It's not what your pastor says - it's whether you sleep thru the sermon.

GTL was wondering aloud why McCain's paster - a raving loonie by all accounts - is getting a free pass because McCain sleeps through his sermons, just like Barack Obama probably does.

Moving on to the substance, having dismissed the story as the non-story it is and taking a swipe in passing of McCain's discomfort with the width of the loopholes in McCain-Fiengold, he gets to the point.

The Gun Toting Liberal™: "If you think for ONE MOMENT, “Panama John” lacks a “skeleton” or two in his closet, you’d better think AGAIN. The man’s been to war and he was captured as a POW. My hat’s off to him for that, and I sincerely do mean that. On the other hand, I’ve been to war, too, and I guaran-damned-TEE you — you do NOT want MOI to be YOUR “Leader Of The Free World”. I’ll never be the same again, and I wasn’t even captured and/or tortured by the enemy like “Panama John” was. God Bless him, but it is simply not POSSIBLE for the man to be even the slightest bit “normal”. Ask any other war veteran and unless they, like “The Sherrif”, are blinded by the G.O.P., they’ll wholeheartedly agree."

And that's the point I think we should all consider. I've been through my own sorts of wars - equivalent levels of stress, according to folks who tell other folks they need to be wrapped tighter - and I will tell you that PTSD really does do permanent damage.

This can be a blessing or a curse, but I cannot see any way where he could possibly turn it into a blessing for him and us in the Presidency. A Senator has the slack they need to cope. I'd be real tempted (from the viewpoint of either party) to have him as SecDef. It is going to be a chrome-plated bitch rebuilding our armed forces, and we will need someone with that level of street cred with the troops to do it. One thing about PTSD - it really does enhance your level of rational paranoia.

One thing I have noticed about presidential candidates - and this troubles me in general - there are few enough legislators who are competent enough to pour piss out of a boot; it disturbs me to see the good ones go down the crapper with the bad; the general outcome of a failed run for Presidency seems to be the end of one's political career.

Illustration Credit:

Pipe Down Now, Silly Liberal Shirt by Libertymaniacs

Customized (0ne might even go so far as to say "Perverted") By yours Truly.

But then, that's the beauty of the whole idea.

My Deep Purple Dream

In each party, there is a race between candidates that represent the best and the worst of each party. On the Democratic side, people have this idea that a "dream ticket" would be both leading candidates. They don't share that dream - nor do I.

On the Republican side - well, mostly the dreams are dead, save for the guttering spark of Ron Paul's candadacy and the flaming stupidity that is the McCain campain. 100 years of war? I don't see that as a great issue to be running on, unless you are trying to corner the Stupid White Male with Very Small Penis vote. I hope that's a smaller constituancy than McCain's advisors seem to think.

I say we put the best of each in charge. I say this because it will make inside-ball ideologues explode with righteous indignation. I really like that image...

My Muted Obamamania

Bitter Medicine by webcarve

I don't usually do the t-shirt first. But this time, my reason to finally choose between Obama and Clinton resolved into this shirt I posted a couple of days ago. It's taken this long to put the reasons behind it into words.-

Endorsing Barack is not just a choice for me, it's pretty much an unavoidable choice. Barack Obama chose to tell the truth to people who needed to hear it, despite all advice to the contrary.

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

As well they might. One might call this "elitist" or "talking down" - but the fact is, the great majority of the people have every right to expect our delegated representatives to be in an informed position to understand and legislate issues, or in other words, be ABLE to "talk down to us." And every once in a while, they need to be able to swat us upside the head and force us to look at the crapfest we have allowed ourselves to indulge in rather than actually shoveling our share of the shitstorm.

We do have a right to be bitter about the results of being exploited and pandered to for political gain as a substitute for actual competent, compassionate and intelligently conservative management of our interests on our behalf. Hell, conservative voters have completely given up on the idea of government or their taxes bringing them any benefit - so long as it benefits nobody else, and so long as their frustrations are expressed in making the rubble jump somewhere far away.

But it's not enough, and it's certainly not worth three dollar gasoline and milk at 3.50 when your wages have been stagnant for a decade or two.

They - the people Clinton so swiftly assumes are dumb enough to be unthinkingly offended - are not actually that dumb. Their noses are rubbed in it every day. It's bad enough to have to shop at Wal-Mart - when it's getting hard to make ends meet even by making do and settling for less, when your grocery bill tells you that all that good economic news is complete and utter nonsense for you and everyone you know, it's time for the lies to end.



There's a saying from the great undefined middle of this nation:

"Don't pee on my boots and tell me it's sunshine."

Well, we've had eight years of that, and Clinton obviously figures that if it's worked for eight years, it will work for eight more. Just like John McCain.

As much as I'd like to vote for the first woman president - the actual result will be much more along the line of John McCain in drag.

This is Graphictruth, and Barak gets our endorsement for speaking the Graphictruth. I discount his apology - for if you read it, it's the apology I would have made, if my arm were twisted as hard as his; "I'm sorry you feel that way."

