U.S.Sargent: Honor American War Dead Same as Va Tech Students

If you read the article linked to in this entry's title, you can read about an American Army Sargent who wrote an opinion piece lamenting that America war dead aren't shown the same respect as the students at Virginia Tech. The following quotes are from the article:

In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades' deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the "shock factor" to be honored by the Stars and Stripes as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.

"I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member," Wilt wrote.

He noted that Bagram obeyed President Bush's order last week that all U.S. flags at federal locations be flown at half-staff through April 22 to honor 32 people killed at Virginia Tech by a 23-year-old student gunman who then killed himself.

The article goes on to note that while some states do lower the flag to half mast when a soldier from that state is killed, this practice is not uniform. The Sargent's point is well taken. Regardless of whether you agree with this war or not, those men and women who are serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan deserve our respect and deserve to have their sacrifice recognized by us.

The Hill Newspaper Reports Two Month Iraqi Funding Bill Likely

If you read the article that is linked to this entry's title you will learn that the Democratic Leadership in the House is thinking about presenting a two-month Iraq War funding bill after Bush vetoes the current legislation. Such a bill has several advantages for Democrats: It keeps the pressure on the administration; it forces Republicans who are vulnerable to a challenge next year to vote repeatedly on the Iraq War; it makes sure that Iraq dominates the national discussion; and it reinforces to Iraqis the need for some sort of political solution to their problems.

There are also down-sides to such a bill. Anti-war activists in the Democratic Party will be angered by what they may see as a sell-out by the Congressional Democrats. It puts Democratic incumbents from Republican leaning districts in a position of either angering potential voters or the activist base of the Democratic Party. All in all,though, it may be the best tactic following the expected Bush veto.

Democratic Divide: Economic Liberals vs Social Liberals

Since 1968 there has been a division in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party between what we call "economic liberals" whose main concerns are economic fairness and "social liberals" whose main concerns are social fairness. By economic fairness we mean issues such as increase in the minimum wage, universal health insurance, and barriers to union organization and representation. By social fairness we mean issues such as civil rights for minorities, gay rights, and freedom of reproductive choice. Now, we don't mean to imply that there people concerned with one aren't concerned with the other, but what we are talking about is emphasis, that is, which area progressives emphasize in their concerns.

This division became pronounced with the Vietnam War when a lot of labor organizations supported Lyndon B. Johnson's handling of the war and a lot of progressives became involved in the anti-war movement. People who had been allies in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed found themselves on the opposite side of a very bitter divide. That division led to a very narrow defeat of Humphrey by Nixon in 1968. It also led to conservatives using wedge issues such as gun control, civil rights, and abortion to divide Democrats. This divide helped Nixon overwhelm McGovern in 1976, and helped Reagan roll up two landslide victories in 1980 and 1984.

Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, have all used this division to get votes from blue-collar Democrats and win elections. By painting Democratic presidential candidates as being out of touch elitists who didn't represent the values of middle-class Americans, they could win elections. Of course, the irony is that once in office they adopted policies that decimated the power of unions and increased the power of the economic elites that bankrolled their campaigns, especially Reagan and George W. Bush.

Yesterday there were two excellent articles in newspapers that reflected these divisions. One was a news story in the Wall Street Journal on why Hillary Clinton is having trouble raising money in Silicon Valley and the other was an opinion column by Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times on why Obama is having trouble with union leaders. The Journal article is here and the Brownstein column is here . Both of these articles deal with the divide described above.

Clinton is trusted more by union leaders because she articulates their concerns and values better than Obama. Obama is trusted more by Silicon Valley leaders for the same reason. This division could lead to a Republican victory if the Republicans can nominate a candidate who can package himself as being more in the mainstream and the Democratic nominee as an elitist.

Of course, there are Democratic candidates who can bridge the divide. We saw it here in Ohio with the nomination and election of Sherrod Brown to the United States Senate. Sherrod was against the war from the outset and didn't hide that fact, but a lot of his message was about representing the middle class in Washington. The question becomes whether any candidate who supported the war resolution in 2002 and hasn't made amends for that vote can bridge the divide.

