Huck's Playing With House Money With Leno Appearance

McCAIN IS CLOSING IN ON SURPRISING THIRD PLACE FINISH IN IOWA

As Mike Huckabee flies to Burbank to tape the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno you've got wonder is the former Arkansas governor counting his chickens before they're hatched in tomorrow's Iowa Caucus?

This is definitely a national play for the thus far successful, but still cash-strapped campaign to parlay a likely win in tomorrow's caucus to next week's New Hampshire primary and beyond. It might backfire and give Mitt Romney stronger than expected second-place finish.

It can't look good for the self-described underdog to be gallivanting to Hollywood while his opponents are still pressing the flesh in the frigid Iowa winter.

Instead of finishing off their dramatic upset in Iowa, the Huckabee campaign is inexplicably using the credit earned there for the next race. The question is whether Iowa Republicans who were not solidly in Huckabee's column and I believe his popularity in the state is a bit soft and unable to transfer to the rest of the country, will not shift to another candidate.

I believe Romney will gain some of those votes and finish three to four points off the pace. The big winner, though, may be Sen. John McCain.

The religion question is being overhyped on the conservative side of the ballot. There still isn't a true evangelical in the race, despite what Huckabee tells you and while some may be leery of Romney's Mormonism, they really see him as secular, at best. Those religious voters may scrap their beliefs and go with Sen. McCain, the champion of foreign policy and backer of the surge in Iraq.

Amazingly, a strong third-place finish in Iowa without the benefit of any organization and opinions heretical to most ethanol-loving Iowans, would be a major story tomorrow. It would affirm the belief that McCain sticks to his beliefs and possesses the intuition of policies two years down the road.

When it comes to the Iraq War, he's the anti-Obama. He's the only candidate who can say that he didn't change gears a year ago when his support for the war nearly destroyed his campaign. Now, the war ain't so bad and neither is McCain's bid for the Republican nomination.

Huckabee Defends Without A Wink And A Smile

CANDIDATE USING BUSH'S 2000 PLAYBOOK

Does Mike Huckabee think his faux ignorance is charming, somehow endearing in its innocence?

First he garnered guffaws from the press when he announced he was foregoing planned attack ads against Mitt Romney and then showed the ads that he wasn't going show, anyway. Then, he claimed without a bit of irony in his voice that it was because the press wouldn't believe such ads existed.

Yesterday, Huckabee said he was "absolutely" backing the striking Writer's Guild, but will cross the picket line, nonetheless to appear on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.

Later, he claimed erroneously, that the striking writers had made a deal with all of the late night programs. When he was corrected by reporters that only David Letterman's production company had secured a deal with the writers he said, "Oh", followed by "hmmm".

Was this another occasion where Huckabee's campaign has been sorely behind the news as when it was a day and a half behind the news that an NIE report said Iran was not actively producing nuclear weapons or is he plainly lying or spewing double talk about his support for labor.

How else could Huckabee answer a question about crossing the picket on a highly publicized strike and still appear to care about the working man? He can't truthfully and therefore he ducked the question with sound effects and quickly answered another question.

I believe Huckabee is not as unprepared as recent press accounts have made him out to be. That's not to say his candidacy is rooted in good policy, either. He feign ignorance on the Iran NIE account and the writer's strike questions because he can't answer them without rustling some feathers.

Many voters, I hope, will place their candidates attributes against the idealogy and personality of President Bush for guidance in how not to choose a president. If so, remember that Americans found a sly, smiling, personable double talker who glazed every issue over with Jesus in 2000 and the rest is history.

Romney's Mormonism Is Different Than Kennedy's Catholicism

AMERICA'S IGNORANCE OF MORMONS COULD RUIN ROMNEY'S RUN

On the HBO series, Big Love, the patriarch Bill Henrickson, played by Bill Paxton, juggles three wives, seven children and a home improvement chain of stores, while trying to shake the manipulative fundamentalist Mormon prophet, Roman Grant.

The series isn't about the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, but its rogue offshoot that still practices polygamy. Most Americans erroneously associate Mormonism with plural marriage, which was banned over a hundred years ago. Can Americans deviate the two and elect a Mormon president?

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't claim to be a devout follower and his background takes him around the country. He's the son of the popular former Michigan governor, George Romney, saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake and became governor of the Bay State.

But, can Americans elect a person whose religion seems to illicit such mystery and controversy? Invariably, Romney's electability is compared to John F. Kennedy becoming the first Catholic in the White House in 1960.

