DC Bat-Diva Coming Out

DC Comics has announced that after a long absence, Batwoman is back -- with a twist! The Associated Press reports:

DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series ... The 5-foot-10 superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.

Yikes!

The return of Batwoman, as a lesbian socialite, is great fun! And, in a society where women -- and specifically lesbians -- are often 'invisible,' recognition that young and older lesbians deserve a "superhero" of their own is fabulous!

According to The New York Times:

[T]he re-invention of Batwoman is part of a wider attempt by the comic book industry to feature more people from different minority groups ...

But while DC may be embracing diversity when it comes to its heroines, it appears it is rather more protective of its male characters' sexuality. Last year the company took legal action against a New York art gallery that housed an exhibition of watercolours featuring Batman and Robin in "intimate" positions.

Hurry up July!

Republicans: Putting the "Con" in Conservative

o

Republicans in Trouble, Divided Dems Struggling

Analysis: Democrats Wary of November Vote

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
May 29, 2006

WASHINGTON - Republicans are three steps from a November shellacking -- each a grim possibility if habitually divided Democrats get their acts together.

First step: Voters must focus on the national landscape on Nov. 7 rather than local issues and personalities that usually dominate midterm elections.

That would sting Republicans, who trail badly in national polls.

Second step: Voters must be so angry at Washington and politics in general that an anti-incumbent, throw-the-bums-out mentality sweeps the nation.

That would wound Republicans, the majority party.

Third step: Americans must view the elections as a referendum on President Bush and the GOP-led Congress, siding with Democrats in a symbolic vote against the Iraq war, rising gas prices, economic insecurity and the nagging sense that the nation is on the wrong track.

That would destroy Republicans, sweeping them from power in one or both chambers and making Bush a lame duck.

Less than six months out, most Democratic and Republican strategists say the first two elements are in place for now -- a national, anti-incumbent mind-set -- and all signs point to the third. (full story)

Fast Smart Women

Danica Patrick finished a respectable eighth in today's Indianapolis 500. In 2005 Danica became the face of IRL racing and that was ok with Indy Officials. Danica came on the scene at a time when Indy racing was facing a bit of a slump. So unlike the reception received by some of the women who came before her, Danica quickly became the "it girl" at Indy, finishing fourth in her rookie season.

Do you remember who broke the glass ceiling on the oval track?

It was Janet Guthrie, who in 1977 became the first woman to earn a starting spot in the Indianapolis 500. Guthrie's reception was much different than that of Patrick. The officials, and the other drivers made it known they did not want a woman in the race.

One of the keys to winning at Indy is to have the best equipment and team money can buy. Janet raced with a team she formed and managed herself. She simply could not afford a car of the same quality as most of her competitors, yet in 1978 she still managed to finish in ninth-place. An accomplishment even more remarkable when you factor in that she was racing with a broken wrist. Her finish was the best by a woman until Danica Patrick's 2005 finish.

Before becoming the first woman ever to compete in the Indianapolis 500, Janet Guthrie had a diversified background. She was a pilot and flight instructor, an aerospace engineer, and a technical editor. She had 13 years of experience on sports car road-racing circuits, building and maintaining her own race cars, before racing at Indianapolis.

Violence: Why can't men just kill themselves?

How many times have we heard this story: A man is upset with his wife, so he kills the entire family and then himself. A guy is angry that the woman he was dating has ended their relationship, so he kills her and then himself -- or even more tragic he opens fire at her place of employment, killing her and a number of people before killing himself. A few years ago we witnessed the younger version of this when a number of little boys took guns to school and killed other students, and teachers, because a girl in their class rejected them.

Why are some men so violent? And why must their death wish include others? These are questions in desperate need of answers.

Once again we learn that a husband, on vacation with his family in Miami, has thrown his two children off a 15th floor balcony before jumping to his death. The children were 4 and 8 years old. How terrified they must have been as they were falling. And why did it happen to them, what could they have possibly done to provoke this, other than by accent of birth?

GUILTY: Verdict in on Enron's Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling

Yes, there is a God!! Enron chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted today on charges of fraud and conspiracy. The New York Times reports:

Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, the chief executives who guided Enron through its spectacular rise and even more stunning fall, were found guilty of fraud and conspiracy today in a case that led the parade of corporate scandals in recent years that emerged from the get-rich-quick stock market excesses of the 1990's.

The eight women and four men on the jury reached the verdicts after more than six days of deliberations. Mr. Skilling was convicted of 18 counts of fraud and conspiracy and one count of insider trading. He was acquitted on nine counts of insider trading. Mr. Lay was found guilty on six counts of fraud and conspiracy. He was also convicted of four counts of bank fraud in a separate case.

The conspiracy and fraud convictions each carry a sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison. The insider trading charge against Mr. Skilling carries a maximum of 10 years. Sentencing is set for the week of Sept. 11.

