Just Think What All That Iraq Money Could've Bought

This is sad:

A pipeline shuts down in Alaska. Equipment failures disrupt air travel in Los Angeles. Electricity runs short at a spy agency in Maryland.

None of these recent events resulted from a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but they may as well have, some homeland security experts say. They worry that too little attention is paid to how fast the country's basic operating systems are deteriorating.

"When I see events like these, I become concerned that we've lost focus on the core operational functionality of the nation's infrastructure and are becoming a fragile nation, which is just as bad — if not worse — as being an insecure nation," said Christian Beckner, a Washington analyst who runs the respected Web site Homeland Security Watch (www.christianbeckner.com).

The American Society of Civil Engineers last year graded the nation "D" for its overall infrastructure conditions, estimating that it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to fix the problem.

"I thought [Hurricane] Katrina was a hell of a wake-up call, but people are missing the alarm," said Casey Dinges, the society's managing director of external affairs.

I'm taking a week or so off from blogging, so see you after Labor Day. But before I sign off, here is a great quote from Political Wire:

"From privatizing Social Security to drunk driving it becomes clearer every day that Mike McGavick and George Bush are cut from the same cloth."

-- Washington Democratic party spokesman Kelly Steele, quoted by the Seattle Times, on U.S. Senate candidate Mike MCGavick's (R) disclosure of a DUI arrest in 1993.

I'm Tired Of All This Bullshit

Once again, The Daily Show pretty much nails it.

I Can't Get Enough Of This Story

George Allen has gotten himself into a fine mess:

A SurveyUSA poll suggests Sen. George Allen (R-VA) "Macaca" mess may make it more difficult for him to retain his job.

The poll found that Allen's lead over Democrat Jim Webb is down to 48-45. Earlier polls had Allen up by 19 points.

The new poll follows a difficult few days for Allen, who insulted a man of Indian descent who was tracking the Republican's re-election campaign for challenger Webb. Allen either called the man, S.R. Siddarth, a "macaca" -- a slur that literally means "a monkey,' but also can mean "shithead" -- or Macaque, a French slur used to describe North Africans. (Allen is of French Tunisian descent.)

There is an old saying in the law that if you are winning, then keep your mouth shut. Allen, who is an attorney, must have forgotten it.

Bad News For The GOP

Republicans are hoping that their attempt to equate the War In Iraq with the War On Terror will pay off big for them in the Mid-Terms (i.e., they'll be able to retain control of the House). So this poll must be giving them fits:

Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The finding that 51 percent of those surveyed see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort was a jump of 10 percentage points since June. It came despite the regular insistence of Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans that the two are intertwined and should be seen as complementary elements of an overall strategy to prevent domestic terror attacks.

Should the trend hold, the increased skepticism could present a political obstacle for Mr. Bush and his allies on Capitol Hill, who are making their record on terrorism a central element of the midterm election campaign. The Republicans hope the public’s desire for forceful action against terrorists will offset unease with the Iraq war and blunt the political appeal of Democratic calls to establish a timeline to withdraw American troops.

Public sentiment about the war remains negative, threatening to erode a Republican advantage on national security. Fifty-three percent of those polled said that going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July; 62 percent said events were going “somewhat or very badly” in the attempt to bring order and stability to Iraq.

Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the GOP, and Bush didn't help matters much the other day when he made this admission:

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center.

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing!! [...] Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Maybe someone in the White House should tell our troops about Bush's statement. After all, 85% of our troops in Iraq believe that we went into Iraq "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks." At least that what the troops thought last February.

This Is Pretty Sick

From the AP:

Troy Lee Gentry, of the country singing duo Montgomery Gentry, has been accused of killing a tame black bear that federal officials say he tagged as killed in the wild.

Gentry, 39, of Franklin, Tenn., and Lee Marvin Greenly, 46, of Sandstone, appeared Tuesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson in connection with a sealed indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Minneapolis.

