The G-Y-P...sorry...G-O-P

The Republican Party has always had one principal goal in mind: to gain control of the presidency in order to use it as a springboard to control Congress.

What would that do you ask? Well, if those goals were achieved, the Republicans would be able to leave their ineradicable stamp on every law and on every piece of legislation that came off the Hill. They would also be able to influence the U.S. government for years and years and years.Don’t look now, but the GOP has achieved just that by hook and crook. They stole the presidency, managed to gain control of Congress and now, for the first time ever, all three branches of government are either Republican or (at the least) are leaning to the right.As amazing as it seems, the vision of Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America has ostensibly been realized.

But, in a closing analysis, what exactly do we have on our hands? Well........

• We have gone to War for reasons that still are unproven.
• We have an economy that would need to go up quite a bit to reach a floundering level.
• We have a stock market that looks dilapidated and morose (much like our Commander in Chief)
• We have gone from having a budget surplus (crafted by the Democrats) of a trillion dollars to a level of debt of which the likes has NEVER been seen in this country before. (Yet we still give tax-breaks to the ridiculously wealthy and see nothing wrong with it… well, some see something wrong with that, but right now we are in the minority)

(Or are we? According to the 2000 election there were more Democratic votes....sorry to interrupt again-Scott)

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looks like a rubber-stamper for pharmaceutical industry interests. This is leaving people wondering whether to eat (which is needed in order to sustain life) or pay their pharmaceutical bills (which are also sometimes needed in order to sustain life)
• We continue to pillage and loot the environment; yet oil prices are through the roof (creating a tug-of-war of having to pay the bills or driving a car)
• Our position in the world has weakened to a terrifyingly low point.
• National disasters have revealed that disorganization runs amok at the highest levels of our government. No matter how many trips the president makes to stricken areas (and did we all notice how quickly he got down to Florida… which just happens to be the state his brother Jeb is governor of…hmmmmm, not quite as quick as Texas, but quicker than Louisiana), it doesn’t seem to get any better over time.
• As if all of that stuff weren’t enough; the majority leader of the Senate is under investigation for insider dealing AND the majority leader of the House is under indictment for money laundering and illegal activities.
• Add to that the fact that there are high-ranking Presidential and Vice-Presidential advisors being either indicted or, at the least, being considered for indictment for releasing the name of a top CIA operative, or lying about it to law enforcement.
• A lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, is indicted for misappropriation of funds while a senior official in the Budget Department is implicated in lying to Federal investigators about his (Abramoff’s) involvement.
• The president’s standing in the polls is lower than it’s ever been.

Now… for people with a brain this would be instructive since most surveys also show that more than 50% of the U.S. population believes that the country would be better served by Democrats. And, in the midst of upcoming mid-term elections, the Republicans are going to have to evaluate the costs of allowing the extreme right to call the shots and hence suffer even more unimaginable consequences.

Despite advantage after advantage, the Republicans, through their incredible tunnel-vision perspective, have managed to squander our surplus, give away any chance of rebuilding the economy and, through their blind lust for power and money, made us indentured servants to Saudi Arabia, Japan and China and doing so through lies, misdirection and deceit… not bad for five years of power. Will there be a world left for democrats when it comes time for the next election in 2008 or will we simply inhabit a post-apocalyptic world like Mad Max?

Again, as I’ve said many times before on this site: only time will tell.

We All Need Your Help...

Scott and I wanted to take a moment to inform you of something that could very well define the internet for years to come if it is not passed.

H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, is up for a vote tomorrow, Wednesday, November 2. Its cosponsors include Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Tim Ryan.

To find your Congressman/woman: click this link

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Call (202) 225-4965, or email her here.

We can’t trust the FEC to get policing the Internet right because they haven’t before (in regards to the regulation of a medium that they do not totally comprehend)

So call or email TODAY.

Start with your own Representative (to find your local Representative click this link), and then contact the Democratic leadership (Rep. Nancy Pelosi – call (202) 225-4965 or send her an email.)

Tell them that you are a liberal, that you support this bill and that the Internet ought to be free from convoluted FEC regulation.

Again, to find your Representative click here. To contact Democratic Leader of the House Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi you can call her at (202) 225-4965, or email her.

Thank you.

Voting is now closed

It’s Monday, which must mean that it’s time for a new poll and also time to garner the results of the previous weeks voting.

I will get to that, but first; you probably noticed that we have moved the polling question up to the top of the page… all for your voting pleasure and ease of use.