For the former Enron employees and stock holders who lost their life savings, today's verdict should provide at least some satisfaction.

Unlocking the Cheney Code

Looks like the Vice President is about to have his day in court if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has his way. MSNBC reports:

Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the perjury case against his former chief of staff, a special prosecutor said in a court filing Wednesday.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald suggested Cheney would be a logical government witness because he could authenticate notes he jotted on a July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion piece by a former U.S. ambassador critical of the Iraq war.

Fitzgerald said Cheney’s “state of mind” is “directly relevant” to whether I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s former top aide, lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned about CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity and what he subsequently told reporters.

Libby “shared the interests of his superior and was subject to his direction,” the prosecutor wrote. “Therefore, the state of mind of the vice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about (Plame’s) employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue.”

Is the reason we haven't yet heard anything about an alleged Karl Rove indictment because Rove is poised to testify against Vice President Cheney?

This is a tough call as to which one would be the most beneficial to be cooling his heels in jail. If it's Cheney there is a good chance we might suddenly see the administration announce plans to bring the troops home, end domestic spying, and finally close down Guantanamo Bay and release the detainees.

If Rove ends up in the slammer we might see and end to the conservative Republican strangle hold on the White House and Congress. A move that could have equal impact in fixing what is wrong with America.

Time will tell.

ABC News to Women Viewers -- Get Pregnant, Get Demoted

"What is the worst workplace nightmare the pregnant employee faces? It is the fear that her employer will find some way not to guarantee her job back on return from maternity leave," said Andrew Tyndall, a consultant who studies evening news content.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

ABC News has just announce that veteran broadcaster Charlie Gibson will replace Elizabeth Vargas as anchor of "World News Tonight." It seems Vargas is pregnant, so the network has decided to demote her.

Never mind that she faced the challenge of taking over as co-anchor, with Bob Woodruff, following the death of Peter Jennings ... only to have her new partner seriously injured covering the war in Iraq.

In making the announcement ABC News president David Westin was cautious not to upset viewers by commenting that Woodruff, who suffered serious head injuries in Iraq, will "always have a role on this program as an anchor - if and when he's ready for it."

It's too bad Westin doesn't have the same concern -- or consideration -- for women.

Q&A on Immigrants

Q: What's all the fuss about immigrants?
A: A woefully inadequate administration in need of a scapegoat.

Sam Smith in The Progressive Review writes:

Whenever a new crisis develops in an election year and it's not nature's or the stock market's fault, the odds are pretty good that it's not a crisis.

Witness the sudden discovery of immigrants, a much more comfortable topic for some than Iraq, global warming, globalization, or runaway corporate greed.

Smith then challenges us to answer ten simple questions -- a sort of test of the extent of the immigrant problem.

1. Has a Mexican ever fired or laid you off?

2. Was the plant you worked for until it was sent overseas been bought by Mexicans or is it still owned by the same people you used to work for?

3. Has a Mexican ever cut your pension or health benefits? Outsourced your job to India?

4. How much does Latin America contribute to global warming and its results - such as bigger hurricanes and more tornados - compared with the United States?

5. Was Enron run by Mexicans?

6. Are Mexicans responsible for NSA's spying you?

7. Do you think Mexicans or the pharmaceutical corporations are more responsible for high drug costs?

8. How much of the corruption in Washington has been instigated by the Mexicans?

9. Did the Mexicans' make us invade Iraq?

10. Are the Mexicans responsible for George bush being so dumb?

Chances are most your answers will be in the negative which is a clue to stop spending so much time worrying about immigration and turn your attention to something else.

Makes sense to me!

Sunday Funnies

o

Judson Laipply -- The Evolution of Dance

What's to deliberate in the trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling?

Enron employees and investors lost everything, while Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling made out like -- dare I say -- bandits! If these two men are not convicted, then there is no justice in this country.

Mary Flood, in "NOW IT'S UP TO THE JURY" for the Houston Chronicle, reports:

The government is accusing Skilling, in 28 counts, and Lay, in six, of manipulating Enron's finances and lying about the company's financial health to investors in order to enrich themselves.

"If what you heard in these past four months is business as usual in corporate America, ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest we all take our money out of the stock market and never put a nickel back in," said Berkowitz.

He said Lay and Skilling both kept trying to cover Enron's financial failures just "a little longer" and deprive investors and employees of the real facts while they both sold stock — Skilling through a broker and Lay quietly back to the company for cash.

And what is Lay and Skilling's defense? That they weren't minding the store.

Kenneth Lay, Enron's former chief executive, faces charges of conspiracy, false statements, and securities and bank fraud. Lay maintains he relied on subordinates who deceived him. Argues he spent most of his time focusing on diplomatic and business missions rather than on the company's accounting practices.

Jeffrey Skilling, Enron's former chief executive, president and chief operating officer, faces charges of conspiracy, money laundering, insider trading and securities fraud. Skilling argues he was kept in the dark by then-Chief Financial Officer Andrew S. Fastow.

