Tuesday, October 12th, 2006

North Korea: Worth Mentioning
Now that North Korea may or may not have the bomb, the finger pointing has started in earnest. The conservatives are saying it's Clinton's fault, of course, because that is their mantra, and by now, it's become so meaningless that even if we find documents proving Clinton was in the hangar building the bomb himself, no one will care. Find a new punching bag, guys, this one's not getting a reaction anymore. The pundits have been passing around that picture of Madeleine Albright clinking glass with Kim Jong Il, as if this is significant of something. Actually it is: it shows how Clinton's administration talked to North Korea, which is why they put a freeze on their weapons plan. Now Bush is president, there are no weapons inspectors in North Korea, and talking is not allowed. Meanwhile, China is mad because they're terrified that any kind of war at all will result in millions of refugees flooding north.

Maybe that's Bush's ultimate plan. Goad NK into a war of some kind, flood china with Korean refugees, and with China stymied, negotiate a better trade agreement for the US, cutting down our debt. Seems a bit to "Sim-World-Politics" to me.

Negative Campaigning
Here's a name to keep an eye out for: Sue Walden. Sue is head of a 527 group called Americans for Honesty on Issues, a very right-wing citizens group that raises money to finance campaign ads. The reason why you should memorize her name is because when you see it, or her group, you should also remember that this woman was a close ally of Tom Delay and an advisor to Ken Lay. Maybe that's just an incidental connection, but we all know that politicians lie, so it' easy to understand how their allies lie as well. Did Sue know about Abramoff? Who knows? But can we assume she didn't? Can we assume Americans for Honesty on Issues won't leave out truths about the Republicans they champion? If you ask me, a message funded by this group is as good as an indictment of the candidate it supports.

George Bush, Rogue Economist
George has predicted, of course, that Republicans will keep the House and Senate this November. Why? Because, as promised, he has cut the national deficit in half, and has done so three years early. Just a reminder: when he came into office, we had a surplus. The numbers he should be using are the ones based off of this surplus. He didn't just lose 413 billion; he lost that plus the 313 billion extra we had. And now we’re down to "only" 248 billion. Still over 500 billion to go. Oh, wait, what did this war in Iraq cost us again? Bush reminds me of those football players who used to get bonuses in their paychecks if they could go a whole season without getting arrested. Sorry, el presidente, I'll give you, and a Republican congress, credit only when you actually accomplish something tangible.

Checking in with Lieberman
How's Joe doing? Not too bad. Lamont's not doing bad either, but he's behind in the polls. Unfortunately, political strategists are still scratching their heads over this, though they have their notebooks ready, as this one will go down in their playbooks no matter what. If Lamont wins, then the de-facto modus will be: if you get ousted in the primaries, support the new party choice. If Lieberman wins, the message will be: incumbency is enough to beat the odds, and primaries will have less meaning in coming election cycles. And the real tragedy will be if Lieberman wins and the Dems need that seat to have a majority in these November's very contentious seat races. The good news, sort of us, is that the Republican candidate, Schlessinger, is way behind in the polls.