From techcrunch:

Should the Internet be owned and maintained by the government, just like the highways? Vint Cerf, the “father of the Internet” and Google’s Internet evangelist, made this radical suggestion.

His comment was in the context of a bigger discussion about the threat to Net neutrality posed by the cable and phone companies, who are making moves to control the amount and types of bits that can go through their pipes.

Net neutrality and preventing broadband carriers from controlling Internet traffic or content is something that Google has a definite stake in. The Google page on the subject even links to grassroots groups the Open Internet Coalition, and SaveTheInternet. But the question should be whether Google’s dominance of Internet navigation, as well as advertising poses a greater threat to the future of a free Internet.

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

George Carlin, hero and inspiration to millions.

On religion and Joe Pesci.

Patrick Cockburn reports in today’s Independent that the Bush Administration is holding $50 bn in Iraqi reserves hostage in order to force the Iraqi government into signing a long term military agreement with the US:

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.
…

The fact that Iraq’’s financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

Another troubling element in this story is that the Iraqi government wanted to diversify some of their foreign holdings (kept by the US Treasury) to euros from dollars. This was vetoed by the United States, costing the Iraqis some $5bn due to depreciation of the dollar.

Interesting Op-Ed in today’s NYT, but who is he referring to today?

While everyone else was holding their breath last night to see if it was really going to happen, I thought I’d share my thoughts on a minor story that gave me a bit of a jolt while scanning WaPo on Monday (I wrote this last night but Polianna was down).

The headline read:

Cheney Rejects Federal Gas Tax Suspension.

I did a bit of a Jon Stewart face turning ‘’whaaaa???!!!'’. That’s not that evil. I went on to read the first paragraph. His Darkness said that it would only provide minimal relief and not address the real issue. I paused. Not only is this not all that evil, it’s actually true. So here’s Dick Cheney possibly saying something that’s both true and not evil? What gives?

So I keep reading and there it was:

And what it does is it avoids addressing the issue, which is, markets work; the law of supply and demand works. If you want to limit production of energy resources in the United States, that’s fine, you can do that, if in fact, that’s where national policy goes and that’s what the policy process produces…

But if I were to argue how it ought to affect the election, I think it ought to have negative consequences for those folks over the years who’ve worked so hard to limit U.S. production of energy resources. That’s my view of the world. Not everybody agrees with that, obviously, but we don’t drill off the East Coast, we don’t drill off the West Coast, we don’t drill off Florida, we don’t drill in important parts of Alaska. And that means we have less domestic production than would otherwise be the case. And the old law of supply and demand works, and when demand gets tight, those prices go up. And so today we’ve got $4 gasoline….

One way to change that is to increase our domestic production of energy resources, which we can do environmentally in a sound fashion. I would hope that would be one of the issues in this campaign. It should be a lively debate. I would expect that certainly my party will bring it up. I don’t know about the other party.

The Dick is against the gas tax because it would further deter Halliburton from cashing in off of drilling off the coast of Alaska. And on the seeming flawless market principles of Supply and Demand.

Two problems with the Veep’s econ. The first is viable alternatives - the economic concept related to price elasticity, where if the price of something goes up, viable alternatives become comparably less expensive. Like if the price of fossil fuels increases rapidly, the price of alternatives, like alternative energy sources for example, will become relatively less expensive. This would be amenable with a simplistic invisible hand of the market view would it not for the second point. And that is external costs, or externalities. I.e. costs external of something, usually borne out by others. Like the polar ice caps melting, or increased skin cancer from pollution. External costs are not factored into the market price, but are no less real. And in these situations you need government to protect society from bearing those costs while the greedy fat cats cash in. This is very important if you are considering energy markets from a rational point of view. So on top of endless war and debt, and crumbling infrastructure, consider the external costs incurred by the whole world from the mixed up minds of W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

With Jim Webb’s name floating high as a possible Obama running mate, there has been a left wing ecstasy reminiscent of Michael Moore’s dreamy eyed endorsement of Wesley Clark in 04. Wow, we finally have actual General to throw at them, so now who’s really tougher?

Like Clark, Webb isn’t all guns and roses. Much concern has be expressed about his fitness and potential vulnerabilities. Kathy G stated the case against Webb well yesterday on the Yglesias blog. It’s not just his brashness on the campaign trail, or that taking him out of a Red State Senate seat would be strategically stupid, but it’s also his “wingnutty” Republican recent past.