Does anyone believe that these two men didn't know exactly what was going on? The proof should be in the fact that they were quietly dumping their own Enron stock.

Was the defense all just an act?

A former prosecutor observing the case said it's not unusual to see a more theatrical and dramatic defense and a prosecutorial response that relies more on just a professional tone as Berkowitz did Wednesday. This contrasted with the sometimes emotional, sometimes shouted presentations of the defense lawyers.

The Chronicle asked entertainment writer Eric Harrison, a veteran film critic, to review the theater of the closing arguments in the Enron case.

In the first part of the Enron Task Force's closing argument Monday, prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler spent the better part of a day imposing structure -- a story -- on 15 weeks of testimony and evidence. Methodically, she laid out a tale of monumental greed and deceit in which Skilling and Ken Lay, former CEOs of what was then the country's seventh-largest company, masterminded a conspiracy to defraud investors.

Prosecutors Ruemmler and Sean Berkowitz, who finished the government's argument Wednesday, were earnest technicians who marshaled voluminous evidence and testimony with compelling, though mostly dry, logic. Ruemmler, in particular, was effective at breaking months of complex evidence into easily grasped issues.

During his summation Tuesday [Kenneth Lay's attorney], George "Mac" Secrest, an animated man with a folksy manner, jumped into the witness stand to demonstrate the government's power to compel testimony. Chip Lewis, in his brief summation, screamed at prosecutors, accusing them of lying about his client.

Harrison went on to say:

Lawyers and reporters who make their living covering trials say there are ways you can gauge the interest and sympathies of a jury. One is by paying attention to when jurors take notes.

Jurors scribbled continuously during Ruemmler's arguments Monday. They wrote less during final prosecution arguments Wednesday, but hardly wrote at all when defense attorneys had the floor.

Did they take notes for Ruemmler because her story riveted them? Or because it was so complicated? Did they lay down their pencils during the defense' summation because they weren't interested? Or was it because they didn't want to miss the show?

Hopefully, we will soon know.

Pat ... Pat ... Pat ...

o
AOL is reporting on the rantings of Pat Robertson:

No stranger to controversial comments, TV evangelist Pat Robertson is at it again. This time, he's predicting devastating weather. In the past, his remarks have targeted world leaders, judges, and even small towns. But he has said, "I speak from the heart so often, and many times these statements need clarification and, if brought out of context, can be misunderstood."

Yeah, Pat suffers from an extreme case of homophobia and misogyny. The really frightening thing however is one of the AOL opinion polls. They are hardly scientific, but nevertheless take a look at this:

How would you describe your reaction to his most recent comments?

Mostly negative 60%
Neutral 26%
Mostly positive 14%
Total Votes: 256,220

How would you describe your feelings about him in general?

Mostly negative 63%
Neutral 20%
Mostly positive 17%
Total Votes: 257,282

Do you think he's treated fairly in the media?

Yes 68%
No 32%
Total Votes: 244,394

How influential is he?

Not at all 52%
Somewhat 38%
Very 10%
Total Votes: 246,771

Barely a majority think he is not influential.

What does it say about the people in this country if 48% are willing to give him ANY CREDIBILITY AT ALL?

yikes!

GOP Running Scared from 'Speaker Pelosi'

o
Move over Dennis ... come November there will likely be a new sheriff in town!

The Hill, in GOP hopes ‘Speaker Pelosi’ will scare voters this fall reports:

Congressional Republicans have begun a media campaign to scare voters about the prospect that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) likely would become Speaker if Democrats retake the House in November.

The attacks have come from Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Party strategists are also encouraging surrogates on K Street to suggest that a Pelosi-led Congress would try to impeach President Bush.

We can only hope!

The Hill story went on to say:

The Republican National Committee attacked Pelosi after she appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 7, saying that “Nancy Pelosi’s vision for the future is one of higher taxes on working Americans, cut and run in Iraq and a little impeachment thrown in for good measure.”

The Republicans have Pelosi confused with themselves -- Congressional Republicans are the ones who have raised taxes on working Americans, while giving HUGE tax cuts to the most wealthy in this country. Just look at the break Republicans recently gave their friends.

The Washington Post reported annual savings under the latest Republican tax cut as follows:

$10,000-$20,000: $2
$20,000-$30,000: $9
$30,000-$40,000: $16
$40,000-$50,000: $46
$50,000-$75,000: $100
$75,000-$100,000: $403
$100,000-$200,000: $1,388
$200,000-$500,000: $4,499
$500,000-$1 million: $5,562
More than $1 million: $41,977

A majority of Americans are not happy with the US being in Iraq, and the president's approval ratings are at an all-time low. It seems it's the Republicans -- not Nancy Pelosi -- that Americans should fear.

