Office of the Independent Blogger

In 1994, Ted Kennedy crushed Mitt Romney, and while I credit his victory to the fact that he is Massachussetts, others credit these advertisements run by Ted. Either way, they’re powerful ads, ripping Romney for his work as a buyout-specialist-putting-people-out-of-work.

Now we know how he’ll be attacked: at the Republican grassroots, for being a Mormon “Conservative” who wanted to run in Boston, and in the Democratic Party? As a heartless businessman and opponent of the middle class.

In other news, Fred Thompson is leaving Law and Order to run for President.

A friend of mine recently dropped out of school to become an ultimate fighter. I’ll say to Thompson what I said to Tom: Right. Not that I don’t believe in pursuing your dreams, but you should never do anything with reckless abandon, especially not when your audience is going to miss you and you’re about to face a new one that probably won’t receive you as well.

The military is sending amputee soldiers back into combat after treatment.

I don’t know if it’s a wrong decision or not. The way I figure is, If they want to go back, let them go back. But I don’t think it bodes well for our overall troop numbers, that we’re sending handicapped soldiers off to war. Makes you wonder how we’ll stay in Iraq for fifty years, like Bush wants and I used to want.

It’s just not feasible. The situation’s far too violent and the War is lost here at home, if not there, too. I’m sure Bush’ll remain until the end of his Presidency, and I expect the Democrats to keep troops there as well, at least for awhile, if they take over.

The Secret Service is stretching itself too thin because of the enormous field this year. In response they’re pulling agents from other agencies and taking guys off of investigation and putting them into security.

My solution? Don’t protect all of the candidates. I mean, who wants to kill Tommy Thompson or Joe Biden? Aside from Labour Party speechwriters.

A few more things on my radar: Bush is passing more economic sanctions against Sudan, hundreds of thousands of lives, of children, too late. Shame on him, as well as the international community that didn’t do anything either though they were in a better position to help than us.

Cindy Sheehan is quitting as the face of the antiwar Left. She’s mad at Democrats now, as every antiwar democrat should be. Wonder if she’s mad at herself yet, for a) believing that the Democrats would do anything significant against the war and b) exploiting her pro-war, pro-military son’s death and ruining her marriage and family as a result.

China has sentenced their food and drug chief to death because of consumer-safety scandals. Now I know that “Die if you fail!” might motivate some people, but I also know that the Chinese are a disgusting government and there’s absolutely no reason to sentence someone to death for being incompetent and corrupt (he expedited the arrival of new drugs for bribes). But this is China we’re talking about where the death penalty is acceptable for being born.

I hope you all, we all, take today to celebrate and celebrate well.

Have a good one!

America and Iran are talking again for the first time since Ronald Reagan offered to give them weapons and money illegally. No, wait, that was “covert” and doesn’t count as “official.” Well, anyway, we’re officially talking with Iran again, but only about Iraq.

The United States is pursuing a two-track strategy with Iran that reflects the high stakes in any engagement with a nation President Bush accuses of bankrolling terrorism and secretly building a nuclear bomb. Monday’s talks in Baghdad are one element. Discussion between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors is only supposed to cover Iraq, where they have competing and overlapping interests. Then there are the U.S. Navy’s exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from Bush about new U.N. penalties against Tehran.

“In the American mind, the two tracks sort of complement each other,” with the muscle-flexing and threats serving to push Iran to the bargaining table, said Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Iran only sees one track” and thinks it is a trap, Takeyh said. He does not hold out much hope the diplomats will get beyond talking points on Monday. “The coercive track is undermining and negating the diplomatic track and preventing any sort of meaningful discussions,” Takeyh said.

Still, any direct talks are rare. Even fleeting encounters at larger gatherings or diplomatic dinners are scrutinized for clues to the future of a troubled relationship. The Baghdad talks are the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement is possible after nearly three decades of animosity. Iran, angry over the blunt show of U.S. military power off its coast, almost refused to come.

The interesting thing to me about this whole situation is that neither side genuinely wishes to achieve anything with the other and that there is the problem. President Bush and Mahmoud Ahmaniac! both decided a long time ago that they would do everything they could to work against one another and that’s where we are now.

Maybe we should just offer them a ton of money and weapons and leave it at that? Worked for Reagan, right? And isn’t that all we can really ask for?

Serious thoughts on the matter: meaningless talks, and don’t tell me, “Oh, they’re significant because they’re formally talking!” No. They won’t be significant until Bush and Ahmaniac! tell us they’re significant or lose power. These two men are bumbler warmongers who couldn’t carry out a diplomatic coup d’tat or a military one if their lives or future reigns depended on it.

I thought this was funny because it ended in the exact manner I reacted to it in.

