The Blue State

Gingrich thinks bilingual = ghetto

During a speech today, former House Speaker and likely GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich compared being bilingual to living in the ghetto:

“The American people believe English should be the official language ofthe government. ... We should replace bilingual education withimmersion in English so people learn the common language of the countryand they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of livingin a ghetto," Gingrich said to cheers from the crowd of more than 100.

It looks like someone needs to take a journey outside the country club gates for a change!

This fear of other languages is not a new thing to Gingrich.  Back in 1998, the former Speaker of the House vented about this same issue, and it was reported in the Washington Times:

"When we allow children to stay trapped ina bilingual program, where you do not learn English, we aredestroying their economic future."

Even Gingrich cannot stop the fact that we are living in an interconnected world.  When you learn another language, you are not trapping yourself -- you are opening the doors of communication with other cultures.  With all the tough times abroad that we are facing today, maybe it's not a bad idea to stress the importance of communication and understanding.

If he wants to talk about the economy, then maybe he should talk to the thousands of interpretors across the country that are well-off financially because they work a high-demand job that uses their bilingual talents.

Fox Noise misquotes Obama on economic opportunity

On the Fox News Saturday show "Bulls and Bears", four of the five commentators criticized Barack Obama for accusing the Administration of social Darwinism.  And a few of them completely distorted what Obama said (via Newshounds):

SCOTT BLEIE: But it's not the government's job to make everyone prosperous, whether he said that or not.  The government's job is to create a foundation of opportunity to let people succeed.

Actually, Barack Obama never said the government was supposed to make everyone prosperous.  Instead, Obama said the government should make America prosperous for all people:

OBAMA: It's a strategy that we've seen this Administration pursue over the last six years -- that basically says government has no role to play in making sure that America is prosperous for all people and not just some.

It goes back to the two-Americas theme.  Look at the manufacturing sector in 2002, for example.  You had hard-working people in Ohio that got laid off as some of their positions were outsourced overseas.  Today, someone in the manufacturing sector would be less likely to say that America is prosperous than someone who works as a government contractor.  There is a reason for that.  They don't live in the same America.

What is wrong with saying that government should try to make America prosperous for its citizens?  That's why the President has economic advisers.  It's why we have a Federal Reserve.

Edwards leads in new Iowa poll

In a recently released Zogby Poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in Iowa, John Edwards has grabbed the lead away from Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama is not far behind in third (Conducted 3/26):

IOWA DEMOCRATS
John Edwards - 27%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
Barack Obama - 23%
Joe Biden - 3%
Richardson - 3%
Kucinich - 1%
Dodd - 1%
Not Sure - 15%

When you couple that 15% are undecided with the fact that some of the second tier candidates will probably drop out by summer, you get a race that is clearly up in the air.  John Edwards must win Iowa to stay alive, especially when keeping in mind his relatively limited fundraising ability as he battles out two high-profile candidates. 

If Barack Obama loses Iowa, he must win Nevada or New Hampshire to prevent the wave of endorsements in Hillary's favor.

Speaking of the former First Lady, she is the only candidate that can lose all of the first four contests and still be alive for the big February 5th showdown.  She is investing heavily in California, which is an "all-or-nothing state" (meaning that whoever wins California gets all of the state's delegates, and every other candidate gets zero).

Bush violated forest rules

A federal judge ruled this week that the Administration illegally made its own rules for managing 192 million acres of federally owned land, while ignoring existing law.  Bottom line: Bush's forest rules have been canceled by the court.  The judge ruled that Bush was in violation because the Administration ignored three existing laws regarding drilling and logging:

• National Environmental Policy Act
• Administrative Procedures Act
• Endangered Species Act

So what did Bush's illegal rules allow? 

The new rule -- which gave economic activities as high a priority asmaintaining the forest's ecological health -- made it easier to conductdrilling and logging in national forests while weakening protectionsfor native fish and wildlife. It also accelerated the process forapproving forest management plans, which can drag on for as long asseven years, thereby cutting planning costs.. 

