Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Well worth reading both of them:
Top 20 Democrats for President
Top 20 Republicans for President
Warning: at some point you are going to bust out laughing when you read these.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In these days of Alberto Gonzales and the National Security Agency, I thought I'd begin with that review. But, unlike the massive and widespread trampling of the Fourth Amendment by both Gonzales and the NSA, I would like to draw your attention to a smaller and more limited attempted abuse of the Bill of Rights.
When I first read the story, I had to check to see that I wasn't reading The Onion. But, no, this story is straight from the Associated Press.
Maybe it's just me.
During a press conference with Tony Blair this morning, President Bush interjected some comedy in his opening remarks. The joke we're supposed to focus on (the White House transcript helpfully tells us it was greeted with "Laughter") was a self-depreciating joke Bush told which reminded everyone of his recent gaffe in front of the Queen. Here is how Bush opened his remarks:
"Thank you. I'm pleased to welcome Tony Blair back to the White House. He is a good friend. He has led the British people for a long time, since 1797." (Laughter.)
It must be clearly stated that the Bush administration just doesn't really have a good track record when it comes to predicting what the Iraqi government is going to do (or when it'll get done, for that matter). This may ultimately prove to be the Iraq war policy's undoing. Because of this inability to see Iraqi political realities clearly, President Bush is about to get blindsided by the Iraqi parliament. This will a be a "one-two" punch (it should be noted), since immediately afterwards, a growing wave of Republican congressmen are going to do some Bush blindsiding of their own -- by jumping ship on his Iraq policy, and voting with the Democrats to end the war. But more on that in a moment.
[Apologies for not posting yesterday, I was attending the military funeral of a friend's father. No political statement here -- this was not an Iraq war vet, just a Navy E3 from long ago -- but I just didn't feel like posting yesterday.]
Two things to mention today.
The first is to strongly urge you to watch PBS' "Frontline" tonight (if it airs tonight in your region), as the title is "Spying on the Home Front." From a New York Times article on the show:
[The show] suggests that the domestic surveillance begun by the Bush administration after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, redefines the legal standards on which the United States was founded. Old standard: Law enforcement's job is to seek out a specific suspect and/or investigate a specific crime. New standard: Everyone is a suspect, and the crimes will be specified when those in charge are good and ready.
If you're like me, and would sincerely like presidential candidates to offer solid, detailed solutions to problems (and wonder why they don't more often), here is Exhibit A for why Clinton and Obama keep their cards so close to the vest when it comes to offering details. The Associated Press ran this story under the headline "Edwards Big -- And Costly -- Proposals."
Banging the "tax and spend liberal" drum as hard as they can, the AP story admits that voters like Edwards' plans, and then goes on to present the plans in the worst light possible.
And people wonder why campaign consultants tell the candidates "don't be too specific."
Iraq Posturing (take 1...)
By a vote of 255-171, the House just failed to pass a strongly-worded bill to get U.S. troops out of Iraq in nine months. The vote is no surprise, really, since Speaker Nancy Pelosi only offered the vote to toss some red meat to the more virulent anti-war House Democrats. Next up for the House: a vote on the "let's split it in two" idea for only funding the war until July, then requiring Bush to ask for more money. This effort should also be seen as dead in the water, since even if it passes the House there's just no way it will make it intact through the Senate.
Iraq Posturing (take 2...)
President Bush, while tossing Republicans some red meat of his own by threatening a veto of the "split it in two" plan, also appeared to be backing down on the subject of benchmarks, although it remains to be seen how far he really will back down:
"One message I have heard from people from both parties is that the idea of benchmarks makes sense. And I agree. It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward. And so I've empowered Josh Bolten to find common ground on benchmarks. And he will continue to have dialogue with both Republicans and Democrats."
What is it about Florida and elections, anyway? Is it something in the water down there?
Just when everyone was getting comfortable with our new 2008 presidential primary election schedule, Florida comes along and upsets the whole applecart... so we may not even get a chance to see if it would have worked or not.
I wrote an article predicting how the Iraq war would be ended by Democrats in Congress back in January which prognosticated that it wouldn't be until this fall that Republicans would start supporting Democratic efforts to end the war.
David Broder, of the Washington Post, has finally come around to my way of thinking. Since he's seen as being a kind of "dean of the chattering classes" I must admit I feel a bit vindicated.
[Sorry for the short post today, Tuesdays will normally be light days since I'll be busy writing Wednesdays' Huffington Post articles.]
For those of you who habitually decry the mainstream media's shunning of all but the top tier presidential candidates, there is a long and respectful article in Salon today about the long-shot-iest of the long shots on the Democratic side, Mike Gravel. It's an interesting read....
While much has been said about the French elections, the thing that struck me was the fact that 85% of them turned out to vote. In our last presidential election, south of 60% exercised their franchise. Maybe it has something to do with scheduling the voting on a weekend, instead of a Tuesday? Just a thought....
In Congressional news, the Senate tried but failed to pass a bill allowing prescription drugs to be imported from Canada, and last week the House voted on a federal hate crimes bill to protect gays, and the media collectively yawned. Bush has indicated he's likely to veto either of these if they arrive on his desk, but the Democrats in Congress should be given a little credit for attempting bills that, even if vetoed, can be used as campaign fodder next year against Republicans. OK, that's a crass political analysis, but since they likely won't override a veto, I believe it's accurate.
Finally, President Bush shows off his intellect to the Queen of England by forgetting what century our bicentennial was in:
"The American people are proud to welcome Your Majesty back to the United States, a nation you've come to know very well," Bush said. "After all, you've dined with 10 U.S. presidents. You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- in 1976."
As the audience laughed, Bush paused and glanced at the queen, then ad-libbed, "She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child."
