44 presidents coming

Obama takes office today. It's an important event that culminates centuries of the American experiment. I chose to commemorate it in the silliest way possible as a way to keep drawing. Although not yet complete, enjoy the wonder of 44 presidents in ecstasy.

A new era

I went to drop off my rent check last night. I knocked on my super's door, and Avram answered the door in his underwear. He's an beefy, gray-haired Greek man with a thick mustache. He speaks a very rough English.

"You vote today?" he asked.

"Yes." I felt defensive, because Jen and I had just had a conversation about immigrants' attraction to laissez-faire Republicanism. So I asked him, "Did you vote?"

"Yes, yes. I vote." He eyed me, smiling, and asked "The black one or the white one?"

It was a simple question, absurdly put. I looked at the explosion of gray chest hair coming out of his low cut, sleeveless t-shirt.

"The black one," I said.

"Is good," Avram said. "After eight years, is time for change."

Rummy-o-meter

UPDATE: WEDNESDAY, NOV. 08

Just when I lost hope and took the Rummy-o-Meter off the page, the Republicans go and lose themselves an election.

Rumsfeld is gone.

Update, Monday 4/10 @ 8:15am
Welcome to all the readers from Wonkette, Reason, and the slew of other cool blogs! The Rummy index is back on blue. Bush is scheduled to speak on the Defense Secretary's behalf today, something along the lines of "Donald Rumsfeld is really, really, really, really, really good." These are the kinds of arguments we get, regardless of the fact that this might be the worst Secretary of Defense since Secretary of War Simon Cameron screwed Lincoln over.

Bush will always choose to be steadfast and willful before being responsive and wise. Rumsfeld will stay in office because Bush sees no big problem with how the campaign in Iraq is going. For the Secretary of Defense to be fired would mean his attitude and approach have been wrong, and would be admitting to other countries that we have made major mistakes. I don't believe Bush is going to do that, because the pressure on Rumsfeld is coming from liberals and people in other countries -- people who either can't or won't vote Republican anyway. But if the larger American public starts to see this stain as an impediment to our central mission, then who knows?

I've received e-mails and comments from people who want a little Rummy-O-Meter on their site that will be updated. Well, your wish is granted! Copy the code below, and you'll get the graphic and link to this entry.

To sort out the controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, we've created a handy graphic for Rummy and the public to understand his position at a glance. Introducing... Donald Rumsfeld's Job Security Advisor!

Will Donald Rumsfeld be the first member of the Bush administration to take responsibility for his actions? Will he be the first one to feel the slice of Bush's ax as more shameful treatment of prisoners in Iraq continues to surface? The Red Cross says they reported abuses in February over a year ago. Press Secretary Scott McClellan says Bush and Rumsfeld knew about allegations in January, when the Central Command informed the press and public about them. How much did Rumsfeld know, and how much did he tell the president? At least one Democrat wants Rumsfeld impeached. Bush says his job is safe. Kerry wants Rumsfeld to resign.

Why have laws at all?

No matter what you think of immigration, this is a truly remarkable statistic, though perhaps not surprising (from cantankerous gringo geezer Lou Dobbs).

But here is the official record of your sense of duty: 318 employers out of five and a half million in this country have been fined for hiring illegal aliens since 2001. In 2004, only three employers were fined. That is a dismal record, Mr. President, as dismal as the fact that the number of ICE agents assigned to enforce immigration laws in the workplace has declined from only 240 back in 1999 to now less than 100.

Illegal Alien Employer Fines

2001 -- 100

2002 -- 53

2003 -- 162

2004 -- 3

(source: GAO Reports, 8/31/05)

A Bush impeachment?

Due to a technical maneuver by a Democratic state representative, House Republicans might soon be answering some very uncomfortable allegations that could result in a Bush impeachment:

Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.

Here's the press release from Rep. Yarbrough's site.

The Supreme Court is crumbling.

Literally.

To anyone among the chattering classes who gives a damn

Judy Miller is gone from the Times. As Michael Wolff said during a journalism conference, it's easy to get up in arms about a reporter doing jail time for a leak from the White House. There's only one problem: that reporter is Judy Miller.

She is celebrated and scorned, both famous and infamous. A dogged reporter, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, author of four books, expert on terrorism, confidante of powerful government sources through several White House administrations -- and yet Miller's credibility came to rest on a single question: Does she tell the truth?

Darwin fishing in PA

Yes, good Democrats won in New Jersey and my fair state of Virginia, and the best of the bums won here in NYC. But there's also really great news from Pennsylvania:

The Pennsylvanian school board that is attempting to introduce the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was yesterday ousted in local elections by anti-creationist campaigners.

All eight Republican members of the board, the body that sets education policy for Dover, Pennsylvania, lost their seats to Democrat challengers.

An open letter to Bloomberg

Dear Mike-
Come back to where you belong. The Democratic Party in New York needs you, no matter what Freddy Ferrer might say. Remember when Democratic voters wouldn't have elected you in the primary, so you switched parties? Times have changed. It's still the age of the hacks and career bureaucrats who think politics is about paying your dues and waiting your turn. Ferrer is a hack, devoid of ideas and inspiration. He needs to be put to pasture.

Your West side stadium idea was ridiculous. We all hated you for it. But you were wise enough to let a bad idea drop and move on, while Ferrer is still talking about two New Yorks. But there are many, aren't there?

We hated you for banning smoking in bars. It still doesn't feel right. But you were correct to think of it as a public policy matter, even though the romance of a cigarette at a bar on a New York night will always be with us (thanks to the movies).

You showed us the flexibility of a good public servant. You raised taxes and cut programs when we were over budget, and cut taxes and added programs when we were under. That was good.

I can't forgive you the convention. You invited a parade of Texans to rape this city for symbolism. You invited pandering and exploitation upon us. No city should give of itself in such a way. And between overtime for security details and street closings and impossible locations, your New York economy even lost money on the deal. For shame!

We can forgive you if you come back. Admit your mistakes. Accept your destiny, along with your true party's, and return to the Democratic Party. We can't be the party of Al Sharpton. The timid kindness of Virginia Fields has fallen. I can hear Ferrer's ideas creaking.

You know in your heart that you care about one New York. Something's got to be done. The Republicans can't and won't do it. The Democrats need you. Your city needs you. Come back.

Sincerely,

Harry

Even George Will is against Harriet Miers

The conservative columnist asls "Can this nomination be justified?" and slams Bush for a lack for "seriousness":

If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
...
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Will Democrats join the 21st century already?