Back then, the Pope was the bogeyman that would call the shots from Rome, they said. Like everything else nearly fifty years ago, we live in a different society, albeit more diverse.

That apparent diversity in our country doesn't quite equate to any sensibility. These are times when divisiveness is the paramount currency in our lives. The president equivocates that either "you're with me or you're against me."

If you're a Democrat, then every Republican is a dirty, rotten fool and every person speaking a foreign language or wearing ethnic garb is a terrorist.

Romney doesn't mention his religious views and he shouldn't. At times, he's courted his party's religious right on the grounds that Mormonism is just another religion based on Christianity. In the primaries, this tact has had some success in attracting conservatives who view the clean-cut, gentile politician as similar in looks and demeanor to their neighborhood pastor.

If Romney advances to the general election, expect things to get downright nasty. This is politics, afterall. He'll likely have to turn away a huge whisper campaign that will play off his religion's past and unsaid beliefs.

While Romney is not a polygamist, his family's history serves up plenty of fodder for opponents to link that dirty secret to Romney in the present.

In the same way that Kennedy's political rivals claimed he would take orders from the Pope, a connection could be made with the fundamentalist LDS belief that one can speak directly to God.

Not only would this be blasphemous to Christians, it would also cast Romney as crazed. Who talks to God, but crazy people?

Then, there's Christian extremists like televangelist Bill Keller who talked Salon.com's Michael Scherer and believe Romney's campaign is one big billboard paid for by the Mormons.

"A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan," Keller declared in his daily e-mail devotional last May. His reasoning went like this: Romney's election would serve as a giant advertisement for a competing religion, Mormonism, which Keller and others believe has falsely portrayed itself as another form of Christianity in an effort to find converts. "He would influence people to seek out the Mormon faith," Keller predicted of a Romney presidency. "They would get sucked into those lies and they would eventually die and go to hell."

This isn't 1960 and people just don't know Mormons outside of Utah. They're nice people. I know some, but others watch TV characters like Bill Henrickson and think how weird it is to be married to three woman and then look at Mitt Romney with a strange feeling in their guts--the kind that doesn't transfer to votes.

Happy Halloween From Dog The Bounty Hunter

Dog Takes Down The Burger King, originally uploaded by wonderbread74.

DOG TAKES DOWN THE BURGER KING. I took this opportunity to arrest The Burger King for selling high fat meals to children.

More On Rumors Of Hillary's Demise

I'm not the only person sensing a shifting of fortune for the presumed Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political columnist and Salon.com contributor adds to last week's plausible--albeit longshot campaign meltdown--with 10 possible Clinton "tank" jobs.
Number ten is actually the most intriguing--lady luck running out on the the perfect presidential campaign.

Surprising things happen. The future is not an unchanging extrapolation from today. "Expect the unexpected" is an expression that anyone over the age of 17 finds a cloying cliché. But when it comes to a presidential campaign -- more than two months before the Iowa caucuses -- it is also a perfect description of reality

Plainly, things never go so smoothly for any Democratic candidate in any election campaign. If you want the White House in 2008, you had better hope for the stumble to occur in the next few months rather than after Labor Day.

What If Hillary Finished Third In Iowa?

AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISH, EDWARDS WOULD CAPITALIZE

The idea seems inconceivable within the parameters of national polls or any casual conversaton with your neighbor, but the liklihood of Sen. Hillary Clinton finishing third in Iowa is very plausible.

A Newsweek poll last week had Sen. Barack Obama at 28 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, Sen. Clinton at 24 percent and John Edwards at 22 percent.

What if Edwards's formidable organization in Iowa eeks out a few percentage point from Clinton or, more likely, Obama's and drops the presumptive Democratic nominee to the bronze medal? What would be the ramifications and who would gain momentum in such an outcome?

Make no mistake about it, the political establishment would explode in this doomsday scenario. The Clinton inevitability factor is so omnipresent, that the shock could derail her campaign permanently like a third-place showing in Iowa did for Howard Dean in 2004.

Most likely, the nomination would be up-for-grabs in the short term, even pulling Bill Richardson, currently polling at around 10 percent, into the fray. Because of his huge reservoir of cash, Obama would get a second look from Democrats who yearn for a fresh face, despite their loyalty to all things Clinton, but it might not last long.

