Taking the Democratic Party Survey: Why I am a Democrat and Why I'm Currently Discouraged.

I have been getting TONS of email from national Democrats, asking me for money, asking if I've seen the President's latest You-Tube video, asking me for money....

Today, I received a survey asking me to share my opinion on the current state of the Democratic Party...since there was a place for long answers, I filled them out...and then decided to post them here, because A) this was the one place that some random web surfer might read them (I know they won't get read at party headquarters) and, B) because heaven knows it's time for a blog post.

So here are my responses.


How would you describe the current political climate? (Optional):

As a Democrat, I feel demoralized. In his first days in office, President Obama appointed two tax cheats (a Democrat who cheats on his taxes is just as bad as a Republican "Family Values" man who cheats on his wife.) Timothy Geithner felt like part of the same Wall Street Gang of thugs who got us into this mess in the first place. Then, the President was a month overdue before responding in a major way to the Gulf Oil Spill. He has done a lousy job selling his program, and when Democrats point out the missteps taken by the White House and ask them to please try and do better, they are told to "Stop Whining" by Vice-President Biden. So, the current climate: Grim and Uninspiring.

What do you believe the Democratic Party stands for? (Optional):

I think that's in flux right now...but here's what I think the Democratic Party SHOULD stand for:

A strong America.
A debt-free America.
An America that MAKES things again.

The Democrats know that, with the proper oversight, Government need not be an enemy. Instead, as long as our government remains free and open, it can be a powerful tool. Allowing groups of ordinary people to band together to create something larger then themselves (examples: The Space Program, Victory in World War 2, the Interstate Highway System, the Transcontinental Railroad, etc.). Government, again, kept under proper restraint, and driven by groups of activists, is also the only tool that has achieved the civil rights of the American People (The end of Slavery, the Enfranchisement of Women, the end of segregation.)

In times of great need, Government has successfully served as the great engine which restarts the economy...getting us moving again following the Great Depression, providing the needed economic mobilization to triumph over fascism. While these are the large examples, this pattern has been repeated in smaller crises throughout the century.

The Democratic party knows that, in order to create the conditions of prosperity and stability, taxes are necessary. Democrats know that the upper class may occasionally meet with success solely by their own efforts, but are more often aided by the efforts of their workforce, the public education system, the public police system, the public transportation infrastructure, the national defense, and, often, by doing direct business with the government.

Because of this, Democrats know that these people deserve to pay more in taxes, to support the society that supports them so well.

Democrats know that money taken from the top, and reinvested in the bottom creates a rising tide that raises ALL boats, not just those of the few...and brings financial growth and benefit to a greater portion of society. (Their prosperity, in turn, allows them to be customers of the rich...helping them well from this too.)

Democrats value and respect the entrepreneur. They understand that his vision and energy are a key part of the driving force of our economy. At the same time, they know that he is not the God-Like Figure imagined by Ayn Rand and her supply-side disciples. True Entrepreneurs thrive in an environment laced with infrastructure: Transportation, Police, Education, Energy, workforce. Because this successful businessman achieves success in aworld which has been tamed for him through the efforts of his fellow citizens acting together as a government, it is also understood that that self-same business person must pay to support that infrastruture. Not being a god-like figure, the entrepreneur is not to be placated by deferments, and releases from his obligation to provide support for the infrastructure without which his success would not be possible. Unlike Ayn Rand and her modern followers, Democrats do not heap sacrifices from the public treasury in the form of tax breaks at his feet.

Democrats know and respect the worker's role in economic success. Democrats also know that, by keeping the working class prosperous, a larger customer base is established, and the seeds of further economic growth are put in place, seeds which the business owner will harvest.

Democrats understand that, human nature being what it is, those who have money will seek to keep as much of it as they can. They will share no more with their workforce than absolutely necessary. They will voluntarily contribute to the infrastructure that supports them almost nothing. They will favor short-term profit over long term growth. Democrats understand that, while free market capitalism is the best way to run a successfull society, that it has an Achillies Heal. Left to its own devices, the free market will tend to stagnate, concentrating success and wealth in the hands of a few. Left in it's natural state, the only way to bring change is through periodic catastrophic failure. To avoid both the stagnation and concentration of wealth, which leads to tyranny of the few over the many, and at the same time to avoid economic catastrophe and devastation which leads to periods of anarchy, terror and hardship, Government is needed to bring stabilty....while it does tend to remove the highest of the high points (enjoyed only by very few), it also reduces the lowest of lows...and that helps the population as a whole.

Democrats should know that they need to be fiscally responsible...keeping the national account square, paying as they go, breaking this rule only in economic emergencies (such as the present crisis), and returning to normalcy as soon as possible.

The Democrats know that people often need a helping hand to lift themselves up. That children need a good education to rise in the world. At the same time, Democrats have come to understand that welfare should be a hand, not a handout, and that while there are no limits to our desire to help, there are limits to the amount of help we will give to those who will not help themselves.

Democrats know that this country must become as self-sufficient as possible, and especially in the area of energy.

Knowing that there is no one magic bullet that will replace foreign oil as a source of power, Democrats are ready to apply the power of Government to fund R & D that is not yet attractive to the private sector in search of the short term sure profit.

Democrats understand that these efforts will pay off in a big way, giving America a commanding lead in the renewable energy field, providing us, once again, with a a product to sell to the world, reversing our negative balance of trade.

Democrats should never be ashamed to be America. Democrats should never shrink from defending her. At the same time, Democrats know that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and that a foreign policy that, while always serving to advance American interests, does so with fairness and a a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.

Why are you a Democrat? (Optional):

I am a Democrat because I believe in a strong America. I believe that this nation should offer both political and economic freedom to all. I believe that the Democratic Party's record on the economy for the last 80 years speaks for itself. Economics, practiced with a Keynesian bent, has created a wide-spread prosperity in all segments of this society. Supply-Side economics has concentrated wealth in top 1% of our society, during the years (from Reagan on) that supply-side economics have been in the drivers seat, we've seen this nation become a debtor to the world. We have seen our manufacturing jobs move overseas. We've seen government have to ride to the rescue of the Savings and Loan Industry and now the Financial Sector...all because we've removed the regulations in place that keep one company from growing so big that it crowds out the others, growing so big that it becomes "too big to fail".