Authorities allege that Gentry purchased the bear from Greenly, a wildlife photographer and hunting guide, then killed it with a bow and arrow in an enclosed pen on Greenly's property in October 2004.

The government alleges that Gentry and Greenly tagged the bear with a Minnesota hunting license and registered the animal with the state Department of Natural Resources as a wild kill.

Gentry allegedly paid about $4,650 for the bear, named Cubby. The bear's death was videotaped, and the tape later edited so Gentry appeared to shoot the animal in a "fair chase" hunting situation, the government alleges.

If convicted, both Gentry and Greenly face a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison and a $20,000 fine.

BushCo Scare Tactics Aren't Working This Time

From U.S. News:

White House strategists are disappointed that the arrest of alleged terrorist plotters in the United Kingdom hasn't increased President Bush's job-approval ratings very much.

The expectation was that Bush might benefit from the highly publicized arrests as evidence that his tough approach to fighting terrorism, in conjunction with U.S. allies, was paying off.

But polls so far show that while Bush is benefiting from the perception that he is a strong leader in fighting terrorism, it hasn't resulted in higher approval rates for his overall job performance. "We need a sustained period of good news to boost the numbers," says a key Republican strategist.

I can certainly understand why the Bush Regime's strategist are disappointed. After all, they spent a lot of effort putting pressure on Britain to speed things along on its terror investigation so that Bush could use the arrests to scare Americans. I know I've said this before, but wouldn't it be great if BushCo spent the same amount of effort actually going after terrorists as it spends trying to politicize the War On Terror?

But I think one of the reasons Bush isn't able to scare his way into higher approval ratings is because the Corporate Media are finally starting to report BushCo's "Scare The Hell Out Of America" tactic as a story in itself.

Back in 2002 and 2004, the Mainstream Media simply aided and abetted Bush on all this crap. Now networks like CNN are showing America the "man behind the curtain" so to speak and are actually running pieces on how Bush has used fear in the past and continues to use it now as a political tool. I'm encouraged by this type of reporting.

Zogby: Bush Approval Rating Falls To 34%

From Political Wire:

President Bush's approval rating dipped two points in the last three weeks -- to 34% -- "despite the foiling of an airline terror plot and the adoption of a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon," a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

Just one third of respondents -- 34% -- said that "the nation is headed in the right direction, while 59% said they think things are off on the wrong track."

Key finding: "The numbers continue to reflect erosion in the President’s political base -- just 62% of Republicans give him positive marks for his job performance, while 38% give him negative marks."

A mere 62% approval rating amongst Republicans. No wonder the GOP is really pushing their bullshit "Democrats Love Terrorists" line. They are in full catastrophe-avoidance mode, and I guess they figure that their base will respond to such a political ploy.

Remember: the Republicans don't have to win these upcoming mid-terms -- they simply need to get close enough to steal some of them. But this might be pretty hard to do if we keep getting news like this during the run-up to the elections:

More Iraqi civilians appear to have been killed in July than in any other month of the war, according to national and morgue statistics, suggesting that the much-vaunted Baghdad security plan started in June by the new government had failed.

An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed per day in July, according to figures from Iraq's Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue. At least 3,438 civilians died violently that month, a 9 percent increase over the total in June and nearly twice as many as in January.

The rising numbers indicate that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control, and reinforce an assertion that many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have been making in recent months - that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, with the U.S.-led forces caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.

In fact, it is so bad in Iraq right now that the Bush Regime has abandoned its "stay the course" mantra and is now pushing "win by adapting." Good luck with that.

Is Pluto A Planet?

This may not be as important as the question asked in the last post, but the issue has been getting a lot of coverage lately. From The Washington Post:

Hoping to end the agonizing over whether Pluto is really a planet, an international committee of astronomers has come up with a new definition that would save the tiny body's place in the sun's family.

