policies fairly well while strengthening the nation’s standing in the world (while weakening the leadership’s standing at home, I admit, although that was autonomous of his foreign policy successes) and that’s what France needs.

Climbing through a chimney sweep will leave you covered in soot, and sweeping through the day’s events might leave you a little dirty, too.

Sometimes Truth is stranger than Fiction, and Arizona’s State Senators are Sicker than Sin. “The son of state Senate President Ken Bennett admitted in court Monday to assaulting middle school boys with a broomstick in their rectal areas, but a judge allowed charges against him to be reduced from 18 to one, and he may avoid jail.” Our Justice system is disgusting, too, if it would let these charges be swept away so easily.

The government deals with a lot of sensitive information relating to its citizens, and it’s worth wondering how successful they are at protecting our privacy. Ask the GAO, and the answer will be not to your liking.

But those agencies often do not limit the collection and use of information about law-abiding citizens, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974 and other laws. The agencies also don’t ensure the accuracy of the information they are buying, according to the GAO report. That’s in part because of a lack of clear guidance from the agencies and the Office of Management and Budget on guidelines known as “fair information practices,” the report said. At the same time, the contractors are not bound by those “fair information practices,” and they often don’t comply with all of them, the report said. Companies do not notify individuals when information is collected, for instance. They limit individuals’ access to records about themselves, and they generally do not have provisions for correcting mistakes, the report said.

The solution is simple. Sweep away the current regulations (or lack thereof) and replace them with clear guidelines so as to verify accuracy and protect privacy. I’d recommend that you contact Representative Chris Cannon, who held a hearing on the matter, to encourage him and help prompt legislation. I did. Change starts at the grassroots.

Ann Coulter said that Tom DeLay is an “incredibly honorable man.” In other news, my cats love me because I feed them and give them snacks. Much like big oil loves the government for the same reason. Except that now, for once, the government is coming after big oil for defrauding Alaskans, although I doubt the government’s committment since the EPA refuses to confirm or deny much. We’ll wait and see how this turns out, but a big part of me believes that the Administration won’t, ah, be indicting people in BP anytime soon.

A Congressional investigation, spearheaded by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, is looking into whether or not a Bush “Campaign Pioneer” (big money donator) used a plump position given to him (surely solely on his own merits, and not because of the said donations) to direct money toward his own pocket. The man is said to have defrauded the US mint, and it’s people like him that make me want to be a Prosecutor. Or a chimney sweeper.

A Republican Congressman attacked his Democratic challenger over his daughter’s brain tumor hospital stays. Did you get that? He’s criticizing him for the hospital he chose for his daughter. It sure looks like someone has soot for brains to me.

Imagine my amusement this morning to be browsing around the Internet and stumble across Robert Novak’s Inside Report, latest column, where he calls Tom DeLay “the congressional embodiment of the conservative movement.” That’s fine by me, and I’m sure voters will respond favorably to the Culture of Corruption. For Democrats, this is going to be the November to Remember. And for Republicans, it’ll be the Year to Forget.

One person who won’t ever be forgotten is Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense who died last week, and he takes the Secrets of Iran Contra with him. But if James Pinkerton has his way, Weinberger will be known as the “greatest” Secretary of Defense we’ve ever had. Pinkerton’s entitled to his view, but for my money, his article’s more interesting for his honest criticism of Rumsfeld in the ending, where he states that “there was a disgraceful lack of military preparation for Iraq, and the war hasn’t been handled well since, either. Still, it was nice of Rumsfeld to show up and eulogize Weinberger on Tuesday - even if Rumsfeld’s presence at the funeral highlighted the stark contrast between the performance of the two Defense secretaries.” Who can disagree with that?

Pinkerton’s point — that a Defense secretary’s job is to prepare for war, and that Weinberger did it well — is spot on in the former and can be argued for the latter. In regard to Weinberger’s role in planning for War, he’s right that Weinberger saw the need for Peace Through Security, or as the Romans put it, “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” Donald Rumsfeld would do well to take that advice, although he should probably watch The Fog of War. Before he sees the lessons of Weinberger or the Fog of War, Rumsfeld should see a Resignation letter and see to signing it. The great question Bush will be asking himself in ten years, aside from Where did my political capital go?, is Why oh why did I keep Rumsfeld on for so long?

He screwed up the War Effort and even failed to “Transform” the military, his stated goal at the start of his tenure. Why keep him? Probably for the same reason that George keeps Condi Rice. And when I find that reason, I’ll share it with you because I’m sure it’ll be good.

In Slate, an argument is made for doing nothing about illegal immigration and passing no reform. It’s interesting, although I think it’s off the mark a bit.

