Will Liberals Be Disappointed When They Learn Dean Isn't?

I said as much as soon as I began volunteering with the Howard Dean for President campaign. "I hope that liberals aren't disappointed when they find out that Dean is fiscally conservative and generally a states-rights guy, as Republicans once purported to be, and still do, at least when it's convenient for them." Katha Pollitt knows what I'm talking about.

Dean opposes the war on Iraq, wants to rescind the Bush tax cuts and has a plan for quasi-universal healthcare coverage. But he's not particularly progressive, despite the Democratic Leadership Council's accusation that he is on the "far left," "McGovern-Mondale" wing of the party and will lead it straight to hell. In the 1990s, he was a darling of the DLC, and he governed Vermont as a budget-balancing centrist ("I was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator," he recently told the New York Times Magazine). If you want a great platform on everything from single-payer health insurance (yes) to the death penalty (no), Dennis Kucinich is definitely your man

Sorry, just because Dean opposed the American-Anglo invasion of Iraq, Howard Dean is no pacifist, and certainly no Dennis Kucinich. Dean is a pragmatist with a Democratic message, who is willing to fight BushCo head-on. More than anything, we need a candidate like Howard Dean who will take the battles to Bush where he lives, and where he thinks that he is invincible, i.e. the war and tax cuts for the rich.

GAO States the Obvious: Dick Cheney is a Liar

Not that it's news to anyone, but the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney thwarted their attempts to investigate his energy task force by refusing to turn over documents.

Thanks to the GAO, we now know what we had long expected, that Cheney met with lobbyists and executives from the coal, nuclear, natural gas and electricity industries. What we don't know, and won't likely know until Cheney is dead and George W. Bush is in prison, is what went on during these meetings, or how much money was spent. Apparently no one took any notes.

Administration officials did not account for much of the money spent on the task force and could not remember whether anyone took official notes during the 10 Cabinet-level meetings the group held in 2001, the investigators said.

The report came more than eight months after a federal judge rejected the GAO's demand that the administration turn over task force records.

Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise advised critics to put the dispute behind them. "Now that the courts have dismissed the GAO lawsuit and GAO has issued its final report, we hope that everyone will focus as strongly as the administration has on meeting America's energy needs," shesaid.

Instead, the GAO report provoked a new round of complaints from Democrats in Congress.

"This report is a sad chronicle of the efforts of the office of the vice president to hide its activities from the American people," said Michigan Rep. John Dingell, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"However, no party provided us with any documentary evidence to support or negate this assertion," the GAO said. "Agency officials could not recollect whether official rosters or minutes were kept at the meetings."

Cheney's office turned over 77 pages of documents relating to money spent on the task force, but all were either irrelevant or useless, the GAO said.

Calling all Nazis
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Kommen Sie zu spielen!

We all knew it was going to come to this. When you have a party following the same playbook as Hitler, Himmler, and Goebels, you have to expect fascism fashions.


Republicans to rip apart Democrats' old offices

"You bring the muscle, we'll bring the refreshments and we will have a party as we tear down the Harris County Democratic Party headquarters," Woodfill said in his invitation to party faithful.

Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Gerry Birnberg was quick with a metaphor. That's what Republicans do, he said, "tearing things down, destroying them."

"They did it to our economy, to our jobs market, to our voting rights, to our democracy, to civility in government, to civil rights, to health care for children, to fair pay for teachers -- they took out their sledgehammers and smashed them to smithereens."


The discrepancy between the kind of society many Germans thought they were building and the reality of the horror of the Third Reich presents one of the most intriguing questions of our age. "How could it -- the Holocaust -- have happened in a modern, industrialized, educated nation?

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing)."

Private Police: Public Safety for Profit

If anti-government, anti-public interest Republicans have their way, eventually everything will be privatized: health care, education, the military, our national parks, and yes, even police protection. In fact, private police protection is already well underway, as demand for security increases and the ability of local police departments to serve and protect is further diminished by budgetary shortcomings and increasing lawlessness.

Private security guards are increasingly performing functions that until recently were the exclusive province of police. In a world of organized terrorists and overburdened cops, the private security trade is booming. Security companies now patrol and make arrests at housing projects, both poor and rich (read: gated communities), as well as malls, office buildings, airports and business districts. They guard naval ships and nuclear plants and investigate all manner of crime, including murder and fraud. Towns are contracting with private firms for non-emergency duties, like crime-scene security, alarm response and ticketing.