I am a Democrat because I believe that,in the long run, the Democratic party has a better history of taking care of the nation as a whole (rather than of it's leading citizens). I believe the Democratic party, for all it's faults, and they are many, is a better steward of the economy and of our political freedom.

There are times when, as a Democrat, I become discouraged. There are times I become discouraged because the left wing of our party has seized control, forgetting that, while we believe in an active government with a strong role to play, we are NOT a socialist party. While we believe in a fair and level playing field, we are not a "leveling" party...we do not seek to enforce equality of outcome.

At the present time, I am discouraged for other reasons.

President Obama is a pragmatic centrist. He understands the need to use government to stabilize the economy and has done a fair job ending the free fall. The American Recovery and Reinvestment act has represented a strong investment, not only in jobs, but also in building for the future. Back in the day, people called the CCC "make work" - but today, as we enjoy our parks, roads, etc. we realize what a debit we owe to the men who worked in the program and the government who, not only saved them from starvation, but bequeathed a legacy to us. I strongly believe that some 20, 30 years hence, we will look back at the ARRA and realize that we made some good moves.

Obama's appointment of Geithner and the moves to bail out Wall Street are probably necessary, even though they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Less excusable are Obama's constant early efforts to meet the Republicans more than half way. Screw Them....the new Radical Republican party of Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and Boehner have never shown the slightest consideration for us. Those of that ilk have never shown the slightest indication to wish to reason together, or compromise...they are radical fundamentalists. Their motto is "join us or die"....our motto in regard to the radicals should be: Cathago delenda est. To any others who wish to talk, then yes, we'll hold out the hand of friendship...but those kinds of Republicans are damn few and far between theses days (and the few that remain are being driven from their party by the Christine O'Donnells and Sarah Palins of the nation.)

Because of the President's need to play nice, there are those who have argued that the stimulus package was too SMALL- big enough to make Americans nervous about the debt, not big enough to create movement in the economy fast enough.

On the Gulf Oil Spill, the President was, quite frankly, on the wrong side...even before it happened. As a nation, to remain strong, we MUST break the addiction to fossil fuels. And yet the President was advocating offshore drilling off the most populated areas of our coastline.

A mere month later, the BP spill proved the folly of that approach in a major way. President Obama did reverse his drilling policy, but he remained silent on the spill for over a month, while the Gulf coast suffered.

From the stand point of policy, President Obama (far from being too far to the left, as his Tea Party critics paint him) has been, if anything, too much on the side of the establishment and big business. For the most part, I can live with this...especially since he heads a party who can tend to drift too far to the left if not properly skippered.

But in terms of shear political performance, the ability to sell your policies and vision to the people, President Obama has just not done a good job of staying out in front. His minions have even been bitter, when we, the foot solders of the party have criticized their approaches, they tell us to "quit whining"about their political ineptittude...and yet they still send me emails...up to three a day...asking me to give money to the DNC.

Well, sorry guys...but no. No little (but big to me) check for you this year. I will work with my local party to reelect my Congressman, Tim Walz. I'll work with my local Democratic party to make sure that we return our local legislators to the State's House and Senate....but as for you in Washington...no...no cash for you...not until you get your act together.

Who knows, an enemy Congress actually helped spur Bill Clinton on to great things (Welfare Reform, a Balanced Budget)...maybe having a bunch of nuts in the House will help put some hair on Obama's chest. He has great potential, but so far, he hasn't lived up to it.

Extending Unemployment: Obama Hits the Right Note.

It's no secret that we here at Rip and Read (and when I say "we", I mean me and the mouse and my pocket.) have been less than enamored with President Obama of late. Where we've looked for the soaring rhetoric and infectious confidence of a Franklin Roosevelt, we have found instead a less than inspiring style of leadership which reminds us of something between Richard Nixon at his most bland and a package of damp saltine crackers.

Still... there is, in the end, no doubt where our loyalty lies and we WANT to find reasons to champion the President.

Today, on You-Tube, he gave us one. In his speech on the need to extend unemployment benefits, President Obama hit the nail on the head when he said:

"After years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people [Republicans] who didn't have ANY problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle class Americans...who really need help"

Unlike former Vice-President Dick Cheney, I DO believe that deficits matter. I think that it is of great importance that the United States Government remain strong and solvent.

As a concerned citizen, I am sick at the thought of how much money we have spent bailing out large corporations and banks, and, while I think that the infrastructure projects undertaken through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are long overdue, I am by no means sanguine about spending the money now, when the cupboards are bare.

However, we really have no choice. Not only is continuing to extend a hand during profoundly uncertain times the moral thing to do, it is also the economically sane thing to do.

Time and time again, in this country, we have watched as the Republicans have returned us to "Supply Side Economics". We have watched as first the Reagan Era and now the Bush Era came crashing down in a giant recession, mired by scandals and the need for massive government action to clean up the mistakes (and crimes) of the unregulated Rich. We have watched as the "Trickle Down" theory has failed to work, and the gap between rich and poor has grown...leaving the ranks of the middle class both thinned and precariously placed.

So, yes, I'm worried about deficits. But the time to REALLY scream, rant and rave about them was six years ago, when George W. Bush and his tame congress where giving away money right and left. When they were not minding the store at the SEC or the Bureau of Mineral Management...laying the groundwork for disasters and deficits to come.

And all this comes years, decades, after the verdict was in supply-side economics. Trickle Down economics and an unregulated marketplace lead us into the Great Depression. Republican Herbert Hoover, clinging to his policies, was powerless to offer any relief. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal began to put people back to work. World War Two, and the MASSIVE Government Spending that came with it, finished the job. The jury of history is so solidly in with the verdict that it seems unbelievable to me that we are evening debating it again.

We can argue how about how much we should spend, how much we should tax and when, but to waste time debating the merits of the case when Americans are out of work is ...well, it's just plain crazy.

I think that is what keeps me so near boiling point when it comes to politics these days. That those who drove this country off an economic cliff have the temerity to think that they should be allowed back at the wheel.

President Obama is right to call them out. He is right to remind both his opponents and supporters just WHOSE MESS THIS REALLY IS.

I, for one, am hoping for more of the same.

