From BOR I see that Texas will have no leadership positions in the next Congress thanks to Tom DeLay. That is assuming the Democrats retake control as looks increasingly likely.
If they succeed, no Texans are in line to be chairmen of House committees. DeLay helped send four of the state's most senior members packing when he orchestrated a wholesale redrawing of Texas' congressional districts in 2003.
...
But if they had remained in office and Democrats took control, Texas would have three committee chairmen.
Frost would become chairman of the Rules Committee, which decides which bills and amendments get a vote.
Former Rep. Charlie Stenholm would head up the Agriculture Committee. Jim Turner would lead the Homeland Security Committee, which oversees border enforcement agencies.
Gee, thanks, Tom!
As Karl says at BOR: "DeLay was never interested in doing what was best for Texas. It was all about power for himself and the Republican Party."
Saturday, October 21, 2006
E-N endorses incumbents/Republicans
The San Antonio Express-News has reluctantly endorsed Henry Bonilla in the newly drawn 23rd Congressional District.
We reluctantly recommend Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla, but encourage him to be more responsive to the needs of his district, including the San Antonio area.
Idiots!! There are several well qualified Democratic challengers in this race including former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, businessman/rancher Lukin Gilliland and veteran firefighter Albert Uresti (also the brother of State Sen. Carlos Uresti.) So if they are disappointed with Bonilla, why not consider them? Here is their lame reasoning:
It's unfortunate that none of Bonilla's opponents exhibits the combination of leadership and preparedness necessary to replace him...
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!? Like Bonilla, a former TV newscaster, was so prepared to go to Congress when he was first elected. And Ciro has already been in Congress. As for leadership, Bonilla is not going to do a lot of that when the Republicans fall back into the minority as is almost assuredly going to happen this election.
But this endorsement fits with their policy which can be summed as such: Endorse every incumbent and/or Republican on the ballot. The sole exception was for one of the state Supreme Court races where they are backing Bill Moody against an unqualified Rick Perry appointee.
I'm really disgusted with the E-N editorial board. They are spineless on most issues and the few that they have stood up and taken a stand on are clearly undercut by their endorsements which scream out that they are perfectly happy with the status quo and want more of it.
I have no doubt that tomorrow they will endorse Rick Perry for governor. You can bank on it.
So much for the so-called liberal media.
We reluctantly recommend Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla, but encourage him to be more responsive to the needs of his district, including the San Antonio area.
Idiots!! There are several well qualified Democratic challengers in this race including former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, businessman/rancher Lukin Gilliland and veteran firefighter Albert Uresti (also the brother of State Sen. Carlos Uresti.) So if they are disappointed with Bonilla, why not consider them? Here is their lame reasoning:
It's unfortunate that none of Bonilla's opponents exhibits the combination of leadership and preparedness necessary to replace him...
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!? Like Bonilla, a former TV newscaster, was so prepared to go to Congress when he was first elected. And Ciro has already been in Congress. As for leadership, Bonilla is not going to do a lot of that when the Republicans fall back into the minority as is almost assuredly going to happen this election.
But this endorsement fits with their policy which can be summed as such: Endorse every incumbent and/or Republican on the ballot. The sole exception was for one of the state Supreme Court races where they are backing Bill Moody against an unqualified Rick Perry appointee.
I'm really disgusted with the E-N editorial board. They are spineless on most issues and the few that they have stood up and taken a stand on are clearly undercut by their endorsements which scream out that they are perfectly happy with the status quo and want more of it.
I have no doubt that tomorrow they will endorse Rick Perry for governor. You can bank on it.
So much for the so-called liberal media.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Old School
I have GOT to get THIS!!!
"Sesame Street: Old School Volume 1: 1969-1974" (List price: $39.98)
Release Date: Oct. 24
Those are the years when I was a kid watching Sesame Street. Classic!
Governor’s races
It has long frustrated me that so many reliably “Blue” states today have Republican governors. For instance, I don’t think you can come up with a grouping of more liberal states than this: Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, Massachussetts, Connecticut, Maryland, California, Minnesota. And what do all these states have in common? They all currently have Republican governors.
That is definitely going to change in a couple of weeks - in New York and Massachusetts for sure, and maybe in Maryland and Minnesota as well.
In recent years, though, Democrats have managed to make similar inroads on traditionally “Red” states. Here is a grouping of reliably red states that all voted for Bush and all of which currently have Democratic governors: Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Louisiana.
The upcoming mid-term elections are looking good for Democrats all around, but especially in the gubernatorial contests. Democrats seem to be on track to win governors races in Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Maryland, Minnesota and New York. The WaPost columnist has already declared the New York race over saying “The fat lady has sung, showered and is currently sitting on her sofa watching "Desperate Housewives." State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) will be New York's next governor.”
Democrats also seem certain to maintain governor’s seats in Wisconsin, Maine, Michigan, Iowa and Oregon.
And all of this leads to me current frustration, that being why Texas can’t be part of this partisan sea change that seems to be taking place. It’s almost like the Red tide that engulfed the country 12 years ago is finally receding, but is still drowning us here in Texas. Rick Perry is an exceedingly unpopular governor and by all rights should be shown the door by the electorate on Nov. 7. But instead it looks like he is about to two-step his way to an easy victory with less than 40 percent of the vote.
