Democrats Pin '08 Hopes on"Republican Light" Warner

If it were a movie it could be called "A Southern Star is Born." The most significant thing to happen following Tuesday's elections was the sudden emergence of what many excited Democrats are calling their new 2008 presidential frontrunner, a guy who just happens to be leaving office, not running for it. Departing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, with an astounding 75% approval rating, ushered fellow Democrat Lt. Gov. Timothy Kaine to victory, and in the process propelled himself into the national spotlight as a very credible threat to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the heretofore early favorite.

So just who is Mark Warner? If you're from Virginia, he's your wildly popular governor, elected just three years ago and already, under the state's constitutional term-limits, just a year away from vacating office. But to the rest of the country, he's a relative no-name with little national juice. That is until Tuesday. Now he's the newly anointed Golden Child; the great Democratic hope; the one to watch. But at the same time, to many on the left, he appears as "Republican light" given his conservative positions on the death penalty, gun control, immigration, the economy and abortion.

To his credit, the 51-year-old multimillionaire venture capitalist graduate of Harvard Law School has an impressive fiscal track record as Virginia's governor. Since his election in 2001, state revenue has increased significantly from $19 billion in FY99 to nearly $30 billion in FY05. Warner has also successfully crossed the aisle to work with moderate Republican state legislators to reform the tax code, lowering food and income taxes, and increasing the sales and cigarette taxes in 2004. He's also been lauded for progressive positions on health care and education.

Virginia is a red state which Bush carried in 2004 with 54% of the vote, yet Warner was able to grab the governor's mansion by winning over solidly Republican rural voters. He did so by sponsoring a NASCAR team, supporting gun owners and hunters, by supporting certain restrictions on abortion such as parental notification, and by using a bluegrass song as his campaign theme. He crossed over successfully, and more importantly, as a genuine country boy.

"People in rural America may speak a little slower, but they can spot a phony a mile away," Warner said. "You see other candidates who say, 'Let's just do the optics.' But unless you feel as comfortable hanging out at a country fair or having a beer and eatin' some barbecue as you do at your high-end, high-tech reception, people are going to see through that."

Regarding his chances in '08, as Newsweek's Howard Fineman wrote this Summer, Warner has terrific selling points: he's a governor; he has money and access to more; he has a strong, loyal base; he's a Southerner; he has a worthy cross-over message; and he has time to craft all this into a winning campaign strategy.

And he's not Hillary Clinton, yet he feels a little like Bill, which Democrats love. Sure, prior to Tuesday, and likely still, national polls show Sen. Clinton soundly ahead of the pack. In fact, in a Marist poll just 2 weeks ago Warner was pulling just 1% to Hillary's 41%. But what Democrats will tell you privately is that they fear she's little more than a polarizing North Eastern lefty with as much of a chance of appealing to Southerners and moderate Republicans as Tom DeLay would to Manhattan liberals. And, many Democrats tell me while she might very well sprint through the primary primary, it's unlikely she could win the general election.

If Warner is to mount a serious bid for the White House he'll have to overcome the big challenge of being just a one-term governor. Some believe that will translate to a run for Sen. George Allen's GOP seat in next year's midterms. Recent polls show he would handily beat Allen, yet a head-to-head battle would likely force Warner to emphasize his more liberal pedigree in order to draw sharp contrasts with his Republican opponent. But that could throw a wrench into his presidential aspirations as a moderate challenger to Clinton.

The hullabaloo over Warner aside, we still prefer to see Al Gore return to the national political scene and seek the presidency. Until proven otherwise, he appears to have the best shot at winning...again.

Santorum Snubs Bush in PA; Bush's Fallout Begins

Much was said before Tuesday's bellwether gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey that Republican losses there would be a huge blow to President Bush and a wake up call to the GOP that the president's political capital is depleted. There is no greater evidence of that than today's apparent snub of Bush by No.3 Senate Republican Rick Santorum (PA), who's facing a tough 2006 re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., the state's treasurer, who's held a steady double-digit lead in the polls.

The president will be in Wilkes-Barre today to give one his patented cheerleading speeches on the war on terror, no doubt linking Saddam and Iraq within the first five minutes as usual. But Santorum has other plans. Due to a "scheduling conflict," he'll be 16 miles away in Philadelphia speaking before the American legion.

It took some time, but Bush has become the black plague to Republican incumbents. Tuesday's victories by Va's Tim Kaine and NJ's Jon Corzine is an early barometer into voters' dissatisfaction with the status quo. Bush's sagging popularity--a historically low 35% approval rating--combined with the quagmire in Iraq, mounting policy failures and multiple scandals has become a drain and a liability to those GOPers seeking reelection next year. Case in point is Bush's 11th-hour visit to Richmond earlier this week to stump for Kilgore, which likely pushed many more Democrats and independents to the polls to send a message of their dissatisfaction with the current leadership.

"Republicans have every reason to be concerned," said Terry Madonna, a political analyst and pollster based at Franklin and Marshall College. "Santorum needs a degree of separation, to establish independence from the President so voters believe he represents their interests."

Santorum's spokesman Robert Traynham denies the Senator has calculatingly distanced himself from the president, and insists it's nothing more than a scheduling conflict. I suspect we'll be seeing many more "scheduling conflicts" between now and next November.