Yet there are fundamental differences. There is no oversight or accountability to speak of. Government regulation is weak to nonexistent. And security workers are not beholden to the public. They take orders from company and property owners, who have their own priorities. The distinction contradicts a central tenet of public policing as well as traditional democratic theory: Government serves the community at large, for the good of the whole, regardless of class. But that was the way it used to be. Today, social services must pay their own way. Just like the health industry - formerly known as the medical profession - and the education system, police departments are in the process of being commodified. As a result, much to the consternation of taxpayers, one finds even public safety is often limited by one's ability to pay.

It's going to be a brave new world, folks. Is this what everyone really wants?

More on Bush Action Figure

In his latest column, "Action Figures For Imbeciles," Mark Morford has some choice words for those who would cynically market pseudo-heroism in the guise of "The Terminator" for California Governor or the George Bush "Elite Force Aviator" action figure to an insufficiently critical public:

Country's in shambles and economy's gutted and schools are shot and Iraq's a violent bloody mess and joblessness is rampant and it's a proud time indeed to be an American, and hence you might be asking yourself, what, pray what, can I give the hardcore lockstep pseudo-Christian homophobic Republican on my gift list?

Schwarzenegger Just Another Rich Republican

Make no mistake about Arnold, he is not a new breed of Republican. By flat-out rejecting the reasonable advice, given by economic adviser Warren Buffet, to raise California's artificially low property taxes, he proved himself to be just another Republican representing the rich. As governor he promises to champion the interests of business over those of consumers and workers.

In a press conference in Los Angeles today, Schwarzenegger had this to say about the California budget and taxes:

"We must have a constitutional spending cap and must immediately attack operating deficits head on," Mr. Schwarzenegger told a ballroom packed with reporters at the Westin Hotel near Los Angeles International Airport.

"Does that mean we are going to make cuts?" he said. "Yes. Does this mean education is on the table? No. Does this mean I am willing to raise taxes? No. Additional taxes are the last burden we need to put on the backs of the citizens and businesses of California."

Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would not provide specifics on budget cuts during the campaign. "The public doesn't care about figures," he said.

"What the people want to hear is, are you willing to make the changes. Are you tough enough to go in there and provide leadership. "

"I feel the people of California have been punished enough. From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet they're taxed. When they go get a coffee they're taxed. When they get in their car they're taxed. When they go to the gas station they're taxed. When they go to lunch they're taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax."

This weekend a hullabaloo enveloped the Schwarzenegger camp after Mr. Buffett suggested to The Wall Street Journal that state property taxes needed to be increased. The idea instantly riled Republicans in a state known for the tax rebellion that pushed through Proposition 13 and its limits on property tax increases.

Today, Mr. Schwarzenegger gave an unequivocal promise that he would not seek to alter the property tax structure, while chastising Mr. Buffett.

"First of all, I told Warren if he mentions Prop. 13 one more time he has to do 500 situps," he said.

Mr. Buffett gave a crooked smile.

His outlook today was decidedly pro-business. Among the 18 members of his Economic Recovery Council, whom he met with this morning, were titans of business and finance and economics professors. There were no union representatives or consumer advocates.

On Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat who appears to be the main challenger to Mr. Schwarzenegger, according to recent polls, displayed a very different economic plan, which analysts said was bound to be contentious.

Mr. Bustamante, who defied Governor Davis's call for Democrats to stay off the recall ballot, said he would seek to restructure Proposition 13, allowing the state to reassess commercial property and tax it at its current value. This would require a constitutional amendment, an unlikely prospect, experts agree. He also proposed a tax increase on the top 4 percent of earners, an increase in cigarette and alcohol taxes and a half-billion dollar crackdown on Medi-Cal fraud.

Now that Schwarzenegger has revealed himself to be just another Republican who opposes progressive taxation, the question worth asking, but not on many people's lips, is what kind of involvement has Karl Rove and the Bush White House had in engineering this California power grab? And what does it portend for next year's election?

Nobel Prize Winner Criticizes Bush & Co For Looting

"The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting."
--George A. Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It seems that the current administration has politicized you in an unprecedented way. During the course of this year, you have, with other academics, signed two public declarations of protest - one against the tax cuts, the other against waging unilateral preventive war on Iraq.

Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of what kind?

Akerlof: I don't know yet. But I think it's time to protest - as much as possible.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would you consider joining a Democratic administration as an adviser, as your colleague Joseph Stiglitz did?

Akerlof: As you know my wife was in the last administration, and she did very well. She is probably much better suited for public service. But anything I'll be asked to do by a new administration I'd be happy to do.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You've mentioned the term civil disobedience a minute ago. That term was made popular by the author Henry D. Thoreau, who actually advised people not to pay taxes as a means of resistance. You wouldn't call for that, would you?

Akerlof: No. I think the one thing we should do is pay our taxes. Otherwise, it'll only make matters worse.

Warren Buffet Advocates for Progressive Taxation

It's not the kind of thing that greedy millionaires want to hear, but Arnold Schwarzenegger's economic adviser, billionaire Warren Buffet, is suggesting that property taxes should be raised in California. (Warren Buffet also supports the federal estate tax, or the "death tax," as the conservative propagandists have labelled it.)

Buffet is the world's second-richest man, so he should know a thing or two about taxes.

Buffett makes a strong point. He told the [Wall Street] Journal that his home in Omaha is valued at $500,000 and that he's paying more than $14,000 in annual property taxes.

But Buffett also owns a home in Laguna Beach (Orange County). It's valued at $4 million, yet he pays only $2,264 in annual property taxes.

Moreover, he noted that taxes on his Omaha residence rose almost $2,000 this year. Taxes on his California house climbed a mere $23.

The reason, of course, is Prop. 13, the 1978 measure that generally limits property-tax increases to 2 percent a year.

The original idea was to prevent seniors and others on limited incomes from being tossed onto the street. The result, at least in part, has been a gaping hole in the state's budget reserves.

Buffett stressed that any decision Schwarzenegger makes will be his own. But when a guy of Buffett's fiscal stature speaks, even Terminators listen. "You've got to look at everything," Buffett said of potential solutions to California's economic woes.

Even those who oppose the idea of raising property taxes understand that public services cost money, and the funds have to come from some sort of tax. Kevin Wiley, president of the San Francisco Homeowners Association Political Action Committee, opposes repealing Prop. 13, but also "is equally cognizant of the fact that Bay Area homeowners have long lamented the quality of services received from local and state authorities. Police departments, fire departments, schools, roads -- all could be far better funded."

"You can't have it both ways," Wiley acknowledged. "You can't want property taxes to stay low and complain that services aren't what they used to be."

Ken Willis, president of the 14,500-member League of California Homeowners, said he can't imagine legislators ever receiving the go-ahead from voters for an increase in property taxes. "Once you give something away," he observed, "it's hard to take it back."

But Willis also serves as a City Council member in Upland (San Bernardino County), and he understands that someone has to foot the bill for all the services Californians take for granted.

"The money may not come from property taxes," he said, "but it will have to come from somewhere. Higher sales taxes maybe, or creation of a value-added tax like they have in Europe."

Ironically, the question of taxation and fiscal responsibility is the same dilemma we're facing nationally. It's ironic because the Republicans criticize Gray Davis for the record deficit under his leadership, while President Bush seems relatively unaffected by the record deficit he's managed on his watch. Bush can blame the struggling economy on 9-11 and the War on Terrorism, but his tax cuts for the rich seem to be doing nothing but insulting hardworking non-millionaires. Over three million Americans have lost their job since Bush's first round of tax cuts. By now they must be wondering about the logic behind Bush giving an $88,000 refund to the average millionaire while they received just $300.

It makes sense that the battle over progressive tax policy should be waged in California. The Republican-led recall in California is little more than a power grab, and California appears to be a major threat to the GOP's current dominance in American politics. Whether or not Schwarzenegger, or anyone else, can take back a tax cut, especially a 25-year-old one like Prop. 13, remains to be seen. But unless it be can done in California, it's unlikely it will be considered as long as borrow-and-spend Republicans run the White House and Congress.

Schwarzenegger No Shoe-In

Many pundits and media hucksters who don't live in California expect residents of the state known for Hollywood and Ronald Reagan to support movie-star-cum-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger without hesitation. Polls indicate otherwise.

Even with a blitz of media coverage, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger trails his main Democratic opponent in the California recall vote to replace Gov. Gray Davis, a poll released on Saturday found.

