About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

It's been a week of ups and downs for Democrats. Mostly downs.

While congressional Democrats still have yet to pass a single budget bill, they did find the time this week to confirm Michael Mukasey as our new Attorney General. On the positive side, they also successfully overrode a Bush veto for the first time ever.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was timidly bold for a short time. I wish "timidly bold" were indeed the oxymoron that it appears, but sadly it seems that this is the best we can expect from our Democratically-controlled Congress. Pelosi backed only giving President Bush $50 billion for his war in Iraq, instead of the $200 billion he asked for. She then tried to throw a gauntlet of sorts down, by stating that this would be the only bill Bush would see this year to fund Iraq.

Continue Reading »

I have believed for a long time now that whenever you see dismal poll numbers for Congress' approval ratings, there is one simple reason for them: Iraq. Democrats swept both houses of Congress last year, and the reason why the people who voted them in do not approve of the job they've been doing is because they haven't done more to end the war in Iraq.

My belief in this basic premise is strengthened by new poll numbers from Pew. The statement (from the survey): "In challenging Bush about Iraq, Democratic leaders are going..." had four possible answers: "Too far," "Not far enough," "About right," and "Don't know."

Continue Reading »

To Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer;

When, in the future, you retire from the Senate and sit down to write your memoirs, I predict that this week's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey will not rank as one of "the votes I'm proudest of in the Senate" for either of you.

You both knew that voting for Mukasey was the wrong thing to do, and yet you did it anyway for reasons that can only be described as "political expediency." Not exactly a profile in courage for either one of you.

Continue Reading »

The first column I wrote this year on the presidential campaign (5/23/07) took a decidedly unconventional view of the primary season: What if all the pundits are wrong and we DON'T crown a winner on February 5th? Is it possible, in other words, that no winner will be anointed and the campaign will continue -- perhaps all the way to an open party convention?

Jump forward six months, and the pundits are finally beginning to wonder about such a possibility. Chris Cillizza, political blogger for the Washington Post, has just written an article which explores this question in detail, for both parties -- if there is no one clear winner on February 5th, then what could the delegate map look like? It's a great read if you're into wonky "what if" speculation, and the best breakdown I've seen yet of how it all could play out.

Continue Reading »

So here we are, with a year and a day to go before the 2008 presidential election. But what will we be talking about next November as we head to the polls?

I know it is supposed to be my job to prognosticate the future by throwing a dart at the wall and loudly proclaiming "This is where we will be!" -- but today I am turning over the prediction business to you instead. Because I am interested in what other people think the momentous issues of next year's election will be, no matter who is left running. So let me know what you think.

The questions are hard to answer, but easy to ask. Here's just a random sampling of what the possible "big issue" could be this time next year.

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

Since this column has not been afraid to coin new terms, I submit for the blogosphere's approval the Bush Doublethink Corollary to Godwin's Law: "Stating your opponents are ignoring a new Hitler while at the same time advocating tactics which the Nazis themselves used." The sheer Orwellian audacity of doing so should be apparent to any sane and coherent individual. [References: Godwin's Law, and also Reductio ad Hitlerum]

Bush has earned this moniker for saying recently that congressional Democrats ignore Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and are making the world a more dangerous place, by refusing to confirm his nominee for Attorney General because he refuses to call waterboarding torture. Or something like that. It's hard to fathom what Bush is really thinking at this point. Here is the relevant quote:

Continue Reading »

The Bush administration is pushing a narrative on national security issues (and has been for some time now) which can be summed up as: "Trust us, we know what we're doing -- and we're doing it to keep you safe." Two facets of this issue are on the front burner this week: warrantless wiretapping and torture (or as they put it "extraordinary interrogation techniques," one of many euphemisms they've trotted out). But what seems to be lost in the debate are two data points that just don't fit in with their pre-packaged narrative. And, once again, the mainstream media are largely ignoring these points since they'd have to... you know... commit an act of journalism to confront them squarely.

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy