Payback's A Bitch: Dems Take Control Of Congress

FIGHT BACK AGAINST TROOP SURGES IN IRAQ

Washington is a buzz as the Democrats take control of Congress Thursday. After President Gerald Ford's death last week, the Capitol is dripping with nostalgia of a bygone era when Democrats and Republicans actually spoke decently to each other.

Hold on. Only half of D.C. is spewing this talking point and its Republicans.

After six years of nearly complete marginalization by the Republicans in Congress, the new majority party is poised to give the GOP a dose of their own medicine and it should be as costly as the over-priced medication millions of uninsured American dole out everyday.

There is no reason for the Dems to concede anything to their GOP colleagues, at least until next year when conciliatory gestures will go well with a cocktail of Hillary, Obama or John Edwards.

The Dems constituency made it implicitly clear last November that the ultra conservative direction of America needed a correction in the direction of the center. I have no allusions of Democrats achieving anything more than their pre-programmed first 100 hours of a minimum wage hike, stem cell research and reduction student aid interest rates, but if they do anything they must contain President Bush's maniacal grasp on leading this country by the slimmest majority of popularity and logic.

After those first 100 hours, Nancy Pelosi must vigorously lead the party and a possible sizable chunk of the GOP caucus against the President's blood lust for further entrenching the U.S. in Iraq. The position must be clear and concise; nobody in America except for the men in Bush's shrinking inner circle believe a troop surge is anything but folly.

Pelosi must realize the basic duty of their service is to lead the country by the wishes of the people and they have spoken. Take a stand, Madame Speaker.

President Ford's Pardon Set The Tone For Crooks Of Today

DESPITE THE MEDIA'S REVISION, FORD'S PARDON DID NOT HELP AMERICA, BUT ENABLED THE CRIMINALS

President Ford is in the ground so now the world can freely opine on one of the most unmomentous presidents in our history. That pundits were surprised at the lavish praise of the former President who caught enormous flak for quickly pardoning President Richard Nixon in 1974 only shows how the press and Washington insiders went out of their way to hint at his greatness.

An overwhelming majority of Americans were completely outraged when Ford announced a full pardon to Nixon in the midst of Watergate. His popularity dropped seemingly overnight in the polls from an approval rating of over 70 points to 30. When news of his death at 93 filtered throughout the country a generation of baby boomers now grappling with the evils of George W. Bush again ridiculed the unelected leader for his cowardice. Yet, if you read the newspapers or watch the Ford-a-thon on cable news, the masses were fed this newfangled revision of history that profusely praised Ford for doing, in hindsight(?), the right thing for the country.

My generation knows President Ford as Chevy Chase--a bumbling, uncoordinated nimcompoop. Instead, we were reminded that he was a great athlete at the University of Michigan and captained their undefeated seasons in 1932-33. Pictures of Ford comically sliding down the stairs of Air Force One and maintaining famously that the Soviet did not have a foothold in Eastern Europe didn't seem to fit the youthful linebacker and graceful congressional parliamentarian.

So, why this muddling of history? He was only President for 2 1/2 years whether he wanted the job or not. The reason lies with today's headlines made by former Ford adminstration lieutenants.

The revisionist history of Ford's presidency serves only Vice President Cheney and the neocon establishment. Ford did not save the country from a brutal criminal investigation of Nixon but only prolonged the misery up until this very day. The outrage in 1974 over granting a pardon to Nixon stemmed from the fact that the Tricky Dick nearly ruined the country yet escaped unscathed.

Ford's handling of his personal life and the addiction problems of his wife, Betty, are instructive in how he enabled this country political crooks then while they perpetrated the same sort of corruption in the Bush adminstration.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz all got their start in the Ford administration. During the neocons nascent period the lessons was learned that the Republic could be imperiled without any consequence to those who attempted to dismantled it for their own personal idealougies and financial gain.

If Ford would have run Nixon through the ringer, however excruciating it would have been, the country would have been stronger by it and more incline to read the political tea leaves when the bad guys returned to power in 2000.

President Ford may have been an excellent placeholder in presidential history, but the excessive mourning period was only afforded by his title and not by his political actions. The view of Ford today may be rosy, but when talk show pundits move on to the next big story, the real, less exciting and more critical view of post-Watergate America will rise to the surface.

It's A Civil War...Stupid!

IRAQI PM SNUBS BUSH; TEETERS ON CIVIL WAR; POSSIBILITY OF COUP REARS HEAD

The editorial in today's Wall Street Journal regarding President Bush's now ill-fated meeting with Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki is much of what you would expect from the business-friendly rag. The two are there to "show" the terrorists and the region they share a common goal and his lack of realism in terms of Iraq point to a gallant effort to reaffirm the American public and the soldiers that he, himself, believe in this misadventure. The Yale cheerleader apparently can't put down his pom-poms.

The WSJ did make a poignant and snide remark by calling NBC News and the Los Angeles Times "wannabe Walter Cronkites" by beginning to refer to the war in Iraq as, indeed, a civil war.

NBC, in fact, led by the self-appointed neo-Edward R. Murrow, Keith Olbermann seems to more likely to be the culprit of such self-aggrandizing. Aside, from the basic and intuitive penchant for calling attention to yourself in Hollywood, what exactly is news organizations suppose to do in this situation? The war in Iraq has reached the standard of Civil War and may have even reached that lowpoint months ago. NBC News and The L.A. Times can't be expected to ignore this fact.

Inevitably, the use of the word "civil war" will become ubiquitous. With news that al-Maliki publicly snubbed the president today whether he was angered by the leak of a White House memo that severely questioned his ability to act as PM or the catch-22 of dealing with President Bush or risk losing the support of Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr put him in a no-win situation. Either way, tonight, the chances of the worst happening in Iraq for the U.S.--a coup--went up significantly.