I've been watching a lot of the John Roberts hearings. He seems like a fundamentally decent (and smart) man. Even Democrats who have worked with him praise his fairness lack of ideology. I'm impressed by how much he's tethered his conclusions to the law's application to specific cases and circumstances. He seems to get that judges today shouldn't merely interpret the constitution by what it meant in 1787. His speaking and decision-making always seems to be very, very specific, and always put into a larger legal context. I like him, even if he's going to vote conservatively most of the time.

Why would Democrats vote against him? It would be a disaster. If a large number of Democrats vote against him, they will confirm their party as a shrill voice that's stuck perpetually in the sixties. Time and again this week, Democrats have asked questions about women's rights and civil rights, and of course abortion. As a pro-choice liberal, I want a pro-choice Chief Justice, too. But it's not the only issue.

Where are questions about property rights? The increasingly muddy law governing cyberspace? What will the constitution have to say about equal access in the age of digital voting? Part of the problem, of course, is that Roberts is so reserved about talking hypothetically.

If Democrats oppose this man, who seems about as good of a candidate as we can expect from George Bush, then what happens when a Scalia clone is nominated to replace O'Conner? It's the party who cried wolf.

In an e-mail to Democrats today, Howard Dean compared Roberts to Tom Delay and Karl Rove. I felt betrayed. If Democrats can't separate partisan end-running Machiavellis like Delay and Rove from a philosophically conservative modest man like Roberts, there will be no hope for the Democratic Party ever gaining ground in the Red States.

Bolton's not just a bad boss, he's inept

Democrats and moderate Republicans have delayed the vote over John Bolton's confirmation as ambassador to the U.N. Some have hammered Bolton over his erratic and vindictive management (moving a CIA analyst who disagreed with his assessment of Cuba). Others have pointed out his dismissive and adversarial comments about the U.N ("If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference"). But far more substantive are Bolton's failures in his job in the State Department to prevent the proliferation of WMD (link requires New Republic subscription).

In his current position at State, Bolton's job is to lead the effort to stop WMD proliferation. Yet less weapons-grade nuclear material was secured in the two years after September 11 than in the two years before it. North Korea has gone from having two nuclear bombs to having as many as eight. (As former 9/11 Commission staffer Warren Bass put it, "two bombs is a deterrent; eight is a commodity.") Iran's mullahs have stepped up their efforts to go nuclear, and the United States appears impotent to stop them. And Bolton has been credited with killing the Biological Weapons Convention.

Not only have Bush and Bolton cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program to halt the spread of nuclear materials and expertise from the former Soviet Union, Bolton also has failed to finalize a Plutonium Disposition Agreement with Russia that could lead to the elimination of 70 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. And Bolton's biggest accomplishment in this area, the Proliferation Security Initiative--an effort to intercept shipments of WMD technology and delivery systems--looks better on paper than in practice because Russia and China are not participating.

John Bolton talks big, and delivers little. Bolton seems like an outspoken advocate until you look at his record. He's like a father driving down the road yelling and screaming at his kids until the crashes. Was it the kids who caused the accident? Or was it the vein-popping hissy-fit thrown by the guy behind the wheel? We want disagreement in the State Department. We don't want the yes-men who snoozed through al-Qaeda's build-up to reign over our intelligence. But that's just it -- Bolton's unpredictability and his lack of follow-through makes us less safe, period.

Are Republicans getting antsy?

I've almost stopped paying attention to the senate's filibuster shenanigans. They go back and forth like children. I've been impressed by Harry Reid's doggedness and how smart he's played his card. And buried in this Times story about the fight is a line that might show the cracks in the GOP's armor:

Some lawmakers said they were exploring a resolution that would satisfy both sides without forcing a vote, but others itched for the fight.

"The sooner, the better," said Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, who said Dr. Frist should have acted before now.

Among a recent poll of GOP bigwigs, Allen was named the lead contender for the 2008 presidential ticket. When he's saying he's peaved with your current leader, at the very least you've got party discipline problems -- and possibly something much worse.

Governor's approval ratings

Here's a poll of the approval ratings for all the nation's governors. The average approval rating is 48%. Governor Pataki's Mom was right -- Georgie isn't average. He's at 36%.

Another shady reverend

The pastor accused of booting John Kerry voters out of his church has resigned. Rev. Chan Chandler insisted it's all a big misunderstanding.

"I don't believe he preached politics," church member Rhonda Trantham said. "I don't believe anyone should tell a preacher not to preach what's in the Bible."

But some congregants of the 100-member church in western North Carolina have said Chandler endorsed President Bush from the pulpit during last year's presidential campaign and said that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."

It seems to be a misunderstanding of the church's relationship to politics. A church can take a stance on political issues, as the Catholic church does with abortion and the death penalty, without becoming embroiled in endorsing candidates.

There are such things as anti-choice Democrats. And I've never heard a pro-choice Democrat disagree with Bill Clinton that abortion should be rare. But when a pastor moves from the issue to the candidate is when it becomes a problem. Because abortion isn't the only issue believers should consult their Bible for.

What ever happened to the cause of the poor and the suffering? What if those Kerry voters in Chandler's Church thought Kerry's overall stance was more in keeping with Jesus's teaching than Bush's? The abortion debate has become a litmus test for some Christians at the cost of other problems.

It's why spirituality is so personal and why preachers shouldn't even say the names of political parties and candidates within the church. And if they do, we should treat the church as just another 501(c)(3) organization. And does Jesus really need a place on K Street?

What would Freud say?

Our President has taken another courageous stand:

U.S. President George W. Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

A newfound respect for Zell

So he's a flashback to a pre-Voting Rights Act southern Democratic party. Anyone who would challenge Chris Matthews to a duel has earned my respect. Watch the shouting match and see an old man fight back, regardless of the facts. This, my friends, is dignity.

Dick Cheney -- Weak on Defense?

I kind of feel sorry for the Republicans. They get the media in a frenzy about a Democrat -- A DEMOCRAT -- giving their keynote speech. After trying to portray themselves as the inclusive party of bipartisanship, zany Zig Zag Zell Miller comes out and froths at the mouth like a regular Pat Buchanan. The GOP convention, which began so perfectly pitched, has developed a "Sybil" problem -- and no denunciations of fellow countrymen as traitors is going to fix that. So what about it -- did John Kerry really vote against all those weapons systems?

Quick answer: No. Smart-ass answer: But Dick Cheney wanted me to! Here's then-Secretary of Defense Cheney in 1992 talking about the very weapons systems Miller accuses Kerry of cutting:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s — all great systems . . . but we have enough of them.