Intelligent Design Not So Smart in Dover, PA

Score another victory for the sane. Voters gave Democrats the governor's seats in Virginia and New Jersey, beat back all four of Gov. Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives in California, defeated key measures in Maine and Ohio, and sent a loud message to school board members in Dover, PA, telling them there's no place for intelligent design in the classroom while ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

The creationism/intelligent design vs. Evolution battle is nothing new. Religious zealots would love to see the bible's view of creation be taught to students nationwide. In October 2004, Republicans on the Dover school board adopted a policy requiring ninth-graders to hear a prepared statement about intelligent design before learning about Evolution in biology class. Citing church and state violations, eight local families sued to prevent conservatives from forcing it into the curriculum.

The trial ended last week, with a ruling expected by January. Both sides had been expected to appeal a loss, but that is not likely after Tuesday's election.

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum.

Tuesday's elections were expected to be a barometer into the current political climate, with voters growing frustrated over endless scandal and mounting policy failures of the current Republican leadership. It's time for Bush, Frist, DeLay & Company to start getting very, very worried.

Bush's "Currency" Runs Out as "Mandate" is Over

It's official. New Jersey Sen. John Corzine and Virginia Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, both Democrats, have won their states' hotly contested gubernatorial elections Tuesday, sending a loud message to President Bush that his political currency is depleted, and that his self-proclaimed "mandate" has come to an end. The victories over Doug Forrester and Jerry Kilgore in NJ and Virginia respectively are widely considered an important barometer into the current political climate and the future election prospects of the Republican Party and its leadership, which has been embroiled in controversy, scandal and policy failure. In short, Bush is now the political plague.

Bush appeared Monday and Tuesday with Kilgore, who earlier in the month kept his distance from the embattled president. "You know where he stands, and you know he can get the job done," Bush said this week. The two men campaigned together on the heels of Kilgore's attack ads that painted the Democrat as an anti-death penalty liberal who condones murder. Kaine has stated his religious opposition to capitol punishment, yet has said he'd enforce Virginia's death penalty laws if elected.

Virginia is a red state which Bush carried in 2004 with 54% of the vote, though no Democratic presidential candidate has won Virginia since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. However, Virginia's voters often put a Democrat in the Governor's mansion. Kaine is the 5th Democrat in the past 25 years to be elected to the state's highest office. His victory is significant in terms of what it represents on a national scale and what it could mean for both the Democrats and the GOP in next year's midterms. It also showcases the enormous popularity and influence of Gov. Mark Warner, who is a likely candidate for president in 2008. In helping Kaine win, his national currency has increased appreciably.

Over in New Jersey, Corzine managed to fend off a last-minute attack ad from the Republican challenger, businessman Doug Forrester, which featured Corzine's ex-wife saying he "let his family down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too." Right down to the wire the candidates, both multi-millionaires, duked it out over taxes, government waste and charges of corruption.

Tuesday's victories affirm what many pundits have been suspecting, and many within the GOP itself have been fearing, that the current Republican leadership is in serious trouble. That President Bush, once an important asset to incumbents seeking re-election, is now a huge political liability. After Tuesday's deflating losses to Democratic opponents, it's almost certain that Republicans will increasingly be finding themselves "out of town" and/or "attending to prior commitments" the next time Bush shows up.

Bush Forced to Stay Up Past Bedtime; Disses World Leaders the Next Day

Poor President Bush. Over the weekend he was an American fish out of water trapped in an Argentinean nightmare. During the first-leg of his four-day Latin America trip for a trade summit with Western Hemisphere leaders, Bush, normally fed by 7 and in his Doctor Dentons by 9pm and in dreamland shortly thereafter, was at the mercy of his foreign hosts who kept him out till--get this--12:40am Saturday. As is the culture in Latin America and Europe, for example, dinner isn't typically served until at least 10pm. To say Bush was a bit miffed would be an understatement. As such, his aides announced that he'd of course be attending the next day's session, but would miss the scheduled two-hour lunch with these same leaders because of "time served" the night before. An early exit was planned to get Bush on Air Force One by 4:05 to get to his next destination, Brazil.

But again, poor Bush. The summit was a bit contentious and the talks ran three hours later than planned, and event organizers decided to cancel lunch. So there was the president, at 3:30pm, no lunch, stomach gurgling, miffed again, abruptly leaving to make his flight and leaving an aide behind to represent the U.S. And, leaving the rest of the gathered dignitaries wondering if the leader of the free world was simply a grumpy, hungry and tired old man. Remember the famed Clinton all-nighters? Now there was a president.

Congressional Stock Portfolios Outperform Market by 12%

What would you say if you knew that Senators and Congressmen, when it came to picking stocks, somehow managed as a collective group to beat the market by 12%? Would you suspect that insider trading might have anything to do with it? Well, that was the question put to former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle Friday by HBO's "Real Time" host Bill Maher.

How else do you explain the fact that our elected officials' portfolios are appreciably outperforming that of the average American? Yes, these are the same elected officials who are responsible for monitoring, regulating and often investigating U.S. commerce, and are courted and greased by lobbyists daily.