LFR Creator apologizes For Singing 'Chinaman Song' In 6th Grade

Back in sixth grade, I perpetuated a racial song against fellow schoolmate Joel Chan, then universally tabbed the "smartest kid in school". I will not take credit for creating the tune but uttered its lines everyday during periods three to six at Canyon Middle School in Castro Valley, CA. The song was sung to the tune of the Spiderman theme song from the 1960s cartoon. It goes like this:

Joel Chan the Chinaman
Does anything a computer can
Oh, oh, there goes the Chinaman

I would like to apologize to all people of Chinese descent, whether or not they believe the Taiwan has a right to exist and even Jackie Chan, who makes millions of dollars making movies in America but finds little to time to actually learn how to speak anywhere near passable English. Even that one Chinese lady who brazenly cuts me off in the buffet line and completely acts like she doesn't hear me protesting.

I also send my regrets to Mr. Chan even though from seventh grade on it was revealed that he was not the smartest kid in school but apparently more adept at stealing answers to the test than taking a joke. I pray that you have not risen to the top of the Chinese communist party, Mr. Chan, and have mercy on me and my family when the party recalls it credit to America.

I am deeply sorry,
Steve

PS: I should have written a few more stanzas to that song!

Muzzle Comedians And The Dane Cook Comedy Terrorist Win

JERRY SEINFELD LOOKED MORE NERVOUS THAN RICHARDS ON LETTERMAN

So Kramer said the N-word again, again and again. Is he a racist? Who cares! The fact that comedian Michael Richards melted down in front of comedy club audience doesn't have any bearing on race relations in this country. This is not the O.J. Simpson divide or the L.A. riots of that era.

Richards' rant liberally using the N-word is just an entertainer mouthing off in a place where outrageous things are said. His words have none of the gravitas of a public figure or even the high-profile tabloid figure of Britney Spears. Richards is a has-been unable to come close to replicating one of the greatest TV characters in history.

His tirade was reprehensible or so off the wall that he could not label it borne out of edgy comedy. But, the venue is important in this controversy which, coincidentally or not was breaking in the midst of O.J.'s return to the spotlight. The comedy club just may be the last bastion of 100 percent free speech. I've listened to comedians say the most offensive and outrageous things in the name of comedy. But, when you buy a ticket plus the two drink minimum the chance that a performer will say the N-word or curse profusely is included in the deal.

The need to have shock value is an important tool in a comedian's bag of tricks. I believe Richards was heading this way when he began hurling racial epithets at the balcony and many in the audience laughed at the opening salvos. Unfortunately, Richards went overboard pacing the stage with a surreal calmness and making unmistakable allusions to slavery in his taunts to the hecklers.

When Richards showed up on the Late Show with David Letterman his apology was clumsy and as scategorically intelligible as his rant last Friday night. How did he start talking about hurricane Katrina victims? What was he doing on Letterman other than to save the legacy of Jerry Seinfeld's famed sitcom. Here's Seinfeld, booked to promote the DVD of the seventh season of Seinfeld, giving way to a somber Richards piped in via satellite to say sorry to the obvious. What a way to grind a comedy program to a halt.

The funny thing about the appearance on Letterman is that the man whose reputation had been so badly soiled looked less worried than the co-creator of Seinfeld. Seinfeld was so nervous that the perception of his franchise and its most lovable character would be soiled by the racist comic that he hastily brought Richards with him to his appearance even telling the audience to stop laughing as the uncomfortable Richards tripped over his words like the famous Kosmo Kramer.

Michael Richards is probably no more racist than the average American and Jerry Seinfeld no more greedy than the richest businessman, but if comedians are pressured to say the mundane and quiver from edgy comedy that is the basis of their craft then America is cursed to be entertained by a thousand Dane Cook's and that would make me very, very uncomfortable.

Even If O.J. Says He Did it, I Still Think He's Innocent

DESPITE CONTROVERSY, AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW THE FINAL CHAPTER

The grasp of the O.J. Simpson murder trial is still firmly clutching the American psyche. O.J.'s acquittal in 1994 was undeniably America's problem with race relation in a microcosm, but it was also a perfect storm of celebrity, power, money, sex and murder. A well-known and well-liked actor and pro football Hall of Famer who gave it all away by killing his estranged wife.

Nearly equal in its peculiar absurdity is Simpson's ill-fated book and television special. It would have been the most apt ending to this real life story seemingly based on the most trashy of pulp fiction. The killer confesses to the murders 12 years later to a still rapt audience. The same people 12 years older who watched the spectacle every morning in robes while buttering their toast still have their ears perk up with mere mention of the trial and its freed star.

A dozen Fox affiliates said they would not air the controversial two-part program where Simpson would discuss how he would have killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown-Simpson with publisher Judith Regan. The Brown and Goldman family protested because they feared Simpson--the killer according to the civil suit he lost--would be profitting from the venture.

This reason is justified. According to many sources, Simpson has yet to pay a penny of the $30 million judgement against him. One report said Simpson collects $25,000 per month from a pension fund that is exempt from the judgement as is property in Florida.

But, what if the public was assured that Simpson would not receive a single penny from this book deal or its profits donated to charity? What would the public want in this case? Denise Brown, the sister of Nicole, appeared on Today and literally applauded the American people for pressuring Fox to nix the Simpson book. If O.J. doesn't gain monetarily from this book, why shouldn't we hear what he has to say?

This is the angle nobody dares to tackle. The American people, the same viewers who stood through hundred of hours of mundane cross-examination 12 years ago, wouldn't want to know exactly how the famous murder went down? You have to kidding yourself or too wrapped up in saying exactly what's politically correct not to indulge this curiosity.

