From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
I just saw a preview of tonight's pending announcement of CNN-Time's Person of the Year at 8:00 pm EST on CNN.
If I had a vote (or were a panalist or even subscribed to either Time or CNN), I humbly suggest that Barbaroshould be named "person of the year."
I can't think of a public figure who more appropriately profiles Barbaro's winning spirit, his unfathomed determination, his response to an amazingly successful combination of science and technology, and the universal support which he has garnered.
Not a slack in his profession, either.
Go, Barbaro, Go!
You're a winner, Barbaro -- a brave creature who has won the hearts of everyone who has prayed for your continuing recovery.
Note: since I'm boycotting CNN, I'll catch the results on the net.
UPDATE: Dear Times/CNN: Thanks for selecting ME as person of the year. Even though selected, I graciously decline this dubious honor and suggest you seriously reconsider Barbaro as a worthy recipient of this :::coughcough:::: esteemed award.
I've said for weeks that it's time for the US to draw a few lines in the sand (including political regions or states) in Iraq. It's now time for a new coalition. Call it Enjoined Parties.
Set timelines to either join the new coalition or get your butt blasted militarily. Pave a few sand dunes (the way we should have done in the jungles of Nam) and the infidels will get the message.
Let this new coalition of Enjoined Parties consist of current coalition troops, government military forces and regional/tribal militias (bribed and freely enjoined) who agree to stop the madness.
Let the centuries-old religious war-mongers have at it (in designated areas) while Enjoined Parties weed out terrorist groups AND give the Iraqi government (politically, geographically, tribally and militarily) a timeline to get on the road toward a peaceful and prosperous coexistence.
Forget those Rules of Engagement (ROE's) which restrict the US from using full-military force to protect our troops and Enjoined Parties.
Draw lines in the sand. Use a bulldozer for those visually challenged.
Draw these lines regionally AND intra-cities (including Baghdad and all those other alphabet names).
Let the Sunni/Shiite go at it in designated areas while our troops focus on destroying terrorist enclaves, protecting and expanding the Iraqi economic infrastructure and defending Enjoined Parties.
If Iran or Syria or the Saudis want to intervene on behalf of either Sunnis or Shiites -- let them bring it on. Let them fight to their hearts content. But in designated areas EXCLUDING "the green zone," the airport region, oil fields and transportation conduits, "Enjoined Party" regions or areas of Kurdish control.
As long as they don't cross lines in the sand.
And for every assault, every bomb that is ignited in an Enjoined region --- the line in the sand will be become a noose around the necks of the un-enjoined.
Only the tribes and regions of Enjoined Parties, however, will receive economic benefits from Iraqi resources. And if the Saudis or the Iranians feel they can continue to support the un-enjoined in non-productive religious wars, let them drain their national coffers to do it.
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.
The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.
The report would include identifying the organization’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.
“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”
Under the bill, communications aimed at an organization’s members, employees, officers or shareholders would be exempt from the reporting requirement. That would effectively exempt most corporations, trade associations and unions from the reporting requirements—but not most conservative grassroots groups, which frequently are less formally organized.
Larger, well-funded organizations are also currently eligible for a “low-dollar lobbyist exemption” that Pelosi’s bill does not give to grassroots organizations. If an organization retains a lobbyist to contact lawmakers directly at a cost of $2,500 per quarter or less, or employs a full-time lobbyist at a cost of $10,000 per quarter or less, the organization does not have to report to the government.
Public Citizen, a liberal “government watchdog,” is taking credit for helping Pelosi craft the legislation and expects the final draft of the bill to closely resemble Pelosi’s Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006, which contains these provisions.
Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the changes would help “streamline” how grassroots organizations are regulated by the IRS and other laws. Public Citizen would like Congress to adopt the IRS’s definition of “lobbying,” which includes communication that encourages the general public to contact a member of Congress on pending legislation or public policy.
“The IRS has a definition that requires all organizations, including non-profits, to file as a part of our tax returns,” Holman said. “When it comes to the election code and the lobbying disclosure act, they have no definition of grassroots lobbying. It’s excluded from everything. The IRS has a definition of grassroots lobbying, but their information is not publicly reported. It’s just our tax returns to the IRS.”
Suzanne Coffman, director of communication for Guidestar.org, which makes IRS 990 forms available on the Internet, said any secular, non-profit organization that has more than $25,000 in income per year is required by law to make the last three years worth of tax forms available upon request. “We get them directly from the IRS, and we have more than two million 990s online” said Coffman. “For non-charitable organizations, like private charities or private foundations, we have fewer because the IRS began scanning those only in April 2005. They focused on charitable organizations, which make up the bulk of exempt organizations, because those are the ones that accept tax-deductible contributions. The need for accountability is much higher with them than with other types of organizations which are sort of subsidized by the taxpayer because they federally are tax exempt, but not like a charity is.”