We are also using a new polling service, so the look is streamlined, the results are quicker, and it cuts down on the possibility of fraud. (Being that we both reside outside of Cook County where the slogan is "vote early, vote often" it just makes sense to prevent voter fraud.... sorry to interrupt folks, Scott)

As for last weeks poll, we asked you: If the election were held today, who would you vote for?

It’s clear that the majority of you would vote for a woman… whether it be the Democratic nominee of Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominee of Condi Rice.

Last week’s results:

• Hillary Clinton 45.7%
• Condi Rice 22.9%
• John Kerry 14.3%
• Kemp & Scott 11.4%
• Pat Paulsen 5.7%
• Newt Gingrich 0.0%

So… it is clear that the majority of you would vote for Senator Clinton.. a whopping 46%. That number does not surprise us, seeing as who our target demographic for this site is. The number that DOES surprise is the unexpected 23% that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew from a site that, shall we say, caters to the more left-leaning sort.

John Kerry picked up a worrisome 14% (why worrisome? If he runs again, it will stall the democrats and will easily provide a victory for whomever the GOP runs… so let’s not encourage him, ok)

Scott and I picked up a surprising 11%, and we appreciate your support. (But truth be told, I have a couple of years to go before I am legally of age to become President. Scott on the other hand is of age… and then some… sorry Scott, couldn’t resist)

Perenial Presidential candidate and humorous Pat Paulsen picked up 6%… an incredible feat considering he passed away in 1997.

And last, and certainly least, is Newt…who picked up… nothing (Nelson Muntz-esque 'Haw haw') No votes whatsoever for the former House Speaker… that’s a shame, couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Those are the results for this week. The new question is above, so feel free to vote now for this weeks question.

By the way, do you agree or disagree with the numbers? Let us know in the comments section. Selected comments will be run in a future entry.

Thank you for your continued support.

Political Backpedaling (The Weekly Rewind)

As we promised, it’s time once again to look back at the week just ended, run across the political landscape and point out things that should be applauded or heckled.

APPLAUD: to Rosa Parks, Civil Rights pioneer who died this week at the age of 92. A woman whose life should be an inspiration to people of all races.

HECKLE: to President Bush for once again failing to publicly acknowledge the mounting death toll of U.S. Troops in Iraq, or having a clear plan for victory in Iraq. This week the 2,000 American soldier died in Iraq, a sad milestone.

APPLAUD: to Congress, for acting quickly and putting aside partisanship to approve a resolution allowing Rosa Parks to lie in honor for public viewing in the Capitol Rotunda. This honor has only been granted 29 times since 1852, and only seems fitting for Ms. Parks.

HECKLE: to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on his indictment for one count of Obstruction of Justice, two counts of making False Statements and two counts of Perjury. (Also for having the name “Scooter” on the indictment)

HECKLE: to the Department of Defense for holding back 824 new armored Humvees from being sent to Iraq until January when the 4th division is sent to replace 3rd division units currently serving in Iraq. (The Marines only have 6 to 7 percent of the total armormed humvees in Iraq. There is no reason that every available piece of modern and armormed equipment should always be available to every one of our troops.)

APPLAUD: to DNC Chair Howard Dean for a clear and concise statement on the Libby indictment. “This is not only and abuse of power, it is an un-American abuse of the public trust. As Americans, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher standard. We cannot fear dissent. We cannot fear the truth. And we cannot tolerate those who do.”

HECKLE: to the U.S. House Resource Committee for approving a plan to allow oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in order to raise $2.4 billion in lease revenues.

APPLAUD: to former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards. He currently presides over a new Poverty Center at the University of North Carolina and is traveling the country rallying college students to the cause of fighting poverty in the U.S., and possibly laying the groundwork for a renewed bid for the White House in 2008.

HECKLE: to The White House for failing to unwaveringly support its SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers, who this week ‘voluntarily‘ (yeah like we believe that) withdrew her nomination. No matter the end result of the Senate confirmation hearings the President needs to learn to stand up with his nominees, and if he cannot do it with those he nominates currently, then he needs to find more qualified people to nominate.
(Obviously the conservatives can’t get behind what they can’t control…. Also we can‘t help but wonder how much of the ‘orchestrated‘ withdrawl was damage control for the CIA leak indictments)

HECKLE: to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) for referring to any possible indictments in the ‘Plamegate‘ investigation to be not for any real crimes but for ‘Some perjury technicality“. (Our thought is that if you choose which laws to enforce, you start down the road to enforcing none.)