I want to know why O.J. killed Nicole Simpson, with what weapons, where he got it and where he put it. Most importantly, I want to know how a person who had everything lost it all with a slash of a knife. To me, this is the essence of this Greek tragedy. I want O.J. to add the post-mortem to this story that is nearly as strong as it was more than a decade ago. The end will not occur until we hear his story and with the power of the internet we will somwhere, somehow

I suppose the LFR Endorses Phil Angelides For Governor

GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA; Phil Angelides
U.S. SENATE: Dianne Feinstein
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Pete Stark
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: John Garamendi
SECRETARY OF STATE: Debra Bowen
STATE CONTROLLER: John Chiang
STATE TREASURER: Bill Lockyer
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Jerry Brown
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Larry Cafiero
STATE SENATOR (10TH DIST.) Ellen Corbett
MAYOR SAN LEANDRO: Tony Santos

STATE PROPOSITIONS
1A.....................................YES
1B.....................................YES
1C.....................................YES
1D.....................................YES
1E.....................................YES
83.....................................NO
84.....................................NO
85.....................................NO86.....................................YES
87.....................................YES
88.....................................YES
89.....................................NO
90.....................................YES

Mid-term Election Predictions: Dems Gain Power

The Democrats will gain somewhere between the very best and worst estimates, both of which, would guarantee a majority in Congress. Twenty-two is the magic number.

The Senate is different. There's very little leeway either way. Conceivably, the number is between four and six. Go right down the middle, which would mean a 50-50 split and a steady job for Vice President Cheney breaking ties on Capitol Hill.

The night may not be the revolution that Democrats were hoping for but nevermind the thin majority of the inane ramifications for 2008, the Democratic Party was flirting with extinction just two years ago and with the help of a ridiculous operation in the White House and some very smartly run campaigns the party will be in control of the House and a voice in the direction of this country.

Go After The GOP's Corruption Mrs. Pelosi

In a nice little love letter to the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, the New York Times today revealed her vision for not the first 100 days of Democratic rule of Congress, but the first 100 hours.

According the article, a Pelosi-led House would quickly get to work on this agenda:

• Pay-as-you-go budgeting
• Adopt recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
• Increase the minimum wage to $7.25
• Broaden stem cell research allowed with federal money
• Cut the interest rate on student loans
• End tax giveaways to Big Oil

The Pelosi agenda is both welcomed, warranted and ambitious, but it leaves out one major point: the impeachment of President Bush.

What are the odds that this happens despite Pelosi's protestations the last few months? Extremely high I'd say.

What would be the advantage of Pelosi and the Democrats gleefully threatening neverending hearings into the dishonesty and graft of the Bush administration. One day before the election, talk of about catching those crooks in Washington seems like a waste of time and more of the same do-nothing Congress that so many Americans detest.

I'm in agreement, even if a majority of its constituents crave a "payback is a bitch" moment against the Bush administration, holding back would be for the better of the republic. But, that's today talking.

What if Pelosi takes over the House next year and hopefully the Senate and in the midst of pushing through their Democratic agenda find the foundation the Congress rotting far more than the previous owners let on. Do they let it go or proceed with finding the truth and hold the GOP to the light after six years of operating in the shadows?

This scenario is likely to happen because the modus operandi of the GOP is to hide and with a full majority for nearly six years accountability has never been on the table. Starting the morning of November 8th it will.

November Surprise: Bush Hands Nuclear Blueprints To Terrorists

The October surprise was two days late. It wasn't John Kerry's lack of comedy skills, it's the GOP's lack of national security credentials blown to pieces.

The New York Times' website reports that tomorrow's edition will lead with news that the President approved a website dedicated to the archives of Saddam Hussein's attempts at building nuclear weapons and its contents could be dangerous in the wrong hands. The public site was urged by Republicans to "leverage the internet" to reveal the Iraqi dictator's criminal intent.

Unfortunately, many experts in the field tell the Times the information is highly secret and could lead nation's with nuclear aspirations to improve upon their knowledge.

With only five days until a likely Democratic landslide in Congress could there be a worst story for the Republicans? It has all the hallmarks of one of those transcendental news items that seem to encompass all that we think about the folly of this administration.

Who, but mere amateurs at national security and governance, would freely post the blueprints to building the bomb? These are the people that say they can protect this country better than Democrats. This embarrassing disclosure certainly destroys the argument that a vote for Democrats is a vote for the terrorists, doesn't it?

Why did this happened? Nobody knows, but the GOP is going to have a hard time pinning the blame on Democrats when it was two leading Republicans in Congress who pushed its existence earlier this year.

How much more do the American people need to know? Here's a brief primer: whatever the Bush administration says believe the opposite. When they tell you that they'll protect your family, believe the opposite. When they say vote Republican, vote Democrat.

GOP Muck Makers Seize On Kerry's Comments, Again

WHY IS HE EVEN OUT THERE TO BUNGLE THIS ELECTION; WITHOUT BEING ON BALLOT

Did Sen. John Kerry insult the president's intelligence or did he belittle the education of U.S soldiers in Iraq? The question should be why is Kerry in the headlines when he's not even on the ballot next week?

The truth is Kerry did not demean the soldier but tossed a poorly formed joke at the President's perceived lack of education. Once the context of the quote is revealed all the hubbub is a non-story. Unfortunately, Republican voters and cable news networks don't pay attention to the whole truth and the GOP knows this.

The turning of the truth regarding Kerry's comments Monday in Southern California is just another reminder that the GOP is unbelievably adept at scouring the cutting room floor for controversy when none is there. All the credit goes to the Republican muck machine for again Swift Boating the swift boat captain. There is little Kerry can do now, although his press conference this afternoon was unwavering and stern and very much a lesson learned from 2004 when he let the false rumors of his duty in Vietnam slowly fester.