You can’t crack down on illegal immigration and liberalize it at the same time. The kind of split-the-difference compromise that is likely to result from a House-Senate-White House negotiation will surely be futile and wasteful. You can already see the outlines of another domestic policy disaster emerging: Bush will sign a law that threatens toughness but declines to apply it, that costs billions to administer but fails to reduce illegal immigration, and that creates massive new bureaucratic and legal headaches for everyone. This would be in keeping with past efforts, such as the big 1986 immigration reform bill, which promised serious sanctions against employers of illegals, has never been enforced, and has produced results the opposite of those intended. As a bold alternative, why not pass no immigration bill at all?

As I stated earlier, I think it’s likely that no bill will be passed because the Congress won’t be able to reconcile their differences. Their marriage can’t be saved on Immigration, and they’d do well to realize that. I spoke to a very Conservative friend of mine this morning and he asked me how I felt about immigration. I said I thought Bush had it right, and he said, “I think so too. You have to treat these people with dignity and respect. It’s not their fault they were born in a corrupt country with a crooked government and are looking for a better life.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I have tried.

It’s a shame that this is an election year, otherwise a reasonable compromise could be had and the travesty going on today could be avoided. But if the Republicans want to go from campaigning against immigrants to shooting them and thus sealing their own demise, then by all means they should.

In Illinois, we’re having a Governor’s election and incumbent Rod Blagojevich is leading challenger Judy Barr Topinka, who Conservatives are unhappy with and probably wouldn’t have made it without a four way Party split in the Primary. And they don’t think she can win, either. Or most of them don’t. George Will today asks, Can Topinka Turn Illinois Red? and the answer is, No. Illinois doesn’t vote Republican unless someone like Michael Dukakis is our candidate, and even then he only narrowly loses. This is a state that likes to vote Democrat for President and mixes it up in local elections. It’s not likely to change anytime soon.

Besides, Topinka is outmatched financially and doesn’t generate passion from either side of the aisle. Topinka’s an odd character, almost universally heralded as a “nice” woman but who says things like this:

She was nominated with just 38 percent of the vote, but thinks Republican factions will be fused by the heat of their dislike of Blagojevich, who, she says merrily, might be the fifth governor indicted since 1964. He is, she says, the person referred to as “Public Official A'’ in one or more of five ongoing investigations by Illinois’ Inspector Javert — Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago-based federal prosecutor who also is the pursuer of Scooter Libby. Topinka merrily says “there is no loyalty in (Blagojevich’s) administration whatsoever.'’ His “own staff rats him out'’ and “some of his staff have been wired.'’

Topinka speaks about her opponent with a Chicago vigor: He is “slick'’ and “has little weasel eyes.'’ He also has big liberal spending plans for the state (e.g., universal preschool) and for the private sector (a $7.50 minimum wage, $2.35 above the federal minimum). Although Blagojevich, 49, in his clear-sighted youth voted twice for Ronald Reagan, he has become a standard-issue contemporary Democrat whose base is the public employees unions. His creative accounting includes counting as current revenues some savings he forecasts in future pensions.

Topinka’s ready for fight, clearly, but it’ll be in vain. Illinois Governor is going to be a Democrat for the next four years, and that’s all there is to it. I think the same can be said for Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell is fighting off Lynn Swann, and Bob Casey duels with Rick Santorum. Everywhere you look, from New Jersey to Colorado, Democrats are waging a War for the Nation’s Governorships. The year’s Gubernatorial elections might just be more important than the Congressional battles because there’s no way to gauge the importance of Governors in deciding who wins what state. Having a Democrat in Pennsylvania, Colorado, even Montana, will be a boost for whoever wins the Nomination.

It’s not just with State races that we have Republicans running scared, it’s everywhere. The GOP is running, and that’s always a good thing to see, especially this early in the morning.

When the Gingrich Who Shut Down the Government stepped down from the Speakership in 1998, there was talk of a new tone in Washington. “Now that the bomb-throwing Gingrich has resigned,” the conventional wisdom was, “and the Republicans have lost seats in the House, the Right will find itself being involved in a kinder, gentler Congress.” Shortly into their new term, their leadership beaten, two Speakers (one designated, one Gingrich) having pulled away from their responsibilities, their numbers weakened, the House Republicans decided to Impeach Clinton. Now that Tom DeLay has acknowledged himself to be spoilt rotten, the Washington Post asks if there will be a new approach to government by the Republicans post-DeLay.