The Senate coalition argument strikes me as the strongest. However brash he may be, veeps and running mates play the roll of attach dog (think Cheney and Agnew) in the modern presidential beauty contest, and Webb does this very well. And in a related matter, he gets major points for standing up for our troops while sticking it to McCain, Bush and Co. on the GI Bill.

From today’s Jerusalem Post:

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
…
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.

Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah’s show of strength to constitute evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence. In Bush’s view, the official said, “the disease must be treated - not its symptoms.”

Is Paul Maslin talking about electoral votes or bowling?
Because I think Obama could get to 270 electoral votes, but there’s no way he could bowl it.

Jamie Rubin writes in today’s Washington Post on the hypocrisy of McCain’s harsh criticism of Obama. It seems Ol’ Straight Talk advocated negotiating with Hamas after their electoral victory two years ago.

The Edwards endorsement does seem like the beginning of the end for Hillary. Here’s how it will probably play out:

Obama will get the nomination by the end of this month, but Hillary will not give up in anyway. It will become apparent that she is in fact a Terminator sent from the future. She will brutally kill John Edwards and Ted Kennedy with an electromagnetic health care policy pulse wave, which sucks the air and blood out of its victims causing a slow and cinematic asphyxiation.

Suddenly, as she’s about to terminate the one candidate who would have eventually saved the future by restoring hope, Arnold Schwarzenegger crashes through a wall. It turns out that he really is a terminator from the future sent back not to save Kalyfornia, but to stop HT 4 (Hillary Terminator) from destroying the future of hope.

In the ensuing fight, they crash through walls, overturn trucks on highways and destroy highway ramps and airplanes. Just as it looks like HT 4 is about to terminate the Gubernator by retroactively revoking his citizenship (through a wireless interface with Teledyne Cybernetic Systems), Barack Obama appears and saves him by hacking into the democratic donor database and terminating her funding. She immediately shuts down and Judgment Day is forestalled, but not permanently prevented. We know she will be back.

Bush’s not so veiled attack on Obama yesterday serves as good reminder of the divisive and heinous essence of his tenure. Obama has repeatedly said that he would negotiate with our enemies. He has not said he would appease terrorists. He has also said that he would go into Pakistan ("Pokistan") and get Bin Laden.

So after a disastrous foreign policy driven by ideology, incompetence, distortion, and secrecy, the great divider yesterday did what he does - distorted and attacked. As McCain tries to distances himself from Bush, keep in mind that:

Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages with terrorists;

The blundering of the Iraq War is the biggest foreign policy disaster since Viet Nam. This statement doesn’t even need any backup; and

Bush’s corrosive foreign policy, which has shunned negotiation, international institutions (like the United Nations and the Geneva Convention) has done great damage to America’s credibility, influence and prestige in the world.

Ipods are cool and sleek. A timeline of the history of design in the store Design Within Reach has the pod as the pinnacle of the evolution of design. And they sure are popular. But I’ve felt for a while that ipod’s market dominance is more a result of marketing than quality. In fact, in concert with itunes online music distribution, Apple has approached monopolistic dominance in the emerging digital music market. There’s got to be better value for the money.

One of the big problems I have with the mighty pod is directly related to its market dominance. And it bugs me is that almost no one talks about this. A given ipod can only be used with a certain number (3 maybe) of registered computers (that is without some kind of funky and unauthorized software), and even more striking is that music files can’t be transfered from an ipod to a computer. Music can only go from computer to ipod. Once again, that’s unless unauthorized software is used. This is certainly purposefully designed to maintain Apple’s hegemony on digital music distribution which approaches vertical integration. Functionally, this is a major limitation and I’m amazed that there hasn’t been more open criticism. Maybe Microsoft should re-edit the Hillaried re-edit of the famous Orwellian Apple commercial - placing Ipod in the screen where Hillary was.

So I’ve pulled the trigger and ordered the Zune. Both the 80 gig Zune and 80 gig Ipod cost around $249. The Zune gets slightly better average user and reviewer ratings on cnet than the pod. I’m pretty sure that Zune doesn’t have a closed file transfer system like ipod. My major concern is how difficult it may prove to be to import my itunes catalogue into the zune software. I will keep you posted.

Zune also has two cool features that ipod doesn’t: FM radio, and wireless synching and sharing (which probably can be used with any computer).