What this latest controversy does is hit a deep nerve within rural Republicans who believe the entire Democratic party is quietly making fun of their collective intelligence. In places like Missouri, Virginia and much of the South, the voters imagine the Democrats snickering that they're backward and uneducated. They're too dumb to know that the Republicans are conning them with their slick, smarty pants vocabulary. There's even an entire book about the bamboozling under the Republicans noses called, "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

The notion rings true with this liberal Democrat. I generally believe that anybody that joins the military has very few other options. They're the kids that didn't do well in class or you sensed had a great future and desire to shoot things or kill people. This, of course, is false in our high-tech military, but if the stigma resides in Democrats, how explosive could the fabrication of Kerry's comments by the administration be for Republicans steaming mad to retain control of Congress.

I wrote back in early 2004 that John Kerry's campaign style was too offensive and not enough defensive. Like Bush's foray into Iraq, Kerry tends to overextend himself, leaving himself wide open for broadsides like the one he inadvertently left open for some overly creative GOP operative.

At the end of the day, the real loser will be Kerry's possible run for president in 2008. The party cannot continue to have such a liability on the campaign trail when gaining the White House is first and foremost.

Rove Loads Up On Pine Tar

Is Karl Rove dillusional, putting up a brave front or is he up to something rotten, again? Today's Washington Post has an article about the stakes Rove faces to his legacy on November 7th and the relatively happy demeanor the mad scientist of the Republican party is exhibiting.

"I believe Karl Rove," [Chief of Staff, Joshua] Bolten said in an interview in his West Wing office Friday. "Karl Rove, somewhere inside that massive brain of his, has figured out the political landscape more clearly than the entire collection of conventional-wisdom pundits and pollsters in the entire city of Washington."

Bolten believes Rove. Does he? Exactly what does Rove know that the rest of us don't?

The entire scene conjures up a nightmare of swirling chads and flaming voting machines. Is this a bluff on Rove's part because it sounds familiar to what Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry told the New York Times in reference to the Smudgegate controversy involving the Tigers Kenny Rogers. Perry told Jack Curry that getting his opponent to believe he was cheating was half the battle. Perry had opposing hitters scrambling to find elusive smoking gun rather than concentrating on hitting his fastball.

In both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats were more interested in uncovering Rove's dirty tricks than they were in running effective campaigns against his client, President Bush.

Rove may or may not have something sinister up his sleeve come next Tuesday, but that's the point and it's where he derives most of his exulted status in the GOP. If the Democrats narrowly lose a chance at gaining the Senate will it be Rove's doing? Will the voting machines in Tennessee breakdown and if they do will this be where Rove takes his smug confidence from? Or maybe the filthy ads in the senate race really turned out conservatives against Rep. Harold Ford.

The point is on election day, check Karl Rove's hands for any "clumps of dirt".

GOP: Ford Will Take Your White Women!

With two weeks to go until the November midterm elections, it's no surprise the Republicans are racheting up the rhetoric. What happened in the Tennessee race for Senate this weekend defies common decency, but fits the not-so-subtle imprint of Karl Rove.

The GOP is bringing in the big gun to Tennessee!

In some circles the GOP has conceded losing the House of Representative and has placed it's resources to keeping the Senate. Most politicos have sharpened the point to two races: Tennessee's race between Harold Ford, Jr. and Bob Corker and the Virginia battle between George "Macaca" Allen and Jim Webb. If the Democrats maintain the leads they possess in six other races, a win in either Virginia or Tennessee would tip the Senate to the D's.

Despite Allen's problem with the N-word and the now infamous "M-word", Allen has begun to slowly solidify a small advantage over Webb, which leaves the Volunteer State up for grabs.

The use of blatant racism in the Ford ad is de riguer for the Rovian White House. If Ford were white, under the Rove guide to deceitful campaigning, he would be pegged as gay in some sort of bizarre logic. To Rove, Ford's skin color and pre-existing rumors of partying play into a more fantastic realm of race-baiting and a historical aversion to interracial couples in the South.

In this scenario, Corker plays the unwitting benefactor of these advertisments. By calling for them to be pulled from the Tennessee airwaves he covers his own campaign, while shifting the blame to mysterious higher-ups in control of the spots. When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman appeared with Tim Russert today on MSNBC to claim the party powerless over the ads, he effectively made cancelling them the elusive company of nobody and everybody.

It won't be known until election which campaign will be among the collateral damage caused by the attention to this ad. The South is tough to predict. A Virginia governor can sound blatantly racist over the last 30 years of his life and still be poised to win a Senate race. Past the ridiculousness and poor acting of this ad in Tennessee, could even an inkling of what the ad says make people think twice about voting for Harold Ford, Jr.?

Rove is betting it does.

FOX: If Dems Win, Iraqis Win; Iraqis Aren't Winning Already?

It isn't the perception that the war in Iraq is quickly slipping into a military abyss. It isn't even a question of whether the United States should be in Iraq or even if the planning was bungled. The Democrats are on the cusp of taking over Congress because the Republicans scare tactics regarding the terrorists and other assorted evildoers has officially run its course.

The Fox clip above is an example of a party grasping at really the only significant point for voting for them the last six years. How absurd is it to trot out the inane syllogism that a vote for Democrats is a vote for the insurgents, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Satan or the boogie man for the umpteenth time.

It's generally accepted, even among Republicans, that the din of scaring Americans into voting Republicans reaches its apex around election time. The tactic was effective enough to win two presidential campaigns and increase power in the legislative branch, but its well-worn and quickly becoming hokey. Something the writers of Saturday Night Live would deem played out.

Does Fox's John Gibson really believe what he's saying? It didn't sound like it. In fact, it could have been uttered hundreds of times on Fox News from the dawn of 9/11 to today, except with different video.

This midterm election may be too far lost for the Republicans, but next time come up with something scarier. The anthrax scare was effective. Or, maybe your saving that one for 2008.

Bush Kicks 'The Nuts' In The Nuts

FORMER STAFFER DETAILS GOP BETRAYAL OF CHRISTIAN VALUES

The former special assistant to the president's Office of faith-based initiatives said White House higher up called various Christian leaders "the Nuts".