A Field Poll showed Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who broke ranks with fellow Democrat Davis to put his name on the ballot, attracted 25 percent support of 629 registered voters surveyed, compared to 22 percent for the star of the "Terminator" films.

The results indicate that two conservative Republican candidates, state Sen. Bill McClintock and businessman Bill Simon, could siphon off enough Republican support to cost Schwarzenegger the California governorship.

These same voters who support Bustamante can be expected to vote against the recall on the grounds that California just elected its governor nine months ago.

Many still think this election is a choice between Gray Davis and Arnold, or Bustamante and Arnold. It isn't.

The poll puts new pressure on California Democrats to decide whether to dump horrendously unpopular Gov. Gray Davis, who has 70 percent negative rating, and rally around Bustamante.

Actually the ballot will ask voters two questions: whether or not they support the recall and whom they would choose to replace Davis should the recall pass. I predict that those who reject the recall will also support Bustamante, just to make sure that a Democrat stays in Sacramento in case the recall does pass.

Schwarzenegger presents an interesting alternative to your typical Orange County conservative, and his hiring George Schultz and Warren Buffet to be economic advisers gives his campaign a great deal of credibility. If Schwarzenegger is serious about being California's next governor, he should be a man and wait until the next election, rather than riding in on the coattails of Darrell Issa's undemocratic recall.

California Recall Threatens To Terminate Democracy

While tonight 50 million Americans from New York City to Cleveland are in the dark after the biggest blackout in US history, most Californians are still clueless as to what is really at stake in the upcoming October 7 recall election. Amidst the talk of the record number of candidates to potentially replace Governor Gray Davis, including such political luminaries as Gary Coleman and Larry Flynt, what has been lost is what this election is really about.

Car alarm millionaire and ex-con Darrell Issa spent more than a million dollars of his own money to have an election overturned. Certainly not many Californians like Davis, Democrats included, but he was elected fairly and legally, which is more than you can say about how Bush took the White House. Has Davis broken any laws that would warrant such an extreme political measure as a recall? No. Some try to pin California's record deficit on him, but that's disingenuous. California is suffering as much from the national economic downturn as it is from being swindled last year by Bush-friendly energy companies like El Paso, Enron and Duke.

But this is beside the point. The GOP succeeded in getting this undemocratic measure on the ballot, while creating a media circus worthy of Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine, by supporting aging action movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's a wonderful chance for California to be the laughing stock of the country, which is really what Bush & Co intended all along. Does it matter whether the recall passes AND Schwarzenegger becomes governor? Not really. The damage is already done.

The question is not whether you like Gray Davis or not, or whether you think Arnold Schwarzenegger would make a good governor.

The question for thinking Californians to consider is simply this: Do you respect the electoral process, which is the very foundation of any healthy democracy? Or would you like to see constant campaigning in the state, so that governors are elected and recalled every eleven months?

Warren Hinckle has noticed what most pundits have not, which is that this recall circus is probably the only way Schwarzenegger could ever become governor, as he would be eaten alive in the traditional primary process:

The actor -- whatever his popularity -- could never be nominated for the Republican ballot in a party primary because his Hollywood-lib views on gay rights, abortion rights, immigrants rights and the environment are anathema to the Republican faithful. His political views seem closer to that of European socialism that anything recognizable in the Bushite influence on his adopted party. In that context the recall election presents the first opportunity for a liberal Republican to leap in a single bound Superman-like (OK, wrong movie) over the ideological roadblock of the Republican primary and open the second party the way Admiral Perry opened Japan to trade.

But don't forget, Warren, that Arnold's father was a Nazi. That should give him some credibility with the rank-and-file Republicans.

It's time for.... Jeopardy!
Dubya Jeopardy, that is

Not that you'll see it on TV anytime soon, but Buzzflash has a cute version of the popular game show called Dubya Jeopardy.

Under the category "Funny Money" you'll find this answer:

A: In 1992, the FBI investigated accusations that James R. Bath "guided money to Houston from Saudi investors who wanted to influence U.S. policy under the Reagan and Bush administrations" -- with many speculating that the funding for George W. Bush's Arbusto Energy came through Bath from his man.
Q: Who is Salem bin Laden?

