PSoTD

By the time we reach early 2008, and survive the next 12 months or so of Bush scandals, Democratic hearings, Bush vetoes, Democratic responses, and over hyped media coverage of the top tier of Democratic contenders, including the upcoming sandbagging of Hillary and ongoing smearing of all things Clinton, do you really think that Hillary will still be Number One? I have been kicking this around in my mind over the last week, and I just can’t get inspired at the thought of Hillary as our standard-bearer heading into the convention next year, especially after the weekly drubbing she will go through with the media.

Is anyone looking forward to a Rudy-Hillary race?

I know some people may say that this is some sort of fear talking, but I don't agree - I think it's an accurate assessment of political reality. My gnawing suspicion is that the Democrats have the greatest potential for losing the Presidential election of 2008 by nominating Hillary Clinton. This isn't to say she shouldn't be President some day. But she has some big issues that other candidates do not have, namely Iraq and everything-negative-about-Clinton. Time may reduce those issues, but it hasn't been reduced enough yet, nor will it by 2008. In addition, in 14-plus years she's not indicated much ability to be dynamic nor inspirational, and it sure seems to me after the past 8 years that people are looking for that. Doesn't that explaim Obama? So will Hillary Clinton be able to close the deal with the American people in November 2008? My heart and brain says no. My heart says no, because Steve Soto is right - I want a clean break, I want new executive branch leadership, I want change, in Iraq AND in America, and I don't see Hillary pointing us in the direction I want to America to go. And my brain says that if I'm so disturbed by a Clinton candidacy at this point - to the point that I'm blogging like this about it - then there's something wrong. I should be an easy sell for her. She's had 14 plus years to convince me. But it hasn't happened. How many other Democrats like me are out there? Too many, I'm afraid.

You see a lot of bloggers with the same kind of angst out there. That should make Hillary Clinton nervous - not because we're a force against her campaign, but because we're a visible symptom about her campaign.

If it could be transported in time, would today's news media have exposed the Watergate scandal as the media did in the 1970s?

John at the Donnybrook admitted he was a little surprised that Gonzales lasted the weekend. New revelations on Monday. Yet, at this point, no resignation.

Does anyone believe this is just political foolishness on the part of the President, a stubborn trait gone awry? I know I don't. I think it's a political assessment, and for whatever reason, keeping Gonzales as A.G. is more beneficial than the open bleeding he currently presents to the administration. It's not like this is some sort of partisan deal at this point - conservative bloggers are clearly upset that Gonzales is still there and tainting everything. (Well, make that about the 13th coat of taint by this administration.)

So... what happens if Gonzales leaves? Why is that worse for Bush than leaving him twisting as A.G.? Are there protections available to Gonzales relating to testifying today that would not be available to him if he testified as a civilian? Or is this just about keeping everyone close in order to keep stories straight, because once somebody leaves Camp Bush, the whole thing is going to fall apart on this one?

I personally don't think it is wise for a government to be designating such a person, but regardless of that, Gilberto Gil is a damn interesting - and talented - person to have in such a position.

But I thought I'd share a few thoughts from other bloggers around the web. The more I think of the short worthless "Presidential" candidacy of Tom Vilsack, the more disgusted I am over what seems to me to be his strategic end game of it.

First of all, I wrote this over at Susie's:

Vilsack’s three month candidacy for President should severely diminish any value his endorsement should give Clinton.

There are similar sentiments out there. Crooks and Liars:

Schmidt said Vilsack might be angling for an appointment as vice president or a cabinet member if Clinton wins the presidency. The professor likened the endorsement game to investing. If you want to land a big return, you invest early, he said.

New Hampshire Primary 2008:

But, that’s just at the state level. Out in Iowa, former governor and former Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack has announced that he’s supporting Hillary. How many "formers" are you allowed to have and still be relevant?

Exactly.

Popconservative:

Remember when I said that Tom Vilsack would be my guess for Hillary Clinton's VP candidate? Well, he is endorsing her after his early exit from the race. Suspiciously early, like maybe the Clinton campaign told him as much. Anyway, having the former governor of the state with the first primary (caucus, whatever) in your corner has to be a good thing. Obama will probably try to play up his Midwestern-ness as much as possible in Iowa, something Clinton cannot do (especially after she threw away her Arkansan cred with that ridiculous fake accent), so she'll need the help.