Finally, there's something the Republicans in Washington got right.

David Kuo's insider account of the administration's outreach to Christian believers is illuminating for different reasons than you might think.

Sadly, this shows the Bush administration is not, in fact, on some sort of psychotic faith-based crusade against the non-Christian world. Their decisions aren't based solely on the Bible, but on getting people to vote Republican through the donation basket.

There act is, indeed, what most liberals believed, an act, albeit a very costly one. Democrats, though, can take little solace in that fact after languishing in the minority for the past four years.

This is exactly the reason why our forefather's instituted the doctrine of separation of church and state. Not only is religious reasoning faulty in successfully governing a republic, it also is easily manipulated. The smokescreen of God over national affairs is a dubious salve that smothers all free thinking--a notion antithesis to what this country was founded.

But, what goes unnoticed is the notion that God's goodwill was manipulated against those who believe in Him the most. Churchgoers throughout the country have devoted their prayers and their votes to the false notion that their God sanctioned the evil and wrongdoing that has pervaded the Bush presidency since its inauguration in 2001.

I called that collaborating with the Devil.

ON THE FRINGE RANT: Monday Night Shame

New Orleans Poor Pay For An Expensive Saints Opener

How does Al-Jazeera get it and ESPN and entire American media establishment doesn't?

The Super Bowl-like display for the re-opening of the Louisiana Superdome last night may have a far lasting legacy than the Saints' week three victory over the Atlanta Falcons.

FEMA spent $185 million on not just rebuilding, but markedly upgrading a sports arena when thousands still lack the necessities of a simple third world nation.

What does this say about our society? Was the tens of millions that ordinary Americans donated to the relief cause really happen? If so, then why is every quote, every interview and every story telling us how a three-hour football game was exactly what the citizens of New Orleans needed. Exactly what they needed?

How about a roof? What about consistent running water? A clean classroom?

Was a huge federal expenditure needed to repair the Superdome so soon or did the acts of a reprehensible owner push the city and state in this direction? It should be recalled that while Hurricane Katrina was a nasty storm, the tragedy of New Orleans was irrefutibly man-made.

Very few American media outlets (Here's ESPN's take), reported Monday night's game in it true ight, but inexplicably Al Jazerra did.

'This is exactly what the city needs,' said Saints season ticket holder Clara Donate, 58, who lost her home and all her possessions to Katrina's floodwaters. 'We all need something else to think about.'

But some were in no mood to celebrate the team's return, saying the $185 million dollars spent on refurbishing the Superdome could have been better spent on helping those still struggling to rebuild their lives after Katrina.

Irma Warner, 71, and her husband, Pascal Warner, 80, live in an apartment in suburban Metairie while working six days a week to restore a home flooded by 7 feet (2.1 meters) of water in New Orleans' Lakeview neighborhood.

'We rode around through the Ninth Ward yesterday,' Irma Warner said.

'When I saw that, I thought, how can they spend $185 million on the Superdome. What about all these poor people?'

It's not hard to see why the Superdome was built before thousands of destroyed homes were even cleared. New Orleans is and has always been the most corrupt city in America. Every sector of the public trust is plagued with graft from the mayor's office to the dog catcher. The city has always been crime-riddled and the school system a national joke.

The flood walls were built with the flimsiest of materials because building them properly would have been less money in the profiteers pockets. The voters of New Orleans continued the cycle of corruption by recycling crooked politicians by not paying attention to their decaying city.

The people of New Orleans, of whom no national figure would dare criticize in the light of Katrina, are to blame for disaster that unfolded and by their native inability to choose a safe and honest mode of government have again squandered a huge opportunity to take care of their future instead of their fleeting desires.

Allen Used N-Word; Who's To Say Virginians Don't Either?

Language is a living thing. It lives, breathes and changing over time. Three years ago, the word "swift boat" was singularly used as noun, as in, a small, quick draft water vessel. Today, through popular culture, the term is a verb like, "John Kerry was swiftboated in the 2004 election". To be swiftboated is entirely something else. It's a shameless attack on one's character perpetrated with lies and innuendo. George Allen: You've been swiftboated. Kind of.

Payback is a bitch, as they say. In Allen's case, the chorus of former colleagues from the distant past who are alleging the Virginia governor's use of the word nigger, are probably rooted in the truth. But, does that matter? Isn't this the type of division President Bush likes to employ on the electorate?

A few classmates and former teammates from the University of Viriginia said that a youthful Allen used the racial epitapth regularly in normal conversation. One even claimed that Allen said when referring to the some sea turtles, around here the only one's that "eat 'em" are niggers.

The difference in the swiftboating of Kerry and the apparently hatchet job on Allen is that the Southern governor's past leads directly to these sorts of accusation. In the Salon piece by Michael Scherer, a former high school classmate in Los Angeles recalled that Allen wore a confederate pin on his lapel for his yearbook photo. The source saw the use of the rebel pin as a "middle finger" to the blacks kids in the school.

At first glance, this story is undeniably debilatating to Allen's Senate campaign, but not necessarily to his apparent national aspirations. If Allen is indeed the Republican to succeed President Bush's constintuency, then this sort of division between liberals and far-right conversatives and more precisely, the South versus the North, should work to his advantage.

Living in one of the bluest counties in the bluest of blue states surely clouds one's grasp of the differences between the unique regions of this country. That a politician uses the word nigger so freely is quite endearing to some in the reddest of red Southern states. It might be noted that, at this point, pundits are not saying his race against Jim Webb is toast. In addition, if Allen runs for the GOP nomination this sort of bad press will be more than a year old. That's not to say that something as treacherous as the foggy memory of whether Allen said the N-word thirty years won't continue to bite the heels of his campaign on a daily basis.