In the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert is headed into what is probably his final term before retirement, shorn now of the support and day-to-day managerial muscle of the man who installed him as speaker, Tom DeLay. That means that if the Republicans maintain control, a lame-duck speaker will be working to deliver votes for a lame-duck president. That could spell an awfully difficult — and unproductive — final two years for the Bush presidency, unless the White House finds a different approach to Capitol Hill. The old game of muscling bills through by rounding up Republican votes through a combination of political and financial force — the game at which Tom DeLay excelled — is over. The question for the White House is whether it can come up with a different strategy that looks for support from at least some Democrats. It needs that already in the Senate. And it will probably need it in the House.

The easy answer is no. George Bush already, as the article points out, needs bipartisanship in the Senate and doesn’t look for it. It’s not likely that he’ll be in a position to look for it after the elections this November, particularly considering that any decrease in Republican numbers will embolden Democratic partisanship and increase the charge that Bush is out of the mainstream on most issues with the American public. George W. is not the only one who can claim an election’s results to be a referendum on his Presidency, after all, and he isn’t the only man who knows how to kill a man just to watch him die.

Beyond the Bush Presidency, it’s entirely within the realm of reason that the fall of Tom DeLay weakens Republicans in the House for years to come and leads to more conciliatory Bipartisanship, along with weaker leaders, as happened to House Democrats after Dan Rostenkowski was driven from office by scandal. Defeat breeds timidity in politics, and inevitable losses in November, coupled with the Extermination of Tom DeLay will weaken them for years to come. At the least, it’ll shake them for a couple of election cycles.

DeLay’s downfall is indicative, first and foremost, of the Republican Party’s broken stranglehold on the American public. Secondly, it’s representative of everything that’s right in this country. Even Tom DeLay goes down in the face of wonton lawbreaking, and no one is above the law. To pessimists, or “Realists” as they might call themselves in this situation, that might ring untrue, but we live in a country in which people like DeLay do fall. You can see Rostenkowski and Gingrich for other recent examples. Hell, even Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security keel over in the Name of the Law.

A Department of Homeland Security official was placed on unpaid leave today after being arrested Tuesday evening on charges of using a computer to attempt to seduce a child and transmitting sexually explicit materials, according to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Brian J. Doyle, 55, a deputy press secretary at the agency, was arrested on a federal warrant at his home in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring on 23 charges filed by officials of Polk County, Fla. Florida officials said Mr. Doyle thought he was communicating with a 14-year-old girl, when in fact he was on line with a Polk County police detective.

Makes you feel like it’s 1999, doesn’t it? A Republican leader has been brought down by his own sleaze (although some say it was Larry Flynt that brought down Newt Gingrich), and the Democrats are looking good again. Maybe it’s a sign that the Democrats will re-nominate Al Gore and he’ll win the Popular Vote again?

Al Gore. That reminds me of Dick Morris, who reminds me of prostitutes and Trent Lott. He also reminds me of newspaper articles, since he occasionally writes them. Morris has a ridiculous fetish for a Condi Rice v. Hillary Clinton matchup in 2008 (it’s never going to happen — Condi Rice is pro-Affirmative Action, pro-Choice, and happens to be a single black woman in today’s Republican Party) but he is also one to tout the possibility of an Al Gore v. Hillary Clinton Democratic Primary. And on that, he’s got a solid point.

Al Gore is my favorite politician, and I feel for him after 2000. For all the talk people have of Hillary Clinton being the frontrunner, Al Gore could sweep her aside if he were to run. Why? The Left is on his side for his early and consistent opposition to the Invasion of Iraq, and Moderates are sufficiently fond of him. Political realists would be quick to point out that he’s from the South, won the Popular Vote, and was twice elected with Bill Clinton, so his electability isn’t heavily in question. Just think about it, and who better deserves the chance to put the Republicans into a lockbox come 2008?

It’s the next worst thing to prison for them.

It seems to me that Democrats are interested in saving Individual Americans money, while Republicans are interested in saving the Government money. Republicans would counter my charge by saying that by spending government dollars we are directly spending the dollars of individual Americans, while Democrats would counter that Republicans haven’t spent money responsibly since Gerald Ford was President of the United States. That’s twenty nine years, assuming that I do math in my head better than Republicans do budgets in reality.

A pet cause of the Republican Party is the reform of our Tax Codes, as they cite ours as being unwieldy, bureaucratic, and a general shame. They call the tax code crazy, and desperately wish that Bush had made “The Tax Samba” the tune to which he danced the year 2006 away. Instead they’re stuck debating immigration and beating each other over the face over whether or not to beat illegal immigrants over the face. Last year, I was as sure as I am today that the Democrats are bound to pick up a good deal of seats in Congress this year, but I was also worried because, I figured, If the Republicans are Smart, they can Save Themselves. You see, I thought they could pull themselves out of the Social Security hole they dug themselves by making the Tax Code the subject of this year’s Great Debate.