One thing that George W. Bush has done for Democrats is unite us against a common enemy, but it is up to Democrats to make sure we preserve that unity. If we stay united in 2008 we can win the presidential election and maintain our Congressional majorities. If we don't, we won't.

Psychology Today Article on Political Ideology & Personality

Okay, so we have all instinctly known that there are innate personality differences between liberals and conservatives, but it is nice to have proof. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will see an article that explores those differences. Conservatives respond more to threats that involve death and are more organized in their personal lives. Liberals like color and are messier. The article also explains why Republicans use ads that convey implied or explicit threats such as the ad that the Bush campaign ran in 2004 with the wolves or the ad that Reagan ran in 1984 with the bear lumbering through the woods. What the article also points out, though, is that research indicates that simply asking people to stop and analyze the information they are being given leads to a decrease in susceptibility to this kind of psychological manipulation.

Voinovich Votes in Favor of Bush's War Policy

George Voinovich, who claims that he is against escalation of the Iraqi War, just voted against ending a filibuster on the Warner Resolution. In short, he voted to make sure that there is not a vote on Bush's plan to escalate the war. Here is how the Washington Post explained the process:

At issue are four separate resolutions. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict, but it would also oppose a cut-off of funds for troops in the field of battle. The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.
Against those competing resolutions are two others replete with political mischief-making. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them before stating, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of fund." A second, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose the president's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other materiel.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.

McConnell said each of the resolutions should only come to a vote if it attains the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. The reason was simple. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.

Democratic leaders feared that a debate designed to put the Senate on record opposing President Bush's war plan could conclude with passage of a resolution opposing a cutoff of funds for that plan.

To keep the heat on Republicans, Senate Democratic leaders charged that their opponents were simply trying to stifle a debate on the most hotly contested issue of the day.
"If Republicans cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how are they going to stomach a real debate on Iraq?" asked Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).

Ohio voters should remember the way that George Voinovich is acting on the Warner Resolution. He says that he is against Bush's escalation but doesn't want to go on record saying so. This is not exactly Voinovich's Profile in Courage moment we are seeing here. What we are seeing is a Republican who is against Bush's war except when it counts.

Is Bush Protecting the Saudis?

On September 11, 2001, 21 terrorists killed over 3,000 Americans. Nineteen of those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osma bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. According to the article linked in this entry's title from December of 2006, Saudi Arabians are supplying money to Sunni fighters in Iraq, including money for anti-aircraft missiles that are portable. In the last month there has been a dramatic rise in the number of U.S. military and civilian helicopters that have been downed by insurgents. The Bush response? Blame the Iranians. Why? Because the Bush family and their fix-it man, James Baker, have long standing business ties withe the Saudis.

It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.

The Bush Economy: Great for those at the top

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an article about how Bush and Democrats look at the economy. To Republicans like Bush the economy is doing great. To Democrats like John Edwards, Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown, the economy is not doing well at all.

Why the difference? Because Bush looks at the economy from the perspective of a person born into the upper class in America. The stock market is doing well, unemployment seems to be going down, and new jobs are being created. Of course, millions have lost their jobs, house foreclosures are way up, millions don't have health insurance, the new jobs don't pay near what the lost jobs pay, but Bush doesn't see that because that is not his personal experience.

Edwards and Webb do see it. People like Sherrod Brown see it. This is because their personal experiences are different. They weren't born into the upper class. They have seen people struggle and know what it means to struggle financially. They can empathize with the working family that has seen its standard of living decline because of the loss of a good job, or a catastrophic illness not covered by insurance.

The problem with Republicans on economic issues is that they can't understand what they haven't experienced. Since a lot of them have never experienced economic difficulties, they just don't understand them. Democrats need to point this simple fact out to voters. When they do a lot of the media, whose executives also come from the upper class, won't like it. They will say that Democrats are practicing "class warfare." That's okay. Democrats should just keep on saying it. It doesn't matter what the media says, it matters what the voters say.