Remember, reporters on the Little Rock capital beat heard rumblings of then-governor Bill Clinton's dalliances with women, before the bombshell of Gennifer Flowers exploded nationally.

This story won't hurt Allen that badly. Think about it. He's a gun-toting, nigger-saying, dumb redneck who claims to love Jesus. The Democrats haven't figured out how to beat a Republican with that profile, who's to say they will now?

George Allen Meets Black Folk And Chinamen

George Allen, right, eats watermelon
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

The Talking Points Memo reported Tuesday that Virginia Governor George Allen's homepage featured a photo gallery from the embattled governor's "Ethnic Rally".

The grip 'n grin with African-Americans and Vietnamese supporters or various minorities willing to take a picture with a bigoted, tall white guy is too funny to be real. But, remember, Allen is running for re-election in Virginia and this sort of stuff works in the South.

Allen's problem is that he's caught in the middle of a statewide election with blatant overtones for a future presidential run. The fact that the guy likes to flag the Confederate flag or calls Indian men "macacas" isn't really relevant to Virginians, who would mostly call such people far more vulgar names.

Americans will forget the macaca slur because, frankly, nobody knows what it actually means. It's one of exotic sounding words that just sounds bad. My dad use to call us macacas when we were young. I thought it was a playful moniker akin to calling a bunch of rambunctous kids little monkeys.

What they should not forget if Allen wins re-election and cashes the victory into a run for the Republican nomination is that the man stands strongly against the equality of blacks and minorities as a whole. If he can muster the will to win over the religious right of the GOP, Allen will become the standard-bearer for the legacy of George W. Bush. There is simply no other possible candidate capable of being downright racist in front of the ultra right wing while being able to seem palatable to the rest of the political spectrum.

If and when the Confederate flag debate is again discussed, it should be strongly noted that the flag not only represents the most reprehensible period in our history, but is also the same flag that flew over a rogue Southern government during the Civil War. Is this the cultural divide Allen will exploit in the next two years. You betcha, good buddy!

Ann Richards, Grand Texas Dame, Dies

Ann Richards
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards died tonight. One must wonder how our nation would look today if she just had beat the younger Bush in the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial race.

The wily, silver-haired Democrat had a sharp wit and rarely in the last two decades has an American politician dead-panned so concisely a comment than Richards did back in 1988 when she skewered then VP George H.W. Bush.

"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

To be more precise in conveying the meaning it works better if you replace the "help" with hep as she did at the 1988 Democratic Convention.

She wasn't just a one-shot quipmeister, either. She highlighted the equality of men and women by saying, "Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."

She also made fun of the former president's lack of an Texan drawl when she noted, "I am delighted to be here with you this evening because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like."

It's odd why Democrats today fail to attack W's faux country boy persona when he's actually a product of the snobby Northeastern establishment that he claims to be against.

Who knows what would have happened if Richards would have beaten W. back in 1994. She was, after all, the first of his father's detractors to famously fall at the son's hands. The second could possibly be Al Gore, the VP of the man who beat his father in 1992 and to be followed by, of course, Saddam Hussein and finally democracy.

Ann Richards death, today, marks just another end to a Democratic Party too afraid to attack either harshly or through hilarious commentary. We don't have many politicians like Ann Richards anymore and until we do the very things she championed, minority and gender equality and programs for the poor, will continue to dwindle into oblivion.

Osama & Whitney Kissing In A Tree

Talk about a whammy! Osama Bin Laden fancies Whitney Houston? Sounds like a rival publicist's dirtiest trick. (Read the story here)

Why not go ahead and link her with Adolf Hitler? Go all the way, why don't you. On the other hand, this revelation makes the Bush administration look bad. The maniacal, elusive terrorist may be a lot of things but a poor judge of character he is not; Bobby Brown really needs to go. On top of that, it's obvious Osama has access to VH1 and the attroicious "Being Bobby" reality show. Evildoer!

Gore Is Up, Hillary Is Down

LFR WEEKLY HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT

[[[THE COMEBACK KID]]]
He has a new movie out and a mouthful of hard-hitting rhetoric. The left is clamoring for the mother of all comeback, the much-rumored presidential candidacy of Al Gore. This cover story in the June New York Magazine details the why and the how on Gore's possible emergence from the political wilderness.

[[[DOES SEN. CLINTON HAVE SECRET PLAN FOR WAR IN IRAQ?]]]
The answer seems to be no, according to the story in the New York Observer. Could all the Gore for President talk be stemming from Hillary's propensity for hemming and hawwing like Gore, circa 2000?

[[[ONE STEP CLOSER TO A POLICE STATE]]]
Illegal immigration is the new gay marriage. Is there more to Bush's border plan? Joshua Holland at the Alternet believes the administration's contempt for the little-known Posse Comitatus Act, which forbides the domestic use of the military, may be used at the Mexican border as a precedent for controlling Americans in the future.

[[[THE HAYDEN CHARADE]]]
Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to the CIA, is supposed to be so bad, but why wasn't he grilled by members of Congress for many poor decisions and possible illegal programs while at the helm of the NSA?

Tar Baby! Why Stop There! How 'Bout Porch Monkey?

SNOW USED TERM IN 1999 COLUMN ABOUT YUGOSLAVIA


Newly-minted White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, at his first and maybe last press briefing

When watching the clip of Tony Snow utter what surely will become an infamous line, "I don't want to hug the tar baby", it's notable that he doesn't flinch or show any inkling of what he said despite audible gasps and nervous chuckling from the White House press corps.

Did Snow misspoke? The White House is saying nothing but some are quickly taking a contrarian stance by highlighting an alternate meaning to the phrase tar baby. It ironically means putting yourself in a sticking situation, but the unfortunate use of the term quickly conjures a grostesque connotation, but, this is not the first time Snow has use this term.