Under the long-awaited proposal, Pluto would remain in the pantheon of planets by becoming the prototype of a new subcategory of small, outer solar system objects dubbed "plutons" -- planets, but distinct from the eight larger "classical" planets closer to the sun.Recent discoveries of objects in the outer reaches of our solar system have called into question what should and should not be considered a "planet." After two years of deliberations by the world's astronomical community, a committee of seven astronomers, writers and historians is proposing a new definition of the word "planet," and a newly defined planet category, "pluton," to the International Astronomical Union (IAU).

The changes would require astronomy textbooks to be rewritten and every schoolchild to be taught a new vision of the solar system, because three other orbs would get promoted to planet status, as well -- expanding the total from the traditional nine to 12.

I don't like this solution, because astronomers are bound to find dozens of these "plutons" in the coming years as our ability to see deeper into space increases, which would mean that all these new bodies would have to be called planets.

I think the best thing to do is just keep calling Pluto a planet, and -- unless some huge, dark gas giant is found orbiting the sun way beyond Pluto -- keep the number of planets at nine.

At left is a photo of Pluto with its moon Charon. Under the new proposal, Charon would also be considered a planet, and that just ain't right.

Is Bush An Idiot?

That's a trick question, right? I mean, the answer seems so obvious. Just look at the picture on the left. The guy is truly an idiot.

But that was the question being debated on MSNBC yesterday. I'm not sure which side prevailed, but the mere fact that the issue is being debated should be embarrassing to all Americans.


Here are some highlights:

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund admitted that President Bush may be "inarticulate" but that didn't necessarily mean that he was "stupid."

"Voltaire once said that common sense is both rare and a lot more important to successful leadership than intelligence," said Fund. "And I agree."

The segment included a clip from Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart which focused on Bush's joint press conference with Germany Chancellor Merkel during his recent visit. Bush repeatedly joked about the feast planned in his honor which featured pig as the main course, even when asked about the war in Lebanon which had just recently erupted at the time.

Political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell said that Bush was "possibly" the easiest president to make fun of, and that he didn't understand how anyone could defend him as being especially smart, unless they worked "very closely with him," since he hardly ever displays a "public exhibition of a dazzling intelligence."

"It's almost like the more he stumbles over his tongue, the more he realizes that he may be overmatched by the English language," said former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough.

"It seems like he's losing confidence by the day," Scarborough added.

With regard to The Daily Show, it looks like Rob Corddry will be leaving the show soon to star in this series.

I'm Embarrrassed To Be From The Same Country As This Person

From The Chattanoogan:

Conservative political activist June Griffin has been arrested for the theft of a Mexican flag from a Dayton business.

The 67-year-old Ms. Griffin, who ran for Congress in the recent election, is facing misdemeanor charges of theft, vandalism and harassment and felony charges of civil rights violations. Ms. Griffin, who said it is the first time she has ever been arrested, posted a $5,000 bond.

She said on July 18 she had noticed a small Mexican flag at an Hispanic grocery in the former Rogers Drug Store. She stated, "I went in and there was nothing English in the store. There was one man who could not speak a word of English." She said she was outraged about the Mexican flag, saying it was an "act of war" and it "insulted my citizenship."

Ms. Griffin said as the Hispanic man watched, she tore off the flag from where it was suctioned to the building and left with it. She said, "Foreigners should learn English or leave."

Ms. Griffin, who said she will represent herself in court, said it was done openly and was not a theft. She said she later returned the Mexican flag to a police officer. She said a much larger Mexican flag was later put in its place, but she said it is no longer there.

She said she had been to local governments trying without success to get them to ban all but American flags. Ms. Griffin said the operator of the Days Inn at Dayton "flew a British flag on of all days July 4." She said she went to him to protest the British flag. She said afterwards "the British flag was torn up in a storm, but the Tennessee and American flag were spared. I took it to be an act of God."

She denied being guilty of vandalism, denying that she damaged a hinge when she took the flag. She also said she was not harrassing when she called the grocery owners to ask them to take down the larger flag.