Staying Faithful to America

This morning, I opened my email to find a message from a right wing correspondent. The message simply contained a link to an article entitled: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group.

I guess the implication is supposed to be: "See? Barack HUSSEIN Obama has only been in office for a few days and LOOK! He's turning all of his brother terrorists loose..." or something like that.

I have to say, however, that the article prompted me to think a little bit about what it means to be an American. Here's part of my email back:

I don't deny that most of these folks are VERY BAD MEN...

What bothers me about Gitmo is that a Free Country, like the United States, can lock up people who are NEITHER Prisoners of War- and thus protected by the Geneva Conventions, or CRIMINALS- thus protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Why is "protection" important? Do I really care about a bunch of grease-ball desert dwelling killers?

The answer is no, I don't give a damn.....If I just left it up to my personal feelings I would love to see them all fry in hell.

I could allow myself to say all the foulest things I sometimes feel about them...

But there are two good reasons why I try NOT to give into the hatred I often feel.

THE SELFISH REASON:

The first is, I admit, selfish: I know that if certain people on the far left came to power, they'd toss the likes of you, my conservative friend, in jail so fast it would make your head spin...

...I also know that that, if certain people on the FAR RIGHT came to power, I would wind up in an internment camp before I could say "My Country 'tis Of Thee".

The Men who wrote the Constitution knew this, as well; on almost every page of the Federalist Papers, they warn that human nature can be a wicked thing- and that our only hope of escaping the evil side of human nature is to bind it up in rules and regulations- to keep us from acting like the animals we are.

Because I would not want to be subject to the whims of others, with a right to due process of law, so too, I would extend that right to others...

Notice, I didn't say I would let them off the hook- what I said was I would FOLLOW THE RULES - before throwing them into prison...because I know that, in the long run, those RULES are there to protect ME not THEM.


THE OTHER REASON:

As I said before, if it were just up to me and my emotions, I'd love to see these people fry in hell. I am not a nice, or civilized guy at heart...If I didn't TRY really hard, I personally could find hatred in my heart for these people. If I gave into the emotions I felt on 9-11, I could easily vote to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

But while that is sometimes who I am, it's really not who I WANT to be.

And that is also my wish for my country... OTHER Nations can lock prisoners up without trial, because it's the easiest, and often the SAFEST way to do business....

but America needs to stand for something MORE than just safety and simplicity- don't you agree?

Ever since the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, we have aspired to be the "Shining City on the Hill"- first articulated by John Winthrop and alluded to by Americans as different as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

If we wish to stay faithful to that dream, then we must hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the rest of the world. For other countries, their thinking can be limited to "self-interest"...but for the United States...we can only START at self interest....if we are to fulfill the dream to become a shining city on a hill, a place where Justice always Triumphs, where Hard Work is always rewarded, and where we are free to worship as we wish, study as we wish, think as we wish...then we must be better than average....

We've got to Catch the Bad Guys...AND we have to catch 'em fair and square.

I'm not sure that Gitmo has lived up to that standard. In some ways, I think this was one of George W. Bush's big mistakes...to treat these people, not as criminals, but as something like prisoners of war.

Because they are prisoners of war, and because the world EXPECTS more of us...because we ARE America...we have to live up to the Geneva Convention, etc.

IF we had treated these guys as common criminals, I think we could have brought them into our justice system, given them a fair trial and then, when the crime warranted, sent them to the gas chamber.

To me, that's part of the tragedy of Dick Cheney and co. The man got so frightened after 9/11 that he forgot that our country, and our freedom are greater and stronger than any scraggly band of thugs from the desert....

...in his panic, he chose to throw away the rules...which he should have HELD all the more tightly- for that is our best protection as Americans.

I know it's a case of "coulda, shoulda, woulda" but I have to wonder if, had we followed our own rules, and sent this creep to trail, would we be reading about his death by lethal injection today, rather than the fact that he is free to kill again.

Looking forward to your response....

Reagan's Farewell

Everyday that goes by brings us closer to the end of eight LONG years of the George W. Bush Presidency. Rip-and-Read couldn't be happier as we look forward to Mr. Bush's farewell address.

Today, I happened to stumble across another Presidential farewell on You-Tube. Ronald Reagan is definitely NOT one of Rip-and-Read's favorite Presidents. In my opinion, Mr. Reagan is the DIRECT political ancestor of George W. Bush, and their family tree stretches back to include the lassiez-faire capitalism which contributed to the great depression.

Following both the Reagan and G.W.Bush administrations, the nation has been left more deeply in debt, and struggling under a financial crisis and a massive burden on back of the middle class taxpayer to bailout those at the top of the economic heap. {For Reagan, it was the $105 billion dollar cost to fix the Savings & Loan Industry- while, for the source of America's current economic woes, visit any paper of your choice.)

Also, both men encouraged a spirit of jingoism in this country- often playing to the darker devils of our spirits than to the better angels of our nature.

Still, no one can deny that Reagan had style and a real mastery of communication. The fact that the spirit of his deeds did not always match the spirit of his words does not obscure the fact that the words were often pretty good.

And so, I found myself listening to Reagan's farewell speech. My vision of what capitalism is, and how it should be managed by the American people is different that his - but with his most basic, bedrock vision of what America should be, I couldn't agree more...and in his exhortation to teach our children not only what is wrong with America, but, more importantly, what is RIGHT in America- I wholeheartedly concur.

Because, in the end, if you don't firmly believe that your nation is, at it's best, a shining city on a hill, then you have no reason to keep fighting to make her all she should be.

Here's Mr. Reagan's address:

ARRRGGGHH!!!!! McCain Leads Obama in New Poll

WHAT? THE? HELL?

(Don't look for much rational thought into day's post...to be honest, I'm just ranting- I'm so mad.)

I have to admit to a great feeling of frustration at this morning's story (by Reuters): McCain in 5 Point Lead Over Obama.

According to the article, there is no one group that Obama needs to win over (or has lost), there is no one issue that has lost it for him.

Instead, people just see McCain as the better choice to "stand up to Russia" and, unbelievably, lead the nation on the Economy.

This, to me is unbelievable (but of course, I do believe it, the story of the American electorate since 1968 has largely been one of a people who have turned away from facts and chose to embrace illusion.)