APPLAUD: to Democrats for their “50 State Strategy” of national/local support and organization for the upcoming elections. It’s great to see the party working together as a team.

HECKLE: to the Bush Administration for first suspending and then reversing the rules requiring that companies receiving federal contracts for hurricane reconstruction and relief efforts pay workers the local prevailing wage. The heckle is for both the suspension and reversal as the reversal would not have been necessary if the suspension had not occurred to begin with.

APPLAUD: to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for his thorough and unbiased investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s name as a undercover CIA operative.

HECKLE: to President Bush on general principle alone.

HECKLE: to U.S. House Republicans who voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as part of a strategy to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts.

HECKLE: to Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) for acknowledging that he failed to comply with U.S. House requirements that he disclose all contributions to a legal defense fund that pays his legal bills. (I wonder what else he has forgotten that will now be conveniently acknowledged with the increased legal scrutiny?)

APPLAUD: to Democrat Tim Kaine for his strong polling in a tight race for Governor in Virgina, he is in a dead heat with the Republican challenger in an contest to be decided in the November 8th election.

HECKLE: to Karl Rove, who when asked for a comment concerning his thoughts on the indictment of ’Scooter’ Libby, advised reporters that he was not going to think about it, that he was going to have a nice weekend and suggested that the media should do the same. (What a tool..)

HECKLE: to The White House for going after “The Onion“ for displaying the presidential seal on its website next to a weekly parody of the Presidents weekly radio address. (I guess they don‘t have anything more important to worry about…)

HECKLE: to Pat Buchanan (always a candidate, never electable..) for speaking out that the President’s next nominee for the SCOTUS had better be along the lines of what he had promised when running for office (meaning that they should be a bible thumping conservative who will make it a priority to overturn Roe V Wade) or the nominee will be hammered from the right again, as was done with Harriet Miers. What a tool!

Noticing more heckles than applauds again this week – welcome once again to George Bush’s America…

Later.

'Scooter'ing off to prison?

Vice-President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (I'm sorry... was that G. Gordon Liddy? No... my mistake) was indicted (you can read the actual indictment here in a PDF file from the DOJ) Friday on five (yes, you read that right... five) counts:

• 2 counts of perjury - on March 5 & March 24, 2004
• 1 count of obstruction of justice - in the spring of 2003
• 2 counts of making false statements - October 14 & September 27, 2003

(Told ya; 2 + 1 + 2 = 5. I guess that Master’s degree is finally paying off)

Oh yeah, and he gave his resignation to Puppet-in-Chief (for those of you who do not read this site enough: {read it more darn you}, that's our little 'pet' name for "President" Bush) and the Puppet-in-Chief's Puppeteer (you know; Cheney).

Some of you are asking; 'Kemp, what do these charges mean?'

Well, let me tell you.

The long and short of it is that 'Scooter' Libby endangered national security. (Confidential shout-out to Libby: if you go to jail, I'd lose the Scooter nickname... but that's just me)

The investigation will continue, but it will continue with a brand-spanking new grand jury as the term of the current grand jury ended on Friday and can not be extended.

Why would Fitzgerald be convening a new grand jury to continue the investigation?

Who does he have in the crosshairs?

Well, Karl Rove is a safe bet, but we'll get to that in a minute.

The question on the public's mind now is who is this "Official" (or Mr. X as we'll call them now) that the indictment touches on? It never mentions a name, only 'official.'

Is it Cheney? Rove? Bush?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems that that perpetually slippery ‘bastage’ Karl Rove will escape indictment... for today at least. But he is remaining under investigation. In fact, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has told Rove's attorney that he still has not decided whether or not to charge Rove.

The long and short of it (how many times can I use that tired cliché in one entry? Let's find out) is that it appears ''Scooter” will be the sacrificial lamb after two years of this criminal investigation.

Is Scooter really the mastermind behind this sordid plot?

Possibly... and by possibly I mean; Scooter could be the mastermind, but I sincerely doubt that he is (and most others agree with me). Odds are he is taking the fall for bigger fish... bigger fish like Cheney, or maybe even Bush, or a combination of the two or maybe even other high ranking officials.

Now, the question on everyone's lips is to what extent we are coming up on a Great Repudiation, even though we may already be in it.

