Does anyone recall another White house with so many disgruntled former employees?

Scott McClellan, former press secretary to BW Bush has written a new book. In it he describes those difficult times he endured during the lie-fest leading up to the war in Iraq and his own disgust that he was lied to.

Now the Bushies are painting him as a character whose loyalty was always suspect and who cannot be trusted. - But we have heard that before.

She's no longer going to apologize

not that she ever did. In her warped and twisted viewpoint there is no real issue here. Obama's people are making an issue out of something that in a week she or her husband will claim she never said.

Keith Olbermann Does it again.

This special commentary (click above) sums up my disgust for Senator Clinton. It sums up why I and so many others are wanting her to get out of this race for the good of our country and for the good of her gender. She has revealed herself as a hollow,ambitious and heartless woman who is motivated only by her presumed right to be the next president of the United States.

I used to believe that there could be nothing worse than having GW Bush as our president. I am feeling now that such a feeling might be ill-informed.

Conservative court in California does its level best to distract the electorate from the failed policies of conservativism

Every four years or so some person or court does a stupid thing that is sure to demonize gays and spur the ignoramuses of the extreme right to action.

Once again, thanks to this decision we can count on the religious right and politicos of their ilk (Michelle Bachmann of MN) to avoid the real issues of the day -remember the wars and gas prices and the economy- by railing aganst 'activist judges.'

I am convinced, as evidenced by this decision, that we are now one step closer to our government getting out of the marriage business altogether. With another summer of commentary on the 'sanctity of marriage' vs the 'rights of individuals' , it will eventually need to be asked- What is the governmental interest in all of this?

The answer to that question needs to be more than about protecting individual rights. What is the societal good? If the answer is anything other than to strengthen community in the rearing and education of children or some other purpose for the greater good it would be incomplete.

The government, whether we like it or not, is not here to provide for our happiness. In our nation we are simply allowed the right to endeavor in that pursuit.

Our government has no business in our bedrooms. And if we start defining marriage as some means toward indivdual rights it is only a matter of time before some court somewhere agrees.
At that point, the argument will be that marriage is a matter for churches and not the state.
At that point some local jurisdiction will stop issuing marriage licenses altogether and tell people that if they want to marry they will need to go to a church to do that.

In order to ensure that all people are treated equal under the law the government will eliminate all rights and privileges associated with the institution.

Jesse Ventura for Senate?

the Minnesota Independence party is floating Jesse Ventura and former Senator Dean Barkley(I) as their possible candidates for the senate seat currently held by Norm Coleman.

The egomaniacal blowhard will probably run- but he is absolutely lazy and would not do our state any favors in this position. Further, an independent senator has little to no clout in the two party system.

One more reason to pay attention to the Minnesota race.

May Gas Prices for the past 8 years--

May 15, 2000-- $1.67/gal

Then we elected a Republican Oil Man to the White House in November of that year.
November 13th, 2000--- $1.70 /gal
May 14, 2001--- $1.88 /gal
September 10, 2001--- $1.69 /gal
October 15, 2001--- (people have blamed price on Sept. 11) $1.50 /gal
December 31, 2001--- (last lowest price) $1.28/ gal
May 13, 2002--- $1.58/gal
May 12, 2003--- $1.68/ gal
May 10, 2004--- $2.11/gal
January 10, 2005 (last time average was under $2.00) $1.99/ gal
May 9, 2005 $2.39/ gal
August 29, 2005 $2.80/ gal
September 5, 2005 (first time average is more than $3.00) $3.29/gal
May 15, 2006--- $3.15/ gal
September 11, 2006 (five years since september 11 attack) $2.85/ gal
May 14, 2007 $3.28/ gal
October 15, 2007 (last time average was under three dollars) $2.99/ gal
May 12, 2008 $3.94/ gal

$1.67 to 3.94 is a 236% increase. And people wonder why our economy is so bad off.

Either every calculation that this administration has made was completely off the mark, or they are not so incompetent as we might think. As a congressman Dick Cheney spoke vehemently about letting the market set the price for oil even to the extent of saying that if the market could bear $4.00 a gallon, than that is what the cost should be.

After 7.5 years in charge- they got their wish. And the oil companies are pocketing all of that money.

How is this possible?

MSNBC reports:

"The campaign is clearly running low on cash, although advisers would not say how much money — or how little — Mrs. Clinton currently has. The campaign had started April with over $10 million in unpaid debts, and Mrs. Clinton was vastly outspent by Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina and Indiana."

What makes it possible for one opponent to outspend the other without incurring debt while the other is lending to theiir individual campaign? It must be the case that one of the campaigns is raising significantly more money than the other. Fund raising, particularly among small donors is one of the benchmarks for a successful campaign.