Reality is not optional in Politics. We have had far too much post-modern bullshit, and quite frankly, it's making ME want to cling to the hard cold reality that a handgun represents. A gun is simple, understandable and comforting in times of trouble - even when it's an utterly useless comfort. Even when you know perfectly well that your troubles are not ones that can be dismissed with "a whiff of grape-shot" or rightfully blamed on the symptoms of malfeasance and greed, such as outsourcing and illegal immigration.

We have the right to expect leaders who understand that it's their job to keep things from getting to such a point where we start to think wistfully about deploying Occam's Machine-Gun.

We also have the 2nd Amendment right to employ our arms at need to insist on such leadership.
I don't know if Barack Obama understands the full import of the second amendment and it's precursor, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence - but it was not that long ago, actually, that another president did.

He is known as FDR, and he pretty much ran roughshod over the letter of the Constitution, in order to fulfil it's intent in a time of far greater emergency than our history books would like to admit. We were a whisker away from outright revolution, because the Constitution was being used as a reason to NOT meet the needs of the great majority, while the "important people," "the People Who Matter" were being feted at the White House.

Herbert Hoover was very lucky that his time in office ran out, considering the alternative.

This time has come again. And while I'm a constitutional absolutist, as one Justice observed, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

What it is, above all, is a document that outlines what government is intended to achieve and delegates powers sufficient to that end. Well, our current leaders - and this neocon abomination goes right down to the local level, where the taser fetish has become a cliche' - are clearly fearful of and contemptuous toward the individual liberties the Constitution holds sacred.

"To promote the general welfare and to provide for the common defense." I don't recall any exception in duty toward persons making less than five figures.

We can only hope he's also smart enough to call upon the services of Ron Paul to help him make his instincts constitutionally bullet-proof, because the Supreme Court is three to two against common sense and the rights of the individual.

Pot. Kettle. Rove.

I've always felt that if you need a solid viewpoint on a position that requires professional insight, you should go to a professional. Well, when speaking of positions found in the Kama Sutra there is no finer pro than Susie Bright, and she of course has a very professional analysis of the Spitzer Scandal.

Pride Goeth Before Client #9

Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who became famous prosecuting Wall Street crooks, has been caught on a federal wiretap, making arrangements with a high-priced prostitute.

The pro, named Kristen, called her booker after her session with Eliot to confirm that all had gone well. She said she didn't find Spitzer "difficult,"€ as some of the other girls had complained.

The booker replied to her that "Client 9," as Eliot was called, was known to ask the women "€œto do things that, like, you might not think were safe."

Aside from the kinky slap to his Mr. Clean reputation, Spitzer is also facing legal jeopardy, since, among other things, the feds are hitting him with the Mann Act, a 1910 prostitution law designed to crack down on interstate "white slavery."

And as they say on Fark: "Hilarity Ensues." First Suzie has a few rings on the gong, and then her readers chime in. I won't spoil it- it's best enjoyed in it's compellingly NSFW context.

Oh, maybe just ONE more little nibble:

If we could give a truth serum to all the parties involved—€” or wiretap their personal diaries— here's what we might listen in on:

The $4,300 an Hour Prostitute:

Well, first of all, I got less than half of that, and my manicurist charges almost as much.

The Wife:

There's not a political wife alive who's been schtupped by her own husband in years. If you want a career as a high profile spouse, you can kiss your sex life goodbye.

The John/Governor:

Those sons of bitches. I know who did this, and I'll destroy them if it's the last thing I do.

The Escort Service Booker:

There's a couple dozen high end joints like us operating at any time to service the Pol crowd, and we just can't charge enough. Once they start ratting out each other, they'll mess us over so bad there'll be forty people filing bankruptcy as a result of their bullshit.

Did I mention that I like Susie Bright a lot?

She's had a lot to say about previous scandals of this sort, all of it compelling, insightful and wickedly pointed. But as amusing it is to see an arrant hypocrite hoist upon his own crusader's petard, it's really "Dog bites Man."

But, thanks to Susie, I was directed to this article on BoingBoing:

"I'm the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s solid gold cock ring."

You know, that might well be the most compelling headline of the decade.

Shannon Larratt, founder of the body modification online publication BMEzine, pointed us a few days ago to a first-person essay that a person named Yard[D]og was writing, regarding the adoptive father of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove (shown in the image at left). Yard[D]og claims to have been a close personal friend of the now-deceased elder Rove.

I've also had occasion to exchange emails with Shannon over the years, and there's nothing in my interactions that would cause me to either doubt his word or think that this might be concocted. [BK]

And now I wondered if that son ever cried for the man who raised him and watched him grow up? I’d be curious as to how Karl Rove would ever explain his pierced, gay father? He never told the people in Louis’ phone book that he had died, nor invited them to a service if there was one. No one even knows where he is buried.

As for me? Well, I am the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s pure, solid gold cock ring! I’ve put it away with a few memories and pictures of his father. And in my garden grows a nasty, prickly little cactus from Louie’s backyard ... alive and well.

