You Can Fool Some of The People Some of the Time

You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool some of the people long enough to get them to vote the way you want them to. Gone are the days when we could have a reasonable amount of confidence that our news sources would check stories for authenticity before they ran them. But, with the competitive nature of the media today, a company that takes two weeks to check out the latest scandal story will be left behind.

Political operatives use this to their advantage. They can slip a story into the fast-moving river of news that might be false. But, like a virus, it will do enough damage to accomplish its objectives. The objective of the right is not to win elections by significant majorities - it's just to win. In their view, 51% is as good as 100% because it gives them the power they want. They don't have to worry about influencing large numbers of people - just one vote is all they need to put them over the line. Once they get that vote, they're not concerned about how it looks or if they got caught. They got the vote, and that's all that matters. Once they have the power, they're not all that concerned with governing for the benefit of all the people.

Both sides do it, but it is more of a Republican strategy. We need to exercise our power of critical thinking and question everything, from both parties. If we assume that every political message is an attempt to manipulate and deceive us, then we'll do the hard work of checking the facts. The outcome will be a more intelligent and well-informed vote.

It's Only Bad When Democrats Do It

Remember how indignant and morally superior the conservatives were about Clinton's extra-marital activities? It will be interesting to see how they spin Giuliani's exploits. He was carrying on an affair with his current wife while he was still married to his former, and he was billing the city for expenses to visit her in the Hamptons. Read about it here.

Who Could Object to This?

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people govern, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

Our mission is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

• Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

Who could object to these principles? This is the mission statement of the ACLU, copied directly from their web site, which is held in contempt by many conservatives and members of the religous right. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson included them in their list of people who were responsible for bringing down God's wrath on us in the form of 9/11. Makes you wonder about people who would oppose an organization committed to these goals doesn't it!

Evidence Against Evolution

Remember the stereotypcial Southern sherrif in the movies with the big pot-belly who called blacks "boy" and used "n*****" without hesitation? He was always filled with a sense of certainty about his superiority as he sat comfortably in his ignorance like cattle in a feedlot standing in their own shit. I've always felt that he's lurking beneath the surface of some Republicans. He's had to go underground because he's not as socially acceptable as he once was - thank goodness for that. But, every once in a while you find him peeking out like a little chick struggling to break the thin shell of his egg.

Here he is sticking his ugly head out in the form of an e-mail sent by Arkansas state senator Denny Altes to a television station. In the e-mail on the television station’s Web site, the message attributed to Altes states that he’s for "sending the illegals back but we know that is impossible."

"We are where we were with the black folks after the revolutionary war. We can’t send them back and the more we p*** them off the worse it will be in the future. So what do we do," the e-mail states. "I say the governor needs to try to enforce the law and sign the letter of understanding... and at least we can send the troublemakers back. Sure we are being overrun but we are being outpopulated by the blacks also. What is the answer, only time will tell." Altes has represented the Fort Smith area in the Legislature since 1999, when he was elected to the House. He served two terms there and has been a member of the Senate since 2003.

The U. S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates that in 2006 Fort Smith had a black population of about 9 percent and a Hispanic population of about 13.6 percent.

Things like this are funny until you realize that this is an elected official whose constituents have kept him in office for the last eight years. He must represent their views as well. Evolution is supposed to improve the species. I don't think it's working here. Chalk this one up for the Creationists!

Jackie and Dunlap Review the Debate

Jackie and Dunlap, our Red State friends, were disappointed with the debate last night.

How Anti-Gay are You?

Did you see the Republican candidates try to finesse their way through the question posed by the out-of-the-closet retired Army General about gays in the military? The cartoonist, Mark Fiore, has the right question for them - how anti-gay are you anyway? There seems to be a spectrum of anti-gayness out there. Where do you fall on that spectrum? Take a look!

Reality Based Republican

You know it's bad when members of your own party say things like this. Chuck Hagel is a Republican that I might vote for if I get the opportunity.