Getting back to Rove. Whether or not he is ever charged with anything is less important than simply finding out the truth about what happened in the White House to lead multiple senior officials, Rove and Libby apparently foremost among them, on a press binge that "outed" an agent to some journalists.

With the indictment of Libby today and the announcement of a new Grand Jury being formed, we're a tad closer to knowing what happened today; in that we now know that Libby was one of those figures and that he lied about it to investigators and to the grand jury. ('No, no Scooter. Bad boy.')

When hearing and reading about all of this, why does my mind immediately flash back to Watergate? I mean, what's the difference between Watergate and this?

Besides the fact we comprehend the magnitude of Watergate as a precedent now...

Plamegate...Scootergate...

Plamegate…or as it could also be called Humpty-Dumpty: Bush Style (All of Bush’s Horses and all of Bush’s men, couldn’t put his administration together again.)

After weeks of investigation by the Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, all of Washington is awaiting word on who in the Bush administration will be handed indictments in relation to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It is a given that I. Lewis ‘Scooter” Libby will be receiving one. However there is wide speculation that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (aka: Bush’s Left and Right Brain) could also be handed these ‘golden tickets’. (I would like to see an Indictment song and dance number by some oompaloompas!)

What does this mean for the Bush administration?

Well, first you have to remember that the President himself has said that this was a serious investigation and that anyone found to be guilty of involvement would be subject to serious consequences. Well, we will soon get to see what happens when the ‘rubber meets the road’ so to speak.

Already the republican party faithful are trying to put a spin on what is sure to be some serious public backlash, as well as basically trying to also turn Fitzgerald into this administrations version of Ken Starr. The party faithful are appearing on Sunday morning talk shows to explain that no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury, actually the quote was “Some perjury technicality”. Who made the ‘teensy weensy’ statement and where? It was Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in an appearance on ‘Meet the Press’.

This is the same Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson who during the congressional investigation into the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal made the following statement as reported in the February 13, 1999 Dallas Morning News:
'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue in this impeachment.'

Sen. Hutchison also voted 'guilty' on both counts against then President Clinton.

How ironic that the mighty have fallen hard and fast. As stated in the Washington Post, "The party that said they won the last election because of their stand on moral issues doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing shows how out of touch Republicans now are with the values of the American people."

So knowing that ‘Scooter’ will be indicted by weeks end, what is his background? Does his wife call him ‘Scooter-Pie’? (That last one we are not even going to delve into…) Here are the basics-

Born:
Aug 22, 1950

Education:
1972- Yale University, BA
1975- Columbia University, JD

Experience:
Prior to coming to work in the White House, ‘Scooter’ was a managing partner at the Washington office of the international law firm of Dechert, Price & Rhoads. Prior to that he had held a variety of positions at both the U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense.

So given his education, background and length of experience you would think that ‘Scooter’ would know not to repeat privileged or secret information, and the consequences for failing to heed the rules. Only an indictment or clearance by the grand jury will tell us which has happened.

Now the current grand jury’s term is set to expire this Friday, October 28th, this leaves little time for Fitzgerald to complete his work. It may be that he has focused on, and will ask for, one indictment out of this current grand jury and will pursue further indictments with the next jury seating.

Ok, for all of you who have not followed this issue as closely as you wish you would have, lets see what all the ‘fuss’ is about. To do that we go back to 2003. (Time travel fade…)

2003
January - With a U.S. invasion of Iraq looming in the not to distant future, President Bush tells the nation in his State of the Union address that, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

July 6- Almost 3 months after the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad, Joseph Wilson (a former U.S. Ambassador) writes in the New York Times that he had investigated the Niger uranium report for the CIA in 2002 and he had found it ‘highly doubtful’ that such a transaction could have occurred.

July 11 - After finding no WMD in Iraq and with increasing questions about the so-called ‘intelligence’ that the administration cited during the debate over the war, CIA Director George Tenet says that the claim of uranium should not have been included in the State of the Union address. He also takes responsibility for the mistake.

July 14 - Robert Novak, syndicated columnist, writes in his column that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is an operative with the CIA and she had suggested sending him to Niger. The column cites ‘two senior administration officials’ for the report.

September- The Justice Department launches a criminal probe into the leak at the request of the CIA. A 1982 law makes knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent a felony that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Novak says that he won’t reveal his sources. President Bush tells reporters that he welcomes the investigation and that ‘If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.”

