The former Reagan administration official, Bruce Bartlett, wrote the following on March 2nd in his terrific NY Times blog [my comments in brackets in italics]:

There has been much wailing in Republican circles about a recent CBS News poll showing President Bush with an approval rating of only 34 percent [the more recent Fox News poll: just 33%]. At this level, he is losing not only every Democrat and independent but a substantial number of Republicans as well.

One argument put forward by Rush Limbaugh and others is that the CBS poll is just biased [uh, as just mentioned, Fox News -- not quite a "liberal" bastion -- has Bush at just 33%; what say you now blowhard?] — an outlier, as statisticians might say. But even if the CBS poll is thrown out, Bush is still showing remarkably weak job approval. The Web site RealClear Politics maintains a useful compendium of national polls [also try this one]. Their poll averages show Mr. Bush hovering around 40 percent approval [Update: 35%], which means that he is getting the Republican base and no more.
<..>
46 percent of voters saying that they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate this fall, and 31 percent saying they plan to vote for the G.O.P. candidate....The most interesting part of the poll to me was confirmation that Mr. Bush’s support among Republicans is eroding badly. Less than half of Republicans now give the president strong approval ratings.

This being the case, it is not surprising to see Republicans in Congress starting to run away from Mr. Bush....He is becoming an albatross around their necks, endangering their re-elections. Unless the president does something to turn his polls around fairly quickly, he is going to find Congress in open revolt against every single thing he proposes, no matter how innocuous.
<..>
That is what really happened to the Democrats in 1994. It wasn’t that the Republicans got more votes than they had gotten previously; it was that the Democrats got a lot fewer because so many of their party lacked the enthusiasm to go out and vote.
<..>
The Kaine-Kilgore race is a good example of something that both parties tend to get wrong. They are both so driven by pollsters and consultants that they forget that the American people still admire a man of principle, even if those principles are contrary to theirs. An overwhelming number of voters in Virginia, as almost everywhere, support the death penalty and so Mr. Kilgore thought all he had to do was beat it to death. But, like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, Mr. Kaine was able to convince voters that his opposition was sincere and deeply held, and so they gave him a pass. I believe that voters will almost always do this if politicians show some courage of conviction, instead of trying desperately to avoid offending anyone by saying almost nothing that hasn’t been polled and focus-grouped to death.

Has anyone noticed the interesting critiques coming from Newt Gingrich of late....? He recently had some harsh words about the lack of progress in New Orleans ("Today, if you look at the response after Katrina — and it's going to be really bad by September when we go back and have a one- year review and we realize how much of New Orleans is not fixed as of this coming September."). He's also stated that the Iraq occupation has been an "enormous mistake."

Hmm, sounds like a certain someone will be running in '08....

Oh, and for those rightwing nitwits who choose to ignore GW's recent poll numbers with the response, "nah, nah, but we won when it counted, last November," well keeping aside that times change, often dramatically, and it's typically not best to keep your head stuck in your ass, oops I mean sand, here's what Newt had to say:

I think they're [Republicans] in very serious danger of having a very bad election this fall. And I think that you have to respect — when you get poll after poll telling you basically the same thing, you have to respect the right of the American people to say they want change.

At least Newt has his head out of his ass on this topic -- too bad so many on the right are living in denial and clinging to past history.

Bush called for halting deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). As with most "policy" with these guys, it's all smoke & mirrors, and lies & deception. What Bush didn't say was that the SPR has been experiencing net withdrawals over the last six months, so his big suggestion is actually old news. Also, the SPR is currently 94% full so even if reserves were to be added, there's not much room to do so (at near capacity). All in all, GW's talk regarding the SPR was just fodder for the less informed masses.

Oh what a surprise. The GOP-controlled Congress has decided to continue to spend up a storm and bury ethical reforms:

WASHINGTON - Just weeks after declaring themselves fiscal and ethical reformers, lawmakers are adding billions of dollars in special projects to a spending bill for the Iraq war while retreating from some of the lobbying restrictions they'd once touted as the antidote to a spate of scandals.
<..>
Government watchdog groups dismiss the House ethics proposals as cosmetic changes, but because some senior Republicans oppose even those as too binding, the outcome of the vote remained in doubt Wednesday.