In a 1999 column, now posted on the website of the Jewish World Review, Snow used the term referring to President Bill Clinton and the Balkan Wars.

Most congressional Republicans are guilty of appalling cynicism and silence. They figure Clinton has hugged the tar baby in the Balkans and they want to watch him writhe.

The term originates from "Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby" seen here. For those who find the term and its imagery acceptable note the unfortunate appearance of Uncle Remus.

Could this mean that in a single press conference, Snow has raised the bar of ineptitude over that of his predecessor, Scott McClellan, who had the poise not to refer to the African-Americans surrounded by floodwater in New Orleans as "porch monkeys".

It may be surprising that someone of Snow's stature and genteel temperament could casually use such a term, but it also points to an administration that at times, has been openly and unapologetically hostile to blacks. The thing is that the Bush White House has this demeanor regardless of skin color. The only difference here, is with a shocking 90% of the demographic voting against Bush in the last election, blacks are the only one's wise to it.

The Politics Of Poor Poll Numbers

ELECTION DOOM CLOUDS GOP'S ALLEGIANCE TO W.

That the President's poll numbers are astonishingly low is quite a curious fact, but the reality of such unpopularity is playing out today in Washington.

Isn't it peculiar that the confluence of national security and civil rights comes together the same week that the President nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the CIA? It's more telling that the USA Today is being credited with rehashing three-month old news. In this AP story that is leading many local newspapers, the headlines blare that millions of Americans were snooped upon by a NSA-led covert action devised by the very same Gen. Hayden.

That AT&T/SBC, Verizon, BellSouth handed over phone records just after 9/11 was a national furor over three months ago. The difference? Low poll numbers combined with a collective resignment in Washington that Congress may well switch hands come November.

When President Bush picked Gen. Hayden, under the presumption that he was a Pentagon-friendly nominee, the impetus to take action by Republicans in Congress against such a perceived defender of abusing civil rights has become one of very few plays for the GOP to play. Not only did they allow the President to drag us into this Iraq quagmire, but they also let this guy listen to our private conversations?

To hear once loyal Republicans openly question whether a military man leading an important civilian job would have seemed treasonous (it may actually become literally treason if things continue as they are) a mere six months ago.

This is what happens to politicians that stake their livelihood on the heels of a hollow, yet once-popular President. When the winds of change swirl around their hands they jump ship like the rats they are. If such rational thought lied within the GOP back in 2001 and after, controversial legislation like the Patriot Act, highly dubious forays into Iraq and covert plans to snoop on Americans would have been honestly debated, instead of forwarded with a wink and a smile.

Instead, the impending Democratic majority will have a crowded aisle of opportunistic Republicans come November, calling for ethics in government and a return to the America of old (presumably, for Republicans, when they could get away with anything).

HUD Chief Has A 'Disconnect' With Democracy

Alphonso Jackson: Kissin' Up To 'Da Man
Originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

FIRE TOKEN SECRETARY NOW!

If Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson really did withhold a government contract because of the applicants political beliefs against President Bush then the Republic's future is in doubt.

The story on the Raw Story website and the calls for an investigation by two Democratic Senators is troubling on many fronts. So much so that it may encompass everything that many feels is wrong with our government since Bush took office five years ago.

Is the procedure for gaining access to the Republican controlled leadership in Washington so brazen that the HUD Secretary feels comfortable enough to volunteer this story?

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe.

This backward logic somehow made sense to this African-American Secretary of the HUD. It never crossed Jackson's mind that this sort of patronage afflicts blacks and many minorities everyday?

Above all, these sort of comments from a high-ranking government official should cause the highest alarm among Americans. What Jackson did is clear-cut political censorship and should not be tolerated in the least bit before it becomes the de facto law of the land.

A Defense Secretary who incompetently leads the military into quagmire is deemed a patriot, but a little-known black secretary of the HUD who says stupid things is easily expendable.

BUSH BOMBS LFR HEADQUARTERS

MARINE ONE RATTLES THE EAST BAY

The house rattled Friday night as Marine One carrying President Bush flew over the San Leandro marina. The violent rumble was a sort of pumping middle finger to the Democratic-leaning Alameda County.

Bush, according to an intinerary in today's San Francisco Chronicle, traveled from Stanford to St. Helena around 7:25 last night. At a quarter to eight, the President interrupted the East Bay with an aerial assault that many of us old enough to remember the Cold War were instructed to duck and cover and wait for the alarms to sound.

If I knew at the time, that the disturbance was the President, I would have thrown some rock into the air, or better, would have looked the other way when my Muslim neighbor pulled out his rocket launcher, instead of talking him out of it; because I love America.

Bush Finds Leakers: Himself

"I want to know the truth...I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -George W. Bush, Oct. 5, 2003.

If Lewis Libby's grand jury testimony is true, then the collective thud in the background is the unkind weight of history's fate against this president and likely the return of Congress to the Democrats.

At this point, Libby's revelation that President Bush authorized the leaking of former CIA agent Valerie Plame as a reprisal for her husband's scathing New York TImes op-ed piece against the war in Iraq, may not be technically illegal, but is very well the decisive blow of many in the last two years for this administration.

History will view this president not through the lens of 9/11 as many previously assumed, but as this country's most egregious offender of lies and deceit. The President has shielded the country from the truth, fashioned the lies into patriotism and all the while exposed the neck of our democracy on the chopping board.

That the president would stoop to such Nixonian depths comes to no surprise to the majority of Americans. What it will do is completely galvanized the electorate come the decisive November midterm elections. At the moment, the Democrats could trot out candidates in a coma (or, actual liberal ones) and still beat a Republican incumbent.

It's going to take a near miracle for the Republicans to retain Congress and far more than rigging the voting booth this time around.

If the Democrats do take the House and Senate this fall, look for them to even an old score: the impeachment of the president. That's a given.

What Does McCain Moving To The Right Mean?