December - Then Attorney General John Ashcroft recuses himself from the leak probe, due to possible conflict of interest. The U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald is named as Special Prosecutor to take over the investigation.

That ends 2003.

Over the next almost 2 years, Fitzgerald moves forward with his investigation. During this time Fitzgerald or his top aides question /subpoena various figures in connection with the leak. Among these are staffers at Time Magazine, Vice President Cheney, President Bush, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, Karl Rove and ‘Scooter’ Libby. Judith Miller of the New York Times refuses to testify before the grand jury regarding sources in a story that she had published and is jailed for contempt of court.

As a result of the investigation, it is revealed that Libby was Miller’s source. It is also reported through others that Rove and the Vice President himself may have also had a hand in the dissemination of Plames CIA affiliation.

Ok, now we are up to present day and you have the ‘cliff notes’ version of the whole issue. Try and keep up on your own, don’t worry, if you can’t we will be here to help clarify.

So, it appears that Fitzgerald has been doing a thorough job and should be commended for his steadfastness in getting to the truth of the matter and keeping a lid on any leaks coming out of his office. Any leaks that have emerged were most likely let out by lawyers close to those being investigated. (Probably as a way to gauge the potential public outcry and damage to the White House that indictments would surely elicit.) This lack of leaks is in stark contrast to some of his predecessors.

Also, no one has even tried to suggest that Fitzgerald would ruin his reputation by going after so-called ‘technicalities’ as opposed to ‘real crimes‘. He takes his duties seriously and will see this investigation to an honest conclusion irregardless of which way the political pendulum swings as a result of his findings. This man has integrity! (Wow, what a concept in Washington)

Now, we wait and wonder, will it be 1, 2 or 3 indictments? We should know by Friday, meanwhile 'Scooter' should get a letter of resignation ready to go.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, what does this mean for the Bush administration? Plenty! Libby has been a very active force behind the scenes of this White House and an indictment would be a huge blow to the inner workings of the administrations core planners.

1000 and still a newcomer

I just wanted to quickly dovetail on Kemp's thank you. We do enjoy being able to do this and hope that you find our posts informative as well as sometimes humerous .

I also wanted to point out that this afternoon, in a little over a month of being in existence, we have hit the 1000 visitor mark and are climbing.

So once again, thank you from both Kemp and myself. You have remained faithful to us and we will do our best not to dissapoint.

A Thank-you from TBWA

First of all, Scott and I would like to say a big thank-you for taking the time to read our blog. We know that there are a lot of other political blogs/websites that you can read and we sincerely thank you for taking the time to read ours.

We are getting a lot of hits and a lot of readers, so why not drop us a line and leave a commment, whether you agree with us or not, and let us know your thoughts on the subject at hand.

If you do like what you see here (and I know we have already asked this of you, but what-the-hell, we can ask again... right?) tell your friends, families and neighbors. Even tell folks that you may not see eye to eye with from a political or basic common sense stand point (because as I've said before... let's practice tolerance for those that disagree with us)

Alsi, if you do like the job we are doing, visit blogtopsites.com or bloggernity.com and rate and/or review the job we are doing.

Again, we both thank you for your support and hope that you continue coming to TBWA for all your humorous liberal-political needs.

A New Sheriff in Town (Part 2)

There was big news from Washington on Monday (and no, it had nothing to do with “President” Bush finally figuring out that day’s Blues Clues…though that would be big news, wouldn’t it?) On Monday it was announced that Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan will retire, as planned, in January and will be replaced (pending Senate confirmation) with Ben Bernanke.

Now, as I wrote yesterday, there are a plethora of reasons to like Mr. Bernanke: he's qualified (eminently so) for the post, he is, after all, a former Fed governor (the Federal Reserve is a system of regional banks headed by Fed governors). He is also chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers and a noted economist who has taught at Princeton.

Now, I’m not naïve and I know that, obviously, there are some politics involved with this choice (but not much cronyism it would seem. Wow, who would have ‘thunk’ it… Bush is still President, isn’t he?) but it seems that, for the most part, Bernanke is likely to continue Mr. Greenspan's steady guidance on U.S. economic policy.

