Man, oh, man am I in a chipper mood lately. Articles like this showing how badly Bush is stumbling on the campaign trail only add to my optimism :

After launching two wars, President Bush said on Tuesday he wanted to be a “peace president” and took swipes at his senate rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.

With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq in decline, the Republican president cast himself as a reluctant warrior as he campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa against Democrat John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards. Bush lost the state in 2000 by only a few thousand votes.

“The enemy declared war on us,” he told a re-election rally. “Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.”

Bush has called himself a “war president” in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

“I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind,” he said in February.

Do you hear that?? That sound you hear is the Kerry campaign throwing these two clips together into their “Who’s the real flip-flopper?” commercial.

What’s adding to my optimism is polls like this that validate the historical trends that undecided voters are unlikely to vote for the incumbent :

Last week, Fabrizio McLaughlin and Associates, a GOP polling firm, released a strategy memo based on their recent Battleground State Survey that reveals undecided voters “are currently poised to break away from President Bush and to John Kerry.”

Among the reasons:

They are more than twice as likely to see things headed down the wrong track as compared to voters overall.

They give President Bush a net negative job approval rating.

A solid majority sees the Country as being worse off than they were 4 years ago.

They are significantly more pessimistic about the current state of the nation?s economy.

They are significantly more likely to favor the federal government doing more as opposed to doing less.

The conclusion: “Clearly, if these undecided voters were leaning any harder against the door of the Kerry camp, they would crash right through it.”

Kerry is already kicking Bush’s ass in the electoral vote polls which is a huge deal considering that most voters barely know who Kerry is. Next week’s senate convention should help solidify Kerry’s support by convincing those who have already fled Bush to stuck with the Johns.

Now that Martha’s attempts to buy her way out of jail have hit a snag, I wonder how she’s gonna decorate her jail cell?! HAW HAW HAW! Isn’t that hilarious? No? Oh….okay…

Ummm…when did Martha Stewart become a martyr for the women’s rights movement? To me she’s just another rich person who’s gonna go to jail. I really don’t like this argument that she’s been targeted for being a woman, mostly because I see the underlying implication being that anyone who’s not outraged on her behalf is just another sexist who wants her out of the boardroom and back in the kitchen. Stewart wasn’t singled out because of her gender, but because of her fame.

In the wake of all these corporate scandals, the government has needed some really high profile people to parade in front of the cameras with handcuffs to convince us that they care about stopping corporate crime. At the same time, Stewart was caught (allegedly) selling stock with insider information and lying to investigators about it. Her shitty timing was especially fortuitous for the media and the feds who were looking for a great corporate crime story to tell.

What made this such a great deal for them was the fact that they didn’t even need to give people the background on Martha. All they had to do was dust off the “domestic goddess in public is a lunatic bitch in private” storyline and plug in this update. People eat this up the same way people can’t stop spreading the urban legend about Mr. Rogers being a child molester. The dichotomy between the public and private lives of Martha Stewart are so radically different that people can’t stop talking about it (read the hackneyed joke at the beginning of this post again for a good example). *

So that’s why she’s been “set up”. And yes, I do think she was singled out by prosecutors whose time could have been better spent on someone guilty of much harsher crimes. But that doesn’t make her innocent of the crimes she was convicted of, so you’ll have to forgive me if I have a hard time mustering up any tears for Ms. Stewart.

* While I’m on the subject, there’s a damn good point to be made about the fact that Stewart’s bitchiness would likely be seen as toughness if she were a man. So yeah, her “storyline” has sexist roots, but it still doesn’t change the fact that her fame was the overriding factor in the aggressiveness of her prosecution.

See if you can tell them apart :

“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn?t do my job.”

- President Bush

“I’m just telling you the truth. I’m telling you that what God has revealed to me he has not revealed to you. You’re coming to listen to what God has revealed to me.”

- David Koresh

One of them is a religious nutcase who’s leading his followers straight into hell. The other one was set on fire by the FBI.