Public Citizen’s public IRS 990 disclosure forms show that it raised more than $3 million in 2005. That year, the group spent $297, 431 on mail and $178,182 on consulting and professional fees.
A coalition of grassroots organizers, including David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Terrence Scanlon of the Capitol Research Center, have written an open letter calling on Public Citizen to renounce its efforts, which they called “flawed to the point of hypocrisy.”
“This bill would apply to those who have no Washington-based lobbyists, who provide no money or gifts to members of Congress, and who merely seek to speak, associate and petition the government,” it said. “Regulating the speech, publishing, association and petitioning rights of citizens is not targeted at corruption in Washington, as Public Citizen and its supporters would believe. Instead, it is targeted directly at the 1st-Amendment rights of citizens and their voluntary associations.”
The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, which made some of these changes, was actually approved by both the House and the Senate in the 109th Congress, but failed to make it through a conference committee.
To help dramatize the bill this time around, Pelosi is planning to assign sponsorship of various amendments to incoming freshman, which they will promote in their maiden House floor speeches.
Current law prevents former members of Congress and senior staff as well as senior executive staff from lobbying for one year. Pelosi’s proposal would extend that to two years and completely ban members and staff from accepting gifts, meals and privately sponsored travel.
Don't expect the full LobbyingTransparency and Accountability Act to pass as currently written, however.
Members are Congress aren't going to give up those freebie gifts, meals and junkets. You can expect grassroots groups to stay on the chopping block, however .....
Middle America doesn't need a Congressional ACT to see how "transparent" this one is going to be!
It's only an opinion, and basically unsubstantiated, but since reading an old article that stated elder-Bush was allegedly more concerned about Jeb losing an election than about GW winning the Presidency -- I've long had my suspicions about the father-son dynamics between GHWB and GWB.
Elder-Bush's tears at a recent event honoring Jeb re-kindled this allegation.
When the Iraqi Study Group was instituted in March, I wondered if GWB would seriously consider adopting solutions compiled by a gathering of his father's contemporaries.
Would Bush stand Lincoln-esque (as described by a recent article) "a man alone" to declare, not only personal validation, but a proactive path toward resolution to the Iraqi quagmire?
I prefer to think that Bush has begun to stand alone --to seek a workable resolution -- in spite of ideas rehashed for a problem (-- make that problems) that members of the ISG were unable to resolve 25-30 years ago.
Much greater minds than mine have questioned -- not only the composition and backgrounds of the study group, but the support-scenario in which they have studied.
And no -- I don't expect GWB to do much cherry-picking from the 79 study recommendations.
Why?
It was not GWB, but elder-Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) lead organizer and chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), who asked USIP to facilitate the ISG -- with the support of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Congress kicked in one million dollars to foot the bill.
The USIP?
Since when has this group or any of its supporting agencies every done anything comparable to salvaging a military quagmire? They're fundamentally flag-waving dove-havens. Their forte is diplomacy. That's about all they have ever promoted.
But diplomacy as a means to resolve centuries-old Muslim and Arabic tribal conflict? I don't think so.
Maybe diplomacy in conjunction with military strategy and political maneuvering? That could work. But diplomacy as a cure-all for Iraq and the Middle East? I don't think so. My assessment is that the ISG has encouraged diplomacy as a back-room tactic to enable a front door exit.
That is not what is wanted (by a majority of Americans and Iraqis) or needed in Iraq.
We need action that moves us toward a productive resolution --- not a time out to determine who to invite to the talking table. Diplomacy as a resolution to the contemporary Iraq quagmire?
My God -- have we learned nothing from history? Switching from a military effort to diplomacy is a sign of retreat in itself. Remember the meaning of Arabic "truce," i.e., the time taken for talking while re-arming .....
Diplomacy as a change in strategy is not a viable option for the US, for Iraq or for peace in the Middle East.
But wait. Baker et al didn't stop with the Iraqi scenario. They proceeded to lay blame on Israel (i.e., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) as the source of all Middle East evil.
I don't think so. And nor do many others -- including Mark Steyn.
Why would anyone -- even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the "Read my lips" pledge -- why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq's future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian "right of return"? And, incidentally, how did that phrase -- "the right of return" -- get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.
But back to this father-son analogy, specifically -- 10 elder-statesmen, contemporaries of GWB's father, assembled to identify a bipartisan plan for alleviating the Iraqi quagmire ....
Their suggestions certainly incorporate ideas that democrats (who had no plan of their own) can hang their collective hats on. The recommendations are also fodder for conservatives to enjoin their own splintered and self-serving visions. It would have been easy for GWB to accept the suggestions of his elders ....
But the past two weeks have also provided incentive for GWB to stand as a man alone -- in spite of all odds -- to stand against the whims of politicos who failed to bring about peace when they had their chance. Including the President's father.
Fortunately, GWB is making his own headway.