Responding to Maher, Daschle smiled coyly and said the Senate and House are full of millionaires who likely have very good investment advisors. Thanks for the insight, Tom.

Bush's 35% Approval to Hurt GOP Tuesday and in '06 Midterms

President Bush's approval rating, at 35%, is the lowest in his presidency and substantially lower than any second-term president since Richard Nixon. With this kind of job disapproval, the scandal-plagued Bush is likely to be a major liability to the Republican candidates in this Tuesday's key New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections, and, barring a series of political miracles, could cause the GOP to lose control of either the House and/or the Senate in next year's midterms.

In Virginia's hotly contested race, Jerry Kilgore, a former state attorney general, is looking to take the seat being vacated by the very popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner. He's running against Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, who's gained about 10 points in the polls recently. Kilgore, following the recent strategy of California Gov. Schwarzenegger, avoided a public appearance last week with Bush in a clear sign he was distancing himself from the president and his troubles. In New Jersey, Democrat John Corzine is running against businessman Douglas Forrester to replace acting Gov. Richard Codey, who took over for Governor Jim McGreevey last year after McGreevey was forced to leave office over a scandalous homosexual affair with a high-level aide.

The elections on Tuesday serve as the first barometer into what effect Bush's dismally low popularity and failed policies will have on the Republican Party in its efforts to maintain statewide power and retain control of the House and Senate. Several key GOP lawmakers face re-election next year in what could be very close races, among them: Tom DeLay (TX), Rick Santorum (PA), Jim Talent (MS), Jon Kyl (AZ); Conrad Burns (MT); Mike DeWine (OH); George Allen (VA), and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN).

Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich expressed serious concerns about his party's chances in next year's midterms after Stephanopoulos cited a new ABC News/Washington Post poll in which Americans, 55%-37%, said they'd prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress next year.

"I've been trying to tell everybody I can find on Capitol Hill and in the White House, if they don't have substantial change by the State of the Union, and if they don't convince the country that they've gotten the message, I think they're in big trouble." Stephanopoulos pressed for examples of voter dissatisfaction:

"We're the natural party of reform, and the Democrats are the natural party of pork. The fact that the president has sent up no rescissions, vetoed no bills, there's no fiscal control in Congress. I think there's a very serious problem. Everywhere I travel around the country, traditional conservative Republicans say, why would I vote for a majority that spends this kind of money?" He added that border-control and illegal immigration are priority issues to Americans today. Gingrich suggested that voters are dissatisfied with the status quo, and becoming increasingly disenfranchised, which could spell disaster for the GOP.

"There's a sense that they are not getting the kind of change and they're not getting the kind of direction they want. And we are historically the party that wants to change Washington not the one that wants to run Washington as it is. I think this is a very significant problem."

Let's hope Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey elections begin to prove Gingrich right.

The Wit and Wisdom of Tom DeLay

Former House Leader Tom DeLay (TX) might surely be missed around town if his indictment over illegal fundraising schemes should ultimately land him in jail. Who can forget the pearls of wit and wisdom that have left The Hammer's mouth over the years. Here's a Top 10 list collected by Daniel Kurtzman:

1. "So many minority youths had volunteered, that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." (explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War).

2. "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" (to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept.9,2005).

3. "I AM the federal government." (to the owner of Ruth's Chris Steak House, when told to extinguish his cigar because of federal laws banning smoking in the building, May 14, 2003).

4. "We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." (explaining to Fox News why America must overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2002).

5. "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." (March 12, 2003).

6. "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills." (explaining the causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999).

7. "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't provide stability, I'm not saying that... It does take a father, though." (Feb. 10, 2004).

8. "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is that there will not be a government church."

9. "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist." (during a debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23, 1996).

10. "I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a government employee. I am in the Constitution." (in a CNN interview, Dec. 19, 1995).

With such profound prose as this, Bush actually seems intelligent by comparison.

The Bushies on PlameGate: Deny, Rationalize, Change

In the wake of last Friday's grand jury indictment of "Cheney's Cheney" Scooter Libby, the Republican Party and its spin machine have experienced the first two phases of a three-phase process when faced with scandal. According to Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, the first phase is denial, when the party flat out refuses to acknowledge the charges against it as if they don't exist. This was the case leading up to the indictment, when administration officials, conservative pundits and talking heads claimed that Rove, Libby and others have little to worry about because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's 22-month investigation was nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt lacking any evidence of wrongdoing.

Shrum, speaking on MSNBC's Hardball Thursday, said the second phase, rationalization, is when the embattled party acknowledges the existence of the charges and the potential legal troubles it faces, but attempts to minimize the significance of these charges and justify them at the same time. This phase can be evidenced by the spinners' claim that the underlying crime--exposing a covert CIA agent's identity--was never committed because "Plame was not a covert agent," as both the NY Post's Deborah Orin and GOP strategist Ed Rogers declared on Hardball. Therefore, they claim, the "mushier" charges of perjury, falsifying statements, and obstruction are essentially baseless.

But as Fitzgerald said in his post-indictment press conference last week, he could not make a case for the central crime of outing Plame because Libby repeatedly lied to the FBI, to investigators and to the grand jury, and obstructed the investigation.