Factcheck.org has a more expanded view of the issue that's not as kind to Kerry, but still comes out in the Senator's balance. It turns out you can't both be a deficit hawk and believe in a constant, needless expansion of the military budget. If you believe the government is vulnerable to over-spending and has an obligation to spend tax dollars wisely, then the first place to start cutting would be the Pentagon. Just ask Dick Cheney.

(This isn't a surprise since Cheney also blocked intelligence reform in 1992, which would've created the kind of national intelligence czar he half-heartedly advocates today.)

Economic Girlie-Men

William Saletan hits the nail on the head when he talks about Schwarzenegger's speech to the GOP faithful last night:

There's a curious gap in Schwarzenegger's speech as he segues from his litany of Republican principles to the case for Bush. Essentially, the principles vanish. He stops talking about accountability and starts talking about faith. He asks for "faith in the resourcefulness of the American people, and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie men!" The audience roars—it's the loudest moment of the convention—but the descent from logic into grade-school humiliation is unpersuasive and revealing. The American economy is performing far below par. Bush got the tax cuts he wanted when he came into office. He said they would fix the economy. They didn't. He will be the first president in Schwarzenegger's lifetime to preside over a net loss of jobs. Accountability means that a president who gets his economic program and delivers results this bad gets fired.

George W. says Matt Lauer can't win

Karl Rove forgot to include Bush in the memo. John Kerry was supposed to be the flip-flopper, not the President. But of course the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief has yet again said one thing and then its opposite. Maybe George just forgot what he believed.

In a softball interview with "Today Show" host Matt Lauer, Bush said that "I don't think you can win the war on terror." The incredible thing about the statement isn't the substance of it, but rather the idea that Bush might be admitting his mistakes. Taken a week after he admitted to making a "miscalculation" about the war in Iraq, it looked like Bush might be on the verge of a breakthrough. Could our president finally be willing to take a long, hard look at the problems we face and how his leadership has steered us wrong? Of course not. "We will win," Bush is saying now. He's sure of it.

We can definitely win the war against terrorism. You just have to look closely at what Bush said to understand his meaning. He said "you" can't win it, you know -- like Matt Lauer. The "Today Show" host can't win it. Matt Lauer can't win the war on terrorism. It takes a Bush to do that.

Who are the undecideds?

Here's a poll about the attitudes of undecided voters, which this article numbers at 2.6 million.

They don't like NASCAR; just 12.9 percent are fans.

They get their TV news from Fox, 40.4 percent, followed by CNN, 14.7 percent, and MSNBC, 13.3 percent.

They drive domestic cars over foreign by 57.9 percent to 36.9 percent.

They are split evenly between George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as to who was the greatest president.

I'm a Liberal - Why didn't I march against the GOP?

I listened to helicopter circling above my apartment all yesterday. I felt the powerful gaze of police officers watching me as I walked to the grocery store. I heard faint bullhorns and the sounds of a large gathering mere blocks away from my home. It could have been so easy, and so fun, for me to hop over and join in the big anti-Bush protest that coiled around Madison Square Garden in Manhattan yesterday. But I'm not interested in the crowds. I'm interested in a leader.

The GOP convention plans to focus on the leadership qualities of George W. Bush. I've never heard any of Bush's advance guard talk about what it means to be a leader, and I expect they'll never say anything concrete. They include lots of talk about strength, being resolute, and sticking to your guns. But to me, leadership means taking responsibility for specific problems and trying to fix them to the best of your ability. On this account, George W. Bush has failed.

Leadership means seeing a problem like the national deficit and coming up with a solution. It means confronting the problem of almost 36 million people living in poverty and tackling it. (Living in poverty means a family of four living on less than $18,810 per year). A leader understands that about 45 million people living without health care is a long-term disaster for our country and figures out what the government's role can be in helping to solve the problem. A leader will have hard evidence before going to war, and not blame someone else for faulty intelligence. Is George W. Bush a leader? Do you feel safer today than you did four years ago?

I didn't protest or march yesterday. I won't do any chanting or paint any signs this week. My one act of protest will come in November, when I cast a ballot for our country's next leader, John Kerry.

All I Can Say Is...

Holy fucking relief.

UPDATE:

If you haven't already, watch this Daily Show clip. What, is Jon Stewart not worth your time? Hmmm?

If Thomas Jefferson had a blog, would the Declaration be as well-written?

It's July 4. Time to eat hot dogs and see fireworks and... what else? Why not re-read the founding document of this country and think about how close we are to the goals enumerated many years ago? The National Archives has a good site about the Declaration of Independence.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

"Don't Be Like Hitler - Chill Out!"

If you haven't already seen the ridiculous "Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" video on GWB's web site, check it out here. William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg discuss it here on Slate. A quote from Weisberg:

But the vileness of "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" must not be allowed to obscure its essential hilarity. What moron came up with this idea? What are they smoking in Karl Rove's office? C'mon, Will. This ad is the campaign equivalent of The Producers—an idea so egregiously tasteless and stupid that it might just succeed as camp.

Footage of Hitler shouting in German is juxtaposed with footage of Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt getting worked up while criticizing Bush, Michael Moore getting booed for criticizing the Iraq War at the Academy Awards, and John Kerry using the phrase "kick your ass" (which is bleeped out, possibly in an effort to imply he said something worse). I know I should be disgusted by the attempted association of Democrats and Nazis, but it's too funny to get upset about. Cue the goose-stepping mädchen of the Brookings Institution!

What exactly does the Bush-Cheney campaign think that these Democrats have in common with Hitler? Basically, it's that they're too darned excited about politics. They yell. They criticize harshly. They use bad language. The message here, to the extent there is one, is: "Don't be like Hitler—chill out!"

I can't wait for the rebuttal video with Ann Coulter.

Joke of the Day

On his recent trip to Great Britain, George Bush had a meeting with Queen Elizabeth. He asked her, "How does one manage to run a country so smoothly?"

"That`s easy," she replied, "You surround yourself with intelligent ministers and advisors."

"But how can I tell whether they are intelligent or not?" he inquired. "You ask them a riddle," she replied, and with that she pressed a button and said,"Would you please send Tony Blair in."

When Blair arrived, the Queen said, "I have a riddle for you to answer for me. Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was this child ?"

Blair replied, "That`s easy. The child was me." "Very good," said the Queen, "You may go now."

So President Bush went back to Washington and called in his chief of staff, Karl Rove. He said to him, "I have a riddle for you, and the answer is very important. Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was this child ?"

