Rhodes Cook wrote a compelling piece in last Sunday's Washington Post called Moving On, about the growing percentage of voters who are registered Independents.

"In this starkly partisan era of Red and Blue America, we may need a third color to describe those who formally call themselves neither Republican nor Democrat. When it comes to registering voters, the two major parties can only look in envy -- and dismay -- at the swelling ranks of unaffiliated voters."

What's compelling about this is when it comes to candidate's energizing their base. In the past that has meant throwing a few meaty bones to the base to ensure their backing while the candidate when hunting for a few swing voters to put him/her over the top.

"Since the waning years of the Reagan administration, or basically since the last periodical cicada mating cycle, the number of "other" voters has proliferated. In the 27 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have been registering voters by party since 1987, the Democratic share has plummeted 8 percentage points, declining from an aggregate total of 51 percent to 43 percent. The Republican share has stayed steady at 33 percent. But the proportion of voters who have not identified themselves with either of the major parties has jumped 8 percentage points, from 16 to 24 percent."

"What's so significant about the rise of the unaffiliated? Well, it's one thing to tell a pollster that you consider yourself "independent." No particular consequence arises from that self-identification. But to register as unaffiliated is a stronger statement of preference (or lack of one). Political parties talk about the "base," and how to energize it. These numbers suggest that the base is eroding, or at least is harder to identify and rely on."

The implications for both Kerry and Bush are monumental.

"... the trend line is unmistakable, with the registration figures since the last presidential election being particularly telling. Over the last four years, as election officials have purged their rolls of inactive voters, the Democratic total in the party-registration states has fallen by 1.3 million. The Republicans are down far less, only 170,000 in those states. But the "other" category remains a growth stock, adding more than 600,000 voters since George W. Bush and Al Gore did battle."

Another interesting observation is that despite the efforts of Ralph Nader, and The Committee for a Unified Independent Party on his behalf, clearly the large majority of registered Independents don't see themselves as the "base" for whomever claims to represent them. His polling numbers don't come even remotely close to the numbers of registered Independents.

Fox News and Air America News are reporting that Howard Dean and Ralph Nader have agreed to a 90 minute debate on NPR's Justice Talking program. The debate will be on July 9, will be moderated by NPR correspondant Margot Adler and will be before a studio audience.

"I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement. "This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference — this November and for years to come." - Fox News

This should be entertaining!

The GAO says Iraqis justifiably can give a resounding "NO" to that question.

In several major areas: electricity, the judicial system and security handed over to Iraqis by the US are worse than they were before the war began according to GAO calculations.

Highlights:

• In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

• Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with $10 billion more about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

• The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

• The new Iraqi civil-defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

• The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.


Interestingly...Americans can ask themselves this same question in regard to Bush...and give the same answer.

Life is a Cabaret

The blogosphere is raising some big bucks for candidates.

Atrios has raised $309k for the DNC, $225k for Kerry and $11k for the DCCC. He's also fundraising for Joe Hoefell of Pennsylvania's 13th..raising $23k.

dKos is at it too. Kos has the DKos8. These 8 folks were voted on and chosen by the Kos community to support.
They've raised for:
Richard Morrison(TX-22)$25,678, Stan Matsunaka (CO-4):$20,833, Jim Stork(FL-22)$19,507,Tony Knowles (AK-Sen):$14,053, Nancy Farmer (MO-SSen):$19,507, Jeff Seemann (OH-16):$10,182, Lois Murphy (PA-6):$6,767, Jim Newberry (MO-7)$5,325. Kos has also raised significant funds for the DNC, DSCC and for Kerry.

These guys are big players...a force to be reckoned with. And they're not the only ones. The blogosphere appears to have the ability to connect enough with it's readership to get them to open their wallets.

There's been some grousing about the fact that these people are being invited to attend the Conventions and other political events. However they don't appear to be doing the fundraising as a part of a quid pro quo...yet. So far it's been what appears to be a very sincere effort to get candidates heard and in office.

Bare Naked Ladies on top....

...tryanny on the bottom.

The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Here we go, folks. It begins.

I've had some people tell me that they thought this would come down the pipe...but it seemed way too conspiratorial for me. It seems like tin foil hat stuff. And there it is on AP, big as life.

Doctor Noah Drake (aka Rick Springfield) is the lyrical inspiration.

The Washington Post has this tacked on to the bottom of their story on the convention lineups:

"I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."

-- Former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), in a recent interview with Business North Carolina magazine.

If you lose Jesse...you lose.....?

With all of the frothing and spinning by the right about Farenheit911, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly offers his review of the film.

Kevin appears to like the film but considers it a rather weak polemic.

What I enjoyed the most from Kevin was this particular insight:

So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they're so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.

Okay...it's a Billy day, I guess.

Ruy Teixeira at Emerging Democratic Majority has a piece today on the Catholic vote. It seems John Kerry is leading with white Catholics by about one point. Given that Gore lost the white Catholic vote by 7 points (and won the overall by 3), this could be significant.

This does appear that the attempts to go after Kerry by some conservative Catholic bishops isn't working...at least it isn't working the way they hoped.

Radio talkshow host Ed Schultz just finished interviewing Move American Forward Chairman Howard Kaloogian about his organization's opposition to the Michael Moore' new movie/documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Kaloogian's group has been pushing for people to contact theater owners and pressure them to not show Fahrenheit 9/11.

Kaloogian just admitted that he's never actually seen the film.

LOL

Thanks Billy for the title inspiration.

This piece by Alan Elsner in Reuters diagrams how Democrats are tapping into the anger within the electorate against Bush.

Elsner parallels this with the anger the electorate felt toward the left in the early nineties. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media folks tapped into this anger and it set their careers. I also recently read a piece about how FreeRepublic is beginning to wane...while sites like Daily Kos are on the uptick.

Michael Moore and Air America Radio are the new rising stars...tapping into this anger at the right. I've never seen Democrats and the left as a whole so united.

There's a saying about the Arab culture that goes something like, brother against brother, brother and brother against neighbor, brother and neighbor against city, brother and city against country, brother and country against other countries.

It's striking how US citizens have a very similar mentality in a way. We definitely come together as a group against things much more often that we come together for things.

One of Kev's favorite sayings is "Democrats form their firing squads in circles." I've always chuckled when he mentions it because it's so true. This time tho they seem to have finally managed to form a straight line...directed at George W Bush.

And this isn't the Diana Ross smack, either.

In a series of decisions, the US Supreme Court has soundly rejected the Bush Administration argument that they have carte blanche with detainees and that they can ignore due process.