Bernanke (or ‘Bernie’ as I am sure ‘Dubya’ calls him) will have his work cut out for him as several unfriendly forces threaten the U.S. economy in the coming years, some even forming as I write this blog:

1. An overextended housing market that's dependent on uncertain loans. The larger concern here is consumers' expectations that their houses will yield high investment returns and, thus, protract their current levels of consumption. If their home equity loans can't keep up, the economy and the markets might suffer.
2. Gas prices so high that they can threaten consumption in other areas of the economy. Think about this: a family of 4 has a choice. Fill up their cars/minivan/SUV or purchase groceries… or go to a movie… or (more drastically) pay a bill. This will probably be the highest hurdle Bernanke will face… and the one that will define his chairmanship.
3. Inflation. We know inflation is neither a sustainable nor a good trend any way you look at it. A general increase in prices stops somewhere, with someone getting the short end of the stick. Who will it be in the coming years… time will tell.
4. The troublesome current deficits in both our national budget and our foreign trade. The deficits might lead to higher interest rates if they persist long-term and, as I’m sure we all know interest rates have become the Federal Reserve’s bread and butter in recent years.
5. A new bankruptcy law. While this isn’t necessarily Bernanke’s problem (since he is not able to change the law) he does have to maintain a particular view or the new law could push already stretched consumers deeper into debt. Think about it…the very consumers hampered by current debt levels are those experiencing the greatest suppleness in purchasing habits. If this continues and the new bankruptcy law exacerbates it… something will have to give.

Finally… a shout out to Mr. Greenspan, thank you for a (relatively) calm 18 years at the helm. You've done a remarkable job, and we hope you'll find retirement tranquil and pleasurable. If you don't, let me know.

Mr. Bernanke; congratulations and welcome to the party, though you have inherited what may be the toughest second act since Dick Sargent replaced Dick York as Darrin Stephens in Bewitched (the 60's TV show - not the recent movie bomb)

No pressure though...

Political Contemplation of the Day

"Being `embedded' is part of [Judy Miller's] problem. Being embedded with the administration, being embedded with the Alpha unit she was [with] in Iraq. That is part and parcel of the problem. What happened to objective journalism? It has to be the bloggers---Huffington Post, Kos and the others---who have to bring the objectivity and the truth-telling that is missing from the mainstream media."

--Arianna Huffington on Real Time with Bill Maher

A New Sheriff in Town

Is it possible?

Could it be?

Did President George ‘Cronies-R-Us’ Bush actually name someone to a Federal post that…gasp…. actually has the qualifications to fill the post???

Nah…couldn’t be…

…could it?

It seems as though he did just that. (It’s amazing what incredibly low approval ratings can do to a president’s thought-process, isn’t it?) I mean think about it, this is a president that has, in his past appointments, habitually favored political cronyism, loyalty, and personal relationships over qualifications and integrity (and let’s be honest – in Brownie’s case; intelligence. ‘FEMA had no idea what was happening in Louisiana’ my ass)

Not only is it (apparently) Bush’s first non-crony choice, it’s also being called the “least controversial appointment” of his (staggeringly) convoluted presidency (Which, after the Harriet Miers debacle is probably the exact thing the President wanted… nay… NEEDED)

Tell us Kemp, are you ever going to get around to telling us whom Bush selected?

Certainly, in fact, I’ll do that now.

Bush has named Ben Bernanke as his nomination to replace the celebrated (and legendary?) Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (Wow, talk about a hard act to follow). Bernanke’s latest responsibility has been as a top White House economic adviser. More of his background can be seen below.

Granted, Ben Bernanke is a Republican and has succeeded in keeping himself out of the president's doghouse (I would assume by keeping his mouth shut and not rocking the boat – ya hear that Cheney?)

The thing I am excited about is that Bernanke's decades of academic writings and his speeches during the three years he spent as a member of the Federal Reserve Board show that he will be the type of chairman that identifies much more closely with the institution he runs rather than with the administration that appointed him (much like Greenspan did –all of which will mean a Federal Reserve that will continue its current stance of keeping inflation in check as its number one priority)

That having been said, there are still many ‘X’ factors to keep in consideration when looking at his selection and (I am sure soon-to-be) senate confirmation.

Alan Greenspan kept a fairly high profile during his successive terms as Chairman, will Bernanke be like this, or will he be more ‘low-key’? Also, will Bemanke be as … adroit (I have my thesaurus next to me) as Greenspan was at being able to persuade others to support his views on interest-rates and other economic factors? And will he be able to forestall market crises as proficiently as Greenspan did?

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile though, it seems painfully clear that credibility and experience have (finally) won out over cronyism and politics in the Bush administration.

