7/26/2007:   Tony Snow announced during a press conference that, from the White House's point of view, Alberto Gonzales was being truthful during his Congressional testimony this week.

And in other news, Satan told journalists that, from his point of view, George Bush is as pure as the driven snow.

7/26/2007:   These are my overall gut impressions of the candidates. I give them a numeric rating on a scale of 10 points.

Gravel: 0. He comes off as the old man that yells at people to get off his lawn. I agree with a few of his answers, but I don't want him in a position of power. Interesting spin on energy savings, if single-dimensional.

Chris Dodd: 6. Good, but not overly good. He doesn't really compare to the likes of Clinton and Obama.

Edwards: 7. A bit wimpy until he gets completely fired up. He needs to be a bit more quietly forceful, but his views are good. He needs to get past the gay marriage hang-up, though. Supports bio-fuels without addressing the carbon footprint of bio-fuels. I like his speech on healthcare, though.

Clinton: 8. Good, but still comes off as a consummate corporatist. Good answers on leaving Iraq. And she has a real and visible record on healthcare.

Obama: 10. Wow. Every answer perfect, delivery perfect, image perfect.

Richardson: 8. Good responses, straight talk, heartfelt. Not 100% crisp, but close. Great answer on voting standardization.

Biden: 5. No flash, old guard, fading. His best answer was on leaving Iraq, though.

Kucinich: 2. Some great positions, but he comes off as a support character, not the main figure in the executive branch.

Couple of notes: they really needed to fire questions at the other candidates more often. It's like they handed out questions int he percentage of polling points that the candidates had. The questions from family members of soldiers were gripping. The responses were good. And no one addressed the Libby case -- I really would like to hear someone stand up and express calm but clear outrage at the flaunting of the Constitution that is the Libby commutation.

7/26/2007:   John Edwards said that he wants the minimum wage raised to $9.25 per hour. I'm waiting for a presidential candidate that will cut through the crap and say that the minimum wage needs to reflect the cost of living within a given area. Minimum wage should ensure me that ability to pay rent, buy food, and buy monthly necessities for a single individual.

I think standard of living figures should be determined on a county basis, and the minimum wage should be based on working 40 hours a week. This isn't rocket science. Someone making $9.25 an hour won't be able to afford rent in a major city. Someone making $9.25 an hour in a small town will put a strain on a small business.

7/26/2007:   "I think he's mediocre. I think he's disappointing. I don't think he's a bad man, as Nixon is, I think he means well. I think he made a terrible mistake on Iraq. But I thought he was the first conservative Bush. I thought he was a real Texas conservative. Turns out he's like his grandfather who I covered, I Connecticut liberal. And, uh, what he is, is, uh, he's putting in all these spending programs, so I think he's been a failure as a president because he hasn't done a thing I think every great president has to do, and that's lead his party."

"Karl [Rove] and I had grown close since he began plotting Bush's path to the White House as early as 1995. In four decades of talking to presidential aides, I never had enjoyed such a good source inside the White House."

"Mediocre"? "Disappointing"? That's it? How about "bumbling idiot", "neo-con puppet", or "mass murdering liar"?

"Texas conservative" or "Connecticut liberal"? What the hell is that? Is that code speak for big, tough, and right as opposed to pasty, wimpy, and wrong? Novak, you dick. When did the liberalism of our founding fathers become a bad thing? You moron. Karl Rove wasn't "close" to you, he had his talons in you. He controlled you, manipulated you, and you sang like his own personal songbird.

Hey Bob, I've got my dog, Misty, here, and she's got a question for you: "Yes, I have a question... As a dog, I must know... What does Karl Rove's ass smell like? You're so short and disgusting, it's no wonder Dick Cheney likes you; your head comes up to his waist. What's that you say? Oh my! Such language! Do you kiss Alberto Gonzales with that mouth?"

(Apologies to Insult the Comic Dog for that last bit...)

7/26/2007:   "We speak only English here."
"If you can't feed'em, then don't breed'em."
"Welfare started as a hand up, not a generational lifestyle!!!"
"We support our troops, not criminals or illegals."
"We pass a drug test for our paychecks, what about Welfare checks???"

These are just a few of the messages posted in front of "C & L's Ice House" in Texas. The owner has been asked by the sheriff to consider taking the sign down. But he refused, citing his First Amendment rights.

And I agree with him. In fact, I agree with the slogans I listed above. I don't find them racist, sexist, or religious. In fact, I kind of like the idea of drug testing for people on Welfare. I heard someone the other espouse the view that anyone on government assistance should be denied the right to vote. I think that's a horrible idea, essentially equating economic disadvantage with being less than human. But requiring that people keep themselves healthy, whole, and capable of getting off public assistance sounds like a great idea to me.

