Fred, We Hardly Knew You

Via News For The Left:

Fred Thompson is breaking the law and it's time somebody did something about it. So, this morning, I filed an FEC Complaint against him. [...]

It is my contention that he has violated the 'testing the waters' exemption of election law. He has been presenting himself as a candidate for President, he has been raising large sums of money beyond what would be required to explore a possible candidacy, and he has signed a long term lease on a headquarters for his campaign. He has even spent advertising dollars, which are specifically prohibited by the law.

If this pans out, it should be a big hit to the combined ego of the Republican party. They have been waiting for quite some time for their fabled savior, Fred Thompson, to enter the race and crush the opposition. It really does seem unfair to be essentially counted as a candidate while skirting the rules. "Testing the waters" is important for candidates who are not immediately recognized front-runners, but with someone who has been as popular as Fred Thompson, candidacy is just a matter of time (or, possibly, was after this).

Religious, Right Turn Only?

Via Media Matters:

On the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s (D-DE) recent comment that past Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry "let themselves be portrayed as anti-God," host Chris Matthews characterized Biden as saying that Gore and Kerry "created an image that they were somehow ... not really religious people. They don't share your evangelical views and your deeply religious views. They're too secular." In response, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy asserted that "for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters" and that "it seemed to be part of the program. They did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn't want to have anything to do with that." But given that some 90 percent of Americans say they believe in God (according to polling, which has been consistent over many years), and given that in the last 25 years, Americans have elected a Democrat to two presidential terms, and a second won the popular vote, a substantial number of religious voters must be voting for Democrats.

The Right has, for years, pandered to the religious groups and claimed moral superiority over the "Secular Left". They fail to realize that many people in the US want separation of Church and State. The Religious Right would have no problem replacing the Constitution with the Bible if not for the Secular Left (Lawyers would go insane with interpreting that). They fail to realize that there are differences even among the "religious" people and that people are not willing to submit to other's ideas of exactly what is right or wrong. If the religious republicans had to start defending their social issues with logic and reason instead of quoting scripture, they would be roundly defeated by everyone against them. The republicans would do much better if they learned that they are not any more moral than the rest of us.

Experience or Change?

Via NY Times:

Voters are almost equally divided over which is more important, with 41 percent citing fresh ideas and 44 percent citing experience.

But, the survey also indicated that voters think Mrs. Clinton is “more qualified” and “has a much better chance of becoming president.”

Mr. Obama has been trying to capitalize on his fresh-thinking approach, hoping it will resonate with voters. [...]

Six of the Democratic candidates took part in a forum organized by the Iowa Federation of Labor in Waterloo, Iowa. The Quad-City Times reports that the Democrats spoke about issues important to American workers and “stayed away from personal attacks”

It almost makes you think that democracy could work, doesn't it? The biggest difference between the democratic front-runners is not race or gender despite what the media wants; the biggest difference is experience against change. Ms. Clinton has touted her time as first lady and tenure in the senate as her main examples of superiority over the other candidates, yet she has not seemed to take a strong stance on many of the issues that so many progressives want her to take. Obama, on the other hand, is much less experienced in federal politics, having joined Congress in 2005 (elected in 2004). Obama, however, has used that to his advantage by pointing that he is not a "normal" politician, but an agent of change from "business as usual". This country has been harmed deeply by Bush and his administration's "business as usual" take on government.

This could be accomplished by someone with experience in the system that knows how to change things, or this could be accomplished by an agent of change who is knew to the scene. We'll see which one the American people want once the primaries finish. (...go Gore!)

Promising Progress Per Petraeus

Via FoxNews.com:

According to officials, Gen. David Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress. Administration officials hope the general’s recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. pullout from Iraq. Click here for the full report. The recommendation would allow U.S. commanders in the field to turn over security functions to Iraqi units, and redeploy them to other hot spots or as reserve forces, according to the report.

This is a definite surprise from General Petraeus. This follows the old "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" strategy of the Bush administration, which has long since been ignored and forgotten. It would be a great step in the right direction if General Petraeus does include this in his report to congress in September, but President Bush will hear what he wants to hear from that report and spin it however his adminstration sees fit. There is no reason to believe that General Petraeus's report will lead to anything but another broken promise of progress that advises we wait until an arbitrary date for progress.

D. None of the Above

Via the Detroit News:

The crowded field of presidential hopefuls isn't crowded enough to suit Michigan voters, who prefer two unannounced candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations, a new Detroit News/WXYZ-TV poll shows.

Former Tennessee Senator and TV star Fred Thompson would lead the GOP pack and former Vice President Al Gore would top the Democratic slate should they decide to run, according to a statewide survey of 400 likely Republican and 400 likely Democratic primary voters in Michigan conducted last Wednesday through Monday by EPIC/MRA of Lansing.

