HOPING FOR BUSH
I'll question their patriotism. Every patriotic American hopes that a new President will do well, that his policies will mean good things for America. I watched Clinton's inaugural speeches in 1993 and 1997 with that hope. I watched Al Gore's speech at the Democratic Convention in 2000 with the hope that he could be a good president if elected, even though I supported his opponent.

In last night's debate, the waffling and schizophrenic General Wesley Clark, who can't make up his mind on whether it was right to liberate Iraq, showed his patriotism in hoping for the best from the American President. Explaining why he praised the Bush Administration in 2001, he said "I could still have hope in early 2001 that this administration would learn its lessons, as most administrations do." (Of course, he could have been even more honest and just said that he was a Republican then). Soon to be former Sen. John Edwards showed his complete lack of patriotism and extreme partisanship when, right after Bush's inauguration, he didn't have any hope. And I'm barely paraphrasing: the quote, "I did not have hope for President Bush." Heck, he just wanted the new U.S. President to fail, I guess. Do we really want such a pitiful cynic in the White House? Thankfully, even the Democrats don't want Edwards.

CONDI AND CONTRACTS
Why can't Condi be called to testify? Last I checked, Congress had pretty broad subpoena power. Plus, I suspect that just about all funds are actually administered by other than top Cabinet or White House officials. It's not an effort to defeat accountability, but possibly to get the decisions out of Rumsfeld's hands, and I thought that would make a lot of people happy.

As for Paul Bremer's staff only taking calls from, what I assume is the Old Boys Network, I don't see any conspiracy here. Busy people tend not to take calls from every subcontrator and foreman at the job site, but they surely take calls from people they know. It's human nature, not some tinfoil hat conspiracy.

Contracts
Seems it's good to know the VP for Iraq contacts. MSNBC reports that only friends of the Administration can get Paul Bremer's staff to return calls. Some independent contractors have been in Iraq for months fighting inevitable military bureaucracy and now old-time croney-ism in Iraq contracts. Oversight of these millions/billions of public $$ is what is at risk.

Condi/Accountability
So the $87 Billion for Iraq was to be controlled by a White House ADVISOR who CAN'T be called to testify before the elected Representatives and Senators who appropriate the funds? As the Church Lady might note....."how conveee..eenient"!!!

Looks like the Adminstration might need to review the principles of checks and balances in government. Accountability to the American taxpayer is vital, especially when the number of dollars is in the "uncertain billions".

CARL WEATHERS FOR GOVERNOR?
What do the following movies have in common?

Predator
The Running Man
Batman & Robin

They all feature two actors who went on to become Governors. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura. The question for conspiracy nuts, tarot card readers and tinfoil hatters of all stripes: Which movie will spawn another Governor? Carl Weathers from Predator is my bet. He just looks Gubernatorial. And he's from Louisiana, just the sort of state that might turn to Apollo Creed in the 21st century.

Or it could be Yaphet Kotto, Jim Brown, Maria Conchita Alonso or, god forbid, Richard Dawson from The Running Man (I doubt that his Family Feud years will hurt him, though that looney send-up of a Nazi prison camp might). But Batman & Robin, while being the worst of the three movies, offers bigger names. George Clooney? Alicia Silverstone? Chris O'Donnel? Governor Uma Thurman?

Sure makes politics more fun (despite my pessimistic note below).

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT
I write this about 1 hour before polls close in California, and Jesse Jackson has already announced his attention to ask the courts to overturn the results. He argues that there are less people voting because there are fewer voting places as a result of the shortened time frame prescribed by law for this recall. "Disenfranchized," the reverend proclaimed, without rhyme. But, he doesn't care if anti-Davis voters are disenfranchised. In a surprising fit of honesty, Jesse admitted that there would be no challenge to the results if Davis prevails.

The recall law may have been a bad idea from the beginning, in that it is too democratic. The ancients knew that a pure democracy devolves into mobocracy. Tyranny of the majority. Men in the late 1700s realized this problem and therefore installed an electoral college and a representative government and no direct recall process for federal officers. And they designed a government of limited powers. And separated powers.