DESPITE TROUBLES, FAR-RIGHT WACKOS WIN ELECTIONS



I would have never thought that Mr. Straight-Talk Express, John McCain, would be the Republican first in line at the Christian conversative gravy train.

McCain's newsmaking the past few weeks now appears to be an orchestrated grab for the very people that he espoused not to represent when he rode a "maverick" campaign and nearly derailed the pre-ordained Bush dynasty in 2000.

During last Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, McCain continually dodged criticism that he now attains a partnership with the devil in the guise of his newfound relationship with Rev. Jerry Falwell.

If McCain is wholeheartedly pressing for Bush's far right constintuency in the 2008 election, what does it say for Democrats when a unique presidential contender veers sharply to the right?

McCain is undoubtedly the only national figure who can sincerely appeal to either party. Many liberal would happily go along with a McCain presidency if they had to. He has repeatedly reached out to tough issues like campaign finance, torture in Iraq and government waste and done it in a relatively honest manner.

Why, then, would someone like McCain who could grab a piece of the left and most of the right along with all of the center's majority decide to focus solely on the far-right's den of wackos?

It's also interesting that the Demos' supposed frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, from time-to-time acts like a moderate Republican. If she is the nominee, she will likely campaign from nearly the same spot of the political spectrum. If McCain and Clinton basically hover over the same constintuency where will the vociferous left go?

Will they head to the buck-toothed Mark Warner or more likely rush to 2008's Howard Dean, Sen. Russ Feingold. Despite all the talk of the Democrats' revival, the party's elite are still shoveling the same losing formula and dismissing any strategy that pertains to its left-leaning voters.

Republicans Use Immigrants Nationality To Divide America

GOP DOESN'T WANT TO LOSE ITS SIGNATURE DECEPTION

American Hispanics of every creed are up in arms over the immigrant bill recently toned down by House Republican. Huge protests in Los Angeles, Denver and Phoenix featured angry, yet composed Latinos exercising democracy at its fullest. The tenor and sheer number of protesters most likely accomplished the goal of halting the proposed legislation that would have made illegal immigrants instantly felons and those who aid them the same.

Their calm anger in the streets of the West showed that the power of the people is still alive, but is it our society with which the vigor over this subject emanated?

The number of Mexican tricolores, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan flags to name of few was conspicuous. Assuredly, there were a great number American flags waving through the streets, but the amount foreign banners makes one wonder whether the impetus of this protests came from a deep well of yearning to be American, a direct assault on Latino-Americans of every stripe or, more worrisome, the look of a wholly separate sect of America.

The sight of so many Mexican flags is not on its face aggressive to what many would say is the essence of American patriotism. It does, though divide on a simple level the populace of Americans who already view the swarm of immigrants flowing into thier country as slowly chewing away at society. The perception that Latinos do not readily assimilate into America primarily by means of language and custom rankles many. To see on television, the waving of foreign flags only perpetuates that false stigma.

The true tragedy of this proposed bill is that touches a nerve with Americans who believe in the concept of helping the poor and weak amongst us. It's why the Archbishop of Los Angeles directly challenged Washington and could be accused of flaming the rancor to the extreme we saw in the last week.

At its heart, this is not about foreign pride as the banners would contend, but about the Republican Party turning its back on its burgeoning Latino majority during an election year for the white zealots of its far right. The push-pull of illegal immigration by conservatives has been played before. No business-minded conservative will privately denounce the value of cheap and disposable illegal workers. The rhetoric belies this notion because like the abortion, Republicans will use these issues to repeatedly divide voters. Just as Republicans would be up a creek, if abortion was, indeed, illegal, so too would they be if they didn't have illegal immigrants to kick around, both financially in the form of low wages and long hours, but in demonizing them with bills like the one presented by Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.

It should be remembered that the last time this immigration ploy was exercised in the 1994 California gubernatorial race, Republican Pete Wilson won re-election, but the same shame and anger that the Latino population felt has reverberated to this day. The California Republican Party is in shambles. In the next 12 years, only the moderate-leaning conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger has held a high office in California.

Backlash Mountain

America Isn't Ready For A Film Not Really About Gays

Jack Nicholson's usual pompous characature of himself came in handy during last night's78th Annual Academy Awards.

The upset of "Brokeback Mountain" at the hands of "Crash" deserved the combination of shock and despair that Nicholson exhibited as he read the winner of this year's Best Picture.

The easy answer will always be that the voters of the Academy were uncomfortable with the subject matter of the "gay cowboy" movie, but other reasons are more apt.

"Brokeback Mountain" was done in by a more aggressive marketing plan from Lion's Gate Pictures and the undeniable allure of being an L.A. movie with voters entirely from Hollywood.

The problem with the Brokeback gay backlash is that the movie's title has become far more ubiquitous than the actually content. Brokeback could easily be a tale of a lost life and forlorn love between a man and a woman, a person and a pet or anything someone seeks to possess.

The fact that the lovers are gay is merely a clever twist on this well-worn Hollywood cliche, nothing more. The countless internet parodies and incessant late-night jokes only highlighted with bright kleig lights the fearful message of homosexuality. If George W. Bush could win re-election are the barebacks of gay marriage then Brokeback Mountain was doomed from the beginning.

Like that election, we were left with a sub-standard alternative. When was the last time a film won Best Picture with the predigree of mixed reviews? "Crash" was just one big ball of cliches portrayed to have something to say about racism and social interaction in early 21st century America. That it's set in Los Angeles, the land of everything fake, and I mean everything, down to the faux tattoos and botoxed toes, is evidence enough that this is not the daily America that most of us know.

The Academy missed a huge opportunity last night. As Best Supporting Actor winner, George Clooney, alluded to earlier, the greatness of Hollywood is it's ability to bring attention to issues both misunderstood and feared. The Academy dropped the ball and the greatest film of this young century suffered in the process.