In this scenario, Edwards could continue to stay just under the radar while the ravenous Clinton campaign throws every sharp object in the kitchen at Obama. She would most likely gain some momentum back from him to the point where he would have to return fire or lose the top spot all together.

This would be a great point of contention in an Obama camp were the mantra has been to run a completely kind-hearted campaign. This strategy worked early on, but it's idealism will become a curse later because in the rough-and-tumble world of politics the nice guy will never win. If Obama stubbornly sticks to this plan he will regret it in exactly the same way Al Gore dropped the ball when he shunned Bill Clinton in 2000.

What's left then? Edwards. From the start the strategy has been to highlight the plight of the poorest Americans, continue to build strong union support in early primary states like Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina and, above all, hope Clinton and Obama begin to spar with each other.

Edwards not only runs third in national polls, but also in funding. The prevailing idea when it comes to Edwards' longevity is predicated on him parlaying his organization in early states like Iowa with labor's strong support in some of those same early states. A strong showing early would then feed upon itself.

This unique political stratagem has been what drew me back to Edwards' campaign, but also a bit of a hugh gamble. If Clinton stumbles in Iowa, it could make Edwards's campaign the stuff of election legend.

The Slippery Slope Of Low Expectations Politics

Thompson Is Not Dumb, He's Disinterested; So Beware

It's interesting that a seasoned Washington journalist like Roger Simon would bite on the Fred Thompson as the bumbling politician who surprises the capitol establishment meme. But he did in a column yesterday for Politico.com.

Thompson has been portrayed as disinterested, unprepared and downright dumb. Saturday Night Live even lampooned him saying, "I want to be your president...kind of." (Watch it here)

Is this a media creation by the Thompson campaign? Who is Fred Thompson? Is he dithering country fool who campaigned in Florida without knowing the issues and wore a baseball cap that read "Cocks", a reference the mascot of the University of South Carolina that could be easily misunderstood to anybody outside of the Southeastern Conference or the eloquent lawyer who made a name for himself during the Watergate hearings?

The lowering of the bar for Thompson is a purely political ploy by his campaign. His candidacy is an entire media creation from the beginning. Nobody knows him as a presidential candidate. What does he stand for? What is his record? His "character" is needed for conservatives because a true righty is not accounted for among the candidates.

Why would Thompson put himself before the electorate wholeheartedly when he already ranks second in the polls without doing a thing? Voters know Rudy Giuliani. They have an idea what Mitt Romney is trying to be and John McCain's appeal lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.

To buy into Thompson's ploy is dangerous because of the precedent set by George W. Bush.

Bush the younger brilliantly played up the political dope persona against the erudite Al Gore. At the turn of the last century, Bush correctly read a growing perception that Gore was the smarty-pants kid everyone hated in school and surprised voters by actually showing up to the debates and even uttering simple sentences.

I think people are wise to this tactic in 2007 and they also see the tragedy of their decision to give him the White House. I also don't think the entire storyline is contrived by the Thompson campaign only because of this one reason: lowering the bar of expectations is wise for a weak candidate, but the perception that the candidate's heart is not in winning the office is political poison.

George Bush Hates Kids And So Do I

George Bush hates kids, correction; he hates poor kids. You have to hand it to the guy he knows how to kick a man--a kid--when he's down.

This is actually something W. and I can agree on. I don't hate kids, I just hate other people's kids.

When Bush used his extremely rare presidential veto on a bipartisan bill that would have funneled tens of billions of dollars from cigarettes to fund an increase in health care for poor children some thought the "Decider-in-Chief" had stepped over the line. (Watch John Stewart's take on this story on the Daily Show here)

First, Iraq now health care for kids. I can't agree with the first, but I can with the second.

Bush believes in bringing yourself up by the bootstraps. You know that ancient Republican line? Is there a shoe company that makes shoes with bootstraps anymore?

In this case, I can see where George is coming. Have you ever seen a snivelling, runny-nosed kid at the docktor's office? Crying because his ear is throbbing or his tum-tum is hurting. Quit being a baby (or are you actually a baby?)and stop crying and go to work. Those Dora the Explorer mitten aren't going to knit themselves.

You see, children need to learn from oppression. Kids these days are coddled more than my copy of Jenny McCarthy nude in Playboy (the December issue when she's sitting on Santa's lap). What will happen to kids these days when they grow up and think they're entitled to buying a mansion with no money down and $5 in the bank at age 18. Oh, sorry 24-year-olds already think they can do that.