- - - - - - - -

Link to full text. NSFW advisory: Contains links to photographs of pierced genitals said to those of Karl Rove's father, with a "modesty mosaic" imposed over the thumbnail images at that main link.

Well, now; that explains a lot, don't it? Oh, and Karl was raised in Sparks, Nev, just for that local interest angle.

I've always thought that Karl was a little bit "queer" myself. Not in the way his dad was, but in the sense of being ooozingly, off-puttingly not quite right. In the old sense, before the word came to be a synonym for homosexuality, one connotation was the sort of person that caused you to wipe your hand on your pants-leg after shaking their hand.

And oddly enough, Karl is the exact sort that would like you to confuse those terms, with the sort of pasty phiz you see in sex-offender registries.

So, with that unpleasant but entirely too plausible association in mind, let us now observe that Glenn Greenwald is wondering aloud if this might be the result of a politically motivated "sting" by the Department of Justice.

Is it really the case that any elected official who ever breaks the law should be righteously condemned by all decent people and then forced from office -- without regard to how serious the offense is or whether there are even any victims? If so, I don't think there are going to be very many elected officials left.

I believe that's one of them Rhetorical Questions.

I'm minded how easy it was for Larry Flindt to scare up awkward details on people howling for Clinton's head during the Lewinski matter. The odds are very good that if there is any political figure of any party that you would like to pressure or put out to pasture, that you will be able to find dirt enough to do it. The only requirement, of course, is that you somehow believe that "sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander."

Glenn points to a damn fine Harper's take on this and in a later update heaves a nod toward firedoglake.

UPDATE II: Harper's Scott Horton, one of the country's foremost experts on the Bush DOJ's overtly political prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, compiles numerous additional questions regarding this quite unusual, massive federal law enforcement effort directed at a small prostitution ring that just so happens to have had Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer as a client (leading, in turn, to the disclosure of all sorts of salacious details in the "Client-9" paragraphs of the Complaint having no bearing whatsoever on the actual criminal issues).

It will be difficult for the questions Horton raises to attract much attention given all of the fun, titillating details concerning Spitzer's sexual activities which are already preoccupying so many, to say nothing of the invigorating charge that comes from being part of an upstanding mob so righteously condemning the private lives of others. But the issues Horton raises are of far greater significance than how Eliot Spitzer and other consenting adults chose to spend their time with one another.

UPDATE III: Jane Hamsher is asking similar and additional questions about this very odd prosecution.

That, of course, would be the sort of operation we have come to describe in the Blogosphere as being "Rovian."

In light of all of this, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what precise national security imperative drives the White House toward insisting on the need to be able to listen to our phone-calls or mine your data without so much as a warrant or a by-your-leave.

Their idea of "national security" is a permanent Republican majority, if not in name, than in effect. Odd, is it not, how so many Democrats failed so frequently to frustrate such obvious abuses of power by George Bush and his cronies?

This may well be intended as an object lesson as to what happens to people who poke their noses into Republican business.

But I wonder what a decent investigative reporter could dig up on major Republican figures - given a few grand for expenses?

Illustration: Could I be your Yoko Ono, Number Nine? T-Shirt by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

An Odor of Sanctimony

Romney Drops Out of GOP Race - The Fix:

"'If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win,' he said. 'And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.'"

Don't you just want to slap him until all the phony cracks and falls away?

On Praising McCain with Fainter Damns...

A Litmus Test For Hard-Core Conservatives:

"Although it is not on the agenda and I suspect a goodly number of CPAC members would deny it, the biggest issue facing this crowd is whether to embrace McCain, who has been the subject of vitriolic attacks by Coulter, among other right-wing demagogues, over not being conservative enough.

As I have written early and often, as the presumptive nominee, McCain cannot win the November election without at least the tacit support of CPACers."

You know, I like to think of myself as a Conservative-ish sort of person - but apparently that particular C-Word has become as slimy, slippery and difficult to apply as that other Big Cee word (the one with the very same litmus tests, it seems); "Christian."

Now, there are ways in which I think McCain is far too willing to compromise Conservatism; but all my caviats have to do with intrusive big government and foreign warfare - aside from being more of a flip-flopper than Kerry ever was.

As far as I am concerned, it's the very antithesis of Conservatism to pee in a cup for ANYONE, much less kneel holding it before self-appointed arbiters of Conservatism, such as Coulter and Malkin to delicately taste.

The only proper response to such a request is to pee on their shoes. Getting elected at the price of the ability to do anything consistent with any identifiable set of values - much less personal honor or integrity - is a price no Real Conservative - or indeed, any person of conscience - will abide. Of course, this will not put you in a place of power - but if you HAD to sell your concience and your own freedom, you won't really be in a place of power. You will simply be a shill - and not even a well-paid shill by modern standards.

Coulter, for one, makes more money for far less effort than even George Bush gets by with.

As the contest comes down to sussing out which candidate of all presented on each side has the most ... erm ... flexibility; the most room for interpretation of intent in their rhetoric, the less interested I am in throwing away my vote by voting.

