As the democratic primary is approching rather quickly, I thought that it was high time I start an on-going series about this year’s election. I’ll try not to focus too much on the races going on around the nation, but may increase the number of entries around election day.

Obviously, one of the hottest races in this year’s election season is that of the Senatorial fight between the two candidates from my own state of Connecticut: Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Lamont leading by thirteen points, which isn’t bad at all for a guy nobody knew six months ago. Lamont sure is adamant in his stance about Lieberman’s support for the war, and I don’t believe I’m alone in thinking that this is what’s helping Lamont the most. His other major issues seems to be the energy bill supported by Bush and Cheney, for which Lieberman voted, and universal health care.

However, I think Lamont has a major fault: no matter how many times he says he has a stance on other issues, he really is only focusing on the one issue. He hasn’t said a whole lot about anything else. Most of his campaign (at least, what I’ve seen) has focused on Lieberman’s closeness to the President. While this is all well and good, I want to know what Lamont will do for his constituents. I have only today heard Lamont’s ideas for universal health care, but I’m not sure it is enough. People are clinging to Lamont because they grew weary of the war, and that has certainly helped him.
Continue reading →

I think J.K. Rowling should use that as the name of book seven, in place of “Harry Potter and Whatever This Part Will Be.”

George Bush, the man who seemed like he was going to enjoy a fairly quiet presidency, rocked by the events of 9/11. George Bush, the man who urged that the world rout out the Axis of Evil and other terrorists. George Bush, who led us through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And George Bush, the decider, deciding on a complete reversal of the course he set in 2001.

As some of you may know, the President, along with Tony Blair, is urging that a U.N. backed peacekeeping force be sent to southern Lebanon, right after a cease-fire is negotiated (1). He also recommended that foreign nations not interfere with this force. Add that to the fact the White House is now supporting Geneva Convention protections for Guantanamo detainees (2), and you can clearly see that something is going on in Washington.

Not that I’m against any of this at all. In fact, I would embrace both measures with open arms, as would I’m sure many people. However, why the complete switch in foreign policy? Back in 2003, the President was pushing for an international force to invade Iraq if they didn’t disarm. He certainly was not backing down from his position then.

Well, as anybody who can read a newspaper would know, the President is increasingly becoming unpopular, even within his own party. Any decision a President makes ultimately creates an image for his party, whether or not the rest of them would act the same way. It’s a waterfall affect; the ill starts at the top, and spreads it way to the bottom. It happened with Clinton, and that’s probably part of the reason Bush won in 2000. So, I think the President is doing this in part to gain back support for the Republicans. They obviously want to stay in control of Congress. I think that if they lose either chamber in November, it will create a ripple effect that could potentially lead to a Democratic victory in 2008.

This is not the first time I’ve noticed this change in attitude. It has been going on for some time, since the start of the current tensions between us and Iran. If you did not notice, the President never ruled out invading Iran, but he never made it clear that the option was on the table. What he did make clear, in his last State of the Union address, was the the Iranians should rise up and combat their own government. Well, that was my interpretation, at least. You can make up your own mind:

And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. — Excerpt, Presidental State of the Union Address, 1/31/06

So, is this reversal of policy a good thing? Undoubtedly, it is the best thing he has done in six years. Is the President doing this for right reason, though? That is an answer that is a little murkier, but I think it may at least be part of the reason. Though he says he does not pay attention to opinion polls, the facts make me wonder otherwise. If it’s not public opinion, then it’s his standing among members of Congress. Something has caused him to change his mind. I do wonder how long it will last. Will the President keep going this course if the Republicans retain control of Congress is November? That remains to be seen, but I think there is a good chance that this would be the case. Even if his party retains control, he would again probably fall out of favor if he shifted course again.

While writing the last paragraph, something I learned in my college course about the Soviet Union came to mind. President Mikhail Gorbachyov also found himself in a similar situation with the party toward the end of his term. In order to appease the masses, he found himself having to switch from being more conservative to more liberal and back several times, since he feared for his position, while not wanting the Soviet Union to fall apart. The U.S. is nowhere near falling apart, but the Republican’s hold on Congress is near the tipping point. Therefore, and on a final note, it will be quite interesting to see what happens after November. Stay tuned to this spot for an update.

Ok, so it’s voting an amendment’s death, but I needed something catchy to cover two issues.

For those who don’t know, the Flag Desecration Amendment died in the Senate by one vote…yep, one. If it had passed, it would had been sent to the states for ratification. That was one close shave, in yet another attempt to legislate non-hurtful free speech. Like I said in my previous FDA entry, I’m against desecration myself. However, it is a form of free speech which has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be as such in the past, twice. I’m glad that it has been upheld, but it will probably be brought back against next session, given its close shave.
Continue reading →

I have a couple posts to attend to tonight. Since this topic is fresh on my mind, it’ll go first.

Do you want Internet Service Providers like Cox Cable, AT&T, and others to control where you can go on the Internet? Neither do I. That’s what opponents of network neutrality want, though. Or at least, something like that, once you’ve wiped away the hype. Maybe it’s not in the plans currently, but it could happen. Imagine some greedy executive declaring that users will no longer be able to access their competitor’s website. Or, that such an executive says that users who want to visit video-heavy websites like YouTube will have to pay extra to visit those websites, because they incur more bandwidth than, say, visiting this website.
Continue reading →

It’s not something you’ll find on the mainstream sources since they’re only going to announce anything that’s rock solid, but I was on the website TalkLeft earlier, which linked to an article from truthout.org:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

Obviously, an indictment doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily be proven guilty of anything, but it’s not exactly going to help Bush, especially after Libby’s indictment. It’ll be interesting to what, if anything, comes of this speculation.

In other news, which has come to mainstream sources, Cheney’s notes about Wilson’s op-ed article from a few years ago are being looked at:

Friday’s filing includes a photocopy of the article with Cheney’s notes written in the margins. According to the photocopy, Cheney scribbled four questions at the top of the page:

“Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?”

The annotations support the notion that Wilson’s op-ed piece drew the attention of Cheney and Libby, and “acutely focused” their attention on Wilson’s assertions “and on responding to those assertions,” the filing stated.

It’s funny that out of everything discussed pertaining to this new immigration bill, nobody from the Bush administration has mentioned national security. Everything else since September 11th has been about it (except perhaps gay rights and Medicare), so why not this? It’s interesting to watch the debate. But, that’s not what I’m writing about today.
Continue reading →

BBC: Iraq Bases Spur Questions Over US Plans

The national sources are finally picking up what a Journal Inquirer reporter had in the paper a week ago.

So, our fine President says that we’re in Iraq for the long haul, but how exactly long is a long haul? Long enough to establish a permanent presence there? Well, today I thought I’d review an article I read in my local newspaper yesterday. Note that this isn’t an article I’ve read in any national news source as of yet, so good luck finding it. However, if you’re interested, join me and “Continue Reading” to find out if there’s something we’re just not hearing…
Continue reading →