Obama's Foreign Policy Isn't Naive, It's Honest

DEMS WANT CHANGE FROM THE BUSH/CLINTON TAG-TEAM

As president, Barack Obama says he’ll undercut Pakistani Pervez Musharraf's power if he fails to round up terrorists in his country. Would this be a good idea? No. Is it refreshing to hear any ideas regarding terrorism? Yes.

Foreign policy experts probably shrieked like scared little girls when they heard Obama’s statement yesterday and rightly so. As with immediately dismantling our military presence in Iraq, terminating Musharraf’s leadership is fraught with many dangers including destabilizing the Indian/Paki nuclear situation and most likely putting an unknown and far more dangerous extremist in charge of Pakistan.

I don’t believe a President Obama would seriously contemplate such a maneuver but it does signal an inherent difference between the senator and Hillary Clinton and that is a new perception of the U.S. in the world.

While Clinton in a more conservative view of the power of the presidency presumably because see witnessed firsthand how a president’s hands can be tied by numerous factors. This is why she refuses to disavow her votes to give Bush authority to invade Iraq and is open to attacking Iran if matters dictate such a response. This makes her seem like Bush-lite, but not because of her hawkish tendencies, but because her views are a muddle of middling foreign policy and cautious diplomacy.

When Obama said last week that he would gladly meet with rogue dictators around the world, Clinton attacked and belittled his comments as naive. Again, a President Obama wouldn’t open up the White House to criminal despots and certainly without hiding the good silver.

What these two major foreign policy comments say about Obama is clear. He’s the candidate of change. Hillary Clinton is not like Bush, but she does represent how things were done in the past.

George H.W. Bush and Hillary’s husband Bill never figured out our role in the world post-Cold War and W. screwed it up post-9/11. The Hillary Clinton train to the White House may be too formidable for any candidate. Most Democrats would welcome it, but deep inside we wish for change.

When Obama says he’ll talk to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela he’s not telling those leaders to pick a date and wear something nice, but he is saying to us that there will be dialogue instead of silence. This is how all of us deal with each other interpersonally, why should leaders of nations be different?

When he speaks of Musharraf, he’s saying he won’t dupe us by taking a war outside the scope of the mission. If the initial problem is wiping out al-Qaeda then we will fight where they are; in Afghanistan and the mountains of Pakistan and not in Iraq where our actions fomented an explosion of membership to our enemy.

Obama took a hit for his comments last week and probably for yesterday’s. The media lead by Clinton’s attack dogs cast Obama in a naive light, but the subtext of his ideas resonate with the electorate.

Tour De Why

How long until this year’s Tour de France winner is found to be another doped cyclist? Alberto Contador is young according to recent newspaper articles. Young, in this context, meaning “a new breed of cyclist” bent on bringing back the honesty and honor of the old days if those characteristics ever existed on the tour.

Much as been made of this new cadre of cyclist like Contador and the Bay Area’s own Levi Leiphemier. Younger cyclists won all of the awards given out at this year’s Tour de France, but is it because they are up-and-coming or because most of the sport’s recognizable stars have left the Tour as EPO frauds (Floyd Landis), suspected cheats (Michael Rasmussen) or heroes hiding behind the misguided threats of legal action (Lance Armstrong).

The question is: why have a race through France if the eventual winner is going to give an even bigger black eye to the sport by way of dopin? After seven years of loud whispers over Armstrong’s alleged drug use and last year’s debacle with Floyd you would think there would be sufficient pressure from the Tour, sponsors, teammates and the court of public opinion to thwart another summer treat of dishonesty in France .

It begs the question, will these athletes ever stop cheating?

Rudy's Keys To Victory: Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists

EX-MAYOR MUST CONJURE IMAGES OF 9/11 TO DISTRACT GOP VOTERS


The polls say that Rudy Giuliani is the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination. With today’s climate on the right where the repudiation of President Bush’s six years is the highest Rudy just may be the man who takes on Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Of course, Sen. John McCain will have a lot to say about that, but the stern talking senator from Arizona may have peaked a month ago and his candidacy is too attached the war in Iraq to predict two years hence.

Giuliani has been out of public service for a few years, so his personal opinions about the war are less formed therefore easily malleable. When it comes to the war on terror Giuliani is most effective when he’s portrayed as the only man in America who actually combatted the terroristS.