So to paraphrase a political maxim, when the revolution becomes the orthodoxy, even Microsoft can become the rebel. I wonder how Chuck Berry feels about this…

It’s widely accepted that the media pigeon-holes stories and people into simple narratives with a strict limit of one to two sound bytes. This campaign cycle is interesting, not merely because so much of the conventional wisdom now seems quaint, but because it presents an opportunity to observe the re-renderings as they happen.

Hillary’s bytes have changed the least. While always seen by oxycontin right as the ambitious embodiment of 60’s liberal evil, she has also been tagged “divisive” yet intelligent and diligent, and her persistence makes her seem like terminator 4 in a blue pantsuit. The narrative of her campaign has progressed from the unstoppable Clinton machine, to a mismanaged Machiavellian leviathan which is now entering its terminal phase. So the blue collar, shots at the bar act didn’t fly, but we respect and admire her steely endurance.

Barack Obama’s media id badge may be the most interesting because it is the most dynamic. Obama materialized on the 2004 convention stage, a ready made democratic messiah, almost a direct cross between Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy. However, all pundits knew how naive this hope stuff can be. Sure the speeches were nice, but is soaring rhetoric weapon enough in the blood sport that is presidential politics? Danger was near as Mo D lucidly explained that:

The lioness of Chappaqua is hot on the trail of the Chicago gazelle, eager to gnaw him to pieces, like a harrowing scene out of a George Stubbs painting.

And if she didn’t shred him, certainly the dread republican attack machine would. Surely enough, a “bitter” remark, an angry preacher, a weather undergrounder, and an “undercaffeinated” debate performance against the machine that is Hillary turned the once unflappable messiah into Dukakis and/or McGovern. Had our man been crucified at the alter of Jeremiah?

Hold the Press. Last week’s blow out in North Carolina and overtime showing in Indiana have forced a new narrative, still in progress. Could the “Chicago gazelle” now be battle tested?

Even George Will (who has showed signs of Obama cool aid ingestion in the past) wrote that:

Obama is the Democrats’ Reagan. Obama’s rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan’s ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness – the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

So even George Will admits there maybe steel behind the cotton candy.

But what about John McCain? The straight talking maverick with temper problems? Bill Clinton has done a good job of mitigating media bytes concerning McCain’s temper. (Perhaps there’s an Associate Press guideline that only allows per one label per person per news cycle, unless it’s Republicans claiming the Reagan mantel, which ironically enough, has been claimed by Obama.)

And reality itself should be sufficient to force a re-write of the straight talk, maverick thing. By reality, I mean Maverick’s blatant genuflection to Brothers Robertson and Falwell and his windsurfing flip on the Bush Tax Cuts.

The renegade who in 2000 referred to the religious right as “agents of intolerance,” who have “turned good causes into businesses,” and “shame our faith, our party and our country", was in 2007 in full pander mode at Liberty University. And this very same maverick could not in “good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief” has in 2008 made making these cuts permanent the center piece of his economic platform. Never mind the deficit, our grandchildren, and principle, better to shore up the Rove permanent majority before we unleash the swiftboats.

So as the democratic nomination soap opera enters its 22nd inning, I wonder - will Obama re-emerge fired up and ready to go, leading a realignment ending the Reagan era? Or will he turn into George McGovern as McCain’s Roves flood the airwaves with the “bitter” and “liberal” gospels of Jeremiah?

Today’s controversy over poaching delegates
is just another in a long series of unappealing Clinton statements. It’s hard to understand how these unsavory missteps could come from the savviest political couple around. Especially the ones from Bill Clinton.

Here’s my theory, and I say this only half-jokingly. Bill Clinton secretly wants Obama to win. Maybe he likes traveling around the world as a celebrity raising millions of dollars for AIDS medicines for Africa. We certainly know that he enjoys the attention. What if a Hillary presidency kills all of that, at least his mind? And what if she’s got the goods on him and will spill some serious Bill beans unless he totally plays ball and campaigns his heart out for her? And maybe he like Obama, and sees a little bit of himself in this charismatic young man.

So Bill hits the trail and intentionally says and does all of these things to piss off democratic voters. It’s almost too obvious. Think about it. He’s the slickest politician of our era right? He knows better, right?

What’s the dirtiest word in American politics? Lobbyist? Pretty bad but no cigar. Philanderer? Not even close. Washington insider? Pretty bad as well, but there’s worse.