Update on Romney and Torture

Here's more about Romney's position on torture and where he's getting his advice. Want to see what waterboarding looks like? It might help sort out the issues in this debate that we're having about whether or not it's torture. Remember the stink over Clinton dicing up the definition of "is?" Now, we're trying to define torture. Where is our higher nature?

The YOU Tube Republican Debate

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
-Herman Melville

This quote by Melville sums up what bothers me about listening to Republicans with their attitude of "I've got mine, to Hell with you." Last night's YOU Tube debate on CNN was enlightening if not intellectually stimulating. It brought out into the open the fear they have of anything that is different from their world view. Romney actually said that he wanted prisoners taken directly to Guantanamo where they would face our G.I.s and the CIA without legal protections. In other words, he wants them tortured. When pressed on the torture question, he waffled so much that he landed squarely on the side of torture. Here's a man claiming deep religious values, who believes the Bible is the word of God, and he wants other human beings subjected to the most horrible experiences one can imagine. Does he really believe this or is he trying to get the votes of those gun nuts who came on the screen?

Then there's Duncan Hunter. What world is he living in? He described a scenario where most young men and women in the military come from Conservative families with Judeo-Christian values who sit around the kitchen table participating in the decision for their son or daughter to join the military. He doesn't believe we should force these fine young men and women to serve with gays. Thank goodness he doesn't have a chance in Hell of getting the nomination. He's still back in the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Somebody tell him that Ozzie and Harriet never existed. They were made up by Hollywood. It may be the way he wants the world to be, but that's not the way it is.

Except for his position on the war, John McCain is the only one who has a shred of decency about him when it comes to how we should treat people who are not like us. He is the only one who unequivocally comes out against torture. Interestingly enough, he's also the only one who has been tortured. I wouldn't vote for him, but in my opinion, he's the only "real man" on the stage. While all the others are strutting around flexing their flabby muscles and pumping testosterone, he's taking a reasonable and moral stand on this issue. He's right - we're better than that.

And, then there's the questions from the YOU tube people. As Seinfeld says, who are these people? Some of them were downright creepy. Most of them seemed like caricatures of Bush supporters. Lots of gun nuts showing off their guns - the kind of people who have bumper stickers about prying their cold dead hands off their guns. The wild-eyed guy with the Bible was really scary, demanding to know if they believed EVERY word in the Bible. And, the guy with the confederate flag in his room - what rock did they find him under? If these people represent a large portion of our population, I'm beginning to understand how Bush got into office.

As I listen to both parties debate, the differences become clear. There seem to be two dominant threads that run through the conversations. The Democrats are talking about how to bring people together and include everyone in the process. The Republicans are talking about how to build fences, keep people out and marginalize those who don't fit their Ozzie and Harriet view of the world.

Merry Christmas from Bush

Bush keeps demanding more money for his war, but he says we can't afford health care for children or pay raises for federal workers. We can afford to keep on killing people in Iraq, but we can't afford to take care of our own citizens. 

He took over the country with a 500 billion dollar surplus, turned it into a 300 billion dollar deficit with his tax cuts and war. Now, he wants to be "fiscally responsible." A CEO would have been fired long ago for this kind of performance.

1,118,846

Take the time to read this article, reflect on the number 1,118,846 and ask yourself if you really feel good about what is being done in our name, with our tax money. Republican or Democrat, you have to step back and realize that we invaded and occupied a country that was no threat to us and killed 1,118,846 people, many of them innocent men, women and children. God bless America? I don't think so.

GOP Loyalty Oath

Anytime you get a group of people together in an organization, somebody will come up with a wacko idea that is not grounded in any kind of principle or rational thought . . . . . . "well, what I think we ought to do is build a fence around the country . . . . or at least part of it." That's what the Virginia Republicans have done with this ridiculous idea. It seems like contempt for democracy runs through the Republican veins at all levels.