Instead, of course, they decided to wage war and cross the line from campaigning against immigrants to shooting them, and now they’re paying for it. But some on the Right — the intelligent members of the Republican Party — realize that the time to reform taxes to the Right’s liking, and the debate they should be having, regards taxes and comes now.

Just how burdensome is the current U.S. tax system? Consider the facts: the Office of Management and Budget estimates Americans will spend 6.4 billion hours and $265 billion this year alone complying with the obligations of a tax code that now contains more than 66,000 pages of rules and regulations. More than 6 in 10 Americans now hire someone to help prepare their returns every year.

A part of me wonders how much of those fees and money are coming not from the Average Joe trying to pay his taxes but from corporations attempting to, you know, evade their responsibilities as Americans through high-powered Attorneys and legal mumbo jumbo. As to the amount of money being spent, there are a wide variety of places which offer free tax advice. You don’t need to spend $265 billion to pay your taxes. Unless you’re Oprah Winfrey.

In the last eleven years the number of pages of rules and regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service has shot up 60.9% and the number of pages contained in a standard Form 1040 instruction book has ballooned to 142 from 84. Even the most recent round of tax cuts passed by the House under President Bush have added to the complexity of the tax code with various sunset provisions and phase outs. The truth is that most Americans show up dutifully each April to comply with their obligation to pay taxes without having a clue what that obligation is or how it changes from year to year.

In January 2005, President Bush tried to add some momentum to the movement for tax reform by establishing an advisory panel to study and recommend options for making the tax code “simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth.” The panel’s final report, issued on November 1 of last year, was a serious disappointment, dismissing the idea of a value-added tax or a national sales tax and making no mention of a flat tax.

Instead, it recommended two plans offering some simplifications to the current system like reducing the current number of tax brackets from six to four (or three) and doing away with the Alternative Minimum Tax. Any simplification would be a positive, of course, but on a scale of one to ten with zero being no tax reform and ten being the most innovative reform imaginable, the panel’s recommendations seem to rank about a three.

While I’m sure it’s a fascinating piece of literature, I’ve never pushed the tax code upon my table and read it word for word, but the lines I’ve italicized are indicative, to me, of a tad bit of a shady argument by Republicans. They cite the length of the Tax Code as a reason for it to be flawed, but what does that have to do with anything, and how much of that length involves sunset provisions and other necessary legalities that apply solely to the government and not the taxpayer? It’s like saying “Truman [by David McCullough] is a thousand pages long” because the book contains that many. It very well does, but quite a few of them are acknowledgements and documentation of his sourcing — not the actual text that applies to the typical reader.

The recommendation’s pushed by the Bush Tax Commission are valid, I believe, and certainly would lead to improvement of our tax code. When it comes to evaluating legislation, I look at it from two objectives: is it necessary, and is it feasible? From that aspect of thought I tend to think there to be no reason to rip down our current tax code because it works well enough. If we can alter it so as to decrease the amount of headaches and increase the money in people’s pockets then by all means we should, but not to the point that the Far Right on taxes would like us to.

When we’re talking about doing the Tax Code Samba, I’m a Conservative guy and say no. I just don’t like to dance, you see. I don’t like to change things willie nillie. I come from the school of thought that you don’t burn down your house because you’d like a new room to relax and think in. I figure that, instead, you tear down your son’s bedroom (who happens to have gone off to College) and then build the den you’ve always wanted.

Time magazine, a periodical that has bothered me since it had Ann Coulter on the cover (as I wrote at the time, there wasn’t a reason in the world to feature her on the cover unless someone at the top of the Magazine had the goal of bedding her in mind), and today they manage to get things wrong, again. In their weekly “Ten Questions For…” feature they speak to Mikhail Gorbachev, and open it with this: “History will remember Mikhail Gorbachev as the leader who brought openness (glasnost) and economic restructuring (perestroika) to the Soviet Union, ushering it toward the end of communism.” The term “ushering” implies that Gorbachev was happily leading away the Dark Ages of Marxist, Stalinist thought through his reforms, but that wasn’t the case. Gorbachev didn’t seek to dismantle Communism: he intended to tweak it slightly so as to make the flawed Economic society more solvent.

It isn’t just there that there’s error but in the whole piece, in Gorbachev’s own statements. After being asked where the difficulties of today began for Russia, Gorbachev pins the blame on former President Boris Yeltsin for allowing “the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people,” and he mentions that no Western leaders were critical of Yeltsin. That’s very true, but it’s because there were constant Coup attempts in Russia while he was in charge and he presided over the roughest era to preside over: the after-effects of a peaceful revolution. It’s like Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko — no matter what he does, there’s no way he can completely fix the Ukraine, rid it of corruption and drastically alter the nation’s fundamentals. He can put a start to it by moving in the Right direction and serving as the example of Democratic government.