But, for years, the left has used the court system to dissolve the separation of powers and try to overturn the will of the people expressed through legislatures, by having laws declared unconstitutional, despite those laws' foundations in early U.S. history. Now, the left is trying to overturn elections by appealing to bureaucrats to read the minds of voters and interpret the will of the voter in Florida in 2000, by throwing out laws requiring a specific time for poll closings in Missouri in 2000 and by going to court to stop people from voting at all this year in California...all to insure their own desired results.

Unfortunately, the Republicans will soon be playing these same games. Abusing the process and trying to ensure their own victories.

Politics has become war by other means.

From "campaign finance reform" that intends to actually forbid political speech and prevent people from supporting campaigns and candidates, to campaign war rooms, opposition research and last minute surprise news stories about gropings or DWIs, to spin doctors and debate shows where no truth is revealed or admitted to even exist, our Republic is getting harder to keep. If the 2004 election doesn't become more civilized, then I hate to see the election 2008.

THE NATION BLOGS POORLY
Check out this idiocy at The Nation's blog:

Senator Hatch goes before the National Press Club and, as paraphrased by The Salt Lake Tribune, says "Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be judged on past improper advances towards women but as the devoted husband he is today." (Gee, why didn't Clinton think of this brilliant "devoted husband I am today" defense?)

If you are going to argue in a blog at least have some ability to reason. I'll try to make this simple so blogger Matt Bivens can follow, although it may be hard to use only one syllable words. Clinton got his Oval office hummer, groped Kathleen Willey, dropped trou in front of Paula Jones and advised Juanita on the proper use of ice as first aid, all while he was married to Hillary. Simple distinction, dimwit.

TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS



Still no democracy at the Palestinian Authority. AP

Sen. Bob Graham sees writing on wall, quits race, hopes to regain abandoned sanity. CNN.

Reuters uses Davis poll number to call race "too close to call". Reuters.

LA Times still a Democrat Press Release, says Bush is "Stealing from our Children". LA Times.

Al Fraken: Lying liar telling lies that the New York Times and ABC News told, but Al didn't read the NYT and ABC corrections. Media Research Center

German women shop, drop husbands at "kindergarten" for beer. Reuters.

WINNER COMES IN SECOND? WRONG.
There's been a lot of whining about the possibility that more Californians (and those illegal aliens that registered to vote when they got their driver's licenses) will vote against the recall than will actually vote for the new governor. How can this be, they complain? The new governor would have less support than Gray Davis did! It's a travesty. It's anti-democratic, they rave. "If we allow this recall to win," intellectual luminary Barbra Steisand rants, "we will be setting a dangerous precedent. In this unfair process, a candidate receiving just 30% of the vote could beat Davis, even if the governor receives 49%." But I don't remember anyone being too concerned when 57% of the public did not want Bill Clinton to be President in 1992.

Here's how the recall works. If a majority of the people don't want Gray Davis to be governor anymore, he's out, and we have a new election. If a majority of the people want to kick Gray out of the Governor's mansion, how would it be fair to allow him to continue? Is that democratic?

The new election just happens to be on the same day. Barbra's assumption is that anyone voting for Cruz Bustamante, Arianna Huffington, that Green Party loon, Mary Carey, Larry Flynt and the other assorted bright lights of the Democratic party would have switched their votes to Davis if he could be on the second ballot. Fat chance when over 50% are going to vote to throw out the trash, knowing full well that his replacement will be either Schwarzenegger or Bustamante with no more than about 35% of the vote. The electorate knows what it is doing. But I trust that Barbra would prefer that decisions about future leadership of California be entrusted to someone other than the unwashed proletariat.

Just remember, when the day is over, the majority of California's will have exercised their right to remove the powerful from office and replace him with the winner of a plurality vote. That's democracy, that's the people's will, and that's what bothers the Democrats.

MONDAY HIGHLIGHTS
If you are too stupid to vote, don't. Dennis Miller.

Some people want Donovan McNabb to succeed because he is black. Armstrong Williams.

L.A. Times does its own opposition research and cold calls cast and crew members from old Schwarzenegger movies. Thousands cancel paper. Reuters.

Groping allegations against Gubernatorial candidate need answer, rape allegations against U.S. President don't. California NOW chapter via Reuters.

FoxNews viewers not as smart as NPR listeners, on Iraq. Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland (pdf file).