Rove replied, "Yes, it is clearly very important that we determine the answer, as no child must be left behind. Can I deliberate on this for a while?"

"Yes," said Bush, "I'll give you four hours to come up with the answer."

So Rove went and called a meeting of the White House Staff, and asked them the riddle. But after much discussion and many suggestions, none of them had a satisfactory answer. So he was quite upset, not knowing what he would tell the President.

As Rove was walking back to the Oval Office, he saw Secretary of State Colin Powell approaching him. So he said, "Mr. Secretary, can you answer this riddle for me. Your parents had a child and it was not your sister and it was not your brother. Who was the child?"

"That's easy," said Powell, "The child was me." "Oh thank you," said Rove, "You may just have saved me my job!"

So Rove went in to the Oval Office and said to President Bush, "I think I know the answer to your riddle. The child was Colin Powell!"

"No, you idiot!" shouted Bush, "The child was Tony Blair!"

Moore Bad Decisions

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made another bad decision.

Filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday he wasn't sure he did the right thing by saving footage of U.S. American soldiers' cruelty toward Iraqis for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11,'' instead of releasing the evidence earlier when it might have helped halt such abuse.

"I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it,'' Moore said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision.''

I love the way he avoids taking responsibility for his decision. "My critics' harping made me make the wrong decision!" Michael Moore is a man who has problems with telling the truth as it should be told. He's got the sensibility of a filmmaker and not a journalist. For Moore, what matters is building the dramatic arc of a movie over two hours and giving scenes emotional punch. He's a partisan ringmaster in hightops.

Pulling the Plug

Many groups in New York City are still waiting to hear about their protest permits for when the Republican Convention hits town. I think these protests mostly accomplish nothing. Protestors should take the time they spend creating puppets and shopping thrift stores for "Billionaires for Bush" costumes and instead spend it working a job to earn money to donate to Republican rivals. But in any case, of course they should be given the right to spend their time speaking out. Apparently, a couple Italian radio networks were denied their right to cover Italian protestors:

Italy's largest electric company pulled the plug on two left-wing radio stations the morning of U.S President George W. Bush's visit to Pope John Paul II at the Vatican.

The outage -- described as "strange maintenance work" by Enel, Italy's 60 percent state-owned utility -- forced Radio Città Aperta and Radio Onda Rossa off the air as they were preparing to broadcast extensive coverage of street protests against the president's visit.

"The stations lost electricity for four hours, all the morning, during several 'actions' of the civil disobedience movement," Francesco Diasio told MediaChannel by email. Diasio, managing director of Amisnet, a community radio agency supporting several Italian radio stations, was working with Radio Città Aperta (Open City Radio) and Radio Onda Rossa (Red Wave Radio), in concert with several other radio networks in Italy, to broadcast up-to-the-minute reports on the Rome protests.

Continuing on the path to becoming the world's first all-Lincoln blog

Those fart smellers at Harpers have posted their magazine's summation of a great president's passing (and a great nation's mourning). At a time when 24-hour cable news channels are frothing at a much later, much lesser president, Harpers goes to the archives:

The murder of President Lincoln aroused a feeling of regret deeper than was ever before known in our history. Men and papers who had opposed his policy and vilified him personally, now vied with his adherents and friends in lauding the rare wisdom and goodness which marked his conduct and character. It was decided that his body should be interred at his home in Springfield, Illinois. The long journey was one great funeral procession, lasting from the 21st of April, when the embalmed body left Washington, till the 4th of May, when it was entombed at Springfield. The ceremonies at New York, on the 25th, were by far the most imposing ever known in that city. It was estimated that 60,000 people marched in the procession. The streets through which it passed were shrouded in black. There was hardly a house in the city without an emblem of mourning.

Gone is the Gipper.

Ronald Reagan is dead. But he's been gone from public life for a long time now. I believe strongly in the old advice that if you have nothing good to say about someone, it's better to say nothing at all.

Right-Click-Save-Target-As James Kochalka's song "Hey, Ronald Reagan."

Democrats win House seat in South Dakota

Democrat Stephanie Herseth is going to the House of Representatives for South Dakota after narrowly defeating her Republican rival by 3,000 votes. The seat was vacated when Republican Rep. Bill Janlow resigned after being convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

I was impressed by Herseth's performance in a debate aired on C-SPAN last week. I can also verify that she's a natural leader -- she attended the South Dakota Girls State with a co-worker friend and managed to be elected governor there. Girls State, for those who don't know (and I didn't), is a kind of Model U.N. organization with the goal of producing leaders who happen to be women. Novel idea, isn't it?

Where do you rank?

My favorite answer to the question of whether Rumsfeld will be fired was on Crossfire last week: "No -- because Bush is too weak to fire him." Bush survives because he's got a phalanx of tough soldiers around him. And it's not just the blundering policy-making team that helps George survive -- it's the armies of devoted right wing nuts who dedicate their lives to reelecting the worst president since Hoover. But I've got to admire the discipline of the Bush-Cheney team, and the way they keep tight ranks. Check out this "Leaderboard" they've created for donors, and you'll begin to see why this miserable failure has raised over $200 million.

Kerry is still wobbling along at about $117 million. Our democracy is sick, but you being stingy won't help America get back on track.

Separate is Never Equal

The first day of court-mandated gay marriage is also the anniversary of another court-ordered move to equality. Brown v. Board of Education was decided fifty years ago today. Brown overturned the Supreme Court's 1896 ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed the poison of "separate but equal" to rule for over fifty years.

The court decided in Brown that separate is inherently unequal. Dividing the population perpetuates inequality, the court said. It's important to remember this when we debate the idea of gay marriage. Some people want to settle for one standard for hetersexuals, and another for homosexuals. A greater percentage of Americans support civil unions than support marriage for gays and lesbians.

While any church should be able to make its own decision about who it marries, the government has an obligation to give all adult citizens the same opportunities. The semantic difference between civil unions and marriage is the same old double standard of separate but equal.

Whither Iraq?

The tragic, montrous death of Nick Berg has created empathy from certain Iraqis. CNN interviewed Iraqis about the footage of Berg's beheading, and they said described their shame in the same way Americans described their reaction to the photos from Abu Ghraib. They said things like "The badness of a few will overshadow the goodness of many" and "This will reflect poorly on our country."

Blame for the horrific slaughter of Berg is being placed on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi has been blamed for over 700 deaths in Iraq over the past months. And here's the shocking, disheartening thing: the administration could've pulled the trigger on Zarqawi on not one, not two, but on three occasions.