Well, that's interesting. The best choice seems to be none of the above when talking about the current crop of candidates. The stats are listed below: With Al Gore as a choice:

• Al Gore - 36%
• Hillary Clinton - 32%
• Barack Obama - 16%
• John Edwards - 8%

Without Al Gore:

• Hillary Clinton - 45%
• Barack Obama - 26%
• John Edwards - 16%

Gore would be a great addition to the Democratic field and would have a very good chance of winning the candidacy. It would be interesting to see a Gore/Clinton ticket (as opposed to the Clinton/Gore ticket of '92 and '96), but the a Gore/Obama ticket would bring great change to presidential politics. With Fred Thompson (and Newt Gingrich - who is also not a current candidate) as a choice:

• Fred Thompson - 22%
• Rudy Giuliani - 19%
• John McCain - 16%
• Newt Gingrich - 15%
• Mitt Romney - 12%

Without Thompson (or Gingrich):

• Rudy Giuliani - 30%
• John McCain - 21%
• Mitt Romney - 21%

Fred Thompson has, at least, shown his intent to run although he has not officially thrown his hat into the ring. Newt Gingrich's intent has been more vague, but may include running for the Republican candidacy. This was a poll from Michigan only, but may represent a strong possible position for each of these non-candidates across the nation. There is still time before the primaries for each of these people to officially announce candidacy, only time will tell.

Making Friends

Via The New Republic:

Dick Armey, the House Republican majority leader when Bush took office (and no more a shrinking violet than DeLay), told me a story that captures the exquisite pettiness of most members of Congress and the arrogance that made Bush and Rove so inept at handling them. "For all the years he was president," Armey told me, "Bill Clinton and I had a little thing we'd do where every time I went to the White House, I would take the little name tag they give you and pass it to the president, who, without saying a word, would sign and date it. Bill Clinton and I didn't like each other. He said I was his least-favorite member of Congress. But he knew that when I left his office, the first schoolkid I came across would be given that card, and some kid who had come to Washington with his mama would go home with the president's autograph. I think Clinton thought it was a nice thing to do for some kid, and he was happy to do it." Armey said that when he went to his first meeting in the White House with President Bush, he explained the tradition with Clinton and asked the president if he would care to continue it. "Bush refused to sign the card. Rove, who was sitting across the table, said, 'It would probably wind up on eBay,'" Armey continued.

I know I just had something about Anecdotal Reporting, but I had to post this anway. I do see the irony, really.

The Middle Gets...Middler

Via Digby:

[T]hat sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety so many of us feel is a direct result of the conspicuous consumption of the fabulously wealthy overclass trickling down through society and making it necessary for people to constantly buy more, even as they are earning the same.

I suggest reading his full post. It shows a big psychological trick that many companies use to subtly trick people to buy more expensive things. A "good" salesman will always show you the most expensive thing, even if you cannot afford it because it makes everything else look poor in comparison. This is atrocious but, obviously, will never stop. By placing the most expensive items in an area that they will be seen first, people are made to feel that what they are getting is not as expensive because what they do get is only a fraction of the glamorous thing they saw cost. Well, I knew this kind of thing happened, but every time I hear what companies do to trick people, I get just a little bit more cynical. It'd be nice if a few big companies really went out of their way to supply people with what they need and not load them up on a bunch of unnecessaries for loads of extra money ( and I don't mean just saying they're doing that, I mean really doing it).

Karl Rove Resigns

Via NY Times:

Karl Rove, the political adviser who masterminded President George W. Bush’s two winning presidential campaigns and secured his own place in history as a political strategist with extraordinary influence within the White House, is resigning, the White House confirmed today.

I wish I could find the ding dong the witch is dead music, but, you'll just have to imagine it. The smear campaigns orchestrated by this man are only the main things that we know. I don't even want to know what else he's done... Despite this resignation, I'm sure we will see him again in a few months once the candidates are selected, watch the shadows behind the republican candidate, you'll see him. I do like this comment though, that he just tossed in there:

In his exit interview today, which was with the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot, Mr. Rove had a parting shot for his political nemeses, telling Mr. Gigot that he believed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the Democratic nominee but called her a “tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate,” and predicted a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential race. It is the sort of political boasting that had become Mr. Rove’s hallmark.

While I agree that it is very likely that Ms. Clinton will be the democratic candidate, I do not think she is fatally flawed nor do I think there is any reason to predict a republican victory. Despite that, we must not forget that it is possible, and cannot take a democratic victory for granted.

Anecdotal Reporting

via Media Matters:

Reporting by anecdote is how we got a president who doesn't windsurf, doesn't order the "wrong" kind of cheesesteak, doesn't wear earth tones, doesn't sigh, and doesn't exaggerate* -- but who does lie to the nation on the way to war, spy on Americans, torture people, threaten to veto health care for children, allow arsenic in our drinking water, politicize the Justice Department, take an à la carte approach to the Constitution ("I'll have the Second Amendment and a little bit of the 10th, but hold the First, Fourth through Sixth, and the Eighth, please") and generally behave like a despot.

