Bloomberg.com: Margaret Carlson: "Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- I've long been searching for a
unified theory to explain the Bush administration, and yesterday
I got it. According to the New York Times, a soon-to-be-released
scientific study of self-described Democrats and Republicans
shows that partisan attachment in politics is akin to being
smacked out in love.
Common sense vanishes. Rational parts of the brain go dark.
The beloved can do no wrong.
The difference between falling in love and falling in line
politically is that partisans never wake up and see that the lawn
has grown weedy and the toothpaste cap is off. They stay
infatuated to the point where countervailing information simply
doesn't sink in.
In the study, Republican partisans didn't fault George W.
Bush for supporting Enron Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth
Lay even after he was indicted and his employees lost their
pensions. Nor did committed Democrats turn up their noses at John
Kerry for saying he would overhaul Social Security if elected,
something a liberal would otherwise abhor."

By BOB HERBERT
We should be used to it by now. There are a couple of Congressional committees trying to investigate the tragic Hurricane Katrina debacle, but the Bush administration is refusing to turn over certain documents or allow certain senior White House officials to testify before the committees under oath.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat who is by no means unfriendly to the Bush crowd, said this week, 'There has been a near-total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation that we have a responsibility to do.'
Once again the president has, in effect, flipped the bird at Congress. He's amazing. Forget such fine points as the Constitution and the separation of powers. George W. Bush does what he wants to do. He won fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000 and then governed as if he'd been elected by acclamation. He dispensed with John Kerry in 2004 by portraying himself %u2014 a man who ran and hid from the draft during Vietnam %u2014 as more of a warrior than Mr. Kerry, a decorated combat veteran of that war.
Reality has been dealt a stunning blow by Mr. Bush. The administration's high-handedness with the Katrina investigators comes at the same time as disclosures showing that the White House was warned in the hours just before the hurricane hit New Orleans that it might well cause catastrophic flooding and the breaching of the city's levees.
That was early on the morning of last Aug. 29. On Sept. 1, with the city all but completely underwater, the president went on television and blithely declared, 'I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.'
This guy is something. Remember his 'Top Gun' moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? And his famous taunt %u2014 'Bring 'em on' %u2014 to the insurgents in Iraq? His breathtaking arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence. And that's the real problem. That's where you'll find the mind-boggling destructiveness of this regime, in its incompetence.
Fantasy may be in fashion. Reality may have been shoved into the shadows on Mr. Bush's watch. But the plain truth is that he is the worst president in memory, and one of the worst of all time. Many thousands of people %u2014 men, women and children %u2014 have died unnecessarily (and thousands more are suffering) because of his misguided and mishandled policies."

Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET

Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take."

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
01.24.06 -
AUSTIN, Texas -- We live in interesting times, we do, we do. We can
read in our daily newspapers that our government is about to launch a
three-day propaganda blitz to convince us all that its secret program to
spy on us is something we really want and need. 'A campaign of
high-profile national security events,' reports The New York Times, follows
'Karl Rove's blistering speech to national Republicans' about what a swell
political issue this is for their party.

The question for journalists is how to report this. President Bush
says it's a great idea and he's proud of the secret spy program? Attorney
General Gonzales explains breaking the law is no problem? Dick Cheney
says accept spying, or Osama bin Laden will get you?

Or might we actually have gotten far enough to point out that the
series of high-profile security events is in fact part of a propaganda
campaign by our own government? Should we report it as though it were in
fact a campaign tactic, a straight political ploy: The Republicans say
spying is good for you, but the Democrats say it is not -- equal time to
both sides?

Perhaps we have some obligation to try to sift through what it means
that our government is spying on us in violation of the law and the
Constitution.

Then there's the problem of reporting within the context of this
administration's other propaganda efforts. 'We do not torture,' and, 'We are
not running a gulag of secret detention centers,' are two of the more
recent examples, superseding the golden oldies -- like the smoking gun
in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Furthermore, the Rove offensive is not to admit that we are indeed
running a gulag of secret detention camps, but to attack those who point
it out and put them under investigation for revealing government secrets
and helping the enemy. Even without the intimidation, how do you report
something claimed by George W. Bush as though you hadn't recently heard
him say he would support John McCain's amendment barring torture -- and
then turn around and claim that he has the right to violate that law?

I genuinely appreciate the response by real conservatives on this
issue -- the libertarians, the true heirs of Barry Goldwater, the
all-government-is-bad grumps. It's called principle. But I am confounded by the
authoritarian streak in the Republican Party backing Bush on this. To
me it seems so simple: Would you think this was a good idea if Hillary
Clinton were president? Would you be defending the clear and unnecessary
violation of the law? Do you have complete confidence that she would
never misuse this 'inherent power' for any partisan reason?"

Michael Moore Statement on Canadian Election

Michael Moore is currently in production on his next movie. As an avid lover of all things Canadian, he has issued the following statement regarding Canada's upcoming election on Monday:

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't. You give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens. Wow, that is intense! Only Canadians could pull off a hat trick of humor like that. My hat's off to you.

Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But you have a parliamentary system (I'll bet you didn't know that -- see, that's why you need Americans telling you things!). There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

Michael Moore

(Mr. Moore is not available for interviews because he now needs to address the situation in Azerbaijan. But he could be talked into it for a couple of tickets to a Leaf's game.)