In their daily report yesterday morning, the esteemed (and hardly a left-wing mouthpiece) ISI Group had the following to say about the upcoming November elections:

A rule of the thumb for the election might be that with Bush's approval below 40% Republicans are in trouble and with his approval below 36% they are in big trouble. If Bush's approval rating is at its current reading on Election Day, administration officials can plan on spending a lot more time answering subpoenas from Congress.

Can anyone honestly think of something, anything, that would get GW's approval number above 36%, much less 40%? I believe it's safe to say that once lame duck presidents enter a death spiral in the polls, it's exceptionally difficult for them to reverse course -- esp. if facing a summer of indictment and scandal headlines.

ISI goes on to write:

The variable pollsters are watching most closely is Republican voter intensity. One GOP pollster told us last week that up until the time of the ports controversy several months ago, Republican voter intensity was close to Democratic figures, but since then Republican voter enthusiasm has dropped considerably.

This trend sounds about right. These days, any right-wing person I know would much rather talk about anything other than politics. To say they lack "intensity" is putting it lightly.

In the past, I could see where one might say, "yeah, but they'll hold their nose and vote Republican anyway." Maybe, but I'm sensing that this time around many of those hardcore Republicans have seen enough of this administration and privately realize for the sake of the country a change is sorely needed. BushCo is not just an embarrassment to 70% of us, but even more so is a proven debacle that has deeply impaired this nation for years to come -- and many who denied this fact in the past have begrudgingly come to realize it as truth.

For this Memorial Day weekend, a quote from retired Lieut. General Greg Newbold:

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."

Lloyd Bentsen gave us perhaps the greatest -- and most deserved -- gotcha moment in the history of televised debates. He was a wonderful public servant as well as a valiant war vet (yes, another decorated Democrat, receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters). May he rest in peace.

Along with everything else in Iraq, we recently learned BushCo botched the training of the Iraqi police force. Are we surprised or even outraged at stuff like this anymore? (Another reason the dunce must go -- we've become accustomed to incompetence in our highest office!)

Before the war, the Bush administration dismissed as unnecessary a plan backed by the Justice Department to rebuild the police force by deploying thousands of American civilian trainers....During the first eight months of the occupation — as crime soared and the insurgency took hold — the United States deployed 50 police advisers in Iraq.

On May 7th, I wrote:

For this November's elections, the Dems should coin a phrase using the well-worn Bush line, "Stay The Course". How many times did we have to hear this phrase in the run-up to the '04 election, implying not just stay put in Iraq but stay with GW? Well, now the Dems should truly pound it home hard! They should ask if Americans still think we can afford to stay the course with the GOP in charge (as Republicans flee from wanting any association with GW/Cheney). Throw back at them that hackneyed line, it will work.

Now I learn that of all people Newt Gingrich recently said in Time that if he were a Democratic strategist he would advise that the Dems simply ask the voting public, "Had enough?" So Newt and I are on the same page (yikes!), just take BushCo's legacy and shove it back at the public (and then watch for faces of disgust and nausea). By the way, it should be fairly obvious to everyone that 1) Gingrich would like to run for president in 2008, and 2) unlike McCain & Giuliani, Newt is taking a different route, not sucking up to Bush Inc. but rather offering some harsh words of criticism.

In the latest New Yorker, with regards to the NSA program, Seymour Hersh wrote the following:

A security consultant working with a major telecommunications carrier told me that his client set up a top-secret high-speed circuit between its main computer complex and Quantico, Virginia, the site of a government-intelligence computer center. This link provided direct access to the carrier’s network core—the critical area of its system, where all its data are stored. “What the companies are doing is worse than turning over records,” the consultant said. “They’re providing total access to all the data.”

It's obvious that much more needs to come about this program -- conveyed info that goes beyond the USA Today story. What is going on here? To what extent exactly is this program invading our privacy and breaking the law?

That said, General Hayden seems to be exactly the wrong guy for the CIA job. He's not only neck-deep in the program's operations, he continues to push the non-truths that everything about it is completely legal -- defying the opinions of many legal scholars who have arrived at quite the opposite conclusion (reminder, Hayden is not a lawyer). About Hayden, Hersh writes:

[Hayden] is seen by many as a competent professional who was too quick to follow orders without asking enough questions. As one senior congressional staff aide said, “The concern is that the Administration says, ‘We’re going to do this,’ and he does it—even if he knows better.” Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission, had a harsher assessment. Kerrey criticized Hayden for his suggestion, after the Times exposé, that the N.S.A.’s wiretap program could have prevented the attacks of 9/11. “That’s patently false and an indication that he’s willing to politicize intelligence and use false information to help the President,” Kerrey said.

