George W. Bush never ceases to amaze me with his ability to plummet to new depths of stupidity. After he used his veto power to deny health insurance to millions of children, I became aware of a bizarre quote straight from the jackass's mouth:

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

(Click here to play this quote.)

This is moronic. Emergency rooms are for emergencies. It's right in the name! Fortunately, it was easy for me to find someone who agrees that the emergency room isn't where people should turn for primary care:

"Now, one of the problems we got here in America is that there are some people, quite a few people who need primary care, a place where they can go get help when they need it. The problem, oftentimes people go to the emergency room, which is very cost-inefficient. It costs the taxpayers money. The emergency room ought to be used for true emergencies, not for the primary care of health care -- primary health care for people who can't afford health care."

And what bleeding heart liberal did I find to contradict George W. Bush? Why no other than...George W. Bush! (Click here if you don't believe me.)

The first quote is from a speech Dubya made on July 10, 2007. The second is from a speech he made on May 25, 2004.

Sad as this is, it doesn't surprise me. Dubya isn't about facts or truth. He's about saying whatever is expedient. But he does show some consistency. He never passes up an opportunity to screw the poor or benefit the rich. You can bet on this, especially if you're a poor, sick child.

I love the double standard that the GOP applied to two of their own, Larry Craig and David Vitter. Both are married and solicited sex with someone other than their spouses. Sounds like the same moral failing. But there are two important differences that help explain why Vitter got a pass and Craig is getting pummeled.

The obvious difference is that Vitter solicited, and had, heterosexual sex. Craig solicited homosexual sex. So the Right Wing can take this as yet another opportunity to show their total opposition to The Gay Agenda. Adultery is naughty, but it's forgivable if it's hetero.

The less obvious difference is that if you boot Vitter, a Republican, out of his seat for violating the Code of Family Values that the Right holds sacred, the Democratic governor of his state would likely appoint a Democratic replacement. The horror! But if Craig's fellow Republicans tar and feather him, forcing him resign in shame, the Republican governor of his state would likely appoint a Republican replacement.

Craig offers the double whammy of providing an opportunity for that favorite GOP game, Bash the Homo, while not risking a seat in Congress.

So much for the GOP's dedication to Family Values. Apparently, those values are all well and good as long as they don't get in the way of politics or a good time.

Don't worry, boys, we'll weather this storm of approval and come out as hated as ever.
– Saul Alinsky to his staff shortly before his death, June 1972

This seems to be the Democrats motto in 2007. Since they gained control of Congress in January they've acted like a battered wife with a restraining order. Sure, the law is on their side, but they're terrified that they'll get the shit kicked out of them if they try to use it.

Don't get me wrong. I think that most of the Republicans have skulls full of puss and are so crooked they probably shake coins out of their childrens' piggy banks at night. Bush is about as popular as typhoid and their presidential hopefuls seem to come from the back of the political special ed bus.

But that being the case, why aren't the Democrats dominating the political landscape?

The number one reason is obviously Iraq. They were given control of Congress to stop this senseless war. But when the time came they rolled over like a submissive cur and caved in on the Iraq funding bill. The deal was supposed to be a compromise to get things like an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is now $5.85 per hour.

That sounds okay until you realize that 30 states have minimum wages that are higher than the new federal level. In those states the new law means nothing.

However, soldiers from all 50 states are risking their lives as we stand between Iraq's rival factions like a bouncer standing between two drunken muscleheads, crazy to kill each other. I witnessed just such a melee once and the bouncer said, "Let 'em go!" He stepped back and made sure no one else got caught up in the violence. The two idiots knocked each other's teeth out trying to determine who The Winner was. The bouncer knew that, whoever won, it wasn't his fight. That should be our approach in Iraq. It's not our fight any more.

And don't forget that every day we stay in Iraq citizens from all 50 states are seeing their hard earned tax dollars pissed away by the billions. This includes the citizens earning the new minimum wage.

I gave some poor volunteer for the DNC a piece of my mind the other day. She called to ask for a donation. After she observed that I was "one of our larger contributors", I told her that I wasn't giving the DNC another dime until they cut off funding for the war. Funds for safely withdrawing the troops would be fine. Take as much as you need. But not another dime should be spent on combat.