Jennifer Crider, Pelosi’s spokeswoman, retorted, “Why are Republicans threatened by a mother of five and grandmother of five? Because Leader Pelosi is effective. House Democrats are united, disciplined and working for a new direction for America — one that works for all Americans, not just the privileged few.”

Go Nancy ... go Nancy ... go Nancy ...

Bush ... practicing president

Nixonland Revisited?

Any discussion of the NSA secret database containing the phone records of tens of millions of Americans must include a reminder of the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."
-- First Amendment

The Whistleblower Protection Act protects whistle blowers who work for the Federal government, and is enforced by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act protects whistle blowers in the U.S. military, and is enforced by the Department of Defense Inspector General.

Before the Watergate became famous for "hooker & poker" parties, it was the site associated with the beginning of the end of the Nixon administration. "Watergate" became a defining moment by which all future "gates" would be measured.

"Travelgate" ... "Nannygate" ... even "Hookergate" just didn't seem to measure up to the original "gate" ... Watergate.

Nixon had his enemies list, that included members of the media. It seems the Bush administration has resurrected this ugly ghost from the past.

ABC News reports:

On its blog, The Blotter, ABC News reports that a senior government source has told its reporters that the reporters’ phone calls with sources are being tracked by the U.S. government “to root out confidential sources.”

USA TODAY reports:

Bush has argued that he has far-reaching authority to approve NSA activities under his constitutional role as commander in chief.

Among the controversies over the database, however, is that it was built without court warrants or the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges established to issue secret warrants, according to people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

Some critics questioned whether the administration's warrantless programs violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires warrants for searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that established the secret court.

Anyone not concerned about the actions of the Bush administration should be! According to Benjamin Franklin:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

World Leaders for $1000 ... who is she?

o

? ?

God Squad Warns Republicans They May Abandon 'Sinking Ship'

With the president's polling numbers at 20-something and sinking, conservative Christians are beginning to jump ship!

The New York Times reports that:

Some of President Bush's most influential conservative Christian allies are becoming openly critical of the White House and Republicans in Congress, warning that they will withhold their support in the midterm elections unless Congress does more to oppose same-sex marriage, obscenity and abortion.

"There is a growing feeling among conservatives that the only way to cure the problem is for Republicans to lose the Congressional elections this fall," said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail pioneer.

"I can't tell you how much anger there is at the Republican leadership," Mr. Viguerie said. "I have never seen anything like it."

Could it be that the religious right-wing of the Republican party has finally figured out they have been duped by Bush and the Republican-leaders in Congress?

Karl Rove needs issues like same-sex marriage and abortion to 'motivate the base.' If those issues suddenly went away, there would be no way to mobilize the Republican's conservative Christian base.

"There's just very, very little to show for what has happened," Dr. Dobson said, "and I think there's going to be some trouble down the road if they don't get on the ball."

"People are getting concerned that they have not seen some of these issues move forward that were central to the 2004 election," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council...

"A lot of people are disappointed that he hasn't put as much effort into the marriage amendment as he did for the prescription drug benefit or Social Security reform," Dr. Land said.

Stay tuned!

Buddy can you spare a dime ...

The Carpetbagger Report had a great post on Saturday that I would like to share. I also encourage you to visit the site! It's filled with great information.

The Washington Post ran an interesting chart this week that every Democrat should memorize. It shows your annual savings under the latest Republican tax cut. Here are the figures:

$10,000-$20,000: $2
$20,000-$30,000: $9
$30,000-$40,000: $16
$40,000-$50,000: $46
$50,000-$75,000: $100
$75,000-$100,000: $403
$100,000-$200,000: $1,388
$200,000-$500,000: $4,499
$500,000-$1 million: $5,562
More than $1 million: $41,977

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median income in the United States is $44,389. Math has never been my biggest skill, but I know what "median" means: half fall above, half below.

It's high time for some good old-fashioned class warfare. The ads write themselves: "The Republicans just bought all of their friends a shiny new car or a fancy fishing boat. You got a fast-food meal. Enjoy your nine dollars."

FOX News going liberal?

Normally I like to at least try to stay current with what is posted here, but I've been out of town for a couple of days and really want to comment on this one.

As you know, right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch recently held a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Associated Press reported the move as "mystifying some observers and enraging others."

Murdoch's FOX News has routinely skewered Hillary Clinton for years, but I think this move exemplifies what the political right is all about ... greed over ideology. Hillary is a powerful Senator, representing New York. She will possibly be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. Murdoch is simply hedging his bets.

Hillay's motive is less clear. Maybe it's her way of saying *#^* you to the political and religious right for years of abuse.

Could US Survive a Jeb Bush Presidency?

Could the US survive another Bush presidency? Remember Papa Bush, and how disengaged he seemed during much of his presidency. Who could forget seeing George H.W. check his watch during his debate with Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush has been a complete disaster as president. Instead of paying attention to his job, he spent the first months of his presidency on vacation! And then came September 11, and the seven long minutes Bush sat in a Florida classroom trying to figure out how to get a full recount in Florida. He didn't want to be Commander in Chief -- suddenly the job got "hard." How often have we heard him say how "hard" it is being president.