In what sense, I wonder could McCain be "better" on any of the issues of primary concern to the American people.

1) On Gasoline? Off-shore drilling will show NO results for YEARS and George W. Bush squandered every opportunity to use the Post 9-11 mindset to declare true American Independence from Foreign Oil.

2) On Foreign Policy? Our troops are too committed to an unnecessary war (Iraq) to successfully wage the NECESSARY war in Afghanistan...McCain claims he wants to stay committed to Iraq...how then, may I ask, does the man plan to DEAL with Russia? With WHAT will he deal with them? We've broken our big stick in Iraq, and we'll need to fix it (and hell, we weren't even speaking softly.)

3) On the economy? Americans have seen a decline in real wages since the 1970s. The policies of Reagan and George W. Bush have plunged this nation into deficit spending - eight years of conservative pull backs under Democrat Bill Clinton merely stopped the downward slide...two years of Bush, and the Republicans were able to re-start their stated agenda of "drowning" America's Government (including education, social security, law enforcement and military spending) "in a bathtub".

And, yet, again and again, American's turn to the smiling face of the Republican party- because what they "say" is so different that what they do.

Another Republican Administration will break this county, I fear, beyond all repair. And we seem to be falling for it...hook line and sinker.

The Cousins' War & Nixonland

A Fourth Cousins’ War?

According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama enjoys a two to one lead over John McCain among low wage workers. But that level of support, especially among white members of the group, is not deep. In battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Florida if McCain can pry these votes away from the Democrats, he has a chance of winning another four years in the White House for the Republican party.

Many, if not most Americans, are expressing thoughts that would lead one to believe that they would not support this. My dad recently emailed me from Central Florida:

“We have a Bush Countdown Calendar in the shop” (my family runs a bait and tackle shop- just a few years ago, a calendar like this, openly displayed, would have brought about the death of the business among the hyper-patriotic working white males who also make up the majority of the fishing population- if he’s lost this group, then Bush’s halcyon days are truly over.) “Most people think it’s really funny,” my dad wrote, “but I still think McCain is going to win here. People just can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama.” My father went on to mention how people where in debt, how businesses were folding and how bad things were.

As always, I scratched my head and thought: So WHY THE HELL WOULD THESE PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR A MAN WHO SUPPORTS THE POLICY OF THE MAN WHO THEY ACKNOWELGE HAS BROUGHT HARD TIMES AND A GREATER GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR?

We Democrats pride ourselves on being the party who fights the cause of the common man…and yet time and time again in recent years, that man has turned against our party at the polls and voted (as we see it) in diametric opposition to his best self-interest…both long term and short term.

In fact, if Rip-and-Read could chose only one question to focus on, this paradox would be that question. Why does it happen, and, how can it be reversed without selling out everything we, as Democrats, believe in? (Meaning, not to put too fine a point on it, how can Democrats regain the trust and votes of the white working and middle class while not throwing blacks, Hispanics, women and other minorities under the bus.)

I’ve always believed that the answers to most questions about the present lay in careful study of history, and over the last few years, I’ve found myself looking to history for the answer to my question.

In particular, I’ve found myself drawn to two books, each very different from the other. The authors’, too, are very different from one another. And yet I found myself wondering if they weren’t telling different aspects of the same story.

The first book, The Cousins’ Wars, by Kevin Phillips, postulates that three separate conflicts, The English Civil War, the American War of Independence, and the U.S. Civil War are actually three chapters in one long story of conflict between two opposing camps and their allies about what the words freedom and progress meant to the English speaking people of both Great Brittan and North America.

The second book, Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein, tells the story of how Richard Nixon managed to find a great silent majority of ordinary Americans who felt alienated by the Revolution of the 1960s. Nixon used this resentment to capture the solid South (which remained solid even as it shifted loyalties) and middle America and white working class voters for the Republican party. Although Nixon himself fell from power in disgrace, his political heirs, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have picked up his mantle and managed to retain control of the White House for the better part of half a century.

The Cousins Wars tells the story of how one camp, based first in East Anglia (England) and later in New England, and then later in what Phillips refers to as Greater New England, battled against the other camp, based first in the North and West of England, and later in the states of the Old Confederacy, and finally (perhaps) in what has been called “The Sun Belt”.

Each side (both with deepest roots in the old English factions of Cavalier and Roundhead) needed to confront the existence of other peoples within the sphere of the conflict (Scots, Welsh and Irish in the case of the English Civil War; Irish, Scots, African American, and German in the case of the two American Wars.) In each war, the importance of these other, non-English, groups grew.

As I began to look at the maps of the conflicts and loyalties in Kevin Phillips’ book, I began to wonder if there weren’t parallels to what was happening in today’s politics. The Confederate States and the Union States look very much like today’s Red and Blue States…the political battle lines in the undecided states (Pensylvania and Ohio, for example) not very far from the old border line between North and South.

This is certainly not a new idea, and it’s obvious the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s reopened the wounds of the Civil War of the 1860s. But I’d always assumed that the make up of the sides (or at least of the Northern side) had changed too radically for the parallel to be taken much further. After reading Phillips’ book, comparing the charges made by Cavaliers against Puritans, Loyalists against Patriots, and Rebel against Yankee (and vise versa) I’m not so sure- the comparison may have been even more apt than I first thought.

In each of the Cousins' Wars one side embraced new economic realities, the other clung to the past. In each of the Cousins' Wars, one side tended to romanticize the state while the other saw it as a means to a more individualistic end. And each side deeply held that the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

If a case needs to be made that the 1960s represented something very close to a Civil War in the United States, complete with violent killings, inability to compromise, or even discuss, and deep divisions within families, and communities, let alone between regions of the country, Perlstein’s opening chapter of Nixonland puts that case very well- his narrative crackles with the sounds of angry words and angrier gunshots.

As I read the Perlstein’s description of the rhetoric flung by “conservatives” against “liberals” (and vise versa), I found that, again, each side felt the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

Kevin Phillips labels the U.S. Civil War “the final Cousins’ War”, but after I started Perlstein’s book, I’m not so sure any more. I already believed that America has been in something very like a Civil War since the mid-sixties, but I am now starting to wonder if we are not still fighting the same old fight, between the same two camps that we’ve been fighting since 1642. The great divide in American Politics which is presently costing us so much may not be entering its fourth decade, but rather may be entering its fourth century.