That brings us to the last phase, change. This is when the administration under fire recognizes it's in a losing legal, political and or public-relations battle and sweeps house. As Ronald Reagan did after the Iran-Contra scandal, presidents often replace cabinet members and key advisors in an effort to put its troubles behind it. A such, the Washington Post reported Thursday that Bush is considering the fate of Deputy Chief of Staff and top political advisor Karl Rove, who remains under grand jury investigation. Rove lied to Press Secretary Scott McClellan two years ago; probably lied to Bush; and has lied to the American people. Is this a person who should be in one of the administration's highest positions? Even staunch conservative Sen. Trent Lott (Miss) asked, "should he be the deputy chief of staff for policy under the current circumstances?"

"I'm not sure the standard of employment in the White House should be that you're not yet indicted," Shrum said. "There ought to be a higher standard than that."

As we wait to see just what Fitzgerald has up his sleeve, four key questions remain: what was Libby's motive to lie and obstruct (was he covering for his boss Cheney?); why would Libby falsify statements, lie under oath and impede the investigation if he was truly innocent;? is PlameGate a narrow crime committed by just one individual, or is it the opening into a much wider scandal involving VP Dick Cheney and others;? and will Libby "turn" evidence to escape 30 years in jail. Only time will tell.

David Brooks' Incredibly Misguided NY Times Op-ed

David Brooks' Op-ed piece in Today's NY Times is so absurd and misguided that the only way we could adequately address it was to parody it......

David Brooks sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 am writing notes to himself. He, like his Republican brethren in the Fourth Estate, is still aghast that anyone, let alone Democrats, would demand accountability from the Bush administration over its failed war in Iraq, its manipulation of intelligence to justify the invasion, and its subsequent conspiracy to cover up the truth. He ponders how his party and its inept leaders can spin their way out of what is an obvious colossal policy screw up and breach of the nation's trust. Two words immediately come to mind: Bill Clinton. "That's it! We'll blame it on Bill like we always do!"

What Brooks and the rest of the conservative spinmeisters know that the rest of us don't is that Bill Clinton is at the head of a large conspiratorial organization--a top-secret group of highly trained covert operatives--that are responsible for every Bush administration failure. Take Iraq for example, the highly unjust, ill-advised and ill-fated quagmire that to-date has killed over 2000 American soldiers, wounded and maimed 20,000, and cost U.S. taxpayers over $200 billion. And let's not forget the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who've lost their lives. You may not know this, but the Iraq war is all Bill Clinton's fault. It's true, as Brooks points out today, that former Clinton officials William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Al Gore and even Bill himself all sounded the "Saddam has massive stockpiles of WMD" alarm. Of course they did. It was all part of the master plan to set up the Bushies years later.

The Clintonistas, despite this public posturing of Saddam's alleged grave threat to America, knew damn well that his WMD stockpiles were non-existent. In fact, according to one insider, this group, known as WHIGTUB (White House Iraq Group to Undermine Bush), would sit around the Oval Office, smoking cigars and drinking Bud Lights, joking about Saddam's "arsenal," which they all knew consisted of nothing more than "firecrakers and cherry bombs." The Clintons knew that years later the Bushies would run with this "intelligence," manipulating it to justify their war. In short, it was Clinton, not Bush, who manufactured evidence, and then purposefully held off pulling the trigger on any sort of military action against Iraq because he knew Bush would. Worse, he knew Bush would ultimately fail, and face political and public humiliation and embarrassment when the real truth--no WMD--came out.

And what about the serious challenges we face with the economy these days? Yup, you got it. Bill Clinton strikes again. Those seven years of unprecedented prosperity back in the 90's? All a ruse by the Clintonistas to yet again set up Bush for failure and undermine future economies. How politically calculating, how devious, how self-serving it was for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and the Clinton administration to orchestrate such economic success; to set the bar so high that no future president could match this prosperity.

David Brooks sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 am and scribbles more inane, paranoid notes to himself. He's trying to reconcile how anyone could actually blame Bush, for Bush's failed policies, which he, like millions of other Republicans, believes is not only unfair, but blatantly partisan. Bush has only been in office five years! That's not even two full terms, and certainly not enough time to see his policies through successfully.

Brooks realizes there is only one solution: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton...... "Must keep blaming Clinton for every screw-up our dunce of a president commits. Must divert attention away from Iraq, the economy, Social Security, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Plamegate, Katrina, and tax cuts for the wealthy by reminding America of Bill's sexual indiscretions. Must expose Democrats' self-serving partisan intent to undermine our great president by incessently demanding accountability for his alleged mistakes and ethical transgressions."

David Brooks sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 am.

Why Reid's "Rule 21" Action is Huge for Democrats

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) issued a loud wake-up call to Republicans Tuesday by suddenly and surprisingly invoking the Senate's little known and rarely used Rule 21, which forced lawmakers to close off the Senate chamber to staffers, the public and reporters, the first time in over 25 years that one party had demanded a closed session without forewarning the other party. Ok Harry, you've got our attention.

Reid's maneuvering is significant for several reasons. First, it was in direct response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s "Phase II" promise back in July 2004 at the conclusion of its first phase, to investigate the administration's possible misuse of intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs in order to present its case for war back in 2002 and 2003. Led by Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), the committee staved off the Democrats' demands for accountability by agreeing to fully explore Phase 2 right after the '04 election. But that never happened, and the Bushies have gotten a free pass. Until Tuesday. I'm just wild about Harry!

