Obama goes all in with plan to get troops out

Barack Obama will propose legislation which calls for troop withdrawals from Iraq by March.

While this is a sane and sensible plan, it still represents a huge political gamble on his part, and stakes him as the candiate with the most agressive stance on getting out of Iraq short of Kuchinich. Others, such as Biden have laid out their own plans, but none have introduced it as legislation.

The bill also reasserts congress's rightful role in providing a check on the executive branch.

In that respect, he's the polar opposite of John McCain, who's been saddled with his support of escalation.

Here's a post on Obama's bold strategy and the press release.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

* Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

* De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

* Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush’s own statements and Administration documents and include:

o Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

o Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

o Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

* Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

* Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

* Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

* Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative – that includes key nations in the region – to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

Beyond Obama, is a draw down, "re-deployment", retreat, withdrawal, or whatever you wish to label it the only rational alternative at this point?

And beyond that, should Dems and others actually move to cut funding for Bush's escalation if it comes to that?

Boland to further mandatory ethanol consumption

State Representitive Mike Boland will introduce a bill which futhers the effort to increase consumption of E85, a fuel which consists of 85% ethanol and 15% traditional gasoline.

Boland had already been a sponsor of a bill which required that all new vehicles purchased by the State of Illinois be "flex-fuel" capable, which means they can run on either E85 or standard gas. Boland's new measure extends this mandate to local governments in Illinois as well.

Guess it's a good thing if you're a corn producer, but from what I've heard, Ethanol isn't the wonder fuel of the future it's cracked up to be and brings along many negatives as well. Of course, politicians from corn producing states and the presidential candidates who love them are always pushing Ethanol, but again, it's not a magic bullet for the environment nor dependency on gasoline and other much better alternatives exist.

I don't have the technical argument for and against Ethanol at my fingertips though. Anyone have some more specific info on this product and whether it's the way to go?

**UPDATE**
There's been some excellent and informative comments on this topic, and some links to further info have been helpfully provided.

First of all, I should note that details of the Boland proposal can be found at mikeboland.blogspot.com.

A consumer reports article is found here.

Illustrious and accomplished commenter "Yinn" also writes:
"I've written "Ethanol in Illinois" (http://www.citybarbs.com/?p=38) about some of the impacts to the communities near them. Another article, "New Harvest: Rain" (http://www.citybarbs.com/?p=41) talks about one of the potential downsides of ethanol production, which is high water consumption, and how that might fit into regional water woes in the future."

And interestingly enough in light of the mammoth production of pig waste a Barstow hog slaughter operation will generate, he provides a link to "New Equation: Pig Poop = Black Gold" (http://www.citybarbs.com/?p=46) which discusses U of Illinois researchers having found a way to convert hog manure into crude oil.

Obama to announce candidacy in Springfield

Sen. Barack Obama will formally declare his presidential candidacy in Springfield on February 10th.

From the D/A:

Also, one of Sen. Obama's main themes is unity across party lines, and the fact that President Lincoln was a Republican and he's a Democrat subtly points at that, Mr. Saboto said.

Gene Callahan, a Milford native, who was an aide to former U.S. Sens. Paul Simon and Alan Dixon, said Sen. Obama has been very loyal to Springfield since his days in the Illinois Legislature.

"I'm very proud of Obama's candidacy, and I think this feeling is shared on both sides of the aisle here in Illinois," he said.

Springfield is a good move because the Democrats' challenge is to do well in smaller cities and rural areas, and he needs to show he's not just a city candidate, said John C. Fortier, a research associate at the American Enterprise Institute.

According to Terry Michael, a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, a common strategy is for candidates to announce from their hometown, especially if it's a small community.

Bill Clinton chose Little Rock, Ark., to make his announcement, but as a man of the legislature, Sen. Obama reflects many different homes and settings, he said. Springfield represents his current roots and is a way of splitting the difference.

Ficus plant favored over Bush

Well, the results are in, and they're clear. Most readers think a ficus plant would soundly beat George W. Bush by a large margine if an election were held between the two.

The poll asked, "If an election were held tomorrow between George W. Bush and a ficus plant, by what margin would the ficus win?"

Out of 50 total votes, results in descending order:

-Everyone in the U.S. other than those with less intellectual capacity than the ficus - 48%

-75 to 25% - 20%

-80 to 20% - 16%

-90 to 10% - 16%

The ficus plant couldn't be reached for comment, but a spokesman said that while the result wasn't surprising, "even a fungus probably would have come out on top."

A new poll asks your early, early, EARLY preference for Democratic presidential nominee.

Hilary Clinton in Davenport today

As most of you probably have already heard, the potential first female president of the United States is hosting a "Conversations with Iowans" event at the Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds in Davenport. The event starts bright and way too early at 8:30 a.m. today.

The fairgrounds are located at 2815 West Locust Street in Davenport and is open to the public. The event was earlier scheduled to be at the Hickory Garden Restaurant and was invitation only, but apparently the campaign decided to change the arrangements to make it open to all.

Clinton made appearances in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids yesterday before coming to Davenport.

If anyone attends, by all means give us a report.

Bush's health care proposal

From the NYTimes:

The new health care proposals announced by President Bush this week purport to tackle the two toughest problems confronting the American health care system: the rising number of uninsured Americans and the escalating costs of medical care.

But on both counts, they fall miles short of what is needed to fix a system where — scandalously — 47 million Americans go without health insurance.

The financial sinkhole in Iraq and huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans have left the administration with no money to really address the problem. To keep the program “revenue neutral,” Mr. Bush would instead use tax subsidies to encourage more people to buy their own health insurance, while imposing additional taxes on people who have what Mr. Bush deems “gold plated” insurance.

It is a formula that would do little to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and would have a high risk of producing pernicious results. Even White House officials acknowledged earlier this week that they expected the number of uninsured to drop by only three million to five million people as a result of Mr. Bush’s proposals. They expect the states to take on most of the burden.
...
After the proposed starting date in 2009, the administration estimates, about 80 percent of workers with employer-provided policies would pay lower taxes and 20 percent would pay higher taxes, unless they reduced the value of their health coverage to fit within the standard deduction.

The new standard deduction would almost certainly entice some people to buy health insurance who had previously elected not to. But a tax deduction is of little value to people so poor that they pay little or no income tax. And unfortunately, it is those people who account for the vast majority of the nation’s uninsured.

Instead of trying to fix that fundamental flaw, the administration has decided instead to buck it to the states. The White House has offered few details. But its idea is to allow states to redirect federal money that now helps to finance hospitals that provide charity care and use it instead to subsidize health insurance for the poor.

If the administration really wanted to help low-income people, it would have proposed a refundable tax credit that would have the same dollar value for everyone — instead of a tax deduction, which primarily helps people in high tax brackets. Even those who do not pay taxes would get a check for the dollar value of the credit, providing them at least some money to help pay for health insurance. Congress ought to recognize that credits are the better approach for even such a limited plan.

As for the tax increases on those “gold plated” health policies, the White House is hoping to discourage people from using high-priced comprehensive health policies that cover everything from routine office visits to costly diagnostic procedures that are not always necessary.

The administration’s goal is to instead encourage people to take out policies that might reduce the use of medical services, like policies with high deductibles or co-payments, or managed care plans. But even “copper plated” policies can exceed $15,000 in cost if they are issued in areas where medical prices are high or to groups with high numbers of older or chronically ill workers.

The whole approach rests on the premise that comprehensive prepaid health policies are a major factor in driving up costs; the theory is that people will tend to use services if they are covered. There is probably some truth in that.

But the main drivers in rising health costs are the costly services, high-priced drugs and hospitalizations for people who are seriously ill with catastrophic diseases or multiple chronic illnesses. Making their health coverage less generous would simply make it harder for them to get the care they need.

The greatest risk in the president’s proposal is that it would seem likely to lead many small- and medium-size employers to stop offering health benefits altogether on the theory that their workers could buy affordable insurance on their own. That would leave many more Americans at the mercy of the dysfunctional individual policy market, where administrative costs are high and insurers strive to avoid covering people who are apt to become sick and need costly care.

For all its fanfare, Mr. Bush’s plan would be unlikely to reduce the ranks of the uninsured very much. And if things went badly, it could actually increase their numbers. That’s not the answer Americans are waiting for and not what they deserve.

Wow, what a shock. Again, a plan from Bush that favors the insurers and health care corporations and is designed to squeeze the middle class ever further.

The way this plan is designed, it only affects those making enough income to own fairly steep income taxes, which of course leaves out millions of people. Beyond that, Bush apparently thinks that those lucky enough to enjoy good health care have "gold plated" coverage and should have to pay more for it, the assumption being that these people can afford it. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Teachers, nurses, certain union members, and others often are not paid very high wages, but much of their compensation is in the form of good health insurance. These folks will now have to either give it up or pay big for it from often middling incomes.

Even the White House estimates that this plan would result in only 5% of uninsured people in the country buying insurance. Not exactly a great stride forward.

Paul Krugman offers his observations on the issue:

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can’t afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren’t low-income, many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we’re least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.