Increasingly, as the field narrows, excluding those with principle in favor of those with corporate support and not even particularly well-hidden sponsorships, I'm losing interest. Well, the only way to vote "none of the above" is to not vote at all. That is the only way to deny a plurality to everyone who participated.

As I'm on the topic of the meaningless of the duties of citizenship, let me advocate a constitutional amendment that would require that 25% of the affected population must vote with a minimum of 90% confidence in the accuracy of the tally for the election to be valid.

If elections fail three times - a constitutional convention is called and the federal government is put in abeyance.

Yeah, wishful thinking.

Ron Paul - the strength of ten, for his support is pure.

Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul: Will Online Turn Into Offline?: "

“I think that’s what’s the most fascinating … how Ron Paul will do,” says Julie Germany, deputy director of George Washington University’s Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet. “His supporters have overwhelmingly been on the internet,” where blog rankings, YouTube videos and enthusiastic forum participation make his support appear “two or three times what it really is.”

Again, I think this could either be a turning point for Paul or a sign that he may need to think about running on a 3rd party ticket. Somehow I think it’s going to be the latter, given how much Romney is spending…"

The comments show something I've been noticing for some time now; even the reasonable political junkies simply do not understand that whatever you think of Ron Paul, his support comes from what may as well be an unseen paralell universe. While his polling may be low, there are two factors that make those numbers questionable at best - first, many RP supporters don't have landlines. Second, a huge percentage are not and never were "Likely voters."

For myself, I tend to analyze things like this from a different perspective; I figure for everyone motivated enough to go out and stand in the cold waving a sign, there are probably ten that will be motivated enough to vote for Ron Paul in a nice warm voting booth- if only as a seeming "none of the above" vote.

Hell, it's about the only choice for Republicans that want to be able to sleep at night - and he's attractive to Conservative Democrats as well. The accusations of racism haven't hurt him at ALL in that quarter. Sadly, it's quite possibly a very significant quarter.

Read the comments at the link above; this is a voting bloc that is not going away. It won't fade out, and it will continue to strongly impact the political process, whatever the "politics as usual" folks think about it. If Ron Paul drops out, the movement will pick someone else - and it could easily be Dennis Kucinich, seeing as Paul has all but personally endorsed him. This is a movement that concentrates on principles, not "opportunity politics."

And overwhelmingly, it demands wholesale, PRINCIPLED reform of the political and governmental process.

From my perspective, Ron is far from my ideal candidate, and I'm on record stating why, but the Ron Paul Revolution itself is largely independent of candidate, campaign, and established parties, which is it's power and it's saving grace.

Given that the overall results of the election will likely put a solid majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress, possibly even a Progressive plurality, Ron Paul is likely to be even more attractive to Independents as being a solid Constitutional Conservative and a natural check on the "tax and spend" governance that many fear, reasonably or not.

No Confidence in MSM

Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon: "I would never dream of coming to this blog and just start making assertions that 'Americans believe X' or 'Americans oppose Y' unless I had actual evidence to support those claims. That's because I would not expect readers of this blog to view what I write as being credible if I just spewed assertions with no empirical basis like that. No credible blogger would do that. Why don't pundits on MSNBC -- including the Managing Editor of Time Magazine -- recognize those same basic constraints?"

That's Glenn's concluding paragraph after taking the media to task in two trenchant posts, both well worth reading, even if they are a bit dated.

The most revealing three-minute YouTube clip ever

[Followup]

The main thrust is that Beltway pundits are just making stuff up about what "Americans want" when in fact there is solid polling data showing that a majority of Americans want the exact opposite.

Karl Rove's head on a pike sworn testimony before Congress being the particular case in point. And please note that as far as I am aware, no such sworn testimony has occurred.

I have to add that there are a great many conservative and liberal blogs that have, in my mind, credibility that surpasses above all but a very few US MSM outlets. The more "access to power" that these outlets have, the more unreliable I find them.

Of course, this is nothing new, and your humble scribe has only to point to this:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.

Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.

Steven Colbert to the White House Press Corpse. I mean, corps. I wonder what credibility "ordinary Americans" assign the Mainstream Media after ceaseless and baseless cheerleading for the war and the President's policies?

Pew Research Center survey conducted by Opinion Research Corp. Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 2007. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
						.
"Now thinking about the 2008 presidential campaign -- In general, how would you rate the job the press has done in covering the presidential campaign: [see below]?"
						.
		Excellent	Good	Only Fair	Poor	Unsure
		%	%	%	%	%
	9/28 - 10/1/07	6	35	32	21	6
						.

Gee. It wasn't that hard to find that survey. It makes me wonder how hard you have to work to find nothing at all to contradict an idiotic presumption. Indeed, one wonders if they read the reports from their own research and polling efforts.

Of Mice, Men and Issues.

Road to Nowhere - New York Times:

"The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government."

Obviously, while you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

Frankly, with the singular exception of Ron Paul, I don't think there's a single Republican candidate who has not already managed to pre-position themselves for a sure loss in the general election, where Independants will (as always) determine the outcome. Gulianni may be another, less obvious exception, but in the sense of being relatively less UNpopular, rather than commanding a great deal of popular support.

