Thursday, January 26, 2006

A very important announcement

Many of the top leaders in the Democratic party have announced that they are opposing the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

I have considered my position carefully and did not choose to knee-jerk oppose him.

I am not satisfied with what I heard from him regarding the 14th Amendment. I believe the Supreme Court is there to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. I am not so sure Judge Alito would offer this protection.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But if you agree with my ultimate conclusion, please to here: http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html and "sign" the petition to register your opposition.

Battle for the soul of America part 1

It started with the questionable election of George W Bush. Imagine if you will the shitstorm that would have happened if, say, a Kennedy was running for president and it came down to the results of the voting in Massachusetts. You don't think the conservatives would be howling like castrated minks if after 3 months of shenanigans, obstruction, and misdirection it was determined that the Kennedy won?

Please.

Ok, so he gets into office on the narrowest of margins but begins to act like he has this tremendous mandate. He scares the hell out of the departing administration by barely paying attention during briefing sessions. And then, on 1/20/01, he's sworn in.

It was a rough and tumble election, no doubt. But despite that, the country's in decent shape. The economy, while slowing from its white-hot pace of the Clinton years, is still pretty robust. The treasury is flush with money- for the first time since the 1950s the federal government was running budget surpluses that were projected to continue through the next decade and there was great hope that by that time the national debt, which stood at about $6.5 trillion when Clinton took office, would be whittled down to a trillion if not less.

Then 9/11, a horrible day in our history. As Americans, we were all shocked and stunned by the events of the day and the subsequent weeks.

But out of the horror there was something rarely seen in America- people put aside their differences and were Americans first, and we all came together. The world felt our pain as well. In some corners of the world, there was rejoicing over 9/11, but those places were few and far between.

The name Osama Bin Ladin became known to us all and Al Qaeda no longer some shadowy group.

At that moment in time, the US was poised on the brink of history. 9/11 shook our country but did not destroy it. We had the world standing by, waiting to see our next move, offering their help and support.

There is that line from Shakespeare that "Some men are born great, others achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

Unfortunately for our country, none of those applied to George Bush. From the very moment he received the news and sat there for ten full minutes, he failed the test of leadership.

His failure continued when he demanded that the intelligence services connect 9/11 to Iraq even though they told him there was no such connection.

His failures were compounded by this blind obsession with Iraq. He demanded a preconceived conclusion and Dick Cheney made sure it happened and woe to anyone who dared speak differently. While the Administration is to be given credit for sending US troops into Afghanistan, where it was proven that Al Qaeda had training camps, Afghanistan took a back seat to this preoccupation with Iraq.

They manufactured the lie that Hussein had purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger and when it was proven that the evidence upon which they relied was a forgery, they chose to kill the messenger by destroying his wife's career by outing her as an undercover CIA operative. They put petty personal politics above the safety of a member of our own government.

They sent General Colin Powell before the United Nations to make the case for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. General Powell is a rare individual in that his integrity was beyond question. Yet Bush and Cheney used him and sent him forth, unbeknownst to him, to lie.

They attempted to sell the need to go to war on an increasingly shaky foundation of lies, mistruths, and deceptions that kept running afoul of nasty facts.

Saddam Hussein stopped playing obstructionist and allowed UN weapons inspectors led by Dr Hans Blix to enter the country and conduct inspections of Iraqi military and WMD programs to show he had complied and Blix's report, delivered on 3/7/03 showed that while there were still some questions that would require additional time to answer, he found that for the most part it appeared Iraq had complied.

This was not good enough for George Bush. Less than 2 weeks later, the US invaded Iraq.

While the initial operations went well- Baghdad fell within the month- the results of the military action were immediate and far-reaching.

The US essentially ignored Blix's report, instead relying upon its own manufactured conclusions to justify the invasion. As we would later learn from the Downing Street Memo, the Administration had decided to fudge the intelligence reports to support their foregone conclusions.

The results of the invasion are this.