Specifically the Justices smacked down the Bush assertion that the Executive could potentially hold detainees indefinitely during a time of war.

The only Justice to agree completely with the Bush argument was Thomas. Even Scalia went with the majority opinion on this one.

There's still some wiggle room for the Executive on how far they can actually go....but they clearly believe that currently the Executive has gone too far.

I've just returned from my vacation (I'll blog about the last leg of the trip later) and it seems whacky to be getting ready to leave on vacation...but I am.

In three weeks I'm off to Europe for a short hitch.

I've been in the process of clothes planning for the trip and I may need to pick up this shirt to wear whilst traipsing around England and France.

Kind of a throwback to the post from a few days ago.

I have two fundamental problems with the whole Nader issue.

First is Nader himself. He keeps saying that his candidacy will siphon more votes from Bush than it will from Kerry. Yet every single bit of objective data contradicts this assertion of his. Every poll that I've seen shows him siphoning more support from Kerry than Bush by at least a roughly two to one margin. Likewise all the data I've seen from his 2000 run shows roughly the same two to one margin. I don't believe for an instant that Nader is too stupid to understand that the facts simply aren't there to back him up. Surely he must know that he's promulgating a lie. To what end? And why would anyone knowingly vote for someone who repeats such an obvious and absurd lie? I'm not talking about protest voters here. They could care less because they're not voting *for* him as much as they are voting *against* the others. I'm talking about his core supporters. Why do they blithly ignore a bald-faced lie?

And then there's the issue of openly conservative groups trying to help Nader qualify for the state ballots in Oregon and Arizona. Nader says he's not bothered by this. Yet isn't it patently obvious that these same groups have no intention of actually voting for Nader? Haven't their spokespersons said as much?

The other problem I have is with the Dems. We've heard over and over how Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. But, the fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once. The real object of their ire is the voters. Yet even this is misplaced anger in my view. Why are the voters to blame for Dem candidates failing to win their voluntary support via the ballot box? Here are some interesting stats on the 2000 vote: 2000 Results. Note the huge percentage of Nader voters who said they'd have not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.

Personally, I think Kerry is playing the whole Nader thing very smartly. Publically at least he has been very clear about respecting Nader's right to run and has focused on swaying voters rather than attacking Nader. I don't think he could play it any better. With Nader failing to win the Green nomination it's looking like he'll be much less of a factor this year anyway. Plus, many of the post-2000 predictions by Greens simply haven't panned out as they expected: AlterNet: Why Nader is NOT to Blame

Your thoughts?

The Green Party today declined to nominate Nader as it's Presidential candidate, going with California Lawyer David Cobb instead. Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President

Nader hadn't actively sought the Green nomination. But, he had stated his willingness to accept either that or an endorsement. By doing neither, the Greens deny Nader automatic ballot access in 22 states and the District of Columbia which they won on the strength of Nader's 2000 results. This forces Nader to wage a state by state battle to get on each state's ballot for November.

The blogosphere is roiling with discussion of the latest Bush/Cheney '04 web ad. Like Jack Bog, I first watched the video with the sound off, which lead to a somewhat distorted perception of it. Upon review I now see that the clips of Hitler fading into a shot of Bush seemingly giving a Nazi salute are intended to give the viewer the impression that Kerry and his supporters are frothing at the mouth with negativity and therefore aren't ready for prime time.

The problem is that the Hitler clips are lifted from a reader-submitted prospective ad in a contest which moveon.org ran some time ago. Moveon.org never endorsed the ad. Indeed they promptly removed the reader-submitted ad from their servers when, quite rightly, outrage was expressed at the content of the prospective ad. Thus the Bush/Cheney ad insinuates a blatent falsehood - that Presidential candidate Kerry is somehow responsible for what any and every opponent of President Bush says or does. That my friends is classic demagoguery. To accept their premise, one would have to also accept that Bush is just as responsible for the ravings of every white supremacist NeoNazi out there who happens to be socially conservative like Bush... which would be all of them. Does anyone believe for a second that Kerry stands to receive a single vote from American white supremacists? Of course not! Does that make Bush culpable for the ravings of American white supremacists? Of course not!

George Bush, demagoguery is NOT a family value! Nor is it a Christian value.

Vice President of the "honor and dignity to the White House" set, Dick Cheney, defended his use of the f-bomb to Senator Patrick Leahy.

On Tuesday, Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to "f--- off" or to "go f--- himself".

Cheney essentially said in his interview with Neil Cavuto that Leahy deserved it and he felt better having done it.

Cheney is such a piece of work. They have no honor and they have no shame. They're not interested in working with Democrats or Republicans unless it can further their personal agenda. They're not interested in what's best for the nation or what's best for government.

Cheney owes Leahy an apology. He's obviously too small a man to manage it.

I've never been a regular reader of USA Today so perhaps I miss out on some of the more quirky tidbits of information. However since I've been on my vacation the last couple of weeks it's come to the room in the mornings for several of the places where we've been staying.

Today while looking through their Travel section I came across this little story.


A company in Port Angeles, Washington that makes travel gear is encountering a minor controversy over one of their labels.

On the label which normally gives laundry/care instructions (in English and French) for the items the following is in the French:

Nous sommes désolés que notre président soit un idiot. Nous n’avons pas voté pour lui.

The translation:
“We are sorry that our president is an idiot. We did not vote for him.”

The article goes on to say that the owner of the company didn't know if the message was meant to convey that it was Chirac or Bush as the idiot. And the employee in question didn't get into trouble, either.

I can't help but think it's about Bush.

In 1997 then governer Bush allowed to become law, but didn't sign, a bill to let judges and juries, not just internal HMO appeals panels, decide patients' injury claims. Bush praised the law during the 2000 presidential campaign. But, he sent the Justice Dept to argue against that very same law before the Supreme Court. That law was among the 10 state laws struck down by the Supreme Court. Ruling 9-0, the justices said that a 1974 federal law prevents states from legislating on private employers' health-insurance plans.

Speaking to 4,000 Service Employees International Union members yesterday, Kerry said it was "shocking" that "this president sent our Justice Department to attack the same legislation that he used to brag about down in Texas." Bush had "underscored the hypocrisy of this administration and made it clear that's why we need a real patients' bill of rights," Kerry said.

Point to Kerry. For a campaign that likes to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, the Bush/Cheney campaign reveal themselves to be exactly what Kerry called them - hypocrits.

Predictably enough the latest web video ad - The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party - posted on the official George Bush re-election site digs at Kerry. The video which is subtitled, "The Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" starts out with footage of Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Michael Moore speaking. Immediately following those clips it shows several clips of Adolph Hitler... which is what raised the ire of the Kerry campaign.