While going through some old papers, I found some of the notes I made while watching one of the three of four hundred senate debates last fall. These notes were made to help me remember what to write about for this site the next day, but I have no idea what most of this stuff means now. Here’s some selected lines that had me scratching my head :

“more videos than a rock star”

“I’m disappointed in Joe.” - Dean

Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King

Worse nightmare…Lieberman

Sharpton = Droopy Dog

Greenfield compares Kennedy to Nixon (fucking bulllshit)

Lieb looks awkward

“two guys in a phone booth”

“an actor who couldn’t win an Oscar”

“the men have ruined it”

“Rush Limbaugh’s housekeeper”

I have no idea what most of these are referring to, but I suspect they’re 90% Sharpton.

President Bush may not know how to do his job well, but at least he knows what his job isn’t. (via Waxy.org)

The following assertions were collected from public statements made by George W. Bush and his official spokesmen since 1997. Originally from Harper’s Magazine, May 2004.

The President of the United States is not a fact-checker.
I?m not a statistician.
I?m not a numbers-cruncher.
I?m not one of these bean counters.
I?m not very analytical.
I?m not a precision guy.
The President is not a micromanager.
I?m not a member of the legislative branch.
The President is not a rubber stamp for the Congress.
I?m not a censor-guy.
I?m not a lawyer.
I?m not a doctor.
The President is not an economist.
I?m not a stockbroker or a stock-picker.
I?m not a forecaster.
I?m not a predictor.
I?m not a pollster, a poll-reader guy.
I?m not a very good prognosticator of elections.
I?m not a committee chairman.
I?m not of the Washington scene.
I?m not a lonely person.
I?m not a poet.
I?m not a very good novelist.
I?m not a textbook player.
I?m not an emailer.
I?m not a very long-winded person.
I?m not a very formal guy.
I am not a revengeful person.
I?m not an Iraqi citizen.
I?m not a divider.
I am not a unilateralist.
I?m not a tree, I?m a Bush.

I would add “The President is not the winner of the 2000 election.”

Okay, I’ve seen this headline on a few different news sites now :

Survey: Bush decisive, Kerry smart

…but each time I glance at it, I keep reading it wrong. At first glance I see either “divisive” or “derisive”. Maybe it’s just me, but don’t those two words better describe President Mushmouth than….

…decisive??

It’s clear now to everybody that King George’s brand of conservatism isn’t exactly of the “smaller government” variety. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about from the conservative Heritage Foundation :

Federal spending — especially discretionary spending — has soared over the past two years, and new programs proposed by the President will make it difficult to check this growth. The President?s State of the Union pledge to limit growth of discretionary spending to 4 percent isn?t nearly enough. If the President is serious about limiting federal spending and not further burdening future generations, he should firmly oppose new entitlement programs and veto spending bills that contain corporate welfare. Only by taking such a strong lead could the President force Congress to reform its big-spending ways.
. . .
Federal spending?s drag on the economy is now over $20,000 per household — its highest level since World War II — and growing. Mandatory spending reached 11 percent of GDP for the first time ever. The recent Medicare drug bill represents a huge long-term burden on the fiscal health of this country. It was a massive entitlement expansion passed with no financing program to pay for it and is estimated by CBO to cost well over $2 trillion dollars over a 20-year period. The final check for this program will come due just when Social Security and Medicare run out of money.

Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11. What was so sorely lacking during this time was self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities.

Here’s what Bush had to say a couple years ago about making sure federal spending doesn’t get out of control :

I can assure you I will work with Congress to control excessive federal spending. One reason they give the President the veto power is to make sure the Congress doesn’t over-spend. Over-spending could serve as an anchor on economic vitality and growth.

So you’d think with the spending situation being out of control, Bush would have made good on his promises and vetoed any bills that were irresponsible. Right?