"Finally, after months and months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," Reid said about the Democrats' success in forcing Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) to agree to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on the committee's progress.

Next, what Reid's move also serves to accomplish is to get the Samuel Alito nomination off the headlines and get the Scooter Libby indictment and the Iraq scandal back instead. For once, we've seemed to trump the Bushies, who always manage to have some diversionary news to announce every time they're at their lowest point. This time, we diverted.

And lastly, Tuesday's maneuver signifies that the Democrats are recapturing their mojo; beginning to feel the confidence necessary to stand up to the administration and to the GOP leadership. How ridiculous was it to see Frist, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott and others whining like babies outside the chamber about how the Dem's action was a "slap" to the GOP and to Frist in particular? You want to talk slaps? How about how the Bush administration has slapped every American with its lying about WMD, its rush to war, the 2000 soldiers it killed, and its treasonous cover-up of the truth?

The outcome of the November 14 report is questionable. Ultimately, there may be little the Democrats can do while handcuffed in a Republican-controlled Senate. But more importantly it's a bold message to the GOP that we'll no longer lie down and let it run the country recklessly and without accountability and public scrutiny.

Now let's hope Harry and & Co. can harness the same mojo and aggressiveness when fighting the Alito nomination. There's way too much at stake for America not to. Give 'em hell, Harry!

We Can Thank the Nader-ites for "Scalito" Alito

Rewind, if you will, back to the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore vs George W. Bush. Oh, and Ralph Nader, remember him? You know, the one who pulled all those votes away from Gore, especially in Florida, and in the process prevented him from becoming president and sent Bush to Washington instead. The guy who refused to drop out of the race despite desperate pleas from the Left that his spoiler act could change America in ways unthinkable. Well, his colossal ego and supreme narcissism won out and he stayed the course. And the rest, as they say, is history.

But it's the naive, "message-sending" followers of this selfish fool who we now have to thank for the past five disastrous years of Bush, and worse, for the nomination Monday of staunch conservative jurist Samuel "Scalito" Alito to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. For those of you still in the dark, that's "Scalito," as in, "little Scalia." Alito's nomination has sent the far right wing of the Republican Party into a euphoric state over this solid pro-lifer who's record strongly indicates he'll jump through hoops to overturn Roe V. Wade. The Rehnquist-for-Roberts swap had little consequence. The O'Connor-for-Alito trade, however, has the potential to dramatically and dangerously shift the high court to the far right. The Democrats must come out in full body-armor on this one and fight to the death if we ever intend to preserve personal freedoms; the right to privacy; separation of church and state; and other constitutional bedrocks.

This nightmarish scare is the work of those misguided Nader-ites who, back in 2000, said there was "no difference" between Gore and Bush; who said they felt disappointed and betrayed by the Democratic Party; who said they needed to "send a message" of this frustration through their "protest vote" for Nader. They sent a message alright, and that message was..."Welcome to the White House, Mr. Bush." Want to talk betrayal? How about how the Nader-ites now feel having lived through five years of the Bush betrayal on humanity? Their unfortunate protest vote just might result in the conservative Taliban of this country setting back judicial progress 30+ years.

Oh how it was so clear to the rest of us what the stakes were. Why couldn't these reckless folks see it too? Did they really think Bush would serve their interests and ideals as well as Gore? Could they have been that naive? Many on the left even desperately tried to "swap" votes with Nader supporters through web sites that were set up in an attempt to minimize the impact of his candidacy. I am proud to say I was one of them. But that effort failed as well. The Nader-ites were on some sort of sanctimonious, self-righteous mission to prove they were more worthy of the political process than the rest of us who were simply trying to keep a dangerous, unqualified moron out of the White House.

If I sound angry, I am. Damn angry. Punch my fist into a wall angry. You don't play games with people's lives. With people's freedoms. With constitutional rights. Nader's supporters knowingly and willfully rolled out the red carpet for Bush through their wasteful protest vote. Funny how there are no more Nader-ites. The 2004 election proved that. Sadly, they've learned their lesson in the most unfortunate way. Let's just hope that for the rest of us, there's still time to wage a holy war on these religious fanatics who've highjacked the country from the founding fathers.

U.S Agents Could Be in Jail or Dead Thanks to Libby, Rove & Cheney

The idea that the Bush administration, led by Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, plotted its revenge of a critic by endangering the life of his covert CIA agent wife is irresponsible and reprehensible enough. But this despicable, treasonous act also put at grave risk and danger the lives of countless other agents, presently stationed overseas on highly sensitive missions. And for this crime someone needs to go to jail. Let's hope that's what special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald meant after announcing the Libby indictment when he said the investigation "is not over."