But the real problem - and one that includes Dr. No himself - is that the Republicans do not command a single positive idea. Not a one. It's all about who's fault things are, what things should be eliminated, how taxes are bad and how "godless liberalism" is leading to the downfall of our culture. Yeah, well, some of us think that the superficial godbothering and pearlclutching of the REPUBLICANS has lead to the downfall of our culture - and the credibility of the Christian faith.

Offshore Rx Escrow firm saves you money; perhaps even more.

Cheaper prescriptions from DrugDelivery.ca.

As we all get older, our prescription costs take a larger and larger chunk out of our disposable incomes, such as they are - and no thanks to George Bush's cozy relationship with Big Pharma.

Well, in Canada and much of the rest of the world, the relationship between Government and Big Pharma is altogether different, and that's the main reason why worldwide drug prices are lower than they are in the United States. DrugDelivery.ca, an Online Pharmacy escrow service, is one way to get cheaper offshore drugs without taking a day-trip to Canada. That's rather impractical for most of us, when you think of it. Further, as they operate under the laws of Mariatus, you have a greater assurance of privacy than you would with a US or even Canadian based company.

But, can you trust them?

Here's what they say about themselves:

We want to be seen as the one place to come for all your pharmacy needs. We want to be the one company people think of when they want to order their prescriptions online safely and know they will get what they pay for – no fraud – no worries. In a business where there are so many shady businesses who will be happy to take your money and run or send you fake medicine it is really hard to position ones self as legitimate but we have been in business since 2004 doing just that, and that’s how we want to continue.

There's a great deal more about them on this page, and they have clearly invested a great deal in a great many online assurances.

Now, from my viewpoint as a Libertarian and as an opponent to all things supporting George Bush - this is a twofer.

First, you excercise your right to spend your money where it will do the most good - and without "sharing" that information with one of George's "privacy-enhanced" NSA-audited pharmacy databases.

The second, of course, is that it's taking walking-around money out of the hands of Big Pharma - and so out of the pockets of politicians in this election cycle. That could be a very, very big deal, so if you have no drug coverage, or your insurance company encourages lower-cost sourcing, consider this firm seriously.

It's The Ethics, Stupid!

This election is going to turn on ethics and values, and who the voters feel genuinely intends to do the right thing by us as a people and as a nation. Here are two indicators, and what I think they imply.

Paul credits anti-war stance for size of his war-chest

DES MOINES — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul credited his stance against the war in Iraq for his hefty fund raising haul over the weekend when he raised more than $6 million in a single day.

“I believe the war has been the igniting factor to the campaign from day one,” Paul said.

Paul is drawing support from a demographic no other candidate has seriously tapped, to my knowledge - people who either have never voted, or were not intending to vote.

Paul supporter Jessica Borgnis of Des Moines came to see him Monday. Borgnis voted for George Bush in 2000, but said she became disillusioned after the country went to war.

“I switched my vote to a third-party candidate in 2004, and wasn’t going to vote this election year, and when I heard about Ron Paul, I just regained confidence in the system,” she said.

read more | digg story

But Paul's support does not come from nowhere and nothing. Frankly, "It's Karma, Baby." This story from Burnt Orange Report seems to underline the principle that "Cheaters never Prosper."

What Dan Barrett's Victory Means for Texas by: Matt Glazer

Dan Barrett's victory tonight has implications beyond better representation for Fort Worth residents. To relay its importance, we have to look at what brought us to this point.

In 2001, Republican's drew a map they thought would elect 102 R's and 48 D's. They were wrong as only 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats were elected in 2002. Still, it was a striking blow to Democrats as we had lost our majority, the Speakership, and control of the operation of the Texas House. That was a low point for Democrats in Texas as well as nationally. The result was the rise of the neo-conservative, uber Republican Tom Craddick who slashed the budget and cut social programs like CHIP and education funding. To this day that funding has never been restored even with surpluses in the state budget.

In 2006, Democrats won 6 seats plus Donna Howard's special election. In 2007 we welcomed Kirk England to the Democratic Party and now we have Dan Barrett as member of our caucus as well. We've not even yet had a single vote cast the 2008 primaries, and there are now 71 Democrats in Texas House- a stunning and speedy reversal based on the same map that was drawn to have only 42 Democratic seats.

A number of factors are no doubt at work, but I don't think we can dismiss principled outrage at the behavior of Tom Delay and Texas Republicans in so conspicuously and arrogantly gerrymandering the state. And then, well, there's everything a certain former Texas Governor has been up to since then. At some point, party allegiance becomes an embarrassment rather than a point of pride. I'm guessing that either Republicans have been staying home in droves, or they have been crossing party lines.

Here's something to note in reference to Ron Paul's campaign, and Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination.)

In addition, Barrett was dramatically out spent. According to the 8 day out reports, Mark Shelton spent over $100,000 and raised (and presumably spent) another $10,000 from TexPAC before the election. Barrett on the other hand spent a little over $45,000 according to his 8 day report. Again, according to his telegram reports, raised an additional $4,000 in the final week of the election from Texas Parent PAC and two individuals.

