The Blue State

Bush will go down as nominating the third radical to the Supreme Court

(Courtesy of Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant, Cagle Cartoons)

Compare the two Presidents

This CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll was just released: (PollingReport)

"Since the start of 2001 when George W. Bush became president, in general, would you say his presidency has been a success or failure?"

Success - 42%
Failure - 55%
Unsure - 3%

Compare that with the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken in January of 1999, when President Clinton was in the midst of facing impeachment: (PollingReport)

"Since the start of 1993 when Bill Clinton became president, in general, would you say his presidency has been a success or a failure?"

Success - 77%
Failure - 20%
No Opinion - 3%

So when progressives like myself contend that President Bush has lost his political capital, we mean it.  And when we remind everyone that lying about sex does not even come close to lying about why to send a nation to war, we take things like this seriously, especially when it involves our brave men and women in uniform that are serving all of us.

Don't forget about Iraq

Just because the news as of late as focused on the Alito nomination and the indictment of Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby does not mean the war in Iraq has ended.  Here is the tragic news coming out of Iraq today -- an occurrence that we are all too familiar with (Washington Post):

Six U.S. soldiers were killed by roadside bombs Monday in Iraq and a Marine was killed Sunday, the military announced.

The U.S. fatalities made October one of the deadliest monthsof the war, and the leading killers were homemade roadside bombs,technically known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

Amilitary statement said four American soldiers were killed inYusufiyah, about 12 miles southwest of Baghdad, when their patrol wasstruck by an IED. A second patrol of the 29th Brigade Combat team washit by a roadside bomb Monday morning outside a U.S. airbase nearBalad, about 45 miles north of the capital. A Marine was killed by anIED on Sunday near Amiriyah, about 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.Identities of the dead were not released because their families had notyet been notified.

The deaths brought to at least 92the number of U.S. fatalities in October, making it the fourthdeadliest month since the war began in March 2003; 137 U.S. servicemendied in November 2004, 135 died in April 2004 and 107 died last January.

Meanwhile U.S. planes struck targets near the Syrian border to root out insurgents trying to establish their own stronghold.

Finally, according to the Pentagon, they have come out with their own figure on the number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed between March of 2003 through today.  Their number is 25,000 -- a mild estimate, if anything.  37% of the Iraqi deaths, they say, were caused by U.S. forces.

Personally, from all that the Administration has politicized about the war, I don't really buy into any of these numbers.  According to the Lancet Study, 100,000 Iraqis were killed as of October 2004.  Even if that number is higher than the actual amount, the real number of civilians killed is likely somewhere right in between the two, from what people have told me.  Maybe I am wrong.  But the point is that with the Pentagon so disconnected from what is happening on the ground in Iraq, I wonder exactly how they have the confidence to disclose those numbers.

Bad blood

This is a clip from the C & L web site of Sunday's episode of CBS' 60 Minutes, where they expose the bad blood Cheney had towards Wilson because the Ambassador would not promote the Administration's mistruths:

Click to watch >>> (Windows Media Player)

If you aren't loyal, you get trashed; if you are loyal, you get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Quick commentary on Samuel Alito

With the nomination of Samuel Alito, nicknamed "Scalito," the President is demonstrating how he gave into the fringes of his conservative base.  Alito is a far-right-leaning judicial activist, who during his 15 years of experience, once ruled that a woman could not exercise her right to abort a pregnancy without the consent of her husband, even if the husband is abusive.  His ruling was swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court.  Experience alone cannot justify confirming a nominee that does not represent wholesome, mainstream American values; nor does it mean he is qualified to serve on the highest court.

Democrats in this situation must remember that since the President has lost all of his political capital, he therefore is not in a position to simply order the Senate to brush aside Alito's radicalism and confirm him.  With the fate of the Supreme Court in the balance, the Democrats must show some spine and not allow this judge to get through, at all cost.  The progressive base is watching how its party responds.