---

It's gonna be the Economy Stupid...

In difficulty, there is always opportunity. Following 9/11, several opportunities presented themselves to the United States. We could have used the tragedy to change our world-wide energy strategy- pioneering in developing new sources of energy and efficiency which would be the envy of the world. We could have followed up on early victories in Afghanistan to crush Osama Bin Ladin and his Taliban allies. But, of course, we did not.

Now, the United States is facing difficulties again. I've been listening to a series on NPR about economic impact in the US. I highly recommend it. People are hurting and they are frightened and those things are going to come into play in the next election.

The American People will be looking for their political representatives in Washington and State Governments to implement solutions. They will be right to do so.

They will want to see America's public treasury taken care of, not squandered. They will want to see our society find ways to embrace a growing global economy- WITHOUT surrendering our jobs and our livelihood. They will want to see our representatives close loopholes that allow our wealthy to skirt their duty to the society at large- to admit that even the self-made man cannot make money or acquire property without the help of others (workers, educators, policemen, firemen, etc.)

At the same time, I hope that the American people will not miss the opportunities that have been presented to them in the midst of their hardship. In the NPR series, for example, one woman complained that she had to think twice, no, three times before taking a car trip.

But that is precisely what we should be doing- in times of lean, and in times of plenty. We should be thinking- we should be acting responsibly. And we should be taking responsibility for ourselves and the world in which we live.

It is only be regaining self discipline, and by learning to distinguish what we "need" from what we "want" that America will find her way back to success.

Times are hard right now, but opportunity to change ourselves, gain strength and ... well, grow up...is also here.

I hope America will take her moment this time. If not, there are others who will take it from her.

John McCain: Oil in his Eyes

McCain Supports Bush Call for More Off Shore Drilling

According the AP, John McCain has joined George W. Bush in a call for offshore Drilling in American coastal waters.

The American working class needs relief from high gas prices that eat into weekly pay checks, but common sense says that offshore drilling is not the way to go about providing that relief.

As Barack Obama said in his speech on the subject: "The politics may have changed but the facts haven't."

Only One Winner

There is only one group of people who would win from a change in the off shore oil drilling rules: BIG OIL.

American Drivers wouldn't even SEE this oil for years...so there are much better ways to help working Americans make ends meet.

And, when the oil finally DOES arrive, there is no guarantee that prices will go down. In fact, Americans watched for years as OPEC worked very well to keep Oil Prices UP by intentionally limiting the amount of oil they took out of the ground...if supply goes up, prices come down- if you want to keep prices up, you limit the amount of supply. After these boom times, anyone who thinks that the Oil Business is looking for ways to lower prices and profits is a complete sucker.

The Rest of us Lose

Who looses?
Most of Us.

None of us see lower Gas prices anytime soon...if ever.

Fisherman, already waiting on empty boats for fish populations to bounce back, loose most hopes of returning to their jobs.

Working People in Coastal States who rely on Tourism loose when their beaches become blotted with oil bubbles, slicks and spills.

The alternative energy industry, which could help keep this country strong, is forced to wait again while people put off breaking their oil addiction.

We all loose as we continue to damage the planet's atmosphere through fossil fuel consumption.

Americans must resist economic panic. We need to look deeply at this issue and reject the short-sighted, crony capitalism as offered by Oil Man Bush and his would-be successor, John McCain.

When it comes to Oil...just say NO!

Junkies Need another Hit -Drilling Off Shore

Bush Renews Calls for Offshore Drilling

See: AP "Bush Looks Offshore for remedy to high oil prices"
As America's drivers scream in economic pain due to high oil prices, our President proposes to ride to the rescue. How? By lifting the ban on drilling in US Coastal Waters.

That, says Bush, will fix everything.

Bushshit.

According to the same AP article, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama points out that even if we started drilling TOMORROW we wouldn't see the oil for another 5 years.

Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, they are not panicking, no sir, they are giving out advice: GET IN ON THE OIL BOOM WHILE YOU CAN!

It is time that Americans learn that the age of cheap oil is over. It will NEVER go back down to affordable prices unless something of epic proportions happens...

Adding a temporary increase in supply won't do it...Oil companies will simply drill more slowly and keep the price up...OPEC has done this for years already.

Place this almost non-existent drop in oil prices, that we won't see in 5 years, against what we might loose by drilling off our coasts. It's a bad deal

I'm not just talking about clean beaches for swimming, but about real money...the US offshore fishing market is in real trouble, and yet, in a world which is clamoring for FOOD as much as for oil, this is another potential gold mine for this nation- one even more important that oil (people CAN learn to drive, but they'll never figure out how to stop eating). American fisherman have been struggling on the margins, waiting for the our fish population to bounce back (read Mark Kurlansky's "COD" for a fascinating discussion of this overlooked but vital chapter in American and World History).

An invasion by Oil companies could put the final nail into that coffin. Far to high a price to pay.

Instead, let's use the next five years, not to wait for a temporary supply of cheap oil to come bubbling dangerously from the deep, but instead to break our addiction to this substance once and for all.

Scott McClellan- When Rats Write Books

I have to admit, I've been so busy lately that I haven't had time to consider Scott McClellan's newly published memoirs in which he reveals that Bush has lied about everything...wow...who knew?

However, others have been quick to form the response I would have had I been paying attention....

The neatest came from The New Republic, in a short piece written by Michael Currie Schaffer, entitled: What Didn't Happen.

In a series of mock headlines, Schaffer postulates the articles that MIGHT have resulted had McClellan been genuinely outraged by events, rather than than the loss of his job, or his desire to outrun the prosecution which (who knows, miracles can happen) might actually start putting the Bushies behind bars where they belong.

For Example:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2006--White House spokesman Scott McClellan abruptly resigned yesterday, accusing senior administration officials of misleading him about the CIA leak investigation.

Or:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2, 2004--With President Bush locked in a close race with Democratic challenger John Kerry, his spokesman suddenly quit yesterday.

Scott McClellan, whose ties to the president go back to their days in Texas, told reporters that Bush's inability to acknowledge mistakes in the handling of the Iraq war demonstrated major deficiencies in the president's ability to be a successful leader.