Maybe the sea change will finally catch up to the Lone Star state during the next election cycle, but it would sure be nice to see some evidence of the shift taking place here next month.
That is definitely going to change in a couple of weeks - in New York and Massachusetts for sure, and maybe in Maryland and Minnesota as well.
In recent years, though, Democrats have managed to make similar inroads on traditionally “Red” states. Here is a grouping of reliably red states that all voted for Bush and all of which currently have Democratic governors: Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Louisiana.
The upcoming mid-term elections are looking good for Democrats all around, but especially in the gubernatorial contests. Democrats seem to be on track to win governors races in Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Maryland, Minnesota and New York. The WaPost columnist has already declared the New York race over saying “The fat lady has sung, showered and is currently sitting on her sofa watching "Desperate Housewives." State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) will be New York's next governor.”
Democrats also seem certain to maintain governor’s seats in Wisconsin, Maine, Michigan, Iowa and Oregon.
And all of this leads to me current frustration, that being why Texas can’t be part of this partisan sea change that seems to be taking place. It’s almost like the Red tide that engulfed the country 12 years ago is finally receding, but is still drowning us here in Texas. Rick Perry is an exceedingly unpopular governor and by all rights should be shown the door by the electorate on Nov. 7. But instead it looks like he is about to two-step his way to an easy victory with less than 40 percent of the vote.
Maybe the sea change will finally catch up to the Lone Star state during the next election cycle, but it would sure be nice to see some evidence of the shift taking place here next month.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tolerant blogging
In the middle of a rather lengthy thread over at All Things Conservative a comment was made that liberals don’t tolerate conservatives commenting on their blogs to the same degree that the reverse is true. My friend Mark Harden went so far as to make the following challenge:
I would like to issue a challenge to any liberal commentators here to identify and link to a left wing blog - other than Mike's - which displays the same sort of interactive debate with minimal abuse. I sure haven't seen one.
While I appreciate that I was singled out as the exception, I think there are any number of sites that are tolerant of diverse opinions on both sides of the spectrum. But rather than throwing out a long list of links, I would like to step back and look over my experience blogging these past four years.
My first blog post was made on Jan. 10, 2003, when absolutely no one else was reading this site besides myself. (Not that there are very many more people reading it today.) The first bloggers I came across were fellow liberals like the college activists at Burnt Orange Report, who were nice enough to link me up even though I am an Aggie, and Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff who was then trying to make a comprehensive survey of the political blogging landscape in Texas.
But while BOR and Kuff are excellent sites and daily reads for me, I have to admit that commenting there was not very interesting since I agreed with most of what was being said.
More interesting, I thought, was to find people with different views who could challenge my perception of the world and who would be open to a debate. I was a debater in high school and always enjoyed the rigorous give-and-take that it entailed.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that not only were there a lot of conservatives out there, which I expected, but many were open to having intellectual discussions that did not devolve into name-calling and insults. I was also surprised to find that many of the conservative sites tended to be more apt to give me a reciprocal link which was very much appreciated in those early days.
Many of those sites are no longer around, unfortunately, including Mark’s InSane Antonio which he inexplicably shut down two years ago. Others that are now missing in action include Joe Kelley's The Sake Of Argument; BeldarBlog; Reductio Ad Absurdum; and Owen Courreges. I used to have lengthy debates with Owen over the Texas House Redistricting controversy. Today he is apparently working at a libertarian think tank and attending law school.
Some conservative blogs that are still around which are open to debate include my friend Rantin’ Raven’s The View From the Nest; Jimmy K.’s but that's just my opinion and my fellow Aggies who run the popular Boots & Sabers blog.
And, of course, there is Bill Crawford’s invaluable ATC.
One more that I should mention is Roscoe’s Excuse. I met Roscoe at the San Antonio Blogger BBQ last year that Ranting Raven organized. However, while I like to read his blog, I rarely comment there because as he aptly explains in his introduction to the site:
“This is not an "argument" blog nor is it a "debate" blog. Heck, it's not even a "discussion" blog. It's all about me, my views, attitudes, and opinions. Any comments left here that are overly critical of me, of my opinions, or of those I choose to embrace will simply be deleted. Get your own soap box to stand on if you want to, this one's mine.”
Fair enough.
I’m not going to name names, but there have been some conservative blogs, local and statewide, that made it quite clear that my comments were not welcome and I have avoided them ever since.
Also, in some cases it took a little effort on my part before I felt welcome at some sites. In some cases, I was not recieved well at first until the blog site owner came to understand that I was not a “troll” coming to take potshots at them. Once they understood that I was respectful of their views, they were more willing to tolerate my dissenting opinions.
I would like to issue a challenge to any liberal commentators here to identify and link to a left wing blog - other than Mike's - which displays the same sort of interactive debate with minimal abuse. I sure haven't seen one.
While I appreciate that I was singled out as the exception, I think there are any number of sites that are tolerant of diverse opinions on both sides of the spectrum. But rather than throwing out a long list of links, I would like to step back and look over my experience blogging these past four years.
My first blog post was made on Jan. 10, 2003, when absolutely no one else was reading this site besides myself. (Not that there are very many more people reading it today.) The first bloggers I came across were fellow liberals like the college activists at Burnt Orange Report, who were nice enough to link me up even though I am an Aggie, and Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff who was then trying to make a comprehensive survey of the political blogging landscape in Texas.