While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”

Again, wow. No economic analysis I’m aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul’s premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the wealthy; we’re talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What’s driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance — that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.

**UPDATE** I neglected to specifically note that the tax portions of Bush's proposal are DOA. Charlie Rangle, chair of the House Ways and Means committee where tax measures must originate, said immediately that he'd not consider that part of the proposal. So in that respect, much of the idea is meaningless. The only part remaining is jiggering the federal aide to states.

Such a relief to see that congress now has at least some means of blocking White House efforts to continually help out the already well-off while punishing the lower and middle class.

Obama-rama once again

A full SEVEN stories in the political section of the D/A in the last couple days have involved Barack Obama, which really comes as no surprise.

One worthy of the widest play is his response to the reckless B.S. put out by right wing press, Fox Noise, and other right wing blowhards where they imply something sinister because Obama supposedly attended a radical Muslim Madrassa while living in Indonesia.

As if that wasn't enough, the right wing-nuts then attempted to smear more than one bird with one stone by attributing the digging up of this scurrilous story to the Clinton campaign, and in one case, even linking it to the Edwards campaign.

Needless to say, the story is ridiculous on it's face, as Obama attended the predominently Muslim school when he was 7 and 8 years of age. Not only that, but sources at the school point out that while it's predominently Muslim, it's open to students of all faiths and is one of the most rigorous and respected academic schools in the country.

"The allegations are completely baseless," said Akmad Solichin, the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1, who added, "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here ... it's a public school."

Obama's teachers say he was good at math and a good student.

From this, the right wing feeds the rubes the story that he has been brainwashed in a radical Muslim school and therefore represents a threat to the country, as if he's a Manchurian candidate who will betray us to al Queda the day after he's sworn in.

This is the sort of comic book bull that many right-wingers eat with a spoon, but which anyone with any sense would immediately reject as hogwash.

The push-back was a signal Obama would fight to protect his reputation in the presidential campaign.

Many Democrats argued that Kerry's failure to challenge aggressively his critics in the 2004 presidential race cost him in his effort to unseat President Bush. A group with conservative ties, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, charged that Kerry did not deserve the medals he won in the Vietnam War -- despite his combat record of bravery and valor. Kerry announced Wednesday that he will not run again in 2008.

"We will not be swift-boated," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "And we won't take allegations that are patently untrue lying down."

Let's hope not.

Another piece notes the Obama campaign naming it's Iowa staff.

On Wednesday, he named Paul Tewes as state director, and Emily Parcell as Iowa political director, campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail to supporters.

Tewes, a native of southern Minnesota, was caucus manager for Al Gore's 2000 campaign in Iowa. He worked for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and served for two years as its political director.

Parcell is from Iowa and worked on Sen. Tom Harkin's 2002 election campaign and the 2004 caucus campaign of former Rep. Dick Gephardt, as well as the Senate Campaign Committee.

And other pieces address his relationship with the supporters in entertainment and among African Americans.

A lot will hinge on the effectiveness and ability of Obama's staff. Does anyone have any insight on those he's chosen so far?

Finally, a place where you can get your veins operated on and a facial.

I don't know that having your veins cut out or rearranged fits right in there with skin treatments and massage... but.... what do I know?

It seems a group of plastic and vascular surgeons think it will and have opened the relaxingly named, "POSH Medical Spa and Vein Center" at 1409 E. Kimberly Road, Davenport.

The spa services include facials, peels, microdermabrasion, massage, Shirodhara, professional makeup application, Nova Lash, waxing and permanent cosmetics. A retail center offers several lines of medical-grade mineral makeup and skin care products.

Among the medical procedures offered at the center are Botox and other injectible treatments, laser skin therapies, hair removal, and body sculpting procedures. Vein therapies include laser treatments, sclerotherapy, ambulatory phlebectomy and VNUS Closure. Normal consultations for thoracic and vascular surgery will be done at the medical spa office.

Mmmmmmmmmm ... Injectible treatments......

I'm sure it will do well as the well-heeled increasingly turn to surgical procedures to maintain that young, quasi-mumified look. (But hey, it looks good on you.)

Want to put your money where your mouth is? Here's how.

A comment by esteemed reader Huck Finn on the post below regarding the ever expanding field of candidates for 2008 mentioned that he wished there was some sort of stock market for the field of candidates.

I knew of the Iowa Political Markets, which is famous for being more accurate than Gallup polls when it comes to predicting winners. But they so far only offer markets on which party's candidate will win the popular vote, and vote share by party.

I wondered if there was somewhere people could trade on individual candidates, and a little bit of searching found that there is.

Intrade.com offers the chance to put your money on hundreds of different markets, and includes several political books, including U.S. Presidential election overall, or by state, passage of prominent bills, such as minimum wage, and approval polls and whether they'll move up or down.

At the moment, Hillary Clinton last traded at 46.7 in heavy volume and Obama at 20.3, (which can be translated as percent chance of winning). Vilsack is trading at 1.4, tied with Kerry. (but ahead of Blagojevich who's at a whopping 0.1)

On the Republican side, unsurprisingly John McCain leads at 42.2 trailed by Giuliani at 17.2 and Romney at 16.7.

Go to their home page and then click on the Markets tab in the center under their logo. (unfortunately I can't provide direct links to specific pages.) From there click on Politics in the list of catagories on the left to find the political markets.

As you can see when you look over the site, you can bet on just about anything, including the weather! The legal catagory even offers markets on the outcome of the Scooter Libby and Tom Delay legal cases. (By the way, look for very bad things to be coming Dick "Dick" Cheney's way in this case. It's been revealed that he not only called for the outing of a CIA agent, he even dictated the wording of the leak and then instructed the White House press sec. to lie about who knew about it. A memo from ol' Dick also says he wanted to protect Libby when it was apparent that he was being set up as fall guy to protect Rove. Very hot stuff if the media pursues it.)

Though it seems most pundits couldn't predict 6:00 if it was 5:30, Intrade is a great place for news or political junkies with a gambling instinct to put their money where their mouth is.

But don't come crying to me if you lose your shirt. (Though you're welcome to share a portion of your loot if you make out big.)

"And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—"

Did you watch the State of the Union?

What did you think?

I just caught the chimp lying within the first few sentences and kind of tuned out.

Again, lots of words with no substance.

Remember when he said we would go to Mars? How about the program to force welfare receipients who wanted to get married to get marriage counseling (presumably Christian)? Any other goofy and meaningless proposals from past addresses that you recall?

This year it was calling for citizens of the U.S. to reduce gasoline consumption by 20%. How? Who knows? Another meaningless sop to try to bolster his environmental cred. Same with paying lip service to "climate change".

What struck you about Bush's speech? (if you could make it through to the end.)

By the way, I thought Jim Webb did a great job on the Democratic response. (Transcript here.)

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues -- those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death -- we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held Hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.

Financially.

The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

Note: The title of this post is an actual quote from ... well, who else? Chimpy McFlightsuit, our "bold" leader.

'08 a go go

Let's see....

Dems:
Hillary
Obama
Vilsack
Kucinich
Edwards
Dodd
Richardson
most likely Biden
and possibly
Gore
Kerry
Clark

Republicans:
Hunter
Brownback
most likely McCain
and possibly
Huckaby
Romney
Giuliani
Gilmore
Tancredo
Hagel
Huckabee
Pataki
Tommy Thompson
and Gingrich (ugh!)

It's going to be a demolition derby this time around. Any thoughts?

Who's your front-runner to get the nomination in either party? (and yes, I know it's ridiculously early... but just to get a marker down.)

A helpful reader sent along this tidbit showing some surprising numbers for Vilsack:

A new poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers shows that Tom Vilsack is locked in a statistical tie with Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton one year before the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Tom tied Obama in the poll even though a segment of the poll was conducted on the same day that Obama received positive news coverage of his decision to form a presidential exploratory committee.

The Zogby poll of 596 likely caucusgoers, conducted January 15-16, showed Obama earning the support of 17% of those polled, while Tom and Clinton got 16%. Former Senator John Edwards earned the support of 27% of those polled. Biden, Kerry, Richardson and Kucinich each polled less than five percent.

Once again, it's time for the 50 Most Loathsome People in America!

As featured here last year, The Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America awards.

Tell us your favorites.

Clinton "In it to win it"

Sen. Hillary Clinton has formally announced her intention to run for the presidency next year.

What I want from you, dear reader, is this:
-What you see as her strengths and weaknesses,
-If you think she'll get the nomination and why or if you don't think she will and why.
-If you like her, and if you hate her, and why.


Wanna participate in a live online "conversation" about the future with Sen. Clinton?

Go here and register, the event starts at 6:00 p.m. our time tonight. Tell 'em The Dope sent you.

Why do we need township government?

The Dispatch/Argus is to be commended for bringing to light some data on township government, in particular the South Moline Township, which recently raised taxes by 109% while giving its employees raises totaling $26,000.

In years past, efforts have been made to abolish this extra layer of government altogether, the argument being that other governmental bodies could easily absorb the duties currently performed by townships at an enormous savings to taxpayers.

An effort was made to put the question on the ballot, but I don't recall if it was successful, and if it was, the measure was defeated, as nothing was done.