She snapped into talking-point mode and told me they didn't have the votes in Congress to do that. I told her what she'd already have known if anyone in the Democratic Party actually listened to Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold. Her argument was a load of crap.

You can send the president only bills that don't allocate money for combat in Iraq, only withdrawal. If he signs the bill, no money for combat. If he vetoes the bill, no money for anything, including combat. Either way, no money for combat and the fighting ends, at least as far as America is concerned. Since the bill provides funds for safe troop withdrawal, he can't claim you're putting our soldiers in danger. Only his veto would do that.

Defenseless against this simple solution, she thanked me and hung up.

I'm feeling nauseous at the way the Democratic presidential primary is shaping up. They still don't seem to understand that the primary is just part one. The candidate has to be able to win the general election. Ask Ned Lamont.

The "debates" are bad jokes. "Tell us how you'd fix health care in America. You have 60 seconds. GO!!!"

The press has a firm grip on America's nose ring, leading us around like a neutered bull.

They've divided the candidates into "tiers" based on their fund raising capability. Good ideas won't buy you a spot in the "top tier". They seem oblivious to the hypocracy of Special Reports on the need for campaign finance reform that bemoaning how money corrupts our politics. Unconventional ideas are used to mock candidates, knocking them to a lower tier. They'll beat the candidate like a gong with his own words until it's difficult for even those who follow the issues to take him seriously. This is a bi-partisan problem, marginalizing Democrats and Republicans alike.

If you listen to the pundits, all the Democrats except Clinton, Obama and Edwards should give up before the game has even begun. And Edwards should be ready to withdraw about three or four primaries in. Forget the fact that Biden, Kucinich and Richardson are actually contributing meaningful ideas. Biden is written off as cash deficient old crank. Kucinich is treated like a refugee from The Muppet Show. Richardson is such a non-entity they rarely even mention him.

The two Democratic candidates crowned as front-runners, even though no one has yet cast a vote for either one, are far from perfect.

Hillary Clinton seems better suited to be White Witch of Narnia than president. She can seem friendly and inviting one minute, offering you sweeties, but the next minute she's libel to turn you and all of your friends to stone. Hunter S. Thompson wrote, "Sincerity is the important thing on TV. A presidential candidate should at least seem to believe what he's saying – even if it's all stone crazy." I can't bring myself to trust Clinton because she never seems to believe anything she says.

Clinton also has a 500 lb. gorilla on her back named Bill. Regardless of what she says or does he'll cost her at least a 30 million votes. That's an easy flaw to exploit. It probably explains why the people who've been demonizing the Clintons for the last 14 years all agree that she'll definitely be the Democratic nominee. They want her to run because they believe they can pound her into jelly in a general election.

Barak Obama hasn't shown the leadership I want from a president. He's barely shown the leadership I want from my U.S. Senator. Why don't we see the Obama-Luger Iraq Deauthorization Bill? Why wasn't he one of the first senators to vote against war funding, instead of one of the last?

Obama needs to show some balls. Get in front of a TV camera and say, "At this point, only a dry drunk or a delusional psychopath would keep us in Iraq. Unfortunately, the chimp in the Oval Office is both." When Bush attacks like a rabid weasel, Obama can strike back with, "Blah blah blah, Tex. I'm a fucking U.S. Senator. I'm not afraid of you and your schoolyard bully tactics. I've had it with your bullshit. You work for the American people. Start acting like it. Do what your boss has been screaming for and bring our kids home." That's an instant 85 million votes in the bag.

Yet, even though I listen to hours and hours of progressive talk radio each week, I almost never hear Obama speak. I'm not quite sure where he stands on anything, accept that we should bring our troops home...sometime. On TV, he's like Chinese food. He sounds good while you're listening, but a half hour later you can't actually remember what he said.

The other candidates seem less shackled since they've been written off.

John Edwards makes bold statements. Some, like his opposition to same-sex marriage, are not exactly going to endear him to his "base". I think he's got his head up his ass on that one. But sticking to a position he knows will be unpopular with potential supporters shows integrity. And his wife openly disagrees with him. That shows a family of free thinkers where disagreement is tolerated and doesn't stand in the way of a solid partnership. Sounds like the stuff a good president is made of.