First, there's been a tremendous cost in human lives- 2500 dead US service people with thousands more injured and maimed. It's been estimated that 31000+ Iraqi civilians died in the war, or more than 10 for every person killed in the WTC attacks.

Second, the war has cost over $400 billion and will cost untold hundreds of billions more before all is said and done.

Third, by actively disregarding Blix's report and telling the United Nations to bugger off, the US isolated itself politically, with only England and Poland choosing to stand by us.

Fourth, for years Osama Bin Ladin's been preaching that the United States was evil and that its goal was to invade and occupy an oil-rich Muslim country. He had been saying that for years. So what does the US do?

Exactly. Thanks to George Bush, Bin Ladin went from being a megalomaniacal lunatic to a geopolitical visionary and this caused many Muslims to rethink their attitudes toward his philosophy.

Fifth, back during the first Gulf War, his father listened to the counsel of his generals and experts and chose not to invade Iraq. He realized it was a potential quagmire and would unleash a vicious civil conflict that would be difficult to quell.

His son, however, ignored his counsel.

And with this I will end this post and pick back up on this another day.

Tags:

Numbers! We got numbers here!

So check it out. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its forcast for the upcoming budgetary year. They have projected a budget deficit of.....$337 billion dollars and a total projected deficit of $1.3 trillion for the period of 2006-2010.

Just to give you a little more perspective, at the time Bush took office, the projected figure for this year was a SURPLUS of $269 billion.

Let me do the math for you. In other words, the GOP for the year has managed to piss away a total of $606 BILLION.

Words cannot express the unbridled amazement wrought by such numbers. The GOP, which hornswaggles people into believing it to be the party of fiscal responsibility, is running $606 billion over budget.

Yet you know they'll try to blame it on the Democrats, never mind that the GOP has had run of the entire show these past few years. Or they'll blame Katrina, which amounts for $50 billion of that figure. And how much was spent on Iraq this past year? $350 billion, give or take?

You see, this is why I become apoplectic whenever I get on the topic of the war in Iraq. Thanks to Bush's lies about Hussein, Al Qaeda, and WMDs, he has destroyed the economics of the United States. But hey, at least Halliburton is making money.

Oh, and in shades of the old Saturday Night Live 'Weekend Update' with Chevy Chase where each week he would announce "And in other news, General Francisco Franco is still dead" we had Dubya giving a press conference today still insisting the spying program was legal.

I'm thinking that he's hoping the old adage about if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe it's true will kick in. However, the press, which for most of his administration was playing the role of lapdog, has grown some cajones and they have been clamoring for blood. They're embarrassed that they were played for such fools and used as tools by a very corrupt administration.

And no, I am not afraid to use the word corrupt. We cannot get a straight answer out of those lying bastards on anything, including the fucking wording of the Fourth Amendment. There is no grey area in reciting the Fourth and if you plan on basing your justifications on it, you better fucking well have it down cold. I just wonder if they went to Uncle Sleazy's Book Discounters for their copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights- slightly remainded, only missing a few of the amendments.

Tags:

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Fourth Amendment Follies

As part of the whole Administration push to get the American people to swallow hook line and sinker the lie that the wiretapping of all communications going overseas without a warrant or even the rubber stamp of the secret court is not only a good thing but also allowed under the Constitution, they rolled out General Michael Hayden, who was the Top Dog at the NSA back in ’01 when Bush ordered the illegal wiretapping, to shore up the Administration’s case.

But things didn’t go so well.  See, it seems that the General doesn’t quite grasp the 4th Amendment.  Maybe he’s like the President, about whom an aide once said something along the lines of “he’s not good at thinking on his feet.”  I dunno.  But at least according to the transcripts the General made it through without giggling like a ditzy schoolgirl.  Here’s the transcript of the exchange, courtesty of http://www.editorandpublisher.com

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

For those of you scoring at home, here is the 4th Amendment. Judge for yourself:


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Chew on that one next time someone tells you to trust the government.  If they can’t even get the literal reading of the Bill of Rights correct, well, we’re all in the position to pretty much get fucked up the ass.