It did cause the townships to have to engage in a campaign to try to argue that they were necessary. Most of the country does not even have a township layer of government, but in Illinois, 85 of the 102 counties do.

Townships primarily duties are to determine the value of property for taxation, take care of roads not maintained by other government entities and distribute welfare to the local poor not eligible for other public aid.

The article which appeared several days ago in the D/A is dense with salary figures and other data, but some stand out.

Most township employees work part time, but receive full salaries and benefits.

South Moline Township has a budget of nearly $1 million dollars, but just passed a 109% tax increase, reportedly to cover a $300,000 deficit.

Salaries for employees make up nearly half of the township's budget.

South Moline Township maintains a mere 8.5 miles of road total. For that, the township's "highway commissioner", Tracy Best earns $25,730 plus health and retirement benefits for working 30 hours a week.

To maintain the 8.5 miles of road in 2006, "$146,254 was budgeted and spent by the road and bridge department, including salaries for workers, road maintenance, vehicle and facility insurance, and employee FICA and retirement", or about $17,206 bucks per mile.

Think some other government body could do it cheaper, say, the county? Or how about contracting someone to do it? Think they could bring it in under $17 grand a mile?

To handle the 8.5 miles of road, Mr. Best has a staff of three full time and one part time employees. Two of them are his sons.

Rose Verstraete, township supervisor, employs her daughter and grandson.

Township assessor John Kiddoo was paid $47,000 for his 30-hour-a-week position and employs his wife as office manager at a salary of $31,158. No one in the office works over 30 hours a week.

Townships do provide essential services, but wouldn't it be far less expensive and redundant to find a way to incorporate the services they provide, at least some of them, into other governmental agencies and entities?

What do you think?

Just flew in from Chicago and boy are my arms tired.

My appologies, I was called away on pleasure suddenly and have been out of town in the Windy City and environs for the past few days.

Here's a very short slide show.

This is looking out the door of my room... there was a 150 ft long winding brook running through the atrium with giant goldfish in ponds, and waterfalls, and it sounded like you were camped next to a mountain stream.

When I checked in, I was in a big hurry, so I jumped in the elevator and turned to face the doors, as usual. As the elevator began to climb though, I noticed some movement and turned around. The interior walls of the elevator were glass and I was now zooming up about 8 floors above a huge atrium. Kind of a startling thing to see when you turn around in an elevator.



And since I know how much readers love mystery pictures... who can be the first to I.D. this FOD (friend of the Dope)?




So what did I miss while I was gone?

I see Obama set up the old exploratory committee. Bill O'Reilly was a guest on The Colbert Report. The legendary Art Buchwald passed away, but only after recording his own death announcement message. James Brown is probably going to need a brand new body bag pretty soon, as they haven't buried him yet. Bush has lost what last remaining shreds of credibility he had left and is at last revealed for thinking the U.S. is a monarchy, though there's been abundant evidence of that for the past 6 years. They now say they'll abide by the FISA courts for secret wiretaps, despite arguing loud and long that the security of the country demanded that they bypass the court. (where are the commenters who defended that attack on the constitution now?)
A high ranking justice department lawyer said that Bush's corporate cronies should threaten to withdraw business from law firms who have members representing prisoners at Guantanamo prison, giving the finger to due process, and didn't get fired.
And the Democrats are holding true to their promises to address several crucial issues right out of the gate.

Feel free to comment on anything that caught your eye.

NOTE: To the buttpipe who thought they'd dig up my e-mail account and try to request the password, just how stupid are you? Wait, I already know. You spent your time trying to dig up an email address by poking around on my website code, then spent more time going to the ISP's site and trying to see if you could trespass. While there you saw a link to click if I'd forgotten my password.

Maybe I should be grateful that I'm blessed with blithering morons for enemies, but this takes the cake. You actually thought... what? That they'd just provide my password to whoever asks for it? Or did you think they'd somehow send this information to YOUR e-mail address?

How do I know you did this? Well gee, if you weren't so pathetic, you would have realized that they'd send me something along the lines of "Here's your password reminder that you requested", and since I hadn't requested it, it would be clear proof that you were trying to steal it, (albeit in such a dumb way that it's almost laughable.)

Give it up already, eh buddy? You're making an ass out of yourself and it might just get you in trouble. Just fair warning.

Watch the little fetuses on TV

Jim Mowen, who ran unsucessfully against Andrea Zinga for the Republican congressional nomination, has submitted the following guest ... well, it's not a post, but rather a challenge, I guess.

If it goes down this road, I have a few shows I'd like him and others of his stripe to watch too, such as Frontline's "The Last Abortion Clinic" about anti-abortion tactics and efforts to make it ever more difficult, if not impossible for women to get safe abortions in a clinical setting.

Or perhaps "The Jesus Factor" about how Bush and Rove have cynically milked the fundy crowd to gain and hold power.

Or particularly the excellent documentary, The Dark Side", the Frontline episode aired two weeks ago which documented how the administration was itching to invade Iraq before 9-11, how they instantly began trying to use 9-11 as their big excuse to go into Iraq, and Cheney's war with the CIA in order to control and twist intelligence in order to deceieve the public into supporting it's burning desire to get the U.S. into the worst foreign policy blunder in it's history.

But Mowen's program promises to be interesting - at least the ads for the program make it seem so. Go ahead and catch it. The technology is amazing and can now show clearly the inside of the womb. As you watch all those little half formed fetusessss (or feti?) just remember that they could be there due to rape or incest or be inside a hopelessly drug addicted mother with no money, or......

Evidently, the pro-life folks are more than willing to adopt these babies though, aren't they? Or are they just trying to club us over the head with their particular religious beliefs and take away a woman's right to control her reproductive life?

And of course, these anti-choice folks are likely dead set against condoms being freely available too. And likely pro-death penalty. Makes my head hurt.

Perhaps next a Rastafarian will write in to encourage us all to watch a pro-marijuana documentary and then try to convince us to legalize it based on its important role in their religious beliefs? That might work too.

Millions of people who are already alive are starving and suffering in this world. Wonder why it's their obsession to dictate what other's do with their unborn fetuses?

INVITATION TO ALL

This Sunday evening there is a program on that I encourage, to some of you, challenge you to watch.

National Geographic Channel
Sunday – January 14
8:00 pm

The program details how triplets (inside the womb) act and relate to one another. I saw a clip of the video used and it is 4-D sonogram and one sees these babies for what they are…living, loving, real people – just not yet born.

I appreciate the fact that many pro-choice (pro-abortion) people come to this position by lack of knowledge, lack of understanding of what a human life is inside the womb. Here is your chance to learn a little more about the reality of the situation, a little more about the life that is terminated in an abortion.

If you are pro-abortion, I challenge you to watch this show.
As far as comments, please let’s save them for after the show).

Thank you – Jim Mowen

It should be noted that Jim has no rational view on this subject, as evidenced by the fact that he insists on portraying anyone who may favor a woman's freedom to get an abortion if she chooses as being "pro-abortion", a disingenous and completely unfair distortion.

But if you want to humor a theocon and engage him in a debate in which his position is rigid, he'll dismiss anything you say or believe that doesn't square with his rigid and pre-conceived moral and religious framework, and is impervious to any logic, then be my guest. He seems to enjoy it and thinks that this is "debate".

Slanderman & Defamation Boy

Tom Tomorrow
Click here for original

Or click graphic to enlarge

And of course, there's THIS, or THIS.

(the entire Tom Tomorrow archive is located at Working For Change. Take a look around at the services they offer and how it works. Great idea. Give it a try.

Moline heading into the 21st century

Though long overdue, the City of Moline is actually poised to decide whether to offer residents curb-side recycling. As part of a study involving Rock Island, Milan, and East Moline, it appears that the service is feasible and may very well be in the offing.

Why it's taken this long is a puzzle, but this seems to be a signal that the dark-ages of the Leach era are finally over, and it's a welcome sign.

Finally, things really seem to be happening for the town with money being devoted to long neglected areas instead of handed out to every developer with a hand out.

There have been many positive signs and indications of a new attitude and new direction since Leach left office. Let's hope it continues.

OK class, let's review

OK class, let's review Bush's "war" to date.

Eric Alterman, in a piece about how badly the neocons who cheered the war and jeered those who said it was a mistake from the beginning, concisely sums up...

The Bush/Cheney war in Iraq has proven to be even more catastrophic than those who had the good sense to oppose it could have predicted. It has killed Americans and Iraqis, destroyed a functioning, albeit unfree nation, increased the threat of terrorism, destabilized the region, empowered our enemies--particularly Iran and Syria--inspired hatred of the United States across the globe and will ultimately cost American taxpayers upwards of a trillion dollars. It is, almost certainly, as Al Gore has noted, "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States."

To put Bush's latest bit of strategery into perspective, perhaps a little recap of our fearless leader's track record so far is in order.

Keith Olberman provided a brief review on his show last night, to which I've added a few bits and pieces that he omitted.

So how has Bush lead the country since 9-11?

Well, on the notion of nation-building: Bush during the campaign said that he opposed it and said it was wrong for America, now he says it's vital for America.