Other than making Johnny boy resort to a cocktail of Tiny Tarts and Robitussin to combat his cold, we need to be tougher on our children and, at least in this case, follow our President.

Case in point, last Saturday while dining at Fuddrucker's in Emeryville I witnessed the sort of tough love the President is espousing.

At the air hockey table was a match between a woman in her late thirties and her eight-year-old son. The boy was slight and whiny and without health coverage. He was clearly peeved. The game started and his mother promptly drilled the plastic disc into the goal. She did it again and again and in the process completely annihilating her son's dreams.

He whimpered to his mother, "Can you let me score once." She said, "Why would I do that?" And that's exactly what George Bush is saying to kids this week, whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

Generations Of Women See Hillary In Oakland

IS HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLITICS TO WOMEN?


Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks to over 14,000 people in Oakland Sunday.

As I waited for Hillary Clinton to speak last weekend in Oakland, I was inundated with gratuitious shout outs to every minute faction of the Democratic Party. The everpresent lone figure flashing sign language to the dozen or so deaf Democrats among the estimated 14,000 who attended the rally for Clinton. Don't forget the transgender folks who might of numbered three or four and the Democrats with cockateels, make sure they have recyclable bird stands to place their birds. Oh, and don't forget the lone guy in the crowd who decided to cram his large white husky into a 2x2 space. Make sure that guy has a litter box, not for the guy, but the dog.

Once the Hillary for President campaign kissed up to the subset of every subset in the party, the group that matters most is women. In recent months, Hillary has not shied away from courting this group and she should because the crowd was primarily made up of women, not just individual women and their girlfriends, but generations who took in the apex of their struggle for equality.

I saw numerous cases of elderly women with their daughters and granddaughters in tow. Three generations of women who roughly encompassed the entire 20th century when they went from not having a vote to having, by century's end, two senators from California.

Many may fawn over the idealism and exeptional speaking ability of Barack Obama, but the feeling of awe, excitement and wonderment in the eyes of these women towards Hillary trumps anything from the second place Democrat. In fact, the feeling that we were seeing something important was prevalent. Maybe like seeing Elvis Presley or John F. Kennedy.

This very real belief that a major historic moment is likely to happen will be interesting to watch if Hillary can win the nomination. Will this phenomenom translate to garnering more than moderate women voters and reach into solid conversative territory.

The feeling in that crowd gave me the impression that Hillary's campaign in female eyes might trump the political spectrum. What I'm saying is a lot of Southern conservative women just might lie about whom they vote for come November.

Don't Deny Homosexuals Exist During SNL Premiere Week

LFR Podcast: Law & Order: We're All Victims Unit

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN TO THE LFR PODCAST, "THE LIBERAL RUSH"

Speaking the truth to Sen. John Kerry will get you tasered. Fighting racial unequity will get you thrown in the slammer. Law and order run amok in America this week.

Also, Mr. Law & Order, himself, Fred Thompson is back for another licking Liberal Rush-style. The Republican candidate for president can't seem to be prepared.

All that and the quote of the week.

The Freddie Thompson Comedy Hour

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN TO THE LFR PODCAST, "THE LIBERAL RUSH"

The Freddie Thompson run for the White House is official. How will the man who shortened his name from Freddie to Fred win the Republican nomination? Beats me! The LFR Liberal Rush takes a closer look at the former actor/Senator by pouring over his official campaign biography.

Do you hate the New York Times? Hate knowledge? Republican supporters apparently do. We follow Freddie Thompson on the stump in Florida.

Bonds' Shame Again Overshadows Accomplishment

I will admit that the scene surrounding Barry Bonds’ record-breaking homerun Tuesday night was special. But that’s the problem. It took about the time a batter needs to recognize a pitch—about 1.2 seconds for the gravity of the accomplishment to diminish. “Oh, yeah, this isn’t real. He used steroids” must have been the refrain from everyone in America not residing within the county of San Francisco .

It’s sad. This moment should have surpassed Cal Ripken running around Camden Yards slapping high-fives with the fans after breaking Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games streak. But it couldn’t because everyone knows the mark is a fraud, an evil machination of Bonds’ thirst for glory to the extreme. Ripken played everyday because of hard work and the fortune to avoid serious injury. His story rang true with every working man who ever woke up at the crack of dawn and defied the urge to call in sick. Ripken’s story reminded us of a time when that was the American ideal. Today, Bonds reminds us of something that makes us uncomfortable as a society.