How hard can it be when you basically turn over running the government to your VP, and have an open check book to make yourself, your family and your friends very wealthy at the expense of hard working taxpayers.

The GW legacy will be one of a failed war, failed national security as evidenced by the response to hurricane Katrina, and a failure to keep Congressional Republicans spending in check. Bush came into office with a budget surplus and will leave office with the largest national debt in our countries history.

Keep in mind that it took this nation more than 200 years to become one trillion dollars in debt. Under mostly Republican rule these past 25 years -- Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 -- the nation is now nearly $9 trillion dollars in debt. It's staggering.

That said, I can't imagine anything more frightening than a Jeb Bush presidency.

The difference between George and Jeb is that Jeb is smarter -- but he's also meaner. If you've ever watched his mama respond after someone has said something bad about her husband or one of her sons you will know exactly where he gets it!

This country could absolutely NOT survive a Jeb Bush presidency.

Taxation Without Representation

District of Columbia Residents fulfill all the responsibilities of citizenship, but they do not share all the rights their fellow Americans have. Here are a few reasons why DC residents deserve voting representation in Congress.

1) DC residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the country.

2) DC residents are required to register with the U.S. Selective Services and have served to protect America's democracy in every war since the War for Independence:

• DC had 635 casualties in World War I - more than three states
• DC had 3,575 casualties in World War II - more than four states
• DC had 547 casualties in the Korean War - more than eight states
• DC had 243 casualties in the Vietnam War - more than ten states

3) DC's population, at 572,059, is nearly 100,000 more than the population of Wyoming (493,782). DC is close in population to six other states and has had a population as large as 800,000. DC should have the same proportional representation in Congress. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1950 and Census 2000]

4) The US is actively promoting democracy abroad, while denying democracy to the American's living in the nation's capital. The fact that DC is the only capital of a democracy in the world that does not have full voting representation is an international embarrassment. While the US works to establish democracy for Iraqis, the residents of Washington, DC, have not had representation in the U.S. Congress for more than 200 years.

5) Denial of representation to DC residents is seen by some as discrimination against African-Americans and other minority groups. According to the U.S. Census 2000, the population of Washington, DC, is 60 percent African-American (the national average is 12.3 percent), and 9.3 percent other minority groups. No other jurisdiction in the United States has a majority African-American population. While partisan considerations certainly factor into the denial of democracy to District residents, there are people who believe that racial considerations also play an important part in the continued disenfranchisement of DC's residents.

There is hope that this will soon change.
_____________________________________

Deal Said To Advance Vote for D.C. In Congress

By Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman
Washington Post Staff Writers
May 10, 2006

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is teaming up with Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) to introduce a bill that would for the first time give the District a full vote in the House, a sign of bi-partisan cooperation that advocates of D.C. voting rights hailed as a breakthrough. (full story)

Pink ... "Dear Mr. President"

Size Matters in Bush Fish Tale

Catch this take in The Carpetbagger Report on Bush's 'fish tale':
------------------------------

'I once caught a fish this big…'

When asked before the 2004 election about his biggest mistake, Bush couldn't think of anything. Asked over the weekend about his best moment in office, the president seemed to have trouble again.

During his more than five years in office, Bush has traveled the world's most impressive cities, met with world leaders and entertained celebrities.

But when the German newspaper Bild asked him to name his best and worst moments as president, Bush gave an offbeat answer about the best moment. […]

Bush admitted it was not easy to pick a best moment because "I've had a lot of great moments," according to a transcript of the Friday interview released Sunday.

"I would say the best moment was when I caught a 7 1/2-pound largemouth bass on my lake," Bush said, laughing.

Oddly enough, this was a softball question. It was a slow, hanging curve, giving Bush a chance to highlight anything he wanted — his joy at watching the Saddam statue fall, signing one of his tax-cut measures into law, one of his inaugural addresses, a productive meeting with Tony Blair or another head of state, something of substance. Instead, the moment that comes to mind is a 7 1/2-pound largemouth bass.

What's more, as the New York Daily News noted, that's not even a particularly big bass by Texas standards. "A largemouth bass has to be more than 15 pounds to crack the top 50 biggest catches, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department."

I realize Bush was probably going for the laugh, but according to the transcript, the president didn't follow it up with a real highlight of his five years in office; he just let the fish tale stand.

Then again, given this guy's record, the bass may actually be the highlight of the last five years.

------------------------------
Thanks for the laugh!!

Bush's Best? ... Good Grief

Democraticunderground.com reported that: "Apparently on Saturday W was asked by a German journalist what he thought was the best moment of his presidency - I thought this was a spoof at first, but apparently and sadly it's not. Compare W's answer (at the bottom of this email, including url) with the answers given by Carter and Clinton."
Best moment of Presidency quotes: Carter, Clinton, and Bush

How did President Carter answer the question?

