Should Kerry Run?

Ellen Goodman in her column in today's Boston Globe discusses whether or not John Kerry should make another try for the White House in 2008, as seems likely.

"John Kerry is a good, honorable, thoughtful man," she writes. "And a lousy presidential candidate. He couldn't do ''ideas" the first time. He wouldn't do them the second time. It's just not in him."

Is this true? Is this fair? And should Democratic voters think seriously about giving Kerry a second chance?

For one thing, to say that Kerry was "a lousy presidential candidate" is simply not true. Kerry was a very effective candidate who made mistakes but who lost because he was trying to do what no presidential candidate in history has ever managed to do -- unseat a commander in chief in the middle of a war. He garnered more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in history, and he came within three percentage points of sending Bush back to Crawford without having to impeach him. If a few votes in Ohio had gone the other way, we would be talking about President Kerry right now.

Goodman is just engaged in what has become an occupational disease among Democrats -- putting former presidential candidates in purdah for the sin of losing elections. That's why Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis have been virtual non-persons at Democratic conventions for the past few cycles. It's as if we can pretend we didn't lose those elections if we just sweep the losing candidates under the rug -- almost literally.

The fact is that John Kerry ran a disciplined, smart campaign and almost did the nearly impossible. Did he make mistakes? Yes. There is little doubt that he should have hit the Swiftboat assholes with everything he had, and he didn't until much too late in the game. Was that a bigger mistake than Gore picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as his running mate instead of Senator Nelson of Florida, a move that almost certainly would have put him in the White House?

Kerry won the nomination, picked the right running mate and cleaned Bush's clock in all of the debates. I don't know what else he could have done, and I don't think any other candidate could have done better. Does Goodman think that Howard Dean would have done better against Bush? You've got to be kidding -- Bush would have won in a landslide instead of a squeaker.

I don't know if Kerry should run again in 2008. Part of me thinks that he deserves a second chance, but then part of me thinks that Al Gore deserves a second chance as well. And a big part of me wants virtually any Democrat to run except Hillary Clinton, who I respect but who I think would lose -- and lose badly -- if she gets the nomination. Anyone who thinks she can win a general election is delusional.

But mainly I think it's presumptuous for Goodman or any other so-called pundit to tell John Kerry what to do. If he wants to run again, let him. And let Democratic primary voters decide.

Tom Moran

Dancing With Phallus

Okay, you talked me into it. I see I have no choice. I'm gonna have to discuss Kevin Costner spanking the monkey in Scotland in front of an outraged masseuse.

Here are the facts, according to the AP:

Kevin Costner and his wife stayed at the Old Course Hotel in Fife, Scotland in October, 2004. While there, he received a massage from a masseuse employed by the hotel.

This is what the masseuse alleges, according to a South African website Tonight (http://tonight.co.za):

During the massage, the unnamed woman contends, Costner "kept putting his hand underneath his towel." At a further point in the massage, Costner "grabbed her wrist forcefully, whipped off his towel and exposed himself."

"Even though he was a Hollywood superstar," the masseuse continued, "I couldn't believe he thought he could get away with something like that. He abused me and I considered that a criminal act."

I believe that, technically, he was abusing himself, but we'll let it go.

The woman was fired by the hotel, and she charged them (and not, it is important to note, Costner) with unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination. She has received a settlement and has not been named in the press that I know about.

Kevin Costner has refused to comment on this story. Wise move on his part. According to the AP, Costner's spokesman Paul Bloch said that "This was never about Kevin Costner. It is a dispute between a hotel and an ex-employee." This is technically correct, but wildly unrealistic. If the masseuse had been complaining about some horny executive at Microsoft or CBS, this would not be a story. It's only a story because the guy who was allegedly choking the chicken was a "Hollywood superstar," in the masseuse's words.

The unnamed masseuse might consider what Costner is alleged to have done a "criminal act," but it's worthwhile to remember that Costner has not been charged with anything. I don't know if Scotland has a statute of limitations on jerking off in front of a masseuse, but I doubt it's expired after less than two years.

But just for the sake of the argument, as a "thought experiment," as Bill Bennett would say, let's assume that the Scottish woman's accusations are 100% accurate. What should we think about this arguably sordid story?

Once you scratch the surface, this story is about privilege and entitlement. It's about what the servants are expected to do and put up with. After all, Costner wasn't asking the masseuse to do anything to him (as Prince Charles was alleged to have been routinely wanked by his butler -- a charge that was hushed up in the British press) -- all he apparently wanted her to do was watch.