Dennis Kucinich seems to be wearing tie-dye boxers under his ill-fitting suit. You can almost see the agents of his Department of Peace placing daisies in the barrels of soldiers' rifles. But his ideas tend to be simple, to the point and would probably work if anyone tried them. And unlike Clinton, I believe what he says. He backs his words up with actions. He actually drafted Articles of Impeachment for Dick Cheney. It's just a shame he doesn't look like Mitt Romney.

I think Kucinich should be Secretary of Defense. You want a man in that office that you have to drag kicking and screaming into war. Rumsfeld was more like Francis "Psycho" Sawyer from Stripes, grinning insanely and muttering, "All I know is I finally get to kill somebody!"

Joe Biden's plan for Iraq may not be perfect, but he's obviously put a lot of thought into it. This is more than you can say about any plan offered by the current administration. The same can be said of Bill Richardson and his thoughts on immigration.

What it all boils down to is that the Democratic Party appears to being trying to take what should be a landslide victory and make it so close that a little electronic vote tampering could swing the results to their opponent. They're going along with the media, playing it safe and trying to please everyone. Great idea. It's worked so well for them in the past.

P.S. All that having been said, check the box on my ballot next to whoever the Democrats nominate. I don't know which one of the lucky contestants it'll be but I know he (or she) will be better for America than any of the Republicans.

Back in 2005, Air America's Morning Sedition made an accurate prediction of what would happen to Karl Rove after it was revealed that he leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press: Nothing.

Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for September 26, 2003. That's the day CIA Director George Tenet requested an investigation into who had leaked the name of covert agent Valerie Plame. Her status had been leaked to Robert Novak, who then printed it in his column. A few days later White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan made it clear that there was no place in the Bush Administration for someone who would leak this kind of information:

If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Sometime later, during another press conference Dubya confirmed this:

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

So in June 2004 the answer to the question "Will you fire anyone who leaked Plame's name?" was simple: "Yes."

Therefore, when the leak was traced to Rove in 2005, you'd expect him to receive his walking papers. But Marc Maron of Air America's Morning Sedition was skeptical:

Today's phrase, just drop it into conversation...

What is Bush gonna do now that Rove's been revealed? What he always does: nothin'! Rove knows things about George W. Bush that George Sr. doesn't even know. Wake up, Sheeple! Rove knows where all the bodies are buried. He can't be incarcerated or stopped or even slowed down. He's pure evil in size 46 pants!

(Click here to enjoy the audio clip.)

And sure enough on July 18, 2005, Bush changed the criteria:

I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

Suddenly, leaking the name wasn't enough. Now the individual had to have committed a crime to get a pink slip. That's because there was clear evidence that Rove had leaked the name. However, the applicable laws are very difficult to prove, so a conviction still seemed unlikely.

This is a shield commonly invoked by the Bush Administration. If there are no charges and no convictions, there was no wrongdoing. That makes sense, huh? Just ask Jack the Ripper. Scooter "Smoke Screen" Libby made sure the lies were too thick to bring charges. That's how he earned his commutation. Fair payment for services rendered.

Rove continued to sleaze his way around the political world for the next few years like a zombie searching for more brains to eat. Now he's finally decided it's the right time to get out of Dodge. Maybe it's because he screwed up "the math" for the 2006 elections, tarnishing his reputation as Boy Genius. Or maybe he thinks he can do more damage in The Private Sector. For whatever reason, he's leaving as an honored staff member instead of a traitorous criminal.

One wonders what unethical, if not downright illegal, schemes he'll be free to engineer without the scrutiny of the Presidential Press Corps focused on him. Whatever they might be, the smart money is riding on him going underground, not going away.

Rove says he plans to write the inevitable book. That's just what America needs, another waste of paper filled with lies, obfuscation and justifications of horrible behavior. The saddest part is that his greasy little tome will probably rocket to the top of the best seller lists. That's my prediction.

Here's a charming story that Chicago Media Watch (CMW) included in their Spring 2003 report. The third paragraph should have you waking up in a cold sweat, screaming.

You have to give Fox credit. They're not even pretending that their "news" is true anymore. They're simply arguing that, journalistic ethics aside, there's no reason why they can't lie.

The Florida appeals court on February 14 overturned the verdict which gave Fox journalist Jane Akre $450,000 for being pressured by the television network to air what she knew was documented to be false information.