"I think the best time was probably dealing with the Middle East issue at Camp David," he said, "and even better I think was the peace treaty that came along six months later. I made a very difficult decision over the almost unanimous opposition of my cabinet and my staff to take the initiative and to go to Egypt and to go to Israel to try to get Begin and Sadat to agree on a peace treaty. And when they did sign-both of them signed the agreement-I guess that was probably my best moment."
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/jimmycarter/biography/resources/
Articles/KunhardtCarterBio.article.shtml

How did President Clinton answer the question?

JIM LEHRER: As we sit here right now, Mr. President, is this the best moment of your presidency?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Oh, no, I won't say that. I don't know. So many things have happened here at home that have been important to me; passing economic plan, passing the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban, so many things have happened internationally, the role that I was fortunate to be able to play in the peace process in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, but this could have the biggest long-term positive consequences if we do it right. But frankly, I hadn't, you know -- Sometimes people say "do you feel vindicated?" The answer is no. I think America has been vindicated. I think what we stand for has been vindicated. But keep in mind that there have been times in the past where people win a conflict and then squander the peace. So a lot of our work is still ahead of us. We've gotta get the people home, get the land mines up, work out the details of who is involved in the peacekeeping mission. We have to get this -- We've got to organize police forces and civil government for the Kosovars. And then the really big thing over the long-run, our European friends want to take the lead in this but we ought to help them, we've got to get the World Bank and all these other people involved in a development plan for the Balkans that involves not just Kosovo, but Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and I hope someday Serbia if they have a government that respects freedom and democracy and human rights. So that these people have something pulling them together instead of these ancient ethnic troubles pulling them apart.

Now if we get all that done, it might be perhaps the most satisfying thing because it might prove that people can lay down their hatreds of people who are different. You know, I basically think free people will figure out a way to make the most of their lives and work out their problems if they can get the rules of engagement right. That's why I gave somewhat of an extended answer to what you said about the Republicans. Because, I think, you know, differences are good. Nobody's got the whole truththe whole truth. But you gotta get the rules of engagement right. And I think what we did in Kosovo was profoundly important.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/clinton_6-11b.html

How did President Bush answer the question?

You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-07T100113Z_01_L07638085_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BUSH-FISH.xml&archived=False

Bush: Game Over?

A Sunday Washington Post story on Bush says recent shake-ups might be "too little too late" ... ya think!

The recent White House shake-up was an attempt to jump-start the administration and boost President Bush's rock-bottom approval ratings, but have those efforts come too late to salvage the presidency? A prominent GOP pollster thinks that may be the case.

"This administration may be over," Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans' 1960s and '70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. "By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over."

A new poll by RT Strategies, the firm headed by Tarrance and Democratic pollster Thomas Riehle, shows that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, while 36 percent approve -- a finding in line with other recent polls.

In six months we will have our first, of two, referendum on the Bush administration -- the mid-term elections. The Dems don't want to say it out loud, but the election also provides the first opportunity to oust Bush. For the thousands of people whose lives have been changed forever by this administration it may be too little, too late. But, it will be fun to watch!

Goss, day two

It still seems to be a mystery as to why Porter Goss resigned so quickly.

The Carpetbagger provided a quick look this morning:

* The NYT said Goss' departure "was hastened because a recent inquiry by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board had found that current and former agency officers were sharply critical of Mr. Goss's leadership." It added that the resignation "occurs amid an investigation into the activities of the executive director of the agency, Kyle Foggo, a longtime agency official whom Mr. Goss elevated to the senior post."

* The LAT said Goss was forced out by "Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, whose growing disenchantment with the CIA director was shared by members of President Bush's intelligence advisory board."

* The WaPo reported that Bush "lost confidence in Goss…almost from the beginning and decided months ago to replace him." "There has been an open conversation for a few weeks, through Negroponte, with the acknowledgment of the president" about replacing Goss, said a senior White House official who discussed the internal
deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Post added that Negroponte told Goss in April to prepare to leave by May.

* The Boston Globe said "theories swirled" to explain the sudden departure, but "people close to the intelligence community felt that the weight of bureaucratic infighting — within the agency and with Negroponte's office — had finally prompted Goss to give up."

* The Washington Times alluded to "hookergate," but said it was unrelated to the resignation: "A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, said yesterday that Mr. Goss' resignation was not linked in any way to the Foggo or Cunningham investigations. The official said the White House did an extensive check and was assured that Mr. Goss is not under suspicion."

* Similarly, Knight Ridder noted the prostitutes, but quoted CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano saying Goss' resignation wasn't linked to the scandal.

* The New York Daily News offered the most salacious lead, telling readers, "CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman."

Laura Rozen offered this observation:

Does something about this story line that Goss suddenly left because of his long-standing tension with Negroponte, his fraternity brother from Yale, over Goss fighting to hold CIA turf seem a bit canned to you?