It turns out that a timber industry lobbyist helped craft Bush's illegal forest rules:

"These regulations were designed by a former timber industry lobbyist,"said Sean Cosgrove of the Sierra Club, one of the 15 environmentalgroups who sued. "They would have silenced the voices of citizens inlocal forest planning and allowed destructive projects to move forwardwith little oversight."

Now watch for the Administration to restart their quest against "activist judges."

Gonzales lied again about involvement in firings

Yet another edition to the Gonzales saga!

Yesterday in Boston, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded to Kyle Sampson's testimony before Congress on Thursday.  The Attorney General denied any involvement in the firing of eight prosecutors:

“From time to time,” Mr. Gonzales said, “Kyle would tell me things thatwould tell me that this effort was ongoing. I don’t recall beinginvolved in deliberations involving the question of whether or not aU.S. attorney should or should not be asked to resign.”

That completely contradicts what Kyle Sampson said under oath on Thursday:

"I do not think the attorney general's statementthat he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorneyremovals is accurate," he said.

Let's see here.  Who should we trust: Gonzales who was not under oath, or Sampson who was?  This clearly proves why it is important to get people under oath, which the Administration has shown an unwillingness to do all along.

If Gonzales would just tell the truth, none of this would be a problem.  He is making things more difficult for the Administration than he should.  Also, think of it this way -- Gonzales is the Attorney General.  If he was truly uninvolved in the discussions about whether prosecutors were fired, then that makes him negligent.

Gonzales is expected to testify before Congress on April 17th.

3.31.07 Blue Radar

Each morning I post some of the miscellaneous politicalstories thatmight not deserve their own posts, but are still news-worthy:

• Texas State Senator Dan Patrick (R) has proposed that women considering abortion be offered $500 not to get one.  (So you're against small government -- unless a wedge issue opportunity presents itself.)
• The Army's war funds can last through July, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.  This contradicts earlier statements from the White House that claimed funds would run out in May.
• House Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman wants Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath about the Administration's Niger uranium claims.
• Against the Administration's wishes, Nancy Pelosi is headed to Syria to start a dialogue with Syrian leaders regarding long-term peace in Iraq and the overall Middle East.  A White House spokesperson called the trip a "bad idea."
• Bernard Kerik, former NY Police Commissioner and former security adviser to Rudolph Giuliani, will be charged with tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.  In 2004, President Bush nominated Kerik to replace Tom Ridge as the Homeland Security Chief until it ended in scandal and Kerik withdrew his nomination.
• Excerpt of Barack Obama's speech on the U.S. Constitution in Tallahassee, Florida: "I was a constitutional law professor... I believe in an attorney general who isactually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer... I just hope that everyone here has that same sense of urgency that Ido.  I hope the young people in particularuse this campaign as a vehicle to get involved and engaged. This is oneof those rare moments where we could change history, and those momentsdon't come that often. So I hope that all of you take advantage of it."
• President Bush was warned in a memo sent by a top general about the true cause of Pat Tillman's death.  The White House claims Bush never received the memo.
• Time Magazine has the details of the September 7, 2006 firefight between U.S. and Iranian forces on the Iraq-Iran border: "The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans,and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers presentat the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed atleast one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelledgrenade at their convoy of Humvees."
• There was once the Monroe Doctrine.  Then, more than 100 years later, there was the Truman Doctrine.  Columnist Michael Fullilove calls our current strategy in Iraq the Costanza Doctrine, named after Seinfeld's very own George Costanza.  As George once said, "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right."  Fullilove drew the parallel to the current Iraq policy: "The Iraq policy pursued by the Bush administration satisfies theCostanza criterion: it is the opposite of every foreign policy theworld has ever met."
• A Time Magazine Poll asked Democrats nationwide how they would vote if only Edwards, Clinton and Obama were left in the race.  Here are the results: Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 30% and John Edwards 26%.  Two weeks ago, John Edwards was at 17%.
• Reverend Jesse Jackson is upset with the Congressional Black Caucus for cutting a deal with Fox News to host a Democratic presidential debate later this year.  "I am disappointed by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute’spartnership with FOX, and strongly encourage them to reverse thatdecision," Jackson urged. "Why would presidential candidates, or an organization that issupposed to advocate for Black Americans, ever give a stamp oflegitimacy to a network that continually marginalizes Black leaders andthe Black community?"

free to add any new stories in the commentbox.