The dirtiest word in American politics is “Liberal". You show me a viable candidate running as a liberal and I’ll show you a fresh 3 dollar bill.

In fact, during Monday night’s CNN/Youtube debate, when asked if she was a liberal, the savvy progressive democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton dodged the politically poisonous label, instead proclaiming to be, well progressive. Even the liberal standard bearer, Dennis Kucinich avoids the “L"word.

As a liberal, I this resent this. I look back in anger to the 1988 presidential debate when George Bush Sr. blasted Michael Dukakis as a liberal, even charging him with being a card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Where was Michael Douglas’ American President Andrew Shepherd? Would it were that Dukakis had replied forcefully, with something like, “Damn it George, if caring about the well being of hard working Americans makes me a liberal, then damn it, I’m a liberal and proud of it.”

To me the “L” word always meant something quite good. Liberalism is a progressive outlook that stands for economic opportunity and civil and human rights for all. At its core, it is a paradigm that is open to new ideas and new thinking to solve problems, and sees the government as having a role not only in helping out those who are less fortunate, but in providing the social and economic infrastructure that is absolutely essential to our economic vitality. Liberalism does not shrink from defending our nation, but does not rush to war as a first resort. It is strong, yet flexible and not bellicose.

In 1960, JFK accepted the nomination of The New York Liberal Party, an honor that I doubt even Dennis Kucinich would accept today, and proclaimed this liberal vision:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

So how did this noble and enlightened perspective championed by FDR, Truman, and JFK come to be defined as a naïve believe in a bureaucratic nanny state that strangles free enterprise and smothers individual freedom, while coddling dictators abroad?

And how did the word conservative assume the weight of a sacred mantra among so much of the American polity?

I see the modern conservative movement as tragic farce. The combination of bad economics (reductionist to say the least) and religious fundamentalism is no basis for governing.

The conservative economic philosophy, while very amenable to political sound bytes, is short on substance, and resilient to evidence. The Laffer curve was a simple bell curve written on a cocktail napkin. Its failure as a tax revenue prediction tool has been made painfully evident by the Reagan and Bush budget deficits. Even the Adam Smith’s vaunted quote about the invisible hand of the free market is continually taken out its intended context. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith posits strong laws and regulations are necessary to sustain a market environment, where the invisible hand can flourish.

Do you think that the FDA should continue to inspect our meat? And the SEC should monitor the filings of publicly traded companies? Of course they should. Proper regulatory oversight creates confidence in markets. Moving beyond that, do you think that the government should play a role in providing resources for education? And how about health care? Has the free market done a good job of allocating health care resources efficiently?

The magnitude of both the corporate scandals of the Enron era and the disastrous consequences of the Bush presidency at home and abroad should put this baby to rest. Enron, Halliburton, and corporate welfare for oil companies making record windfall profits clearly illustrates how free market idolatry is all too easily hyped as a cynical shill, providing a philosophical cover for massive corruption.

Yet the “L'’ word is still radioactive. Why?

In days of Adam Smith, the word “liberal” actually referred to the free market, laissez-faires economics that today’s conservatives claim to worship. It was during the 20th century when liberalism came to embody the political ideology that we know today, and the idea that government could solve people’s problems reached it’s heyday from FDR to LBJ.

The paradoxical transformation began roughly 43 years ago, when the Conservative standard bearer, Barry Goldwater, took a royal thrashing at the polls from Lyndon Johnson, a liberal icon. Johnson crushed the conservative ideologue taking 486 out of 583 electoral votes and 42 states.

In the decades that followed, hundreds of millions of dollars were provided by the likes of wealthy conservatives such as Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family, to built up a vast network of right wing think tanks and media outlets. A few years ago a Democratic activist named Rob Stein put together a legendary powerpoint presentation chronicling the evolution of the conservative machine. In a must read New York Times magazine article , Matt Bai wrote a few years ago:

The presentation itself, a collection of about 40 slides titled ‘’The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix,'’ essentially makes the case that a handful of families – Scaife, Bradley, Olin, Coors and others – laid the foundation for a $300 million network of policy centers, advocacy groups and media outlets that now wield great influence over the national agenda. The network, as Stein diagrams it, includes scores of powerful organizations – most of them with bland names like the State Policy Network and the Leadership Institute – that he says train young leaders and lawmakers and promote policy ideas on the national and local level. These groups are, in turn, linked to a massive message apparatus, into which Stein lumps everything from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to Pat Robertson’s ‘’700 Club.'’ And all of this, he contends, is underwritten by some 200 ‘’anchor donors.'’ ‘’This is perhaps the most potent, independent institutionalized apparatus ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,'’ he said.