She is due in court on Friday for arraignment.

Her sentence should include 40 hours of community service within the Hispanic Community (and, of course, mental health counseling).





By the way, that's her on the left. I wonder if she shares a tailor with our president?

BushCo Creates Its Own Reality Again

In the least surprising news story of the year, it turns out that the United States pressured the British to speed things along in the recent liquid-bomb terror investigation (from NBC via TPM Muckraker):

NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports. The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.

At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.

I'm not the least bit surprised that the White House has denied this. After all, the GOP is really pushing its "Democrats Love Terrorists" agenda right now, so it certainly wouldn't be in BushCo's interest to admit that it interfered with yet another overseas terror investigation. I mean, they wouldn't want it to look like they were once again aiding and abetting terrorists now, would they?

Who could forget (well, that's a dumb statement -- everybody forgot, because it was the most underreported story of 2004) when the Bush Administration raised the terror alert just after the 2004 Democratic Convention, and in doing so, seriously disrupted a British terror investigation:

The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said. * * *

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's role quiet.

"You always want to know the evidence," said Sen. George Allen.

"In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us.'"

In other words, someone in the Bush Administration commited treason merely to score some political points in the days after the Democratic Convention. Khan, unfortunately, also had a connection to the cell that carried out the London Bombings a year later, so who knows what an uninterrupted investigation might have yielded.

Of course, that wasn't the first time that the Bush Regime put the security of America at risk in order to score political points. The outing of Valerie Plame and decision to invade Iraq -- a decision that most Americans now think hurt U.S. security -- are other examples of this.

And it looks like they pulled the same kind of crap with regard to recent British investigation on the liquid bomb plot. I expect, however, that this story will be buried as well because it demonstrates, more than anything else, that the Lieberman defeat has shaken up the G.O.P. to such an extent that the Bush Administration, in order to counter it, was willing to jeopardize the security of the country.

The Democrats should make it their business to inform as many Americans as possible about this latest betrayal of our national security, but they probably won't.

The Daily Show At Its Best

It doesn't get much better than this.

Well, So Much For Bush's "Stabilized" Poll Numbers

Thirty-three percent:

Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend - growing opposition to President Bush.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections - 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.

Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters - 57 percent - disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

"The signs now point to the most likely outcome of Democrats gaining control of the House," said Robert Erikson, a Columbia University political science professor.

Maybe the recent terror threat will scare voters into putting Bush back up to 40%, but I have a feeling that it won't. There's too much water under the bridge.

OK -- Now What?

There's an interesting debate going on right now with regard to what Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primary really means. I think Josh Marshall's Time.Com piece lays it out pretty well:

Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there's something different. It's not just that he wouldn't wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won't. It's more than that. He's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It's almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?

Interestingly, TIME also posted this piece -- I guess in order to be fair and balanced -- which discusses why the Republicans are actually loving the fact that Lieberman lost (thanks for the link, Saturday Night Dan).

Nice try, GOP, but you guys are in big trouble and you know it. The Republicans are scared shitless when it comes to Iraq, and if you don't believe me, then maybe this will convince you (from the most recent issue of Washington Monthly):

Amid the highly charged political infighting in Washington over what to do in Iraq, you might be excused for not noticing that a bipartisan commission quietly started work last spring with a mandate to help the Bush administration rethink its policy toward the war. Of course, anything labeled "bipartisan commission" seems almost guaranteed to be ignored by a highly partisan White House that is notoriously hostile to outside advice and famously devoted to "staying the course."

But what makes this particular commission hard to dismiss is that it is led by perhaps the one man who might be able to break through the tight phalanx of senior officials who advise the president and filter his information. That person is the former secretary of state, Republican insider, and consigliere of the Bush family, James A. Baker III.

Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in--or, perhaps, to get the hell out of--Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there's a deeper political agenda at work as well. "Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home -- that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics," a member of one of the commission's working groups told me.

Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. "I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they've called in Baker to try to reroute the train."

Definitely read the entire article. It's a good one. I loved the part near the end which quoted one of the working group's participants as saying that "[t]he object of our policy has to be to get our little white asses out of [Iraq] as soon as possible," and that in order to do that, Baker must confront the president "like the way a family confronts an alcoholic. You bring everyone in, and you say, 'Look, my friend, it's time to change.'"

As noted above, some pundits are claiming that "Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam." Actually, it looks like it is the Republicans who are -- or soon will be -- tearing themselves apart. Indeed, just last Sunday, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel -- whom I really doubt is a leftist terrorist-loving, America-hating security weakling -- broke ranks with the bulk of his party, called the Iraq Debacle a "hopeless, winless situation," and in essence called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

How should the Democrats respond to all of this? Well, Wes Clark has the answer. I really liked what Clark had to say yesterday with regard to Lieberman specifically and Democratic strategy on Iraq generally. In fact, Clark has come up with a great national security theme for the Democrats to use in the run-up to the Mid-Terms:

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Perfect.

The Kiss Of Death, Part II

Both the Bush Regime and the Lieberman Camp are denying that this happened, which only convinces me that it must have happened (from ABC's World Newser blog):

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of "the kiss" at last year's State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn't looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.

The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.

And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility.

This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support -- some votes from loyal Republicans -- without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite "thanks but no thanks" to the White House offer.

Obviously, the Lamont Campaign should immediately go on the offensive and start running ads with this Rove/Lieberman connection as its centerpiece. The ad should simply state that World Newser blog at ABC reported that Karl Rove reached out to Lieberman after his defeat in the primary and offered whatever assistance Bush could give him. The commercial should then feature an image of Bush as a puppetmaster making his little Lieberman puppet dance.

The GOP and the Lieberman campaign would, of course, be outraged, would once again deny that such a contact took place, and would probably even threaten to sue, meaning that the ad would received lots of free air time on CNN and FauxNews.

In other words, it would put Lieberman and the GOP on the defensive, and that's exactly where they need to be during the entire run-up to November's mid-term. If Lieberman and the GOP attack Lamont -- which they will certainly do if Tony Snow's comments today regarding the "extreme left" of the Democratic Party are any indication -- then Lamont should simply respond with a the most vicious counterattack possible and continue attacking all the way to November 7.

Hillary And The Radical Right: Massaging The Kobe Beef

I love watching FauxNews just after something terrible happens to the GOP, and let's face it -- Lamont's victory over Lieberman last night was the worst thing to happen to the Republicans in quite a while. Lieberman's humiliating defeat has made it clear to everyone that Iraq will be the dominant issue in the run-up to the Mid-Terms, and this really must be scaring the hell out of the Republicans who blindly followed Bush into that particular catastrophe.

Well, one of the things that FoxNews was talking about this morning was whether Lamont's victory will affect Hillary Clinton's campaign for president. One Fox anchorwoman seems genuinely upset at the prospect that Hillary may have to switch gears and start acting like "some of the more leftist elements of her party" (or something like that). The pundit with whom this anchorwoman was sharing screen time assured her that Hillary would not go down this path, and you could see the great relief on the anchorwoman's face upon hearing that particular prediction.

I couldn't help but laugh. Just a few years ago, Hillary was the Princess of Freaking Darkness for Fox News and other members of the Extreme Right. Man, how times have changed. Even FoxNews owner Rupert Murdoch is now hosting fundraisers for Hillary.

Of course, Murdoch and all the other radical right wing extremists want Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in 2008, because they know they can beat her. This is because she initially supported the Iraq War, which means that the GOP could easily accuse Hillary of flip-flopping on Iraq, just like they did with Kerry and Edwards in 2004.