Tags:

Do You Like Your Supreme Court Originalist or Extra Crispy?



In the last few years, the battle for the soul of America has heated up between the Left and the Right.  Nowhere has that battle been more pitched than in the area loosely defined as “privacy rights” that cover topics such as abortion, civil rights, and gay rights, with the GOP screaming bloody murder that evil left-wing “activist judges” are acting outside their authority when they strike down laws or policies they determine are unconstitutional.

Oh yes, how this roils the Right so.  We get the right-wing spinmeisters and talking heads whipped into a discombobulated froth and they in turn raise bloody hell to get their followers stirred up into a frenzy as well.  They howl in righteous indignation about these activist judges being lackeys for the Left, hell-bent on destroying America with their assertions that Americans are entitled to privacy and equal protection under the law to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In their vision of America, women should be barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove.  If they are allowed in the workplace, they should be happy to make $.65 in the same job for which a man receives $1 and getting groped by the boss or other employee is an acceptable part of the work environment.    And if a woman should end up pregnant, even if the pregnancy is a result of being raped, well, tough titties.  And if a doctor determines that the fetus would be born without a brain and essentially dead on arrival but delivering the baby would kill the mother, double tough titties and hope you had a good life.

How about minorities?  They would be allowed to join the country club so long as their being there was restricted to mowing the greens or serving up martinis at the 19th hole.  Anyone could be free to deny services or opportunities to niggers, jews, chinks, spics, towel heads, and sand niggers.  

And gays?  It would be encoded into law that homosexuality is an evil abomination and gays a bunch of child-molesting godless heathens who should be locked away for good.  What happened behind closed doors between consenting adults would be the business of the government.  And god help them if two people of the same sex should fall in love with one another and want to marry.  Oh hell, that might cause the whole institution to be cheapened and suddenly what was once a solid marriage between a man and a woman in rural Kansas would go to hell in a handbasket just because two men in Massachusetts said “I do”.

Oh, and let’s not forget God.  Oh no.  Never mind what the Constitution says about separation of church and state, children of all races and religion can be forced to say the Lord’s Prayer to start off their school day and that defendants in court cases are greeted at the court not by the blindfolded Lady Liberty and her scales but by Moses and the Ten Commandments.  Kinda would make one nervous if as the defendant you happened to be Jewish or Muslim or an atheist….


You see, Dear Readers, the GOP is committed to this idea that the United States is a Christian Nation and that the Constitution is not a living breathing document but a near-immutable set of rules.  They reject the idea that the Judiciary’s role as interpreter of laws gives them the ability to rule laws unconstitutional- except those that violate their view of what is Right And Proper.

The whole mess stems from the 14th Amendment, which in part reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

See, some wise-ass judges took this to mean that it was within their power to strike down any laws they saw as denying people those listed rights as unconstitutional, and this all got clumped under the broad cloak of “privacy” and used to enforce such radical notions like birth control being an issue between the parties involved even if they are married or that schools cannot punish a child for pledging allegiance to the flag but not to God.

This enrages some conservatives.  “Anything not explicitly in the Constitution is not allowed,” they thunder.  “These activist judges are ruining America and they are out of line because they don’t adhere to what the Original Framers of the Constitution wrote.”

They even coined a new word for judges who do hew to their particularly narrow vision of the Constitution- “Originalists”.

When I first heard this word- I think on Fox News- I had to chuckle.  To me it sounded like the offerings from Kentucky Fried Chicken.  You could choose either Originalist or Extra Crispy.  Ah, but it came on and it became the Right Wing buzzword du jour.  You couldn’t listen to five minutes of Hannity or Limbaugh without hearing them sing the praises of those justices who nobly stood up against the fags, pinkos, unshaven legged feminazis, closet pervs, baby-killers, and terrorists seeking to destroy America.  It’s all the fault of ACTIVIST JUDGES.