In the end, of course, none of this happened and now that he's been forced out by his own, he is trying for a hero's welcome from the people he helped abuse, cheat and mislead...

One comment on the New Republic Story suggested that at least McClellan get some credit for coming clean, to which another replied: "I'd give him a lot more credit if he turned over the profits to maimed Iraqi war veterans"

That about sums it up.

Reviewing Recent History: Getting The Basic Premise Wrong

A few days ago, I started watching webcasts of the PBS documentary show: Frontline. As we enter the fifth year of war in Iraq, it has been both fascinating and frustrating to review this recent history and perhaps to better understand how we have arrived here.


In addition to the opportunity to watch, or re-watch, these episodes, Frontline provides extended transcripts of the interviews conducted for the program. Consisting of material that often wound up on the cutting room floor, these interviews can provide flashes of insight to those willing to peruse them.

In the Frontline film, "The Dark Side", Collin Powell's former chief of Staff, Lawerence Wilkerson was interviewed. While he spoke on camera about the tense relationship between the "moderates" (like Powell) and the "hawks" (Chaney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz)- but one of the most prescient things Wilkenson said is found in his extended interview transcript:

Carl von Clausewitz [says]... that you must make sure you identify the nature of the conflict you're in. You must. That's absolutely essential. If you misidentify that nature, you're not ever going to get back on the right sheet of music.

But from the beginning, Wilkerson implies, mistake the nature of the conflict we were involved in against Al Qaeda. Their impulse was to see it as a new version of the Cold War against the Soviet Union- a struggle which had shaped their careers molded their personalities.

[Cheney, Rumsfeld and others bought the notion] that Al Qaeda has the capability to destroy the United States of America, its institutions, its very being, much as a 20,000-plus nuclear-tipped missile [arsenal] had the capability to had we gone to war with the Soviet Union and everyone unleashed his full panoply of weapons. This is ridiculous. This is utterly ridiculous. It begins marching you down in your decisions this road that is full of dangerous and even inept decisions, because we're not in an existential conflict with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesn't even remotely have the capability to bring the United States down...[T]his is a conflict of ideas; it is not a conflict of bombs, bullets and bayonets. ...

Wilkerson describes a briefing he received from a CIA agent. If Al Qaeda was the top of a pyramid, then, at the base, are ordinary people throughout the Islamic world, who, while they do not personally advocate killing (and especially not the killing of fellow Muslims) nevertheless "went into mosques all around the world and put shekels, dinars, dollars in the second box, knowing full well that the second box was not for charity; it was not for the mosque; it was for Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-like organizations."


How many people are dropping money in the box, wondered Wilkerson. The answer came back: Between 40 and 100 million people around the world. Those people, Wilkerson says, are:

the center of gravity of this war, and you don't get at the center of gravity by killing it or by killing others. You get at that center of gravity by proving to them your ideas: that democracy is the best form of government; freedom is the best human condition; and market economies, open, free trade is the best way to prosper in those systems of governance; and violence and killing people is antithetical to that. That's how you win that conflict. It's a conflict of ideas. You have to capture the hearts and minds of those people who are putting the shekels, dollars, dinars in that second box in mosques all over the world. You don't do that with bombs, bullets and bayonets.

This is not new, of course, this has been part of the debate (such as it has been) in the United States for a few years...but it is chilling to think back on five years of violence and death- resulting, perhaps in a weakened America, all arising from the acceptance of a false premise about the nature of the conflict in Iraq.

Down the Memory Hole- No Comprehensive Email Archive in Place at the White House.

Cross posted at Green Mountain Daily

In Orwell's 1984, inconvenient truths contained in historical documents were consigned to "The Memory Hole"; quite simply, an incinerator, which destroyed all traces of documentary evidence contradicting the Government's current version of the Truth.

Of course, Orwell did not foresee that, in the digital age, very little in the way of "hard copies" would exist, making the task of alteration or disposal even easier.

According to an article in The Washington Post (
"White House Has No Comprehensive E-Mail Archive:System Used by Clinton Was Scrapped" by Elizabeth Williamson and Dan Eggan):

For years, the Bush administration has relied on an inadequate archiving system for storing the millions of e-mails sent through White House servers, despite court orders and statutes requiring the preservation of such records...

As a result, several years' worth of electronic communication may have been lost, potentially including e-mails documenting administration actions in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee is planning to hold hearings on this matter, currently scheduled for February 15. Let us hope that this committee, of which Vermont's own Peter Welch is a member, makes plenty of copies of what they find.

Fun At the Office OR Bad Bush, Bad.

I love those times when I get to combine business with pleasure. Each year, my firm produces a piece of audio holiday fun and ships it to our clients. Hey, it's less fattening than cookies. In the past, we've stayed away from anything even remotely political - instead producing some fun, but innocuous material.

I don't know what got into our owner and chief writer this year, maybe after seven Christmases of this Crap- he just rebelled against the old dictum of not mixing business with politics- and wrote the following piece of Holiday Revenge.

Enjoy the results as George W. Bush gets a call from "The Department of Naughty and Nice"...


Happy Holidays!

PS- If the clip won't play from this page, go to
http://www.shadowprod.com/it_xmas07.html

Terror in the UK: More Alarming News

A few days ago, the story broke in the British Press that radical Islamic tracts were being sold in 25% of the nation's mosques, including some categorized by HM Government as "mainstream". The literature called for the oppression of women, the killing of apostates and jihad against all unbelievers.

When we stop to consider that these are being directed, not toward the inhabitants of some far away land, but to the children of British Citizens right here in the islands, we might be pardoned for being more alarmed than we might have been if these tracts were found in, say, Pakistan.

Today, more bad news. According to the Times, John Evans, director of MI5, announced that:

“Terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country.

“They are radicalising, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism.”

In an address to the Society of Editors in Manchester, he said: “This year, we have seen individuals as young as 15 and 16 implicated in terrorist-related activity.”

According to Evans, there is a "steady stream" of young BRITISH recruits to Al Qaida's efforts to bring violence and death to the West.

These reports indicate two important facts:

• 1) That there IS a "war on terror" to be fought. (Those on the fringes of the politically correct left will doubt this, but they do so at their peril.)