It’s the same with Boris Yeltsin, who had to confront hundreds of hard-line Communists who would rather be Soviets than Russians and prefered the old order to the new. Yeltsin’s hands were tied, his movements constrained, by all of his opponents. Further, those critical of Boris Yeltsin ignore the fact that all the realistic alternatives to Boris Yeltsin were hard-line Communists or ultra-Liberal Communists who wouldn’t change a thing in Russia and would lead it right back into the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev, who appreciated the Soviet Union for everything it claimed to be, was one of those old-timers, and his view is prejudiced as such.

His support of the Soviet ways is evidenced by his stalwart support of Vladimir Putin for leading the country “in the right direction.” For Boris Yeltsin’s flaws, Yeltsin didn’t sacrifice their Democracy and return it to the days of the KGB. Vladimir Putin is actively doing this, and for that he deserves strong condemnation from all, Russians especially. Gorbachev moves from praise of Putin to an attack on American foreign policy, stating, “America is intoxicated by its position as the world’s only superpower. It wants to impose its will. But America needs to get over that. It has responsibilities as well as power. I say this as a good friend of America.”

The context of this question involves Gorbachev saying, “But just as Russia is beginning to rise again, the West doesn’t accept it.” Which is absolutely untrue. The Russians are playing host to the G8 this year and have been allowed into it despite the fact that, if we wanted to not “accept” their role in the world we would say, “You’re a poor country. You kill Chechnyans like they were nothing. Your missiles are loose. Your leader’s an Autocrat. We’re keeping the Global Seven.” America does everything it can to support Russia, even when the Russians do everything they can to sabotage American foreign policy and put lives at risk.

Russia is, currently, the Robert Novak of the world: it’s only where it is because it’s got a good amount of friends in all the right places, and it’s willing to destroy a woman to get at their man.

After being asked if he thinks America and Russia are on the path to a Cold War, he takes a cop out and claims that there are some advising Bush on this course then says, “This talk of pre-emptive strikes, of ignoring the U.N. Security Council and international legal obligations–all this is leading toward a dark night.” As if Russia can talk with any legitimacy on that issue, first of all. Second, the United States does keep its committments. Guantanamo isn’t the Gulags, kids, but Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. Pre-Emptive War, and its follies, is a perfectly valid point, I concede, but his contention that there’s “talk” of it is errant. There aren’t many people arguing for more “pre-emptive strikes” in Washington — aside from John McCain.

Instead of pressing him with follow up questions, Time allowed him to walk away with making false contentions — and sometimes irrelevant ones — without asking him for further words. Their last three questions are softball questions — “how has life been since your wife died, what are your hobbies, are you enjoying life?” — but that’s a hard-hitting interview, I guess. I’m not saying that you should Crucify someone who you interview, but follow up on contentions and scratch them when they ignore the premise of the Interview. And for God’s sake, don’t ask someone if they’re “enjoying life” during what’s supposed to be a serious interview of a serious person, and you certainly don’t ask softball questions when they’re making turkey comments that can and should be, at least, prodded for clarification.

Thomas Sowell asks today, in RealClearPolitics, Are Facts Obsolete? and the answer, of course, is no. Last week I lamented the Noble Art of Asking Stupid Questions, and I feel the same distaste for dumb questions.

What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: “Demagoguery beats data.” People who urge us to rely on the United Nations, instead of acting “unilaterally,” or who urge us to follow other countries in creating a government-run medical care system, often show not the slightest interest in getting facts about the actual track record of either the UN or government-run medical systems.

Those who believe in affirmative action likewise usually see no reason to find out what actually happens under such policies, as distinguished from what they wish, hope, or imagine happens. The crusade for “a living wage” that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support — much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.

My first thought upon reading this is in regard to the statements about Health Care. Sowell clearly dislikes health care mandated by the government, clearly, and is rambling about the disregard of facts shown by its proponents when there’s a big fact he’s ignoring: Forty Million Uninsured. And he ignores that the UN does a wide variety of good things, cheaply, that help the world.

I’m not a “Single Payer” Health Insurance Advocate, and I don’t have a blind faith in the UN, but I have no problem pointing out that there are problems and his insistence that those who think otherwise are “fact[less]” is bogus. Besides, it’s the Republicans that increasingly “ignore facts.” If the Bush White House hadn’t ignored the warnings of the Military about Troop Numbers in Iraq, or if they’d corrected their errors early in the Operation in accordance with the Facts of the Matter and the Reality of the Situation, then this War would be a lot less like what it is today.