So they started pushing their agenda.  They didn’t want a repeat of the humiliation of the Robert Bork hearings, where he revealed himself to have, shall we say, a rather interesting view of the Constitution.  Oh no, revealing the man to be a barely-closeted Quasi Fascist with a dim view of the concept of individual freedom was deemed character slander.  “But he’s brilliant” the Right cried.  Why yes he was.  Then again, so was Hitler and he was a fair to middlin’ artist to boot.  “Mein Kampf” held together and didn’t deviate from its flawed and evil logic and it knocked ‘em dead in Berlin, but that doesn’t mean Hitler was particularly well-suited to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

But the Right learned.  Oh yes.  Never again would one of the nominees be Borked.  Name, rank, and serial number only.  Speak in broad generalities.  Don’t give the enemy anything upon which to hang their hat.  

And now we’ve reached this point where those nominated to the Supreme Court are very coy in their views.  Yes, this went for the Clinton nominees as well.   I personally do not think it out of line to have those who would be entrusted to being the arbiters of our rights as citizens to have to answer simple questions- do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and do you believe it is Constitutional to deprive citizens of their rights and if so, under what circumstances?

You see, these are not idle questions.  Maybe at the moment one is not affected by them, but what happens when suddenly something strikes close to home?

Let me offer up a for-instance.  Say you are talking to your son who’s over in Germany serving in the military.  You ring him up to chat and you mention Osama Bin Ladin or Al Qaeda.  A flag gets raised over at the NSA and suddenly, you become a Person Of Interest.  A few days later, a couple of men show up at your job, have a brief word with your manager that they want to have a word with you as a potential terrorism suspect and they need to bring you to the nearest Homeland Security office to have a little chat.  

Next thing you know, you’re in a van riding to god knows where for god knows what reason and you’re not even able to make a call to your lawyer or wife to tell them what’s happening.  You’re brought to a building and sat down at a table and grilled about the details of your conversation with your son, who at the same time over in Germany, is sitting in a room with a Major being asked to explain why he was having a chat about Al Qaeda and being threatened with dishonorable discharge from the military or worse, a stint in Levenworth.

You’ve done nothing wrong.  You were just chatting with your son in what you thought was a private conversation and find yourself dragged into this bizarre wonderland where up is down and down is up and even though you are innocent, your life will never be the same.  You will have a file with your name on it.  Your coworkers, who heard you were taken away for questioning, will make little comments about your patriotism and you may even get fired for a relatively minor violation just because it’s not good for business to have a terrorism suspect, cleared or not, working for the company.

Ludicrous? Only if you haven’t been following the news the past few years or read the Patriot Act.  Habeus Corpus no longer exists for those suspected of terrorism.  You have no rights- no right to an attorney, the government does not have to notify anyone of your whereabouts, and you can be held indefinitely without charges if the government deems you a terrorism suspect or even an 'enemy combatant'.

Now here is where it gets really all Alice-down-the-rabbit-holey.  We find that the Bush Administration and its followers are claiming that the President and by extension the government has the right to do these things, that it is an extension of the President’s constitutional role as Commander-In-Chief of the military.  They claim that this gives Bush all these powers.  More importantly, they say it denies Congress and the courts any sort of oversight or veto power.

This is a long and convoluted topic.  The best primer for this to read up on the War Powers Resolution, a piece of legislation passed in 1973 by a Congress frustrated by presidents involving the US in military conflicts without involving Congress in the decision.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that the power to declare war and governing such part (of the Militia) as may be employed in the Service of the United States rests with the Congress.

There’s been an historic tension between Congress and the President over which branch controls the service, with the President saying it’s within his powers to deploy the military as he sees fit and the Congress saying that the power to declare war is theirs.

My point of this is that Bush and his backers are claiming that it is implied in the Constitution that the President doesn’t need any authorization to conduct this “war on terror”, and that includes bypassing the courts to spy on communications without warrants or authorization, arresting people and holding them without charges, or deeming people “enemy combatants” even if they are citizens of the US and arrested in the US.