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

As someone who protested the Iraq war as a distraction from the war on terror, it sickens me to read something like this. I keep remembering former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill description of Bush as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." That weird description seems to fit as more and more awful predictions come true.

David Brooks, a fervent war supporter and Bush sympathizer, had a good op-ed yesterday reflecting on the goals of the war.

We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.

We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves.

Ok. This message is basically a cut and paste job. I find it hard to say anything coherent about this whole mess. Everything is a mixture of sadness, regret, and a slim hope that the shame those good Iraqis are feeling now, which is matched only by Americans' shame at the pictures from Abu Ghraib, might translate into empathy for the cause of a better, more just, and more democratic Iraq. Anyways. More fun links later.

They Rule Lives

Call me a sucker for interactive Flash diagramming. They Rule shows the links between big execs, big politicos, big companies, big institutions and who's lighting whose cigar. (thx to the Gawkbox)

'I Actually Voted for the $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It'

Imagine you're a Senator during wartime. The military has requested $87 billion of further funding for their missions overseas. Strangely, your president hasn't asked financial sacrifice of his citizens to fund the wars -- he's continuously pushed for almost a trillion dollars in tax cuts, despite growing national deficits and debts.

This is the dilemma that faced John Kerry. He made the choice to fully fund the military's request, but in a fiscally responsible way. He co-sponsored an amendment to the $87 billion bill, which funded the military by rolling back an equal amount from Bush's tax give-aways for the wealthiest Americans.

Kerry voted for the responsible version of the bill. But his amendment was defeated by a vote of 57 - 42, because a majority of lawmakers thought taking on more debt was a better choice for the nation than rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy. Kerry protested this fiscal irresponsibility by voting no on the other version of the bill, which is now law and is being funded by the federal government borrowing more money.

This is the source of Kerry's quote that "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I bring all this up because I keep hearing Republican friends site it as an example of Kerry's "flip-flopping." Bush still sites it on the campaign trail as an example of Kerry's double-speak. I guess when you understand the world through soundbites, and not through the actual complex legislative choices Senators have to make, it makes sense to talk about Kerry "flip-flopping."

What would you have done in his circumstance? Kerry knew the $87 billion would pass easily. As a Senator who's made fiscal responsibility one of his core beliefs, should he have gone quietly? Although I have problems with Kerry, I respect his standing up for what's right. Trying to balance the budget, trying to take care of government finances while taking care of the troops, and needling your colleagues to say they're making the wrong choice are all things I can respect. Bush's exploiting one line of a speech out of context and without explanation is just politics as usual.

'Cover me!'

Marines and L.A. cops understand two different things when they hear shouts of 'Cover me!'

"Police officers responded to a domestic dispute, accompanied by marines. They had just gone up to the door when two shotgun birdshot rounds were fired through the door, hitting the officers. One yelled `cover me!' to the marines, who then laid down a heavy base of fire. . . . The police officer had not meant `shoot' when he yelled `cover me' to the marines. [He] meant . . . point your weapons and be prepared to respond if necessary. However, the marines responded instantly in the precise way they had been trained, where `cover me' means provide me with cover using firepower. . . . over two hundred bullets [were] fired into that house."

My Prayers will involve GWB tonight

Your calendar might have omitted an important holiday. Today is the National Day of Prayer! To celebrate, our current president is participating in a three-hour television special tonight.

"We're in an election year, and we believe God cares who's in those positions of authority," said Mark Fried, spokesman for the National Day of Prayer Task Force. "But we're not endorsing a candidate -- just praying that God's hand will be on the election."

The widow of the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ expresses her admiration for Bush this way: "I don't think he has a political agenda of his own. I think he's really trying to do what would please God."

I won't pick on a poor widow by pointing out the idiocy of saying the president -- ANY president -- has a political agenda. But I do have a suggestion.

Why not add a fourth branch of government? The executive, congressional, and judicial branches are always squabbling in their quest for power. Let's solve this once and for all by introducing the DIVINE BRANCH. Take that, Rehnquist! Fuck you, Frist! Eat me, Bush! God is in the house.

Apparently Kerry manager Mary Beth Cahill is writing for AP now

The FBI, closely tracking the anti-war movement in the 1970s, concluded John Kerry was a glib, moderate figure in a Vietnam veterans group that took a radical turn around the time he left it, documents show.

The FBI file on Vietnam Veterans Against the War says the organization swung toward "militant and revolutionary-type activities" but accuses Kerry, now the Democratic presidential candidate, of little more than charisma.

The Day After My Last Lawrence Post

I swear to god I haven't moved to Lawrence, Kansas or anything. Just because I posted a Lawrence story yesterday doesn't mean I can't post another today. So take that, Jason Robards!

Anyways. Thomas Frank has a new book out called "What's the Matter With Kansas?". I've loved Frank since I first picked up the Baffler; he's a got a keen mind that can cut through the bullshit and lay the moral issues bare. In a just world, he'd be the public intellectual du jour and writing op-eds for the Times instead of that ol' factless hack David Brooks.

The subtitle of Frank's book is "How Conservatives Won the Heart of America." Using Kansas as an example for the country's larger turn, Frank talks about how radicals keep getting elected, and what they do once they've got power.

"The trick never ages, the illusion never wears off," Frank wrote. "Vote to stop abortion, receive a rollback in capital-gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization efforts. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."

There's a short excerpt from the book here, and the Lawrence Journal-World's audio interview with Thomas Frank is here. (All this thx to Bookslut)

A Child Left Behind

In 2000, then candidate George W. Bush told the story of a juvenile delinquent from Texas in order to talk about the need for compassionate conservatism. NPR catches up with where that boy is now.

Justice Souter to Pose in Playgirl's 'Men of the Big 9'

The first time I met Supreme Court Justice David Souter, he couldn't keep his latex-gloved hand out of my crotchless underwear. Boy, that guy is an animal.

Actually, he's a model civil servant and no one knows anything about him. God bless surprise Supreme Court appointments.

Four months inactive?

No, I'm not talking Bush's missing months in the National Guard. Wonkette is reporting that Bush knew about the abuse at Abu Ghraib in late December/early January.

Dusty codgers shake their canes while whippersnappers whistle

Why is the Bush addicted to creating big bureaucracies with no benefit?

I'm not opposed to big organizations. Administering complicated programs take money and people. Medicare is a huge program, but its cost per person is significantly less than the expensive private insurance the rest of us suckers use. But this tax-cut-and-spend White House has gone overboard with creating costly programs that sit passed-out and bloated on a budget sheet while our country's problems get worse.