Tomorrow: Factors that will threaten the U.S. economy under Bernanke’s watch

Profile on: Ben Bernanke
-Born December 13, 1953 in Augusta, Georgia
-Married with two children.
-Raised primarily in South Carolina
-Earned B.A. in economics at Harvard University in 1975. While there he won the award for best undergraduate economics thesis and the prize for outstanding Economic Department senior
-Received his Ph.D. in economics in 1979 from MIT
-Started teaching at Stanford. Left there in 1985 and spent the next 20 years as a Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton. He also has served as a visiting faculty member at other institutions, including MIT
-Joined the Federal Reserve in 2002 and then served as a governor of the Federal Reserve
- Currently is Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers (which provides the president with analysis and advice on economic issues)

Monday = New Poll

Good Monday lucky pollsters!

Scott and I promised you a weekly poll, and since it's Monday it's time not only for a new poll, but to give you the results of last weeks poll.You can find this week’s poll question at the bottom of this page. Please take a moment to vote and let us know your thoughts. (Yes, we really do want to know. Remember what I always say…practice tolerance for those that disagree with you)

As for last weeks poll, we asked what you thought of the recent indictment of Tom “Smile-for-the-birdie” Delay

Last weeks results:

• It’s about time… 70.6%
• It’s all politically motivated… 17.6%
• What indictment… 11.8%
• Need more info… 0%

So, it’s clear that most of our readers think it is about time that Delay was indicted.

Last week the man behind the smile (see the pic below) got booked (fingerprinted, mug shot, etc) and went on the defensive, dispatching his spin doctors to every part of the country (and especially in his home state of Texas) to get his message out that this is all politically motivated (a small percentage of you believe that is indeed the case) and he is innocent.

We’ll see…

Who votes for this guy?

Suit- $1,200
Haircut- $30
Smarmy Attitude- Free
Knowing that you have swindled the average american out of hard earned money, have broken campaign finance laws, committed numerous House ethics violations, had your hand in the Enron cookie jar and dozens of other questionable legal and ethical issues- Priceless

For everything else, there's political cronies and contributions...

Can we discuss facts for a change?

The Presidency and Roe Vs Wade
The Vice-Presidency and Roe vs. Wade
The Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade
Congress and Roe vs. Wade

What’s next….. Director of Streets and Sanitation and Roe vs. Wade?

An article dated October 18th in U.S. News and World Report discussed rumors that in the wake of the CIA spy-link investigation the Vice President might step aside and the President would then elevate Condoleeza Rice to the position of Vice President. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18whwatch.htm

Now, the premise of a high ranking administration official stepping aside and being replaced by another high ranking or high profile administration official in order to divert attention from very real unseemly issues is nothing new to this Presidency. However one quote that jumped out at me from the article was the following: “Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide.”

Isn’t she pro-choice??? What kind of statement is that??

Now maybe I missed something somewhere, but since when did the issue of Roe V Wade become the basis for questioning or supporting every political appointment no matter what the office or position?

What happened to the candidates educational background, work experience or even the thoughts and opinions of co-workers and personal references?

If the subject of pro-life / pro-choice has so permeated and grabbed hold of the parties that it has become the main issue above all else, then by all means we should have nothing but women serving in both houses of Congress, as the only members of the Supreme Court and occupying the White House.

Are the republicans so afraid of losing debates based on the facts that they purposely bring the Roe V Wade question into each and every topic and issue so as to infuse each with a hot button/litmus test?

Hey, I have a novel idea, let's take Roe out of every single issue that comes before the congress and american public and stick to the facts. ....I can dream can't I....
(Now even though I am pro-choice, I am not insensitive to the truly honest heart felt 'personal', (NOT uneducated, narrow ieadologic) feelings of those on each side of the issue however, Roe WAS previously decided IN court and has now been a long standing LAW....)

But what would happen to the conservatives if Roe V Wade was to never be discussed again? What's next? I can see a group of conservative think tank members tossing around ideas..... "oh we have a cosmetic surgery epidemic we need a pro-lift / pro-sag debate to deflect from the real issues at hand......."

or am I simplifying this too much.....

Political Backpedaling (The Weekly Rewind)

Political Backpedaling (The Weekly Rewind…)

New feature being added to the “best political blog on the Internet today”…at least according to my mom…

In trying to keep up with the current administration (in terms of doing things that look good but really serve no purpose in life) Scott and I have decided that we will be adding a new weekly feature that will appear every Friday.