Phil Singer, spokesman for the Kerry campaign, had this to say on the official Kerry blog about the web video ad:

"The fact that George Bush thinks it’s appropriate to use images of Adolph Hitler in his campaign raises serious questions about his fitness to spend another four years in the White House. Adolph Hitler slaughtered millions of innocent people and has no place in a campaign that is supposed to be about the future and hope of this nation. The President’s use of these images during a month that evoked the memory of World War II is remarkably insensitive to the sacrifices of the millions of people who lost their lives during Hitler’s reign of terror.

“The Bush Campaign should immediately remove these hateful images from its website and apologize for using them. The use of Adolph Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”

I have to agree with Singer here. Using shots of Adolph Hitler is definitely beyond the pale. But, that's not the truly strange part about all of this. Bizarrely and inexplicably the ad transitions from the Hitler shots directly to a shot of George W. Bush with his right hand raised in what looks like a Nazi salute.

Freudian slip?

Another "GOP flacks trying to disguise themselves as nonpartisans who care" (this time known as Citizens United) is trying to get the Farenheit911 ads pulled.

They've filed a complaint with the FEC claiming the ads are a possible campaign violation because they use Bush's image.

I wonder if these folks are somehow affiliated with the Move America Forward GOP group also disgused as nonpartisan?

Moore seems fairly gleeful about the whole thing. You can't buy this kind of incredible publicity. Moore was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening offering to send Christmas cards to the various rightwing groups trying to thwart his film.

I look forward to seeing the film when I get home. I plan to pay the full admission price rather than cheapskating a matinee like I usually do.

The movie is kicking ass in New York City.

Apparently our Veep has a little trouble taking criticism. According to Reuters, the Vice had a heated exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate Floor. Aides say Cheney told Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

When interviewed about the incident, Leahy replied, "I think he was just having a bad day."

Indeed.

Cheney's boss may be having a bad day too.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian home. Being a generally rebellious spirit by nature that's probably part of the reason I left conservatism and Christianity behind in my early adulthood.

However one of the main reasons I became disenchanted with Christianity was what I saw as the anger and mean-spiritedness of the fundamentalist movement. It became an exclusive club where the rules of admission became more and more stringent and kicking or keeping people out became sort of a sport. Today as I see men like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson...with their stuffed shirts and sneering attitudes my decision to leave such things behind is affirmed.

Today however a ray of Christian light crept in. As I sat in the dining lounge of my hotel this morning amidst the business men and tourists..my free copy of USA Today in front of me as I munched my breakfast this caught my eye.

The piece mainly discusses Cameron Strang, a graduate of Oral Roberts University who is capturing the attention of young people with his magazine entitled Relevant. But the story is also about how young people are turned away from the fundamentalist movement. They are unmoved my the rigid constraints of fundamentalism and the meanness of the exclusive club. "God is God, truth is truth, and they're everywhere, so you have to look everywhere". The emphasis is on social Christianity..in a Progressive way. What really struck me as I read through the piece the following passage:

While evangelical leaders, including his father, call for a ban on gay marriage, Strang says Relevant "upholds the same moral standard but questions whether we need the government to enforce our beliefs, our religion, on people who don't adhere to the same faith."

This is great stuff.

The piece also goes on about the magazine parodying "hyperactive believers" and "Bible bullies".

This certainly won't cause me to dive back into Christianity in any way. But after reading this I might be willing to stick a baby toe in.

Monday's Oregonian ran a piece by Jim Rassmann entitled, Why a former critic of the ACLU decided to join it. Rassmann is one of the veterans working for the Kerry campaign. His story is a very compelling one in and of itself. But, it's beside the point here. Suffice to say that Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor for saving Rassmann.

Rassmann gives some good reasons for his change of heart about the ACLU. Reasons that I agree with. But, at the same time I can identify with being a critic of the ACLU at times. In my opinion they tend to have a pretty clear ideological bias that is sometimes counter productive and which leads them to get involved in cases that don't further or otherwise support civil rights in my view.

Take the case earlier this year where the ACLU sided with two couples suing the city of San Diego to get it's lease of city-owned land to the Boy Scouts overturned. Rather than get into the details here, I'll just add a link to a post on my The Independent Voter message board, here, where I go into the details of the case. The ACLU was dead wrong in that case. I simply don't see any grounds for a church/state violation where neither party received preferential treatment of any kind.

While I certainly can understand Rassmann's change of heart on the ACLU. They certainly don't deserve the negative label that the GOP try to pin on them. But, I think that the prudent choice is to support them where and when I agree with what they're doing... and not to when I don't agree with them.

Media Matters for America is reporting on a Wall Street journal story that falsely states information on the dreaded Florida recount from the 2000 election.

The long and the short of it:

In a June 23 editorial, The Wall Street Journal erroneously stated, "[F]or the record, Mr. Bush won the last election under every single vote recount, including those painstakingly run by the media." The false claim came in response to comments by federal judge Guido Calabresi that "illegitimate acts" by the Supreme Court put George W. Bush into power.

However, Bush did not win "every single vote recount," according to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), as The Washington Post reported on November 12, 2001. The NORC study was organized by a consortium of news organizations that included both the Post and The Wall Street Journal. The researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."

The results: former Vice President Al Gore, not George W. Bush, emerged the winner under four scenarios.

I realize that people start rolling their eyes when the FLA recount comes up as a topic again. But this is the kind of stuff that makes it come back. When the press refuses to report the truth of what went on and why...it inflames folks...and rightfully so.

Sometimes it seems that without blogs (the political pamphlets of the internet)...much of the truth would be lost. It's apparent that much of the media doesn't care to report what really went on or what really goes on.

Conservatives have overrun the media but the tide is turning. Ever so slowly people appear to be awakening to the fact that their nation has been sunk into a wreckless war that shouldn't have been fought. They're seeing that they're now in more danger from terrorists than ever before...and that this President and his cohorts aren't interested in taking care of these problems...they're interested in their own agenda.

The Republican nasties are now after Michael Moore. Somehow I think he'll meet the challenge, tho.

According to PRWatch.org there's a group out there called Move America Forward working to blunt the effects of Moore's new film, Farenheit911. (Move America Forward sounds strangely to me like MoveOn.org. Too much coincidence for comfort?)

According to PRWatch...the organization claims to be nonpartisan. But upon closer review by PRWatch, the staff is a group of "diehard Republicans and anti-tax activists, and former legislative staffers".