3.31.07 Blue Political Clips for Nightowls

You survived the work week, now pat yourself on the back.  So all you nightowls out there, sit back and relax, and enjoy these latest political clips that are making their rounds on the internet tonight:

1. Snoop Dogg rips Bill O'Reilly.  This is hilarious.  Snoop wants to be on O'Reilly's show, as long as it's on Snoop's turf.  (Explicit language)
2. Geraldo and O'Reilly discuss Rosie.  Rosie might be off in la-la land, but so is Bill.
3. Bush apologies for Walter Reed.  Hopefully more apologies still to come.
4. Angered British Ambassador to the UN lashes out at the media for their coverage of Iranian hostage crisis.

More political clips later on Saturday and tomorrow.

(Video) What we call the News

From Jib-Jab.  Enjoy:

What We Call the News | Send To Friends | Funny Animations at JibJab

King Abdullah: U.S. Occupation Threatening Civil War

On Wednesday, Saudi King Abdullah had this to say about the US "In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war."in response to that, Undersecretary of State Burns said it could have been"misreported by the media"

Dana Perino White House Spokeswoman:

"It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupyingIraq"

"When it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people,"

It seems we are wearing out our welcome with the Iraqi people. Things aren't getting better for them.

The Middle east is such a volatile region, that even our allies are onthe fence about the war and how they view our policies. Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours,and there is speculation that they aresupplying Sunni insurgents with weapons because of their belief that Iran is supplying theShiite faction in Iraq. We should be talking to our allies as well as ourenemies, and the recent statement by King Abdullah shows how important that isconsidering our "friends" look at us as "occupiers".

Reutershas the complete article here.

(Video) No matter what happens, Bush still believes he's right

All of us have strong convictions about certain things -- but only to a point.  Sometimes people that have such set opinions are difficult to convince that they are wrong, regardless of how wrong they might be.  Conservative author Andrew Sullivan last night warned just how isolated the President really is.  Even so, he is not budging on Iraq, regardless of the fact that thousands more people are dead because he chose to right a war that did not need to be fought.

SULLIVAN: And Bush, I think psychologically, he just believes he's right.  He thinks that, in his fundamentalist psyche, that his motives are pure, that the war is the right thing...

...And I think the President had a born-again moment on 9/11, politically.  He thinks as long as he's fighting evil, anybody who criticizes him is on the side of evil.

You might all disagree with me on this next idea.  But I think Andrew Sullivan brought up an interesting point about how the Administration has no reason at all to care what the public thinks because the current Vice President is not running in 2008.  In most second terms, the issue of Executive power comes up.  If Cheney was thinking about the presidency in 2008, he would be warned by political advisers to prevent Bush from over-stepping his reach since it might create a public backlash in 2008.  Usually, there is no such thing as a lame duck presidency because most second term administrations try to help the sitting vice president win the presidency in the next election.

This White House is totally different.  They have no reason to think twice before consolidating power.  It's worse than Nixon.  Even some in Nixon's staff looked ahead to how Gerald Ford and the 1970s Republican Party might be affected if Richard Nixon fought it out until the bitter end.  This time, there is no individual in the White House that can tell the President "no."  That is the scary part.

Let this be a lesson to both parties.  If your party's nominee names a running-mate that has no intention of running eight years later, then your party will have no leverage over the presidency.  No matter what the Republican Party tries to do, they will not be able to affect this White House in any way until the very end.  Bush and Cheney are not Republicans anymore.  They are off on their own, and no Republican lawmaker can change that.