Hillary Clinton contemplated divorce out of a sense of rage at her husband’s affairs, according to an extensive new biography by Carl Bernstein, the former Washington Post reporter who uncovered the Watergate scandal with Bob Woodward. […] He details the full extent of the Clintons’ troubled relationship and says that Mr Clinton considered ditching his wife in 1989 in favour of Marilyn Jo Jenkins, a company executive. Ms Clinton, one of the frontrunners in the race for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential race, refused to accept a divorce.
“There are worse things than infidelity,” she is reported to have told Betsey Wright, chief of staff to Mr Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas before standing for the presidency. But Ms Clinton did not remain sanguine for long. Out of rage at her husband’s behaviour, she toyed in 1990 with the idea of standing as governor of Arkansas in his place. At one point, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed a woman alleged to have had an affair with Mr Clinton.

Bernstein reports a conversation between Ms Clinton and one of her best friends, Diane Blair, in which she raised the prospect of seeking a divorce but was worried about money and the impact on their daughter, Chelsea. Ms Blair is quoted as saying: “She didn’t own a house. She was concerned that if she were to become a single parent, how would she make it work in a way that would be good for Chelsea.” Both Clintons went to great lengths to keep his sex life out of the media spotlight, Bernstein says in the book to be published on June 5. Another book on Ms Clinton comes out three days later, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by reporters Jeff Garth and Don Van Natta.

As Clinton’s spokeswoman says in the end: “The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news.” Sassy! True, though.

I bring it up because my biggest questions about the campaign are: 1) How will the nation react to a black man running for President, in the end? 2) How will they react to a woman? 3) How will Hillary react when they start pounding her about Bill’s affairs, and when he inevitably screws up and a newspaper prints an article about his thirty mistresses two weeks before the New Hampshire primary.

What will she do? I don’t expect it to be pretty. I hope somebody speaks to her in her campaign about how to react to the inevitable because if I read her right, she’s going to be on the warpath and furious, which might very well lead her to self-implode. So be careful, Mrs. Clinton.

George W. Bush was pooped on by a bird yesterday.

That, as they like to say in Vermont, is poetry!

Thanks to the readers who emailed me to point out that I haven’t posted about this yet.

Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without a troop withdrawal timeline. Several officials said the emerging $120 billion compromise would include as much as $8 billion for Democratic domestic priorities—originally resisted by the White House—such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought. After a bruising veto struggle in which Bush vetoed one Democratic-drafted measure and threatened to reject another, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush’s signature by Friday.

This means, of course, that the Democrats in Congress are going to fund the war with no additional requirements, benchmarks or questions asked all the way through the end of 2008, which is contrary to everything they’ve talked about on the campaign trail and representative of Why People Don’t Trust the Democratic Party and They Lose Elections. Now I don’t know what the political ramnifications would be of a pullout. Perhaps the Republicans might be able to say, in a year five or ten, “The Democrats quit the War right as we were pulling it around!” but I don’t think so, and I’m disappointed in my party for its cowardice on the issue.

You want to give him authorization and funds for the War? Fine, I say, but don’t give him a blank check until his Presidency is over. This, coupled with the Democratic Party’s recent flip-flopping on issues of corruption and lobbying reform show why I said all through the winter that I would have to wait-and-see what the Democrats do before I praise them because politics, and the system, will make a fool of every man, which is why we have elections that reaffirm: it’s hardly ever the man, it’s the system. And then you’ve to understand: this is the best we’ve got!

Chew on this.

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

Now listen. It isn’t a covert operation if it’s a) out in the media, and b) been going on since Jimmy Carter was President. This type of operation in Iran isn’t new at all. Sorry ABC. Not only did you not break any big, new news, but you embarrassed your country in the process because while it isn’t well-known, it shouldn’t be.

I’d like to take this time now to talk about this, a newspiece about a little-noticed Bush declaration on the ninth that says the President will lead the whole Federal Government in times of emergency and he is in charge. Some are taking it to mean he’s asserting his right to dictatorial powers in the event of an attack of disaster but I’ll defend Bush on this. All he’s saying is, If Washington is wiped down, or a city is blown to bits, or Oprah Winfrey’s father writes a tell-all book about her, he will maintain order as President of the United States and the rest of the Government will have to follow his example.

It’s not crazy. It’s simple, and basic, and it’s gone on for a long time, such a philosophy, particularly during the early days, the Civil War and now in our age of mass, instant destruction. That’s nothing to worry about: Iraq, health care and our finances are.

An interesting storyline is developing in the Presidential campaign: John McCain as rude hothead. I’ve got a couple of notes on the article.

In the 2000 presidential bid, McCain was dubbed “Senator Hothead” by Newsweek. That year, he won endorsement from only a few Senate colleagues. His frequent attacks and volatile personality were most likely to blame. “McCain notes,” which offer apologies after heated words, are held by many members of Congress. McCain has written about what he describes as his impatience. “Although I try to refrain from being intentionally discourteous, I am demonstrative in showing my displeasure. I am often impatient and can speak and act abruptly,” he wrote in “Why Courage Matters” in 2004.

In a 1999 interview with The Times, McCain said: “I do everything I can to keep my anger under control. I wake up daily and tell myself, ‘You must do everything possible to stay cool, calm and collected today.’”