Breaking it down, that means Barrett spent $9.13 per vote compared to about $23.40 per vote for Shelton.

Money doesn't seem to be talking as loud as it used to. I don't know how well Barrett used the Internet to gather attention, so it's hard to compare that aspect of his campaign to Ron Paul's, but it could well have been a significant passive factor.

Unlike the elections of my youth, where it was next to impossible to gather enough information for an average voter to make a decent choice, today a voter is just a Google away from everything a challenger wants them to know, and everything an incumbent hopes they have forgotten.

Somebody should do some polling on that.

But for the majority party to lose to an under-funded challenger in a district gerrymandered in that party's favor - that should be as close to an impossible as politics allows.

But then, losing at least half of the military vote that Republicans have come to rely on has got to sting. There's this Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll which is dissected here .

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

And then there are rumblings within the ranks of evangelical and conservative Christians. who seem to have finally noticed the wide gap between stated principles and evident actions. This may lead to some internal upheaval as well as a real problem for most Republican candidates except Ron Paul, who's gotten the most military donations of any candidate and is respected for his forthright Christianity, even if he's unwilling to legislate his morality.

All told, it's looking more and more like Paul's campaign has the potential, in terms of both actual and potential supporters, to go all the way to the finish line. Not a "spoiler" - as some would like to portray him - but as the logical, viable and popular choice for the Republican nomination, and win or lose, a far more significant stature within the party.

I'm sure that idea is making certain established Republican figures crap ice cubes. Moreover, imagine the funk sweat on K-Street. Lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door any more. But here's the logical outcome of this; the big money has to go to the more "credible" candidates - that is to say, the ones willing to be bribed to bend the rules.

Clearly the "smart money" of that sort is backing a Guliani/Clinton match; a win/win proposition for K-Street and big business. But as we have seen, money doesn't seem to count for as much as it did, and it may even be that huge campaign chests and slick, triangulated, focus-grouped campaigns might be a net negative.

I personally think it is a negative, or at best a neutral, because neither campaign is going to be saying what voters want to hear. And meanwhile, they may well be doing direct political calculus of their own: Elect a solid Democratic majority to ensure Health Care (You don't need Hillary for that) - and Ron Paul to get us out of Iraq. Because for that, you need someone with the authority to say "wind it up and ship them home."

I'm not one to make bets or give odds, but I'm thinking a bet on a Democratic near-sweep of open seats in the House and Senate is far better than even odds, while the idea of Ron Paul becoming President is, while still a long shot, not at all inconceivable.

It's not so much Paul's race to win as it is for all the others to lose - but they all seem well-positioned for that outcome.

Illustration: It's The Ethics,Stupid!, by webcarve
Get this custom bumpersticker
at Zazzle

Ron Paul: A matter of concience.

clipped from seattletimes.nwsource.com At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations were processed credit-card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation was about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign. Like many Paul backers, Lyman is a political novice. He has never even bothered to vote. But he had to act, he said, when the new Democratic majority in Congress didn't pull the troops out of Iraq. He was drawn to Paul and his promise to end the war immediately. "I know my tax dollars are being used to kill people," Lyman said. "It makes me feel horrible."

Trevor Lyman, the unpaid and unofficial Ron Paul volunteer who is directly responsible for two record-breaking "money bombs" has captured the attention of Mainstream Media.

Why is he doing it? What does he expect to gain? What agenda does he advocate? What strings, in other words, come with this money?

Conscience. Strings of principle, of ethics and of conscience - strings that Ron Paul is more than happy to be bound by.

"I know my tax dollars are being used to kill people," Lyman said. "It makes me feel horrible."

It's hard to argue with motivations like that - and it's hard to argue that such motivations are "naive" or "unrealistic" in light of more than ten millions raised on the strengths of Ron Paul's principles alone, without direct or implied bribes.

Ron Paul doesn't advocate single payer health care and he's opposed to social security in principle (I differ with him there, by the by). But there are few personally selfish reasons to vote for him. They don't call him "Dr. No" for nothin'.

Render Unto Ceasar

I have a serious problem with the ultimate credibility of both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, which has nothing to do with their politics. It's with what both claim to inform and shape their politics, their faith.

Both are more than willing to cite the importance of the Bible, and both are proud of their significant religious ordinations; both are hold ordinations in their respective faiths, and Romney is the equivalent of a Christian Bishop.

Furthermore, it seems to me that any fair-minded person, in reviewing the accomplishments of both men, which are honestly significant and important, than it's evident that they have, within the limits of human nature and circumstance - strived to honor the spirit as well as the letter of doctrinal guidance. These are not bad things. Indeed, in many ways, both men illustrate the impact of religious culture in society in it's best light - and I say this while taking direct issue with much of what each stands for, religiously and politically.

But if we are to praise men of faith who do their best to honor the words of Christ as they understand them in the world, we must heed Matthew 6:24 :

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."

In context, Matthew chapter six is purportedly the direct words of Christ and is indisputably the foundation of some of the oldest and most basic Christian doctrines. In other words, it's pretty much a litmus test for people who say they are Christians, or (in Mitt's case) that their faith derives from and amplifies Christianity.