Remember the television ads the Bush administration put together to advertise the wonderful benefits of the new Medicare prescription drug discount card? The one the Democrats decried as a shameless waste of taxpayer money on what was actually just a Bush campaign ad? Well, they shouldn't have been commercials. Thirty seconds isn't enough to explain the "benefits" of this bill. These commercials should match the length of Lawrence of Arabia, because this bill is complicated, and even after paying a fee for the card and shopping around for the best benefits, seniors (and young people paying the cost) have received a real trojan horse of a gift.

I wanted to give Bush an attaboy on this one. I wanted to believe that we're all sincerely interested in getting cheaper prescription drugs in America, and that no matter how many ties the president has to prescription drug companies, he's doing the right thing. But I was wrong. When benefits from the president's prescription drug "discount" card get you the same prices as Drugstore.com, we've got problems. When the tax money for that benefit goes to corporate profits, we've got problems. $500 billion worth of them.

And I've got to tell you about this: a judge ruled yesterday that the Bush administration may have broken the law when they withheld the cost of their Medicare plan. Even if it's not illegal, isn't it morally wrong and just weasely for politicians to withhold cost information from the public and from Congress? It makes me sick. Twisting numbers is part of the political game; a president forbidding government administrators from releasing cost projections to Congress is not.

And if you're interested in knowing about what's going on in the minds of old people (or, the "Geriatric Street" as wonks call it), here's an account of a meeting between lawmakers, Medicare experts, and those spirited cotton tops actually receiving the "benefit." America's official Greatest Generation has spoken, and they say: I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

The audience booed U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, Brenda Kelley, director of the Connecticut chapter of the AARP, and John Swen, senior director of U.S. Science Policy and Public Affairs for Pfizer, as they spoke positively about the Medicare reform.

Many seniors whispered their distrust of the speakers and complained that the Medicare reform would profit everyone but them.

But they applauded state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, who called the Medicare act a disaster because it did not control the price of prescription drugs and did not guarantee that the cards' monthly premiums would stay under $35.

The audience settled down after the introductions but they periodically hissed or booed the speakers.

Wonderful Dementia

There were many feelings that rushed forward after I saw an op-ed from my alma mater's daily newspaper featured on Drudge. All of them required me to take a deep breath as I read the piece, entitled "Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him"

When the death of Pat Tillman occurred, I turned to my friend who was watching the news with me and said, "How much you want to bet they start talking about him as a 'hero' in about two hours?" Of course, my friend did not want to make that bet. He'd lose. In this self-critical incapable nation, nothing but a knee-jerk "He's a hero" response is to be expected.

Sadly, this was written by a doctoral student in political science -- someone who should be able to write arguments in more complexity than this. When Pat Tillman died, I knew that there would be that chorus of "He's a hero" repeated by many. But I also suspected we'd hear its inverse from an equally single-minded group: "He's not a hero." Congratulations go to writer Rene Gonzalez for being as predictable as the uncritical simpletons he tries to skewer. If this is the kind of lazy thinking and muddled logic our graduate schools are turning out, then perhaps Gonzalez is right about America being in trouble.

Thongs are boaring

Louisiana lawmakers are trying to figure out which is worse: low-riding pants or hog-doggin. The powerful cockfighting lobby claims victory.

Danes need not apply

Should non-citizens be allowed to vote?

Granting voting rights was seen as a way to get newcomers engaged in the civic process. In 1848, Wisconsin established a model that other states soon followed. It simply required residents to declare their intention of becoming citizens before being allowed to vote. Up until the 1920s, when a powerful, antiimmigrant backlash swept the country, 22 states and territories allowed legal immigrants to vote in local elections.

"It was a proven pathway to civic education, political education, and citizenship by giving people a stake in their communities," says Ron Hayduk, a political scientist at the Borough of Manhattan Community College.

But opponents are unimpressed with the historical analogy. They note that as the nation has expanded voting rights to more and more people, it's also worked to formalize its electoral process. "Things were done in a much more laid-back and informal fashion in the past," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit think tank that favors tighter controls on immigration. "We've made the system much more consistent and predictable, and part of that consistency is an insistence on naturalization before being granted the right to vote."

And let's not forget about the 4.6 million people who couldn't vote in the 2000 federal elections. Should ex-prisoners be allowed to vote?

Kerry-McCain 2004

Sick of politics as usual? Interested in candidates who actually believe in responsible government, and not just lower taxes and bigger debt? Believe in something again: Kerry-McCain 2004!

Gusto contributor and official D.C. policy starlet Lisa just launched this site. Spread the word.

Washington's Remarks

You know how libraries always seem to have war memorials? They always seem a bit slap-dash and cheesy; they're usually big stone eagles perched atop a tablet that lists the community's soldiers who gave their lives. For some reason it always seems to be World War 2 that gets top billing. Maybe most of these monuments were built before Vietnam. Maybe people just haven't found a way to properly honor their native sons and daughters who gave their lives for a morally ambiguous war.

One of the best things about my old library in Sunderland, Massachusetts, was that it listed its dead on big hand-painted signs inside the library. The paint on the signs was faded and chipping off, but they sat there above the librarian's desk. Going to take out a video of "The Breakfast Club"? Well there's a list of Civil War dead staring back at you. It's a small town so eccentric things like this can happen. Since it was a colonial hub, the list of dead spread from Vietnam all the way back to the French and Indian War.

When the Pixies sing about the "valley full o' pioneer" in their song "U-Mass," this is what they're talking about. It's hard to imagine a time when western Massachusetts was considered pioneer country, but westward expansion had to start somewhere. The French and Indian War was a border conflict between English and French forces, with Indian allies joining both sides. This year is the conflict's 250th Anniversary.

For the first time ever, George Washington's "Remarks," his reflections on his time as a young officer in the French and Indian War, will be publicly displayed. For anyone interested in colonial history and the elusive figure of GW, this is big news (not like the umpteenth copy of the Declaration camping out at the Time Warner building).

Read more about the GW's papers at the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia. Take the quiz to find out which founding father are you?

Dems Poised to Take Back Senate

Not only will there be a nasty fight for president this year, the Senate's also up for grabs. And guess what? Democrats are poised to take it back.

In recent years, money has been a problem for Democrats in battles for the Senate and House of Representatives. But less so this time, according to Russell Hemenway of the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which raises funds for liberal Senate and House candidates. "They all appear to have enough," he said. " Maybe not enough to match Republicans but enough to wage a real campaign."