Bush said he would NEVER put U.S. troops under foreign control, today U.S. troops must obey Iraqi government restrictions.

Then there were:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Mobile Chemical Weapon labs

Secret sources

Aluminum tubes

Yellowcake uranium from Africa

And so far, the rationale behind the squandering of billions and billions (140 million PER DAY) and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded in Iraq has been:

9-11

Osama bin Laden

al Qaeda

Terrorism in general

To "liberate" Iraq

To spread freedom

To spread democracy

to keep oil out of the hands of terrorist controlled states

and because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy.

Bush passed on chances to take out:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, and Osama bin Laden

Bush went in with fewer troops than were recommended, then:

Disbanded the Iraqi army

"De-Bathified" the government (got rid of all members of Sadaam's Bathist party, even though many were only Bathists to get ahead or save their necks. Even though they ran the nuts and bolts of the country, they were pushed out.

Short-changed Iraqi training

Didn't plan for wide-spread looting and did nothing to stop it.

Didn't plan for or anticipate the erruption of sectarian violence.

Sent in troops with inadequate armor and equipment. (Rumsfeld's infamous, "You go to war with the army you're given..." quip.

Gave jobs to foreign and oil industry contractors and didn't hire Iraqis.

Staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship over competence.

And because of these things and more, we learned that:

America has prevailed.

Mission Accomplished

The resistance was "in its last throes".

As to troop levels, Bush said that more troops were not necessary, then that they are necessary, and then that it's up to the generals, and then he removes generals who said more troops would be necessary.

Then there are the "turning points" (including my own observation that this "war" has had at least 15 "crucial" six months or two months or month, as in, "These next two months will be crucial as to the future in Iraq.")

Some "turning points" which were supposed to herald the beginning of the end include:

The Fall of Bagdhad

The murder of Uday and Qusay (Sadaam's sons)

The capture of Sadaam

The provisional government

The trial of Sadaam

An Iraqi charter

An Iraqi constitution

And Iraqi government

An election (complete with purple fingers)

An new, new government

The death of Sadaam

And of course, we were told it would be a "cakewalk" and we'd be greeted as liberators, that as Iraqi's stood up, we'd stand down, we would "Stay the course", that we never had stayed the course, the enemy was al Qaeda, foreign insurgents, "dead-enders", "Sadaam-ists", terrorists, Bathists, and the most bizarre and desperate, "Islamo-fascists".

And of course, the price tag for it all. Well, we've been told:

The war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues
$0

It would cost $1.7 Billion

It would cost $100 Billion

Then $400 Billion,

Then half a trillion.

And last night he was asking to do something that at least 80% of the public and most of the military brass are against.

And remember that "coalition of the willing" we heard so much about? Don't hear much about it anymore.

That's probably because Britain has reduced their presence in Iraq to a very small number, and I there's only a couple countries left in Iraq, one of them Poland with a couple thousand personnel.

The fact is, we are virtually alone as a country, standing in the midst of a collossal and tragic mess which was dreamed up, pushed, started, and mismanaged by George W. Bush and the "grown ups" we were told were going to be in charge.

What are your feelings or opinions regarding the called for escalation in Iraq?

Do you think Bush will bomb or start hostilities with Iran or Syria before he's gone?

Or, as sometimes seems the case, unless it involves petty local politics, do you really not give a damn?

Anything you'd add to the list above?

Cynical or Delusional?

From Paul Krugman in the NYT:

The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional.

Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thinks they’re cynical. He recently told The Washington Post that administration officials are simply running out the clock, so that the next president will be “the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof.”

Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for his research on irrationality in decision-making, thinks they’re delusional. Mr. Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon recently argued in Foreign Policy magazine that the administration’s unwillingness to face reality in Iraq reflects a basic human aversion to cutting one’s losses — the same instinct that makes gamblers stay at the table, hoping to break even.

Of course, such gambling is easier when the lives at stake are those of other people’s children.

So, which is it? Cynically running out the clock until he can dump the unimaginable disaster in someone else's lap, or is Bush delusional, with a congenital inability to admit utter failure?

Or, as is likely, is it a little of both?

And which is worse?

Housekeeping

Just a couple short notes.

First of all, some may have noticed trouble logging on to TID earlier. This was due to a scheduled outage by Blogger and should be over by now.

Secondly, blogging will likely be fairly sparse for a while. Not only is it in the middle of the mid-winter duldrums (though it hardly seems like winter) but I find myself caught up with my new media gizmos.

My new computer has a dual TV tuner deal which can record two channels onto hard disk simulataneously, or you can record one channel and watch another. Of course, it also functions like a TiVo deal where you can pause and replay live TV. It also provides a complete TV guide which allows you to schedule recordings automatically. It also has a guide service like Dish TV, where you simply provide your zip code and your TV schedule is automatically downloaded from the net. You can search for a type of show you like, search movies, news, etc. and pick a show to record, or set it to record the series automatically. And of course it gives a capsule description of the show, and for movies gives cast and ratings, etc. And amazingly, this is all free of charge.

So now I actually can have my computer recording two channels while watching a third on my TV at the same time. Talk about media overload. And since my computer and TV are linked, when I'm not watching something live, I have a list of dozens of shows, documentaries and movies which have been recorded previously to watch. And the system came with a remote control so I can sit in front of the TV and control my computer by remote. I can adjust the volume and channels of course, but also play DVDs, view pictures stored on the computer, play videos, or even play online games, all controlled through the remote and displayed on both my TV and computer monitor. (I usually shut the monitor down if I'm not at the computer)

It's a little bizarre to be able to have your TV on your computer and your computer desktop on your TV or visa versa and I'm still fiddling with what it can do.

And since you can pause the shows and come back hours later and resume right where you left off, you can really pile up a lot of hours of shows. You can even start watching a show which is recording at the time from the beginning. Say you're recording Meet the Press, and Face the Nation, and you go to make breakfast or something. You can come back and even if Meet the Press is half way through, you can start watching it from the beginning even at the same time it's recording the second half of the show so you don't miss a minute. And of course you can pause or replay things you don't catch or want to watch again even when the show is live.

I can finally record shows I usually missed, like Frontline or Nova, or shows that jump all over the place and seem to appear at a different time every week, if at all. (Like the Simpsons on Sunday night) So instead of setting a VCR for 6 p.m. and ending up with a football game, it only records if and when the Simpsons are on. It's kind of amazing actually. You can even specify whether you want it to record first airings only, or both first airings and repeats, one time a day, or more than one. (For shows like Seinfeld that's on about 5 times a day on different channels, this is handy.)

In other words, it's like TV/Media/Technological quicksand that I'm wallowing in for the moment. But I'm hopeful that once the novelty wears off, perhaps I can pry myself from the tube, gird my loins and wade back into the fever swamp of local politics and issues a bit more often.

Of course, as always, if there's an issue or story you have an interest in or think others should, by all means put together a post and send it along for publication. I'd welcome the input.

Vilsack issues resolution against Bush war escalation

Former Iowa Governor and now presidential candidate Tom Vilsack is getting press for his resolution opposing the Bush plan to escalate the ... whatever it is we're doing... in Iraq.

The resolution begins:

WHEREAS, the [government body] has an official responsibility and a patriotic right to speak out on behalf of the people of [local jurisdiction] against policies that will have a significant negative impact on our community;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the [government body] declares its opposition to President Bush's plan to escalate the war by committing thousands more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the [government body] urges the Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to declare their opposition to troop escalation in Iraq and work to prevent the escalation of the war.

The resolution can be read and the public can add their support by signing the resolution HERE.

Hare on the tube

A very helpful source has informed me that our new U.S. Representitive Phil Hare is scheduled to preside over the House floor tonight.

It's expected you can catch all of the scintillating action on C-Span beginning at around 7:00 p.m. tonight (Tues.)

Hare has also joined a few key caucuses, including the Progressive Caucus, Biofuels Caucus, the Out of Iraq Caucus, and the Rural Caucus with possibly a few more in the offing.

It must be an exciting time in D.C.

And the swearing-in festivities, parties, and schmooze fests are in full swing down in Springfield as well.

Off we go........

Kerry's '04 campaign "political malpractice"

I have to admit a bit of guilty amusement when I read that former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe described John Kerry's failed 2004 presidential campaign as, "one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics."

In his memoir, McAuliffe also described the Kerry campaign as, "...gun-shy, distracted and incompetent." Can't say as I'd disagree too much.

In "What a Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe says he feels that the Kerry campaign's biggest mistakes was sitting back and allowing Bush to smear his war record and everything about him without firing back.

McAuliffe said Kerry's camp was so afraid of offending swing voters that it didn't defend his record or criticize Bush. He said he was muzzled by Kerry's aides from assailing Bush's military record.

He said the campaign also ordered speeches at the Democratic National Convention to be scrubbed of any mention of Bush's name or his record -- although McAuliffe privately encouraged firebrand Al Sharpton to go ahead with his attacks on the president in his crowd-pleasing speech.

