Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Random Political Thoughts for a Wednesday Afternoon

It’s that time again, it’s time to check in with our editorial department and find out what passes for Random Thoughts today.

We have a wide-array of things today, Medicare and phone scams, polling numbers and immigration, lies and spin… all that and Katherine Harris too.

So sit back, pull down the shades, grab a drink and read Random Political Thoughts for a Wednesday Afternoon.

It starts…

When Medicare attacks. There’s barely a month left to sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit, and because of that, “President” Bush is traipsing across the country this week (Jefferson City, MO on tuesday) to encourage seniors to enroll in one of the plans. He acknowledged that the process is confusing, what with dozens and dozens of plans to choose from, but still opposes extending the May 15 deadline that so many other lawmakers (both Democrat and Republican) want. Bush’s chief Medicare official, Mark “Don’t call me Scott damnit!” McClellan, stated that more than 29 million seniors have enrolled with 400,000 more enrolling each week. But they still won’t extend the deadline. (It’s hard to figure out why they won’t extend it, but since it’s the Bush administration, we’ll have to consider the far-fetched possibility that it’s for unethical reasons… it’s so hard to express sarcasm in the written word, isn’t it??)

When Medicare attacks…again! Democratic lawmakers are pushing the Bush administration to repay tens of millions of dollars to 46 states that took action and covered Medicare patient prescription drug costs during setbacks with the program's launch back in January due to the administration’s incompetence (yeah, like that’s anything new. Maybe, just maybe, lawmakers should consider this; if anything to give them something positive to report on, seeing as how almost everything else coming out of DC right now is, by and large, negative)

When telemarketers strike back? According to phone records introduced in criminal court, key figures in a phone-jamming scheme that was meant to keep Democrats in New Hampshire from voting in the 2002 presidential election had regular contact with the White House and the Republican Party as the plan was unfolding. (There’s only one thing I can say to them… ‘Cheater, cheater pumpkin eater’… so there…)

The truth is an illusion. President Bush has acknowledged that he declassified parts of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to answer questions about why the United States invaded Iraq, it was to counter critics who charged he manipulated intelligence to justify the war. (I am shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment. This isn't by some chance a desperate attempt to cover one's ass, is it?? Nah.. couldn't be. Bush isn't that clever to have come up with that... Cheney on the other hand...)

And the lying continues… The Washington Post is reporting that the Bush(Whacked) Administration knew that two trailers captured by U.S. troops in Iraq in May 2003 were NOT mobile "biological laboratories," (UPDATE: There are conflicting reports on that with varying experts in the article taking both sides that the trailers were/were not weapons labs) even though they publicly asserted that they were. (Just keeps on piling up, doesn’t it? When are people going to see Bush for what he is? He lies and so far, no one is calling him on it, and I want to know one thing: WHY THE HELL NOT???)

Leave and don’t ever come back.Katherine Harris will not be the next senator from Florida. She will almost certainly win the Republican nomination on September 5, but she will not defeat Democratic senator Bill Nelson two months later. For the good of her party, and for the good of her own reputation, she should withdraw from the race as soon as possible and allow another Republican to have a chance at victory." (Kind of says it all doesn’t it? BTW, this isn’t coming from a liberal pundit or politician, it’s coming from the founder of one of the most respected conservative magazines out there, William F. Buckley of The National Review. When Buckley says you won’t win and should drop out, shouldn’t you get the hint? Apparently not… read the next ‘thought’ for more on this topic)

Bite me Bill. How did Harris respond to the column in The National Review that stated “for the good of her party and for the good of her own reputation,” she should drop out of the race? She sent a letter to the column’s writer, magazine founder William F. Buckley. In the letter she stated that she was “disappointed in the short-sighted editorial” and that she “will be the next senator from Florida.” (Wow, she just doesn’t get it, does she?? Can she really be that thickheaded?? Everyone, conservatives, Liberals, Independents, can see that she is embarrassing the party…and that that embarrassment is reaching a national level, why can’t she?? It absolutely boggles the mind…)

Immigration issues, part 134. The fallout from the immigration bill is more likely to hurt the GOP than the Democrats (doesn’t surprise anyone, does it??) as any bill that’s passed is sure to polarize the party as it will appeal to the hard-line GOP base, but will most likely drive moderate conservatives over to the ‘other side’ (and by that I mean Democrats or Independents). This all comes as Republican leaders speak of a massive shift in the language of the immigration bills. (The longer the debate on this issue continues, the worse off the GOP will be. The best thing for Democrats and Liberals to do on this issue is to sit back and let the GOP fight amongst themselves then go in and get the job done when they have exhausted all their options… just sit tight guys… and wait)

Numbers continue to drop. New polls out this week and last find that Bush’s job approval ratings are still dropping and reaching new lows. Really isn’t anything more to say about that is there? Check them out for yourselves: WaPo-ABC poll is 38% and AP-Ipsos poll is 36%. (Nice)

Gratuitous Op-Ed plug of the week. You’ve heard of the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’, how about the ‘Iranian Missile Crisis’. David Ignatius writes about that possibility in the Washington Post, read it HERE. Runner-up goes to the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board for this ONE calling on VP Dick “Dead Eye” Cheney to answer questions about the Valerie Plame incident.

Speaking of Iran... Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated today that Iran's assertion that they have enriched uranium will require “strong steps” from the U. N. (Which I am positive will do the trick as the UN has had so much luck lately in getting things done that aren’t related to Oil and Food. Anyhow, as Scott said yesterday, you may now resume building your bomb shelters.

Take them as you will...


LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder said... you even READ the articles you post, because the article contradicts EVERYTHING you say,

"And the lying continues… The Washington Post is reporting that the Bush(Whacked) Administration knew that two trailers captured by U.S. troops in Iraq in May 2003 were NOT mobile "biological laboratories," even though they publicly asserted that they were."

AND YET, within the article there is this statement: Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. “It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,” said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. says... "So after spending the headline, byline, and everyline from the front page to the middle breathlessly reporting the news that Bush lied (again….sigh) they tell us that well, not really, maybe he didn’t lie. 3 teams were sent, 2 reported back that the trailers were WMD carriers while 1 disagreed. Which one do you think the Post agreed with?"

So what the hell? If you asked 3 people if your pants were on fire, and 2 said no and 1 said yes, would you run for the nearest lake or swimming pool?

Kemp said...

Do you?

You wrote "'It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides,' said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified."

"There were arguments on both sides..." So there you go, it DOESN'T contradict what I say, nor does it support what I say 100%, so I guess we're both wrong.

Question: Why do you come to this blog if you don't agree with what we are saying? You are not going to change my mind nor the mind of Scott, so why bother? Just stop coming.