Thus, 40 years after JFK proudly pronounced a Liberal New Frontier, the word has been systematically demonized by a massive conservative chorus culminating in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Rielly and Ann Coulter.

But why has it been so effective? Firstly, liberal programs of the new deal and great society did become too bloated and bureaucratic. Great society anti-poverty programs got bogged down in pork barrel pet projects. The national malaise of the 1970s gave rise to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

On top of that, the conservative outlook lends itself very well to politics in the age of television and talk radio. It is a very succinct and simple argument. Let’s say you’re debating a conservative over education, and you favor reducing class sizes, buying new school books, and paying teachers over $40 k/year. You propose all of these things, and your republican opponent lashes back by labeling you a “Tax and Spend liberal". How do you beat that?

Amplify that by $300 million dollars worth of think tanks, talk radio and Fox news over 30 years and you end up with a political culture where Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter can prevail.

This intentional and systematic conservative program has been highly effective in defining the direction of American political discourse for the last 30 years.

Even the collapse of the conservative governing coalition amidst the disastrous ineptitude of the Bush presidency and shamelessness of the Delay Republican congress have not given progressives the courage to reclaim the “L” word.

It seems sad to me that Hillary Clinton, a rather fearless political warrior, herself having been the subject of a sustained smear campaign by the same conservative elements that have tarred the “L” word, would back away from the real fight.

For an old adage goes that who ever defines the issues will win the debate, and the election. I suggest that progressives reclaim the helm of American political discourse. For when we allow a word that represents our best ideals to be denigrated, we allow those ideals to be denigrated.

In that light, what John Kennedy said about the 1960 election holds true for 2008:

Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Let us never again back down ever from the war of ideas. We can only win this war when we reclaim the meaning of liberalism, as a bold, progressive political agenda that will raise all boats, revitalize our infrastructure, and make America both the envy of all nations, and a beacon of hope for the world. Let us expose the conservatism as an ossified ideology that shuns critical thinking and has too often been employed as a cover and rationalization for corruption.

It looks like some Senate Republicans forgot to eat their Lucky Charms before going on the Sunday talk shows this morning, because there were a slew of unlucky, unfortunate and even flat-out wrong statements made. From Sen. Hatch completely contradicting a key vote he cast on detainee abuse just last month to Sen. Coburn suggesting that his medical degree gives him some special insight into Judge Alito’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, this morning’s GOP statements fell into the loopy category!

1) ON TORTURE: DOUBLE-TALKIN HATCH TALKS OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH: When he was asked about the dispute between Cheney and McCain on the Senate amendment barring abuse of detainees, which passed the Senate 90-9. Hatch was asked, simply, “Are you on the Vice President’s side on this or are you on John McCain’s side?” Hatch replied, “Well, I’m on the Vice President’s side.” But on October 5, Hatch voted for McCain’s amendment to the Fiscal 2006 Defense Appropriations bill that would “prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.” [Vote #249, 10/5/05, Face the Nation, 11/6/05]

2) PHASE II IRAQ INTELLIGENCE PROBE: ROBERTS’ CLAIM TO HAVE HAD INTEL HEARINGS PLANNED ON PHASE II PROBE WHITE HOUSE USE OF INTELLIGENCE RINGS FALSE: Pat Roberts said: “We had it scheduled for this week. There was no need for the Senate to all of a sudden pop into an executive session or a closed session and then demand action when we were going to do it anyway.” (Note: The last scheduling notice from the Intelligence Committee that went out prior to the most recent one was on October 21 and made no mention of the Phase II investigation. It was only after Senate Democrats forced the Republicans to deal with the issue that Roberts hastily added three days worth of meetings on the Phase II probe twice a day and released a new schedule that suddenly had Phase II on it. [Face the Nation, 11/6/05, Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings Notices]

3) SCOTUS:

COBURN’S MAGIC POWERS: When asked if “as a physician you can tell whether a candidate for the Supreme Court is telling the truth?” Coburn said: “I think you can certainly tell when they’re ill at ease with a subject and sometimes telling the truth or not. […] Yeah, I think you can.” When asked if has used those skills to make judgments like that? Coburn said “Mm-hm, I certainly have.” [Meet the Press, 11/6/05]