Ironically, this should be scary to all Americans.

A Giuliani campaign for President would have to be a rehashing of George W. Bush’s constant drumbeat of terrorists, Osama bin Laden and more terrorists. Boo! Are you scared enough to vote for me?

As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter wrote today, the polarizing figure of Rudy may be too much for the country to handle post-W.

Because Giuliani is so steeped in being a liberal conservative as New York City’s mayor--he’s pro-choice, dislikes guns and supports civil unions---he’ll be forced to conjure the ghosts of al-qaeda along with the images of 747s crashing into the World Trade Center.

After all, as Alter says, “If terrorists attacked again, he would know what to do.” he adds, “But how about the next month? And the month after that?”

The second question is not one that Republicans who crave strong daddy figures will ponder, but the rest of us will.

A Giuliani/Hillary battle for the White House is a matchup that Rudy has already ducked in 2000 when he dropped out the race for senate in New York because of prostate cancer.

Such a campaign will further a divide within the Republican party that was always there but neatly covered up by a Rovian White House that demanded cohesiveness. From a southern or western Republican point of view the desire for a third party candidate or a darkhorse candidate could swell infinitely. The problem is that there isn't one on the horizon.

The choice for president might come down to two city slickers from New York who hate guns, love gays and want you to have an abortion if you want.

Under this scenario and added to the fact that McCain might be more endearing to Democrats than Republicans there is a major opening for another candidate from the right. It’s not Sen. Sam Brownback or Milt Romney. It could be Sen. Chuck Hagel. Whomever it is they had better make themselves known before the country is subjected to the wrath of Rudy.

Obama Calls For Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

BEWARE: DEMS WILL BE BLAMED WHEN MIDDLE EAST CRUMBLES

Sen. Barack Obama is the first potential presidential candidate to call for a measured withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq.

Virtually culling his stance straight from the Iraq Study Group's report last December, Obama outlined his position on his website today.

The junior senator from Illinois is calling for a three-pronged withdrawal that includes a de-escalation of the war, a repudiation of the President's plan to increase troops in the region, in addition to adding benchmarks to measure the Iraqis improvement in the next year.

The senator's bold move hopes to differentiate himself from the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton's wishy-washy plan for Iraq and comes amidst a rising tide of opposition in Congress.

Sen. Arlen Specter today joined fellow respected Republicans, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in harshly questioning President Bush's bullheaded position over a 21,000 troop escalation.

The president's stubbornness on this issue may seem like it was taken from the playbook of Julius Caesar, but it has it's reasoning and Democrats should be careful when initiating a straight withdrawal from Iraq.

In hindsight, Democrats should have stop this war when things didn't add up on 2003, but they didn't and that is where the biggest blow to our society occurred. By turning the tide in the complete opposite direction is far more harmful.

Saddam Hussein, despite being a despot, kept Iraq and its divergent factions together in a region perennially on a precarious slope towards chaos. Warnings that a shuffle of power would do more harm than good should have been listened to. Why they weren't lies within the ulterior motives Bush and Co. had in mind.

Any Democrat who dares calling for a immediate and measured withdrawal needs to also detail how the region will be stabilized when we're gone. The Shia and Sunnis will never coexist within a country, but the ruling party Shia within Iraq can easily coexist with the Shia-ruling Iranians to the west which would make the Saudis nervous in the north. An antsy Kingdom means a very nervous oil market which, in turn, makes driving a SUV in America a five dollar-a-mile endeavor.

Though, more than a monetary problem, the divide of these two Muslim sects will destabilize the middle east very quickly without the U.S. in the region. The health of the Iraqi democracy is of far little importance when the overall layout of the middle east is considered.

The Iranians are more than poised to jump into the fray in Iraq, not militarily, but in a calculated effort to use their former enemy as a pawn against the west and others like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and even Israel.

It comes down to this. The Bush administration is playing coy on the issue. Almost baiting the Democrats to bend to the will of the people. The Democrats are looking feeble to the dismay of many who believe with their newfound electoral power they should have nothing to worry about. The war is never going to get better, so why worry? They're apprehensive because a full withdrawal will turn this war far worse and they know it.