"Make Peace with Pot"

Today's New York Times has an op-ed piece from Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation and Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market. While we would love to think that the Paper of Record's running a piece like this signals a change in perceptions about the incoherent U.S. drug laws, well, we're doubtful.

Somebody obviously needs to up Schlosser's dosage of whiskey, Prozac, and cigarettes....

The Right to Be Happy

How do misfits and outsiders get into the history books? They assassinate the president, and live forever on the Broadway stage.

I saw Stephen Sondheim's Assassins last night. Who would've thought that a musical based on the life stories of nine would-be presidential assassins could be so compelling? The difficulty for Sondheim is to balance his wit and humor without being flip or casual about the deaths of four presidents.

The production accents the carnival funhouse of American history and of course that's where Sondheim's clever turn-of-phrases and surprising lyrical ideas really shine (and you can see why Magnetic Fields songwriter Stephin Merritt worships him). Sondheim's lyrics succeed in fleshing out how history bears on marginalized (or just crazy) individuals. There are also some touching moments about the individual assassins' lives. But at the end of the play, this is still a musical about assassins starring Doogie Howser as Lee Harvey Oswald. The weirdness is both its strength and its limitation.

The coolest part for me was learning about Charles Julius Guiteau. James Garfield's assassin flunked out of college and then got thrown out of the Oneida Christian commune before conning his way into a law clerkship. While his wife was avoiding angry creditors, Guiteau contracted syphillis from a prostitute. His wife divorced him.

Broke and alone, Guiteau turned to a time-honored moneymaker: religious hucksterism. He toured the country preaching a weird, garbled faith and charging Christians for listening. History House (you've got to read this story, folks) quotes a newspaper of the time:

Is There a Hell? Fifty Deceived People [are] of the opinion that there ought to be. The man Charles J. Guiteau, if such really is his name, who calls himself an eminent Chicago lawyer, has fraud and imbecility plainly stamped upon his countenance... Although the impudent scoundrel had talked only fifteen minutes, he suddenly perorated brilliantly by thanking the audience for their attention and bidding them good-night. Before the astounded fifty had recovered from their amazement... [he] had fled from the building and escaped.

Guiteau sucked up to the most prominent politicians of the day. After regularly preaching a stump speech for Ulysses S. Grant, he threw his support to James Garfield. But instead of writing a new speech for Garfield, he just inserted Garfield's name at the end of his long speech recounting Grant's battle victories.

Eventually, Guiteau became convinced that his job should be as an ambassador. He pestered Republican politicians for a job, writing

Next Spring I expect to marry the daughter of a deceased New York Republican millionaire and I think we can represent the United States Government at the court of Vienna with dignity and grace.

Of course he was summarily dismissed. But believing that his speech had been instrumental in Garfield's victory, Guiteau felt embittered and began plotting to kill the president.

Guiteau ordered a hansome cab to wait as Garfield and an aide went to board the train on July 2, 1881. Guiteau shot Garfield in the back and promptly took himself to the jail, writing a letter for more troops to protect him from an angry mob that he thought might form.

When Guiteau eventually went to the gallows, people were paying as much as $300 for an opportunity to watch the assassin hang. But ever the optimistic huckster, Guiteau kept singing even when his head was covered with a black hood by the hangman. And he sang a song that he wrote:

I saved my party and my land;
Glory Hallelujah!
But they have murdered me for it
And that is the reason
I am going to the Lordy.
Glory Hallelujah! Glory Hallelujah!
I am going to the Lordy.

View the Charles Guiteau Collection at Georgetown. Read more about the trial and execution of Guiteau. Read the lyrics from a Tin Pan Alley song about Guiteau.

James Garfield was the "last of the log cabin Presidents." Read his story here. His death wasn't technically caused by Guiteau, but by dirty doctors rooting their filthy fingers around his guts. Read his medical history here, and the story of medical incompetence here. And who knew log cabin presidents had their own websites?

Even in hindsight, Bush's vision isn't 20/20

Cable news and the networks gave George W. Bush a primetime slot for a press conference last night. Watch it and read the transcript at whitehouse.gov.

An interesting moment came when a reporter dared to veer off the script and ask a surprise question about what the President's biggest mistake to date has been. Well, he'll let us know when he thinks of something:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

It's understandable that he doesn't want to seem weak to the international public watching. But Americans are asking questions about 9/11 and Iraq that need answering. Bush admitting mistakes isn't the same thing as saying he could've avoided 9/11.

Personally, I feel like it only could've been avoided if all stars were aligned. But it makes me even more uncomfortable with Bush to think he's refusing to evaluate how the results of his actions measure up to his goals. On this theme, here's DHinMI's take on the presser at Kos:

Whenever asked about the effects of his actions, Bush answered by affirming his virtuous motives. When asked about a situation or development, Bush answered by referencing himself, often with strange third person-like observations of himself. He failed to give even an approximation of an answer to all but a couple of the questions. And most damning, despite being given numerous opportunities, Bush showed he's constitutionally prohibited from accepting responsibility--not blame, responsibility.

David Sirota picks up on a few discrepencies in claim versus fact:

CLAIM:

Iraq "refused to disarm."
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:

"The Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March."
- CNN, 1/26/04

Tom Shales in the Washington Post gives his analysis:

"When I say something, I mean it," George W. Bush said decisively near the end of last night's prime-time presidential news conference. Nobody called out, "When will you say something?" -- the White House press corps is too mannerly for that -- but some reporters, and some viewers, must have been thinking it.

Critical Viewer has written a hilarious "Busy Person's Guide to the Bush Press Conference" in which he translates questions and responses:

Q: You told Bob Woodward that Osama wasn't a priority before 9/11. Do you feel any personal responsibility for 9/11?

A: I was angry and sad on 9/11. Before 9/11 I was not.

Q: And do you feel personal responsibility for 9/11?

A: No. The patriot act is good. We were stovepiped. No war footing. 9/11 was gathering threat...thats why I dealt with Iraq. We must preempt all who hate us.

Condi & The PDB

When Condoleeza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission last week, she testified about a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) from August 6, 2001:

It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States. [Full Transcript]

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Scalia's Open Season

While giving a speech in a Mississippi high school about the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had Federal marshals destroy audio recordings made by reporters. It's unclear whether he was trying to teach the kids what the Constitution protects against.

Hoover's consolation

Thanks to The Other Page, we discovered this letter written by poet/songwriter David Berman to the Nashville Tennessean:

Can't be easy defending Bush day after day

To the Editor:

How many gallons of Republican Kool-Aid does a Bush supporter have to choke down in order to keep defending the worst president in American history?