Public masturbation has a long history. As far back as Ancient Greece, the philosopher Diogenes routinely jerked off in public in the marketplace. When he was upbraided for doing so, he is supposed to have said (according to Diogenes Laertius, whose Lives of the Philosophers is full of juicy tidbits like this) that wouldn't it be wonderful if we could similarly assuage our hunger pangs by merely rubbing our bellies? Even today there is a club in New York City where men (gay, straight and in-between, as Dr. John Money would say) meet once a week to jerk off together.

The problem here is not that Costner wanted to masturbate in front of the masseuse (if that is indeed what he did), but that he didn't bother to ask her if she minded watching. He just seemed to have assumed that: a) she wouldn't mind, and: b) that she wouldn't talk about it. There is a certain sense of droit de seigneur here, that given the fact that he's a movie star she should feel proud that he chose to allow her to get a glimpse of his manly member in motion, as it were.

So it may have been poor judgment on Costner's part to assume that the masseuse wouldn't mind -- if her allegations are true, which they may not be. But even if they are, that's not what I'm going to think about Kevin Costner in the final analysis.

I'm going to think about a whole different story, which has not been given play in the press.

Now, I'm not a big fan of Dances With Wolves, which in my opinion is one of the five worst films ever to win the Oscar for Best Picture*. But there's a story about Costner during the making of that film that most people don't know.

Costner's co-star on that film was a wonderful actress named Mary McDonnell. During the making of the film her mother was gravely ill, and as the film moved through post-production it didn't look like she was going to live long enough to see her daughter's big break. She'd be dead by the time the film opened.

Somehow, Costner found out about this. And though the film wasn't finished, he took a rough cut and a VCR to the hospital so that Mary McDonnell's mother could see her daughter's performance before she died.

I heard this story from someone who heard it from Mary McDonnell herself, and she said that when McDonnell finished telling this story, she had tears in her eyes, and all she could say was, "Kevin Costner is a prince."

That's the Kevin Costner I'll choose to remember.

Tom Moran

* The other four, in case you're wondering, are The Broadway Melody, The Greatest Show on Earth, Gandhi and American Beauty, with Cimarron, Calvacade, Going My Way and Around the World in 80 Days close behind.

The Last Chronicle of Kaavya

The final episode of the Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarism saga seems (and I use the word "seems" advisedly, if not tentatively) to have been written.

The New York Times is reporting that "Little, Brown, the publisher of the novel ... said it would immediately recall all editions from store shelves." This after saying yesterday that they wouldn't consider doing exactly what they're doing now. Stores have been instructed by the publisher not to sell any more copies of the first edition, and to return any unsold copies.

Of the 100,000 copies printed, at least 45,000 had not been shipped to stores, and God knows how many remain unsold. That would make for a pretty nifty auto-da-fé, don't you think? Maybe in the middle of Harvard Yard? I'm sure that they'd get quite a crowd of cheering undergraduates. Maybe it could be a Pay-Per-View special.

The book is going to be revised in order to remove all traces of Viswanathan's plagiarizing of teen author Megan McCafferty, whose third novel is currently, according to the Times, ahead of Viswanathan's purloined epic on the Times best seller list (#30 to Viswanathan's #32).

Will "How Opal Mehta Yadda Yadda Yadda" sell in its revised and republished form? Will copies of the first, plagiarized edition sell for astronomical sums on eBay? Will anyone give a crap about Kaavya Viswanathan a year from now?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But for the moment I'm just glad that the worst week in this young woman's life is over, and she can go back to being an ordinary Harvard undergraduate. Of course, it also means that I'll have to find other things to write about, but that's just the way it crumbles... cookie-wise.

Tom Moran

Kaavya Emptor

Just when you thought it was safe to read this blog...

Okay, I was of two minds about this. I had two stories I could conceivably write about today. One was the Kevin Costner jack-off scandal, and the other was the latest installment in the Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarism epic.

I opted for Kaavya. So sue me. If you really want to hear what I think about Kevin Costner whacking off in the middle of a massage in Scotland in 2004, let me know and I'll think about posting a blog item on it.

Anyway, back to Kaavya.

After her rather dubious mea culpa of the other day, one would think that this story would be over. She made a mistake, she admitted it and claimed that her "borrowing" from the books of Megan McCafferty, whom she professes to deeply admire, was "unconscious." She says she's sorry, she's rectifying the error -- let it go at that.

