PSoTD

One of my hopes about the Internet is that the power of "the endorsement" in politics has been hastened in its decline, and if that's the case, I say thanks. Voting for a candidate because another politician that you vote for likes that other candidate makes absolutely no sense to me. Endorsements at the political level work like chits and trades and futures, just because one politician benefits somehow from making a deal doesn't mean that you, as a supporter of that politician, will benefit. There's a reason for the saying that politics makes strange bedfellows, and a little research on the Internet is all it takes to cast doubts on whether following an endorsement would lead to jumping in the sack with the wrong one.

Now, sure, perhaps LA's mayor can make a case that he is leveraging his support for Hillary Clinton in order to get greater gains for Los Angeles if Hillary is elected. But that's the great unspoken, the great unknown - and you as a voter will not know if this is the case on election day. And even if such a deal is made, that doesn't mean it will happen - political history is full of people who feel they were screwed on their political deals AFTER an election.

On the other hand, what if Bill Richardson were to be elected! Is LA a screwed city? Probably not, but not first in line for the perks of power, either. Clearly the Mayor is willing to take the chance, but just as clearly, the voters get no say in the matter of giving an endorsement.

When you talk to Republicans, about the only candidate for the 2008 Presidential election that brings that optimistic tone to their voice is Fred Thompson. Why? He seems to have some gravitas, at least compared to the other candidates from his party, and he's well-spoken, maybe he's Reaganesque inasmuch as he can deliver a well-written line professionally and effectively.

But the biggest allure, I think, is that he is a relatively unknown quantity compared to the others that are currently running. Republicans don't know what they might dislike about his platforms or his history or his personality. And Thompson seems to want to continue this as long as possible before he declares his candidacy. His camp is waiting until the Republican thirst for SOMEBODY ELSE is so great that he can step into the void and immediately be a frontrunner - if not THE frontrunner.

The desperation of the Republicans for a viable candidate in an election year when their party may be as despised by more voters than ever is palpable. However, I'm sure the candidates themselves are not willing to play patsy to this. McCain, and to a lesser extent, Giuliani, are likely going to be willing to fight inside, and not rely on jabbing Thompson from a distance after he announces.

I think a lot of Republicans suspect that if Thompson enters the race, it'll be a lot like the Bush coronation of 2000 and the other candidates will fall away. My suspicion is it will be a lot more like 1996 for the Republicans, and there's going to be a very bitter, ugly, and recrimination-filled year of primary politics ahead for them. For that reason, I also suspect that Newt Gingrich is going to stay out of next year's race, because whoever is in is going to be very tarnished and not receive the royal campaign treatment likely to be given the agreed-upon candidate of the Republicans in 2012.

I just can't see any significant reason why states should be in the business of liquor retail sales.

How do Republican babies get born? I understand how Republican embryos are made - Republican dicks claim they'll withdraw in time, but don't. Oh, and no contraception, so whammo blammo, pregnancy. On the other hand, how can Republican babies be born if it's always six months more before we see results?

Are they serious? Did the Democrats cave because they were afraid they'd be lambasted while on vacation?

I'm sorry, but then DON'T TAKE A FUCKING VACATION.

The biggest loser in the Iraq concessions, besides the American people and the military? Harry Reid. A few bits by bloggers:

From Capitoilette:

Rather than building on a strategy that has unified most Democrats and allied Congress with the sentiments of three-quarters of American voters, while effectively driving a wedge between Republicans and those same voters, rather than ratcheting up the pressure that effectively planted a ticking time-bomb within the Republican caucus, causing those members that hope for a political future to privately, or sometimes openly, question their dead-ender president, rather than blaze a new way forward while just maybe saving a few lives in Iraq as well, Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen the comfort of concession, the tough talk without the tough action, the tried and true road back to mediocrity and minority.

The Huffington Post:

What this sad spectacle teaches us, I think, is that the Democrats, in their pathetic excuse for strategizing, have replicated one of the basic flaws of the Bush regime, documented in Thomas Ricks' essential history of the Iraq war, Fiasco: the insistence on basing strategic decisions on best-case scenarios, and discarding (or refusing even to consider) worst-case scenarios.

Drinking Liberally, Oakland:

To: Sen. Harry Reid

May 23, 2007

I am embarrassed to have supported you, Sir. You and other Democrats have rolled over and allowed George Bush to get exactly what he wanted: all the cash for the War-Based-on-Lies with no accountability at all.

Jeff's blog:

Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader, surrenders to President Bush’s claim that witholding funding for American troops in Iraq.

And there's a lot more. People are not happy with the Congressional Democrats, and that's going to translate to unhappiness to leadership and specifically Harry Reid. How long until the "replace Harry Reid" voices gain traction in the news media?