Valerie Plame, wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, was outed in a July 14, 2003 column by conservative pundit Robert Novak. The outing was an act of revenge by Libby, Rove and Cheney in retaliation for Wilson's July 6, 2003 NY Times Op-Ed in which he refuted the Bushies' claim of an Iraq-Africa Uranium connection after his CIA-sponsored fact-finding mission to Niger proved nothing. Subsequently, it was inadvertently disclosed that Plame "worked" at Brewster Jennings & Associates, a front company set up in Boston for covert agents. Plame was surely not the only agent to have used Brewster as a cover, and its disclosure has likely put many in serious jeopardy. The company's identity became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records filled out in 1999 by Plame after contributing to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

Plame, a specialist in WMD, and like many agents, was a "non-official cover" operative, or NOC. As one former CIA official, Larry C. Johnson, explained, "that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." NOCs are not attached to a U.S. embassy or the State Department. Therefore they have no diplomatic immunity if caught spying.

On CBS's 60 Minutes Sunday, correspondent Ed Bradley interviewed Jim Marcinkowski, a deputy city attorney in Michigan and former CIA agent who trained with Plame in the late 80's. According to Marcinkowski, NOCs "are out there, what they would call "naked." With diplomatic immunity, the worst that can happen to you is that you get kicked out of the country. You don't have that kind of protection when you're a NOC."

Bradley cited the case of Hugh Redmond, "a NOC who was caught spying in Shanghai in 1951 and died after 19 years in a Chinese prison. To this day, the CIA denies he was an agent."

Bradley also spoke with Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) about the potential harm that CIA agents worldwide now face resulting from the exposure of Plame's identity.

Bradley: "Have you had assurances that the agency is handling the fallout from this leak?"
Holt: "They have taken the usual procedures to protect the damage from spreading."
Bradley: "Is it possible that someone overseas, someone is going to jail because of this?"
Holt: "Sure, it's possible."
Bradley: "Is it possible that somebody lost their life?"
Holt: "It's possible. I don't know. There hasn't been a formal assessment. If there were, and I had been briefed on it, I couldn't talk about it."

The Plame outing could have serious lasting effects on the ability of agents to remain undercover. As Marcinkowski pointed out, Plame is the wife of a former ambassador, and that foreign intelligence agencies will be making the assumption that wives of other ambassadors could be CIA agents as well, exposing a large number of individuals to risk.

As for Plame's safety since she's been exposed, "There have been specific threats, beyond that I just can't go," said Wilson.

That these faithful, loyal U.S. servants, who put their lives at risk for the nation's security, have been undermined by the highest officials in their own country is a damn shame and one of the worst acts of treason imaginable.

The Court Pick: Will Bush Pander to Right or Go Centrist?

It's expected that President Bush will announce early this week his next Supreme Court pick following the embarrassing defeat of his Harriet Miers nomination. But just what Bush's next move is is anyone's guess. Will he attempt to mend fences with his hardcore conservative base and name an experienced judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as he promised during his 2000 campaign? Or will he make a bee-line for the center and attempt to unite the parties? Conventional wisdom says the latter, given the political hailstorm the White House is facing right now with scandal, policy failure, an unpopular war and precipitously declining poll numbers. But this is Bush we're talking about. His arrogance, stubbornness and intense loyalty to the base will likely result in a radical right-winger being nominated. Much speculation is on either Michael Luttig or Samuel Alito as the president's top two choices.

Alito, 55, is so close in ideology to Scalia that he's often referred to as "Scalito." He currently sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Luttig, 51, is also firmly in the mold of Scalia--whom he clerked for when Scalia was an appeals court judge--and serves the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Both judges would surely satisfy the far right-wing of the party; those who wish to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

If Bush goes in this direction, the Democrats are sure to wage a holy war and filibuster the nominee, which could set off a bloody showdown in which the Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, could drop the "nuclear bomb" and change the rules so that only a simple 51 vote majority would be needed to end the filibuster and bring a cloture vote. But the Republicans, who've just savagely opposed Miers and forced her to withdraw, would have a hard time using the advice and consent/"up or down vote" defense. The GOP never allowed Miers that same opportunity.

Also, with Bush using Miers' religion as the cornerstone of her "qualifications," the Repub's will also have a hard time preventing Dem's this time around from engaging in their own own religious tests.

To be sure, Bush cannot afford another battle and additional political fallout. But that's never stopped him before from making some really bad choices. Stay tuned.

Sean Hannity Blasts GOP as Pathetic & Weak

Pinch me. I never thought I'd live to see the day where irrepressible right wing radio and TV spinmeister Sean Hannity would criticize and condemn the Republican Party in much harsher tones than his Democratic counterparts. But that day has finally come, and its more than symbolic. Clearly the GOP is in serious trouble, especially when it's abandoned by normally loyal soldiers like Hannity.

On his radio program this week, Hannity went on the warpath over the GOP's failure to live up to its campaign promises. His mounting criticisms have aroused the ire and scorn of party officials, whom he lambasted for attacking him. He cited a recent Gallup poll showing voters' extreme dissatisfaction with the Republican-controlled Congress.

"My allegiance is not to you power-hungry, power-grabbing politicians in Washington," Hannity said. "My allegiance is to my audience, not you. It's frankly disgusting what you Republicans in Congress have done. You deserve these numbers." He urged them to stop calling with complaints, saying "you guys are pathetic."

His diatribe continued: "How can anybody turn around and turn on people like me who supported you and helped put you in power. I might as well support Ted Kennedy. You've been pathetically weak in your leadership. You stand for nothing."