The last thing the GOP wants to see is the Democrats nominate someone who consistently opposed the Iraq Invasion, because they know that the Iraq Debacle will be the number one campaign issue in 2008 and such a nominee would be able to attack his GOP opponent at will on that issue. All the GOP would be able to do in response is precisely what they were tried to do with Lamont, namely, brand such a candidate as an American-hating, terrorist-loving leftist who is weak on national security.

Well, as we found out last night, such a strategy won't work, because voters are fed up with how this country has been handling its foreign policy and are more than happy to take their frustration into the voting booths and punish those politicians who made the mistake of blindly supporting George Bush. They are so fed up, in fact, that even a three-term senator and former democratic vice-presidiential candidate couldn't get re-elected and was essentially forced to abandon the Democratic Party.

The Big Day Is Finally Here

A lot is riding on what happens today in the Connecticut Democratic primary. If Lamont beats Lieberman by a wide margin, then Lieberman's political career is probably over and the GOP will be running scared. If Lamont squeaks one out, then the GOP will still be running scared, but Lieberman will probably run as an independent. If Lieberman wins, then the GOP will declare victory and perhaps might even get some momentum going into the Mid-Terms.

But as I'm reading about all of this, it struck me that, regardless of what happens to Lieberman, the Democrats couldn't ask for a better climate in which to run. Although GOP candidates will undoubtedly be focusing on national security issues as the Mid-Terms approach, a recent Washington Post poll shows that the country as a whole is not all that impressed with how Bush has been handling the security of our country (from Think Progress):

Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of every major national security issue facing the country, a new Washington Post/ABC poll shows. 50 percent disapprove of his handling of terrorism (vs. 47 percent approval), 50 percent disapprove of his handling of the Israel-Lebanon situation (vs. 43 percent approval), and 62 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq (vs. 36 percent approval).

The GOP might get some help if the Israeli-Lebanon thing quiets down, but everything indicates that the situation in Iraq will only get worse. Indeed, a resolution of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict may actually hurt Bush and the GOP, because it would force the Corporate Media to once again focus on the Iraq Debacle, which will undoubtedly be the number one issue in the run-up to the Mid-Terms.

Add to this (1) the fact that gas prices will be going up in the next few weeks because of the BP screw-up, and (2) Tom DeLay will still be on the ballot in Texas (and therefore will once again be a living symbol of GOP corruption), you have a perfect situation for the Democrats. If the Dems don't re-take at least one branch of Congress in November, then they should all just hang it up because chances like these don't come around all that often.

UPDATE: From David Sirota:

[T[he fact that Ned Lamont and the progressive movement have mounted such a serious challenge to an entrenched incumbent with such a massive corporate-backed warchest is a HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT. In the course of just a few months, a guy who has never run for office took on one of the most well-funded, insulated politicians in America, who used all of his clout and cashed in all of his favors to get other Big Time members of the Establishment to help him. If Ned gets within 15 points of Lieberman, it is a display of real strength, and it is a major step forward in our movement.

George Bush And PNAC Suffered From Similar Hallucinations RE: Iraq

From the Houston Chronicle:

After a long day searching homes in suffocating Iraqi heat, Lance Cpl. Mike Young saw a most surprising source of relief - a sprawling Wal-Mart had appeared in the distance.

"No joke - looking through the haze I thought I saw a Wal-Mart. I said to myself, 'I bet they got some cold water in there,'" Young said, recalling a mission last year in a rural area west of Baghdad.

He contemplated running over to fetch water for fellow Marines who were "staggering like dead men." Three of them had collapsed in the heat.

Young soon stirred from his heat-induced hallucination and returned to the struggle of enduring summertime in Iraq.

Daytime temperatures in the Iraqi summer usually range from a low of about 105 degrees Fahrenheit to about 125. Though most bases have added air conditioning, grunts must still venture out to man their posts or patrol steaming streets under an unrelenting sun.

"It's been hotter and hotter than I ever thought I'd be in my life," said Cpl. Eduardo Warren, 20, of Turner, Maine, sweating even as he left for a night mission. "We still get it done."