I’ve read and re-read the Constitution many times and I can tell you with 100% certainty that none of those things are listed under the Article that lays out the powers of the Executive branch.  

You mean…..???

C’mon people, you can do it. One more push and…….

Hmmmm, you know, that doesn’t sound very Originalist to me.  Hell no, that sounds downright Extra Crispy with a double side order of mashed potatoes and gravy and a couple of extra biscuits.

Congratulations on making it through. You may proceed.

The fact that right now the limited number of you who checked in on my blog have nodded off to sleep about 1000 words ago is exactly how the Administration wants it.  Folks, not only does the Emperor have no clothes but he’s taking a piss out the window on the peasants below.

Which reminds me of an old cartoon that will date me- it was the Wizard of Id and it followed the foibles of a cranky little monarch.  One of his guards came rushing in to breathlessly announce “Sire, the peasants are revolting!” to which the king replied “They certainly are.”



Tags:

Later today on the World of Stevie Z

Later today, Steve examines the Administration's wavering between Originalist and Extra Crispy views on how the Constitution should be interpreted with bonus text of a very queered reading of the Fourth Amendment showing just why the 'No Child Left Behind' program deserves greater funding.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

And now, politics and entertainment

I was probably the only person in America who had no idea what "Brokeback Mountain" was about. I'm not really into horsie movies so I pretty much ignored it, even after all the Golden Globes hype.

Well, tonight while driving home from Staten Island, we were listening to talk radio and at an appearance by Bush at the University of Kansas, he was asked what he thought about it. They played the very uncomfortable response from the president, and then the hosts explained how the movie was about gay cowboys.

I heard that and I immediately flashed to the classic South Park episode of the South Park Film Festival, where Cartmen was trying to explain what he just saw as "gay cowboys eating pudding".

So how could anyone take "Brokeback Mountain" seriously after such a viciously deadly prescient slam over FIVE YEARS AGO from a fucking CARTOON???

Seriously- with all the money out in Hollywood and all the supposedly intelligent people who make movies their life work, surely at least one person would have mentioned this little fact. Jesus. Wasn't there even one person in the script-writing session saying "ummmm, dude, are they going to be :: snicker snicker :: eating pudding :: belly laugh :: too? :: rolling on floor, pissing self ::"

I have absolutely no desire to see the movie but damn, I am dying to know if A> there was pudding involved- naked gay pudding wrestling or them snacking on pudding packs (god, that sounds worse than 'naked gay pudding wrestling') and/or B> they had a black character playing the part of Chef and singing about his Chocolate Salty Balls?


Point number 2- has Paul McCartney's wife lost her fucking mind? I am referring of course to the ultimatum she laid down to Sir Paul that for the sake of being a good example to the children, he is to stop smoking pot.

Excuse me????

Yeah, you don't want them to turn out like their stoner loser Dad- a Knight of England, multi-gazillionaire, has so many gold and platinum records that he uses them for skeet shooting practice, or that so many of the songs that are providing the lifestyle for that insipid twit were made while stoned.

And what, if the kids smoke dope, what- they'll never be able to get a job anywhere?

Man, first Linda wouldn't let him eat meat, and now we have whats her name with this.

Paul.....dude......

Point #3- going back to El Presidente, what the fuck got into him at the UKansas thing? I heard the tapes of it and he was giggling like a schoolgirl who just came home from giving her first blowjob with her panties in her pocketbook and spew still on her face. And then I saw the tape and he was slumped over the podium and then getting all sloppy about Laura... Was he drunk? Has the pressure gotten to him and he fell off the wagon and Cheney wasn't around to bitch-slap him back to lucidity? My god, either watch it on CSpan or read the transcript. It reads like the Harvey Birdman episode where Shaggy & Scooby were pulled over, Cops-style, in the Mysterymobile.