Listen: if the first thing you tell yourself in the morning is, “Don’t go batshit,” there’s something wrong with you. I’ve said it all along: McCain’s mental state is not one for a President nor is his closed mind. He’s a nut, and he’s nuttier than George W. Bush.

These comments are pretty good, too. McCain was asked about his disagreements with Romney on immigration. So he said,

“Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because its changed in less than a year from his position before,” McCain retorted, referring to Romney’s immigration stance. “And maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn.”

Naturally, the media jumped on his comments when before, the same comments would’ve branded him refreshing and candid! What’s changed? People in the press really want to see a Democrat. At the least, they don’t want a nasty hawk Republican, which is what McCain is, and in this post-9/11 World, nobody wants to elect Barry Goldwater.

So this summer I planned to take a thirty day trip around the United States because a) I thought it would be a beautiful way to celebrate my graduation from High School and b) I want to see the United States of America, period. I learned last night that I can’t take my trip. Not because my mother wasn’t on board (she was), or because I’m a diabetic and couldn’t stand to be away as such for so long (I’m not, I can), but because a) Amtrak is an idiot’s organization and b) I am that idiot.

I misread Amtrak’s Thirty Day USA Rail Pass. It reads: US and Canadian citizens are not eligible to purchase USA Rail Passes but I didn’t catch that. I can’t believe I didn’t catch that. It’s a prime example of a person not being able to see the trees because of the forest. But besides the fact that I’ve made a buffoon out of myself by misreading, Amtrak is an idiotic organization because it doesn’t offer any way to travel with an unlimited pass for a certain amount of time.

Oh, they have unlimited month passes, I read, and started to perk up a bit but no! No no no! Those aren’t really unlimited. You can’t take them for “long distances” (NYC to Philadelphia, for instance, is too far) and they don’t work at certain stations. What on Earth is the point of that? Why on Earth would you make a monthlong pass that doesn’t do anything but get you to work? I understand that people buy it because it’s convenient for work but what about vacation? Travel? Isn’t that something that they could make a ton of money off of?

I guess the American citizen, the teenage traveler, are unimportant to Amtrak. I guess that’s way nobody gives a shit in return. What a ridiculous service, or lackthereof. This is why people become loners: because the world’s so uncooperative, but it demands all the cooperation in the world from you.

Two notes from Gingrich’s trip to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University: he won’t decide to run for President until October, and he’s still a tool. Falwell too. If that University had any integrity, they’d keep Gingrich away because he’s the same man, sexually, as Bill Clinton, and he’s arguably the man most responsible for the recent upswing political warfare instead of dialogue in this country. I just figure that the Falwell family figures it needs all the help as it gets since their King is dead and the newest, hott(headed)est right-wing Fundamentalist is protesting his funeral.

Westboro Baptist Church says it intends to state a protest at the funeral of Rev. Jerry Falwell. Falwell died died Tuesday at age 73. The funeral will be Tuesday at the Thomas Road Baptist Church, the church he founded, in Lynchburg, Virginia. On its Web site, Westboro says it will “preach” outside the funeral “of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like ‘God loves everyone.’” The church is run by the Rev. Fred Phelps (pictured) and its 70 members are made up mostly of Phelps’ relatives. Although it professes to be Baptist it is not affiliated with any national Baptist group. In attacking Falwell the church says he “warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White (of Souflorce), and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc.”

Oh, and if you want to look at the Bush Administration a little further, to see what these scumbags are really like, read this. It’s absolutely appalling, and anytime John Ashcroft comes off as the voice of reason, you’ve got to go.

Humor, meet kettle

Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy. The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush’s environmental policies and the administration’s “quite disturbing” faith-based initiative funding. “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions. “The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”

Don’t you think it’s funny that all of his worst Presidents have come in his time? Including the one man he leaves unaccounted for? Himself!

Think Progress is one of the best sites on the Internet, scooping up valuable political stories and commenting on them with a swift sense of humor. Take today’s news that Rumsfeld wants to open an education foundation aimed at supporting “America’s role in foreign affairs,” where they’ll learn about:

– Winning A War In Under Six Months: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

– How To Be Greeted As Liberators:“‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,‘ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

– How To Create The Perfect War Plan: “Of course the implication that there was something wrong with the war plan is amusing.”

– Armies You Have Vs. Armies You Might Want: “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

– Locating Weapons Of Mass Destruction: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Don’t you love it?

On another ironic note, the “God Hates Fags” Reverend Phelps himself will be protesting Jerry Falwell’s funeral. Why? As Phelps puts it,

Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, Etc. All for lucre - making him guilty of their sins.

Right.

Time magazine’s got a great piece up on Al Gore. I don’t care for the title but it’s a fascinating look at the man. Almost every article on Al Gore these days is interesting.

My guess is he doesn’t run. My wish is that he does. I just don’t think he’d call the system out, call the President out, with as much fire as he has if he were running for President.