In the Senate, lawmakers are working their way through a $106.5 billion bill that would pay for the war in Iraq and for hurricane-related costs. But the Senate version is $14.5 billion more than President Bush requested and could grow even bigger, larded with money for lawmakers' pet causes.
<..>
"My leadership doesn't think we have an ethics problem and doesn't believe in reform," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., one of the leading Republican advocates for tighter ethics rules. The pending legislation, Shays said, "has no redeeming feature."

An out-of-control Congress -- who soon may be just (voted) out.

From a recent Bob Herbert column:

The libertarian Cato Institute is about to release a study titled "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush." It says, "Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power." While I disagree with parts of the study, I certainly agree with that particular comment.

In the current issue of Rolling Stone, Sean Wilentz, a distinguished historian and the director of the American Studies program at Princeton University, takes a serious look at the possibility that Mr. Bush may be the worst president in the nation's history.

What in the world took so long? Some of us have known since the moment he hopped behind the wheel that this reckless president was driving the nation headlong toward a cliff.

The worst thing he did, of course, was to employ a massive campaign of deceit to lead the nation into a catastrophic war in Iraq — a war with no end in sight that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives and inflicted scores of thousands of crippling injuries.

When he was a young man, Mr. Bush used the Air National Guard to hide out from the draft in a time of war. Then, as president, he's suddenly G. I. George, strutting around in a flight suit, threatening to wage war on all and sundry, and taunting the insurgents in Iraq with a cry of "bring them on."

When the nation needed leadership on the critical problem of global warming, Mr. Bush took his cues from the honchos in the oil and gasoline industry, the very people who were setting the planet on fire. Now he talks about overcoming the nation's addiction to oil! This is amazing. Here's the president of the United States scaling the very heights of chutzpah. The Bush people and the oil people are indistinguishable. Condoleezza Rice, a former Chevron director, even had an oil tanker named after her.
<..>
The sins of the Bush administration are so extensive and so egregious, they could never be adequately addressed in a newspaper column. History will be the final judge. But I've no doubt about the ultimate verdict.

Remember the Clinton budget surplus?

It was the largest in American history. President Bush and his cronies went after it like vultures feasting in a field of carcasses. They didn't invest the surplus. They devoured it.

Remember how most of the world responded with an extraordinary outpouring of sympathy and support for America in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11?

Mr. Bush had no idea how to seize that golden opportunity to build new alliances and strengthen existing ones. Much of that solidarity with America has morphed into outright hostility.

Great to see Porter Goss has his priorities in order. His main goal at the CIA: "to re-emphasize the culture of secrecy." (Sounds like what's going on at the EPA, the big clampdown). Because that's our big problem, leaks from the agency about illegal wiretapping....

Larry Johnson, former CIA officer, had this to say on MSNBC recently: "Porter Goss has politicized the CIA, there's no doubt. Several years ago, most of the people in the Public Affairs office were intelligence professionals. What you have there today, with the exception of one individual, most of the people up there now are political hacks."

In short, allow the rot to remain and instead punish anyone who would dare reveal anything about said rot.

"Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails" -- but show us the plentiful good news!

Is BushCo already showing signs of bungling the avian flu threat? (""What they're proposing is nonsensical," says Tara O'Toole, director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.)

More waste and failure by Halliburton -- when will the Cheney-led favoring and insanity end?

A few weeks later, after the project had burned up all of the $75.7 million allocated to it, the work came to a halt.

The project, called the Fatah pipeline crossing, had been a critical element of a $2.4 billion no-bid reconstruction contract that a Halliburton subsidiary had won from the Army in 2003. The spot where about 15 pipelines crossed the Tigris had been the main link between Iraq's rich northern oil fields and the export terminals and refineries that could generate much-needed gasoline, heating fuel and revenue for Iraqis.

Yesterday, King GW was supposed to offer a four-point plan on how he proposed to help alleviate rising gas prices. What it turned out to be was first and foremost 15 minutes of War-on-Terror talk, followed by one main energy proposal: put a stop to the enforcement of environmental rules regarding gasoline.

It figures, if in doubt and there's a problem to be resolved, the first reaction of this administration is to throw corporations a bone. Relaxing EPA regulations on gas is not going to put a dent in the price at the pump, but of course BushCo is not going to tell you this fact.

Recall that every now and again we hear from OPEC and how they're not happy with the rising price of oil and they pledge to do something about it -- yet nothing happens. They can't provide anymore oil, they're tapped out. The supply/demand dynamic is to a point where supply is very tight and demand is high. We're using more oil than we're replacing in reserves. Get used to $3+ at the pump; below that is gone forever.