"I thought the decision of the Kerry campaign to back off any real criticism of Bush was one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics," he said.
Meanwhile, Republicans went on a sharp tirade against Kerry at their convention. But when Bush said in an interview on the first day that he didn't think the U.S. could win the war on terror, Kerry did not respond. The Massachusetts senator was windsurfing off Nantucket, unaware of the president's comments.

McAuliffe said Kerry later told him that was one of the biggest mistakes of his campaign. "I should have gotten off the island," McAuliffe quotes Kerry as saying.

McAuliffe said he was "flabbergasted" to learn after the election that Kerry had $15 million left that he could have spent in the final push. "It was gross incompetence to hoard that money when the race was bound to be so close," McAuliffe said.

McAuliffe said Republicans told him they were shocked that Kerry just took the attacks on his military record, but also overjoyed. He said Bush called President Clinton while he was recovering from his heart attack in September 2004 and said, "The Kerry campaign is the most inept group I have ever seen in politics. Don't let them ruin your reputation."

He said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked him why Kerry wasn't fighting back more. "My guy (Bush) is no great shakes, but your guy (Kerry) looks like a wimp," McAuliffe quotes McCain as saying.

Kerry's former running mate, John Edwards, also was frustrated with the campaign, according to McAuliffe. McAuliffe said Edwards was angered that the campaign wouldn't let him go after Bush, but Kerry disputed Edwards' claim and said he was frustrated his vice presidential pick wasn't campaigning harder.

I agree 100% with McAuliffe and expressed my frustration with the Kerry campaign for the exact thing at the time.

It's tough to win an election against the likes of Karl Rove when you don't even know how to fight.

The curse of downtown Moline?

What happens when you take a business that was doing well despite being in one of the most shabby neighborhoods in Rock Island, buy it, then move it to decidedly new, upscale digs in a trendy downtown Moline location where, it's suspected, the traffic in up market wine buyers will drink it up?

In Gendler's case, you pretty much go belly up.

This seems to be a case of convential wisdom falling on its face. New upscale surroundings didn't improve traffic or business, it apparently hurt it. (though I'm sure there are many other factors)

But on a larger scale, what are people missing about trying to develop downtown Moline? What about the thinking that all you need do is gussy up some buildings and then fill it with almost exclusively upscale boutiques is so obviously wrong?

Is it a case of overly insular thinking? That the folks with money to invest in such things only think of what appeals to themselves and others like them to the exclusion of most of the population?

Is it the apparently misguided thinking that all you need to do is tear down a lot of old buildings and put up some parking buildings, finally start re-habbing some older structures in a rather spotty fashion and suddenly people will start frequenting the area?

What does it say that a business located in an ancient wooden building directly on a busy one-way in a shabby neighborhood in Rock Island with next to no parking did better than when the same business was installed in a gleaming glass and steel space in downtown Moline?

What makes businesses in downtown Moline seem to be invisible and often fail? Is it the way it's been developed? The way it's laid out? The fact that there's not a lot inviting about it's patchwork design? Or has it simply been the wrong businesses in the wrong place or poor management?

Several restaurants have started up in the past year and seem to be holding on.

What needs to be done to finally make the area reach critical mass and become a place people actually go?



And on a related matter, it seems the development of the incredibly prime property where Moline Public Hospital and Lutheran Hospital once stood has put the City of Moline over a big financial barrel. The developers aren't anywhere close to fulfilling their end of the deal, and the city is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And of course, the city is afraid to collect or take serious action because it would doom the project, which of course, they knew going in.

Is it me, or did the previous administation seem to hand out big grants and giveaways to just about every developer who asked?

And anyone know how many controversial deals Mike Shamsie has been involved with over the years? It seems his name has been associated with at least 4 or more deals which ran into problems.

The city has made nearly $700,000 in principal and interest payments over the last three years on a $2 million bond to fund development at One Moline Place, despite having a personal guarantee from the developer that he would pay the bill.

Officials worry enforcing the agreement could doom the project.

One Moline Place is a residential redevelopment of the former Trinity Medical Center East Campus located between 4th and 8th streets and 5th and 11th avenues.

The city took out a $2.415 million bond in August 2003 to give Moline Place Development LLC working capital for the project, which was to include single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums and an independent/assisted living complex.

The city made the development a tax-increment financing district, or TIF, to generate revenue to pay the principal and interest from the bond. In this TIF, new real estate taxes generated from the development were earmarked to pay off the bond.

Mike Shamsie, a principal in the development company, agreed to pay, out of his own pocket, any interest and principal due on the bond if the development wasn't built out to the point where real estate taxes could cover the cost of the debt.

However, he has yet to do so.

In three years, the city has paid all of the interest and principal due on a bond -- a total of $676,328.

On the plus side, automated garbage collection seems to be working well, and I've seen a lot of people taking advantage of the one free "anything" pickup where I've seen what looks like the contents of entire houses piled like a mountain at the curb.

The Moline police are moving into a new building, if that's a good thing, and road patching and improvement seems to be on an upswing with the public works department sporting what must be millions of dollars in new trucks and equipment over the last few years.

The city's web site continues to improve and offer information and an easy way for citizens to contact officials. (paying water bills online is a snap)

But is the city still paying for the cozy arrangements with developers over the past decades?

And is it a matter of time before downtown actually is a place people go frequently?

When the effort has been going on for 20 years or more, what has made it so difficult to invigorate the downtown area?

Friday time waster

Count every " F" in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...

OK, how many "F's did you count? (answer below)







WRONG, THERE ARE 6.

Guaranteed. Read it again.

For some reason, the brain has a tough time processing the word "of". Bet you missed those.

Now.... read the words in the picture below.



Did you say, "A Bird in the Bush"? Look again.

Three issues

Issue One Iraq insanity

The rather barbaric neck-breaking of Saddam Hussein amidst sectarian shouts and taunts wasn't exactly a shining moment for the new Iraqi government. His martyrdom is all but assured amongst his Sunni followers across the mid-east and it throws gasoline on the already explosive sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Now take a few steps back and look at the entire Iraq situation.

There have now been over 3000 U.S. troops sacrificed and scores of thousands blinded, maimed, crippled, and wounded.

Why?

What exactly is Bush's purpose? What is the goal? What is it that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and spent all these precious lives to achieve?

What have we accomplished? Well, Saddam was taken out of power and hung.

Is that what people here were so jazzed up about with their rabid patriotism and support of Bush these past many years? Is this what thousands of our troops and over a half million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children have died for? To remove Saddam Hussein?

And looking back, Saddam was able to keep Iraq as a cohesive and stable country. How? Often by brutally repressing anyone who tried to rise up and challenge either his power or start any conflicts.

He slaughtered people who tried to assassinate him. This was held up as a reason he needed to be taken out by Bush. The infamous gassing of the Kurds wasn't even mentioned in his trial and was not what he was convicted for. And of course, Rumsfeld et. al. were sure he had poison gas because they had the receipts. They'd sold it to Saddam when he was at war with Iran.

But essentially, Saddam ruled with an iron fist, and kept Iraq relatively stable and functioning. Though there was poverty and want in his country, it was not nearly as bad as many other misruled countries around the world.

He was a brutal dictator who held his fractious country together and enforced "peace" so to speak, with strength and force.

Now we go blundering into the country, topple Hussein, disband his army, set up an erstwhile government, and now, to no one's surprise except the Bush administration apparently, these factions were set loose to battle for supremacy.

Without Saddam's brand of iron-fisted repression, the gates are open and it's a huge, deadly free-for-all.

This of course could have been foreseen by anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of Iraq. But of course, Bush and his crew wanted this war, and they were going to get it, facts be damned.

So now that we've effectively "broken" Iraq completely, is it any wonder that no one has a clue as to what to do now?

Is sending in a "surge" of troops really going to accomplish anything other than trying to establish a tiny ring of security enough for the pampered residents of the Green Zone, or the Emerald City as it's known, to get the hell out?

Is the lives of the 3000 troops and the unbearable grief of their families left behind all worth what we've accomplished in Iraq?

Did they die so that Saddam could be killed and the country thrown into chaos for decades, with the likely outcome a wider war amongst mid-east countries and the establishment of an Iraq even more hostile to the US than the Iraq of Saddam Hussein?

Is there anyone in this country, especially politicians, who are brave enough to see this for the utter disaster it is and say so?

And can the American people, even liberals and Democrats, bring themselves to actually acknowledge the scope and massive scale of what this most reckless and thoughtless of all presidents has lead us into?

Since the constantly shifting rationales for why we invaded a country which had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11 have shifted and changed so many times it's hard to keep track, can anyone try to guess as to what motivated Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, and the rest to rush to invade Iraq, even if it meant lying through their teeth to do it?

Why did we invade Iraq? What profit did it represent to those at the top who pushed so recklessly for it? What did they think would happen and why?

Issue Two

"Fair play" in congress.
Since the new Democratic congress was sworn in yesterday, there's been a big bitch-fest among Republicans, who of course, knowing no shame, are actually barking about those mean Dems leaving them out of debate on a few issues to do with Pelosi's First 100 Days agenda.

First of all, it's nearly enough to make you lose your lunch to hear these bastards who routinely treated all Dems like rented mules for the past decade or so now standing there whining about fair play.