There's only one problem with this.

McCafferty's publisher isn't buying it.

According to a story in the New York Times, Steve Ross, the publisher of both novels by Megan McCafferty that are at issue here, has called Viswanathan's apology "troubling and disingenuous."

Ross claims that more than 40 passages in "How Opal Mehta Yadda Yadda Yadda" (which is a hell of a lot more than the Harvard Crimson originally reported last weekend) "contain identical language and/or common scene or dialogue structure from Megan McCafferty's first two books."

McCafferty's publisher is not ruling out legal action, and her agent has made a statement that the Times quotes, saying that "It is understandably difficult for us to accept that Ms. Viswanathan's plagiarism was 'unintentional and unconscious,' as she has claimed."

So the story is not over. We can only wait and see what strange turns this tale will take in the days to come.

And you don't really want me writing about Kevin Costner jerking off in front of a Scottish masseuse, do you?

Do you?

Tom Moran

How The Numbers Add Up

Today President Bush introduced his new press secretary Tony ("Bush is an embarrassment") Snow, who is replacing Scott (The Human Piñata) McClellan, to the White House press corps. That was supposed to be the story of the day. That was before we found out that Karl Rove has testified yet again before the grand jury. And before we got a whiff of Bush's latest poll numbers.

It's the poll numbers I want to discuss, because if you're in the White House or a member of Congress who's a Republican, these numbers can't help but make you very uneasy (and if you work for a Republican congressman, they can't help but make you pull out your resume for a quick update before shipping it off to K Street):

• 57% of Americans polled now disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.
• 67% think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
• 77% are uneasy about the economy.
• 65% of those polled disapprove of the job that Congress (controlled by the Republicans) is doing.

Even Fox News is starting to realize that the ground is giving way beneath the Republicans. They quote John Gorman of the group Opinion Dynamics as saying: "It seems clear that many Republicans, while they may still like and support George Bush, are growing uneasy with what may happen to their candidates — and the policies they support — in the November elections."

Fox News states that "Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April."

Let's repeat the salient point in that paragraph: Bush's job approval rating is down almost 20 percentage points in a year among Republicans.

Meanwhile, what are the Democrats doing? Now, there's an old saying that when your adversary is self-destructing, the best thing you can do is to step aside and let him do it. But is that really what we want the Democrats to be doing right now? Standing around waiting to take over control of Congress by virtue of being the political party that the American people despises least?

I'd like to see some Democrats step up and tell us where they'll take the country if they get control of the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. I'd like to hear what ideas they might have for dealing with the seemingly endless war in Iraq. Did you know that, by the time of the midterm elections in November, we will have been in Iraq for as long as we fought World War II?

Think about that while you ponder the numbers.

Tom Moran

Kaavya Caves In

Kaavya ("I have no idea what you are talking about") Viswanathan has finally, after what must have been a difficult weekend for her, not to mention her publisher and publicist, made a public mea culpa about the similarities (which some judgmental people have called plagiarism) between her novel and the work of another author, Megan McCafferty:

"When I was in high school, I read and loved two wonderful novels by Megan McCafferty, 'Sloppy Firsts' and 'Second Helpings,' which spoke to me in a way few other books did. Recently, I was very surprised and upset to learn that there are similarities between some passages in my novel, 'How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,' and passages in these books.

"While the central stories of my book and hers are completely different, I wasn't aware of how much I may have internalized Ms. McCafferty's words. I am a huge fan of her work and can honestly say that any phrasing similarities between her works and mine were completely unintentional and unconscious. My publisher and I plan to revise my novel for future printings to eliminate any inappropriate similarities.

"I sincerely apologize to Megan McCafferty and to any who feel they have been misled by these unintentional errors on my part."

I have to admit, reading the above I have to wonder if these really are Viswanathan's words, or if they're just an "unconscious" and "unintentional" borrowing from a highly-paid publicist who specializes in damage control.

Will this be the end of the story? Will "How Opal Mehta Yadda Yadda Yadda" survive the jettisoning of her somewhat unfortunate syntactical baggage and continue to sell? Will people believe Kaavya Viswanathan's story of "internalizing" the words of another author, however "unintentional" and "unconscious" it might have been, and forgive her for it?

I think an appearance on Oprah might help. Don't you? Especially if, as has been rumored in the press, her "unconscious" borrowings are in fact considerably more extensive than those that have been reported thus far...