Wrong. With only a few months left in his term, Bush is set to become the first president in over 100 years to never issue a veto. Here’s how he stacks up against recent presidents :

Despite his tough talk, when it comes to pressing the Congress to fall in line with his stated agenda, Bush hasn’t acted even once. Without ever distancing himself from the Congressional leadership, Bush has painted himself into a corner that he’ll have a hard time getting out of. Unlike past presidents, Bush doesn’t get to blame the explosion in federal spending (or weakened environmental laws, lack of adequate homeland security funding, prescription drug ‘benefits’ that hurt seniors, etc.) on the Congress. One can only assume that Bush’s failure to issue any vetoes is a tacit endorsement of everything that the 107th and 108th Congresses have passed.

So as the campaign season continues and people start to ask questions about their pet policies (”Why hasn’t _______ happened?”), the only answer will be because the president didn’t think those priorities were worth fighting for.

A few weeks ago, I went to see Poison and Kiss perform at the Irvine Amphitheater. The show had that I expected to see : noodle-y guitar solos, trite ballads, blood, boobs, and a high-wire act. But there was one additional treat for us : Philosophy.

Now that I’ve been able to track down a bootleg of the show, click on the picture below to hear Paul Stanley’s thoughts about the state of the nation :

In case you think that’s just the inane ramblings of a washed up rockstar, here’s the President’s take on the same subject :

The enemy hit us, they hit us because of what we love. See, we love freedom. They hate freedom.

Ahhh…that must be it. They “hate freedom”. I was dumb enough to believe it was because they hate America. Well, now that we’ve got that cleared up, I wonder if the President also agrees with the Ronald McDonald of rock ‘n’ roll on this subject.

Here’s the blogosphere question of the day : In the event of another major terrorist attack, should we postpone the elections? (via Scott) :

Counterterrorism officials have asked the Justice Department to determine if the November presidential election could be postponed in the event a terror attack occurred at that time, Newsweek reported yesterday.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week’s terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, the magazine said.
. . .
As a result, sources told the magazine that Homeland Security last week asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.

Also, DeForest Soaries, chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to postpone an election in the event of a national emergency.

Like quite a few ideas that have leaked out of the Bush Administration, this one is a good idea that will be implemented wrong (AIDS funding being another good example). One of the lessons we should have learned from 9-11 is that it’s a good idea to plan for the worst. After all, if you wanna have politicians figuring this shit out, who would you rather have? The touchy and partisan legislators during an election year or the “singing ‘God Bless, America’ on the Capitol steps while planning to give Bush a blank check” that we had on the evening of 9-11?

I’m not a huge fan of giving election postponing powers into the hands of the Department of Homeland Security though. Call me paranoid, but does it seem like a good idea to give election shuffling powers to the guy whose boss is running to keep his job? I don’t think so either. Perhaps something like this would be better decided by the judicial branch.

For argument’s sake, let’s say there’s another major attack on election day. Would I support postponing the elections for a month? Hell, yeah I would. After all, when I think back to the morning of the WTC/Pentagon attacks and imagine that were voting day, I can only imagine that any hypothetical voting would take a back seat to the crying in front of the television fad that seemed to be sweeping the nation. If the election weren’t delayed, it’s hard to imagine the instant parroting of the “We have to support our president” line wouldn’t have helped King George.

(For the record, I spent most of that day muttering to myself “God, I hope he doesn’t fuck this up.”)

Ultimately, I’m extremely skeptical of this whole plan, not because I’m against the idea of postponing elections during a national crisis, but because I don’t trust Bush and co. enough to be sure they won’t take advantage of that power.

Lemme end this with a hypothetical question that’s slightly off-topic, but worth mulling. Let’s put ourselves in the mindset of election day 2000. What would happen if someone decided to hide envelopes full of baby powder near all of the polling places in Florida’s black voting districts and then call the FBI? The authorities would surely act to shut down the area, which would prevent any voting from happening there for at least a few hours. What would be the best way to deal with that situation? Assign those voters alternate polling places (that the majority would probably never bother traveling to)? Postponing the elections in those selected counties and let them revote with the probable outcome of the election? Postponing all the elections and starting everyone over from scratch?