Just as Alabamans happily say ''Thank God for Mississippi'' when annual ''quality of life'' rankings come out, I suspect Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce are saying, ''Thank God for G. W. Bush'' somewhere in the afterlife.

Anyone who even thinks about voting for this man in November should be prosecuted for treason.

David Berman

Nashville 37212

Kerry on Crack

In August of 1996, presidential hopeful John Kerry wasn’t making national headlines. He was, however, surely watching the headlines while reporters foamed at the mouth over a feature just published by the San Jose Mercury News. The contentious report sought to link the CIA and the epidemic du jour, crack cocaine, tracing a trail of money from Washington to South America to Los Angeles’ ghettos. As the scandal played out over the following months, the Mercury would lose its nerve and the national press would mock, distort, and eventually bury the story. Meanwhile Senator John Kerry was busy spearheading a damning investigation into one of our government’s dirtiest secrets.

First off, you may be surprised to learn that journalist Gary Webb’s feature for the Mercury did not claim that the CIA invented and distributed crack to suppress minorities in Los Angeles. Over time, this distorted version of the story came to dominate a sensation-driven media. Average Americans had just wrapped their heads around their President’s probable role in the Iran-Contra scandal, and this new conspiracy theory was too much to take. However, John Kerry had already begun to compile evidence concurring with the actual allegations of Webb’s article, that the CIA had in fact covertly funded known drug traffickers who sold cocaine in Los Angeles to fuel the Contra war.

The accusation is complicated and bears repeating. Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, established in 1986, ultimately discovered and forced the CIA to admit to the following corruptions of justice: Convicted international drug smugglers, known to the CIA as such, were given state department aid to carry supplies and ammunition to the Contra rebels. An indicted drug smuggler was given clemency on condition that he contribute $250,000 monthly to Contra factions. These traffickers, flying unfettered between the US and South America in planes purchased with US tax dollars, made their profits selling cocaine to an infamous Los Angeles crack kingpin at the height of the city’s crack epidemic.

Published in 1998, long after the San Jose Mercury News issued a partial apology for Gary Webb’s articles and after he resigned in protest, the Kerry Committee report corroborated most of Webb’s claims. Though it did not conclude conspiracy, only colossal bureaucratic bungling, the report was stymied for years. Key informants to the committee were offered sentence reductions to stop cooperating. The finished report was attacked or ignored by the US media. Newsweek called Kerry a "randy conspiracy buff." Kerry’s role in the controversy remains largely unknown to the American public even today. For a more detailed look into this facinating story, I recommend a book called "Cocaine".

Clearly, John Kerry helped uncover some nasty stuff that at best did not help his political career. But what do those actions say about Kerry the presidential candidate? Is John Kerry a maverick watchdog? Where does Kerry stand on the US “war on drugs”? Crack is now a once-was. Cocaine and the “war on drugs” are non-issues this campaign season. Americans want to know what the CIA knew about Bin Laden, not what it knew about the Contras. Yet the players behind government scandals don’t just disappear after outrage dies down and political careers are made over the course of more than one presidential election. We know John Kerry’s record. Now we can only take him at his word.

Did Bush Fiddle?

A veteran anti-terrorism official who served under Bush accuses his former boss of ignoring the threat of terrorism until September 11, 2001. Reagan appointee Richard Clarke described asking Condoleeza Rice on January 24, 2001, to call for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Yet in nearly 100 formal national security meetings before 9/11, terrorism was only the topic twice.

And there was also the Hart-Rudman commission's warning in January 2001. And Newsweek has a story on Ashcroft's Justice Department's curtailing a program to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States in order to battle drug trafficking.

Condoleeza Rice gives a very different picture of the administration's activity in an op-ed piece today. Josh Marshall gives a good comparison of Rice versus Clarke and discusses the administration's disingenuity.

Two weeks after Clarke says he called for high-level meetings to deal with the al-Qaida threat and the Hart-Rudman report called for the creation of a Homeland Security Department, George W. Bush said, "My job is to lead. A President should not wait on events. He must try to shape them. And the warning signs are clear." Unfortunately, he wasn't talking about fighting al-Qaida or terrorism; he was talking about giving a tax break.

Rummy, Drunk on Deception

Donald Rumsfeld says it's "folklore" that the administration ever said Iraq was an imminent threat. Luckily, Thomas Friedman was on hand to remind the Secretary of Defense about the record. MoveOn.org wants congress to censure President Bush for deceiving the public about Iraq's WMD. For those with any doubt about the administration's statements on the "imminent threat," here's a handy little compilation, and a more exhaustive summation.

Kerry-McCain '04

Even though this is a useless rant--as John McCain's chief of staff has said, "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004"--a Kerry-McCain ticket is an especially wonderful flight of fancy. Consider first the symbolic meaning of a Kerry-McCain ticket: a coalition of Democrats and Republicans fighting together to heal a scarred system. The policy would be, of necessity, centrist; McCain would tactfully remind Kerry that he's for free trade and wants a free Iraq, and together, this super duo would run on balancing the budget and finishing McCain's work on campaign finance reform. In addition, Congressional leaders would have to work with them on the reforms we sorely need, from health care to Social Security. They would fully fund No Child Left Behind and re-train those left jobless by outsourcing. Kerry-McCain would spell the end of partisan politics on Capitol Hill and the beginning of a new era of voter enfranchisement. And best yet, McCain would trounce Bush in South Carolina, like he should have four years ago. It's a thought, anyway.

Tenet's decorum

CIA Director George Tenet says that he's privately corrected Dick Cheney on three occasions after the VP misstated intelligence conclusions. I guess if there's one thing you can say about the Bush team, it's that they have such good manners to keep things like reasons for war private. Tenet, who was appointed by Clinton in 1997, has to be thankful that he even still has a job. When asked whether he thinks the administration deliberately skewed the facts in order to go to war in Iraq, Tenet replied "That's a private matter I'll take up at our next picnic of evil."

RNC: Out of touch and out of control

Inaugural Blathering

And away we go. The new DG (or Gusto2 as its friends call it after a long night of whiskey) is born. May its life be as vital and robust as Gusto1 and, if the time ever comes, its death more dignified.

And speaking of vital and robust, my former senator John Kerry will be the Democratic nominee to oppose GWB in the fall.

Bush is scared.
John Kerry on the Issues
A list of Kerry-sponsored bills
TPM swoons over Kerry's non-Vietnam fighting credentials
And, for the doubtful Dems out there, Kaus indulges in doubts not just about Kerry the candidate, but Kerry the president.