This seems achingly close to the dubious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization that's made up of guys who've attacked Kerry didn't actually know Kerry or serve with him. They are also a group of Republican activists who claim to be nonpartisan.

Michael Moore doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'll shrink from these people though. I could actually see him calling them out...kind of like Bush to the terrorists...."Bring it on!"

(from Carla via email)

Kudos to Bruce Cockburn for lyrical inspiration. I actually first heard this on a Bare Naked Ladies cover.

Today's New York Times reports that a current CIA officer has released a book under the pen name "anonymous". The book outlines how the US Government is screwing up the battle against muslim extremists:

"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

The book denounces the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq,"

Talk about stating the obvious.

The vacation continues....

We've made it to San Jose. 12 hours of driving from the gorgeous Grand Canyon into California...across the Mojave Desert...up to Bakersfield and into San Jose.

Firstly, the Grand Canyon is so absolutely breathtaking I could never do it justice with words. Suffice it to say that it confirms my belief in a Supreme Being. It's so rugged and colorful and majestic. Trying to capture it on film is really frustrating because the pictures just don't manage to really get the Canyon. The other fabulous part was seeing of the wildlife. We saw California Condors flying overhead larger than life. Elk with massive antlers were lying under the trees not 20 yards from the road when we were driving into the local town. Mountain goats ate their lunch right next to the path where we hiked. It was really amazing.

No cell phone, no computer....just the Canyon and it's wonders. I highly recommend it.

The drive today was something else, too. The landscape changes so drastically. Leaving the high desert with it's Ponderosa Pines and Junipers into the vast Mojave Desert (a mild 110 today)was quite an experience. The desert seemed to go on forever...vast miles of barren landscape...a few scraggly palms here and there. We stopped for lunch at in a small town where the 395 intersected with the road we were on. It all ran parallel to Route 66..the famous hwy that runs along the desert southwest. Finally we made the ascent into the Bakersfield area...and the desert was blissfully behind us. And finally into the bustling Silicon Valley where we reside tonight.

Tomorrow is my daughter's 11th birthday. We're going to the Great American theme park.

Hopefully there will be time for an update tomorrow.

While Bush is touting the economy, and we are seeing economic growth numbers, but hearing how bad the economy is by Democrats, the question becomes, what is the state of the economy?

It is true that job numbers are increasing at a solid rate (Heck, 6% unemployment was incredibly low for a recession), and economic growth numbers seem to be in line, but does this tell us everything about our economy? I doubt it quite honestly.

Democrats are right, we are still having a huge amount of jobs going overseas, and the trade deficit is rising. Inflation is rearing its ugly head to about 5% annual rate currently and it is higher if energy prices are factored in, and the fear of them rippling through the economy is significant. While energy prices are in decline again, the odds are that the days of $1.50 per gallon of gas are gone. Greenspan is going to raise rates at least .25 this month, and projections by market analysts predict there will be up to 5 rate increases of .25 to correct the historically too low interest rates that now sit at 1%, leaving little the fed could do if the economy tanked right now.

Congress is running for more tax cuts, but at what cost? Does anyone understand economics? The deficit spending with good growth only means more money must be put into bonds by banks, which means less money to loan you and I for our homes, cars, small and large business investments, etc. And you know who gets priority on those loans... large corporations that are less likely to disappear. It's impact on the economy costs us much more than the marginal impact of $1-300 a year we would have in additional income from tax cuts as interest rates rise and the costs of goods grow.

The only question is... can Kerry take advantage of the economic news that is much softer than it appears if we only look at employment and growth numbers? Inflation, rising interest rates, lower real wages, increased trade deficits... will they impact the economy in time for Kerry to get any gain from it? Most people don't understand economics, can Kerry make them understand to gain footing on GW? Even if Kerry gets elected, does he become a one term President because of the problems GW would leave behind? And can Kerry actually solve those problems with a Republican Congress to prevent him from passing legislation? Only time will tell, but it could make Kerry the second Carter if inflation hits due to energy prices and rate hikes kill the economy while he is in office. Carter's economic woes started before he was elected, Kerry could suffer the same fate of economic factors outside of his control if elected.

While the bipartisian 9/11 commission has reported there are no collaborative links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration continues to argue there are links. To its credit, the Commission has called the Administration on its claims of those links and asked for it to provide proof of such links.

It still begs the question of why didn't the Administration provide that evidence when it testified before the committee? Bush still refers to that "Chech thing" as evidence, referring to the supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi offical, which the 9/11 commission says is highly unlikely since Atta was on his cellphone in Florida at the time. Cheney has said that he "probably" knows something the commission doesn't.

President Bush is still seeking to find a justification for the Iraqi conflict that the American public will support as his numbers continue to go south on the issue of Iraq. With no WMD found, they are still repeating the "there could still be WMD, we just haven't found them yet" claim in spite of David Kay's statement that they just aren't there. They have used this same argument on the Al Qaeda links too.

This administration is taking possibility as fact in its statements, which could mean that GW is having gay sex with Cheney. There is no proof of it, but it is a possibility as it has never been fully disproven, right? I highly doubt they are having gay sex, but if we treat possibility as fact, as they have with justifications for war, such logic would still apply, and it illustrates the very flaw in their argument. Possibilities are just that, possibilities, not fact. It has never been proven that hot pink crows don't exist, but that doesn't mean they do.

For GW, this is a huge dent in his armor as the "straight shooter" is proving he is anything but a "straight shooter." The question is only, how will this kink in his armor impact November?

My name is Tony. Some of you may know me as Chris Knight from other boards, but IRL, I am Tony. I am a PhD student in political rhetoric (1st year) and a college debate coach in policy debate. I currently reside in Kansas (Go Hawks!) and I am building the elite of political simulations with friends of mine, while working on 9 research projects for the election, including Debate Watch which is sponsored in part by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

I am a Libertarian, but not a partyline Libertarian, and my views on things are quite different than most would expect of a Libertarian. For those who wish to try to figure it out, I call myself a postmodern communitarian libertarian, though most don't want to bother and I can understand why.

My posts may incite some discussion, which would be good, but make sure you read them carefully, because the keys to them are in the details.:-) Now, let's have some fun :-)

What topics do you want to discuss?

The Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports that would support the White House's assertions that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In particular they want access to evidence supporting Mr. Cheney's suggestion that one of the hijackers, Mr. Atta, might have met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. Cheney has vociferously objected to the Commissions assertions, based on intelligence reports, that there were no close ties between Saddam's government and al Queda. Naturally the Commission wants something more than bald assertions from the Vice President.


Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking Qaeda leaders in American custody, told the C.I.A. that Mr. bin Laden rejected the idea of working with Mr. Hussein, a secular leader whom Mr. bin Laden considered corrupt and irredeemable, according to a September 2002 classified intelligence report leaked to The New York Times by a Bush Administration official. Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague (Sorry, I only have an AOL link for this. The piece is by James Risen of the NYT from late 2003.) Separately, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's chief of operations until his capture on March 1, 2003, in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that Al Qaeda never agreed to work with Mr. Hussein.

The initial Czech report of the Atta/Ani meeting is considered very weak because it's based on the allegations of a single member of the Prague Arab community who made the allegation only after 9/11, many months after the meeting supposedly took place. And also because American records indicate that Mr. Atta was actually in Virginia Beach, Va. during the period in which he is alleged to have met with Mr. Ani in Prague. Indeed many Czech officials are now skeptical that the meeting ever took place (see AOL link above).

So, we have Cheney making the press circuit insinuating that the 9/11 Commission's report is wrong... that there was a cozy relationship between Saddam and al Queda. What does he offer to back up his assertions? He conceedes that "we just don't know," whether the meeting took place or not. Which begs the question: Show Us the Proof. Which incidentally is a must-read opinion piece!

It seems that at least once a week I read about some assertion by the Bush Administration which reminds me of talkshow host Ed Schultz's 3rd rule about "Righties" : They think you're stupid. I mean think about this for a second. I could assert that the Moon is made of green cheese and that NASA reports to the contrary are wrong. Does that make me right simply because I insinuate that I'm right and that they're wrong? Of course not! Only a fool would blindly accept my assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. Ditto for Cheney's assertions and insinuations.

Show Us the Proof!

Apparently the members of the New Jersey Assembly have voted unanimously, 78-0, to approve a bill making it legal for bar owners and others to offer special promotions such as charging women different prices for drinks. The Bill was specifically designed to overturn a June 1st Administrative Ruling by the state Division on Civil Rights that forbade the practice as a violation of state civil rights rules.

State Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, a Democrat, said,

"It defies common sense to view Ladies Night as anything other than a way for a bar or restaurant owner to stay competitive and successful."

Well, duh! But, since when is profit a legitimizing motive for discrimination? It defies common sense to view black slavery as anything other than a way for Southern plantation owners to stay competitive and financially successful. Did that make it okay?

Gov. James E. McGreevey, also a Democrat, led the charge in denouncing the Division on Civil Rights decision, calling it "bureaucratic nonsense."

AKA give me two for the road...

Okay, all puns aside. This is an unscheduled health news update. Health Day reports "Experts See Surge in Teen Breast Implants"

The number of 18-year-old girls getting breast implants has tripled in the last two years, according to experts, and their parents seemingly approve because they give the implants as graduation presents.


The New York Post, citing figures from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, reported that the number of girls that age who got cosmetic implants went from 3,872 in 2002 to 11,326 last year.


"There is a trend in which parents are giving implants as a gift, including as a graduation present," Dr. Stephen Greenberg, who practices in Woodbury, L.I., and New York City, told the Post.

Now, being the product of parochial schools from first grade on up, I suppose I could be pinned with the "sheltered" label... even though those who know what I did during highschool would testify otherwise (LOL). But, I just don't remember girls getting boob jobs when I was 18. As a single parent of 11 and 16 year old daughters I can't imagine giving either of them fake boobs for a present. The very idea is just completely foreign to me. Do you suppose it's a maternal thing? Somehow I'm thinking that Carla wouldn't say that it is.

The "independent" 9/11 Commission is now telling us that by continuing to read a book to elementary school kids in Florida after being notified that the second Twin Tower had been struck by a plane President Bush was trying to project strength and calm? Really? That same Commission also relates how Vice President Cheney was in a bunker under the White House issuing orders for the military to scramble jets to shoot down one or more of the highjacked jets.

Um... okay. So we have the President and alleged Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces reading childrens books during a time of extreme crisis while the Vice President is the one on the ball issuing orders to those same Armed Forces and generally doing SOMETHING constructively related to said extreme crisis???

Does anyone out there still doubt that Bush is but a figure head President?

UPDATE:

According to the Washington Post Cheney told the Commission that he was acting in response to a phone request from Bush when he authorized the shoot downs of the highjacked planes. The only thing is... there apparently isn't a shred of evidence that Bush ever made the alleged call. Heh... go figure. Must be part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. LOL

So our President in his infinite wisdom has decided to trot out the tiredIraq-Al Qaida connection despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission (and pretty much everyone else) says no such link exists.

These people are charlatans and liars. What’s so very disturbing about this is that so many people in the US are still going to vote for Bush. This election is set to be extremely close once again. No matter what evil these people generate…a large percentage of the US population will still vote for them. It feels like an insanity.

The White House would also try to convince us that they didn’t link Iraq and 9/11. But as theDailyKos points out, the White House did as much when it sent it’s letter to Congress to declare war on Iraq:

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).


These people are without shame.

Day 2 in Utah has come to an end.

Some highlights:

Free buffet breakfast in the hotel lobby this morning. I was expecting fruit and cereal. They had eggs and muffins and cinnamon buns, too. Not to mention several kinds of juices and some really weak coffee. Of course being from Oregon (land of moderate temperatures and rain eight months out of the year) I like my coffee strong and extra hot. What’s good to me is probably motor oil to the layperson…LOL

Temple Square. We drove into Salt Lake City today and walked around the square that includes the massive and impressive Mormon Temple (can’t go in without the official membership card), the Mormon Tabernacle (dome shaped building with a very big and beautiful pipe organ where the famous choir does their thing) and several other Mormon related buildings. It’s a gorgeous place…beautiful and immaculate gardens. We then ventured across the street to an urban mall to grab a quick snack. There I was able to obtain a latte. I told the barista that I was from Oregon and her drink had a lot to live up to. She didn’t dissapoint.

Next we piled into the van and drove to Lagoon.It’s a pretty decent amusement park all on it’s own…but it also includes a water park. We spent the first part of the day going on rides (a couple of kick butt roller coasters included) and bided our time until the sun finally peeked out. We then went on to amusement park water based rides and proceeded to get soaked. After that it was off to the water park. Unfortunately our weather didn’t hold out especially great…so we spent about an hour and a half at the water park and called it a day.

Tomorrow we’ll be taking the drive to the Grand Canyon. I’m not expecting any free wireless service so there may be no blogging me for awhile.