Newsweek Poll: 58% of Americans Wish Bush Presidency Was Over

According to a new Newsweek Poll, 58% of Americans wish this Presidency was "simply over." The poll breaks down to 86% of Democrats feeling that way, 59% of independents, and even 21% of Republicans. The number of Americans who think that Congress should be more assertive in challenging the Bush administration on the way is 64%. The number of Americans who are satisfied with the direction of the county is 30% while the number of Americans who think that the country is headed in the wrong direction is 61%. (The link in this entry's title takes you to the Newsweek story about the poll.)

The challenge for Democrats is to take the distrust of this administration on Iraq and drive home the point that the Bush administration is the natural result of a radical conservatism that is in control of the Republican Party. A conservatism that believes that government is the enemy and that America should go in alone in foreign affairs. A conservatism that brought us reckless tax cuts, the Iraq War, and no response to Hurricane Katrina. A conservatism that cares more for the rich than the middle class. A conservatism that wants to dismantle the government's safety net for the middle class as well as the poor.

Washington Post Shows Bush At Record Low

The Washington Post and ABC News released a poll showing that Bush's approval rating is at 33% while his disapproval rating is at 65%. It also shows that there is no issue on which they poll that his approval rating is above 50%. 71% of those polled think the country is on the wrong track, up 12% since 11/4/2006. Meanwhile 54% of those polled approve of the job that Nancy Pelosi is doing as Speaker of the House.

The poll also asked about preference among Democrats for President for 2008 and the results were as follows:
1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
John Kerry 8 7
Al Gore 10 10
Wesley Clark 1 1
Tom Vilsack * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Joe Biden 3 2
Chris Dodd * *
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Mike Gravel * NA
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
No opinion 3 4

The poll also showed Clinton beating either McCain or Guiliani in head to head trial heats, with Clinton polling 49% to 47% against Guiliani and 50% to 45% against McCain. Obama polls stronger than McCain at 47% to 45% but is trailing Guiliani by 45% to 49%. What is interesting is that McCain's attempt to get closer to Bush by supporting him on the war is driving his popularity down with the public at large. Smart move, John.

Revolt of the Kool-Aid Drinkers

GOP Senators, especially those who are up for re-election in 2008, are signing on to a resolution being drafted by Sen. John Warner, R-VA, which will put them on record as opposing the escalation of troops being implemented by Bush. GOP Senators who are now on record as opposing Bush's escalation include Hagel of Nebraska, Snowe of Maine, Coleman of Minn, Collins of Maine, Warner of Virginia, and Smith of Oregon. (You can read the Washington Post article about Warner's resolution by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)

This means that Republican members of Congress, who have marched in lockstep with Bubble-Boy while he took them over the proverbial cliff, are beginning to see that the Republican Party could sustain even more losses in 2008 unless it begins to distance itself from the Bushies. Of course, we have to wonder if they hadn't lost control of Congress whether they would be seeing the light, but, maybe we are just being cynical.

Over 700 American Civilians Have Died in Iraq

When we talk about American deaths in Iraq, we almost always talk about military deaths. This past week a family in Ohio lost their daughter in Iraq. She was working for an organization headed by former American Secretary of State Albright that promotes democracy. She was killed along with three other workers from that organization. By clicking on this entry's title you can read an article about an American family that lost a son in Iraq who was a civilian contractor. That article mentions that over 700 American civilian contractors have died in Iraq and over 3000 have been wounded. (Those figures are based on insurance claims that have been filed with the U.S. Defense Department.)

If you add in those causalities, then close to 30,000 Americans have been killed or wounded in Iraq. Most of these deaths have come after Bush had his "Mission Accomplished" photo-op opportunity back in May of 2003. Which, of course, brings up the question: Mr. President, if the mission was accomplished, then why are we still losing Americans in Iraq?