But it does raise a difficult issue, and one that's proving impossible for me to decide.

Everyone acknowledges that the myth of "bipartisanship" is a worthy goal, and that the mid-term election represented American's desire to put an end to the Republican style of abuse and arrogance of power whereby they essentially gave the opposition party the finger every time it expected to actually participate in the government of this country and represent the half of the population who voted for them.

They were denied meeting rooms, not informed of content of bills, denied debate or allowed a ridiculously short time for debate, they slipped in bills in the dead of night, illegally held votes open until enough arms were twisted to pass bills their way, and even offered bribes on the floor. At one point, they even called the capitol police to break up a Dem caucus meeting.

They abused the rules committee so badly that it was unprecedented.

Now these same creeps are on TV whining that Pelosi isn't coming through with her promise of cooperation.

So, this presents a dilemma. Should the Dems, who in my opinion have every right conceivable to give the Republicans a large dose of their own medicine, fight tough and employ a little of the Republican-style use (or abuse) of power, or should they immediately make nice and bend over backwards to make sure the Republicans are able to water down, amend, and dilute Democratic measures in the spirit of "bipartisanship"?

Bear in mind that the Republicans have for years been passing amazingly brazen bills designed to ensure their power and control, measures such as phony bills to make it nearly impossible to raise taxes.

Should the Dems just take the hit early and do the right thing to get rid of all these partisan and ideological measures and put government back the way it was meant to be? Or should they lay down and allow things to essentially run according to Republican rules?

My view is that they need to be a little ruthless now and get it over with.

Permit me an analogy. Let's say the House is an actual house, which the Republican's have owned for decades now, and they've painted the walls a garish purple and put in toilet seats with Jesus' image on it and have corporate call girls living upstairs and have otherwise messed the place up and fixed it to suit their peculiar lifestyle. They've debauched a place which has a lot of history and needs to be preserved.

Now the Dems own this house.

Wouldn't it be fitting to try to undo all the more extreme things the Republicans have installed? Would that be wrong and radical and "un-bi-partisan" (wow!)

Wouldn't it be within the Democrat's rights, and the rights of the majority of people who supported them and voted them into office for them to do what was necessary to first put things back in order before getting on with the business of governance?

I think so.

So perhaps for a period of time, the Dems should continue the firmly established Republican style of leadership in the House, which basically means that you operate as if the minority doesn't exist.

Then after some of the more important issues have been dealt with, and some of the more egregious damage left over from the Republicans has been corrected, then resume running the House the way it had been prior to it's radical occupation in the recent past.

What do you think? Should the Dems immediately play nice? Or are they within their rights to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine?

If the Dems do play Republican style hard-ball, how badly will it hurt them politically, if at all?

Issue Three

Anyone else find it a bit suspicious that Bush's attorney suddenly jumped ship with little or no explanation? Did she see the writing on the wall?

Some are suggesting that Bush's penchant for issuing several bizarre "signing statements", where in addition to signing legislation, he issues a dictate saying which parts of the bill he's going to obey and which he's not. He does this by the legal ju-jitsu of interpreting what he says the bill means and how he intends to "follow" the law.

Much like the secret wiretapping and email snooping, it's now revealed that Bush, in a recent signing, held that he has the right under the law to open anyone's mail he feels like if it's a matter of "national security", which means anytime, anywhere.

He already has this ability and can do so through the courts, so why all of this overkill?

Some say that it's in anticipation of the revelation of criminal acts by the president and others, and an effort to establish that he believed he was following the law at the time. (Doing so, of course, by issuing bizarre interpretations of the law in his "signings")

In other words, he can have the defense of saying that he'd written in a signing that he felt that this legislation authorized him to do all these patently illegal and unconstitutional things, thus, how can he be guilty if he didn't think he was breaking the law?

The Republicans in congress have provided a shameful protection to this administration, and now without it being able to prevent investigations and otherwise divert serious questions, corruption and incompetence will be at last able to be revealed.

The true scope and level of this will likely never be revealed, but even some of it will shock the country.

Some say that the Dems better not dare to spend much time investigating administration sins, or the American public will turn on them.

I say hogwash. Once the dirt starts being revealed, the American public will be clamoring for more.

I predict that there will be many major and shocking scandals and revelations to come in the next decade or so. This most secretive of any administration in history has a lot to hide, and the public will likely be shocked when some of it comes out.

Three issues

Issue One Iraq insanity

The rather barbaric neck-breaking of Sadaam Hussein amidst sectarian shouts and taunts wasn't exactly a shining moment for the new Iraqi government. His martrydom is all but assured amongst his Suni followers across the mid-east and it throws gasoline on the already explosive sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Now take a few steps back and look at the entire Iraq situation.

There have now been over 3000 U.S. troops sacrificed and scores of thousands blinded, maimed, crippled, and wounded.

Why?

What exactly is Bush's purpose? What is the goal? What is it that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and all these precious lives to acheive?

What have we accomplished? Well, Sadaam was taken out of power and hung.

Is that what people here were so jazzed up about with their rabid patriotism and support of Bush these past many years? Is this what these people have died for? To remove Sadaam Hussein?

And looking back, Sadaam was able to keep Iraq as a cohesive and stable country. How? Often by brutally repressing anyone who tried to rise up and challenge either his power or start any conflicts.

He slaughtered people who tried to assassinate him. This was held up as a reason he needed to be taken out by Bush. The infamous gassing of the Kurds wasn't even mentioned in his trial and was not what he was convicted for. And of course, Rumsfeld et. al. were sure he had poison gas because they had the receipts. They'd sold it to Sadaam when he was at war with Iran.

But essentially, Sadaam ruled with an iron fist, and kept Iraq relatively stable and functioning. Though there was poverty and want in his country, it was not nearly as bad as many other misruled countries around the world.

He was a brutal dictator who held his fractious country together and enforced "peace" so to speak, with strength and force.

Now we go blundering into the country, topple Hussein, disband his army, set up an erstwhile government, and now, to noone's surprise except the Bush administration apparently, these factions were set loose to battle for supremacy.

Without Sadaam's brand of iron-fisted repression, the gates are open and it's a huge, deadly free-for-all.

This of course could have been foreseen by anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of Iraq. But of course, Bush and his crew wanted this war, and they were going to get it, facts be damned.

So now that we've effectively "broken" Iraq completely, is it any wonder that no one has a clue as to what to do now?

Is sending in a "surge" of troops really going to accomplish anything other than trying to establish a tiny ring of security enough for the pampered residents of the Green Zone, or the Emerald City as it's known, to get the hell out?

Is the lives of the 3000 troops and the unbearable grief of their families left behind all worth what we've accomplished in Iraq?

Did they die so that Sadaam could be killed and the country thrown into chaos for decades, with the likely outcome a wider war amongst mid-east countries and the establishment of an Iraq even more hostile to the US than the Iraq of Sadaam Hussein?

Is there anyone in this country, especially politicians, who are brave enough to see this for the utter disaster it is and say so?

And can the American people, even liberals and Democrats, bring themselves to actually acknowledge the scope and massive scale of what this most reckless and thoughtless of all presidents has lead us into?

Since the constantly shifting rationales for why we invaded a country which had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11 have shifted and changed so many times it's hard to keep track, can anyone try to guess as to what motivated Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, and the rest to rush to invade Iraq, even if it meant lying through their teeth to do it?

Why did we invade Iraq? What profit did it represent to those at the top who pushed so recklessly for it? What did they think would happen and why?

Issue Two

"Fair play" in congress.
Since the new Democratic congress was sworn in yesterday, there's been a big bitch-fest among Republicans, who of course, knowing no shame, are actually barking about those mean Dems leaving them out of debate on a few issues to do with Pelosi's First 100 Days agenda.

First of all, it's nearly enough to make you lose your lunch to hear these bastards who routinely treated all Dems like rented mules for the past decade or so now standing there whining about fair play.

But it does raise a difficult issue, and one that's proving impossible for me to decide.

Everyone acknowledges that the myth of "bipartisanship" is a worthy goal, and that the mid-term election represented American's desire to put an end to the Republican style of abuse and arrogance of power whereby they essentially gave the opposition party the finger every time it expected to actually participate in the government of this country and represent the half of the population who voted for them.

They were denied meeting rooms, not informed of content of bills, denied debate or allowed a ridiculously short time for debate, they slipped in bills in the dead of night, illegally held votes open until enough arms were twisted to pass bills their way, and even offered bribes on the floor. At one point, they even called the capitol police to break up a Dem caucus meeting.

They abused the rules committee so badly that it was unprecidented.

Now these same creeps are on TV whining that Pelosi isn't coming through with her promise of cooperation.

So, this presents a dilema. Should the Dems, who in my opinion have every right conceivable to give the Republicans a large dose of their own medicine, fight tough and employ a little of the Republican-style use (or abuse) of power, or should they immediately make nice and bend over backwards to make sure the Republicans are able to water down, amend, and dilute Democratic measures in the spirit of "bipartisanship"?