But while BOR and Kuff are excellent sites and daily reads for me, I have to admit that commenting there was not very interesting since I agreed with most of what was being said.
More interesting, I thought, was to find people with different views who could challenge my perception of the world and who would be open to a debate. I was a debater in high school and always enjoyed the rigorous give-and-take that it entailed.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that not only were there a lot of conservatives out there, which I expected, but many were open to having intellectual discussions that did not devolve into name-calling and insults. I was also surprised to find that many of the conservative sites tended to be more apt to give me a reciprocal link which was very much appreciated in those early days.
Many of those sites are no longer around, unfortunately, including Mark’s InSane Antonio which he inexplicably shut down two years ago. Others that are now missing in action include Joe Kelley's The Sake Of Argument; BeldarBlog; Reductio Ad Absurdum; and Owen Courreges. I used to have lengthy debates with Owen over the Texas House Redistricting controversy. Today he is apparently working at a libertarian think tank and attending law school.
Some conservative blogs that are still around which are open to debate include my friend Rantin’ Raven’s The View From the Nest; Jimmy K.’s but that's just my opinion and my fellow Aggies who run the popular Boots & Sabers blog.
And, of course, there is Bill Crawford’s invaluable ATC.
One more that I should mention is Roscoe’s Excuse. I met Roscoe at the San Antonio Blogger BBQ last year that Ranting Raven organized. However, while I like to read his blog, I rarely comment there because as he aptly explains in his introduction to the site:
“This is not an "argument" blog nor is it a "debate" blog. Heck, it's not even a "discussion" blog. It's all about me, my views, attitudes, and opinions. Any comments left here that are overly critical of me, of my opinions, or of those I choose to embrace will simply be deleted. Get your own soap box to stand on if you want to, this one's mine.”
Fair enough.
I’m not going to name names, but there have been some conservative blogs, local and statewide, that made it quite clear that my comments were not welcome and I have avoided them ever since.
Also, in some cases it took a little effort on my part before I felt welcome at some sites. In some cases, I was not recieved well at first until the blog site owner came to understand that I was not a “troll” coming to take potshots at them. Once they understood that I was respectful of their views, they were more willing to tolerate my dissenting opinions.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Worst.Congress.Ever
Rolling Stone has an entertaining read this week on our current crop of Congress critters. They even put together a 10-worst list beginning with Speaker Denny Hastert, probably the most ineffective speaker since Democrat Thomas Foley (no relation to Republican Mark Foley).
Thomas Foley, of course, was the Washington Democrat who led the party into their version of Little Big Horn in 1994 when Newt Gingrich and his band of wild Indians slaughtered 54 of them and even walked away with Foley’s scalp.
But today, Hastert is leading a Congress that is even more unpopular than the Democrats were in 1994.
Republicans are counting on the inherent flaws in our democratic system to help them maintain power - the gerrymandered districts, the financial and logistical advantages incumbents have over their challengers, and so forth.
It could still work. The polls seemed to favor John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race and yet he still fell short on election day. Although, Ohio, the swing-state in that election, seems to have had a serious change of heart recently.
Thomas Foley, of course, was the Washington Democrat who led the party into their version of Little Big Horn in 1994 when Newt Gingrich and his band of wild Indians slaughtered 54 of them and even walked away with Foley’s scalp.
But today, Hastert is leading a Congress that is even more unpopular than the Democrats were in 1994.
Republicans are counting on the inherent flaws in our democratic system to help them maintain power - the gerrymandered districts, the financial and logistical advantages incumbents have over their challengers, and so forth.
It could still work. The polls seemed to favor John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race and yet he still fell short on election day. Although, Ohio, the swing-state in that election, seems to have had a serious change of heart recently.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Too little, too late
Something I wanted to comment on the other day but did not have time to, was the $1 million cash infusion into Chris Bell's struggling gubernatorial campaign by a wealthy trial lawyer and Bell's pathetic, and definitely unheeded plea to Kinky Friedman to drop out of the race and endorse him.
Both items are too little, too late in my opinion. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Rick Perry is going to waltz into re-election with possibly under 40 percent of the vote while the troika of challengers split the rest.
The fact that Perry could be that unpopular and still win re-election so easily is a sad testament to the state of our democracy. Why they cannot have a runoff in a race this important is beyond me, but it is clearly a disservice to the electorate. We are getting screwed.
Meanwhile, I think too much of our electoral process goes toward these countless judicial and administative positions which should all be appointed anyway. Why do we need to elect a county clerk or even a tax collector? And all these judges that nobody pays any attention to. Let's have them appointed and leave the voting for representative positions like city council, county commissioners, state reps and Congress critters. Then maybe people's eyes wouldn't glaze over when they get their ballots and they might even cast their votes more intelligently.
Both items are too little, too late in my opinion. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Rick Perry is going to waltz into re-election with possibly under 40 percent of the vote while the troika of challengers split the rest.
The fact that Perry could be that unpopular and still win re-election so easily is a sad testament to the state of our democracy. Why they cannot have a runoff in a race this important is beyond me, but it is clearly a disservice to the electorate. We are getting screwed.