The steroid scandal involving Bonds will be remembered by historians as a symptom of our country’s health. Whether it’s financial misdeeds like Enron or Tyco or our government’s dishonesty with the reasons to go to war or whether it’s Barry Bonds; it’s about cheating and how Americans have more or less found it acceptable enough to live with.

MLB Website's Coverage Of Bonds More Balanced Than S.F. Chronicle

CHRONICLE RUINS EXCELLENT COVERAGE OF BONDS STEROID SCANDAL

A few years back, many in the media questioned whether the official websites of the NFL, MLB and NBA would cover uncomfortable stories about their respective sports as fairly as traditional news outlets.

I suppose those naysayers were wrong because the MLB.com's coverage of Barry Bonds's 755th homerun was far more measured than that of the San Francisco Chronicle, the newspaper whose coverage took the largest chunk out of the slugger's myth.

How do you think the two Chronicle reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada felt when their own newspaper splashed the numerals "755" in a manner befitting "WAR!" on the cover of last Sunday's paper. Williams and Fainaru-Wada nearly went to prision protecting a source and raised the awareness of the downtrodden paper ten-fold and this the incongruent coverage their own paper gives to a deeply troubling ballplayer and to the road and method he traveled to tie Henry Aaron's homerun record.

Undoubtedly, this is a big new story befitting above the crease coverage, but the story is not just a warm love letter to Bonds, but moreso, the story of a great player's greed to become even greater by cheating. The angle of how much fans across America have exhibited so much apathy towards the march to 756, at least, when they're not booing him, is far more honest than the Chronicle attempting to frame the story as a great American sports spectacle like Cal Ripken passing Lou Gehrig or even Aaron passing the Babe in 1974. It almost reeks of denial for a day. As if editor Phil Bronstein said we've tarnished Bonds's reputation with solid reporting, but just for today we'll praise the scoundrel thereby selling a load of papers at both ends.

MLB.com, though, has provided even and tempered coverage of Bonds's record-breaking exploits that hasn't dissed him, but also hasn't placed him on a false pedestal. Today he's been featured on the front of the site with nearly the same importance as the Blue Jays plunking Alex Rodriguez and Tom Glavine's 300th win two days ago.

I suppose the Chronicle is truly the voice of the Bay Area, because its schizophrenic coverage of Bonds as of late mirrors Giants fans from the Sunset district to the Market Street. In this case and only in this case, it would be far more informative to read the corporation's account of this record rather than the so-called impartial press.

Home Foreclosures Are Killing Our Economy

PRES. CANDIDATES NEED TO TACKLE THE BANKING INDUSTRY'S QUESTIONABLE POLICIES

With the burden of so many subprime mortgage loans hampering Wall Street, even some one like me who works in the banking business, has difficulty figuring out the morass that is mortgage lending.

Three detailed articles on consecutive days in the New York Times attempted to simplify (including charts and graphs) financial dealings involving buying and selling loans called "securitization". It's far too confusing for any layman and this is probably the reason why so many people who qualified for subprime loans are pleading ignorance when the notice for foreclosure arrives on their doorstep of the house they purchased with no money down and made interest only payments for the last two years.

In Monday's Times, this paragraph seems to illustrate the danger these lenders have propagated on many people and the nation's economy:

The bank that holds the note as trustee claims to have no information relating to the servicer or the loan originator in spite of the fact that documents show all the parties have been working together for ages. It insulates them from liability....Securitization has made it so complicated that everyone in the process is able to say that they don’t know what’s going on. The effect is, no poor person can afford to litigate this type of matter to bring it to a resolution, and therefore they lose their home.

It's well known that the banking industry has the loudest bullhorn when it comes to lobbying Congress and tactics like securitization are the unwanted answer to this incestous equation.

The home mortgage freefall needs to become an issue that Presidential candidates of both side of the spectrum need to addresss. Conspicious lending practices to people who can't afford the loan to its entirety is a recipe to our country's economic viability.

Playing Baseball With Four Leftfielders And Three Second Basemen

AT LEAST GIANTS ARE PLAYING BONDS ON THE ROAD

With all their injuries it’s amazing that the A’s are still just six games under .500. Take for instance last Tuesday. Against Detroit ’s Justin Verlander, coach Bob Geren fielded three second basemen (Marco Scutaro, Donnie Murphy, Mark Ellis) and four leftfielders (Jack Cust, Mark Kotsay, Nick Swisher, Travis Buck). Somehow, the plucky A’s beat the Tigers.

