Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I have believed for a long time now that whenever you see dismal poll numbers for Congress' approval ratings, there is one simple reason for them: Iraq. Democrats swept both houses of Congress last year, and the reason why the people who voted them in do not approve of the job they've been doing is because they haven't done more to end the war in Iraq.
When, in the future, you retire from the Senate and sit down to write your memoirs, I predict that this week's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey will not rank as one of "the votes I'm proudest of in the Senate" for either of you.
You both knew that voting for Mukasey was the wrong thing to do, and yet you did it anyway for reasons that can only be described as "political expediency." Not exactly a profile in courage for either one of you.
The first column I wrote this year on the presidential campaign (5/23/07) took a decidedly unconventional view of the primary season: What if all the pundits are wrong and we DON'T crown a winner on February 5th? Is it possible, in other words, that no winner will be anointed and the campaign will continue -- perhaps all the way to an open party convention?
Jump forward six months, and the pundits are finally beginning to wonder about such a possibility. Chris Cillizza, political blogger for the Washington Post, has just written an article which explores this question in detail, for both parties -- if there is no one clear winner on February 5th, then what could the delegate map look like? It's a great read if you're into wonky "what if" speculation, and the best breakdown I've seen yet of how it all could play out.
So here we are, with a year and a day to go before the 2008 presidential election. But what will we be talking about next November as we head to the polls?
I know it is supposed to be my job to prognosticate the future by throwing a dart at the wall and loudly proclaiming "This is where we will be!" -- but today I am turning over the prediction business to you instead. Because I am interested in what other people think the momentous issues of next year's election will be, no matter who is left running. So let me know what you think.
So, according to Bush, you're a Nazi appeaser if you refuse to confirm someone as our highest law enforcement officer who will use Nazi tactics against our prisoners. Or something. Let me try again -- you're not against Nazis strongly enough if you don't allow me to behave like a Nazi and torture anyone I want. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Like I said, it's hard to tell what he's thinking these days.
Anyway, remember you heard it here first: the Bush Doublethink Corollary to Godwin's Law.
The Bush administration is pushing a narrative on national security issues (and has been for some time now) which can be summed up as: "Trust us, we know what we're doing -- and we're doing it to keep you safe." Two facets of this issue are on the front burner this week: warrantless wiretapping and torture (or as they put it "extraordinary interrogation techniques," one of many euphemisms they've trotted out). But what seems to be lost in the debate are two data points that just don't fit in with their pre-packaged narrative. And, once again, the mainstream media are largely ignoring these points since they'd have to... you know... commit an act of journalism to confront them squarely.