Meanwhile, I think too much of our electoral process goes toward these countless judicial and administative positions which should all be appointed anyway. Why do we need to elect a county clerk or even a tax collector? And all these judges that nobody pays any attention to. Let's have them appointed and leave the voting for representative positions like city council, county commissioners, state reps and Congress critters. Then maybe people's eyes wouldn't glaze over when they get their ballots and they might even cast their votes more intelligently.
Agreeing with Gurwitz
Jonathan Gurwitz had a column earlier this week that I almost fully agree with. With the exception of a gratuitous knock at Democrats as "anemic and philosophically barren" towards the end of the column, I would have to say that I agree with it nearly 100 percent.
The scandal is that colleagues who had some inkling that Foley was engaging in inappropriate behavior — to give his Republican cohorts a very generous benefit of the doubt — did nothing to seriously confront him and failed to fully investigate the matter.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. John Shimkus, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, may have had a good grasp of Foley's turpitude for months. They may have hoped Foley's proclivities would simply fade away or at least be kept quiet until after the midterm election.
More likely, Hastert and others simply deemed what they thought was Foley's inordinate interest in pages as an acceptable bending of the rules. Some members of Congress shower their attention on lobbyists and special interest groups. Some have a weakness for travel, others for Louis Philippe period commodes. "So what," they might have thought, "if Foley's special interest is well-groomed young men?"
Either explanation gets to the essence of the GOP's problem: the abandonment of principle.
And that abandonment is certainly costing them in the polls. As many as 20 to 30 House seats have shifted toward the Democrats since the Foley scandal broke.
Political scientist Larry Sabato on his Crystal Ball blog is now predicting that the Democrats will win the majority in the House next month. He has 11 Republican-held seats now leaning toward Democrats and another 16 Republican-held seats are rated as tossups. If they truly are tossups, that would mean at least half would go Democratic giving the Democrats a net gain of 17 seats at the minimum. They need only 15 to take control.
Can you say - Speaker Pelosi? Better get used to it.
The scandal is that colleagues who had some inkling that Foley was engaging in inappropriate behavior — to give his Republican cohorts a very generous benefit of the doubt — did nothing to seriously confront him and failed to fully investigate the matter.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. John Shimkus, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, may have had a good grasp of Foley's turpitude for months. They may have hoped Foley's proclivities would simply fade away or at least be kept quiet until after the midterm election.
More likely, Hastert and others simply deemed what they thought was Foley's inordinate interest in pages as an acceptable bending of the rules. Some members of Congress shower their attention on lobbyists and special interest groups. Some have a weakness for travel, others for Louis Philippe period commodes. "So what," they might have thought, "if Foley's special interest is well-groomed young men?"
Either explanation gets to the essence of the GOP's problem: the abandonment of principle.
And that abandonment is certainly costing them in the polls. As many as 20 to 30 House seats have shifted toward the Democrats since the Foley scandal broke.
Political scientist Larry Sabato on his Crystal Ball blog is now predicting that the Democrats will win the majority in the House next month. He has 11 Republican-held seats now leaning toward Democrats and another 16 Republican-held seats are rated as tossups. If they truly are tossups, that would mean at least half would go Democratic giving the Democrats a net gain of 17 seats at the minimum. They need only 15 to take control.
Can you say - Speaker Pelosi? Better get used to it.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Bonilla's bin Laden ad
Now back to that mailing I got from Henry Bonilla. It was rather odd, to say the least. On the front page is a grouping of three photos of beared Arabic men wearing turbans. One of the men pictured is obviously Osama bin Laden. The caption says “For Men Like These, America is Still a Target”.
My first thought on reading this was to say “Sure, because President Bush failed to capture them after 9/11.”
Do the Republicans really think reminding us that bin Laden is still loose is a good campaign strategy? Apparently so.
Another smaller picture in the ad is of another high-ranking al-Qaeda figure whose name I can’t recall.
But the third picture is of the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who founded the Mahdi Militia or Mahdi Army
in Iraq.
There are several problems with this. First, al-Sadr has no connection to al-Qaeda. But that has never stopped Republicans from trying to tie Iraq to 9-11. Second, you would think that if they are going to try and force this link they would at least pick a guy who was one of the Baathists affiliated with Saddam Hussein. But the Baathists were all Sunnis and this guy is a Shiite cleric. Third, while the Mahdi Army is a problem for our troops in Iraq, saying that they consider the continental United States a target of their aggression is a bit of a stretch. This guy is only fighting with us because we are in his country and he wants us out. He never had any intention of coming over here and attacking us.
I figure that when they were putting the ad together they had a picture of the Sunni militant Al-Zarqawi filling that slot. But when he was killed, they were trying to find someone else to fill that spot. I'm sure they figured any old guy in a turban would do.
My first thought on reading this was to say “Sure, because President Bush failed to capture them after 9/11.”
Do the Republicans really think reminding us that bin Laden is still loose is a good campaign strategy? Apparently so.
Another smaller picture in the ad is of another high-ranking al-Qaeda figure whose name I can’t recall.
But the third picture is of the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who founded the Mahdi Militia or Mahdi Army
in Iraq.