The Leader of the Free World

Do you ever get the feeling that Bush is a little more comfortable bombing things than getting involved in the subtleties of international diplomacy where he's obviously over his head and out of his league? Watch this clip of his performance at Annapolis yesterday and just cringe with embarrassment.

His incompetence would be unforgivable for even a mid-level manager in a large corporation. But, for the leader of the free world, it is appalling and embarrassing. You look at this with your mouth hanging open in amazement wondering how this man ever got in this position.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of everything that is happening in the Middle East. Yet, Bush has made no attempt to bring these parties together for the last seven years. Now, he has a summit meeting, but only shows up for a photo op and a poorly read speech.

No major corporation in the country would tolerate this degree of incompetence. Why have we tolerated it for seven years? I wonder if it doesn't say more about us than it does about him. Almost half of the people in the country voted for him.

Vote Smart

A presidential campaign has to be the longest and hardest job interview a person ever endures. I suppose it's appropriate because the job is the most important and difficult in the world. Too bad we don't approach it more like an ordinary job interview where we look more closely at a person's qualifications and ability to do the job instead of their personality. Of course, personality is important. We want a president who can lift our spirits and help us discover the best parts of ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't have that now. But, competence, intelligence and experience may be more important. We don't have that now either, and look where its gotten us.

How do we pick a president when the goal of their job interview, like any other, is to present their strengths and positive qualities while minimizing or hiding their negatives? First, we have to be willing to pay the price, which is time. At work, a job interview is inconvenient. I have to stop what I'm doing and pretend to be interested in a total stranger while listening to canned responses to correctly anticipated questions. But, that's the price I have to pay in order to select the best person for the job. I can't just catch a glimpse of them in the lobby and hire them because I like them. Selecting a president is no different. I have to be willing to invest the time to read, think, watch the debates and listen for those brief moments when the real person behind the facade peeks out and reveals himself or herself. For example, last week Mitt Romney was asked if he would consider qualified Americans of the Islamic faith for cabinet positions in his administration. His response reveals much more about him than all of his slick debate performances. Too many people missed this because they were numbing their minds with mindless sitcom crap on TV or just too lazy or uninterested to read about the great political drama that is unfolding in front of us.

In this electronic age that we live in, its never been easier to be well-informed. The internet gives us a wide range of information that covers the entire political spectrum from right to left, unlike the major news networks. If you're listening to Fox News all the time, you're only getting one side of the story regardless of how fair and balanced they say they are.

Check out Project Vote Smart - a link is in the sidebar of this blog. It's a non-partisan site that will give you information on all the candidates. It's a good start, and it's easy.

Vote smart. We've seen what happens when we don't.

Huh?

In an ABC interview with Charles Gibson on Tuesday, Bush made this comment regarding how quickly his presidency is passing.

"You know, just last year I was thinking about, how to deal with Iraq, I -- you know, I was, I was part of the people who didn't approve of Iraq. And when they asked the endless questions -- 'Do you approve of Iraq?' -- I was one, no, I didn't approve of what's going on. And wanted to do something about it and was confronted with a serious decision. It was just a year ago ... that I was, you know ... listening to people and getting ready to make the -- make the decision, and it just seemed like ... it was just yesterday, I mean it's unbelievable how much time's passed."

He's even more incoherent in writing.

Bush's Version of Democracy

You can tell a lot about a person by watching what they do instead of listening to what they say. With Bush, his actions are seldom congruent with his words, but here's another glimpse into his dark soul from the Washington Post. Here's a quick look:

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy." (cue up the twilight zone music.)

Here's what Senator Joe Biden had to say about it:

"What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" asked Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "He's already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in Vladimir Putin's soul."

Where's The Outrage?

Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary has written a book that promises to confirm what most of us already know about this administration. Bush, Cheney and Scooter Libby lied about the outing of Valerie Plame.

From an excerpt posted on McClellan's publisher's Web site and discovered by Editor and Publisher:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Yawn! This should come as no surprise. We all knew they were lying. But, it will be interesting to see how much press this gets. Remember when Clinton's lie about Monica occupied our national dialogue for months. That was nothing compared to this lie.