Besides making conditions miserable for troops, the heat also changes the war itself. Marines in some areas say they patrol less during the hottest hours because fewer insurgents also venture out, creating a siesta cease-fire. But temperatures at night can hover over 100 degrees.

Right-Winger Barnes Admits That Bush Hating Has Gone Mainstream

One of the accusations that members of the Radical Right would often direct toward Bush opponents is, "Well, you're just saying that because you hate Bush." In other words, they would somehow try to attack Bush haters for . . . hating George W. Bush.

I never really understood that particular strategy. Perhaps my hatred was blinding me from the genius of such a line of attack.

Well, things sure have changed. In fact, so many people currently despise Bush that the GOP can no longer use hatred for our Deserter-In-Chief as an anti-liberal talking point. From the Stamford Advocate:

"Hating the war and hating Bush have become everyday emotions, and [Lamont] represents them a lot better than Joe Lieberman does," said Fred Barnes, executive editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and co-host of the Fox News Channel show "The Beltway Boys."

I love that quote. It not only points out that hating Bush is now as American as apple pie, but it also shows that Fred Barnes and other members of the Extreme Right just don't get it when it comes to Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman isn't in trouble simply because he supported the Iraq War. Hell, lots of Democrats supported the Iraq Debacle. No, Lieberman is in trouble because he was among BushCo's loudest cheerleaders on that issue.

Indeed, at the last State of the Union address, Lieberman was the first member of Congress -- not merely the first Democrat, but the first member of Congress -- to rise to his feet and applaud Bush's statement about staying the course in Iraq. When you pull crap like that, you should expect that you might piss off a few people.

Something tells me, however, that Lieberman will nonetheless pull off a win in tomorrow's Connecticut primary. It'll be close, but I think he'll do it. Sure, I know the polls are showing a big Lamont lead, but the actual exit polling in the 2004 election showed Kerry won the presidency by a large margin, so forgive me if I don't have much faith in polls anymore.

V For Vendetta

I saw V For Vendetta when it first came out in the theater and liked it. Danimal saw it twice on the big screen, and said it was even better the second time.

I just watched the DVD (which was released last Tuesday), and I have to agree with Dan -- the movie was better the second time. I caught a lot more on the second viewing, undoubtedly because we had the English subtitles going as we watched it (something I really recommend doing with this movie).

Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving are great in this film. I checked the Internet Movie Database website, and the users of that particular site rated V For Vendetta in the Top 250 movies of all time (it came in at number 148). The Wachowski Brothers wrote the film, and they really made up for the abomination they put out in 2003 (namely, Matrix Revolutions).

Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, I recommend that you do.

I Think Hell Just Froze Over

From MSNBC:

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.

“We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels,” Robertson said on his “700 Club” broadcast. “It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.”

This week the heat index, the perceived temperature based on both air temperatures and humidity, reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was “the most convincing evidence I’ve seen on global warming in a long time.”

And, by the way, this is very encouraging (thanks for the link, Nick). I have no doubt that there are a lot of Republicans all over the country who feel exactly the same way. Enough is enough.

Bill Decreasing Federal Estate Tax Dies

From the New York Times:

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked legislation tying the first minimum wage increase in almost a decade to a decrease in the federal estate tax, denying Republicans a legislative victory as lawmakers head into a crucial month of campaigning before the November elections. Republican backers of the measure, dubbed the trifecta for its three chief elements, fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. Democrats had argued that it was a bad bargain to exchange a $2.10 wage increase for struggling workers for a costly tax cut for the country’s wealthiest families.

“This trifecta is a high-stakes gamble with America’s future,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat. “This is the worst special-interest bill I have seen in my time in Congress.”

Scrambling to complete its business and join the House in an August recess, the Senate also approved and sent to the president a major overhaul of pension law as Republicans sought to record some last-minute accomplishments.