Long Wait for Bush's New Way Forward a Mistake

Interesting article from the Washington Post about how the long delay in announcing Bush's plan from the release of the Iraq Study Group Report has hurt Bush's political support. The article also contains a short but significant sentence about how Democrats have offered several alternatives to Bush's plan. The fact that the writer decided to mention the fact that Democrats have offered alternatives is significant because it shows that the media is no longer accepting Bush's spin on events. Bush is going to have a difficult final two years in Washington getting anything done if Republicans keep bailing on him and the media doesn't cover for him. Of course, his problem is a nation's hope. (The WP article is linked to this entry's title.)

Bogus GOP Outrage over Boxer's Comments to Rice

Okay, so the Republicans thought about it overnight and realized that Sen. Barbara Boxer handed Secretary of State Rice her lunch on Thursday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This happened when Boxer pointed out to Rice that neither she nor Boxer had family members in harm's way in Iraq. Boxer doesn't because her children are too old and her grandchildren too young. Rice doesn't because no one from her immediate family serves in the U.S. Armed Forces. Boxer's point was that Rice like most of the Bushies don't have any family members who are sacrificing by being in Iraq.

Now, the Bushies understand this point. Even they aren't that stupid. They don't want people dwelling on this because people might begin to wonder why the Bush twins aren't over in Iraq helping to advance Daddy's noble crusade. So, they did what they normally do, they attacked Boxer for supposedly being against single women, being anti-feminist, (that came courtesy of Tony Snow and the New York Post) and being anti-black (That last one was courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.)

Now, we all know this is a crock. Tony Snow and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers who are still loyal to Bubble-Boy could care less about feminists. Rush could care less about black people. This is just some bs to try and distract attention from the point Boxer was making. For the Bushies sacrifice is for the other guy.

Bush Doesn't Ask for Tax Increase for War

According to the Bloomberg Reports, George W. Bush, aka Bubble-Boy, is the first president in 150 years not to seek a tax increase to finance a war.(You can read the whole Bloomberg article by clicking on this entry's title.) This is going back to the Mexican-American war in the 1840s. All other presidents were smart enough to realize that you can't fight a war without a tax increase unless you are willing to go into debt. Now, the Republicans will try to argue that the national debt is going down. This is because the national debt doesn't count intra-governmental debt, ie, what the American government borrows from the Social Security trust fund to finance the government.

If Democrats wanted to go after Bush on the deficit, the first step would be to resurrect the lockbox concept that Al Gore talked about in 2000. This means passing a law that prohibits Social Security and Medicare funds from being used for anything other than those two programs. The immediate effect of this would be to illustrate how bad off the government finances are and to force reality into the debate about our government's spending and tax policies. It would also put the Bush administration into a real bind. They couldn't support such a move and opposing it would be politically unpopular. It would also reinforce the Democratic Congress's reputation as a defender of these two very popular programs.

Newsweek's Fineman Sees Fear in Bush's Eyes During Iraq Speech

Howard Fineman has a well deserved reputation in Washington as being an exceptional purveyor of conventional wisdom. His reputation doesn't depend on original thinking or on pungent analysis. It depends on his ability to figure out what the conventional wisdom is among the Washington elite and then report on it. So, when he writes that he sees fear in Bush's eyes, it is significant. Not because it is true, although it may very well be true, but because this may become the conventional wisdom of the Beltway elite.

If you click on the link in this entry's title and read the article another fact jumps out at you. He apparently believes that one thing that drives Bush is his fear of being branded a "loser." Not that over 3,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that our reputation around the world has been totally trashed or that we have lost the moral high ground that we had after the attacks on September 11, 2001. No, according to Fineman what Bush is afraid of it being branded a "loser."

This brings up the problem with George W. Bush and indeed the whole Bush clan. They are in government not to serve the public, but to satisfy their egos. It is not about us, it is about them. It is not about solving America's problems, but about filling their need for public adulation. As far as we can tell, the history of the Bush family in politics is a history of self-gratification.