As a few of you know, we've been trying to switch from Blogger to MovableType. I waited until MT 3.0 was released and purchased it. Then, since I don't know diddly squat about CGI scripts, I chose to go with a paid installation by the Movable Type crew.

That was about 3 weeks ago. There was quickly a hitch in that an error message was being generated which seemed to have the installer stumped. She said she checked with the crew who wrote the program for MT 3.0 and they didn't know what to make of it either. So, I tried to get our domain host to help out with it. Turns out they don't offer support for installed scripts. I've been going round and round with the Movable Type installer for the last three weeks trying to do whatever I could to facilitate fixing the problem.

I finally gained access to my CGI error log and passed that on to the MT installer. She says that it's no help and that it looks like we'll have to make do with the older MT 2.66 weblog program since it installed without any problems.

Out of frustration I decided that I had nothing to lose and did a Google search using "CGI, errors" as the search criteria. The very first hit that I opened was on debugging common CGI errors. The friggin' second most common CGI error listed and the second most common cause of that error was friggin' exactly the error message that the Movable Type programmers supposedly were stumped by! Mind you we are paying Movable Type to install this program. This wasn't some favor they decided to do for us. And I, the guy who doesn't know jack about CGI scripts, find the problem and the fix listed on the open web within literally 30 seconds of looking!?!

I'm still convinced that the Movable Type platform is superior in virtually every way to the free Blogger one we've been using. But, it would be an understatement to say that I'm disappointed in the competence exhibited by the "professional" (by definition since we're paying them for the install) folks at Movable Type.

Joe Gandleman over at The Moderate Voice has an interesting piece today on how the Reagans are getting pissed at the Bushes.

My good buddy Manny also emailed me on this story. Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

I don't see how anyone who isn't an entrenched Bush supporter thinks it's a good idea for Bush to wrap himself up in Reagan. The differences are so stark. It also smacks of Bush being desperate.

Greetings from Utah!

There happens to be free wireless internet in my hotel :) The kids are all tucked into bed for the night so....

We left Oregon yesterday afternoon...and drove to Boise, Idaho. It's about 440 miles.

Then this morning we drove to Utah. The striking thing about the Utah landscape is that it's definitely not Idaho or Oregon. Oregon is very green with lots of different types of trees. You can see beautiful snowy mountain peaks and lots of water. Idaho (Boise to the Utah border) is agricultural..flat for the most part with a few mountains in the distance...but small ones. Barely any snow. Boise is also one giant strip mall. I haven't been to Salt Lake City but I hear it's kind of like that too.

Tonight we drove to Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake. There are buffalo, antelope, deer, all sorts of birds and apparently coyote and fox. We saw the buffalo and the antelope and the birds...and a gazillion bugs. I've never seen so many bugs in my life. I guess they dig the salt marshes.

Tomorrow we're off to a nearby amusement park.....and the Grand Canyon on Friday.

Next time I get wireless...I'll blog again if I can.

Be good to each other and be nice to Kevin, please.

Y'all have the floor. What's on your mind? Read a good book lately? Tell us about it! Got a political pet peeve that you are itching to get off your chest? Tell us about it!

I'm off on vacation with the family until June 29.

I am taking the laptop but I don't know how much access I'll have to wireless so I have no plans to post any blogs.

Kevin will be doing most of the blogging...along with (hopefully) a couple of guest bloggers.

Be nice to him until I get back. :)

The left (and apparently a lot of other folks) have apparently had it with Tom DeLay.

Congressman Chris Bell (D-TX) is filing an complaint with the House Ethics Committee against DeLay.

Bell's complaint accused DeLay of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.

This is a precedent setting action as House members have had a seven year basic, unwritten rule not to file ethics violations against one another. Ethics complaints before that time had previously brought down two speakers.

DeLay is also defending his seat from a strong challenge by Richard Morrison. Morrison has caught the eye of quite a few grassroots political organizations who are helping raise money and gain exposure. According to polling by a private organization (see Morrison's website) only 36 percent of folks in the district plan to vote for DeLay.

Getting rid of DeLay is a high priority for a lot of people...and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

The US Supreme Court dismissed today the case involving athiest Michael Newdow and the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The case was dismissed on a technicality regarding Newdow's ability to speak in his daughter's stead. By dismissing the case, the Court left open the possibility that a different case about the "under God" phrase of the Pledge could be brought back to them in the future.

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly thinks the court copped out. But having had this discussion with a lawyer friend of mine via email, I disagree.

He says that the concept of legal custody in the state of California might be completely screwed up if a father is allowed to speak for his daughter's wishes. It's a good decision by the USSC.

Title Inspiration

The King is back.

Former President Bill Clinton is set up for his rock tour of book events to promote his new biography My Life.

John F Harris of the Washington Post takes a look at the coming tour and reflects on Clinton's legacy.

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times talks about what Clinton will do while on the book tour and how Clinton plans to support and campaign for John Kerry...without overshadowing him.

I don't know if Clinton is planning a trip out this way to schlep is book...but if so...I'll be going. I loved the guy when he was President..and I believe his legacy will bear the very good things Clinton did while President. His work on peace in Ireland, thwarting terrorism, working for unity between nations (which we can really see now in stark contrast to Bush) and his masterful handling of the US economy are all a tribute to his Presidency.

Just as the GOP has spent the last week beatifying Ronald Reagan...they will spend the next week thrashing on Clinton. Giving their loud, obnoxious and overwhelming voices in the media...it will be difficult to rise above the din. But Clinton will manage it. He's too charismatic and too good with the media not to.

I love this guy. LOL

In honor of the great Ray Charles, who died this week.

The lyrical inspiration is also appropriate for the feelings of a group known as Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change. This group of 26 retired US diplomats and military officers are working to convince Americans that the Bush Administration needs to go.

The group includes 20 ambassadors appointed by both Dem and GOP presidents. It also includes former State Department officials and military leaders.

Member William C Harrop is a former Ambassador to Israel under Bush 41 and before that to four African countries. Harrop says he is an independent but usually votes Republican:

"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential,"

"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement,"

Other prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

I can't remember a time when in the months leading up to an election we had groups of former prominent officials coming out advocating for the voting out of a sitting President. I know there was a lot of rank and file vitriol on the GOP side for Clinton but I can't remember groups of prominent former officials coming out for his ouster in 1996.

Perrenial Presidential Candidate and consumer activist Ralph Nader is running up against a possible ethics violation.

According to today's Washington Post, Nader has been running his campaign offices out of the same building that until April housed a public charity that he created.