A six-person jury had earlier unanimously concluded on August 18, 2000, that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute Akre's claim that Fox pressured her to broadcast the false story in order to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court. The broadcaster were [sic] also concerned about losing advertising.

Fox argued that there is no written rule against lying on the news. The attorneys for Fox argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves—and they won the appeal.

CMW is deeply concerned by this legal turn; it lowers the bar even lower and means the American public will no longer be able to trust their media, and whistleblower protection may be out the door.

There's a great new web site that's trying something different. They're giving away quality music for free!

That's right. In a time where the major labels are threatening junior high students with prison for "illegal downloads", the people at MyDamnChannel.com are encouraging to "burn as many CDs as you want to". It's totally legal and totally free. You don't even have to register or give out your personal info.

Instead of me trying to explain how it works, check out The Wasmopolitan Cavalcade of Recorded Music and hear it directly from Don Was. Then give a listen to some new music from my friend, Jill Sobule. You can also see her new Wasmopolitan video below.

We need to reward people who try new, innovative ways to create and distribute entertainment. Visit this site. Get that hit count high so advertisers will continue to pay and you'll continue to get cool stuff for free. Everybody wins! How often does that happen?

I attended a fundraiser on Friday for Dick Durbin, one of my senators from Illinois. Senator Durbin is very accessible at these events, so you can usually get a minute or two to shake hands and mention something that's important to you. Knowing this, I was prepared.

I presented the Senator with a "gentleman's bet". I told him that I'd bet him $1 that if Congress didn't cut off funding for combat operations in Iraq, we'd still be actively fighting there in January 2009. (Remember that January 20, 2009 is the day America will be liberated from the Bush Administration.)

I told him that I understood that congressional Democrats was trying to be reasonable, trying to negotiate with the White House. But the president just isn't listening to anyone. I made it clear that I support allocating funds to bring our troops home safely, but that Congress shouldn't approve another dime for fighting.

Mr. Durbin looked a little sad and frustrated. His only comment was, "It seems like it's coming to that."

So there you go. Maybe Congress will find a way to get us out of Iraq before Bush leaves office without cutting off combat funding. If so, I'll gladly send Senator Durbin my dollar. He'll have earned it. But I think I've made a pretty safe bet.

More importantly, I hope I've made my point to Mr. Durbin that the time for reasonable negation is over. Bush only understands force. Therefore, the best course is for Congress to use its Power of the Purse to force him to do what he should.

I came across an article on CNN.com named "Chatting with America's gas price survey maven" by Taylor Gandossy. This is an interview with Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the Lundberg Survey.

At the end of the interview, Lundberg states:

I think that there has been friendly as well as unfriendly brainwashing taking place. And when I say friendly and unfriendly, I'm talking about decades of extremist views that have now achieved mainstream acceptance. And the No. 1 item among those affecting current oil politics in Washington is the boogeyman, also known as global warming.

I don't accept it as established fact, nor do I accept that it would be caused by petroleum consumption, nor do I accept that the human species should not affect its environment.

I was amazed that CNN would lend credibility to such water head nonsense. Global warming is a "boogeyman"? Is that because pixies are drinking up our car exhausts, making the world squeaky clean?

Not one peer-reviewed scientific study exists to support Lundberg's moronic statement. Even George W. Bush, not exactly "Mr. Science", has admitted that global warming is real. Lundberg's trite comment flies in the face of the conclusions contained in "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" from the IPCC. This report was the work of hundreds of scientists from around the world, not a "survey maven".

So, I wondered, why would CNN waste space on Lundberg's willfully ignorant fantasy instead of reporting scientific reality?

Then I saw the British Petroleum ad banner at the top of the page and it all became clear.

The following is a transcript of a report from Air America's "The Rachel Maddow Show" (Monday-Friday 6pm-8pm EST) on July 12, 2007. I thought Rachel did a great job of illustrating why we shouldn't be drawn into Dubya's delusional interpretation of the assessment of the situation in Iraq.

America needs more of this kind of reporting. Opinion isn't the same as fact, even when it comes from the President of the United States. That distinction needs to be reinforced in today's media.

So consider Dubya's opinion and look at the facts. Then ask yourself who you're going to believe, George "Makin' Progress" Bush or your lying eyes?

Click here to hear the report.