The main question is why Goss's departure suddenly became a matter of the deepest urgency yesterday.

Think back to yesterday morning. The top news after the Patrick Kennedy crash was that Bush's poll numbers were at an all time low, and that he was starting to see a real erosion of support from conservatives. Gas prices and immigration and Iraq. So Bush gets briefed by his staff that day, and decides: hey, let's fire Porter Goss. He's killing morale at the Agency. He's just seen as far too political. And John Negroponte is threatening to quit if he stays. He's given me an absolute ultimatum. Let's get this out today.

Come on. That's just not how this White House has responded to these sorts of tensions in the past. They never move fast. They withstand criticism of appointments for months. They resist criticisms of unpopular agency heads for weeks (Michael "heckuva job" Brown), months (Snow), years (Rumsfeld). Think how much speculation there was in the press before Card's and McClellan's announced retirements, and how warm and friendly were those departures. It's hard not to believe that something moved very quickly on the radar this week that prompted an unusually quick decision. One that took a lot of people who would normally have been advised by surprise. (It's my understanding that the heads of Congressional intel committees were not informed in advance).

I think Joe, at AMERICAblog, said it best:

No one gets fired in the Bush Administration for incompetence. There wouldn't be anyone left if that was the standard.

Porter resignation hard for administration to Goss over

I love 'blog hopping' ... you know, clicking from blog to blog to find out what others are saying about the current 'hot' issue. Here is what a few folks have to say about the departure of CIA Director Porter Goss:

Marty Kaplan at The Huffington Report asks: "Hey Porter -- Not Even "Citing Personal Reasons"?

What's stopping Porter Goss from claiming that he wants to spend more time with his family? Even if he and his deputy, Dusty Foggo, are about to be swept up by the widening hookergate investigation that TPMMuckraker.com has been covering, the least the president can do is offer something better than this retroactive "time of transition" dodge.

UPDATE: Forty-five minutes after the Oval Office announcement, and moments after the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood wonders on MSNBC whether Joe Lieberman might a candidate to replace Goss (Extra! Langley Gets Joementum!), Norah O'Donnell finally points out that the absence of any face-saving BushCo excuse for Goss's Friday-afternoon bombshell smells awfully fishy. She has the temerity to put the words "Goss," "Foggo," "Cunningham," "poker," and "investigation" into the same sentence. "It just raises the question of whether there's something else out there," she says. Ya think?

Jonathan Alter, also at The Huffington Report, says Goss is: Raising the Bar on Losing a Job

If CIA Director Porter Goss resigned because of a sex scandal, it will rock Washington, affect the midterm elections and give us all a lot to chew on for weeks or months. But long term, it will also indicate something of critical importance in understanding why President Bush will be viewed by history as a failed president: Apparently the only way to lose your job in the Bush Administration is by being disloyal (Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsay) or by being a sleaze.

Being incompetent is not a problem.

Wonkette.com has devoted a number of posts to the Goss departure. Just some of their comments include:

“Something happened,” neo-conservative magazine editor William Kristol said on Fox News this afternoon. “It’s going to be a bad few days. We’re going to discover something … It will be something not good for the Bush Administration.”

Fox News actually got a phone call from a “top White House official” during Kristol’s damning comments, and Kristol was cut off so Bush mouthpiece Chris Wallace could say the Goss resignation is just a harmless part of the “White House shakeup.” Sure.

Does Kristol actually know anything? He’s probably just playing the pundit gambit of predicting something a) vague and b) huge, but, if nothing else, it means that there’s your prevailing conventional wisdom: Shit’s gonna go down this weekend.

Later on Wonkette posted this:

We’ve offered you what we hope — for the sake of rumor-mongering, gossip, and this city’s desperate need for a good sex scandal — is the real reason for Porter Goss’s departure as CIA director.

But here are three other possibilities, besides the leak-related, intelligence-related, and torture-related theories that we identified earlier:

• It’s just a part of Shake-Up-A-Thon ‘06 — which is what a “senior administration official” told Fox News earlier this afternoon.
• Porter Goss was frustrated over the marginalization of the CIA, with John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, taking over much of what used to be the CIA director’s role and responsibilities.
• Porter Goss used to be a Florida congressman, representing the 14th District. A reader suggests: “I bet [Goss is leaving] to run for the US Senate against Katherine Harris in the GOP primary and Bill Nelson in the general. FL filing deadline is next week and FL GOP has been looking for alternative to Harris.”

Of course, the various explanations aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe Porter Goss received services from prostitutes AND will run against Katherine Harris in the GOP primary.

The 'running against Katherine Harris in Florida' was my first thought -- but then I hadn't really been paying attention to the sex stuff. Could be a fun weekend!

Bush and the "M" word

George Bush seems to have trouble saying the "M" word ... but when describing just about any of his decisions over the past six years it certainly seems appropriate.