• 2) That the war on Terror, as it is currently being fought, is not a success.

If George W. Bush had gone after Bin Ladin and choked him in his lair when he had the chance, these young terrorists would have no rallying point around which to gather, and no force to exploit, and to coordinate their hatred and anger.

But of course, that is what begs the major question. WHAT is BREEDING this hate and anger in the first place. How is it that here, in the heart of the Western World, young people are being being bred who want to use flames and blood to bring us back to the 9th Century?

Make no mistake, there is a war going on...a struggle between the values of the Western Enlightenment and the forces of religious fundamentalism, prejudice, superstition and darkness.

We see these forces at work in the United States as we watch our Democracy fall prey to the machinations of the evangelical right wing.

We see these forces at work abroad in the world most obviously in the rising tide of Islamic Fundamentalism.

How then, is Western Civilization to triumph? By what combination of reason, justice (to ALL of our people- including the fundamentalists amongst us) and, yes, on occasion, shear force, are we to ensure that the world continues to move forward, and not fall back into the dark ages.

What a Summer- Wow!

It has been an amazingly busy summer. I've gotten married, sold my house, moved my worldly goods and plotted how to best transfer my business from the corporeal world into cyberspace.

My fiancee has been away for the year, serving a fellowship with a major medical institution...somewhere around last Christmas, they offered her a job.

However, an MD and four years of residency was obviously not enough, and so they want to send her to the United Kingdom for a year to receive specialized training.

Since we've had MORE than enough time apart this last year, we decided that I would go with her. We also decided that we had waited long enough, and so, this summer we tied the knot. (Thanks to Heather at Gourmet Knitting Disaster for the photos.)

Now, with the move complete, we are awaiting our departure date.

While I'm excited to spend a year in the UK, the prospect of leaving my beloved Vermont for three years is not a welcome one.

After all, Vermont is truly unique...in addition to being the only state that George W. Bush has not visited, despite the fact that it has a proportionally high number of it's citizens serving in his Iraqi War; it is also one of the few places in the country where democracy really seems to work. One of the reasons for this, I believe, lies in the fact that those who hold office are never far from those who send them into office.

An example: A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting on Church Street eating my lunch and reading the newspaper. The front page article (picked up from the AP, so, a national story) detailed the terrier-like efforts of the Senate Judiciary Committee to call all of the President's Men (and some of his women) to justice. This committee is, of course, lead by our own Senator Patrick Leahy.

As I put down my paper, I glanced over and saw a tall man with a shiny pate walking alongside his wife. "My god," I thought, "that's Pat Leahy."

The last time I met Pat Leahy was in my recording studio when he, his wife Marcelle, and the late and much missed Liz Jeffords recorded the audio for what Philip Baruth rightly calls "The Best Campaign ad of 2006" on behalf of Peter Welch.

It was a special occasion. Liz Jeffords and my grandparents struck up a friendship, over the years- partially because they were neighbors, and partially because they often met in the doctors office while both Liz and my grandma battled illness. This friendship is, in itself, a typically Vermont story: the wife of a US Senator on a first name basis with a retired factory supervisor and his wife, a retired school district secretary.

Senator Leahy took some photos of the occasion, and I was really hoping to get a copy to send to my grandparents. But, in the confusion of the election, and the shift of power to the Democrats, my little packet was forgotten.

But, as I sat there on Church Street, watching the United States Senator waiting for his wife outside of a clothing shop (just like any other married man), I thought to myself: "Alex, you'll never have a better chance."

So I went over and introduced myself. I complimented the Senator on his performance in Washington, and was treated to a gleeful analysis of the situation. (For a detailed conversation with the Senator, don't miss Baruth's interview.) I explained what I was hoping for and the Senator wrote some information down on the back of my business card.

The next morning, I received a message on my machine...not from an intern, or even a staffer, but a message from the Senator himself- explaining what happened to the photos and letting me know that he'd send me a copy when he returned to Washington.

This, then, is Vermont. I am a man with no great role to play in industry or commerce, with no piles of money to contribute to campaigns; I am, in fact, a man who is completely anonymous to all but his friends and family. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can imagine no other state in the Union where a man like me rates a personal phone call from a United States Senator.

But I got it.

Am I going to miss Vermont? You Bet.

Bush To Have Operation On Bottom: Cedes Power to Asshole

You knew we couldn't resist....

For a short time this morning, the Commander In Chief ceded the powers of the Presidency to Dick Cheney. This is only the second time in American History that a Buttwad has turned over power to an asshole in order to under go a rectal exam. Bush relinquished power to Cheney in 2002 as well.

White House Spokesgoblin Tony Snow denied rumors that the President was looking for the elusive Osama Bin Laden. "I can't find him...but I think I know where he might be," the president stated, "Maybe that's why it hurts so much."





For a few moments, this morning, Dick Cheney sat in his Maryland armchair and was heard to guietly gloat: "It's mine, it's all mine...whaaahhahahahahaahah! "



Rumors that the Vice-President had enjoyed the experience of being President so much that he was exploring ways to retain the office permanently were firmly denied.

OLD NEWSBush Ducks Responsibility for CIA Leak

All I can say about our President is: His Balls must be as Big as Church Bells. He exhibits the sort of bravado and contempt for reality that makes one either a born leader or a born criminal.

Consider the lead paragraph in this morning's AP report:

President Bush always said he would wait to talk about the CIA leak case until after the investigation into his administration's role. Yesterday he skipped over that step and pronounced the matter old news hardly worth discussing.
"It's run its course," he said. "Now we're going to move on."

Back on February 11, 2004, the President sang a different tune::

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. . . . If
the person has violated law, that person will be taken care
of. [emphasis added] I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice
Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth. . . . Leaks of
classified information are bad things."

...or did he? Read the statement again, and you'll see that the media paraphrased incorrectly. The American people were left with the impression that the leaker, if caught, would be "Fired"...but Bush actually said "taken care of".

See? The Right-Wingnuts are correct...Bush is not a liar...he told the truth: higher administration officials who may have committed the crime of exposing the identity of an American secret agent seem to have been shielded, and Lewis Libby, who took the fall, has had his sentence commuted.