The links supporting this question are "Feds Looked Into G.W. Bush-Bin Laden Connection In '92" and "QUESTIONABLE TIES Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas"

Here's one they left off, which ties it all together rather nicely:
On the Photocopy of George W. Bush military suspension document (embedded gif), check out the name in paragraph 7 (Bush is in paragraph 6).
Same AF Base
Same suspension
Same reason
Same guy

Priceless

Shame On Monsanto!

It should come as no surprise that most of what we eat in America has been altered, either chemically or genetically. Natural flavors are no more natural than artifical flavors. Much of what we eat contains trans fatty acids, which the FDA recently determined to be unsafe at any level. Much of our produce is genetically altered to ensure higher yields, better color and that they can be kept long enough to make it to grocery store shelves. Much of our meat and dairy products come from animals that have been fed hormones and antibiotics and, in some cases, members of their own species.

So a smart little dairy in Maine decided it would make a point of the fact that "its milk comes from cows that haven't been treated with artificial growth hormones."

Oakhurst Dairy of Portland isn't unique in labelling its products for the healthy eater demographic, namely milk drinkers who worry about such things. Shouldn't consumers have a right to know what goes into the food that they consume?

Seems fair enough to me, but apparently not to Monsanto Corp.. The multinational agribusiness conglomerate, lately recharacterizing itself as a biotechnology business, is suing Oakhurst in federal court for their marketing practices, asserting "that no scientific evidence exists that proves milk from cows treated with the hormones differs from milk of untreated cows." Who manufactures the hormones in question? Of course, Monsanto.

In its defense, Oakhurst has asked to have the case dismissed and "says its customers have said they don't want milk from treated cows, and made no claims beyond the fact that their products come from untreated cows."

"Oakhurst does not take a position that milk from cows supplemented with (artificial hormones) is either safe or unsafe for human consumption," said the company in the recent court filing.

Why go after Oakhurst? Why not sue Berkeley Farms in California or any of the dozens of dairies on the West Coast which use similar methods to market their dairy products to conscientious consumers? Maybe it has something to do with where Oakhurst is located.

"U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine will join Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to ban the use of eight antibiotics commonly used in agriculture to promote the growth of poultry and livestock. Snowe is the first Republican to endorse the measure, which is a revised version of a bill that failed last year."

Snowe and Kennedy have written the bill based on growing scientific evidence that use of such antibiotics is contributing to the rise of "super bugs" that are resistant to treatment. Meat producers are crying foul, saying that legislation will cut into their bottom line.

"Unfortunately, decades after the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, diseases of bacterial origin remain a real and increasing threat to public health," Snowe said in a written statement. "Overuse of medically important antibiotics in humans and animals promotes resistance in bacteria. Infections caused by resistant bacteria cannot be treated with traditional antibiotics. If left unchecked, the problem of bacterial resistance represents an impending public health crisis."

The American Medical Association has come out in support of use restrictions. A study released in March by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine called for an end to nontherapeutic use of the drugs, as did a 2002 study in the medical journal "Clinical Infectious Diseases."

Some businesses, including some poultry producers, have voluntarily taken steps to reduce their antibiotic use. Last month, McDonald's announced that it has asked its meat suppliers to phase out the use of growth-promoting antibiotics by the end of 2004. It is the first fast-food chain to do so, but it probably won't be the last.

Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist at Environmental Defense, said her organization will work with McDonald's to try to persuade other companies to adopt similar policies.

"Consumers, frankly, don't want food that's produced with large quantities of artificial hormones or pesticides or antibiotics and so on," Goldburg said, "and companies that can say they're doing without have an advantage in the marketplace."

"I think what we're going to end up doing is just slowing the process by restricting the use in agriculture," Dr. Syd Sewall, a pediatrician in Hallowell who is former president of the Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics said. "What we want to do is make it so the age of antibiotics is prolonged as long as possible until we have some other kind of breakthrough in how we deal with infectious illnesses, which hopefully medicine and science will give us before it's too late."

A scheduling conference has been set for Aug. 18 in Boston.

Elite Force Aviator: George W. Bush -
U.S. President and Naval Aviator -
12" Action Figure

Who owns KB Toys? Don't they have shareholders?! Note to self: don't ever, under any circumstances, ever shop at KB Toys again.