New American Troops Going to Iraq Without Better Humvees

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that new troops bound for Iraq will be arriving without the more armored transports that are supposedly being made for the Pentagon. So let's see if we have this right: initially Bubble-Boy doesn't send enough troops to do the job. Then he doesn't have body armor for the ones that he sent over. Not only doesn't he have enough body armor, but he also doesn't have appropriately armored transport vehicles. When all this is pointed out to the Pentagon, it promises to develop a better transport vehicle, only its not ready in time to be used by the troops that are being sent as BB escalates the war. If the consequences weren't so terrible for our troops, this would almost sound like a bad joke. (You can read the Sun article by clicking on the title of this entry.)

Gallup Poll Finds Big Majority Opposes Iraq War Escalation

The Gallup organization ran a pre-Bush speech (scheduled for Wednesday) poll on the issue of escalating the Iraqi War and found that a big majority opposes such escalation. (You can get the details by clicking on this entry's title. ) Gallup believes that support for the Bush's plan may increase after he gives the speech, but initially over 60% of the public is opposed to increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

Note that we are avoiding using the term "surge" to describe the planned troop increase. The word "surge" implies a short-term increase in troops, but there is nothing in this administration's recent history to give us confidence that the troop increase will be short-term, no matter what Bush says or doesn't say Wednesday night. We also think that the media is playing into Bush's hands when they allow him and his supporters to decide what language is going to be used to describe their actions.

One of the ways that Bush controls the media is by getting it to accept his language. His supporters use a label and if the media doesn't accept that label, it is accused of "bias" or more specifically, "liberal bias." Apparently the charge of "liberal bias" is so intimidating that grown men and women feel that they have no choice but to give in to the demands of Bush and his radical right-wing supporters.

Here is a news flash for the media: you get to decide what language to use to describe Bush's actions. That's part of your job. You are more than just stenographers blindly reporting what Bush and his supporters say.

Hunters Pressuring NRA to Break With Bush Administration on Access to Public Lands

According to an article in the Washington Post, (which you can link to by clicking on this entry's title). hunters inside the National Rifle Association are pressuring the NRA to resist the Bush Administration's efforts to open Federal lands to development. Why? Because such development destroys hunting habitats. The Clinton Administration proposed and adopted a regulation during the 1990s that allowed hunters to walk in and ride horses into Federal lands, but prohibited the building of roads on such lands. At first both hunters and wildlife officials resisted such regulations, but now, after watching the Bushies turn over the Federal lands to mining and drilling interests, are beginning to support such regulations.

Is Bush Losing Utah?

According to a poll by the Salt Lake City Tribune only 42% of Utah residents support Bush's handling of the war. Only 44% support a escalation of the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Just six months ago support for Bush on Iraq was over 50% in Utah. If Bubble-Boy is losing Utah, the GOP is in BIG trouble. _____________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read the Tribune story about the poll.

Bush to Blame General George Casey for Iraq Problems?

The New York Times published a report that Bush has supposedly lost confidence in General Casey, the head of the American military in Iraq, and is going to replace him as the top commander. The article, which can be read by clicking on the arrow next to the title of this entry, quotes unnamed administration sources as saying that Bush lost confidence in Casey over the last year. Never mind, of course, that Bush and Cheney kept singing Casey's praises in 2006, someone has to take the fall for Bubble-Boy's screw-ups, and Casey's name has come up.

The attempt to blame Casey for the mistakes of the Iraq War brings this question to mind: is there anyone involved with George W. Bush who has not suffered a loss to their reputation? Think about it. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, even Dick Cheney, to name just a few, have all suffered damage to their reputations. The United States Supreme Court has seen its reputation decline since it put him in office with the dubious reasoning of Bush v. Gore. The American people have suffered an enormous blow to its reputation because of the Iraqi War. Bubble-Boy trashes the reputation of everyone involved with him.