Since we’re talking about Health Care, let’s go back to the article on Health Savings Accounts by Hubbard, particularly:

Health care is expensive because the vast majority of Americans consume it as if it were free. Health insurance policies with low deductibles insulate people from the cost of the medical care they use — so much so that they often do not even ask for prices. And people don’t recognize the high premium costs of this low-deductible insurance because premiums are paid by employers. Finally, the tax code subsidizes these expensive, employer-purchased insurance policies. To control health care costs, we must give consumers an incentive to spend money wisely. We can do this by encouraging the purchase of high-deductible policies and providing the same tax benefits for out-of-pocket health spending that employer-provided insurance enjoys. The overall cost to the consumer will be no greater than it is now and, in most cases, significantly lower. And no consumer is better than the American consumer at driving prices down and quality up.

The president has proposed a package of reforms that will spur such changes by building on the success of consumer-directed Health Savings Accounts and the insurance policies that go with them. Health Savings Accounts allow people to save money tax-free to pay their out-of-pocket health costs, as long as they have high-deductible health policies to cover catastrophic expenses. Enrollment in these accounts has grown rapidly since their introduction in 2003, with more than three million people now contributing to them. The president’s reforms would make these plans even more attractive by providing payroll tax relief to those who hold Health Savings Accounts (currently the accounts are only exempt from income taxes); giving employers more incentive to offer and contribute to the accounts; and making it easier for consumers to get the information they need to make good decisions about the health care they purchase.

The accounts aren’t just good for the health care system — they’re a good deal for American families. Catastrophic policies have affordable premiums that bring health insurance into reach for lower-income families. And the low premiums compensate for most, if not all, of the policies’ higher deductibles.

I was thinking about this, and I quite like the idea. I think if you empower individuals to make their own decisions and help them on the path of affording it they’ll typically make better decisions and drive down prices through the free market. I think more has to be done to cover more people, but it’s a start, and a good one at that. We should encourage a society of savings, although there are always things we can lose.

Sowell, on the other hand, can lose the attitude and the stupidity. Or he should.

Tom DeLay is not a quitter, bubba, and he isn’t a crook, either. He just got Hammered and decided that it’s time to go home. With no regrets. And he’s “at peace” with his decision to resign. It appears that the Republicans are “at peace” with his resignation, too, and why wouldn’t they be? The Albatross is gone and the Congress moves on without DeLay. Now if only they could get rid of Barbara Cubin and they’d be guaranteed Victory in the House!

One might pity Tom DeLay if they took time to ponder his downfall, but then one laughs at the delicious irony inherent in his downfall. Tom DeLay was, for one minute, at the top of the world, and the next he’s lower than one of the cockroaches he used to exterminate. DeLay spent his life before politics killing rats, roaches and dung beatles, and spent his time in politics killing decent Democratic proposals and trying to exterminate Democratic politicians. The irony is that Tom DeLay left his poison gas running a tad too long and poisoned himself, and now he’s dead by his own doing.

It is his own doing, isn’t it? In his quest to kill the Left he employed every dirty trick he could muster, and now it’s all caught up to him. Is it Karma? Perhaps it’s God’s will. To me, Tom DeLay was a victim of his own lethal toxins, although I do give the wily rascal credit for holding on this long. I think I know how he used to feel after finally killing a persistent, never-say-die cockroach.

TCS Daily has a piece up as a lesson for avoiding “a new Isolationism,” but I find it off the mark. Or, I find its conclusions rather than analysis off the mark.

Whether the scuttling of the deal with Dubai Ports World was sui generis or the beginning of a period of increasing American isolationism will depend upon what American leaders, who believe in a robust engagement with the world, take away from the affair. The immediate lesson is that the American public — for better or for worse — will readily consider isolationist solutions to foreign policy problems. An important corollary is that Congress, in the absence of clear leadership, will make isolationism into official policy.

The catalyst to this piece was the rejection of the Ports deal with Dubai, and so the catalyst itself was flawed. Reactionary racism was the basic root of the controversy, for if a Japanese, Dutch or even a French company had been involved rather than the UAE, there’d have been no problems — certainly not in Congress, although Lou Dobbs might’ve objected. (Actually, I think it obscene that we apparently can’t find American companies willing to take control of American points, but I don’t find it to be the threat to our security that people make it out to be.)

President Bush’s policies of promoting democracy and ending tyranny brought retrograde states into the national strategy. In particular, President Bush modified a big foreign policy idea that had taken root following the end of the Cold War, the idea that international commerce was the only force needing consistent attention and that security and humanitarian concerns, in the long term, would be ameliorated once the right global trade structure was established. Bush didn’t reject the importance of international commerce as a dimension of foreign policy, but he did recognize that there were parts of the world — Afghanistan and Iraq to name two — where transformations improving humanitarian, security, and economic situations might never begin until political transformations deposing tyranny happened first.