(I will have more to say on this after I take my midterms)

Many Americans jumped to conclusions about FItzgerald

Is it just me, or is this latest ABC News poll simply amazing? (PollingReport.com)

"Do you think the prosecutor has brought this case against Libby on the basis of the facts of the case, or out of political motivations?"

Facts - 55%
Politics - 30%
Both - 6%
Unsure - 8%

So 30% of Americans, mainly Republicans, think special prosecutor Fitzgerald is a Democrat?  Amazing how so many people today are misinformed.  I see the media has done its job.

Quiet until later today

Studying for exams all weekend has kept me from updating this site as much as I usually do.  Following my last mid-day exam, I will get this site back up to speed.

Video: Harriet Miers skit on SNL

On Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update segment last night, Harriet Miers, played by actress Rachel Dratch, gave probably the best reason why she was treated unfairly:

Click to watch >>> (QuickTime) (Windows Media Player)

See!  If everyone else that was unqualified got confirmed to their positions, why should Miers be treated any bit different (a joke, of course).

Bush feeling the heat

After it became clear that Scooter Libby would be indicted, the President was greeted with hecklers during a speech on terrorism:

Outside the Norfolk convention hall, a small group of anti-war protesters greeted him by chanting "Bush lies."

Inside, as the president spoke, a man on the second levelinterrupted him, yelling "War is terrorism. War is terrorism. Step downnow Mr President. Torture is terrorism."

Bush continued speaking as the man left the hall.

Mindful of the public anxiety, the president attempted to underscorethe danger the United States faces from terrorists, comparing leadersof al Qaida to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

If President Bush is going to compare the war on terrorism to World War II and the Cold War, then we have a right to compare his leadership style today with the leadership during those two important points in American history.  Franklin Roosevelt fought Hitler pragmatically, and worked closely with the Europeans -- called multilateralism, a policy that the Administration has yet to implement.  Today the Administration is more concerned with renaming everything that is French (freedom fries) than bringing the world onto our side in this fight against terrorism.

During the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy didn't bow to the fringe demands of the hawks that were a minority in his Administration.  Bush, on the other hand, is being influenced in his foreign policy by alleged criminals like Scooter Libby, while Kennedy was able to help the transatlantic alliance put pressure on the Soviets to disarm in Cuba.  Since Bush invaded Iraq, terrorist recruitment has gone up.

So if Bush wants to use history, we're all for it.  The people who actually read their history books know better.

GOP prioritizes ties to oil industry ahead of American consumers

This quarter the oil industry recorded record profits.  Still, the GOP House recently passed a bill (holding a five-minute vote open for more than 40 minutes) that would hand out $14.5 billion in tax cuts to oil companies to build more refineries.  Why can't Exxon use the $19.7 billion in profits that they got last quarter and build new refineries themselves?  The Democrats are responding (Washington Post):

"We must respond to the needs of the American consumers whoare seeing the prospect of $4 a gallon gas and $1,000 monthly heatingbills," he said in the Democrats's weekly radio address.

OnOctober 7, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a billthat would give federal insurance to oil refiners whose expansionprojects are delayed by lawsuits or regulatory snags. It also put theEnergy Department in charge of permits for new refinery projects as away to speed up approvals.

The bill was approved,212-210, after Republican leaders held a five-minute vote open for morethan 40 minutes to persuade some party members to change their votes.

Democratsopposed the bill, saying the industry had plenty of its own money topay for new refineries and did not deserve a government hand-out.

A similar Senate bill was blocked by Democrats.

"Whatwas the Republican answer to the hurricanes? More subsidies to the oilindustry," Dingell said, referring to the bill's sponsors who said thehelp was needed because of damage to refineries from recent HurricanesKatrina and Rita.

Democrats are targeting "theimmediate problems of gasoline prices and the anticipated increases innatural gas and home heating oil prices," Dingell said.

In the 2006 election cycle, thus far, 85% of the political contributions coming from the oil and gas industry have gone to the GOP.  Now you know where their loyalties lie.