Where's the outrage?

What You See Is What You Get

Unlike Bush, who lied his way to the presidency by talking about such things as compassionate conservatism, uniting the country, rejecting nation building and generally unintelligible responses that weren't scripted for him, Giuliani is being pretty transparent about who he is. You don't have to look very hard to see what you're getting with him. For example, in his speech to the Federalist Society recently, he said:

"There are some people I think nowadays that doubt that America has a special, even a divinely inspired role in the world,"

Look at the damage that's been done by one president who thinks he's carrying out God's will. Do we really need another one?

In the same speech he cited Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts as models for the judges he would appoint to the federal bench. That's scary! He also said that as president he would demand that the Senate change its rules for confirming federal judges, decrying the filibusters that blocked some of President Bush's appointees and the atmosphere at nominating hearings dating back to the failed nomination of Robert Bork. In a nationally televised speech in 1987, after the nomination of Bork by Reagan, Ted Kennedy had the following to say about him:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government."

Apparently, Giuliani thinks Bork would have made a good Supreme Court justice. Gives you more insight into what a Giuliani world would look like.

While I wouldn't consider voting for him, I do admire his honesty in presenting who he is to the voters. His ideas, while they are repugnant to me, deserve an honest airing in the public dialogue such as it is today. At least he can put a sentence together that makes some sense!

The Unitary Executive

The beauty of our constitution is that it is designed to protect the minority from the majority. The founders realized something very fundamental about human nature - with no checks on power, the majority will run roughshod over the minority. However, I wonder if they could foresee the day when the majority would need to be protected from the minority. That's what we have today as the Bush administration expresses its contempt for the constitution and embraces the Unitary Executive Theory. In a nutshell, the Unitary Executive theory pretty much does away with the system of checks and balances and says that the president can do whatever he wants to do. As the polls and elections indicate, a majority of the people in this country do not agree with what's happening, yet we are unable to have any influence on the minority that is in control of the country. A small group of neoconservatives have hijacked this country and are running it like a dictatorship.

If you ever have a chance to ask a question in a public forum, ask about the Unitary Executive Theory. That's one of the things you're voting for, and you're going to get more of it with a Republican than with a Democrat.

A Name You Should Know

Unless you spend a lot of time reading blogs and other political stuff, you probably haven't heard of Norman Podhoretz, but you should get to know him because a vote for Guiliani is a vote for Podhoretz. Guiliani has assembled a foreign policy team headed by Podhoretz who is a very infuential figure among the neocons and has played an important role in shaping Bush's foreign policy, such as it is. The main thing you need to know about him is that he is "praying" that Bush bombs Iran! Another pre-emptive strike. So, you can imagine what advice he'll give to Guiliani. If you want to know more, read this article by him.

A vote for Guiliani is a vote for more war. It may be a moot point because I think Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office if it looks like the Democrats might win. He knows the Democrats won't go to war with Iran unless it is absolutely necessary. He'll start the war, then leave it to the next president.

What's Wrong With Nuance?

Have we become so dumbed down as a society that we need all complex issues spoon fed to us in bite sized yes or no pieces? Wolf Blitzer's insistence on a yes or no answer from the candidates was ridiculous. If that's the level of the "debate" then we should have Bush clones up there, because he's not smart enough to "do nuance" as he once said. He takes a position and sticks to it regardless of reams of evidence that it's wrong. Life is nuance, and if you can't handle the grey area, you should start doing some mental weightlifting to shape up your intellect. Life is nuanced. We're born, grow old and die in a highly nuanced fashion. We don't jump from one stage to the other. The sun comes up and goes down in a nuanced and beautiful way. It doesn't turn on and off like a light switch. In a complex world, we need intelligent leaders who can "do nuance." We don't have one now, and look where that's gotten us.

