This has the makings of a best-seller for some enterprising publisher: "The terrorism shocker the Bush Administration didn't want you to see!!"

Posted at March 12, 2008 6:58 PM in response to Pentagon Tries to Squelch Report Showing No Link Between Iraq-Al Qaeda

I'm not a Hillary fan, but have been trying hard not to join the attacks. But this theme, if they use it, puts her judgment once again into serious question. She claims "blue collar workers" as a big part of her base.

I'm thinking of back when I tended bar at a blue collar restaurant. I can see the customers with their shots and beers glancing at the TV and hearing "I'm in the 22st century solutions business". Just like their idiot boss. byebye Clinton voters.

Using "solutions" so you don't have to say "problems" has been a laughable cliche for at least 20 years. That she has PR geniuses who don't know that running her campaign makes me think she might really send Colin Powell around the world to "represent what is best in Americans".

It's getting really hard to remain civil.

Posted at February 13, 2008 3:56 PM in response to Mark Penn's New Message: Hillary Is In "21st Century Solutions Business"

Senator, thank you for your consistent leadership toward protecting and restoring American freedom. You are making a truly pivotal difference.

I hope one day to understand why people like Harry Reid keep lining up with arguably the worst president America has ever had, despite utterly persuasive arguments like yours, Sen. Dodd's and others to the contrary. I don't believe these Democrats really think that what they're doing is in the nation's best interest, so we are left to speculate on the only remaining motives: blind ambition, fear, blackmail, bribery.

If they continue on this track, the day is not far off when they realize too late that they have ruined both their party and their country.

Posted at December 18, 2007 2:30 PM in response to Temporary Success in the Senate

First, today's political climate -- or any day's political climate -- is not a fact of nature. It's created by political action and discussion. Speculation about political viability should play no part in discussion of policy proposals. If the policy promises social benefits it will change the political climate -- not the other way around.

So as to the tax itself: I think the principle is sound, but what the Gazette is pushing has two problems. First, it is statewide when it should be national. Otherwise you get issues with crossing state borders to buy gas and political pressure based on comparisons with other states' rates. Second, the tax they advocate is way too low to have much effect on either consumption or income.

An effective gas tax plan would show a lot more gumption. It would bring US gas taxes closer to the European level and enable significant new revenues for non-fossil energy research and subsidies.

Here's a bolder idea: a one dollar/gallon tax nationwide. The revenue is used for two purposes: a rebate for every adult American, plus funding for alternative energy, public transportation, and related moves toward energy independence and environmental sustainability.

For example, where I live, a dollar tax would bring the cost of a gallon of gas to about $4. A vehicle that uses 20 gallons/month would now pay about $80/month. A vehicle that uses 50 gal/month would now pay $200. And so forth. Those who have no vehicle would pay nothing directly, as usual.

Out of the tax revenue, each individual would receive a tax rebate or check (at their option) of $30/month. Now the 20 gal/month person is paying $50/month, or about $2.50/gallon. If two people are using the vehicle and use their rebates for fuel they end up paying $20/month. The 50 gallon/month vehicle pays $170/month for gas, or about $3.40/gallon, or less if there are more people contributing their rebates. Those who use public transportation or other means come out ahead, except for price increases of public transit, cabs, etc, which are more than covered by the rebate.

Unlike some timid 10-cent tax increase, a dollar/gallon tax would actually move us toward the goals we claim to desperately want to reach: incentives to drive less in more efficient vehicles; incentives for car companies to cater to a much more fuel-cost-conscious consumer; dedicated funding sources for research and development on technologies that promise energy independence and all the global economic/political improvement that goes with it.

Global climate change and peak oil are realities. We will either deal with them through mildly painful measures like the gas tax/rebate or we will wait until catastrophe strikes and brings far more radical change that threatens the very existence of our societies, especially in the "developed" countries. Right now the threat is also an opportunity to initiate changes that offer long-term economic and social progress. The choice is refreshingly simple: relentless pain or peace and progress. We don't have much more time to decide which we want to work for.