White House For Sale: $200 Million

I've been trying to understand something lately. Bush is running unopposed in the Republican Presidential Primaries, right? If Americans are generally pretty happy with the job he's done: protecting the country from terrorist attacks; looking out for workers, senior citizens, children and the environment; while also getting the economy back on solid ground, then why does he need to raise so much money to stay in the White House?

If he were a good President, the answer is that he wouldn't. But he isn't, so he needs to buy the White House. And in case anyone didn't know, the White House is for sale, just like everything else in American politics. (You too can call, "Do over!" on a legal election for just $1.7 million! Never mind the $43 to 67 million cost to taxpayers.)

So far Bush & Co have raised more than $46 million and will raise any amount necessary to maintain their grip on power. A new site launched by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, WhiteHouseForSale.org, draws attention to the fact that Bush:

is the only major candidate who has opted out of the public financing system during the primaries. Bush has done so because he believes he can collect at least $200 million during the primary season – nearly five times the amount a candidate who remains in the public financing system can raise and spend. Yet, the president is unopposed!"

In the 2000 election, Bush shattered all previous records by raising $101 million, at least a third of which was raised by his "Pioneers." And yet he still had Katherine Harris illegally strike 94,000 names from the voter rolls in Florida to steal the election. Since voter roll manipulation and $101 million nearly resulted in a defeat, it looks like he won't be taking any chances this time. Yes, $200 million should be just enough to buy the White House for four more years.

"Pioneers" and "Rangers" are titles given to Bush's top fundraisers who respectively raise $100,000 and $200,000 from their friends, family and associates. Bush shows his gratitude by hosting BBQs, like the one he's throwing for them this weekend, at the Broken Spoke Ranch near the Texas White House in Crawford. They also "receive faxed and e-mailed political updates. They participate in periodic conference calls with top officials, including Racicot, Rove, White House chief of staff Andy Card and Commerce Secretary Don Evans. They also get gifts, including silver keepsake boxes embossed with the presidential seal."

So who are these Pioneers and Rangers?

"These people are some of the smartest businessmen in America, and if they didn't continue to see a payback in their investment in the Bush campaign, they wouldn't continue to make these kinds of donations time after time," said Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen for Texas.

"President Bush today is hiding his big donors behind plumes of barbecue smoke," said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Justice. He said the fund-raising technique violates the spirit of campaign finance laws.

McDonald called Mr. Bush's quest for $170 million or more in an unopposed nomination contest "an obscene fund-raising drive." He said the public should know exactly how much money is raised by each supporter.

"The legal limit is $2,000, not $200,000," he said.

He said the Bush campaign should identify everyone attending the event, how much the campaign has credited them with raising and where they work.

One Republican noted that multibillionaire George Soros is committing $10 million to a new Democratic-leaning group aimed at defeating Bush next year. This Republican said Bush would need to counter such spending.

The barbecue was closed to the news media. Mr. Bush's only public words Saturday were his weekly radio address, in which he said Iraq is making steady progress establishing its economy, basic services and a democratic system and that should improve security in Iraq and the Middle East.

"We're keeping our word to the Iraqi people by helping them to make their country an example of democracy and prosperity throughout the region," he said. "This long-term undertaking is vital to peace in the region and to the security of the United States."

In case you hadn't noticed, Bush has taken the entire month of August off for a much-deserved vacation. This makes him the biggest malingerer to ever sit in the White House, and gives validity to the Saturday Night Live joke that he works 24/7: 24 hours a week, 7 months a year.

What's in those secret 28 pages?

I just got it! I know what is in those blacked out 28 pages.

But first a little background info.

In 1990, Bush illegally sold his shares of Harken Energy, prompting an investigation by the SEC. His lawyer in this was a man named Robert Jordan. Bush was President, but even so, Bush was not exonerated.

In 2000, Bush, with the help of Bush, almost won the election. Ultimately, it was up to the Supreme Court to decide. The lawyer who represented him was James Baker, former Secretary of State, senior advisor to the Carlyle group, founder of Baker and Botts law firm http://www.bakerbotts.com/ .

“Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.”

“Yes, yes, we know all this,” you say. “What’s your point?”

Ah, but did you forget that Robert Jordan (Bush appointed Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during 9/11) and Baker are representing the Saudis AGAINST the families of the victims of 9/11?

What would be the worst thing for Bush’s favorite lawyers who are representing the Saudis? Could it be EVIDENCE OF SAUDI SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM? Wouldn’t that just ruin their case?