The other, and a measurable standard by which we can assess a candidate's abilities as an administrator, would be their abilities to spend within their means (not incur debt).

What can our government do immediately to help us all with Gas Prices...

SAVE LIVES and reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Finally, an idea that makes sense.

Set aside election year politics and get on with undoing this mistake the Bush administration made to increase Oil Company revenues.

If You Change the Rules, I Win !!

This morning in the biggest butt-kissing session I have ever witnessed on television Joe Scarborrough interviewed Hillary Clinton. In that interview, when asked what argument she willmake going forward that she should get the Democratic Nomination.

She said, in essence that she will make the case that she can win the electoral votes. That argument will need to be dissected more carefully but suffice to say that she is claiming that she and not Barrack will win the states she won (California and New York for example). I think the claim is weak.

Her larger claim was that she has won more popular votes (this changes the rules as to how Michigan and Florida are counted) and that 'if the rules were the same as the rules followed by the Republican Party I would have already won the nomination".

That statement is only true if Florida and Michigan are counted. But forget the veracity- that standard doesn't apply when a Clinton is speaking.

Why would we want to follow the Republican rules?

These are not the rules the candidates agreed to at the beginning. It stretches my imagination and sense of right and my liberal sensibilities to continue to see everything I stand for be twisted beyond recognition in order to secured a nomination for one person who has claimed all along that she is somehow entitled to it.

First she was the inevitable candidate. Then she was the smarter candidate or the more experienced candidate- now she is the only candidate who can win (as long as we follow her rules- but will her rules change again?).

She seems to be the one who thinks she must win- and she will do anything to win. I find that dangerous. I find that divisive. I find it annoying.

MN Republicans are trying a new trick-

They are blaming high gas prices on state Democrats who worked with some Republicans to raise the state gasoline tax. Unfortunately, this too might resonate with voters.

But there is a problem. The tax that Democrats- along with some Republicans- passed has not yet taken effect. Therefore, there is no way it could be in any way esponsible for hte current Gas pricesat the pump. Nor does it explain the increases at the pump by 300% since GW Bush took office.

Maybe our esteemed Mn Republican legistlators should follow the lead of McCain/Clinton and suggest a 'gas tax holiday.' Surely, the road construction projects and infrastructure improvements that ahve already begun can be put on hold for a while until we get though this nasty election business.

Will Hillary Clinton Say Anything to get Elected?

She knows full well that democrats in the House and in the Senate would never go along with an ill-advised plan to create a 'gas tax holiday' for the summer. She also has seen the same information as Barack Obama that such a plan is folly which would do nothing for the consumer- It might even increase prices at the pump- but would most certainly increas profits for the oil companies that continue to break profit records.

Now she is trying to paint Obama as being against the little guy and pro Oil Company.The tax holiday plan, she says, could be paid for with a 'windfall tax' on the oil companies.

Is she really naive enough to believe that cost would not be passed on to the consumer?

I do not think so. More likely, she thinks we are naive enough to think that floating this idea will get people in North Carolina and Indiana to vote for her.

Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborrough, Bill Krystal and George Will are all lining up behind this idea as if it is a good one. Why would we start thinking that they suddenly care about us.

Obama says we should continue to investigate the possibility of price gouging and continue to discuss the possiblility of a windfall tax for big oil. He also says we need to continue to wean ourselves off of foreign oil (Hillary doesn't even mention this).

If gaining the White House means sacrificing basic liberal principals- I would submit that it is not worth it.

Apparently Hillary does not agree. And, if you believe like I do, that Hillary understands full well that this election year gimmick will never fly and see her continuing to promote it -while denouncing Obama as being 'out of touch' because he doesn't- then you have no choice to conclude that she is being ccompletely disingenuous. Or, in her own words, she is saying something that contradicts what she knows to be the truth.

If you want to talk about electibility issues come this fall- "who do you trust?" is a question she cannot win.

In a recent NBC poll there were six catergories where the negatives of each candidate were measured. McCain suffered biggest with his links to Bush, then Hillary as untrustworthy, then Barrack Obama with Reverend Wright. Next was Obama again with 'bitter comments'. rounding out the top six were Hillary again and McCain for issues of likability.

What was not reported anywhere is that While Obama's issues ranked at 34 and 32 percent which were much higher than anyone expected (net negative of 66) both Hillary and McCain had higher net negatives (McCain at 74 and Hillary at 68). The length of this process is not the problem. The problem is a candidate who will sell out hers and her party's principals in ordder to get a nomination.

How does Obama respond to that? If he returns the brutal and unscrupulous attacks he weakens the party's chances int he fall and is cast as being the big guy kicking the defenseless woman.

But how many times does a guy have to be slapped around by a woman before he is allowed to swing back. Perhaps there is no answer. But that ends up making Obama look weak.