I thought so, too, and I found this to be an excellent illustration of the need for interrelations and for a change in this nation’s outlook post-Cold War. However, I’m confident enough to say that isolationism has run its course and the article’s tips on avoiding the Big I are unnecessary, because there is no public official short of Patrick Buchanan pushing for isolationist thought, and he isn’t a valid measure of public opinion. Besides that, the basic reality of our world today destroys the argument for Isolationism.

Time is showcasing an article entitled, “Can Bush’s New Captain Steady the Ship?” and the answer is both Yes and No. Does he have the ability? Absolutely. But the President has to be the one who orders the course, and if the Captain doesn’t have the Admiral’s support, nothing can get done. If George W. Bush thinks things have to change in his White House, then things will change. If not, then Andrew Card is the same man as John Bolten, except one of them is married to a Minister.

As policy director of George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign and his first deputy chief of staff for policy, Bolten is steeped in the current system. In meetings, he often whips out a giant calculator to show the price when, as an aide put it, “someone wants to save a continent from malaria.” He’s self-assured enough that he has been known to tell underlings he didn’t need to accompany them to meetings with the President. “He would stay out of meetings in the Oval if he thought the President would benefit more from a smaller discussion,” says lawyer Jay Lefkowitz, who worked with Bolten under both Presidents Bush.

Bolten can be tough. And some staff members fear that the family friendliness of the West Wing may disappear under this bachelor workaholic. This is a White House where rush hour is 6:30 a.m., but evenings and weekends are usually spent at home. Bolten routinely works until 10:30 p.m. and is often seen around the complex on the weekend in jeans, tennies and a favorite red plaid shirt. Some senior and mid-level staff members are uncertain about signing on for a new regime that could have the intensity of a campaign. Bolten will “expect everyone to be on the job in a new and invigorated way,” according to a colleague. “That’s the benefit, but the rank and file can expect things to be more rigorous.” Associates say he wants clearer lines of authority and delineation of duties.

When I read things like this, I gush at Bolten’s clear and undeniable credentials. But I also wince, because these credentials suit him better toward working for Gerald Ford or Bill Clinton than George W. Bush — the resume of Bolten, his lifestyle, his attitude, all of them point to his being a Paul O’Neill type, and we all know what happened between him and George Bush. The truth is, we’ve got a President who doesn’t like analysis and Bolten is going to wind up feeling like a Wonk in Isolation because of it.

After the Iraq War, it became clear that the CIA needed reform (it was obvious before, too, but not to the masses). Today the Director if Intell. at the CIA writes about the reforms, all aimed at minimizing the “risk of groupthink.” Which, I think, is a good and solid step. We should focus on the individual assessment, on different assessments, on variety, and then take a rational decision based on discussions. We should always avoid the popular consensus, whether it’s involving the price of butter in China or the cost of a coconut in Malaysia.

CIA Director Porter Goss has encouraged innovation and creativity in how the CIA approaches its mission. In the DI, we have been diligent in integrating fresh thinking and new perspectives into our analysis. Our in-house training center, the Sherman Kent School, features lessons learned from the Iraq WMD case; they are part of tradecraft courses taken by our analysts, including every recruit entering the DI. Our newest analysts — and all first-line supervisors — also have completed classes on alternative analysis and other analytic techniques.

We have established analytic tradecraft units across the directorate, including the office drafting our WMD assessments, that promote the use of alternative and competitive analysis techniques. DI analysts routinely engage academics and outside experts — last year we did so about 100 times a month at conferences or informal meetings — to test hypotheses and minimize the potential for being ensnared by “groupthink.” And we have a staff that routinely evaluates the quality of our assessments.

Personally, I’m not sure I buy the italicized portion, but on the rest I credit them. This is how it should be.

Any reader of my blog should be aware of my penchant for disliking articles with misleading headings. Today, we have another one in “How to End the Same Sex Marriage Debate.”

Aside from the fact that it proposes nothing new, the article essentially says, “Let’s all have civil unions. Leave marriages to churches. Civil unions equal churches. Debate over!” Even if we conceded that this was true and the proper course, I very much doubt that it would end the debate. Numerous rulings on abortion have been issued, in its favor, but that hasn’t ended debate, just emboldened it.

People will be fighting over gay marriage for a long time, and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. A dialogue — an argument, even — is indicative of Democracy, and for that reason alone, debate isn’t bad. Maybe I’m an Isolated Wonk for holding that opinion, though.