Bush, on the other hand, is actually in a win-win situation. If Democrats let him send more troops to Iraq he gets what he craves--more time to run the clock out on his presidency. If Democrats push for withdrawal and win, the whole house of cards will crash to the floor and it will be the next Democratic nominee who will be blamed.

Democrats like Obama need to be wary of the catch-22 Bush is perpetrating on the them before they get swift-boated into being the problem in the voter eyes come November 2008.

Viva Castro! At Least For Now

Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is not dead despite the Lunatic Fringe Report predicting his demise over a week ago. Although, it's hard to fact check these things with the communist Cubans. I'm still giving Castro until Sunday night so he can ruin America's biggest sporting day--the Super Bowl.

I'm giving Castro the same odds as the Colts winning the Vince Lombardi trophy--seven points. Take death plus two days.

Another Lightweight Joins GOP Race For '08

GOV. HUCKABEE COUNTING ON HATE POLITICS OF ANOTHER ERA (2 YRS AGO)

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joined a group of lackluster Republicans vying for the White House in 2008. The problem is, Gov. Huckabee is portraying himself as the George W. Bush of 2000 when the real deal is vilified on the left and the right at an alarming rate.

Appearing of "Meet the Press" Sunday, Gov. Huckabee tried to muscle in on the Christian Coalition sect of the right that has been turf of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).

Despite the President's unpopularity, Brownback and now Huckabee are treading on a substantial sliver of the conservative right that is clearly out of style. Both are relying on the fact that this sort of ideology has brought two presidential victories, but not without a considerable amount of arm-wringing and blatant dirty tactics.

People care about values in America, but the post-9/11 reality in its infancy fostered a fear of guns, gays and God in red America. Without someone like Karl Rove masterminded the politics of grand deceit there's the question of whether a politician can move the masses with a strict conservative policy, anymore.

Huckabee detailed his background as a minister, defended a quite Draconian anti-abortion view that even bans the procedure after rape or incest. The governor also went against the current mood in the country by completely supporting the President "during a time war".

While Huckabee sidestepped many of Tim Russert's question, he was less than convincing when the jack-o-lantern-faced moderator asked him pointedly, "Do you have a problem with gay people?"

The governor responded, "No, I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us."

Meaning, yes, I have a problem with gays and lesbians getting married and to stretch it further; I don't want them kissing and hugging in front of my kids!

In the end, Gov. Huckabee's candidacy is completely based on all the same smoke and mirrors that fooled the country the last six years. Politicians like Huckabee and Brownback come from a part of the Repubicans part that breeds exclusion based on race and economic status and hate based on differences between us.

BROWNBACK THINKS ABOUT CRITICIZING COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
Sen. Sam Brownback might be what Mike Huckabee wishes, at least, at 23 months before the 2008 election, but Brownback knows when the winds of change are whistling a high pitched "no" to the President's policy on Iraq.

Whereas, Huckabee took a loyal and noble stance in supporting Bush at all costs solely because he's Daddy President, the senator from Kansas, though, not much better, said he would "consider" voting for a resolution against the troop surge in Iraq.

He's considering it. Now that's brave, senator.

Hillary's Iraq War Dilemma

Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews interviews Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live

It may be a silly send up of Sen. Hillary Clinton and MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Saturday Night Live last Saturday, but it's worth noting that by officially throwing her hat into the race for the White House the attitudes and perceptions of Hillary the Candidate versus Hillary the First Lady are beginning to form.

The writers at Saturday Night Live just may have crafted the prevailing thought of Democrats across America with this line:

"I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere."

We're likely to witness a Sen. Clinton vaguely extroplating her shifting positions on the war in tones similarly to that line. There is a very high liklihood that the stormy atmosphere on Capitol Hill and the rest of America regarding this war will likely persist. Because no matter the amount of resolutions against the surge in Iraq the Bush administration is dead-set on making it happen; not because it's the best tonic for the military's problems or the most righteous, but because it will literally run the clock out on this President's watch. There's is no other reason for it.

With the scenario of today still percolating in 2008, it will be to the advantage of those who stood against the war (Barack Obama) and those who either reversed course earlier enough (John Edwards) and those without much of a public record either way (Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel)

In Hillary's case, her vote authorizing the President to invade Iraq is no different than Sen. John Kerry's or any candidate on the Republican side, but it is likely that by lying low the past six months regarding her opposition to the war as its quickly bogged down in the theater of war and opinion polls, her strength on this singular issue has been severely sapped by her competition thereby giving away much of her virtual lead and possibly campaign dollars to people like Obama and Edwards.