Bear in mind that the Republicans have for years been passing amazingly brazen bills designed to ensure their power and control, measures such as phony bills to make it nearly impossible to raise taxes.

Should the Dems just take the hit early and do the right thing to get rid of all these partisan and ideological measures and put government back the way it was meant to be? Or should they lay down and allow things to essentially run according to Republican rules?

My view is that they need to be a little ruthless now and get it over with.

Permit me an analogy. Let's say the House is an actual house, which the Republican's have owned for decades now, and they've painted the walls a garish purple and put in toilet seats with Jesus's image on it and have corporate call girls living upstairs and have otherwise messed the place up and fixed it to suit their peculiar lifestyle. They've defaced a place which has a lot of history and needs to be preserved.

Now the Dems own this house.

Wouldn't it be fitting to try to undo all the more extreme things the Republicans have installed? Would that be wrong and radical and "un-bi-partisan" (wow!)

Wouldn't it be within the Democrat's rights, and the rights of the majority of people who supported them and voted them into office for them to do what was necessary to first put things back in order before getting on with the business of governance?

I think so.

So perhaps for a period of time, the Dems should continue the firmly established Republican style of leadership in the House, which basically means that you operate as if the minority doesn't exist.

Then after some of the more important issues have been dealt with, and some of the more egregious damage left over from the Republicans has been corrected, then resume running the House the way it had been prior to it's radical occupation in the recent past.

What do you think? Should the Dems immediately play nice? Or are they within their rights to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine?

If the Dems do play Republican style hard-ball, how badly will it hurt them politically, if at all?

Issue Three

Anyone else find it a bit suspicious that Bush's attorney suddenly jumped ship with little or no explanation? Did she see the writing on the wall?

Some are suggesting that Bush's penchant for issuing several bizarre "signing statements", where in addition to signing legislation, he issues a dictate saying which parts of the bill he's going to obey and which he's not. He does this by the legal ju-jitsu of interpreting what he says the bill means and how he intends to "follow" the law.

Much like the secret wiretapping and email snooping, it's now revealed that Bush, in a recent signing, held that he has the right under the law to open anyone's mail he feels like if it's a matter of "national security", which means anytime, anywhere.

He already has this ability and can do so through the courts, so why all of this overkill?

Some say that it's in anticipation of the revelation of criminal acts by the president and others, and an effort to establish that he believed he was following the law at the time. (Doing so, of course, by issueing bizarre interpretations of the law in his "signings")

In other words, he can have the defense of saying that he'd written in a signing that he felt that this legislation authorized him to do all these patently illegal and unconstitutional things, thus, how can he be guilty if he didn't think he was breaking the law?

I predict that there will be many major and shocking scandals and revelations to come in the next decade or so. This most secretive of any administration in history has a lot to hide, and the public will likely be shocked when some of it comes out.

Drinking Liberally tonight

If you haven't shown up for a Drinking Liberally gathering, you really ought to. It's a perfect opportunity to meet folks with similar interests and outlook in a casual and fun setting.

Unless there's a change, the group will be meeting tonight (Fri.) at Jack's Place in downtown Moline, 425 15th Street at about 8:00 p.m.

Politicians have attended, and the more the merrier. Make it a point to get down to Jack's tonight and tell 'em the Dope sent you.

"I just wish I had a little more time"

The Chicago Tribune's Christi Parsons pens a nice two-page feature on Lane Evans as he prepares to step down at a time which would have offered great opportunity due to the newly Democratic House, the masses of returning vets, and the fight for stem-cell research.

If desire and experience were the only requirements, Rep. Lane Evans would be preparing to join fellow Democrats in their January takeover of Congress, where he would likely serve as a committee chairman and a seasoned advocate for military personnel.

But a decade of fighting Parkinson's disease has taken its toll on the 55-year-old congressman from Rock Island, and he is instead spending the holidays shutting down his offices and attending going-away parties. His health means he can't continue his 24-year congressional career, in which the former Marine has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq and a spokesman for fellow veterans.

"I think it's too bad that I couldn't do more," Evans said in an interview. "If I only had a little more time, I could do more than I've been able to. I just wish I had a little more time."

Evans surely would have been a key spokesman in favor of stem cell research, as funding and other support are increasingly the focus of public debate. The issue played an important role in the recent midterm elections, in which actor Michael J. Fox used the spotlight on his struggle with Parkinson's to advocate for increased research.

It's a sadly ironic turn for the Vietnam-era veteran and legal aid lawyer first elected to Congress in 1982. At a time when friends say he would have been a unique voice among ascendant congressional Democrats, his disease has made it difficult for him to speak at all.

His voice is steady but soft, strongest in the mornings and weaker as the day wears on. He was absent when Congress was in session for most of the last year.

"It breaks my heart that his public career ended because of this illness," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close friend of Evans' who was elected to the House with him two dozen years ago. "This is one of the cruelest diseases, particularly for a young man with Lane's values and potential. At this moment in time, he should be writing new chapters on the issues he cares about."

Read the rest here.

Davenport's traffic cams ruled illegal

In the most recent legal wrangling over Davenport's controversial use of cameras mounted at intersections to catch people violating traffic laws, a judge has found that the method doesn't fit within established law.

In a rather bizarre decision, Davenport has announced that it will continue to run the cameras, but will not issue any citations.

From the Dispatch/Argus:

City administrator Craig Malin said Davenport plans to take Scott County District Court Judge Gary McKenrick's ruling under consideration.

He said there are other options besides resolving the issue through the court system. An appeals process could take months. If other plaintiffs join the lawsuit that sparked Judge McKenrick's ruling and a court certifies a class action, resolution could be much longer. Another option is to wait until the legislature changes the state law.

Judge McKenrick found Davenport's city ordinance involving red-light and speed cameras "in conflict with, contrary to and inconsistent" with certain provisions of state law.
...
"It's a possibility the ordinance could be amended to address those issues" Mr. Malin said. "The city council could make some modifications to the ordinance to address the district judge's concerns".
...
According to a media release, since the start of camera use in August 2004, there have been more than 10,000 red-light and 20,000 speed tickets issued. The city had planned to budget about $590,000 in speed and red-light fine revenue to offset or reinvest in public safety costs.
...
Judge Gary McKenrick ruling came out of a lawsuit filed by Monique D. Rhoden, who received a speeding ticket after a camera photographed her vehicle going 11 mph over the speed limit on Kimberly Road. She paid the $45 fine, and then sued the city.

According to her lawsuit, the ticket noted "payment of the penalty amount for the violation will not go on your driving record nor be used to increase your insurance rates."

Judge McKenrick said that language, indicating the ticket would not be reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation, or other departments, for the purpose of being added to the vehicle's owner's driving records, violated state law.

State law requires that within 10 days of a conviction in a traffic case, the clerk of court must forward to IDOT an abstract of the case record. Courts view paying a fine as a conviction.

The judge also found that Davenport's fine structure is "markedly different than the fine structure provided for violations of the state statutes regulating speeding and obedience to traffic signals."

He also determined that state law does not provide for a specific exception for Davenport's ordinance.
...

A previous lawsuit was lost by a plaintiff who claimed the system was illegal. That case will be reviewed by the Iowa Supreme Court.

While officials cite public safety as their motivation, it's clear that they are far more interested in the huge amounts of revenue this system generates without a single officer having to move a finger.

As a matter of fact, the recent ruling found the law illegal because traffic charges due to these cameras were not reported to the state, and the charges did not go against the driver's record and were not reported to their insurance companies. This goes against state law which dictates that an abstract of the case be forwarded to the state.

This makes it clear that it's not safety as much as cold hard cash that was the object.

It also suggests that it's only a matter of time before the state amends it's statutes to comport with the use of these revenue "enhancers".

This matter poses many questions about just how intrusive we want our government to be, and issues about the use of increasingly sophisticated technology to surveil and police society. These are issues which all people will have to confront and make decisions about in the near future.

Just how far should this sort of thing go?

What do you think?

Bass Street Chop House

The replacement for the suddenly vanished Blue Ribbon restauarant in downtown Moline, the Bass Street Chop House, is apparently still in business.

Several viewers have arrived at TID through searching on the Chop House, apparently looking for some information. Having not gone there yet myself, I wondered if any readers who have could give a review.

What did you think? What sort of fare do they offer? How was your experience with both service and quality of food? Unleash your inner food critic and provide some helpful info for fellow readers.

McLaughlin Group looks at '06

TID received several very excellent year end award submissions to the post below, and for that I'm grateful. They were all thoughtful and thought provoking.

Last Sunday's McLaughlin Group focused on his year end awards and the panel had some interesting things to say even though, curiously enough, Hare or Jacobs weren't mentioned at all.

Here's a synopsis. PB= Pat Buchanan, EC= Eleanor Clift, TB = Tony Blankley, L O'D = Lawrence O'Donnell, and JM = John McLaughlin

DESTINED FOR POLITICAL STARDOM

PB: Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for president of France
EC: Robert Gates, newly appointed Defense Secretary
TB: Segolene Royal, Socialist candidate for president of France
L O'D: Charlie Rangel who Blankley predicts will be the most powerful man in congress.
JM: James Webb, senator elect from Virginia who will become the leader of those against the war.