There are several problems with this. First, al-Sadr has no connection to al-Qaeda. But that has never stopped Republicans from trying to tie Iraq to 9-11. Second, you would think that if they are going to try and force this link they would at least pick a guy who was one of the Baathists affiliated with Saddam Hussein. But the Baathists were all Sunnis and this guy is a Shiite cleric. Third, while the Mahdi Army is a problem for our troops in Iraq, saying that they consider the continental United States a target of their aggression is a bit of a stretch. This guy is only fighting with us because we are in his country and he wants us out. He never had any intention of coming over here and attacking us.
I figure that when they were putting the ad together they had a picture of the Sunni militant Al-Zarqawi filling that slot. But when he was killed, they were trying to find someone else to fill that spot. I'm sure they figured any old guy in a turban would do.
A real congressional race
I got my first campaign mailing from Henry Bonilla the other day, but more on that later. I live in the 23rd Congessional District which was impacted by the recent Supreme Court decision on redistricting. Bonilla is the closest thing to an incumbent in the race and the only Republican. Meanwhile, a whole host of Democrats are in the race with varying degrees of support.
At first, I thought former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez would be the best bet for a credible challenger to Bonilla. But after his hesitant off-again, on-again start to the campaign I’m not so sure anymore. Plus he has the definite aura of a has-been after first losing his congressional seat and then failing to win it back in a rematch with DINO Henry Cuellar.
Another credible contender in the race is Albert Uresti, brother of Carlos Uresti who recently won a Texas Senate seat.
But right now I am most impressed with Lukin Gilliland. He seems to be the best financed and most serious challenger to date. I’ve gotten mailings from his campaign, at least one phone call and I am starting to see signs for him go up everywhere. He is also on TV with some positive, biographical spots.
I’m basically an Anybody But Bonilla voter, so I will support any Democrat who gets into a runoff with Bonilla.
At first, I thought former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez would be the best bet for a credible challenger to Bonilla. But after his hesitant off-again, on-again start to the campaign I’m not so sure anymore. Plus he has the definite aura of a has-been after first losing his congressional seat and then failing to win it back in a rematch with DINO Henry Cuellar.
Another credible contender in the race is Albert Uresti, brother of Carlos Uresti who recently won a Texas Senate seat.
But right now I am most impressed with Lukin Gilliland. He seems to be the best financed and most serious challenger to date. I’ve gotten mailings from his campaign, at least one phone call and I am starting to see signs for him go up everywhere. He is also on TV with some positive, biographical spots.
I’m basically an Anybody But Bonilla voter, so I will support any Democrat who gets into a runoff with Bonilla.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Baseball playoffs
George Steinbrenner was smart to keep Joe Torre as the manager of the Yankees. It would have been nuts to get rid of him. He is an incredible manager and I imagine about 90 percent of the teams in baseball would have been ready to snap him up had Steinbrenner given him the heave-ho.
You don't just ditch a Hall-of-Fame caliber manager because you don't win the World Series every single year. I just remember what happened to my beloved Cincinnatti Reds in the late '70s when they decided to get rid of Sparky Anderson. They didn't make it back to the World Series for more than a decade and they had to sit back and watch Sparky take his new team - the Detroit Tigers - all the way to the top.
The Yankees' problem right now is that they have a lot of talent, but they are lacking the chemistry or the spark that makes it all gel together. That chemistry is more important than having superstars. The Yankees of 1998-2000 proved that when they dominated the game for three years with a bunch of unknowns like Scott Brosius, Paul O'Neil, Tino Hernandez and Chuck Knoblauch. The only guys left from that era are Derek Jeter and Mario Rivera. So they still have to find that spark again that they lost around the time that they got rid of Knoblauch. But they sure won't find it any faster by dumping Joe Torre.
As for the playoffs, now that the Yankees are out of it I can whole-heartedly back the Detroit Tigers. They are long overdue for another championship and they have put together a heck of a good team with one of my favorite players - former Texas Ranger Ivan Rodriguez leading the way once again. Pudge is reunited with his Florida Marlins manager Jim Leyland who, kind of like Sparky, seems to find a way to get to the World Series no matter who he is coaching.
I'm rather indifferent as to whether the Cards or the Mets should win the National League championship. I was pulling for the Padres since they are the new affiliate for the San Antonio Missions, but now I'll just root for the Tigers all the way.
You don't just ditch a Hall-of-Fame caliber manager because you don't win the World Series every single year. I just remember what happened to my beloved Cincinnatti Reds in the late '70s when they decided to get rid of Sparky Anderson. They didn't make it back to the World Series for more than a decade and they had to sit back and watch Sparky take his new team - the Detroit Tigers - all the way to the top.
The Yankees' problem right now is that they have a lot of talent, but they are lacking the chemistry or the spark that makes it all gel together. That chemistry is more important than having superstars. The Yankees of 1998-2000 proved that when they dominated the game for three years with a bunch of unknowns like Scott Brosius, Paul O'Neil, Tino Hernandez and Chuck Knoblauch. The only guys left from that era are Derek Jeter and Mario Rivera. So they still have to find that spark again that they lost around the time that they got rid of Knoblauch. But they sure won't find it any faster by dumping Joe Torre.
As for the playoffs, now that the Yankees are out of it I can whole-heartedly back the Detroit Tigers. They are long overdue for another championship and they have put together a heck of a good team with one of my favorite players - former Texas Ranger Ivan Rodriguez leading the way once again. Pudge is reunited with his Florida Marlins manager Jim Leyland who, kind of like Sparky, seems to find a way to get to the World Series no matter who he is coaching.