But the failure of the bill linking the wage increase and the tax cut was a significant defeat for Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader entering his last months in the post. Mr. Frist had hoped to steer the measure through the Senate, partly with the help of an accompanying series of tax incentives and federal aid to woo lawmakers.

Maybe Frist should reconsider his decision to run in 2008. The last thing this country needs is another incompetent president.

Another Humiliating Defeat For Tom DeLay And The GOP

This is fun:

A federal appeals court panel today in a bipartisan order ruled that former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay cannot be replaced on the November ballot for the congressional seat he vacated in June.

The Republican Party said it will quickly file an appeal, but if it loses, DeLay will have to decide whether to actively campaign for office. He has hinted that he might.

Texas Republican Chair Tina Benkiser had ruled DeLay was ineligible to serve because he had moved to Virginia, opening the door for Republicans to replace him on the ballot.

The Texas Democratic Party sued, saying it was a subterfuge and that he had not really moved to Virginia.

The three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found in the Democrats' favor and upheld an injunction preventing the Republicans from replacing DeLay. The panel said the U.S. Constitution's only requirement for office is that DeLay be a resident of Texas on election day.

"When Benkiser reviewed the public records sent by DeLay and concluded that his residency in Virginia made him ineligible, she unconstitutionally created a pre-election inhabitancy requirement," said the opinion written by Judge Pete Benavides for himself and Judges James L. Dennis and Edith Clement.

When DeLay was forced to resign his House seat in disgrace, it was a mixed bag for me. Sure it was great to see the bastard go, but with him went a great opportunity for the Democrats to refer to DeLay as the poster boy for GOP corruption. Of course, they could still do that, but it would be much better for the Democrats if DeLay was still in office and seeking reelection.

Well, now it is starting to sound like DeLay might have to start actively campaigning for himself if the GOP's appeal fails. God I hope that happens, but DeLay did, after all, withdraw from that race. I wonder if he can be forced to un-withdraw?

And speaking of a disgraced "Republican," check this out:

Embattled Sen. Joe Lieberman is trailing businessman Ned Lamont by double digits in the race for the Connecticut Democratic Senate nomination, a new poll released this morning shows.

The Quinnipiac University poll gives Lamont a 54 percent to 41 percent lead among likely Democratic primary voters and is the latest indication that the three-term incumbent is in serious danger of losing the Democratic primary next Tuesday. A poll released by the university on July 20 indicated that Lamont held a 51 percent to 47 percent advantage over Lieberman.

Why Does The House Of Representatives Hate Freedom So Much?

From TPM Muckraker:

In an unannounced move, the House cafeteria has removed the terms "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" from its offerings, and has reverted to using the dishes' more common names, "french fries" and "french toast."

Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), who had implemented the change in 2003 in a fit of hollow but PR-friendly patriotism, refused to comment on the switch. "We don't have a comment for your story," a spokesman for Ney said.

Owing to his notably unpatriotic involvement in the Abramoff scandal, Ney was several months ago forced to step down from his post as chair of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the cafeteria menu, among other things. The change appears to have been made by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), although he too declined comment.

An indictment for Ney is rumored to be mere weeks away, which could send him to prison. If that's the case, we wonder: will he rename it "the freedom house?"

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's spokesman had this to say: "Now that they've changed the name of the french fries back, maybe they will admit their other foreign policy mistakes were wrong, too."

Odds And Ends

I saw something on CNN this morning that I hadn't seen in awhile -- the Mainstream Media actually had a piece on . . . the Iraq War! (I know -- I couldn't believe it either). And right after that particular segment, CNN had a piece on Mel Gibson's attempt to apologize for his anti-Jew tirade from the other day (by the way, Disney/ABC has dropped plans to make a Holocaust mini-series with Gibson).

My question is this: Is there any way Gibson can recover from this short of converting to Judaism? Would conversion even be enough?

Finally, here is a great example of the kind of ads the Democrats should be running.