BONDS LOOKING HIS AGE
Those interested in adding Barry Bonds next season, presumably to play DH, should note the “audacity” of some borderline Major League pitchers who have dared to challenge the hobbled future homerun king. Many have been successful as of late in making Bonds look like the 43-year-old that he is.

INGE FOR CHAVEZ, DINARDO
The Tigers’ Brandon Inge may have less power and fielding prowess at third and hit around .250, but I would value his tenacity on my team more than the meandering Eric Chavez…I must have seen three Lenny DiNardo starts in person this season and he’s done of great job for the A’s but I just can’t help thinking that journeyman pitchers of his ilk represented those lean years in Oakland between 1993 and 1998. Remember Doug Johns, Wojciechowski, John Briscoe?

KOTSAY ON HIS WAY OUT?
I wonder if this will be Mark Kotsay’s last season in Oakland because he doesn’t seem very happy lately. He’s been caught lazily throwing the ball back to the infield; including one this week after making a sprinting grab in shallow right-center he tossed the ball underhanded on the run high in the air and way off line of second base.

DE TOCQUEVILLE PLAYING BASEBALL
I’m glad to see the Giants playing Barry Bonds often on this road trip instead of “saving” him for a chance to break Aaron’s mark at AT&T Park . It would be the worst message possibly to the fans of San Francisco, in effect, saying management values this record more than they do about winning ballgames…Like the Frenchmen Alexis de Tocqueville a few hundred years ago taught us it’s sometimes better to see our country through the eyes of foreigners. On the World Soccer Daily podcast, which also airs on Sirius, two Englishmen in L.A. have it right when they talk about Bonds, steroids and baseball. Host Steven Cohen noted that controversy with Bud Selig in attendance when Bonds breaks the mark is “rubbish”. “They keep talking about steroids, but nobody has done anything about it” He notes that FIFA would have at least set a threshold where if you stepped over the line you would be punished, in baseball nothing has been done.

Will Bay Area Construction Firm Cut Corners On Bay Bridge Work?

MINN. BRIDGE COLLAPSE SHOULD CONCERN BAY AREA BRIDGE WORK

Could one of the Bay Area's major bridges fall like the one in Minneapolis? Just as news of the disaster begins to settle in an article in today's San Jose Mercury brings to mind whether bridge safety and the speed of the builders can cohabitate.

Caltrans announced that the Bay Bridge will be closed over the Labor Day weekend. Three hundred fifty feet of the upper deck heading west to San Francisco will be demolished and replaced with a prefabricated section. This amazing construction feat will be performed by the Rancho Cordova-based construction firm C.C. Myers, the same outfit that miraculously repaired the Macarthur Maze interchange a few months ago a full month ahead of schedule.

Do you think they rebuilt that section of the freeway to the safest possible methods or did they cut severe corners to make the Governator look good?

Now in light of the Minneapolis bridge collapse should we be worried about a firm known for doing the job in such a quick manner?

Third-Tier Dems Come Up For Air

BIDEN: 'I'M HERE! I'M HERE! LOOK AT ME!'

Sen. Joe Biden's time as a presidential contender is dwindling (was he ever anything but a somewhat plausible Secretary of State candidate?). When the star-driven press ran to Sen. Obama's comments about Pakistan, the gray-haired Delaware senator told the National Review's blog "The Hotline" that he's been saying we should get tougher on Pakistan for "five years".

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the other foreign policy elder also claimed he had already espoused such a strategy. So why aren't these two making more of a wave in the Democratic Party when foreign policy is what is driving front pages all over the country? Because we don't care about the big picture when it comes to the rest of the world.

It must bug the hell out of Biden and Dodd when pundits relegate their campaigns as vanity projects meant to be an audition for a spot in the future Democratic White House. But, Americans are isolationists at heart and despite our attention on Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, it's not what drives us to the ballot box.

Case in point, if Americans truly wanted a president like Biden or Dodd they wouldn't tell pollsters in droves that they want out of Iraq immediately. A more savvy electorate would understand leaving the region would set off a bevy of unintended consequences and disasters. That sort of appreciation of the complexities of foreign policy is nowhere to be seen in this country.

Despite our lack of attention to the rest of the world we also fancy leaders who represent something more than expertise in a part of the presidential resume. We want vision and someone makes tomorrow seem brighter than the day before. Two elders of the Democratic Party with little to say about anything other than Iraq belong at the state department not in the Oval Office.

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.