7/23/2007:   Four years ago, when Bush was making his case for war, he said that Iraq was building nuclear weapons, and I, like most people, thought that that was the reason for war and that it was a reasonable case for war. Hillary felt the same way and voted for war. We trusted that the Bush administration was telling us the truth, that a nuclear weapons program was nearing fruition, and that Saddam had real plans to use them.

Shortly before the Iraq War began, when it came out that the information was falsified, I wanted the war put on hold until the case presented could be vetted. Congress didn't seem to feel the same way, apparently out of a sense of political survival. Who had the spine to stand up to the President when doing so was painted as unpatriotic? No one, including Hillary. I don't really fault her for that anymore than I fault anyone in Congress. I'll give her a pass on that for now.

Two years ago when Saddam had been deposed and caught, I wanted more troops in Iraq until we could get things calmed down, the government rebuilt, services reestablished, and a self-sufficient nation in place, and then I wanted them out of there post-haste. Hillary was on the same page.

A year ago, I wanted the troops out in a phased withdrawal to start immediately. A full-pitch civil war had developed, albeit without well-formed armies and pitched battles. People were dying by the hundreds daily, though, and American casualties were but a small fraction of that number. Hillary campaigned hard against the Bush administration to change course, carrying the same tune as the entire, fully united Democratic Party, although what the course should be changed to was in question.

Now, I could give a crap how Iraq ends up. It's an al Qaeda training ground, it's in worse shape every day, we lose more control every day, and more U.S. soldiers are being fed into the meat grinder the longer we stay. I'm very nearly ready for a full tilt evacuation. Al Qaeda isn't running the show there, and the Iraqis hate them as much as they hate us, but they've clearly benefited on an incredible scale, and will continue to benefit as long as we provide them with targets.

But Hillary is not on the same page now. She's bucking the trend for a slow, reasoned withdrawal of the troops out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal. I understand that she's trying to be cool and logical about it. I can't say I'd bother. I'm at a point where our troops should have been out of there a long time ago. I do not trust our government to "try something new" or "change course."

I don't have a problem with the position that we need to execute a reasoned and well planned withdrawal. But I want to hear a date, I want to hear at least a high level description of that withdrawal. I want details. Make me believe it. You can criticize Hillary Clinton, but you can't say she's incapable of rethinking her position.

7/13/2007:   Did Nancy Pelosi get paid off to keep impeachment "off the table"? What kind of deal would be required to get Pelosi to betray the entire United States? Would that be treason or simple corruption? I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that Mrs. Pelosi has accepted some kind of compensation from the Bush family in the form of power, influence, or even cold hard cash? What could make her decided not to attempt to impeach Bush and Cheney? Wouldn't that make her the automatic first woman President in history? And who gives a crap about whether the Republicans scream bloody murder about it? They can't argue that George was the worst president in history and needs to be deposed.

7/3/2007:   The smart Democratic presidential candidate is the one that will preempt a press conference by starting *and* ending the conference with the following question to the American public and a dramatic pause as though actually expecting an answer:

"Do you -- each and every American -- do you think Scooter Libby should have more rights than you? Do you think George Bush should have more rights than you? Do you think Karl Rove or Dick Cheney should have more rights than any other American?"

If people won't think critically on their own about what happened yesterday, then get them to focus on the most basic principle violated, and ask them to make it personal to themselves. Set the tone.

7/3/2007:  

70% of Americans are against the Iraq War at this point in time.

57% believe in evolution.

59% know that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th.

So what we're saying is that the majority of Americans aren't entirely stupid. If that's the case, doesn't it stand to reason that there's just no way George Bush could have gotten elected in the first place and, even more so, reelected in 2004? These numbers would seem to point to the fact that America as a nation is too smart to reelect Bush, therefore the election must have been defrauded.

Well, it makes sense to me...

7/3/2007:   George W. Bush has sent a signal that his administration, his corporate buddies, his friends, and those that would preserve his grasp of power and protect him from the Constitutional checks on that power are above the law so long as that power holds. He has given up any hope of a redeeming quality in his legacy.

7/3/2007:   Hold up... rewind for a moment...

Bush said he respected the decision of the jury at Libby's obstruction of justice trial but felt that Libby's sentence was too harsh given Libby's service and record.

You're not buying that are you?

Let me put it in context: George is saying that Libby should be punished for obstructing justice in order to save George and Dick's butts. That's right, read it again; Libby was obstructing the inquiry into whether Dick Cheney was involved and complicit in the exposure of the identity of a covert agent in the service of the United States, a (by legal definition) treasonous and impeachable act. It's even possible that George himself was involved in some way or at least condoned the crime. So Libby's obstruction of justice was his effort to put himself between his bosses' administration and the Constitution.