So, you know, there's a downside.

This is a great article, and, as such, I don't think it needs any little comment.

Al Qaeda: Combatants or Criminals

Via NY Times:

THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals. [...]

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited. [...]

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

I have the distinct feeling that he doesn't read what he writes. He says that Al Qaeda should not be labeled as combatants but should just be criminals (who are citizens, btw) and then says that combatants can't attack citizens (purposely). The military should not be simple police, catching criminals is not their job. The military's purpose is to engage an enemy combatant force and quell it. There is a vast difference between peacemaking and policing. Now, this wouldn't bother me if it was just some conservative nutjob, or random ranter, but this is Wes Clark ("the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles."). He also was drafted into the Democratic Part nomination in 2003 although he dropped out in 2004 to support John Kerry. Clearly, this is a person who should be able to offer some insight into foreign relations, especially those dealing with military conflict. Sadly, we must put General Clark into the crazy box and shake our heads a the nonsense people will say.

The Nuclear Option

Via NY Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has criticized Senator Barack Obama for saying he would rule out using nuclear weapons to root out terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, made a similar comment regarding Iran last year, before she became a presidential candidate.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006 [...]

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was responding to a specific news report at the time that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, he said, was different than the scenario raised last week by Mr. Obama.

“Senator Clinton was not talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate,” Mr. Singer said.

Well, the "flip-flop" and double standard comments are sure to come soon. While nuclear weapons cause horrible consequences, it surely stops pretty much any nation from doing what they're doing. As much as I dislike saying it, Hillary Clinton is wrong in both of these cases. In Obama's circumstance, it is not a nation we would need to attack, it is a group hiding in mountains. Even a well aimed nuke would not stop a group that is not necessarily reliant on a command structure. If anything, an attack like that would show desperation and embolden our enemies. With Ms. Clinton's situation it is a nation, and I believe nothing should be removed from the table in that situation.

Is Obama Black enough?

via Media Matters:

an all-white group discussed an upcoming forum at a National Association of Black Journalists convention that will address, according to the convention program -- as quoted by The Washington Post -- the question Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cannot seem to shake -- is he black enough? Is this an unfair question? What is the measure of blackness and who gets to decide?" Host Tucker Carlson asked A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter: "What exactly do people mean when they talk about Obama's quote, "blackness"?

Well, that's surely an interesting question. This brings up a point that was more of an issue during the pre-civil rights era; will, or even should, someone of mixed ancestry be accepted by one of the groups, both, or neither? Now, I thought we were past this, but apparently the conservative right won't let it go. Reading the transcript from that site, it is clear that these people believe that neither will fully accept him. Of the total American population, I would agree, a large minority of both groups would probably reject him because of this fact alone, but most of this minority are either conservatives, republicans, or independents who would vote republican anyway. I guess I just have to believe that the liberals and democrats are past this and the fact that Obama is black, but not all black, and the fact that Hillary is a woman will not be more important than their policy decisions.

Complaints about George Bush...to George Bush

via NY Times:

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain. “I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here,” they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters[...] “It wears on his heart,” Mr. Kaufman said, “and his soul.”

Aww, poor #41, I guess it's sad to watch your child squander the legacy of your name, and not just your family name, but your first name along with it!

Bush had Lyme disease

via NewsObserver.com:

President Bush was treated for Lyme disease last August, the White House announced Wednesday after failing to disclose the problem for nearly a year.

Which wouldn't be such a big deal, except for some of the symptoms of Lyme Disease:

The disease varies widely in its presentation, which may include a rash and flu-like symptoms in its initial stage, followed by the possibility of musculoskeletal, arthritic, neurologic, psychiatric and cardiac manifestations. In most cases of Lyme disease, symptoms can be eliminated with antibiotics, especially if treatment is begun early in the course of illness.

A percentage of patients with Lyme disease have symptoms that last months to years after treatment with antibiotics. These symptoms can include muscle and joint pains, arthritis, stiff neck, cognitive defects, neurological complaints or fatigue. The cause of these continuing symptoms is not yet known...

Neurologic? Psychiatric? Why did we just find this out? My guess is that the administration did not want anything else out there that would hurt the president. Poor policy and management is bad for a president, but having a disease that could possibly lead to psychiatric problems, now that's really bad. At least he's got an excuse for being crazy now...

Negative Clinton

Via Media Matters:

...NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell referred to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that 39 percent of respondents said they "feel positive" toward Clinton on the issue of her "warmth and compassion," while 30 percent said they "feel negative." Saying that Clinton's "negatives are still so high on warmth and compassion," Mitchell asserted that Clinton "has to show some personality and some likability, because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past."

Well, I guess that's reasonable, and, obviously, it is something candidates have to pay attention to, but I guess it's just disappointing that this kind of thing is so important to a campaign. I would rather see a president that I can respect from a distance and that I feel will be authoritative than someone who I want as a friend.