Yeah, that's what's needed, another yes-man crony in a high office. As Thomas Friedman recently wrote, "I understand that loyalty is important, but what good is it to have loyal crew members when the ship is sinking? So they can sing your praises on the way down to the ocean floor?"

A belated sad farewell to a truly great singer/songwriter, Grant McLennan of the Go-Betweens. He died of a heart attack on May 6th at the age of 48.

Last night, Keith Olbermann was discussing the latest move toward fascism, that being AG Gonzales' threat to prosecute reporters concerning classified leaks. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley had this to say on the topic:

What's amazing, Keith, is that you have the Attorney General who's been accused of participating in a criminal enterprise. Many experts, including myself, have said that the NSA surveillance program -- the one that he's making veiled reference to -- was a criminal act, committed with his assistance. Now he's saying that he may use his office to go after reporters who reveal such things about people like him.

Yes folks, this is what fascism looks and sounds like. Paranoid, misinformed, twisting logic and reality as means to an end, using power to trash laws that prove to be inconveniently in the way, wielding rhetoric to threaten and instill fear -- yup, it's all there, textbook stuff.

This complete embarrassment of a leader never stops. What he recently had to say about Australia's prime minister:

And that's what I like about John Howard. He may not be the prettiest person on the block but when he tells you something you can take it to the bank.

Surf around the right-wing blogosphere and you'll read the predictable pap regarding this statement ("It's how I talk about my good buddies," "Hope the PM has a sense of humor", etc.), all the usual excusatory crap that wouldn't pass in a second for a more intelligent president (say Clinton) making the same idiotic comments.

At least he's apparently given up sizing up souls and now attempts to judge world leaders based in part on their physical beauty.

Go ahead and dismiss this incident as trivial. It's not. Given how painstakingly BushCo tries to stay on-script, it's these moments of slipped-up truth that are most revealing. King GW hasn't a clue, hasn't a clue what he's doing, hasn't a clue what he's going to do the next two years -- he's without a compass and we, the entire world, are at his mercy (until this November anyway, hopefully).

Some very hopeful news:

Over the past week, a handful of once-safe Republican Congressional seats have come into play, and other Republican incumbents are facing increasingly stiff re-election battles, according to analysts, pollsters and officials in both parties. The change amounts to a slight but significant shift in the playing field, and a potentially pivotal change in the dynamics of this midterm election.

....The nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which tracks Congressional races, increased the number of Republican seats viewed as competitive on Friday to 36 from 24, said Amy Walter, an analyst there...."The playing field is certainly expanding," Ms. Walter said. "Clearly what we are seeing is that the political environment is taking a toll and dragging down Republican incumbents; it's dragging down their polling numbers. The question is, What will the environment be in November?"

...."Everything is pointing to a pretty big Democratic victory if attitudes toward Congress remain as negative as they are and attitudes toward President Bush remain as negative as they are," Mr. Kohut [a pollster who is the director of the Pew Research Center] said. "It's hard to imagine any way that wouldn't happen."

....Mr. Kohut of the Pew Research Center said that 29 percent of Americans in his most recent poll said they would vote against their own member of Congress. That is the highest percentage since 1994, when Republicans swept Democrats out of power. The finding, Mr. Kohut suggested, should give pause to Republicans who argue that while most Americans have an unfavorable view of Congress, they approve the performance of their own member of Congress.

In addition, Mr. Kohut said, 41 percent of Americans now say this Congress has achieved less than usual, and 34 percent say they view their Congressional ballots this year as an opportunity to vote against Mr. Bush. Both figures are record highs.

Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst who tracks Congressional races, said his latest forecast, to be distributed next week, predicted that Democrats could make gains of 8 to 12 seats. That is an increase from a prediction last month that Democrats would gain 7 to 10 seats.

"When we say Democrats are positioned to gain 8 to 12 seats, that certainly means the House is in play," Mr. Rothenberg said. "And those numbers are likely to go up. They are more likely to go up than they are to go down, that's for sure."

Worse than Nixon

Keith Olbermann recently had on John Dean and this is what Dean had to say about the NSA program:

OLBERMANN: Well, to some degree, obviously, this is familiar territory for you, because this seems like a 21st century update on some of the things that Richard Nixon tried in the early ‘70s. What—I‘m almost afraid to ask, what could be next?

DEAN: Well, by Nixon standards, this is not—Bush has so outdone Nixon that Nixon almost looks innocent in this area. We‘re now reaching into such broad scale and widespread programs with just utter in-your-face defiance of the law that even Nixon himself didn‘t push the envelope nearly as far as this administration is.

Regarding the deadline for Medicare, King GW has stated, “Deadlines help people understand there's finality and people need to get after it.”