Is that it is a slippery slope argument, and eventually you'll get people arguing for this - which is essentially permanent incarceration...

Again, most of the arguments here are hilariously irrational. The bottom line is that only MY argument can be construed as rational, law-abiding, and constitutionally acceptable.

Vigilante action is illegal, yet most people have those reactions that border on rage when they find out someone is a sex offender. Recidivism is documented to be very high for sex offenders. It BEGS for an extra-constitutional solution.

The sex offender colony would satisfy several problems.

1. No need for “buffer zones” or “residency restrictions”, since, by constitutional edict, ALL registered sex offenders would have to live in the colonies. No worry about tape measures or GPS measurements to determine legal or illegal residency.

2. By constitutional edict, computer access is SEVERELY restricted, so sex offenders can ONLY access sites approved by administration. In addition, all file storage is actually done at a server farm–in essence, the sex offender would actually be remote-accessing the computer, with his local computer only providing the gateway to the server, so he wouldn’t be able to save files on removable disks. In addition, every keystroke, website visited, etc., would be recorded for potential investigation. The server would also heavily restrict which sites the offender could visit. (This wouldn’t be cheap, either. It would probably cost the offender about $125 a month for this type of service).

3. It would actually be easier for offenders to get a job (which would be required, incidentally, other than for physical or mental exceptions). Since there is no danger in offenders being exposed to kids, they can pretty much do anything within the zone.

Bottom line: Constitutionally-mandated sex offender colonies are the ONLY solution that will EVER be acceptable by citizens. End of line.

And local governments, when looking at providing location limitations for domicile and employment of these people, need to realize where they are heading.

Should Bush be impeached? Yeah, I know it's unscientific, but so is the decision not to investigate impeachment.

When reading about it, I couldn't help but also think of the Virginia Tech story, and reaction by gun advocates that students should be able to carry guns on campus and that if they could the Virginia Tech story might have been less violent:

The injured civilian was identified Monday by his mother as Pete Husmann, 20, a senior UI mechanical engineering student from Coeur d'Alene.

She said he was shot three times as he rushed from his apartment with a pistol to render aid after hearing the gunshots. He was in serious but stable condition and was to undergo another surgery Monday, she said.

Here's a civilian who didn't have to get involved in this crime. We haven't heard that his actions prevented further criminal action. But he grabbed his gun and went out into the fray, and he did get shot, several times, with severe injuries. So was this helping?

Because it's morally wrong for them.

Caving in will hurt your chances in 2008. Demand accountability.

First of all, this says considerably more about UC Davis than it does about John Edwards. After all, the real issue should be on how whoever has the money spends it - after all, that is what drives earnings. Paying $31 per person for a political speaker seems like overpaying to me as well, but that's the choice of UC Davis.

More importantly, it's becoming clear that a lot of people - just read the comments on this article - are hiding behind petty attacks on the messenger because they don't want to hear the message. These people says it doesn't matter what Edwards says about poverty because he's wealthy. But for them, it really doesn't matter what Edwards says about poverty because they just don't care about poverty. But they do care about wealth.

The White House today responded to President Jimmy Carter calling the Bush administration "the worst in history" saying that the former President is becoming "increasingly irrelevant."

I'm not sure there's a precedent for calling former Presidents "irrelevant" but Bush is certainly not the guy to be doing it. His monumental irrelevancy starts the day he leaves office. Who is going to want to be seen with him? Remember how lonely Nixon was after he left office? Bush will be repeating the experience - sure, we won't be seeing photos of him walking forlornly on the beach, but he will be alone. Republicans will hide from him. Democrats will have no interest at all except investigation of him. The only people in government he may be speaking with after 2008 might be from the judicial branch, depending on what all is discovered about his activities, and the unfortunate Secret Service folks that are assigned to his Crawford hiding spot.

Posts that contain "impeach Cheney" per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

Posts that contain "impeach Bush" per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

I think there's something to be said for people that say that Bush may have committed impeachable offenses but it's too late to impeach him: They're quitting on America.

This is setting a precedent: that a President can do just about anything in their last 20 months and have no repercussions. That's unacceptable.

It's also unacceptable to think that there are more pressing political problems in America than the one we face with Bush: that absolute power has corrupted, absolutely, the rule of law. If Bush has broken the laws to a degree where it is impeachable, it should be done. If there's a reasonable question whether he has done so, it should be investigated.

We should not be giving up on impeachment simply because Republicans abused the process many years ago.

And, for those who don't believe the Republicans abused it during the Clinton years, if it was acceptable to do then, it's acceptable to investigate for impeachment now. Anyone who uses the "post 9/11 world" excuse for not investigating possible crimes of a President against America are acting out of fear and not patriotism.