Today the President was bundled onto his presidential hand truck and rolled into the new White House press room to give his assessment of how things are going in Iraq. Perhaps not having seen the USA Today story or the US Army assessment about the people we are training and arming in Iraq using those weapons and that training to kill us, perhaps not having noticed that yet, the President went eye-to-lens with the cameras, with the assembled press corps and he said he felt pretty good about the whole situation.

"Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism."

As a cause for what?

"...a cause for optimism."

"A cause for optimism." In other words, the President said today that when he looks at Iraq things look pretty good to him.

"There's some measurable progress."

"There's some measurable progress."

I will say it is kind of amazing to me...um...I think that the press corps asked Bush relatively good questions after his press conference and everything, but when you look at the stories written about that press conference today, it is kind of amazing to me that the headlines in the American press after Bush's press conference today are reporting on his sense of optimism and his sense of progress being made in Iraq, reporting on that as if that is any indication of what things might really be like in Iraq at all.

Let me explain what I mean here. I'm gonna recap for a second. Remember that we invaded Iraq in March 2003. Okay? March 2003. Later that year, in October 2003, here's how President Bush thought that things were going in Iraq:

"Listen, we're making good progress in Iraq."

That was October 2003. By the following year? Let's check in with him at about September 2004.

"We're making steady progress."

Okay. That was September 2004. By the year after that? Let's move ahead to April 2005.

"I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq."

Okay. How about a little later on in 2005? How about...um...how about September 2005?

"We're making steady progress."

Okay. Um...how about October 2005?

"Iraq has made incredible political progress."

"Incredible". Maybe he's trying to tell us something with that word, "incredible". Maybe he means it in the literal sense.

Um...how about...why don't we check in, I mean just to make sure we know exactly what he meant, why don't we check in with later that month, later in October 2005.

"Iraqis are making inspiring progress."

They went from "incredible progress" to "inspiring progress". And now, of course, we heard this today.

"I believe we can succeed and I believe we are making security progress."

"There's some measurable progress."

Um...so I don't mean to...I don't mean to be disrespectful. He is the president, but the way I think about this is...I mean that the way I file this type of information, this type of repetitive assertions of something that doesn't really seem to make any sense given everything else we know about the subject, I kind of feel like we can just file this in this folder:

[Singing from "Monty Python's Life of Brian"]

"Always look on the bright side of life."

You know with all this progress being made every single time the President talks about Iraq you'd think that by now Iraq would be Shangri La.

It's fine to report what the President says. It's good to have a record of what comes out of his mouth. It is not fine to treat it as credible. Not at this point. Not after all these four and a half years of this nonsense.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is another politician who has weighed in on the evils of perjury:

By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation. By his words and deeds he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds he has done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.

As with the quotes in my previous blog, Senator Brownback was referring to Bill Clinton in 1999. Yet in 2007, Brownback has said he would pardon Scooter Libby. It makes you wonder what's changed in the last 8 years. Maybe nothing has changed except the party affiliation of the perjurer.

Brownback's change of heart demonstrates the kind of non-partisan integrity that Republicans demand of their leaders. Some people even think he should be president.

And you can forget the lazy argument that all politicians are the same. The following is from an article on FOXNews.com regarding the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) on charges of bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering:

Hearing of the indictment, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced he would offer a resolution to refer the indictment to the House ethics committee. The resolution, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, will instruct the ethics panel to review the matter against Jefferson and report within 30 days on whether he should be expelled from the House.

Democrats will not oppose the resolution, a high-level Democratic aide told FOX News. Separately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the charges "extremely serious."

"The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," Pelosi said in a statement.

How about that? The Speaker the House won't block an ethics review of a member of her own party. Wow. It's almost like she believes in justice and the Rule of Law.

So let your Republican friends snuggle up with the false equivalency that The Great Satan, Bill Clinton, pardoned people. At this point it's about all they have left. We know there's nothing inherently wrong with a presidential pardon or commutation. And there's no denying that everyone who receives one is a criminal, convicted in a court of law. But not all crimes are created equal. What makes this case outrageous is that Libby lied to cover up treasonous activity that may have been committed inside the Bush Administration during a time of war. It wasn't some shady financial scheme. This isn't Enron's Jeffrey Skilling. As far as I know, American history doesn't contain anyone executed for fraud. Traitors, however, are another matter.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell's "Animal Farm"