Ah yes, more hypocrisy from the mouth of King Moron. So the elderly are held to a firm, unyielding deadline and yet how many times have we learned of the House holding open a vote hours past when the final tally was due so that GOP leaders could twist arms and make deals to win votes? Hmm, don't recall the King getting upset over those "extensions".... And if anything should be on a deadline it's global warming, but funny how the King just keeps putting off any urgency on that subject due to lack of scientific evidence. Madness & hypocrisy.

"And arsenic is not so bad either...."

That Karl Rove is always thinking. With Bush offering to share with Congress some of the secrets behind the NSA domestic spying program, one can make the strong case it's a ploy to keep key congressional folks quiet. Show them the details, much of it being classified, and therefore such folks must by rule remain quiet as per what they saw/heard. Call it the Medusa tactic.

Speaking of quiet, Verizon technically may properly claim that it did not give phone records to the NSA, but this may be a bit deceptive in that they route long-distance calls -- the targeted calls -- through carriers such as AT&T, which by the way has remained very quiet....

"Looks like the rattlesnakes are startin' to commit suicide."

I've used the above quote before (from "Mississippi Burning") and once again citing it is appropriate. Richard A. Viguerie, a longtime staunch conservative activist, said Monday, "conservatives are beginning to tune the president out."

What a shame.

Only three states are now red -- wow, no wonder most Republicans are fleeing at the sight of BushCo.

Who recently said the following?

(Country XXX) needs an army that has every possibility for making an adequate response to all the modern threats we face. We need armed forces able to simultaneously fight in global, regional and—if necessary—also in several local conflicts. We need armed forces that guarantee (County XXX)'s security and territorial integrity, no matter what the scenario....

An American government official? Rumsfeld? Rice? Cheney? Bush? Nope, try Russia's Putin, just last week.

Bob Herbert's latest column is an absolute must-read.

A taste:

This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

As I've been pointing out for months, in response to GW's quacking lame-duck status combined with policies that are at odds with much of the country, many states have been deciding for themselves what's best (a growing federalist movement). Some recent examples: minimum wage and global warming.

Others are picking up on this trend, with E. J. Dionne Jr. recently writing a column about it.

There appears to be quite a bit of confusion by the public concerning the recent NSA revelations. Depending on how the polling question is phrased, the answers can often be conflicting or at odds. Just give it some time, the public (hopefully) will digest the facts and come to realize the many wrongs here.

At least at this initial stage regarding this unfolding issue, it's interesting to see many Americans willing to give up their rights out of fear. Wasn't that the case in Germany, pre-World War? A good deal of the public may not yet realize the extent to which this NSA program has violated the law and basic civil liberties, with most just assuming it's at least something worth sacrificing for the sake of increased safety.

But a huge factor driving this fear is this administration's wonderful job of convincing Americans that our intelligence infrastructure is broken and that we're vulnerable because of it. The fact is it wasn't and is not. Our intel was pretty darn good pre-9/11 and post. We've seen all the evidence that did forewarn of an attack, and we know of all the good intel that warned against Iraq -- which BushCo buried and distorted. The "lifer" CIA agents did excellent work; it's the political operatives installed in high places who by design messed everything up and are to blame.

The end result being Americans feel more vulnerable than they should. Yet, BushCo doesn't mind, not at all, if anything encouraging and pushing that paranoid feeling of fear any chance he gets. Thus, Americans are more willing to relinquish their rights and Constitutional freedoms. Don't forget that many Americans only a few hundred years ago fought and died to secure those same rights and freedoms for us. For shame to now give them up so easily at the hands of men who have a long track record of lies, deception and illegal activity.

From Krugman's latest column:

Today is the last day to sign up for Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit. It appears that millions of Americans, confused by the array of competing plans or simply unaware of the cutoff date, will miss the deadline. This will leave them without drug coverage for the rest of the year, and subject to financial penalties for the rest of their lives.

President Bush refuses to extend the sign-up period. "Deadlines," he said last week, "help people understand there's finality, and people need to get after it, you know?" His real objection to extending the deadline is probably that this would be an implicit admission that his administration botched the program's start-up. And Mr. Bush never, ever admits mistakes.

A prime-time televised speech from Bush is always an opportunity to get red-faced as one imagines people around the world viewing, shaking their heads, wondering how is it this guy is the leader of the USA.... And last night was no exception, more fear-mongering and idiocy, targeted specifically at his dwindling and yet extremely upset hardcore base.

A piece from this morning's NY Times editorial:

President Bush's speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate. These are the people who say illegal border crossings must be stopped immediately, with military boots in the desert sand. Never mind the overwhelming burdens of Iraq and Afghanistan, the absence of a coherent and balanced immigration policy, and the broad public support for a comprehensive solution. America must send its overtaxed troops to the border right now, they say, so a swarm of ruthless, visa-less workers cannot bury our way of life under a relentless onslaught of hard work.