He criticized Republicans' failure on the war on terror; border security and immigration policy; tax issues; growth of government and for "big-spending pork-barrel projects" recklessly pushed through Congress.

"You no longer stand for the principles you ran on, and it will ultimately be your downfall," he warned.

Week-Old Draft Gore Petition Nears 2000 Signatures

Ahh...how we long for those days when these two ruled the land. The Draft Al Gore for President in 2008 petition which we started last weekend has roughly 1900 signatures. And we've received an outpouring of passion and excitement over a potential Gore candidacy. But there's been conflicting reports of what the former veep might do three years from now. "I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters recently at an economic summit in Stockholm, Sweden. But allies and backers later said he's just being coy, and is trying to avoid embarrassment. "He wants the whole thing set up for him," said an un-named source quoted by U.S. News & World Report. And since we believe Gore has the best shot at winning in '08, we're doing our best to send him a message.

CLICK HERE To Sign the Draft Al Gore Petition*

*AOL users: open in MSN Internet Explorer (http://new.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html)
if signature page fails

A White House Under Siege

For Democrats, this has been a week to remember. For President Bush, it's been a week he'd love to forget; probably one of the absolute worst in the history of the Oval Office. The Bush administration was dealt another huge political blow Friday with the indictment of VP Dick Cheney's chief I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House is mired in embarrassment, distraction and scandal including the Harriet Miers retreat, the Tom DeLay and Bill Frist investigations, the Katrina/Rita/Wilma relief failures, the forged Niger/yellow cake documents, and the milestone reached with the 2000th U.S. soldier killed in the Iraq war. And Bush's poll numbers are sinking. It's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

The CIA Leak investigation, led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, concluded its 22-month investigation Friday by handing down five indictments to Libby, charging him with two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if convicted. Bush advisor Karl Rove was spared for now, with Fitzgerald saying the case was still under investigation. The question remains as to who was the original source of the leak--whom the indictments refer to as "Official A"--of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak in July of 2003. Much speculation is that Rove is Official A.

In his 2:15 PM press conference Friday a stoic Fitzgerald told reporters: "This is a very serious matter in compromising national security information....but the need to get to the bottom of what happened, and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, recklessness, by maliciousness, is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone that would go to a grand jury and lie, obstruct, impede the investigation, has committed a very serious crime." Many in Washington still cannot believe that someone as meticulous and obsessively detail-oriented as Libby could end up in this situation. As NBC's Tom Brokaw said, "This is the clumsiest case of lying I've ever witnessed."

But the Republican spin machine was quick to spring into action, criticizing the prosecutor for failing to indict on the underlying charge of outing Plame and instead focusing on the secondary charges. On MSNBC's Hardball, conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan said "It is not a bad thing that (the prosecutor) could not come up and prove the original charge that was made against the White House, against anyone. The underlying charge of deliberately outing Valerie Plame...the prosecutor has come in after 22 months and said, in effect, it didn't happen."

Sorry, Pat, that's not what Fitzgerald said. Buchanan's and the GOP spinners' talking points on this are ridiculous for several reasons. First, they ignore two very important facts: people don't lie, impede and obstruct unless they are guilty and have something to hide; next, what Fitzgerald did say is that he considered indictments on the underlying criminal charge, but that Libby's alleged lies made it difficult to prove intention in outing Plame. Exactly.

And let's not forget that the $60 million that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr spent in the 1990's to investigate the Clintons never ended with criminal charges, only the same perjury and obstruction charges Libby was hit with. But the CIA Leak case, unlike Clinton's ill-advised series of BJ's from an intern, ultimately involves White House falsification of documents and manipulation of intelligence to justify a war, and then lying to cover up the truth. And keep in mind Fitzgerald's investigation has cost U.S. taxpayers just $723,000, not $60 million. Can you say, cost-benefit analysis?

So now we're left with three key questions: where does Fitzgerald go from here, what happens to Rove, and will Cheney ultimately be implicated? If the case does go to trial as most expect, Fitzgerald will have carte blanch through discovery and depositions to dig deeply into the root crime. Many, including Rove and even Bush and Cheney, will likely testify for the prosecution. The trial could blow the doors off the White House.

Rove is by no means home free. U.S. News & World Reports' David Gergen, a former advisor to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said on Hardball "I thought earlier today, wow, Karl Rove dodged a bullet. But you know, the prosecutor is still firing at him...and Rove has been spared for now but I think it's too early to say he's in the clear. There is a shadow there and I'm sure he feels it."

That brings us to Cheney. It's hard to fathom Libby doing anything without it being directed by or known by the veep himself. The indictment says Libby learned about Plame's identity from Cheney. And we now know that Cheney is one half of the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that highjacked U.S. foreign policy, according to statements last week by Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005. Cheney, the key mastermind behind the invasion of Iraq, certainly had a score to settle with former ambassador Joe Wilson over his July '03 NY Times Op-Ed which refuted the Bushies' claim that Saddam was seeking to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson was sent to Africa in February '02 by the CIA to investigate this claim.

Will Fitzgerald get Libby to "turn?" Facing 30 years in the slammer, will Libby find religion and open the floodgates about his boss, Rove and others? As Fitzgerald said, "This is not over."