While my understanding of Mormonism is weak at best, I know of nothing in it that would dispute this passage. And aside from anything else, the words stand for themselves; they are persuasive due to them being a matter of common sense, one that is well understood within common law, which would express it as "conflict of interest."

If this were the only leg to my argument, though, it would not be worth uttering, for of course the issue goes to motive, and motive we cannot know. No, the more critical issue is this:

Both men, in taking direct ordinations and embracing certain spiritual obligations and duties, have accepted what is generally understood by persons of faith to be a higher, overriding duty. And - in the case of BOTH Mitt's Mormonism and Mike's Southern Baptist faith, there are going to be times when it will not be possible to come to an honorable compromise between the prior charge of the priesthood and the later oath of office.

The only way either could legitimately take the oath would be by renouncing their prior ordinations. But then, that would not really reflect well upon how seriously they took the duties and obligations they had sworn before their visions of God to uphold.

It seems to me that as things stand, the only way I can assume that either will "faithfully execute the office of the President" is if I assume that they were keeping their fingers crossed when they made their earlier promises, for the honorable exercise of their offices requires them to put the interests of the faithful and of their faith ahead of anything else, to a far greater and more stringent degree than is required of someone who is merely a congregate in good standing.

If I assume they are both men of faith to the degree I am expected to believe, if I assume they are sincere in their beliefs, if I assume they are faithful to their various religious doctrines which both claim overriding divine authority, I must then assume that in conscience and in practice that doctrine and faith will trump Constitution and Law every single time. And, as both support amending the constitution itself to take rights away from gays who are doctrinally excluded from marriage within either faith, we clearly see how this conflict resolves for each.

I don't ascribe this to some nefarious hidden agenda, I ascribe it to perfectly sincere faith, executed by men of conscience to the best of their ability. Believing as they both do, there is no other path of conscience.

Which means, alas, that neither man should, in conscience, be running for political office, knowing full well that they cannot and must not serve two masters.

The only question is this: which one will they choose to betray?

The President must be president for all citizens - not just citizens of a particular faith or range of faiths. The President is the safeguard of our liberties - not the figure that would impose duties upon us by fiat. We are offered two men from two very authoritarian religions who, we must assume, believe not only that it's proper that moral standards be imposed, but who each hold offices that make them responsible for doing just that.

I'd have a problem with that even if I were a member of such a faith - and I rather think that my objections would be even more profound if I held a similar ordination in a similar faith.

That is why the founders somewhat reluctantly agreed that there should be a separation of Church and State and forbade the establishment of any religion, even the rather inoffensive Deist faith.

Because a man may not serve two masters - and neither may a government.

tag: religion, faith, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, election 2008, Matthew 6:24

The Slime Behind the Smile : Mike Huckabee - serial rapist pardoner.

As disturbing as it was to find out from the Huffington Post that Mike Huckabee allegedly pardoned Wayne Dumond due to some anti-Clinton hysteria alleging a "frameup," in what appears to have been a particularly irrational Clinton bashing exercise gone horribly, horribly wrong, it turns out that it really wasn't that hard to convince Huckabee to let a serial rapist and probable recidivist go free.

It turns out that - over howls of protests from parole boards, victims families and prosecutors of both parties - you deserved clemency if just clutched a bible and professed to be "born again" with the degree of sincerity it seems born-again Republicans expect from one another. That, or if you raked leaves at the Mansion really well. "Or at least, that was one wry observation from a prosecutor who clearly wasn't willing to go so far as to say that clemencies are for sale.

And indeed, it may well be that he's dumb enough to piss in his AG's cornflakes for free.

There is a long, long list of offenders Huckabee has granted clemency to, many who have re offended. Several of these persons had been sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole by a jury of their peers.

Now, I'm all too well aware of the sorts of things that may occur that lead to someone being unjustly convicted - I'm rather a fan of DNA and The Innocence Project. But in such cases, there should be a very high standard - which The Innocence Project meets, by re-examining DNA evidence.

But this is not about a governor carefully reviewing a case and finding grounds for reasonable doubt - in Huckabee's case, the process appears to be whimsical, insensitive and entirely inexplicable to the legal community.

When you talk to prosecutors around the state, many of them will tell you they're unhappy that Gov. Huckabee pardons criminals without letting law-enforcement officials or victims' families know why he's doing it, as he's required by law.
___ "He doesn't take giving clemency very seriously," complains Saline County Prosecuting Attorney Robert Herzfeld, who will push for new legislation next year to make the clemency process less secretive.

One particularly sore point is his arrogance; signally and contrary to the Arkansas state constitution, he refuses to explain his reasons for granting clemency.