I'm rather indifferent as to whether the Cards or the Mets should win the National League championship. I was pulling for the Padres since they are the new affiliate for the San Antonio Missions, but now I'll just root for the Tigers all the way.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Everything is worse
Can anyone name one thing that has actually gotten better as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration? And I mean something that has gotten better that doesn’t have a correspondingly awful downside, like tax cuts.
Iraq is worse. Iran is worse. North Korea is worse. In fact, since Bush linked the three countries as the “Axis of Evil” at the start of the administration, they have all turned into foreign policy debacles.
As if that were not bad enough, the terrorism threat has gotten worse according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate and, of course, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Meanwhile, our military is stretched far beyond its means, our reserves and our National Guard have been exhausted and we are unprepared if any new threats suddenly emerge.
The economy has stank throughout the Bush tenure, with job growth mostly stagnant and wages unable to keep up with inflation. Meanwhile, health care premiums have continued to skyrocket and gas prices have sat around $3 a gallon for the better part of a year.
The immigration problem has continued to fester. FEMA went from being a first-rate government agency to a disaster waiting to happen - staffed with incompetent administration cronies. New Orleans, of course, is much, much worse.
Then, of course, the deficit and the national deficit are both worse. The public’s opinion of Congress is probably at an all-time low as corruption and incompetence have been the themes of this administration.
Surely there is something this administration has done that is positive, but I can’t think of anything right now.
Iraq is worse. Iran is worse. North Korea is worse. In fact, since Bush linked the three countries as the “Axis of Evil” at the start of the administration, they have all turned into foreign policy debacles.
As if that were not bad enough, the terrorism threat has gotten worse according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate and, of course, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Meanwhile, our military is stretched far beyond its means, our reserves and our National Guard have been exhausted and we are unprepared if any new threats suddenly emerge.
The economy has stank throughout the Bush tenure, with job growth mostly stagnant and wages unable to keep up with inflation. Meanwhile, health care premiums have continued to skyrocket and gas prices have sat around $3 a gallon for the better part of a year.
The immigration problem has continued to fester. FEMA went from being a first-rate government agency to a disaster waiting to happen - staffed with incompetent administration cronies. New Orleans, of course, is much, much worse.
Then, of course, the deficit and the national deficit are both worse. The public’s opinion of Congress is probably at an all-time low as corruption and incompetence have been the themes of this administration.
Surely there is something this administration has done that is positive, but I can’t think of anything right now.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Truth does not matter
This effort by Republicans to shift the blame for the Foley scandal onto Democrats is the most pathetic thing I've seen in years. And yet it is very typical of right-wing strategy these days. The fact that they have no evidence to back up the charge does not matter. What the Republican strategists understand is that all they need to do is throw out the charge - regardless of its veracity - and then the media will dutifully report it and the rank and file dittoheads will buy it. The truth does not matter, they just need the charge to be out there and that will be enough to keep their core constituency on board.
Perfect timing
If the Democrats retake the House, as looks more and more likely, the political dynamic in Washington will shift decidely.
It is a good time for the Democrats to regain the majority at this time. They've been lost in the wilderness long enough - 12 years - to fully appreciate what it means to be back in the majority, while at the same time they are not so far from when they last lost power - 1994 - that they have no institutional memory of it.
This is good because it means there should be enough Democrats who remember the mistakes that were made prior to 1994 so that they are less likely to repeat them. Plus they have the fine example set by the corrupt GOP as a kind of How-Not-To-Govern Guide.
It is a good time for the Democrats to regain the majority at this time. They've been lost in the wilderness long enough - 12 years - to fully appreciate what it means to be back in the majority, while at the same time they are not so far from when they last lost power - 1994 - that they have no institutional memory of it.
This is good because it means there should be enough Democrats who remember the mistakes that were made prior to 1994 so that they are less likely to repeat them. Plus they have the fine example set by the corrupt GOP as a kind of How-Not-To-Govern Guide.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Stay, Denny, Stay
If he were the leader of my party, I would want him gone. But for purely partisan political reasons, I hope that Denny Hastert sticks it out and remains in his position as Speaker of the House.
The longer Hastert remains in office, the longer this Mark Foley scandal will play out in the media. Questions about what Hastert knew and when will continue to be raised along with speculation that the Foley situation was purposefully kept under wraps to protect a Republican-held Congressional seat during an election year.
The fact that the Democrat on the House Page panel was kept in the dark about the Foley e-mails is the clearest indication that it was part of a cover-up. There is no other explanation. They were obviously concerned that the Democrat on the panel would not have the same partisan motivation for keeping the Foley story under wraps and might leak it to the press in an effort to damage his re-election chances. So they purposefully did not tell him about it.
So that is really all you need to understand about this situation. If it had been left up to the House Republican leadership, we would know nothing about this scandal today and Mark Foley would still be a member of Congress, free to pursue cybersex relationships with more high-school age children at the Capitol. That’s despicable and there is no way they can soft peddle it, blame it all on Bill Clinton, or anything else.
UPDATE
Hastert's decsion to stay put may be short-lived if too many more polls like this come out:
Internal Poll Shows Hastert Dragging Down GOP
"House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster", Fox News has learned.