Apparently Nader's charity, Citizen Works has several connections to his presidential campaign. The charity's listed president,Theresa Amato,is also Nader's campaign manager. The office housing the campaign, the charity and other sub tenets has the same common receptionist for greeting visitors. FEC records show that Nader's campaign has paid rent to Citizen Works and Citizen Works' landlord.

The Post story cites several legal and campaign finance experts that voice skepticism that the arrangement is legal. The Nader campaign claims no wrongdoing.

Nader has trumpeted himself as the champion of consumers and the "anti-Dem/GOP". He's claimed to be the guy who has the integrity and the honesty that the other candidates and the parties don't have. If one of the other candidates had done something like this I have a tough time believing Nader wouldn't have used it to point out that he's better and different.

This story reminds me a little of the maladies of Rush Limbaugh, although not to the same degree. Both scream about certain "values" and "virtues" that people must adhere to..but in the end are just hypocrites.

Just in case you've found the real Bush campaign website wanting...this site should fill in any blanks..and make you laugh while doing it.

If you're not easily offended by people parodying rightwing Christian rhetoric...this site will make you positively fall out of your chair laughing.

I think the GOP attempt to legalize electioneering from the pulpit (see Urgent Action Alert or scroll down the page to it) needs a little context. This attempt by Hastert and DeLay hasn't happened in a vacuum. This is a premeditated and deliberate campaign by certain factions of the GOP to do an end run around the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

A plan by the George W. Bush reelection campaign to enlist 1,600 "friendly" houses of worship in Pennsylvania is a misguided attempt to build a church-based political machine that should be dropped immediately, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United asserts that the plan jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of churches and could divide congregations with partisan politics. Bush Campaign Attempting To Forge Church-Based Political Machine

Having been exposed in Pennsylvania, the Bush/Cheney04 strategists appear to have taken a two-pronged approach to getting around the Constitutional obstacle.

1. Rewrite Federal tax law to allow politicking from the pulpit. This was the subject of the NCC's Urgent Action Alert.

2. Steve at I like to write points us to a recent report in the National Catholic Reporter:

During his June 4 visit, Bush asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.

Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken.

According to sources, Sodano did not respond to the request. Source: The Word From Rome June 4, 2004

This at a time when some American Catholic Bishops are already engaged in partisan politics by publically focusing attention on whether Catholics who publically support gay marriage and abortion ought to receive the Eucharist while glibly ignoring those Catholics who publically support the Death Penalty - which the Vatican is formally opposed to. In fact this very same Pope appealed to, then Texas Governor, George W. Bush to spare the life of convicted murderer and Death Row inmate Karla Fay Tucker. Not only did Bush decline the Pope's appeal, but he went on to publically mock Tucker's appeal for clemency. As the New York Press notes, in Kerry's a Bad Catholic, there are many more issues which the Vatican strongly and very publically support which Bush and most Republicans just as strongly and just as publically oppose.

In an opinion piece published by the National Catholic Reporter, Joan Chittister seeks to answer the question: Is John Kerry a good Catholic?. Citing six different Popes and a formal Bishop's position paper, Joan Chittister forcefully yet eloquently demolishes the argument that Catholics can't in good conscience vote for John Kerry.

J at Value Judgement has a commentary on a piece from the New York Times about Kerry's habits on the road while campaigning.

What sticks out to me from J's comments and the piece is the offense some people take at others being smart and/or intellectual. When did it become an albatross to be articulate? Why is it cute and endearing to not be able to fashion a coherent sentence?

One of the things I really liked about Clinton was his ability to talk to people in an eloquent way. Gore did it too but he was slammed for it. Shouldn't our Presidents be well informed and sharp? Have we become so dumbed down that we will now not vote for someone who can articulate their positions intelligently?

Admittedly Kerry has a high minded way of speaking. He uses multisyllabic words. He sounds very Senatorial sometimes. This is supposed to be a bad thing, according to some. Apparently the United States of America might be too afraid to hire a President who's smarter than the average US citizen.

There's your scary thought for the day.

Charles P Pierce of The American Prospect has a letter he expects Ronald Reagan would write from his Heavenly perch. The letter would be addressed to Peggy Noonan, Reagan's former speech writer. Ms Noonan spent the bulk of last week falling all over herself to make sure Reagan was placed on par with Jesus himself. Reagan's letter seeks to disabuse "Dear Peg" of this notion.

An excerpt:

They'd like you all to love each other. They'd like you all to treat each other as equals. They're really serious about you all being stewards of the world you were handed, so watch out for the rivers and the ozone layer. They don't spend a lot of time worrying about rap music and the Internet. Even in eternity, there's no time to waste on the knucklehead stuff. And I've looked everywhere, Peg, and there aren't any stem cells here. No embryos, either. If you can pass the word, Peg -- nobody here wants anybody to die of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. It's not part of anyone's plan. If you can cure something down there, you should cure something.

I'm a Deist but I have a deep respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ. This piece is one of the few that's moved me spiritually to the point of thinking Christ himself must have smiled on this author as he wrote it.

In another major foreign policy problem/disaster for the Bush Administration, Iran is giving them the finger on nukes.

Iran's foreign minister said that Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed restrictions on it's nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear capable nation.

In a predictable move, the Bush Administration is pushing the Interational Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)to go to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions on Iran for violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

It doesn't occur to these guys that they've squandered the United States' moral high ground on nuclear proliferation since Bush is pushing for a new generation of nukes himself. In fact they've squandered our moral authority in general as well by the dismissal of the Geneva Conventions and attacking a sovereign nation that didn't attack us.


How is it that Bush thinks he can expect other nations to take the high road when he's not willing to do it himself?

Fellow Oregon blogger Chuck Currie alerts us to an imminent threat from our trusty pals, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his sidekick, House GOP Leader, Tom DeLay.

The National Council of Churches USA has released the following Urgent Action Alert:

Despite overwhelming opposition from nearly two dozen religious denominations, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom Delay have ordered a version of Rep. Walter Jones's "Houses of Worship" Political Speech Restoration Act to be included on page 379 of a 398 page tax bill (H.R. 4520, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004).

Entitled the "Safe Harbor for Churches" bill, the legislation would radically change the nation's historic tradition of separation of church and state and "raise moral questions about the actions of religious leaders and their congregations and disrupt the political process itself," said Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. A statement from Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance said: "The bill encourages willful ignorance of the law by houses of worship, amending the tax code to permit churches, and only churches, to engage in political campaigns while maintaining their status as tax-exempt organizations."