Herzfeld successfully sued to keep a murderer named Don Jeffers behind bars (at least for a while longer) after Huckabee granted him clemency without explanation as required by law: "On granting an application (for executive clemency), the Governor shall include in his written order the reasons thereforeŠ."
___Attorney General Mike Beebe, in nullifying the pardon, agreed that the governor had erred when he didn't give reasons why he had pardoned Jeffers and didn't even contact the prosecutor or the victim's family about how he felt about the pardon.
___"It was a tremendous victory," says the 30-year-old prosecutor. "This was not only the first time a prosecutor had filed a lawsuit against a governor but had actually won." Jeffers had strangled a Bryant man during a home burglary in 1980 and is serving a life sentence without parole for murder and 25 years for armed robbery after he plea bargained to avoid the death penalty.

Reportedly, the fact that a felon has lied on a clemency application doesn't concern Huckabee;

He [Herzfeld] is fighting clemency for an-other Saline County killer named Denver Dual Witham, who is also serving a life sentence without parole.
___In 1974, Witham and a cousin beat their victim to death out in the woods with a lead pipe – and beat him repeatedly so that the victim's face was smashed almost beyond recognition. "His entire face was gone," the prosecutor says.
___He accuses Witham of lying on his clemency petition to make it seem that he had killed his victim in "a barroom brawl" – as if that had made the crime less awful.
___"He's a liar," Herzfeld says of Witham, who could face perjury charges because of his whitewashed clemency application.
___Herzfeld says Witham, who plays in the prison band, hid five previous felonies from his clemency application and had threatened the previous sheriff.
___"This is the person the governor wants to let out of prison," the prosecutor says. "No word yet on whether the governor will change his mind or go ahead and grant clemency to this convicted murderer who lied on his clemency application and made threats towards former public officials," Herzfeld told us.
___"The governor has to wait 30 days from the date he announced his intent to grant clemency on May 21. My guess is that the governor will release his decision on Witham late this Friday afternoon before the long holiday weekend."

I've no idea what's happening in regards to this case, but I can't imagine what could possibly cause a reasonable Governor of either party to overlook such abuse of process that it could even become an issue. It would not be "could face" but "would face" perjury charges, and I'd take a personal interest in insuring that the inmate's circumstances changed for the worse. I would pretty much assume that response of any governor of any party.

This is apparently a long-running scandal in the Governor home state, but it's apparently news to the GOP leadership, who still apparently distrust that "internet thingie" enough to do a quick Google to find any emergent scandals. Heck, never mind that; his actual positions on the issues contain something to offend just about everyone.

Of course, over at the Daily Kos, devout Democrats hold prayer vigils in hopes of his nomination, observing that a candidate that splits the Republicans between the Religious Right and everyone else AND who has Willie Horton as an invisible running mate is pretty much a free pass for any Democratic candidate with a pulse.

The problem for the GOP is they can't really take down Huckster because most of the things that are so crazy about him actually help him with the evangelical base. Even the rape-murderer he pushed let go can be spun that he thought the guy changed from being 'born again'. Huck's views on AIDS victims being quarantined, and being homosexual means you are a public health risk are of course apalling to us and the majority of Americans, but to the evangelical base, this won't hurt him at all. So now the GOP is left with their establishment candidates, flawed as they are, (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson) battling and splitting up the non-evangelical base as Huck takes the lionshare of the evangelical base. It's a recipe for disaster for the GOP. Now with the frontrunner's bullseye on him, story after story will come out in the media of his crazy and kooky views, but those stories won't turn off the evangelical GOP base, just everybody else.

I concur. And my hunch - and that's all that it is, a hunch - is that it may well end up with Ron Paul getting the nomination. Not because of his high positives (I'd call them moderate positives) but because of the overwhelming negatives carried by everyone else. Even those turned off by his anti-war stance may well vote for him rather than giving Hillary (or whoever) a walkover.

Many say (with probable accuracy) that "he can't win the nomination," but I'm starting to think that it's a case where everyone else is going to lose worse.

I swear to Ghu, I do feel for the average, traditional moderate American Conservative, they really must be wondering where their leaders found this pack of jokers. Not one really viable candidate - and I reluctantly include Ron in that; there's no way in any normal election that he'd be getting the attention he's getting.

I'm surprised there isn't a movement underway to impeach the Republican National Committee.

That Inexplicable Clinton Magic

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com Politically, there existed a fervent movement that believed Dumond was the victim of a Bill Clinton vendetta, carried out by the state's Democratic political machine. That movement, which had helped Huckabee ascend to power just months earlier in 1996, ramped up pressure on the newly elected governor to rectify a wrong. Huckabee himself was either friends with or associated to several of the key activists who publicly criticized Dumond's arrest. And Huckabee's particular religious background made him disposed to believing that Dumond -- who would go on to rape and murder another woman upon his release -- was either innocent of his crimes or had been rehabilitated in prison. Those close to the case say that in the end, it was a combination of these factors that compelled Huckabee to ignore evidence, forgo advice, and ultimately press the parole board for the release of Wayne Dumond.

I have never quite understood what it is about Bill Clinton that provokes hatred to such a degree that even otherwise fairly sensible people are perfectly willing to commit obvious and outrageous perversions of justice in what generally turned out to be futile efforts to discredit him. It turns out that this perverse "magic" predates his presidency and, of course, Ken Starr.