“Some of the most sensitive information in a 28-page classified section of the report involves what U.S. agencies are doing currently to investigate Saudi business figures and organizations, the officials said.”

Why cheap-labor conservatives love the deficit
Once again, just follow the money

Here's an eye-opener for you. Never mind the health of the economy and all that, Bush loves expanding the federal deficit BECAUSE IT’S GOING TO MAKE HIM MONEY!

U.S. Treasury Notes are used to pay for the deficit.

Check out pages 3-7 of Bush’s financial disclosures from 2001. Do the math on his holdings of US Treasury Notes.

The higher the deficit, the more Treasury notes and bonds the government must sell to finance its operation. From there it's simple supply and demand -- if demand is constant but the supply of bonds goes up, the price goes down. The same is true if the deficit falls or is eliminated altogether -- the government needs to sell fewer Treasury bonds, so the supply drops and the price of T-bonds rises.

In addition to following the trend in the budget deficit or surplus, investors can gain valuable insight to the state of the economy by looking at the government's tax receipts. Higher tax receipts have been a key reason for the improved deficit situation in recent years, and they reflect the strong economic conditions.

What a strategy – invest in T-Notes, then cut taxes and crank up the deficit to record levels to make your investment worth more. Hey, while you’re at it, why not send some money to your buddies in defense and energy.

From Hollywood to Sacramento....

In his twenty-five years in Hollywood, he's entertained millions. True, the size of his body may be more remarkable than his political acumen. But now, any child can grow up to be governor. And his combination of liberal social views with fiscal conservatism just may be the ticket to Sacramento.

Yes, Gary Coleman has thrown his hat into the ring as a candidate for governor of California.

"What you talkin' about, Davis!"

"Cheap-Labor Conservatives" the new catch-phrase
Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell

The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. Lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.

Cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net", minimum wage, unions, Social Security and Medicare.

Cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.

Cheap-labor conservatives preach "morality," "virtue," "respect for authority," "hard work" and other "values." so they can blame your unemployment on your own "immorality," lack of "values" and "poor choices."

Take unemployment statistics from http://www.econstats.com/blsnaa3.htm

Add the party affiliation of the President in each year, starting in 1948.

Average the change in employment for the years each party was in the White House.

Answer the question, “Which party has the historically better record in improving employment (reducing unemployment)?”

Average of Change in Unemployment rate
Democrat -2.699
Republican 10.07
Total 4.497

A vast right-wing conspiracy....

As Gene Robinson was about to be elected the first openly gay Episcopalian bishop, a media flurry erupted, with last-minute allegations linking Robinson to porn websites and sexual harassment. It turns out the allegations were totally baseless. The "sexual harassment" was that Robinson had touched a straight man on the arm and upper back during a public meeting. The porn link was that Robinson helped found outright.org, a support group for queer youth. Five years later, an affiliate of outright.org had a link on their website to bisexual.org for info on bisexuality. Several clicks of web surfing and a Visa card would get one to the adult site. In other words, both charges were absurd, desperate attempts to derail the election of a gay bishop by smearing his good name.

Does the tactic sound familiar? Turns out that the story was pushed by Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, and board member of the Olin, Scaife, and Bradley-funded Institute on Religion and Democracy, which is trying to fight feminist and gay advances in Protestant churches. They tried to use the anti-Clinton smear tactics to destroy Robinson. They failed miserably...this time.

Can we agree that Howard Dean is the Democratic Frontrunner now?

The media seems reluctant to call Howard Dean the frontrunner, but the covers of Time and Newsweek this week say as much.

The Newsweek article mentions that some Republicans are giving money to the Dean campaign because they feel he will be easy to beat. Great! We'll need all the money we can get to beat the corporate-sponsored Bush Team, which has now raised its stated fundraising goal from $200 to $250 million. Whoever says that money can't buy political power isn't paying attention. Certainly Bush & Co wouldn't be raising so much money if they didn't feel like they had to in order to stay in power.

I'm reminded of a quote by John Dewey: ""The government [or politics] is but the shadow cast upon society by big business." And that is more true with the Bush administration than it has ever been with any other. Thanks to Bush & Co, big business now casts a very long shadow on our country. Howard Dean understands that millions of Americans are eager to step out into the sunlight.

