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."

Continue Reading »

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."

Continue Reading »

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.

Continue Reading »

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."

I've written before on the irony of the "red state/blue state" divide, and how the Republicans somehow wound up as the "red" party in America:

It looks like the equation “Democrats = blue, Republicans = red” is pretty much set in stone for the foreseeable future. Does anyone else see the irony in the Republicans being the “red” party? Does nobody else remember Joe McCarthy and the “red = communism” equation that predated this?

But last night's GOP presidential-hopefuls debate brought another bit of irony for those of us old enough to remember the Cold War.

As Salon reports:

About 15 minutes before the cameras started rolling, the candidates came out on the stage. They faced an audience of several hundred, divided into three sections, each one named for the site of a Reagan summit with the Soviets. The network executives sat in Moscow. The journalists and VIPs sat in Reykjavik. Most of the candidate families and friends sat in Geneva.

The symbolism of a Republican crowd sitting in "Geneva" is bad enough, given George W. Bush's penchance for ignoring international laws (especially those which emanated from Geneva), but am I the only one to see shades of Kafka or Orwell in GOP audience members sitting in "Moscow"?

=====================

More Friday funnies: Toles is hilarious today.

OK, I have to say, after watching Mitt Romney on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, I am more open to his becoming president than I previously was.

Now, this doesn't mean I'm about to vote Republican or anything, but Romney raised his profile considerably (for me) when he told Jay "my sons just gave me a car as a present -- a 1962 Rambler American."

For context (for those of you who don't know me personally), here is the car I learned to drive on:

A not-so beautiful 1968 Rambler American. Man, if that car could talk....

Continue Reading »

Fresh lies! Get your fresh lies right here! Step right up....

Actually, I have to begin with a stale lie, since I'm writing this on the four-year anniversary of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. From his speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools."

Now, I don't mean to be snide, but I would be willing to bet that constructing the biggest and most expensive American Embassy in the entire world in Iraq (although "fortress" might be a better word, but certainly not "palace"...) will be built up to specification and without serious flaws. The rest of the Iraqi reconstruction effort, however (those "hospitals and schools"), does not seem to be going so swimmingly.

Continue Reading »

To: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
RE: Iraq War Appropriations Bill

Madam Speaker and Leader Reid,

First of all, congratulations on your success in getting an Iraq bill onto President Bush's desk. While the news media keep trotting out the "Democrats in disarray" stories, you have debunked this myth by holding your party together on the most important bill you have faced so far. Delivering it to him on the four-year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" was a nice touch, too.

Unfortunately, for both the country and for the troops in Iraq, you don't have the 290 House votes and 67 Senate votes you need to override the upcoming veto of the bill. So you are now faced with three choices:

Continue Reading »

...but first... the Bush Scandal-fest news...

I have to preface today's column with a rundown of all the scandals recently besieging (or about to besiege) the White House. Admittedly, there are so many of them, it's getting hard to keep track.

For those of you keeping score at home, the AP recently ran an excellent list of Bush appointees who have left under a dark cloud... or are about to.

Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee has been busy. Yesterday, they were blowing holes in the Pentagon for using soldiers such as Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch to propagandize the war. Today, they may be issuing subpoenas left and right concerning a handful of various Bush scandals.The chief of the General Services Administration may soon step down amid charges that she abused her position by violating the Hatch Act. Twenty-five senators recently wrote the White House with a list of pointed questions about her activities, which concludes with the line: "The Executive Branch is not an extension of the Republican National Committee, nor of any political party. Those who treat it as such must be held accountable."

But the most shocking news comes from within the administration itself. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Office of Special Counsel is opening an unprecedented and wide-ranging investigation centered on Karl Rove, which may tie together several aspects of many of these scandals -- most notably, the inability of the Bush Administration to ever separate politics from anything it does.

Mind you -- this is just one week's worth of scandals from the Bush White House. And still, all of them put together don't even touch the biggest scandal of the week; truly the center ring in this circus of sleaze: the fact that last week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proved to everyone (except the president) -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that either; (1) Gonzales is a complete moron who can't remember last week or, for that matter, what he had for breakfast; or (2) Gonzales is lying his face off to Congress and the public. Either one would seem to disqualify him for high office. In a reality-based administration, that is.

Continue Reading »