Century of the Common Iowan:

Like Chris at Political Forecast, I was surprised to hear that Tom Vilsack is planning on endorsing Hillary Clinton this early. Vilsack ran his short Presidential campaign being outspoken against the Iraq War, calling for the withdrawl of troops out of Iraq, opposing Bush's attempt to escalate the war with a troop surge, and even ending funding for the war.

Copeland Institute for Lower Learning

The don't-blink-or-you-missed-it Democratic presidential candidacy of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack must have really been about trying to be vice president, because he's already come out and endorsed Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton. For shame, Mr. Vilsack.

I just can't shake how politically crass Vilsack's "campaign" seems at this point, even in today's environment.

FedSpending.org has listed Federal Contract Awards by Contractor State. There's a lot of ways to look at the data, but one thing surprises me - why does Wyoming have so little contractor action? Guam and Puerto Rico supposedly surpass Wyoming in annual total. I would think that with several years of Republican Congressional representation, with Republicans in the Executive Branch and Dick Cheney a previous Wyoming Congressman, you'd think that the firms there would have some juice for federal contracting.

If I was a Governor in the Democratic Party in an early primary state, I think I'd be very interested in seeing what, if anything, Vilsack's endorsement provides Clinton in voter support. My gut feeling, and it is just a gut feeling, is that it isn't going to make much difference now, and will make less difference as time goes on. Too early for any real impact, particularly an endorsement from a Governor that probably couldn't win his own state's primary next year. Maybe it's about money and access to Vilsack's contributors...

But if this endorsement falls flat on its face in poll impact, I would think that some Governors might be more likely to hold their cards a bit longer before endorsing.

Secondly, what was the entire point of Vilsack's campaign if he's going to throw his weight behind another candidate so quickly after dropping out and so far away from the election? Was he really so close to Clinton in views that he could make this decision so quickly and easily? It really lends itself to an easy acceptance that the Vilsack Campaign, although short, was ridiculously worthless for advancing anything of content.

This is just TOO GOOD...

I guess this scandal doesn't reach Republican members of Congress.

The FBI is investigating whether Alaska political appointees improperly punished state regulators who tried to enforce environmental rules against oil companies operating in Alaska, according to people contacted by investigators.

The inquiry, which is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's office in Anchorage, is connected to an ongoing criminal investigation of BP PLC for allowing pipelines it operates to corrode enough to cause a large oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope in 2006. Similar pipeline corrosion discovered later that year forced the shutdown of Prudhoe Bay, the most productive oil field in the United States.

Now, the actions of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which is responsible for overseeing oil operations in the state, have come under scrutiny from federal investigators, though it’s unclear whether current or former state officials would face criminal charges.

Critics of the department say senior political appointees are partly to blame for the state’s environmental woes, such as last year’s oil spills. They say these appointees repeatedly shielded oil companies from enforcement actions that would have required better maintenance and oversight of the industry’s facilities and pipelines.

“We’re aware of the allegations, and we are looking into it,” said FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez. He declined to comment further.

One incident that has caught investigators’ attention occurred in December 2001, when the department shifted responsibility for oil-spill prevention and response on the North Slope. Michele Brown, who was then the department’s commissioner, took away that job from Susan Harvey, a civil servant, and gave it to a person appointed by Brown. Environmentalists have long claimed that Harvey’s oversight of the North Slope was stripped because Alaska oil producers complained that her interpretation of the state’s environmental rules was too harsh. Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobil Corp. hold major stakes in Prudhoe Bay, which is operated by BP.

Harvey resigned in March 2002, convinced, she said, that its leadership wouldn’t allow her to enforce environmental laws against the oil industry.

George W. Bush would probably not be in political hot water if U.S. Attorneys were unionized...

Bush has a pretty strong case of it, and from the way his press conference went off tonight, it looks like there's a reason he's scared - that their story won't hold up if Rove and company testify under oath, and more importantly, if the "White House only" documents concerning the 8 U.S. Attorneys have to be provided. Bush is hanging to dear life to the "White House - Justice Department" communications thread. Subpoena the White House...

Incidentally, I should say that I think the increasing focus on a two-way Clinton-Obama war this far from the primaries augurs very well for John Edwards since he's maintaining his "likeability," doing his thing in the early states, and is perennially well-positioned to sweep in at any moment and say "Hey! Look! A white male southerner with progressive views -- that's how you spell 'electable.'"