Bush & Co's war in Iraq is just plain criminal, especially given how they are taking away veterans benefits and privatizing the military at the same time they send our troops to die, and to no one's benefit but their friends in the oil industry and at Halliburton and Bechtel.

While the human and financial toll of the war in Iraq continues to escalate - 250 Americans killed and $71 billion spent so far with no end in sight - the chicken hawks who got us into this mess have the nerve to use ignorant jingoism as a political strategy.

"To try to gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier," Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told a group of college Republicans. "I don't know about you, I certainly don't want to see Teddy Kennedy in a Navy flight suit anytime soon."

It would be easy to dismiss Tom DeLay as just another idiot from Texas, if he weren't the Republican House Majority Leader. Is this the best the GOP has to offer? Well, apparently yes, but don't forget about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, William Pryor, Priscilla Owen, John Poindexter ... the list of Republican idiots goes on and on and on.

Republicans deserve better leadership than this. Hell, we all do.

DeLay isn't the first Republican to use the argument that the Democrats are soft on national security because they think twice about engaging our troops in ill-conceived wars. The GOP successfully ran a campaign to defeat Senator Max Cleland in Georgia last November. Cleland is a triple amputee and decorated Vietnam veteran, yet his Republican opponent accused him of not being tough on national security.

In a letter to the House Majority Leader on Friday, Cleland called DeLay's comments "reprehensible" and added:

"This country deserves more patriots like Senator Kennedy, not more chicken hawks like you who never served."

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, also a Democrat and Vietnam veteran, chastised DeLay in a letter Friday for his "tasteless and unnecessary smear of Senator Kennedy." The remark's tone, he said, seemed to question Kennedy's military service record.

Kennedy served in the Army. DeLay did not serve in the military.

Kennedy spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the incident was "another missed opportunity for DeLay to set a good example in front of an audience of young people rather than promote the politics of personal destruction."

Apparently DeLay's spokesperson isn't any smarter than he is, since this was his defense of his boss's comments:

"The Democratic party has a lot to answer for in terms of their decimating our intelligence and not being there for our military and our national defense," he said. The military veterans in Congress, he said, don't have exclusive rights to opinions on national security.

No, they don't. But with the Republican Party being led by guys like Tom DeLay, it appears that the Democrats may have exclusive rights to intelligence, not to mention statesmanship.

Cost of War

At what cost is the invasion and occupation of Iraq? What is it costing your community? What is it costing your children? What is the cost in health, education, housing? Someone took these questions and made the answers easily viewable at Cost of War.

See how the cost is escalating based on estimates and announced costs. See the cost to your city. See how many teachers could have been hired for this amount or how many college scholarships could be provided. Find out how many children could be provided with health care for a year where you live.

Good thing we have something to show for it: Casualties.

We are better than They are

We understand that none of us asked to be here. That we, as members of a society, have a responsibility to each other, and the fact that some of us were born to parents who were better situated financially does not preclude the responsibility we have to each other.

We believe that manatees have a right to live in fresh water even though we can’t eat them.

It bothers us that 60% of the U.S. population is overweight while much of the rest of the world is facing starvation.

We know the earth cannot support our standard of living and that we can not raise the rest of the world to that level. It is not possible.

We know that most of our clothing is produced in sweat shops. We know there were slaves in America and that much of our economic growth was driven by slave labor. We also know that hemp could be a suitable fiber for fabric and paper, that its use could curb the deforestation of America, and that its cultivation could be a viable replacement crop for tobacco farmers in America.

We believe that everyone has a right to affordable housing.

We believe that everyone has a right to a good education. Free public education. Paid for by the government. If some of us want to pay for private education, they should be able to. But that should not free them from the obligation to help provide for the good education of the rest of our child citizens.

We understand that They are not helping our sense of security through Their fear mongering. We know They are trying to decrease our sense of security so that we will turn to Them for protection.

We are the good guys. We and the whole world have thought so for a long time. Good guys don’t strike first. We cease to be the good guys when we strike first.

We know that cars burn oil by-products that result in pollution that makes the air less healthy and is degrading the environment. We know this and acknowledge it. We don’t gloss over this fact the way They do.

We want to live in a democracy. We don’t want or believe in a constitutional republic like They do.

We know that Karl Rove is the puppeteer and that he is lying. Always.