What George said is a matter of record. What he was thinking was, "I'm so glad we've got a schmuck like Libby to fall on his sword for us, but if I just hang him completely out to dry, he'll turn like a pork and mayonnaise sandwich left out on a warm, sunny day. And I don't like warm mayonnaise. And pork makes me gassy. How fast can I get out of here and back to my bicycle? Gotta put a new card in the spokes. VROOM! I dont' like these people asking me all these questions. They all look like enemy combatants to me. You gotta go to Gitmo. Don't like ya. Time for another vaction. Bicycle. VROOM!"

7/3/2007:   WAIT! Hang on! Let me get this straight...

Bush refuses to turn over documents requested by Congress on the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, offering informal, unsworn interviews instead, with this excuse: "If you haul someone up on front of Congress, put'em in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, it... it... To me it makes it very difficult for a president to get good advice."

Really? Is that what you've been getting by keeping your administration the most secretive and obfuscated administration in history? Good advice? And the notion that someone may one day have to defend the advice they give you doesn't give rise to more carefully considered advice rather than the crap you've gotten thus far? Are you sure your current policy is really working?

7/3/2007:   The following is a letter I posted in response to a hateful, ignorant, spiteful "opinion" column posted by one Katy Grimes in the Sacramento Bee:

What the hell is wrong with people? What the hell is wrong with the SacBee that they can't keep vitriolic jerks like Ms. Grimes off their pages? How fitting that she hate in with "Christian" values and then complain about the label “Christian right-wing freaks.” Boo-frikkin-hoo, Katy, you moron. Grow up, teach your children to be better people than you are now, stop spewing your crap where impressionable young people might run into and be infected with your viral evil.

7/2/2007:   I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, found guilty by a jury of 12 of his peers for obstruction of justice and sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine has had his sentence commuted by George W. Bush.

Commuted. Not pardoned; commuted.

George tried to find a happy medium. If he pardoned Libby outright before the 2008 elections, the backlash against the GOP would be staggering, but if he let Libby go to prison, Libby would more than likely have cut a deal with the special prosecutor to have his sentence slashed in return for testimony against Dick Cheney. So George was in a bind, and the only way he could make it right was to fish Scooter out of prison while making as much noise as possible that the fine and the damage to Scooter's reputation, such as it was, was punishment enough.

Which, of course, is crap.

Cheney committed treason by having Valorie Plame's CIA affiliation exposed when she was operating as a covert agent. Libby did everything in his power to thwart the grand jury and the special prosecutor until the time limit on the grand jury ran out. Libby obstructed a federal investigation into a treasonous crime, a crime for which the V.P. would have certainly been impeached.

George W. Bush is a puppet. Dick Cheney's soul is black with corruption. The administration as a whole is the greatest threat to the foundation of this country that history has ever witnessed. Impeachment can't come soon enough.

7/2/2007:   GOP presidential hopefuls Fred Thompson and Rudy Guliani think that Libby should have been pardoned. These men are either power mad, clinically insane, or treasonous. Do not give them your support. Their statements in support of George W. Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's 2.5 year sentence (out of a possible 10 years) should, by itself, sound the end of their political careers.

7/2/2007:   The GOP snubbed the Latino national convention. Wow. That was really stupid. Are Mexican Americans less American than European Americans? I don't think so, and it's a point not lost on the Democratic Party. All six of the Democratic presidential hopefuls respected latinos enough to show up and answer questions on their positions on a wide range of issues. How many Republicans showed up?

Zero.

Maybe that's why Barack and Hillary are swimming in a combined total of nearly $100 million in contributions over the last few months and one of the GOP's favorite sons, John McCain, is having to raize his staff to cut costs.

7/2/2007:   Last month recap:

There was more, but those are the points I don't want Republicans to forget. The guys you voted for, from the President all the way down to the freshman Congressmen, were corrupt. They have savaged your rights. And starting in November, I'm going to maintain a list of every corrupt thing they've done, and I'm just going to add to it every single time they hurt our country again. I will list every indictment, every crime, every treason, until no Republican can vote for the same old GOP, until they force the GOP to seriously clean house, throw out the old power-mad, Newt Gingrich forged agenda and learn to stand for this country, not for wealth and power for the very few, not for ignorance and hate, not for extremism and isolationism, not for lies.

Grow up. Think critically. Be adults and admit your team has gone to seed. Do the right thing. Send a message. Vote for the Democrats just one time, just one time to show you have more character than Karl Rove gave you credit for.

7/2/2007:   Dana Perino is the newest White House deputy spokes-liar. She stood in front of the press corp and tried to actually tell them on the idea that the Vice President's office is part of the legislative branch.

What a hack. What a slag. What a complete frikkin' liar. How do you suppose Ms. Perino looks at herself in the mirror each morning? What is missing from her character that allows her to do this job?