Impeachment isn't just about punishment of an offender - it's about setting the standards of acceptable behavior for government officials. The impeachment question is about those standards - and should only be about those standards. People who argue that we shouldn't be considering impeachment because of the calendar are cowardly at the least.

with the look of the official site for California legislative information.

I'm not quite sure what policy America should follow concerning sex offenders, but I'm doubtful that a "zoning" approach is going to be effective in the long run, or even remain legal. Limiting where people can live or work as part of sentence seems to me to be a continuing form of imprisonment, although clearly a much, much lighter form.

But the real problem will be economics and NIMBYism. Who wants sex offenders in their midst? If zoning as a solution is accepted, then eventually every community with kids will want the offenders "zoned out". That will leave the "boonies", or communities with little local control, to be the areas where these offenders can legally live. Some states have pretty large "sex offender populations"... should Florida just have one area for their 42,000 plus population, or Texas or California for their over 40K populations? Such a solution is continued imprisonment, and for a variety of reasons wouldn't work, but if an effective local zoning effort was taken aggressively by local governments, states could find themselves close to that very position.

Of course, because such a result creates negative economic impact on people who currently live in such areas, and would likely cause such impact on employment opportunities for those who continued to live in such areas, there would be a continuing opposition to allow sex offenders to live in communities. And expanding economic force for sex offenders to violate such zoning laws would render these laws unworkable as well - too much cause for deceit.

In this article, it's pretty clear that at least some folks that support the "zoning approach" for sex offenders know the limitations and eventual failing for such a law. But they pass it as part of the solution anyway, because they want the public to know they're doing something - although it's something they know won't work.

I'm pretty sure that most of them have no idea at this point as to what blogs are.

Motivation for the "Commonsense Consumption Act" ...

Tobacco companies and fast food restaurants are not treated the same way by the courts, and such disparate treatment is likely to continue. Attempts to use tobacco litigation as a model for fast food litigation have generally failed and will likely continue to fail in the future.

...

Despite the lack of success of obesity-related personal injury cases thus far, it is important to remember that when allegations were first made against tobacco companies, the possibility of large verdicts seemed remote. It was only once the litigation reached the discovery phase and negative internal documents were revealed that large plaintiffs' verdicts became possible. The Big Food cases to date have generally not led to discovery, and only Big Food itself knows what damning documents may exist. If they do exist and are discovered by plaintiffs lawyers, they may provide ammunition for more suits and increasing verdicts. Right now, however, fast food companies are enjoying more protections than tobacco companies ever did, and it appears that Big Food is not the next Big Tobacco.

Interesting page, I guess it shows that it is unlikely that anyone can seriously profit by speculating on mass purchasing of the "forever stamp".

I find it pretty silly. Why not just poll Legislative Branch versus Executive Branch?

Also, Congress has been getting battered for far longer than George W. Bush on performance. It was being bashed in the 1980s by Reagan. Doesn't that have a residual value? And yet, Bush has only been bashed since he started inflicting his craptacular presidentin' on the rest of us. This is a comparison of apples and oranges and really below the critical thinking capability I would hope the Gallup organization would have.

There's a... get ready for it... "institutional bias" in such polling. Where as Bush has been a constant as far as party polling for 6 plus years, Congress has changed in the past 6 months, so comparison of polls of Congress may actually reflect shifting party-power changes.

Additionally, many poll participants may be somewhat conflicted about the results of the Congress. There are two houses, after all, and the Senate is working on a much smaller margin than the House, and seems to be taking less risk because of it. Is it possible there are differences between the houses?

Finally, the elephant in the room is still here, and taking bigger craps every week. Yes, Washington stinks and will continue to stink as long as Bush is President, because we have no hope of an intelligent movement out of Iraq. EVERYTHING IN DC is tainted by Bush in public opinion.

I see that HC at First Draft is likeminded...

Doesn't the "Commonsense Consumption Act" sound just like something Mitch McConnell would have introduced for the tobacco industry in days gone past?

Dear Fast Food Industry - by choosing Mitch McConnell as your "author" of choice, you've made the intent of your legislation considerably more suspicious than it might have been otherwise. It makes me wonder what the hell you're hiding.

When was the last time that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a good and original government policy idea? This isn't one.

The top-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate on Sunday expressed frustration with the Iraqi government, saying Republicans were "overwhelmingly disappointed" with the lack of political progress.

"The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) told CNN'S Late Edition on Sunday.

"So far, they've not been able do anything they promised on the political side," the Kentucky Republican said, citing the Iraqis' failure to pass a new oil revenue bill, hold local elections and dismantle the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. "It's a growing frustration."

"Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government," he added.

Well, Republicans are to this now. They failed in leading the U.S. government for 6 years, creating messes that will take much longer to clean up. But they can't take responsibility for the incredible screwup of Iraq. So... it's the Iraqi government's fault.

McConnell had it backwards: Iraqis should overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Bush Republican government of America. Most Americans do.

Maybe some candidates should just stay away from sports-related analogies.

I'm not particularly a Hillary Clinton fan, but this article is written from a stupid premise. EVERY candidate for President has blogging supporters and blogging critics within their "party". You could write an article focusing on the opposing bloggers about any candidate that has any chance of winning. The only candidates that might not have bloggers opposed to them are the candidates that offer no possibility of winning the nomination and no risk of taking votes away from a candidate that could win.

I wonder if the postal rate hike on Monday has any influence on how much personal mail is sent today and tomorrow...

Bush Told War Is Harming The GOP. I guess he didn't understand the November election...

On a more important note, THE WAR IS HARMING THE COUNTRY.

We will know when Republican members of Congress are more afraid of their base that opposes the War than the 28 and declining percent that support Bush no matter what he does when Senator Carl Levin's prediction comes true.

The Iraq war will start winding down when disillusioned Republicans in Congress confront President George W. Bush to say he has lost their support, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Monday.

Levin, one of a handful of Democrats shaping his party's Iraq exit strategy, compared what will be required of Republican leaders to what the party's congressional members did in the final days of Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974, when they made clear he had squandered their support in the Watergate scandal.

Levin said he expects that will happen, but he wouldn't say when. But recent events suggest there may be cracks in the GOP's solidarity with Bush.

Some Republicans have said this week that they want to see results from the administration's war policy in September.

White House press secretary Tony Snow cautioned Tuesday that people should "avoid the idea that Iraq is like Oz, and one day, it's going to be black and white, and the next day, you're going to wake up and it's color."

But Levin said that "at some point, some Republican leaders will walk into the Oval Office the way they did with Nixon and say, 'Hey, you're losing your Republican troops in the Congress, and you got to change course. You got to start removing troops instead of surging troops.' "

Constituents of Republican members of Congress should constantly be bombarding their Senator or Representative with questions:

How do we define success?
If we don't see success, how long should we stay in Iraq?

The pressure really is - and should be - on these Republican members of Congress. Levin is right to bring it up in the press. More of it is necessary. Unfortunately, we will have to force their hands if we have any hope of removing troops from Iraq prior to the next election.

Still not many details, but really disturbing how many folks blog about it as a possible terrorist action. It's almost like they want Al Qaeda to attack America so they can say "I told you so..."

Well, hello New York Times.

(nonexistent)

After watching some of the Republican debate late last night (also surfing the Mavs-Warriors game at the same time), I'm convinced that Avery Johnson will not be the Republican candidate.

Also convinced that John McCain won't be, either. Somebody's going to have to do it, but once one of the Republicans directly challenges him in a debate on one of his statements, I expect to see him wither like an oak leaf in winter. Maybe he should try to get his name legally changed to Reagan, he invoked it so many times last night.

The Republicans have as many pretenders in the primary still as the Democrats do. By third primary, I suspect it will be Giuliani, Romney, and maybe Tancredo or Brownback. I don't know who is giving Duncan Hunter advice on his political career, but exposing himself as a grouchy caricature to a national audience doesn't seem to be very sound.

The next time somebody says that liberals or the media or somebody else lost the war in Vietnam, ask them, what was worse, the loss going in the official loss column or the human loss of life and limb while getting that loss. Which hurt America more?

BTW, I notice that Vietnam is now a potential goldmine for insurance companies. Funny how time changes things...

Just wanted to share a thoughtful comment to a post. Yesterday, at Susie's, I posted this:

But it makes you wonder, what if more government officials blogged? Would it lead to an improvement to government, or just more stuff that is ignored or abused?

Salmo's comment is worth considering:

I was a local government employee for years - a blog would have been out of the question. My boss would have seen it as a threat; the elected officials would have seen it as overshadowing them and cutting into their policy debates. I can understand why the Town Manager of Fairfax, CA would keep her blog press-releasy because that is the safe place to be.

Assuming that the environment were reshaped to allow more expression by the public employees, that would be a good thing. This is not to say that the unfettered expressions of those folks would make a great deal of difference, but a change in the atmosphere that could take the deliberations out of the back rooms and put a check on some of the outsized egos involved might be a big improvement.

Just how much of a problem is ego within governance at this point?

That's pretty much what a lot of the Republican bloggers are at this point, just doing whatever they can think of to try to prop up the current Bush "administration".