Said the source: "The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker. And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."
The source also said "the internal data had not been widely shared among Republican leaders, but as awareness of it spreads calculations about Hastert's tenure may change. The source described the pollster who did the survey as 'authoritative,' and said once the numbers are presented, it 'could change the focus' on whether the speaker remains in power."
Stay, Denny, Stay!!!
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
(Sniff! Sniff!) Do you smell sulfur?
It looks like the Prince of Darkness himself made a stop in San Antonio the other day. Vice President Dick Cheney poked his head out of his undisclosed location to briefly offer support for one of his minions - Congressman Henry Bonilla.
The vice president's hour-plus appearance before 110 GOP supporters raised more than $200,000 for Bonilla
But as one would expect with a visit from the devil, trouble follows where ever he goes:
the vice president's visit here wasn't all upbeat.
The visit triggered a traffic nightmare for motorists caught in jams as police cordoned off streets and U.S. 281 exits to allow his nine-vehicle motorcade to maneuver unimpeded.
Cheney has worse approval ratings than President Bush, and that is not easy to do these days. So I hope he gets out and campaigns for more and more Republicans these next few weeks.
The vice president's hour-plus appearance before 110 GOP supporters raised more than $200,000 for Bonilla
But as one would expect with a visit from the devil, trouble follows where ever he goes:
the vice president's visit here wasn't all upbeat.
The visit triggered a traffic nightmare for motorists caught in jams as police cordoned off streets and U.S. 281 exits to allow his nine-vehicle motorcade to maneuver unimpeded.
Cheney has worse approval ratings than President Bush, and that is not easy to do these days. So I hope he gets out and campaigns for more and more Republicans these next few weeks.
Monday, October 02, 2006
The See No Evil Party
I was glad to see there are some conservatives who are at least as disgusted by the Foley scandal as I am.
If Hastert and other members of the House leadership knowingly covered up for a pedophile, then they should step down from the leadership. They have lost the credibility and trust needed to lead.
But they still want to give themselves wiggle room that they would most certainly not grant if the accused was a Democrat being protected by Democratic leaders in the House:
If, however, he saw some emails that were not nearly so cut and dry pedophilia but were clearly inappropriate, then I might cut him some slack.
I think it is clear that there were enough red lights going off early on to warn about Foley’s behavior that waiting for sexually explicit IMs to show up was a failure of leadership. I think it would not have taken too much prodding to find the nastier stuff, but they didn’t want to find out about it and thus chose not to look. That is inexcusable.
So when is Denny Hastert going to step down?
If Hastert and other members of the House leadership knowingly covered up for a pedophile, then they should step down from the leadership. They have lost the credibility and trust needed to lead.
But they still want to give themselves wiggle room that they would most certainly not grant if the accused was a Democrat being protected by Democratic leaders in the House:
If, however, he saw some emails that were not nearly so cut and dry pedophilia but were clearly inappropriate, then I might cut him some slack.
I think it is clear that there were enough red lights going off early on to warn about Foley’s behavior that waiting for sexually explicit IMs to show up was a failure of leadership. I think it would not have taken too much prodding to find the nastier stuff, but they didn’t want to find out about it and thus chose not to look. That is inexcusable.
So when is Denny Hastert going to step down?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Democratic Senate prospects
The race for control of the U.S. Senate is getting more interesting by the day.
The Democrats essentially need to pick up five seats to wrest control from the Republicans and so far there are at least four seats that have been looking real promising.
In Pennsylvania, incumbent Republican Rick Santorum has been down by double digits to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. for almost the entire race.
In Montana, Democrat John Tester is starting to pull away from scandal-plaugued incumbent Conrad Burns.
In Ohio, Democrat Sherrod Brown has consistently held a lead over incumbent Mike DeWine for some time now.
And in Rhode Island, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has been ahead of RINO Lincoln Chafee since July.
Meanwhile, two more races are looking better recently:
In Tennessee, Democrat Harold Ford has pulled ahead of Republican Bob Corker in the race to replace Bill Frist.
And in Virginia, Republican George Allen’s campaign is in a full-scale meltdown over allegations of his racist past. He still has a slight lead over his Democratic challenger James Webb, but that may not last much longer at this rate.
Then in Missouri, Democrat Claire McCaskill is in striking distance of Republican Jim Talent, who had a slender 1-point lead in the latest polls.
The one problem area for Democrats is in New Jersey where Democrat Robert Menendez has recently fallen behind Republican Tom Kean Jr. in the latest polls.
But Democrats are looking good in several other races that were thought to be potentially vulnerable earlier in the year:
In Maryland, Democrat Ben Cardin has a comfortable lead over Republican Michael Steele.
And in Minnesota, Democrat Amy Klobuchar looks like she will hold on to the open seat being vacated by Sen. Mark Dayton.
Also, in Washington, Maria Cantwell is well ahead of her Republican challenger.
So assuming the Democratic tide continues to rise it is not hard to imagine a Democratic takeover of the Senate, even with a loss in New Jersey.
The Democrats essentially need to pick up five seats to wrest control from the Republicans and so far there are at least four seats that have been looking real promising.
In Pennsylvania, incumbent Republican Rick Santorum has been down by double digits to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. for almost the entire race.