His decision to spend the first few months of his first term on vacation, while intelligence information strongly indicated the US was vulnerable to an attack is one.

His decision to sit in a classroom for seven minutes while the US was under attack is one.

His bravado about 'smoking out Bin Laden' that evolved into an 'I don't even think about him anymore' is one.

His lies that led to the invasion of Iraq is one.

His decision to land on an aircraft carrier and address the public under a "Mission Accomplished" banner is one.

His decision to give the wealthiest one percent a war-time tax cut, leading to the largest national debt in history is one.

His handling of the Katrina and Rita hurricane disasters is one.

His continued mis-handling of the war in Iraq is one.

His willingness to let members of the administration place a CIA agent's life at risk is one.

His unwillingness to do anything to alleviate rising gasoline prices is one.

And the list goes on, and on, and on ...

In an April edition of Newsweek magazine Richard Woffe and Holly Bailey examine the presidents inability to say the "M" word ... "mistake."

"April 12, 2006 - For Elton John, sorry seems to be the hardest word. But for George W. Bush the hardest word has always been "mistake." His difficult relationship with the M word stretches back many years and is bound up with his view of leadership, politics, the media and, yes, his ego."

"The way his friends tell it, President Bush simply couldn't bring himself to admit to making a mistake—never mind drawing any lessons from one—in a 2004 press conference. That would have been, in his mind, politically damaging in the early stages of a presidential campaign. And it would have been red meat to an insatiably hungry press corps. Maybe so. But the president has spent several months hinting at mistakes, even spinning about mistakes, without really conceding one—until now."

Speaking to a group of foreign-policy students in Washington, Bush said "We have learned from our mistakes [in Iraq]."

"The president's readiness to concede to a mistake—and do so explicitly—marks a watershed moment for his administration. It may be a statement of the obvious that will satisfy few of his critics and change nothing on the ground in Iraq. But it is yet another sign that the White House recognizes how its political fortunes have changed forever—and how public opinion has shifted against the war."

"Perhaps, with no more elections ahead of him, Bush feels he has more leeway to speak freely. Or perhaps he feels he needs to reconnect with the public in ever-more-human ways. Either way, it's time for the press corps to demand something other than the M word. Maybe it's time to ask him to say sorry." (full story)

The Trouble with Steny ...

The Hill newspaper reports:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) took on a rare role yesterday as a defender of President Bush.

Hoyer came to the defense of the commander in chief after Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, where the president took a drubbing from comedian Stephen Colbert.

"I thought some of it was funny, but I think it got a little rough," Hoyer said. "He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect."

"I'm certainly not a defender of the administration," Hoyer reassured stunned observers, but Colbert "crossed the line" with many jokes that were "in bad taste."

Colbert needled Bush, often prompting only an expressionless stare from the president, who appeared not to be amused.

DailyKos asks if Steny Hoyer will be the Joe Lieberman of 2008? I.e., the next member of Congress for whom the blogs seek out a challenger and help fund him.

Americablog's John says: "This man used to be someone I respected, but over the past few years all he's been concerned about is his own ego and finding new and interesting ways he can screw over Nancy Pelosi at the expense of the Democratic party."

Yikes says: this is 'business-as-usual' for far too many Democrats. Colbert gives them a perfect opportunity to call-out mainstream media for its lack of accountability in reporting on the Bush administration. They could comment that it's too bad the comments came from a comedian instead of an investigative reporter. Instead, they wimp out and attack the messenger.

Steve Colbert in Washington at the White House correspondent dinner

Click to see Video

How to tell it's an election year?

Religious Right leaders and politicans start talking about same-sex marriage!

You can almost set you watch (or at least your calendar) for when it's time to cast your next vote based on when the nations religous right leaders -- both in the pulpit and in Congress -- start taking about the evils of 'same-sex' marriage.

The Religious News Service recently ran an article talking about the high-profile pair of James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Richard Land's (Southern Baptist Convention) campaign against "gay marriage."

In what can only be called their demonizing for dollars campaign, the pair warned followers that: "Traditional marriage is under attack from radical liberal groups and homosexual activists."

They went on to say: "We need your help defending the family -- and we implore you to involve your congregation, as well, in the battle to preserve the biblical definition of family in the face of these attacks." (Or at least the way they are defining marriage in the current Marriage Protection Act pending in Congress.)

But wait a minute? Just what is the "biblical definition" of marriage?

If one were to pass a Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles some argue it would have to include the following:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

What do you think?

Jon Stewart & The Daily Show Challenge Bush Administration to 'Be Honest'

from Jon Stewart, The Daily Show...
A compilation of material for public understanding and digestion or indigestion depending on your own particular viewpoint

JUST GOT TO BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF OR TELL ME WHO'S KID' N WHO!

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraq's is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights which means Attorney General Gonzalez can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it, we're likely to be stuck with "Bushit" forever.