With important issues like the war in Iraq and the gradual stealth-like destruction of our constitution and civil liberties, why in the Hell is Wolf Blitzer forcing a yes or no answer on some dumb question like drivers licenses for undocumented workers?

It would have been thrilling to see one of the candidates say something like, "that's a dumb-ass question you boring little twirp, and I'm not going to answer it."

Stop Your Fighting, Kids!

I'm worried. If the Democrats continue to behave the way they've been behaving at the last two debates, they just might lose this thing. After all, if half the country is gullible enough to vote for George Bush for president, a man who is totally lacking in qualifications, character, morality and charisma, they could very easily vote for Rudy Guiliani - God help us!

Last night's debate was another example of the Democrats turning inward and destroying themselvles instead of focusing on the terrible things the current resident has done to this country and the world. I'm so disappointed with John Edwards who is starting to look like a mean-spirited little boy with his attacks on Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden is starting to look more presidential, and he doesn't take himself too seriously. I might vote for him.

I wonder why the "boys" address Senator Clinton as "Hillary" and their fellow males with their formal title such as Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, etc. I'm surprised no one has brought that up. It's a subtle way to demean her and chip away at her credibility. I believe it's their way of saying something that can't be said explicity - "I don't believe a woman should be president." We still have a lot of growing up to do in this country.

I think Hillary Clinton would be a great president, and I will vote for her if she's the candidate, but I'm concerned about whether she can be elected with the bias against women that still exists in this country and the viciousness and dishonesty of the Republicans, especially when faced with their arch-enemy, Hillary Clinton. If she gives her fellow Democrats so many targets to shoot at, what will the Republicans do?

So, stop your fighting, kids! The enemy is not you. It's George Bush and the possibility of another four or eight years of Neocon insanity. That's something worth fighting about.

Goodbye, Mr. Bush. Hello . . . . .?

In his last article on Salon.com, Sidney Blumenthal does a good job of laying out what is at stake in this next election. We're voting for more than a personality, more than a president. We're voting for the form of government we will have in the future.

Two models of the presidency are at odds, one whose founding father was George Washington, the other whose founding father was Richard Nixon. Under the aegis of Dick Cheney, who considered the scandal in Watergate to be a political trick to topple Nixon, the original vision has been entrenched and extended. Cheney is the pluperfect staff man, beginning as Donald Rumsfeld's assistant in the Nixon White House, and was aptly code-named "Backseat" by the Secret Service when he pulled the strings in the Ford White House as chief of staff. For Cheney and the president under his tutelage, eagerly acting as "The Decider" on decision memos carefully packaged by "Backseat," the Constitution is a defective instrument remedied by unlimited executive power.

It will be hard work this year, but we should look past whether we like someone or not and take a close look at their ideology and worldview which will eventually drive the decisions that are made and have a profound impact on our lives.

It's Not Good to Kill Babies

It's interesting to me how the anti-abortion groups exert so much energy, time and money trying to combat abortion while supporting Bush's war which is killing thousands of innocent children. They use the term "sanctity of life" while supporting war and the death penalty. Can somebody explain this to me?

Also, the term "pro-life" is misleading and intended only for those who can't think past the jerk of their knee. Of course, virtually everyone is for life, and it is possible and reasonable for a person to be opposed to abortion yet against the effort to overturn Roe v Wade which is settled law in this country. Those who support abortion rights are not advocating the "killing of unborn children." They are supporting the right of a woman to make her own choices. That's why they use the term "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion." If you want to divide up with labels, it would be more accurate to use the terms, "No-choice" and "pro-choice."

We've all heard the phrase, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Why can't we disagree with a woman's decision to have an abortion, but defend her right to make that decision."

I sure wish they would yell as loud about the babies we're killing in Iraq.

Bush is Larry David without the Charm

Bush reminds me of Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm - without Larry's charm. He just can't get it right. He just stumbles along filled with his ignorance, arrogance and self-righteousness, totally unaware or uncaring about his offensive behavior.