June 12, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Today nations are building walls like crazy. Brazil confirmed that it will build a steel and concrete wall along the Paraguayan border to help combat contraband in the Triple frontier area where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet. There's the US fence/wall for the US-Mexico border. Pakistan is building a fence. Maybe states can get into it too, and we can have the Great Maryland/West Virginia picket fence or the Michigan/Indiana hedge.

Point is, whatever Ronald Reagan was driving at has been lost over time. Apparently the world has decided that Reagan was wrong, and East Germany and the Soviet Union were right.

Second biggest debacle in American history, that's all. (First place has to go to the American Civil War, although it will work out that it ended quicker than this war)

Lie more aggressively.

I'm hopeful that this might be evidence that the message is filtering up in the Democratic Party. For many voters, including myself, Hillary's stance on the Iraq War and the lenience she has given the Bush Administration in general has made her a nonstarter as a candidate. I don't care how much money she can bring in and spend as a candidate.

But to make this clear: for me, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BILL CLINTON. It has to do with how she has positioned herself on major issues. In many ways, it's not much different than how I feel about Joe Biden.

His job approval goes up.

America to George W. Bush: Go Away.

Keep in mind the National Frozen Pizza Institute. Because according to the Washington Times, sometimes strict regulations can hurt the quality of frozen pizzas, and that's where the National Frozen Pizza Institute steps in.

For example, one former USDA standard specified there should be at least 12 percent cooked meat or 15 percent raw meat on a frozen pizza for it to be called a "meat pizza."

In 1999, the National Frozen Pizza Institute asked the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service to reduce its regulations on meat content, arguing that restaurant pizzas had less stringent regulations.

"They were handcuffed from an economic standpoint and from a nutritional standpoint," said Rick Frank, a senior policy attorney at Olsson, Frank & Weeda P.C., a Washington law firm that represents the pizza group.

The USDA relented and changed its standard in 2003 to let frozen pizza companies sell their pizzas with a minimum meat content of 2 percent cooked or 3 percent raw meat.

Don't laugh, American is expanding its belt line on frozen pizza. Supermarket sales have increased more than 60 percent during the past five years. Is it because of the new meatlessness?

The snow hasn't quite finished melting here, but already the following state legislatures have finished or are nearing finish of their regular sessions: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) is first Congress member in history to acknowledge his nontheism.

And he used to be my Congressman, back in the day. Good for him.

Why is it that whenever the general concept of legislative reform is discussed, that "term limits" come up? Can anyone show the "reform value" of this anywhere in the country? Has it improved whatever problem it was supposed to resolve?

When the news media talks to people who promote "term limits" in this country, they really ought to focus on the following questions:

What problem does "term limits" solve?
How does it solve that problem?
Can you show modern examples where this worked?

The problem I have with term limits is that it's like a bandage for a bleeding mole - it hides a problem but doesn't try to solve it. When "term limits" are discussed in the above framework, the visible value of its potential benefit to the electorate is pretty murky. When we take a look around the nation, we see that term limits only come up as a solution to some problem when the electorate is angry at their Legislature and is in a reactionary mood. Why is that? I think voters tend to see term limits as more of a "punishment" of legislators than as good policy, which is why it gets nowhere as policy when legislators are perceived to be behaving reasonably.

It's is offered as a panacea of sorts for Legislators Behaving Badly, the magic elixir for legislative reform. Pennsylvania has many, many structural problems with its General Assembly, from an unwieldy size to a lack of sunshine laws to an inability to amend the State Constitution without having two seperate sessions of the General Assembly pass such amendment, and that's just for starters. Term limits? We can find more effective solutions than that...

I didn't see the appeal of Curly Sue, and I don't see the appeal of Fred Thompson, either. Steven Hill would probably be way better in this projected role as well.

Get Out.

(hat tip to Comments from Left Field)

There are debates scheduled on both the Republican and Democratic primary sides next month in New Hampshire. Frontrunners on both sides are ducking them, to the point the debates may even be postponed. Very uninspiring. As Chris Dodd said:

"If it's not too early in the campaign season for candidates to host million dollar fundraisers, it's not too early to debate the issues."

I hope this is judged to be anti-constitutional. The last thing we need in the judicial system is a process whereby sentence time is determined by how many body organs you are willing to pay. Prisoners should be allowed to donate an organ, but no "quid pro quo" of time off for organs.