Under the legislation, Gaddy noted, houses of worship would be allowed to "accidentally" endorse political candidates up to three times in an election cycle without losing their coveted tax-exempt status. While the bill purports to draw a distinction between intentional and unintentional violations of political activity, it is silent on what constitutes an "unintentional" violation, leaving religious leaders and institutions free to claim ignorance of the law as reasoning for an "unintentional" breach.

It is expected that the House Ways and Means Committee will be voting on the Safe Harbor for Churches provision on Monday, June 14. NCC is urging concerned citizens to call their Members of Congress and raise their concerns about the measure, and to urge legislators to vote for a Ways and Means amendment by Rep. John Lewis of Georgia which would remove the proposed "Safe Harbor for Churches" provision (Section 692) from the tax bill. Phone calls to Members of Congress (202-225-3121), faxes, or e-mail messages (via the Congressional E-mail Center) are important, because many will be caught off guard by the provision, as it was quietly inserted in the bill during a national week of mourning.

This seems as good a place as any to mention Richard Morrison's blog, Taking on Tom DeLay. Morrison is the Democrat seeking to forcefully retire Representative Tom DeLay by winning the Texas 22nd District Congressional seat this November. Morrison is one of the dKOS 8, one of the original Dean Dozen and is strongly supported by my favorite radio talkshow host, Ed Schultz.

Charley Reese, a seasoned journalist and apparent conservative (Independent?), gives a solid arguement for why he won't vote for Bush's re-election in Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet.

Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

But then he follows it up with a masterful critique of why he doesn't see Kerry as much of an alternative in No Real Choice.

What about those Americans who don't share President Bush's goals? What about those who don't think we should have a policy of pre-emptive war? What about those who think we should just pull out of Iraq now? What about those who think free trade is a fraud? What about those who think America's borders should be sealed? What about those who believe we should be fair-minded in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue instead of giving Israel a blank check? What about those who believe that outsourcing American jobs should be brought to an abrupt halt?

Well, too bad. You can stay home. Once more, the Democratic Party is proving that it is not really a party of opposition, but rather a tweedledee to the Republican tweedledum. I had some hope and faith in Howard Dean, but unfortunately Kerry has decided to run on the platform "I am not Bush."

You can read more of Charley Reese's writings at Charley Reese: Archives

Rush Limbaugh is divorcing wife number 3...aka Marta.

It's a good thing we have Rush to show us the sanctity of marriage. All of those gay marriages are ruining everything.

For liberals who've had to endure this week's attempts by the Bush Campaign to wrap Bush Jr in the same cloth as Reagan ...your tonic awaits.

At his father's eulogy this evening, Ron Reagan Jr offers up these words of wisdom...and as Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly describes, " a shot across the bow of the current occupant of the Oval Office"(transcript approximate):

He was a man of unabashed faith, but he didn't make the mistake that some politicians do of wearing his religion on his sleeve. True, after he was shot, he came to believe he had been spared by God in order to do good, but he took this as a responsibility — not a mandate.

Ronald Reagan didn't shove his faith down our throats. He didn't use it to brow beat. He didn't claim Jesus as his "favorite philospher" and didn't appear to look at the world as a set up for the Rapture.

I have a feeling Ron Reagan Jr isn't done rocking W's boat. Drum points out the interview Reagan gave to Salon last year in which Ron utters the now somewhat famous, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush".

Fasten your seatbelts. It's gonna be a bumpy campaign.

David Gray:title inspiration

Just how badly are we going to mess up the "cradle of civilization" while we're occupying Iraq?

Paul Bremer and Ricardo Sanchez are finding out after the fact, of course. They've launched a probe into whether US-led coalition activity has wrecked any archeological treasures in Babylon.

Shouldn't we have been paying attention to that BEFORE we did activities in Babylon?

...and a time to every purpose..under Heaven.

That song has been rattling around in my head today as I watch snippets of Reagan's funeral. Today (thankfully) is the final day of mourning. As I wrote right after Reagan's death we must be careful not to canonize Reagan but to see the whole of his legacy and his life. This week has been a time that most have gushed and glowed over the positives of Ronald Reagan. In the coming years history will most certainly offer us a much more balanced and whole view.

The New York Times has published several outstanding pieces this week on Reagan, his legacy and his life.

RW Apple has this on Reagan's legacy. He notes:

The "Reaganauts," as one of them said, have been out all week seeking to burnish their man's legacy on television and in print. But hagiography will not determine their leader's ultimate standing, and whether he is entitled to be called "great." Only what the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called "the cool eye of history" will do that, many years hence.

The NYT editorial staff also offers insight into attempts to paste Reagan's name and image on currency. They rightfully note the egregious slight to Alexander Hamilton, founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury.

And finally an editorial on what I think is the best way to honor Reagan: embryonic stem cell research.

The "Paper of Record" stepped up to the plate this week. Well done.

Another day....another Bush Administration lie.

Tampa Internation Airport is now verifying that two days after 9/11, three Saudis were picked up by a small jet at their airport and flown out. One is believed to be a member of the Saudi royal family.

The government has been denying all along that this flight took place.

Author Craig Unger reported in his book House of Bush, House of Saud about this flight. Unger has been eviscerated by the rightwing media machine for at least a year about this accusation.

This type of flight was extremely unusual on September 13. Most flights were empty airliners being ferried about after quick landings on 9/11. Private nonrevenue flights weren't happening then.

It's pretty clear these guys were given clearance at the highest levels to get out of the country.

Californians are apparently ready to reform their Three Strikes Law.

According to a poll by the Field Institute, 76% of likely voters said that would vote for a November ballot iniative that would soften the law. 14% were opposed.

Convicted felons would only be eligible for the "Third Strike Law" to kick in if the third offense is violent or serious. Then the individual would be eligible for 25 years to life.

California is the only state with three-strikes language that doesn't require a third felony conviction be violent or serious to trigger the harshest sentence.

Congratulations to my southern neighbors for having good sense.

Props to the Stones for today's inspirational title Sympathy for the Devil

Today's LA Times has a very interesting article on McCarthyism and it's downfall.

With the 50th Anniversary of the McCarthy hearings this week, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly has some interesting thoughts on the phrase uttered by Joseph Welch that brought down Joe McCarthy:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Drum also ponders whether or not National Review will use the anniversary to try and tell us that Joe wasn't so bad.

Frankly...anyone that parrots Ann Coulter is doing the work of the Dark Side of the Force. I'm hopeful that liberals in America will continue to ask the Welchesque question of those who try to sell the notion that Joe McCarthy was a decent and good guy who has merely been sullied. Not only is that an outright lie it's an insult to history.