Respectful of the ISG's recommendations, he has met this week with his political advisors, with the military he commands, with Middle East leaders and with representatives of the Iraqi government who must, in essence, employ his suggestions to bring the US and the Middle East out of this quagmire.
Will it happen?
This elder-person bets her lap-shawl that we are about to see a transformed and re-directed GWB. Watch for him to employ suggestions from ME leaders, the military and his former Secretary of Defense. Watch for us to bribe (yeah, bribe) local militias to take control in areas where the Iraqi army can't .... Watch for the Kurds and other sectarian leaders to start their own negotiations .... Watch for less subtle involvement by concerned ME leaders.
And if we don't see GWB taking a proactive stance -- pass out those nuclear blankets, nurse -- the world will soon learn what fission does to sand.
Dennis Miller has it right-on. Even the Washington Times has noted that the airline, pilot/staff and police acted appropriately.
Now if those eye-moms would just show up to complete the inquiry, we could sweep this issue under a prayer rug and pray that these guys will stop acting like the profiles they say we're accusing them of being ....
Win, that is. Whether you "like" Dick Morris or not --- possibly only one other man knows Hillary Clinton better.
December 6, 2006 -- Now that Hillary has dropped the coy pretense of indecision that she used to justify her reelection to a Senate seat she no longer wants and has told friends that she plans to run for president, two questions present themselves: Can she win? And what kind of a president would she be?
She definitely can win … and probably will. She is uniquely able to expand the electorate to bring in millions of women, mostly single, who will vote overwhelmingly for a female Democrat. The feminization of poverty, long decried by the left, will finally lead unmarried women to show up at the polling place and vote their short-term economic interest and vindicate their gender bias. In 2000, only 19 million single women voted. By 2004, their turnout rose to 27 million. With Hillary in the race, the single-female vote will probably go up to its proper ratio of the adult population — 33 million votes.
Can white men outvote single women? Despite the intensity with which white men tend to oppose Hillary, they can’t vote twice.
The enthusiasm that will grip many Americans — women in particular — at the cultural implications of a woman president will probably sweep through the primaries and cause many to overlook Hillary’s flaws and dismiss her defects. The generic of a woman candidate will prove so attractive that millions of voters will overcome their objections to the specific person who is running.
Her mastery of the establishment of the Democratic Party, her vast lead among ex-officio delegates — many of whom have received campaign contributions from her coffers — and the celebrity draw of her ex-president husband will prove hard for a mere mortal to overcome.
But should she win? No way!
Those who know both Hillary and Bill well and are willing to speak frankly in public realize the fundamental differences between the two and grasp how his abilities are the counterpoints to her defects.
He is intensely creative, constantly turning issues over in his mind seeking new solutions. She rarely has a new idea but specializes in advocacy — the rote recitation of talking points.
He has an instinctual feel for people and an uncanny ability to read a room and know what everyone in it is thinking. She is obtuse in her understanding of people and ham-handed in her approach.
He cares deeply about being loved. She seeks popularity as a means to the goal of getting elected but otherwise marches to the beat of her inner, liberal drummer.
He distrusts ideology, and his innate perfectionism finds all belief systems flawed. She swallows the ideological line of the guru du jour hook, line and sinker. During the healthcare years, it was Ira Magaziner who pushed her buttons. When she decided to back the Iraq War, it was the generals who paraded before her committee. She is vulnerable to a cultish adoration of the guys with all the answers.
He lets the give and take of politics wash off his back. A critic is a potential convert whom he hopes to charm over to his side. She has a rigidly dichotomized view of friends and enemies, demanding total loyalty and public silence from the former and maintaining a ruthless determination to destroy the latter. She is a Democratic Nixon to those whom she perceives as her enemies.
He is a moderate by instinct, seeking incremental change. She devotedly and deeply believes in a European-style socialism in which government takes much more of our national income and offers a far wider array of services and benefits.
He’ll raise taxes when he has to. She’ll increase them just to redistribute income.
He’s most like Eisenhower, Kennedy and Bush Sr. — feeling his way, acting with caution, and skeptical of all advice. She is more like LBJ, Nixon or Bush Jr. — determined to charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned.
And finally, he knows who he is and, except for his private shortcomings, is not ashamed to let it show. She constantly seeks to reinvent herself and rigidly maintains an almost totally inaccurate image in public of what she is really like in private. He has little discipline. Hers is iron. His caution is innate. Hers is a learned response to what happens when people see who she really is.
He made a very good domestic-policy president. She would be a disaster at home and abroad.
Subscribe to the Dick Morris newsletter to stay abreast of his insight into Hillary's move toward the Presidency in 2008.
His line about Hillary Clinton may be around for a couple of years:
Miller said that he read Hillary's book and when he got to the chapter where she said she didn't have any idea that Bill was cheating on her, he decided then that she was definitely not smart enough to be his president.
I just saw a preview of tonight's pending announcement of CNN-Time's Person of the Year at 8:00 pm EST on CNN.
to 