But again, we won't get such straight talk from the King. He'll continue to posture as if he's trying to help us get off our "addiction," all the while doing really nothing but demand measures that help his energy buddies, and throw around rhetoric concerning renewable energy but then underfund such research behind closed doors. Never forget that this guy is an oil company representative first, and a horrible, incompetent leader second.

Well, it's about time GW recognized Fox News as an official mouthpiece of this administration.... You thought you saw Scottie dance on the tightrope of lies, wait till you see the contortions Snow is forced to perform.

Regarding Iran, Kevin Drum recently wrote:

....Quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran....If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

According to Michael Crowley, it's very likely all about GW's legacy:

I don't pretend to know how to solve the Iran problem (although, as a practical matter, military action sounds fairly nightmarish to me). What worries me is that Bush's thinking here might be clouded by this legacy stuff. Right now Bush knows he's likely to be remembered primarily for a failed adventure in Iraq. (Yes, Iraq may yet turn around; but it doesn't seem too likely.) Yet he may feel that Iran promises him a fresh opportunity to get a Big Thing right and win redemption in the history books. In other words, attacking Iran--as opposed to pursuing a slower diplomatic route which could stretch into a successor's term--would be a way for Bush to double down, so to speak, on his legacy. I'd like to think such a simplistic psychological calculus wouldn't carry the day. But I can't say it's completely unbelievable.

So let's reiterate, it's what's thought to be good for GW first, what's good policy for our country and the world a distant second.

But also it begs the question, what are we to think when they say we're making a premature judgment about Iraq, that all such ventures take time before you see real results...? By attacking Iran to further bolster the legacy, isn't that an admission that this Iraq thing may not turn out so good over time? In fact, it could get much, much worse, so what the hey, let's take a shot (or "double down") and attack Iran and then see where the legacy chips fall...? Laugh, but BushCo has done more on less sane thinking.

So Bush is down to just a 33% approval rating -- and this from a Fox News poll!

Unfortunately, odds are that's about as low as it's going to go. At a time when that number should be single digits, the fact that it's not goes a long way towards displaying that bedrock core of know-nothings who will support this president no matter how bad things get. With religion, and namely abortion, as the driving issue for most of them, Bush could run through the streets naked on TV and he'd still get the votes of this 30%.

It's an enormous advantage to have this 30% anchored, in-stone block of voters. If it were a Dem president currently in GW's shoes, you can be assured this 30% zombie-block would be unanimously against him/her and then perhaps another 30+% reasonable people who rightfully would want change = 60+%.

And there's the problem: it's not a 100% electorate up for grabs, but rather given 30% on auto-pilot for the GOP, it leaves just 70% up for grabs. Now do the math: the Dems need to win 73% of that 70% (.73 x .70 = 51%), whereas the GOP only needs to win 30% of that up-for-grabs 70% (.30 + (.3 x .7) = 51%).

Appreciating the math is crucial. And we haven't even factored in the paper-trail-less, blackbox voting machine shenanigans!

You or I could get heavily fined and/or go to jail for doing the following (insider trading), but not a member of Congress: "It remains perfectly legal for a member of Congress to buy and sell stocks based on information that's not available to the public."

Just the fact that Tony Snow is rumored to be the next WH press secretary, what does this say about Fox News as a supposed purveyor of objective, unbiased news? Can you imagine the uproar if a Dem president ever were to hire a Dan Rather or Tim Russert?

As I've written numerous times about the growing federalism, for the good of we the people, the United States is fast becoming the Loose Union of States. Latest examples: here and here.

"I'm a uniter not a divider" -- well GW, evidence argues to the contrary. Like "I'm a compassionate conservative," "I will restore honor and integrity to the White House," and that campaign pledge against nation-building, everything uttered from this guy's mouth is typically not just a bald-faced lie, but you'd do better to just reverse its meaning 180 degrees.

Leaker in chief



Given GW's pledge to find that dastardly leaker and then fire him/her, uh, shouldn't he have fired himself a few days ago?

The GOP is having trouble making heads or tails of McCain's recent morphing into a non-maverick, go-along GW loyalist....

Surprise! The Wall Street Journal shilling for FOX News....

Next time you hear Steve Forbes blabber on about how we need a flat tax, tell him that we're nearly already there: "Without any fanfare or philosophical debate, millionaires and middle-class Americans now pay taxes at almost the same rates."