It’s called (as you can see in the title) “Political Backpedaling,” where every week we’ll run across the political landscape and point out things that should be applauded or heckled. Who will decide what should be applauded and what should be heckled? Well, it’s our blog so, we will. If you don’t like it…tough noogies.

APPLAUD: to possible 2008 democratic presidential hopeful john Edwards for starting his Poverty awareness Tour. What is it? We have no idea, but it’s good spin and its for a democrat, so we’re throwing it out there.

HECKLE: to Virginia Republican Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore for allowing his campaign handlers to create an ad that suggests his democratic opponent is so adamantly against the death penalty, he would have spared Adolf Hitler. Nice…even more examples of compassionate conservatism…an oxymoron if ever there was one.

APPLAUD: to Bryan Lentz, an Iraqi War veteran who is running (as a Democrat) for a seat in the Pennsylvania 7th Congressional District. (A district, by the way, that is very important in the upcoming midterms if the Democrats have ANY hope of gaining control of the House). Lentz joins a handful of other Iraqi War vets who are also running as Democrats for House Seats in the Virginia 2nd (David Ashe) or the Pennsylvania 8th (Patrick Murphy) or running for an Ohio Senate seat (Paul Hackett). Go get ‘em guys.

HECKLE: to Tom Delay…just on general principles alone.

APPLAUD: to Hillary Clinton for stocking her preside— (sorry) her senate campaign warchest with close to $14 million.

HECKLE: to Newt Gingrich and George Pataki for announcing their plans to “maybe” run for president in 2008. (They’re the devil everyone, run fast, run far.)

APPLAUD: to a Texas court that issued a warrant Wednesday for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to appear for booking where he was fingerprinted and photographed. And rather than give a stock-mug shot look, the congressman gave a huge smile…which makes him look even more like the jackass that he is (as if that were possible)

HECKLE: to Congress for bowing down to the gun lobby by passing a bill that protects the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits.

APPLAUD: to Republican (I know, I know) Senator John McCain, who said Tuesday that he would press for the transition to “higher quality digital television signals” by the end 2006 or early 2007 instead of (the proposed) April 2009. I know it’s an unimportant thing in light of other things going on in this country and the world, but let’s remember it’s the small things that allow us to continue on in this life despite everything else.

HECKLE: to the U.S. Supreme Court for handing tobacco companies and cigarette makers a victory in rejecting a Justice Department appeal aimed at allowing a potential $280 billion penalty in the government's landmark racketeering case against the industry. Brilliant…absolutely brilliant.

APPLAUD: to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for taking aim at (yet) another Bush-cronie. The next target? The usually untouchable Dick Cheney who is considering resignation because of the investigation. Good news indeed, but with some troubling attachments to it that moves us along to…

HECKLE: to President Bush for suggesting he would elevate Condoleezza Rice to be VP in the event that Cheney resigns. (Scary…but still better than Michael Brown. Well, maybe not)

APPLAUD: to Detroit Mayoral candidate Kwame Kilpatrick who stopped wearing his ‘trademark’ diamond earring, saying it “gave off a bad spirit of rebellion.” (Is this even news? Does anyone care? Although Scott said he will not stop wearing his...)

HECKLE: to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen…just because we can. (what a pretentious, uninformed weasel he is)

APPLAUD: to the epiphanies that some Republican’s have had regarding Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Some of the RNC’s biggest moneymen are deserting the one-time re-elected-shoo-in, making his re-election seem less and less likely with each passing day.

HECKLE: to Ms. Rice again. While testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she stated that the U.S. could use military force against Iran and Syria. I’m sorry; can’t we get out of Iraq first before we start throwing our weight around again? Apparently not, because in that same line of testimony Rice refused to rule out that the U.S. could still have a massive troop presence in Iraq in 10 years. Son of a bit—

APPLAUD: to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for calling SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers’ responses to their questionnaire, ‘inadequate’ and ‘insufficient’ and making her do them again…and again…and again…until she gets them right.

HECKLE: to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he relied on FEMA’s experts to respond properly to Hurricane Katrina. That explains a lot.

HECKLE: to President Bush for calling all the problems in the U.S. (you know – like all the White House leak problems, the Katrina response problems, the disastrous Harriet Miers nomination) as ‘background noise.’ What a tool.

HECKLE: to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for using his nationality and ethnicity as a means to get Hispanics (which I am) to back Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers…what a cabrón.

Noticing more heckles than applauds this week – welcome to George Bush’s America…

That's a wrap