Posted at September 28, 2007 12:27 PM in response to Taking on the Gas Tax

Mr Toobin certainly doesn't need me to interpret for him, but I've been on enough juries to absolutely believe that politics (or ideology, if you prefer) factors into many, and probably most, decisions. It's often pretty easy to tell, and is often explicit, how the judge feels about the drugwar, defendants' rights, "victims' rights", the correlation between socioeconomic class and race with "respectability", for example. I'm surprised you think it could be otherwise, at least until we start replacing judges with computers (with catastrophic results).

Posted at September 24, 2007 3:33 PM in response to Greetings TPM Cafe . . .

They may or may not funnel money to them. They won't have thousands of volunteers for GOTV unless they're backing some other party. Enthusiasm and trust still can't be bought.

Posted at September 22, 2007 8:31 AM in response to Theme Song of the Senate Democrats: "Let's All Get Fooled Again"

I agree fully with most of the article, except the idea that the Dems were "forced" into a trap. There was no great uproar over the ad except from the usual herders of idiots. Nobody much cared, and most Americans, according to the polls, thought Petraeus would probably lie, and then believed that he had fulfilled those expectations.

There was no trap and no reason for the Senate Dems to march into it. They were not being defensive, they were being "pro-active" to show off how incredibly patriotic and military-loving they are. None of it was necessary. What passes for "strategy" among Dems was the pathetic Boxer resolution, which was actually worse than the Cornyn version in that it lumped MoveOn with the swiftboat gang of crooks and liars. As is so often the case, Feingold was the only one who stood up for reality instead of clumsy, childish attempts at propaganda and voted NO on both versions.

MoveOn gave the Dems their Senate majority. At least some of the moral cowards who voted against them, including Webb, McCaskill, Tester, and Casey, would not be in the Senate without MoveOn's millions of GOTV calls and ground work on their behalf. The ones who walked into the trap were MoveOn and its thousands of volunteers. They thought they were dealing with honorable people. Now they and other independent political organizations will have to go through an agonizing reassessment of their strategies. I can't see anyplace for them to go except a few individual Dems like Feingold and Rep. Pete Stark, who managed to get it exactly right:

"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started."

The Senate Dem majority's sole accomplishment thus far has been to disgrace themselves by publicly turning on their friends and enabling their enemies. I think they can now officially kiss their '08 blockbuster landslide goodbye -- they have no allies left except the geniuses at the DLC.

But I misspeak: they accomplished something else: they proved for once and for all, beyond a doubt, that Nader was right all along. The one ray of hope out of all this is that their craven bumbling may ignite a successful insurgency that at long last breaks the two-party puppet show for good.

Posted at September 21, 2007 10:34 AM in response to Theme Song of the Senate Democrats: "Let's All Get Fooled Again"

I didn't expect much from Clinton, but this sounds like something the GOP would propose to co-opt real universal health care. There is no reason for such a system except as yet another cave to the Norquist-level loonies who think taxes are the devil's work. I hope the early reports have it wrong. If not I'm going to have a hard time voting Dem in the general election, should primary voters repeat the "electability" mistake.

Posted at September 16, 2007 3:42 PM in response to Clinton's New Health Care Plan

So you've been hearing talk of impeachment on the MSM? Do you think Bush's character flaws might be just a little more damaging to America than Clinton's erotic nuttiness?

I also have to disagree with your characterization of Bush. He's still treated as if his opinions matter on their own merit. He is a dunce, but it's only the comedy shows, not the "news", that let on. As to Foley and Craig, the media frenzy was egged on by the GOP powers that couldn't spin or cover up the facts this time around, and thus crowded to the front of the line to denounce them. And it's not coincidental that their moral outrage just happened to focus so tightly on peccadilloes with gay overtones.

Posted at September 11, 2007 10:36 AM in response to Crank Politics

I'm seeing this here in Chicago right now, at the hands of a Democratic state and city regime. Chicago public transit is in crisis, due for massive service cuts and fare increases because the Democratic-controlled legislature has failed to come up with funding. It has had no problem with subsidizing new highways and ongoing expansion of roads and airports. It is a local cliche that "there's no constituency for public transportation". Meaning that it's seen as primarily a concession to the dark and the poor.

Posted at September 11, 2007 9:34 AM in response to Crank Politics