I wouldn't be surprised if old Dubya started hitting the bottle hard. His perfect little world has turned to shit. He got caught lying about Hussein and Iraq and is still getting mocked by the fucking French, of all people. When the Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys have seized the moral high ground from you on any issue not involving wine or cheese, you're pretty much screwed.

He's pissed off the senior citizens with Medicaid reform- the reform being they can no longer afford the meds that were provided to them before Dubya punted the pooch and screwed up the system. Oh yeah, and next he wants to try his hand at Social Security.

He's got the right wing of his party ready to toss him under the bus for not nominating some beady-eyed zealot like Bork to the high court. Best he could come up with was Alito aka Bork Light. And Roberts came across as a bit of a dim bulb on his first case serving as both a Supreme Court Justice and Chief Justice.

Bush is spinning himself into butter trying to find a way to put a smiley face on the NSA domestic spying scandal. He keeps saying they were only targeting people talking to Al Qaeda when the NYTimes proved otherwise- it entailed ALL overseas communication. Which gives me a queasy feeling when I talk to Our Man In Haarlem (Netherlands) Patrick, knowing that the NSA could gank my transmission if any magic words pop up. No need to mention them here and bring up any red flags on E-CH_E__Lo*N.....

And if that's not bad enough, the Administration was told to eat shit and die by Google when they tried to make Google turn over its database records of searches. They were told :: nudge nudge wink wink :: it was to ferret out statistics on kids looking up porn. Right.... and I have a bridge in Staten Island I can sell you for pennies on the dollar.


So it seems, Dear Friends, that the world has gone fucking mad. Thank god because that gives me something to write about.

Tags:

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Election fraud and treachery

Today we have a couple of things, including two sordid little stories.

The first one might surprise you, coming from an unrepentant Lefty such as myself. I am harsh but fair. Equal-opportunity flogging, if you will.

First story is out of Wisconsin, where four Democratic campaign workers pleaded no contest to charges they punctured the tires of 25 vehicles rented by the GOP to bring voters to the polls on election day.

The stupidity and criminality of this is mind-boggling. I'm not quite sure what to say. But I do wonder about this- how far up the food chain does this go? Two of them are sons of Wisconsin politicians. Were these just a bunch of stupid kids or were they put onto this by others?

Second story is out of Florida. Kathleen "Hanging Chad" Harris, the queen of election fraud, is running for the US senate seat in Florida. For a long time, her campaign had gotten a less-than-warm welcome from the GOP partymeisters. But realizing she's not going away, they've started to support her. At a GOP meeting in Florida, Jeb Bush tossed his support firmly behind Harris.

That'll be a fun election. Since she's challenging an incumbent Democrat, the Dems will no doubt send their sharks down there to savage Harris. The GOP is sadly mistaken if they think voters have forgotten how Ms Harris's little bit of election fraud has had far-reaching consequences including the war in Iraq. And if voters have forgotten, they will be reminded early and often.

Moving a bit further, onto the presidential race, Senator John McCain spoke about the need for America to become more energy self-sufficient and not as subject to the whims of countries like Iran and Venuzuela. The timing of McCain's remarks are interesting, coming at the same time as the President prepares for his State of the Union address that will address, among other things, energy policy.

Which is point final. The president has begun releasing bits and pieces of his address, which will cover health costs, energy policy, and tax cuts.

Bush is on shaky ground. Only 39% of those polled approve of his handling of the economy, long a GOP strong point. Bush is faced with a very shaky record that looks even worse compared to the boom of the Clinton 90s. Then there's the war and the domestic spying scandals. Bush is very much a president on the run and he is even being tossed under the bus by those in his own party who are concerned about their own reelection bids. Nobody believes a word out of his mouth any more and he is openly mocked. Apparently several months ago when he said the government would not spy on Americans he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Look for ads touching upon this to air in various select markets come the midterm elections. The Dems, if they are smart, will paint various GOP candidates as unindicted co-conspirators.

And with this, it's time to go pay attention to some football.

Google