COBURN SAYS ALITO LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH? When Meet the Press’ asked Coburn if he thought Judge Alito was right to argue in a dissent that Congress had no role in regulating the sale of machine guns, Coburn said: “No, I think we [Congress] probably have the right to do it. But I don’t think a judge has the right to make that decision. […]Those aren’t decisions judges should be making. Those are decisions that legislators should be making.” When Russert asked if Alito’s dissent was wrong and whether he was legislating from the bench, Coburn said “sure.” [Meet the Press, 11/6/05]

4) CIA LEAK, BUSH CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS

HAGEL SAYS BUSH NEEDS TO STOP STONEWALLING: In response to what Bush needs to do to regain his credibility, Chuck Hagel said: “I think he gets it back by governing, putting a focus on competent, honest government. …Open it up; don’t stonewall.” [ABC This Week, 11/6/05]

HAGEL SAYS BUSH NEEDS TO BRING NEW BLOOD INTO THE WHITE HOUSE: When asked how Bush should deal with the CIA leak case, Hagel said, “…if I was the president, I think I’d want to enlarge and widen that group, and start making some serious review and inventory of what has happened in the last five years that’s gotten him into so much trouble.” [ABC This Week, 11/6/05]

MCCAIN SAYS ROVE SHOULD KEEP HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE EVEN IF HE SPREAD INFO ABOUT CIA AGENTS: When asked if “it should turn out that there is any evidence that Karl Rove spoke to reporters about a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, should he lose his top secret security clearance,” McCain said: “I don’t think so. I don’t know if that’s a reason to do so…” [Fox News Sunday, 11/6/06]

5) REPUBLICANS WARN THAT 2006 ISN’T LOOKING GOOD FOR GOP:

When asked about new poll results showing generic 2006 Republicans losing to Democrats in congressional races, Newt Gingrich said “I’ve been trying to tell everybody I can find on Capitol Hill and in the White House, if they don’t have substantial change by the State of the Union, and if they don’t convince the country that they’ve gotten the message, I think they’re in big trouble…” [ABC’s This Week, 11/6/05]

When asked about Bush’s low approval ratings, John McCain said, “…Congress’ approval ratings are lower than they’ve been in at least ten years as well, so the disapproval is spread pretty widely.” [Fox News Sunday, 11/6/05] (NOTE: Republicans control Congress)

“Honest Leadership” at its best in Virginia

In a move combining the sleaziest elements from the Rove and DeLay dirty trick playbooks, Northern Virginia voters are receiving automated calls they believe are from the Kaine campaign. These fake phonies use spliced audio and distorted facts to deceive voters. As it turns out, the calls are coming from a group called “Honest Leadership for Virginia".

It turns out that the aptly Orwellian monikered “Honest Leadership for Virginia” is a PAC housed at the Republican Governor’s Association who laundered $2.8 MILLION to the Kilgore campaign.

Also, using dirty trics Texas-style are the Virginians for Jerry Kilgore. They sent out a bogus “2005 Official Democratic and Progressive Voter Guide” that lists former Republican, now independent candidate, Russ Potts as the TRUE democrat and progressive in the Virginia race. Golly gee. Camp Kilgore is clearly worried about the moderate Republicans staying home, or worse, voting for Kaine. They must realize their hardcore rightwing dog won’t hunt in VA any more. Could this race be a harbinger for 2006?

With the polls saying the race is in a virtual dead heat, it really makes you wonder what other sleaze Kilgore campaign has up its sleeve for today and tomorrow.

Keith Olberman of MSNBC has chronicled something obvious yet interesting:

President Bush’s speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation.

I suggested that in the last three years there had been about 13 similar coincidences - a political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event"- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning.

The entire list is required reading.

Right after Katrina, in one of our articles about the need for a real, rational energy policy, one of our brave team members fastidiously pointed out that the spike in energy prices were caused by economics, that no evidence was yet available that shows profiteering by the oil giants, even though it seemed intuitive.

Well now we know. I wonder how much of this is directly tied to Bush Administration corruption?

Meet the 2000 men and women have died in the Iraq War face to face, courtesy of the New York Times. Click on “Date of Death” to move month by month from March of 2003 to October 2005.