Some day, if we're lucky, we'll have a president who looks, acts, thinks and talks like a president. On Veteran's Day, you would think that Bush would go to Arlington National Cemetery to honor ALL veterans who have died in our wars over the years. But, instead he went to a VFW post in Waco. Darth Vader went to Arlington instead - not the lesser of two evils. I guess it was more convenient for him to go to Waco since he was at another one of his little getaways at the "ranch."

I wish I could find something good to say about Bush, but I find nothing in his character, manner, life or policies worthy of praise. On second thought, he has a more reasonable approach to illegal immigration than most of his radical neocon cronies.

I was aware of his intellectual shortcomings, arrogance and crudity while he was governor of Texas, and I was stunned when he was appointed to the office by the Supreme Court. I knew it was going to be bad, but I had no idea how bad it was going to be. Let's hope the next president can clean up this mess and give us our country back.

Don't Believe Everything You Hear

Here's a good example of how easy it is to let the media think for us if we rely too much on one source or lose the gift of critical thinking. On NPR yesterday, there was a piece about Hillary Clinton visiting a hamburger joint in Iowa and not leaving a tip. It was easy to get all up in a huff about this and jump to all sorts of conclusions about Hillary Clinton. Well, it wasn't true. 

Get the rest of the story here.

Worst Ever

Read

We're Not in the Minority

The country is finally waking up, rubbing its eyes, and seeing clearly. More people dissaprove of Bush than Nixon! Maybe P.T. Barnum was wrong!

Check it out.

Like Father, Like Son? Not here!

Kinda makes you wonder if the father wasn't thinking about what his son is doing to his legacy while watching this video clip. This is a brief glimpse at a traditional Conservative value that is in short supply these days - respect for others, even if they are your enemy - a value that the son doesn't embrace.

Waterboarding

Lot of talk about waterboarding. Want to see what it looks like?

Dumber than Bush, Crazier than Cheney?

Digby made the following comment on her blog this morning:

"I'm finding myself more and more obsessed with the Giuliani campaign because it really appears to me that the Republicans may just nominate someone dumber than Bush and crazier than Cheney. And without the morals of either of them. How is that even possible?"

I'm not sure you can find anyone dumber than Bush, at least in such a high position. I think what makes Guiliani so dangerous is that he's smarter than Bush and crazier than Cheney. He has an arrogance and certainty about him that doesn't have Bush's lack of self-confidence. Bush tries too hard to appear macho and confident. I still don't know why so many people can't see through this empty man, but some see strength in his phony gestures, sickening smirks, squinty eyes and downturned smile at all the wrong places.

Guiliani is an example of the superficiality and lack of critical thinking of the American public. His only claim to fame is 9/11 which he plays up at every opportunity. But, what did he do that day? He was walking around talking to the media because he didn't have any place to go. He had made a decision, against the recommendations of his advisors, to put the Emergency Response Center on the 26th floor of the World Trade Center. It's no coincidence that the owner of the building, and the beneficiary of the multi-million dollar lease is one of his major campaign contributors.

When will this country value competence over phony, empty style?

Deliver us from Bush

It's either a sign of ignorance or fear when you refuse to listen to people with opinions different than your own. In Bush's case, it's always the first, but I believe his swaggering machoism tries to cover up a deep-seated fear and insecurity that comes from the knowledge that he's woefully unqualified for this job and in deeply over his head.

He once declared that "Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves," but said today that members of Congress should "spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."

If I hadn't built up such an immunity to Bush's stupidity, arrogance and dictatorial attitudes, I would be shocked by this statement. The President of the United States publicly wrote off a significant part of the population by declaring them irrelevant and unworthy of attention.

This kind of rhetoric might be appropriate for rabble-rousing talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, whose only purpose is to divide people and fatten his bank account, but Bush is the one who claimed to be the great uniter. The words of a president, even an ignorant one, carry great weight and should be carefully considered before making public pronouncements. Every time he opens his mouth, unscripted, we get a closer look at the emptiness inside.