This race is on. The question is: can the prohibitive front runner win the presidency wire to wire without the country hearing the same old song of that it's heard through one Clinton and two Bush's?

Castro Almost Dead? 'We All Die Some Day' Says Chavez

According to the New York Times, the rumor of the day that Fidel Castro is in "grave condition" becomes more specific while Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez remarks, "We all die some day."

How did Chavez become the family spokesman, anyway? He gives the impression of a mooching nephew buttering up his rich, dying uncle Fidel? Do you think he rubs his feet, too?

Here's a bet: the half-century long, Cuban pain in the ass to many an American president will be dead by the end of this week.

So long, Fidelito.

Scheer Disgrace: Hagel For President; Please

ANOTHER REASON WHY DEMS CAN'T STICK TOGETHER

There's a reason why the Democratic Party has a perpetual problem of staying unified, it's called liberals like columnist Robert Scheer.

In the Huffington Post, Scheer, a noted left coast journalist and co-host of my favorite podcast KCRW's Left, Right and Center, gives a hallow recommendation for Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for President.

Other than the first sentence, "Chuck Hagel for president!", there isn't a shred of evidence to believe Scheer.

He adds, "If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote."

An anti-war candidate for President is, indeed, very important, but not a trade-off with a conservative senator opposed to reproductive rights, hostile to the environment and all-around a puppet of big business. The war isn't that important, besides, didn't Hagel go right along with his party whole-heartedly cheering for this blunder of a war in 2003?

This is why being a liberal can be so maddening and a purely Sisyphean act. We love the flavor of the month and wholly respond to challenges like a group of chiefs without any Indians.

Hagel's views today and his military experience in Vietnam may be formidable, but he's no different than any other possible candidate who followed the leader regarding Iraq. Only Sen. Barack Obama has ever articulated a 100 percent opinion against the war in Iraq from day one. At least, John Edwards has completely disavowed his vote while others like Sen. Hillary Clinton played both sides .

There's only one reason why Scheer likes Hagel and it's because a senator of the President's own party finally has the guts to blast him. Scheer isn't serious about Hagel for President because if he was my podcast would need a new left.

Is Bush Widening the War On Terror?

IRAN, SYRIA MAY BE IN BUSH'S SIGHTS

Undoubtedly, your morning paper will lead with the variation of the headline Bush says, "I blew it". More newsworthy, though, will be his veiled threat to Syria and Iran. During tonight's primetime speech President Bush said:

We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

On MSNBC's post-speech coverage both Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews highlighted this stark passage, yet looked less sure of whether the media would latch onto its implications. It was as if Olbermann and Matthews thought they really didn't believe what they heard.

Sen. Barack Obama, Tim Russert, Brian Williams and Pat Buchanan answered the duos questions with uncertainty regarding the President's statement. Between eating an Ultimate Cheeseburger and noticing how if you look at George W. Bush in the eyes his ears look oddly huge in the periphery, I couldn't recall anything about Iran and Syria, either.

As the nation debates the logic in adding more troops to a lost cause the Adminstration, instead, has designs on widening the so-called war on terror.

Can President Bush's decision-making get any more bizarre? His candle in the proverbial wind of disagreement over the state of this war has grown worrisome. The troop escalation plan is favored, ostensibly, by one man. A vast majority of Americans disapprove of this exercise even more than they did last November when they handed control of Congress to the Democrats and you would be hard pressed to find any military expert who would call a troop surge nothing more than the President running out the clock on his term in office without a loss on his watch.

When does the inkling that President Bush views his presidency as a dictatorship where the voice of the people is non-existent and unwelcomed become frightfully real?

It's now imperative that the Democrats stop what they failed to do during the elections of 2000 and 2004 and stop President Bush or run the risk of becoming complicit in his dirty deeds. Those who envision the predicatable Democrat pussyfooting should be on notice that the party has nothing to fear. The power of the people are with them and those who waver are too disgusted with the current Administration to believe any of its forthcoming rhetoric.

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.