Rather than beginning with my usual chatty yet absolutely riveting introductory remarks (ahem), the preface to today's column will be an introduction (for some) and a reintroduction (for others). Note: If you already know what this column is all about, then you can skip directly to this week's awards, as the only new thing I'm about to say here is that there will be no FTP column next week, it being the Fourth of July. And I plan to be otherwise engaged, with a hamburger fresh off the grill and a cold beer fresh from the ice chest.

Continue Reading »

President Bush is in the news today declaring, in essence, that North Korea need no longer be considered as part of his "Axis Of Evil." With absolutely no proof whatsoever, Congress is now supposed to remove North Korea from the list of countries which are considered state sponsors of terrorism. So much for all that fiery rhetoric Bush used to use about terrorism.

Continue Reading »

No, that's not a typo in the title. Because President George Bush may (to his own party's dismay, incidentally) wind up being remembered as "Mister Precedent," and not as "Mister President."

George Bush's term in office will be remembered for the precedents it set, particularly in relation to the power of the presidency, and the separation of powers between the three branches of American government. Vice President Dick Cheney has been at the forefront of this effort to "restore power" to the presidency, which he believes was unjustly taken from the office in the aftermath of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

This naked power grab has taken many forms. The most obvious, of course, is Bush and Cheney's assertion that because "we're at war" (even though, technically, we aren't), His Highness The President can do whatever he feels like -- and it's legal by definition. Somehow the words "commander in chief" in the Constitution are supposed to be read "when we're at war, the president cannot be questioned or restrained in any way, shape, or form." Since we're "at war" Bush can do any damn thing he pleases -- torture people, kidnap people anywhere on earth, send people to other countries to be tortured, eavesdrop on anyone he wishes without having a judge sign off on it, hold anyone in the world prisoner endlessly, and all the shameful rest of it -- and the Constitution and any international agreements we've signed (like the Geneva Conventions) are suddenly and magically no longer in effect.

Continue Reading »

One might think that this column, after sinking pretty low on the juvenile-humor scale yesterday, would rise above such cheap humor today. One would be wrong. Today, this column sinks even lower. Consider this a warning. Perhaps by tomorrow this column can reclaim the heights of seriousness to which you, dear reader, have become accustomed... but for today, this is just too good to pass up.

From the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle today comes a story on the continuing efforts of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco. "Wow," one might think, "that's a pretty gosh-darned patriotic name!" If one met this group on the street, one would also think "there's a patriotic bunch of folks," since they routinely dress up as Uncle Sam and wave big flags and have patriotic music playing on their boom box. However, this would depend entirely on one's definition of "patriotic."

Personally, it fits mine -- but you will have to judge for yourself.

Continue Reading »

George Carlin (and Lenny Bruce before him) fought the ingrained Puritanism in America in the best way they knew how. I consider both to be pioneers and patriots for the First Amendment. Now that Carlin is gone, someone else will be needed to pick up this torch and carry it onward.

Carlin's famous "seven words you can never say on television" pointed out how corporate America can be cowed by self-proclaimed defenders of family values into censoring themselves. You would think, with cable television and the internet, that we've come a long way since then. But we really haven't.

Continue Reading »

Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.

Continue Reading »

Much like last week, news items seem to be coming fast and furious this week, meaning too many interesting things to talk about to fit into just one column per day. So, once again in honor of the late great Herb Caen, we turn to the three-dot journalism formula to cram them all into one (hopefully) coherent article. Without further ado...

...I'm going to talk about the media's love affair with John McCain tomorrow, but I had to throw this related item in here. Michelle Obama's words and actions have been pretty heavily scrutinized out on the campaign trail already, and you just know there's going to be more to come. But (surprise) when it comes to Cindy McCain, there has been almost no coverage at all. She won't release more than two pages of one single year of her tax returns, which is directly relevant to the candidate himself. Has the media been demanding more transparency from her? [Sound of crickets chirping.] Then there's the way in which she became the second Mrs. John McCain, and his behavior during the breakup of his first marriage. [Media outlets yawn.] But the real scandal in her past is the fact that she used to be a drug addict, stole drugs from a charity that were supposed to go to third-world countries, and went through rehab as a result. If you haven't heard this story, you are not alone, since the media refuses to mention it, while at the very same time it is obsessing over whether Michelle Obama's fist bump with her husband could possibly mean she's a terrorist (I wish I were making this up, but sadly, I'm not). Stephen Elliott at the Huffington Post puts it better than I could:

Continue Reading »

Hillary Clinton needs to start making some campaign appearances for Barack Obama. She needs to give a speech to voters which clearly lays out why they should vote for Obama over the Republican candidate. And she needs to start giving this speech soon. Because there is still a division in the Democratic Party, and we only have a few months to rally the base. And Hillary Clinton's strong endorsement of Barack Obama in front of crowds of people is the best way to heal this division.

A lot has happened in the last two weeks. Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president two Tuesdays ago. Hillary Clinton did not give a concession speech that night. Four days later, on one of the slowest news days of the week, she did deliver a great concession speech. Not exactly "ready on Day One," but everyone cut her slack because of the length and intensity of the campaign. And because it really was a good speech. Her endorsement of Obama was sweeping and wholehearted. To quote just some of her praise for Barack Obama:

Continue Reading »

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
-- from "Man of La Mancha"

Could the Democrats enter next year with a filibuster-proof (or more properly, "cloture-proof") majority of 60 seats in the United States Senate? I've been asking myself that for the past year or so; and every time I did, I thought: "That's just too wildly optimistic, it'll never happen." But now, I can accurately plot how this astounding political feat could actually come to pass.

Now, don't get me wrong. I still think it's highly unlikely to happen, as the Democrats would have to have an absolutely perfect election -- winning everything and losing nothing. The fact that they already did this in 2006 bears consideration, but it would be foolhardy at this point to actually predict that lightning is going to strike twice in the same way.

But the path does exist now, so I'd like to lay it out as I see it. Democrats are going to have to win 10 or 11 races in order to pull it off. The good news is that only one or two of these are seats currently held by Democrats. Which means that the Democrats are going to be on offense almost everywhere in the country, and Republicans are going to be on defense.

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama and Howard Dean see eye-to-eye on what Democrats need in order to build the party's base all across America: a 50-state strategy. In other words, don't ignore two-thirds of the country as either "safe" states or "we'll never win" states, and instead make your case to people everywhere in America. Perhaps this won't flip "red" states for the presidential race, but it will benefit "down-ticket" Democrats struggling in states which are usually written off by the national party organization. This could bear fruit in many places this year, but I would like to suggest one previously "redder than red" state where an Obama visit could help Democratic candidates... and also conveniently back John McCain into an impossible corner. Obama needs to go north -- to Alaska.

Alaska, to the surprise of many pundits, is going to be very close this year. This stems from Republican office-holders apparently trying to take the "first in political corruption" award away from Louisiana. There are so many recent scandals involving Alaskan Republicans that it is almost impossible to keep track of them all. Bribery, corruption, graft -- apparently they were all par for the course for the GOP up north. Which is why Democrats even have a chance this year, because while most of these scandals didn't make the press down here in the "lower 48," they were splashed across the headlines in Alaska itself. And Alaskan voters have been paying attention.

Continue Reading »