[ Posted Monday, November 5th, 2007 – 17:08 UTC ]
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.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, October 12th, 2007 – 17:32 UTC ]
I must say, Charles Rangel impressed me last weekend, on CBS' Face The Nation, as he is the first Democrat I've heard yet using the "block grant" argument against the Republican spin on SCHIP. Modesty forbids me to take any credit, but if he is indeed reading these columns I'd like to say, "Well done, Representative Rangel!"
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, October 1st, 2007 – 17:22 UTC ]
There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, September 11th, 2007 – 17:00 UTC ]
I write this article on the sixth anniversary of 9/11. I write it before I have seen the evening news. I am sure there will be some soaring rhetoric on the news tonight, but I will be watching with one question on my mind:
Where's Osama Bin Laden?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, September 10th, 2007 – 04:14 UTC ]
This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.
So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 – 03:24 UTC ]
With the most important debate of the whole year (and possibly the whole war) teed up and ready to begin in Congress in the next few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to do a summary and analysis of what all the Democratic candidates have to say on the subject of Iraq. Many of these candidates, it should be noted, are still sitting Senators and Representatives, and therefore have both the duty and the responsibility to participate in the debate in Congress.
They should be relishing this upcoming debate, since it will be a rare chance to show actual, tangible leadership. Which is definitely a requirement for the job of President of the United States.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, June 22nd, 2007 – 01:50 UTC ]
But, as I said, whatever the political price eventually is should not matter. Because some leadership is needed here. And that's what leadership is -- doing the right thing, while convincing enough of your opponents that it is the right thing... and then absolutely refusing to back down.
This war needs to end. If the Democrats don't do it in September, then they will be no better than the Republicans who led us into this war, and have enabled Bush ever since. Poll numbers show this, and Democrats know it. Enough Republicans need to be enticed or scared into crossing the aisle, in order to force Bush to get the troops out. Once again, here is what it will take: 60 to 70 in the House; 17 or 18 in the Senate. Once those numbers are reached, Bush's opinion ceases to be relevant.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, June 20th, 2007 – 03:08 UTC ]
The magic numbers of Republicans jumping ship to watch for: 60 to 70 in the House -- 17 or 18 in the Senate. When Democrats hit both those numbers, the end of the war in Iraq will have truly begun.
John Boehner can call it: "dramatic erosion of support in the GOP," if he likes. I personally prefer the term: "rats leaving the sinking ship of Bush's Iraq fiasco."
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, September 15th, 2006 – 17:15 UTC ]
How insane is it that this is an election issue? What kind of country have we become? Even Colin Powell is pointing out that we're now taking the moral low road. Have we all forgotten all those World War II movies with the guy in a dirty lab coat and a thick German accent saying "Ve haff vays of makink you talk..."?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006 – 12:32 UTC ]
There's an old saying: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst, and take what comes." Unfortunately, the Bush neo-cons have twisted this to read: "Assure everyone the best will happen, fire anybody who even mentions a worse outcome (and smear as a traitor anyone who mentions the 'worst' outcome, since they're obviously rooting for the terrorists), and then refuse to face reality when things turn out differently."
Read Complete Article »