Sometimes, I think the Office of the Independent Blogger should be the “Office of the Incessant Bother” because of the amount of articles that I preface with, “It bothers me…” Sadly, I’m afraid I have to do it today, with this article, entitled “Immigrant Issues are Personal for Bush.” Oh? The hell they are.

First, I’d recommend that you read the article. What George Bush did for an immigrant family a long time ago is a very decent, nice thing on his part, and the article shows Bush’s compassion toward immigrants. Absolutely — but let’s not confuse “Having friends who are immigrants” and “Liking Mexican people” with “Immigration is Personal.” Maybe I’m just being anal, but I don’t like the way that article’s headlined. It’s like saying, “I have a personal connection to poverty because I knew a guy who was poor and I bought him a sandwich at Potbelly’s.”

Aside from that qualm, as I said, it’s a good article. It’s the headline that bothers me, because it sets a false tone and gives a false impression and trumps up a false message.

On the subject of messages, everyone should be familiar with the story of James Hansen, the Scientist from NASA who faced suppression from the Bush Administration for communicating his evaluation of Global Warming with the world. Last night, he was on Sixty Minutes and spoke of the reality of this situation. Robert Novak, in response, wrote a column and threatened to leak his wife’s employment status in the press.

Actually, the digs at Novak aside, the column raises interesting points:

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change,” Hansen wrote in 1998. He later admitted devising “extreme scenarios” about global warming to get the attention of “decision-makers.”

As the fiercely contested presidential election of 2004 neared its end, an obviously unmuzzled Hansen declared publicly he was muzzled. Speaking at the University of Iowa on Oct. 26 that year, he declared: “In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now.” At that same event, Hansen said he was voting for Kerry. In short, if you want the truth about environmental peril, you better get rid of Bush.

There’s a proper balance between proper political agitation and worries and using your position as a scientist to push your own political views. I think Hansen has breached this line, myself, much like Bob Novak breached his position as an independent guardian of truth when he started sleeping with the Right Wing.

And leaking the identity of CIA agents.

Speaking of Novak’s lack of integrity, let’s add that to his lack of sophisticated judgement. The man who considered storming off of CNN cursing up a storm writes that the departure of Andrew Card means Karl Rove is “Supreme” in the White House He’s probably right, of course, but he’s wrong to be as cheerful about it as he is.

Rove’s use to Bush is just about done for the future, and we’d all be better suited if he decided to step aside, moving to the Republican National Committee and helping Republicans pull their nasty stunts on Democrats, instead of using his position in the White House to hound fellow Republicans and destroy the Legislative process.

As I said, Novak thinks it’s good to see Karl Rove in power at the White House. As to why, I’m not exactly sure. I guess it must be nice to have someone “on the inside” feeding you information about people’s wives.

Rove and Novak are incessant bothers, as I said. So is the ever-rising cost of health care. There’s a good article on it in the New York Times today, right here, and I’ll write later of my thoughts once I’ve had the time to reflect upon it.

Recently, I asked if John McCain thinks Republicans are stupid. I’m not sure what his answer is, but the GOP is proving itself to be exceptionally, incomprehensibly moronic. I’m not sure if the latest signs coming out of the Beltway point to an acceptance of John McCain amongst the Right Wing or just to the fact that most groups are happy to have the money of someone else and the endorsement of someone generally heralded, but I believe the Right is snuggling McCain closer every day.

Hopefully they’re just following the Chinese admonishment to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. But that might be giving them too much credit.

Being a baseball fan, I’m appalled by Barry Bonds post-1998, and this article annoys me, too. Is Barry Bonds a victim of a racial plot? Yes. It was the white man that made him abuse his ex-girlfriend, take steroids, flip out at the world and claim he wants to jump off the Empire State Building. And it’s this White Man who hopes to prompt him to jump off the Sears Tower.

Bonds just might be unpopular because he’s an arrogant butt of a man who makes it a habit to pity himself in public and trash others for daring to criticize him.

There’s a good review of a book about William Jennings Bryan up at the New Republic, entitled “When Jesus Was a Democrat,” that’s worth giving a look through. I know you might want to skip it because, really, who cares about William Jennings Bryan, but it’s worth it to take a look at the Democratic Party a hundred years ago.

Fred Barnes has an article up about the Four Things Bush Must Do To Stage a “Comeback.” Here’s my list:

1. Pay attention to military advisors in Iraq.
2. Win the War in Iraq.
3. Die.
4. Wait sixty years for historians to note his success in Iraq.

It’s really that simple. Stop listening to Donald Rumsfeld, quit pretending that you’re paying attention to the “Commanders on the Ground,” let your body rest, and then decompose as historians chew through history. Otherwise, there is no “comeback.” Bush’s role in History depends on Iraq, and that depends on him.

Which probably isn’t a good thing.