DeLay's Poll Numbers Drop Again; Sends Desperate Letter to Constituents

It looks as though embattled Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is getting more and more desperate each day. In the face of new poll numbers out this week, the former House Leader sent an email letter to conservative constituents in his home district #22 in a pathetic attempt to cry victim and absolve himself of any wrongdoing stemming from his recent indictment over his illegal fundraising schemes.

The email comes just two days after the latest SurveyUSA tracking poll which shows:

*51% Job Dis-Approval Rating, only the second time in 13 tracking polls conducted over the past 5 months that a majority of registered voters in DeLay's district has expressed disapproval.
*45% Job Approval Rating.
*42% of District 22 voters say DeLay should resign from Congress, the highest this number has been in 5 months of tracking.

In his letter, DeLay portrays his indictment as a result of a partisan witch-hunt: "It has been over a month since Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acted out his political revenge and indicted me for crimes that don't exist. And over the last month, we have seen such a litany of prosecutorial misconduct that even the national media is questioning his motives. Look at who is studying this circus-like investigation and you'll see that journalists and legal experts are acknowledging these charges are baseless, partisan, and nothing more than revenge for my work to provide the people of Texas with a fair and constitutional congressional representation. I am being attacked not for doing anything wrong - I'm being attacked for being effective and standing up for what's right."

Not only is DeLay desperate, he's delusional. I believe most journalists and legal experts today would wholeheartedly disagree with DeLay's assertion that they agree with him that the charges are trumped up, baseless and partisan. He's stooping pretty low this time. DeLay's letter this week further proves that he's running out of options as he increasingly loses his base.

Libby To Be Indicted, Rove Will Not

CNN anchor Miles O'Brian reported moments ago that sources close to the CIA Leak investigation say that Bush's chief advisor Karl Rove will not be indicted and will instead "remain under investigation" by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. CNN also reports that VP Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby will be indicted for making false statements to the grand jury. If true, Rove has managed to escape a career collapse, and President Bush scores a victory in being able to retain his "brain." Another huge questionmark is Cheney's role in the leak, and whether or not he will at some point be implicated.

As we all know though from past erroneous news reports, everything reported above can be completely untrue. Stay tuned.

2000 Dead Soldiers Just a "Bogus Number" to Michelle Malkin

With the arrival of the 2,000th U.S. serviceman killed in Iraq this week, the right wing spin machine has gone into overdrive to portray this critical milestone as a meaningless statistic, and nothing more than a partisan ploy by the Democrats to attack the president and criticize the war. Well, they’re half right. You bet your ass we’ll use this number to continue condemning Bush for recklessly sending our troops to die in an unjust, ill-fated invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no real threat to America. But where we differ 1000% from the right is in our strong conviction that the 2,000 milestone is anything but insignificant. Witness conservative pundit Michelle Malkin’s column Wednesday in which she mocks this tragic milestone as a “bogus number.”

“The anti-war left couldn’t wait for the death of the 2,000th soldier in Iraq,” Malkin incredulously claims in her opening sentence, as if the protest movement’s been silent for the first 1,999 casualties. “Peace activists have been gearing up for protests, vigils and other events this week to mark the completely bogus milestone.” She’s building off the Republican talking point of the week, which is that the number 2,000 is no more or less significant than the 500th soldier to die or perhaps the 3,000th who will in the future. But that’s precisely the point that she and the legions of conservative hawks and neo-cons are missing in the anti-war movement: we do not want anymore soldiers to die.

To bolster her position, Malkin quotes an email sent to the media by U.S. Army Lt.-Colonel Steve Boylan, director of the force’s combined press center, to challenge what she calls the left’s use of the 2,000 milestone as a “phony excuse to protest.” In the email, Boylan wrote: “I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq. The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives.”

Diehard, delusional hawks like Boylan and Malkin just don’t get it that most of the country is now against the war, and the press’s treatment of it has shifted to the negative as well. Unlike the military elite, we are the ones “thinking about the families and those serving.” We are the ones who think 2,000 grieving families is 2,000 too many, and we do not wish to see even one more.

For Malkin to say that the “anti-war left” needs the 2,000 milestone as an “excuse” to protest demonstrates her ignorance over the movement’s increasing popularity and momentum, and is further proof that conservatives like her are grossly out of touch with mainstream America. Worse, relegating the 2,000 dead to a mere political statistic is a dishonor to those who put their trust in Bush and gave their life as a result.

The peace movement did not start with the death of the 2,000th U.S. soldier. Those of us against the war have been sounding the alarm for three years now. We saw Bush’s White House Iraq Group (WHIG) gearing up for war as a distraction and diversion from its failure to capture Osama bin Laden, and we never for a nano-second believed that mushroom clouds at the hands of Saddam ever threatened America’s homeland. We knew there was no WMD, no bin Laden/Saddam connections, and no shot of ever seeing a true Democracy in a country that's likely to be run by radical Islamists. We were against the invasion, we lamented the first soldier’s death, and we now see the number 2,000 as a frightening precursor to untold thousands more. And that is why the number 2,000 is so significant. It’s not for what it represents yesterday or today, but what additional horrors it will bring tomorrow unless the U.S. begins to develop an intelligent and timely exit strategy.