Other posts of interest:

Prisoners Are Not Crops Ripe for the Harvest

I was cleaning up my office out yesterday and came across this old donkey. I somehow ended up with it during my employment in downtown Harrisburg, but I'm not sure where. Proud Democratic Donkey to put on someone's desk or bookshelf, though...

That would be this HOA...

Just because you live in a single-family house doesn't mean you are king or queen of your castle.

Just ask Malcolm and Helen Bernstein.

They live in a four-bedroom house in the Welleby community in Sunrise. Helen Bernstein, who didn't like the dull lawn in front of her house — and every other house — in her neighborhood, decided to spruce it up.

"I love pretty things. I want to make the yard as beautiful as possible," she said, and spent more than $3,500 for a landscaper, plants, planter, sprinklers and more.

But a homeowner association governs Welleby, a development with 4,511 units including houses and townhouses. And associations have rules that owners agree to obey when they buy.

Welleby's rules don't allow anything in front yards between the house and the sidewalk, according to Paul Callsen, president of the Welleby Management Association. So the association, which doesn't maintain property at individual homes, cited the couple for violating the rule.

That would be Alberto Gonzales. This does not come across as credible.

"Although our reasons for their dismissal were appropriate, our failure to provide those reasons to these individual U.S. attorneys at the time they were asked to resign has only served to fuel wild and inaccurate speculation about our motives. "

Why would you not expect to be asked the reasons, and be prepared to provide it at dismissal?

Does not pass the smell test.

From NoGodBlog:

On Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobbying group representing Americans who do not hold a god-belief, will make history by announcing the name of the first open nontheist member of Congress.

Or at least one that will be sickening America for decades after Bush leaves office...

The apologists and the support-at-any-cost promoters of Bush's Iraq debacle cannot see the error of their, or Bush's, ways. They will be doing two things for the rest of their lives:

I haven't seen any stats on the number of homes in this country that are subject to governance by a homeowners association, but I will make the assumption that it has been steadily growing. I do know that there definitely "advances" in the covenants on properties in the past 40 years, for example, voluntary dues payment has been replaced with mandatory dues payment, etc.

But I don't think anyone's really measuring the impact of HOAs. For example, how many HOA-brought lawsuits does America endure each year? How much is America paying in homeowners dues? What's the average value of homes in a HOA versus homes not in a HOA? Does anyone really study this stuff - and please don't tell me realtors, because there needs to be a nonprofiting motive to finding out this information.

In other words, HOAs are a quasi-governmental type that is going without systematic monitoring, and we don't even know the percentage of homes available on the market, either new or previously owned, that are governed by a homeowners association. HOAs are becoming the closest in proximity level of governance to many Americans, and it isn't being reviewed.

Why not?

And I say, screw the Republican Party as they choke on their own hate. Time for history to record how they've partnered with hate to build up their party.

It's still a sad day in America. America deserves better than the petty and shallow people that are running its government. America doesn't deserve liars and cheaters and phonies running its most powerful institutions. The system catches 1, but hundreds, maybe thousands more are scurrying around in their powerrat existences in Washington.

The system caught one. It's a good thing, but the reality is, so many more deserve to be caught. But at least there is hope that the system can catch the powerrats if allowed to...

Homeowner Associations have two responsibilities, in my mind: set a flexible and somewhat loose standard for neighborhood conditions so that all property owners are not hurt by the actions of a particular property owner; and to gradually raise the value for all homeowners by improving the value of community property or benefits. From time to time you see articles in the news about HOAs that seem to have gone a bit power-mad, and have lost the balance between community standard and individual use of home properties. This is a long-term problem only likely to get worse if local governments allow HOAs to have a greater and greater say in the way home properties are allowed to be "developed".

I don't believe in burning down anyone's house, but I also think that resurrecting long-forgotten, heavy-handed and ill-conceived bylaws is a sure fire way for a homeowners association to find itself in trouble.

Hopefully John Edwards can bring some cash to his campaign because of the actions of unrehabilitated Ann Coulter.

When will Joe Biden figure out he has no shot?

It's not a good sign when only 47% of your home state's Democrats think you'd make a good President...

The Republicans want Hillary to be the candidate. This smells like bait for Democratic Primary voters.