In Montana, Democrat John Tester is starting to pull away from scandal-plaugued incumbent Conrad Burns.
In Ohio, Democrat Sherrod Brown has consistently held a lead over incumbent Mike DeWine for some time now.
And in Rhode Island, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has been ahead of RINO Lincoln Chafee since July.
Meanwhile, two more races are looking better recently:
In Tennessee, Democrat Harold Ford has pulled ahead of Republican Bob Corker in the race to replace Bill Frist.
And in Virginia, Republican George Allen’s campaign is in a full-scale meltdown over allegations of his racist past. He still has a slight lead over his Democratic challenger James Webb, but that may not last much longer at this rate.
Then in Missouri, Democrat Claire McCaskill is in striking distance of Republican Jim Talent, who had a slender 1-point lead in the latest polls.
The one problem area for Democrats is in New Jersey where Democrat Robert Menendez has recently fallen behind Republican Tom Kean Jr. in the latest polls.
But Democrats are looking good in several other races that were thought to be potentially vulnerable earlier in the year:
In Maryland, Democrat Ben Cardin has a comfortable lead over Republican Michael Steele.
And in Minnesota, Democrat Amy Klobuchar looks like she will hold on to the open seat being vacated by Sen. Mark Dayton.
Also, in Washington, Maria Cantwell is well ahead of her Republican challenger.
So assuming the Democratic tide continues to rise it is not hard to imagine a Democratic takeover of the Senate, even with a loss in New Jersey.
Shameless U.N. bashing
In Jonathan Gurwitz’ latest column he bashes the United Nations with complete disregard for the irony of his complaints. First he is upset that countries he deems to be morally inferior are given equal status with other nations.
Within the august international body, governments that imprison and murder political opponents have equal standing with those that follow the rule of law.
But, but, but... We torture people in secret prisons and we still get equal standing (better than that since we are on the Security Council with a prized veto power that most other nations lack). And as for the rule of law, Bush and company pretend that it does not apply to them in most cases, regardless of whether its the U.S. Constitution, the Geneval Accords or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And then there is this gem:
And regimes that threaten to wipe other countries off the map — in clear violation of the U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state — are, like every other genocidal regime, members in good standing.
But, but, but... What about countries that don’t just threaten, but actually do use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state? You know, like we did with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq that went directly against a U.N. directive?
Then Gurwitz has this to say about Chavez’ suggestion that the U.N. headquarters be moved to Syria...
A diplomatic ensemble that pays homage to thugs such as Ahmadinejad and Chávez harmonizes far better with the groans of oppression in Damascus than the hum of freedom in New York.
Oh, I see. I guess that is why the Bush administration chooses to send prisoners to Syria to be tortured — so that their groans don’t disturb the “hum of freedom” over in this country.
Within the august international body, governments that imprison and murder political opponents have equal standing with those that follow the rule of law.
But, but, but... We torture people in secret prisons and we still get equal standing (better than that since we are on the Security Council with a prized veto power that most other nations lack). And as for the rule of law, Bush and company pretend that it does not apply to them in most cases, regardless of whether its the U.S. Constitution, the Geneval Accords or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And then there is this gem:
And regimes that threaten to wipe other countries off the map — in clear violation of the U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state — are, like every other genocidal regime, members in good standing.
But, but, but... What about countries that don’t just threaten, but actually do use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state? You know, like we did with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq that went directly against a U.N. directive?
Then Gurwitz has this to say about Chavez’ suggestion that the U.N. headquarters be moved to Syria...
A diplomatic ensemble that pays homage to thugs such as Ahmadinejad and Chávez harmonizes far better with the groans of oppression in Damascus than the hum of freedom in New York.
Oh, I see. I guess that is why the Bush administration chooses to send prisoners to Syria to be tortured — so that their groans don’t disturb the “hum of freedom” over in this country.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Total vindication
The report on Sunday about the National Intelligence Estimate in the NYTimes and the Washington Post has totally and completely vindicated everything I’ve been saying about the war in Iraq from day one - which is that it has only made the terror threat worse and not better.
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded....
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government.
The idiocy of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 has now been completely exposed (or at least it will be if they ever release the NIE report). Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. It was like someone who got stung by a swarm of hornets and then decided to go stamp on a fire ant mound rather than search for the hornets’ nest.
Our nation has paid a heavy price for this administration’s incompetence and stupidity. I can only hope that there will not be an even bigger price to pay before we can finally get some halfway intelligent people back in charge of our government. This mid-term election will be crucial in that respect. People who still insist on voting for Republicans this time around are either thoroughly blinded by ideology or simply have their heads stuck in the sand. There is no other explanation at this point.
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded....
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government.
The idiocy of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 has now been completely exposed (or at least it will be if they ever release the NIE report). Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. It was like someone who got stung by a swarm of hornets and then decided to go stamp on a fire ant mound rather than search for the hornets’ nest.
Our nation has paid a heavy price for this administration’s incompetence and stupidity. I can only hope that there will not be an even bigger price to pay before we can finally get some halfway intelligent people back in charge of our government. This mid-term election will be crucial in that respect. People who still insist on voting for Republicans this time around are either thoroughly blinded by ideology or simply have their heads stuck in the sand. There is no other explanation at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)