Bush, that stand up guy, kept his word...the leaker WAS "taken care of." Coddled, in fact, like a babe safe in mother's arms.

At any rate, I really love yesterday's "We going to move on" line...

I highly suggest that shoplifters use it while they are being finger printed by police...

...and that little kids who are caught tying tin cans to the tail of the cat use it when their mothers threaten punishment...

As for me, the next time some snake-handling ditto-head starts whining about Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes, I know exactly what to say:

"It's Run It's Course. Now, we're going to move on."

Inept: The Threat From Al-Qaida Grows

I have an email pen-pal who is very conservative. When challenged (on almost anything political), he almost inevitably responds with a jab toward the "Rad-Libs" (Radical Liberals- a group which seems to include everyone from Jane Fonda to the Clintons to Lee Iacocca and perhaps even including Republican Pete Domenici). In general, the refrain from the right reads as follows: "Well, perhaps you Rad-Libs will realize how wrong you are when Al-Qaida has blown up Boston. You just don't seem to get it: everything you say is helping the terrorists."

There is news today that will fuel the fires of the debate. The AP is reporting that: "A new threat assessment from U.S. counter-terrorism analysts says that Al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001."

Conservatives will use this report to say: "See? We told you so."

But the real question is: "George W. Bush has had SIX YEARS to deal with this very real threat. During FIVE of those years HIS PARTY held control of both houses of Congress. What the Hell is he Doing? Why is Al-Qaida STRONGER THAN EVER?"

The answer is, of course, that this President is either Inept, or Corrupt, or, most probably, both.

George W. Bush and his administration had the support of the Congress, the People of the United States and most of the World to send our military into Afghanistan, and demolish Al-Qaida once and for all.

Instead, they chose to use their opportunity to invade Iraq and attempt to secure it's oil supply for the United States. At the time of the United States action against Iraq, there was no Al-Quada presence in Iraq. But now, according to the reports:

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited Al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."

In other words, we sent our troops to Iraq to fight an enemy that was not there when we arrived but who managed to get in AFTER we entered. Meanwhile, Bush has allowed Al-Qaida's forces to dribble across the boarder into Pakistan, where we have no political authority to pursue them.

The Clinton Card

Right-wing friends will, at this point, offer up their old Chestnut: Clinton Had Al-Qaida's Osama Bin Laden in his sights and failed to kill him.

Like a lot of propaganda, this is a distortion of the facts wrapped around a tiny nugget of truth. The Clinton White House did have Osama Bin Laden in their sights and did fail to act. MSNBC had the story here in 2004.


Yes, Clinton DID miss an opportunity, no doubt. It will be yet another imperfect spot on his imperfect record.*

However, just because Bill Clinton screwed up- this is no excuse to let George W. Bush off the hook.

As your mother used to say to you: "If Bill Clinton Jumped off the World Trade Center, would you do it too?"

What Now?

The AP article also includes this speculation:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

WHY? Why, every time this President Screws up, are the media and the right-wing noise machine able to drum up the argument that, because he has been so horribly wrong for so horribly long, that we need to give him MORE support?

This.
Makes.
No.
Sense.

But enough about Bush. This is what Democrats must do:

My right-wing friend is right about one thing: THERE IS A GRAVE ISLAMIC TERRORIST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

This threat must be countered.

In the short term, we need to consolidate our military operations, and refocus the fight on AL-QAIDA...

In the long term, we must, WE MUST refocus our energy policy to find a way to cure ourselves of our oil addiction. As long as we are addicted, militant Islam will be our drug dealer.

That is a plain and simple fact.

*Postscript

And, of course, I'm not going to just sit here and let the "Clinton Chestnut" stand unchallenged. As the MSNBC article points out, when Clinton was hunting Osama Bin Laden in 1998, it was a very different ballgame:

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.[emphasis added]

The American Public had not yet solidified their support for an all out war on Al-Qaida in 1998...at that point the largest terrorist attack in American History had not been perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists, but by home-grown right-wing nutballs in Oklahoma. Even the USS Cole attack (in October 2000) was two years in the future.

The situation for Clinton was muddy...and he bungled it.

The situation for Bush was crystal clear...and he screwed it up beyond belief, paying the price with thousands of American Lives.

It is not hard to know where the Lion's Share of the Blame belongs.

A Long and Winding Road (through the newspaper): further

After I left the manta ray article, I fully intended to start searching for the Cheney article- but I was snagged again by this headline; "Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W"

Wow.

Anyone who knows me knows that my fondness for cigars and spotted bow ties stems from a deep fascination with Winston S. Churchill.

Winston finds most of his admires these days among Republicans, notable recent admires have been Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the P.M. - I realize.

But this is odd, because, in his lifetime, Winston left the Conservative Party as a young man, crossing the aisle to join the Liberals. He returned to the Tories only after the role of opposition was co-opted by the Labor Party (then highly socialist). Churchill made his deepest common cause with American Democrats, and especially Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's been hard, therefore, for an old fan of Churchill to watch him become co-opted by the Right-Wing (for which I think he would have had very little use- after all, he was Hitler's mightiest opponent.)

And so when I saw http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902304.html, I had to read it....

And I was especially gratified to find that the author, Lynne Olson, of the book Troublesome Young Men, had drawn the comparison, not between George W. and Churchill, but between George W. and Chamberlain!

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive
authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the
office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside
government...
Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by
Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill
considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of
Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to
oversee the executive...
Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of
citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones
were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Now, that was a detour worth taking!

Cleaning? Hell-- It'll need to be fumigated!

According to the AP, Hillary Clinton said that, after 8 years of George W. Bush, the White House was going to need a clean sweep....

....it's going need a hell of a lot more than that.

``Grab your buckets, grab your brooms,'' Clinton said. ``We're going to have to do a clean sweep because there has been a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence.''

Sen. Clinton said Bush has squandered the budget surplus that her husband, former President Clinton, left and damaged the nation's standing in the world with a shortsighted approach to diplomacy.

``It is important to be both smart and tough,'' Clinton said. ``I have no illusions about how hard this job is. I have seen it closely. It is always hard, and after President Bush and Vice President Cheney, it is really going to be hard.''

Really, REALLY Hard...it's a mess.