DESTINED FOR POLITICAL OBLIVION

PB: Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki, along with Fidel and Sadaam
EC: Denny Hastert, the accidental speaker and placeholder who failed to accomplish much of anything
TB: Nick Lampson and Tim Mahoney, the two Dem candidates who replaced Tom Delay and Mark Foley respectively.
L O'D: Karl Rove, whose "final turn in the spotlight will be as a witness" in the Scooter Libby trial.
JM: Jeb Bush - "The Bush dynasty is kaput."

BEST POLITICAL THEATRE

PB: Mass demonstrations in Beirut after assassination of former Lebanon PM Rafik Hariri
EC: Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wallace on Fox news - "wipe that smirk off your face"
TB: YouTube - a platform for further political theatre
L O'D: Meet the Press' series of senatorial debates
JM: Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's performance at the U.N. where he said that he could feel the presence of "el diablo" or the Devil (Bush) and that "sulfurous fumes" still remained at the podium where Bush had spoken earlier.

WORST POLITICAL THEATRE

PB: Hugo Chavez for the same thing
EC: Cheney shooting his friend in the face with a shotgun, and finding $10,000 in William Jefferson's freezer
TB: Muslim demonstrations worldwide against Danish cartoon's depiction of Mohammed
L O'D: Rush Limbaugh's "grotesque and FALSE" imitation of Michael J. Fox's appearance in campaign ads.
JM: Limbaugh's disgrace or Cheney shooting

WORST POLITICAL SCANDAL

PB: "Abramoff, Foley, Cunningham, take your pick. The entire Republican culture of corruption."
EC: All of the above and the fact that the House Ethics committee looked at what happened with the Foley scandal, agreed that everyone acted disgracefully, then did absolutely nothing.
TB: The "Foley/Hastert" scandal, which was a double scandal due to Hastert's doing nothing.
L O'D: Abramoff scandal was the worst, Foley scandal was the worst timing.
JM: "Sprawling web of Republican corruption" Abramoff, Bob Ney, Scanlon, Delay, Safavian, Cunningham, and "more to come!"

MOST UNDERREPORTED STORY

PB: The current account deficit which will end with the American dollar becoming the North America peso. It's valued at only 7-8% of the GNP.
EC: The leading medical journal "Lancet"'s report on the number of deaths among Iraqi civilians, well researched by Johns Hopkins and put at 650,000 civilians killed and murdered in the Iraq invasion.
and
The fact that "dream candidate" Barack Obama smokes cigarettes.
TB: A Paris police union report that says they're facing an "intifada" from Muslim suburbs of Paris
L O'D: the Darfur massacre
JM: Globalization and its negative impact on the middle class - will soon be spreading beyond manufacturing and into skilled white collar jobs

MOST OVERREPORTED STORY OF 2006

PB: "Bird Flu will kill us all."
EC: Tom Cruise's wedding
TB: The wait for the Baker/Hamilton report - "biggest build-up to mallest dud"
L O'D: The Duke lacrosse team case
JM: "2008 presidential mania" - election just over and already focusing on distant election

BIGEST GOVERNMENT WASTE

PB: "400 BILLION spend on a war Colin Powell says we're not winning"
EC: The Iraq war, "any part of it or all of it"
TB: The Agency for International Development or AID - "a huge waste of money"
L O'D" "There's no greater waste of money than spending on a war that was a mistake."
JM: Iraq War, including the thousands of US lives lost and "scores of thousands" of injured and wounded.

BEST GOVERNMENT DOLLARS SPENT

PB: the salary of the pilot who bombed and killed Aman al-Zawahiri, leader of "al Queda in Iraq".
EC: the venture with Russia to find, buy up, and secure "loose nukes".
TB: Increased spending ion brain trauma injuries to returning vets.
L O'D: taking out Zawahiri was "pointless", best government dollars spent is still Social Security, a "very successful and efficient" program.
JM: funding for the Iraq Study Group

BOLDEST POLITICAL TACTIC

PB: Kim Jung Il's July 4th "rocket shoot".
EC: Obama's teaser ad for the NFL - his "next boldest move will probably be to run for the presidency".
TB: Karl Rove's micro-targetting strategy - "an effort to overcome with technical means governing flaws of the GOP" "governing flaws"??? Is that what you call it?
L O'D: Joe Lieberman for "getting up off the mat" after primary loss and winning as independent.
JM: Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of MN planning to take private oath of office on the Koran.

BEST IDEA OF 2006

PB: 700 mile Mexican border fence - even Hilary voted for it... and Schumer.
EC: Banning transfats in New York restaurants
TB: Decision by the World Health Organization and EPA to start using DDT again to kill mosquitos and fight malaria in Africa. Blankley blames the ban on DDT on Rachel Carson's silent spring and thinks it's just peachy to poison Africans.
L O'D: Jack Murtha's idea of pulling back troops, which ended up being endorsed by the Baker-Hamilton group study.
JM: YouTube - 100,000,000 videos available for viewing, potential to change politics and journalism.

WORST IDEAS OF 2006

PB: Israel's decision to smash Lebanon rather than "cleaning out" Hizbollah. It destroyed Lebanon, hurt Israel, and helped raise Hizbollah's prestige across mid-east.
EC: Getting O.J. to write "If I Did It".
TB: Keeping Hastert as Speaker. Thinks that if they'd booted Denny in the first week of the Foley scandal, the Republicans would still have held the house.
L O'D: Increasing troop levels in Iraq. McCain's promotion of this idea will cause him to lose the race if he clings to it.
JM: The idiot French soccer player who head butted an opposing player and lost France the championship.

SORRY TO SEE YOU GO

PB: Jack Pallance (?!) and Milton Friedman
EC: Lincoln Chaffee, moderate Republican senator from Rhode Island who lost election.
TB: Former Maryland governor Ehrlich
L O'D: Lincoln Chaffee
JM: Caspar Weinburger, Lyn Nofziger, Lloyd Bentson

BEST SPIN OF 2006

PB: Foley's attorney' statement - "I am a gay American, I am an alcoholic, I was abused by my clergyman, nevertheless I take full responsibility."
EC: Bush saying we're not winning, but not losing either.
TB: Democratic party saying they will "end corruption and special interest involvement" in Washington.
L O'D: Kevin Sheekey, NYC mayor Bloomburg's political mastermind for creating a "Bloomburg for president boomlet" without any help from Bloomburg.
JM: Bush claim that if we withdraw from Iraq, "disaster will follow", McLaughlin cites example of Vietnam - "dominos did not fall" - and says Iraq will be much the same.

MOST HONEST PERSON

PB: Robert Gates, for being asked by a Senator during his confirmation if we were winning in Iraq and his answer, "No sir."
EC: Evan Bayh, for dropping out of the presidential race and saying it was because he could not win, rather than citing family, etc.
TB: Eric Canton R-VA who promised to support Roy Blount for whip and then got huge pressure from R's to give it up and run himself. Blankley says he would have won, but he stuck to his pledge and supported Blount.
L O'D: the group of retired generals who came out both condeming Iraq policy and demanding Rumsfeld resign.
JM: David Walker, the head of the GAO who was the only person testifying honestly about the cost of the Iraq invasion and resconstruction.

MOST OVERRATED POLITICIAN

PB: James Baker & Lee Hamilton
EC: Karl Rove, for his boasting that he had "THE math" and all the polls were wrong, the Republicans were going to win.
TB: Barack Obama, who Blankley thinks is hugely overrated
L O'B: Ned Lamont
JM: Al-Zawahiri, taking him out was supposed to cripple insurgency, yet assasinating him and his wife and child made no difference whatsoever and insurgency attacks have only increased.

MOST UNDERRATED POLITICIAN

PB: Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy.
EC: Howard Dean for the same reason.
TB: Hilary Clinton, citing talk that she can't win. Blankley says she's in a powerful position.
L O'D: John Kerry, who O'Donnell thinks is NOT out of the running for "08. (!)
JM: Laura Bush and her reported influence on Bush's policy and politics.

PREDICTIONS

PB: The collapse of the dollar results in the recession of 2007.
EC: Democratic investigations in congress result in constitutional clash over the Bushies producing documents and the fact that there will be a flood of rat's leaving Bush's sinking ship, and it will be hard to find replacements.
TB: Thinks there's a "high liklihood" that Bush will bomb IRAN in 2007 if diplomacy fails, which he feels it will.
L O'D: It will be a terrible disaster after US leaves Iraq, but if managed well, in two decades, a U.S. president will be able to visit Iraq as safely as they now visit Vietnam.
JM: Religious fundamentalism will create a backlash and personal freedom will be in demand. There will be a political and social change towards libertarianism. Authoritarianism is "on its way out." A "mirth revolution" will be in force.

RESOLUTIONS

PB: to finish and publish his next book, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War".
EC: Be nicer...maybe.
TB: Wants to be tougher on Democrats, feels he's been "too nice" this year.
L O'D: Won't write a book, but will try to read one of Buchanon's.
JM: pledges to provide "more mirth" in 2007.


Anyone care to offer their predictions for 2007???

Please feel free.