Some interesting tid-bits: There are 65 registered lobbyists for every member of Congress (and that's just the registered), starting salaries of lobbyists who have left Congress or administration duty is approx. $300,000, so-called special interests spend close to $200 million per month wining and dining our elected representatives.

From 2001 to 2004, if you were in the top 10% of income levels, your real net worth increased 6.5%, but if you were in the bottom 20% your real net worth dropped by -1.5%.

In today's column, Paul Krugman writes about Exxon Mobil and global warming:

Global warming emerged as a major public issue in the late 1980's. But at first there was considerable scientific uncertainty.

Over time, the accumulation of evidence removed much of that uncertainty. Climate experts still aren't sure how much hotter the world will get, and how fast. But there's now an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause. In 2004, an article in the journal Science that surveyed 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals found that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

To dismiss this consensus, you have to believe in a vast conspiracy to misinform the public that somehow embraces thousands of scientists around the world.

Many a wingnut feels those of us in the fact-filled world are simply alarmists when it comes to global warming, that we've banded together to concoct some grand, internet-based conspiracy. The fact is to dismiss the prevailing peer-reviewed evidence is to indulge in the mother-of-all conspiracy lunacy.

Regarding calls for Rummy to resign, Kevin Drum writes:

I think it's wise to be uneasy about something that has a bit of a sense of a palace revolt against the current civilian leadership of the military. But has mismanagement of the war become so extreme that the usual rules simply don't apply anymore?

In a word, yes.

From Charles Gabriel, Jr. at Prudential Equity Group:

The White House is once again staring at $3 per gallon gasoline, Bush approval ratings in the mid-to-high 30-percent range, and retired Army and Marine Corps generals mounting a cable-TV-amplified rebellion against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Administration officials seem so anxious to prove themselves, the Washington Post noted on April 16, that they're touting details of their preparation for a notional bird flu pandemic.

It is because of this backdrop that one can't help but be intrigued by the incremental incentive the White House might have this summer and fall to rattle the sabers louder and more convincingly than expected toward Iran. Handling Iran and the Global War on Terror is one of only a few areas where the public still expresses confidence in Bush and the Republicans equal to or greater than that afforded the Democrats. And a shift back to public focus on an imminent security threat or test of American resolve might (for Bush and GOP lawmakers) prove a welcome diversion from non-security issues, which seem to be playing to Democrats' strength.

In other words, look for a wag-the-dog, pre-November attack on Iran.

The court in place to prosecute former Liberian president, Charles Taylor, offered a statement that "no matter how rich, powerful or feared people may be -- no one is above the law."

This decree applies to all leaders of countries with laws -- including ours!

GW took a time-out from another vacation to defend Rummy. The following letters to the editor in the NY Times pretty much say what needs to be said:

Now that no fewer than five retired generals have weighed in on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's incompetence ("More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation," front page, April 14), the failings of our administration can no longer be ignored.

Although the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, has said that "the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job," the opinions of these high-ranking military men must be taken seriously.

The time is overdue for President Bush to remove Mr. Rumsfeld from his position. But for that to occur would require the president to display a willingness to swallow his pride and to admit to having made a mistake — not likely for Mr. Bush.

When will our president surrender his arrogance and face reality? -- Lawrence J. Hahn
-------------

When recalling the run-up to the war in Iraq, we should remember the attitude of supreme confidence displayed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Remember "shock and awe"?

When Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, dared to tell Mr. Rumsfeld that the United States would need a lot more troops in Iraq than was planned, he was ignored and soon after retired.

It is too bad that all those generals who are now speaking out did not have the spine at the outset. -- Robert M. Prowler
---------------

What's with all this johnny-come-lately criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the war by retired generals? Where were these guys when it could have made a difference — for example, to my friend's son, who was killed on his second tour of duty last year?

As much as I have opposed this war from the start, I am disgusted by the recent outburst of criticism by these military men and the press reports that make it sound as if this is a brave thing to do.

It would have been brave to speak up when they were actually in a position to do something. It's more than a little too late now. -- Lois Kallunki
-------------

It is interesting that the formal criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has come only from retired generals, who have their retirement rank and pension established. Surely they didn't come to that conclusion only after having retired. Do none of the generals on active duty have the courage to speak up? -- Andrew Linn