Tom Moran

How Kaavya Viswanathan Got Freyed

First it was James Frey, now it's Kaavya Viswanathan.

Kaavya Viswanathan, in case you haven't been paying attention, is the fetching Harvard sophomore who wrote a novel with the endearingly dorky title “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life.” Its author, who received a half-million book contract while still in high school, has sold her first novel to DreamWorks and even appeared on the CBS Early Show on which, if I remember correctly, host Harry Smith did everything but lean over and drool in her lap.

As far as I know she has not appeared on Oprah, which, under the circumstances, is just as well.

The Harvard Crimson is reporting that several passages in Viswanathan's novel appear to have been plagiarised from another novel, "Sloppy Firsts," by Megan F. McCafferty, a former editor at Cosmopolitan. Viswanathan is not commenting on the story at the moment. When reached by cell phone by the Crimson they quote her as saying, "I have no idea what you are talking about," a statement that, I suspect, will be revised and extended in the days to come, because trust me, this story is not going away any time soon.

Based on the quotes in the Crimson story, the similarities are too many and blatant to be a coincidence.

Part of this story is just what the Germans call schadenfreude. I'm sure there are a lot of undergraduates at Harvard who are secretly or not-so-secretly pleased that the sophomore with the half-million dollar book contract is being unmasked as a plagiarist. It makes them feel better about their own futures. After all, what will Harvard graduates do for a living once "The Simpsons" is cancelled?

The irony is that plagiarism has a long and distinguished history in literature -- and some of our greatest authors have practiced it (or at the very least been accused of it). Shakespeare borrowed from many other writers, most notably the Roman poet Ovid. Both Laurence Sterne (author of "Tristram Shandy") and the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge were accused of plagiarism. Edgar Allan Poe accused Longfellow of plagiarism, only to be charged with it himself. The Japanese author Natsume Soseki used to practice what he called "the art of artificial inspiration" -- that is, reading another author's work immediately before starting to work on his own writing. Jonathan Swift got his knowledge of what it was like to be a sailor in "Gulliver's Travels" by copying it out of other people's books on seafaring. Oscar Wilde's first book of poetry was considered to be so derivative that a presentation copy was actually refused by his own college's library. George Harrison was successfully sued for plagiarism, and we now know that large chunks of Martin Luther King's doctoral thesis was ripped off from the work of another writer.

So if Kaavya Viswanathan is a plagiarist, at least she's in good company. As Orson Welles once had a character say, "It is perfectly all right to borrow from each other -- what we must never do is borrow from ourselves."

But it will be interesting to see if Viswanathan gets the full James Frey treatment, or whether her looks, gender and extreme youth serve to give her a pass.

Tom Moran

Sorry, Charlie

The Charlie Sheen-Denise Richards divorce is getting nastier than usual in Hollywood -- if that's possible.

And the problem here, for Sheen, that is, is that there is a fundamental disparity of power in this conflict. Charlie Sheen in a divorce case is like a guy trying to hit a Randy Johnson fastball blindfolded. There's no way he can win, given his track record.

This is what Reuters is reporting:

"Actor Charlie Sheen was ordered on Friday to keep at least 300 feet away from his estranged wife, actress Denise Richards, and their two young daughters after Richards said in court papers he had been abusive and had threatened to kill her.

Sheen, star of the hit CBS television series "Two and a Half Men," denied the charge and the judge agreed to his request that all telephone conversations between the couple be tape recorded.

Sheen was also granted one-day-a-week visitation with his daughters, Sam, 2, and Lola, 10 months, provided it was done under supervision."

Now this divorce has not gone nuclear yet -- most people who have been involved in these things now what I mean by that -- but from the looks of it it's coming pretty damn close.

The Reuters story says that:

"According to a written declaration to the court, Richards said she had considered asking for restraining orders against the 40-year-old actor several times but was talked out of it because she was told that "by my doing so, I would impact (Sheen's) image and cause others to lose their jobs.

"I am filing this now because I can no longer accept (his) abusive and threatening manner and must stop him from the cycle of his abuse toward me and our children and his continued threats of violence and statements that he is going to kill me."

Richards said Sheen, the son of actor Martin Sheen, abused prescription drugs, gambled compulsively, frequented prostitutes and liked to look at pornography on the Internet."

Let's look at these charges individually:

1) Abused prescription drugs. So does half of Hollywood.

2) Gambled compulsively. So what? It's his money.

3) Frequented prostitutes. So what? It's his penis.

4) Liked to look at pornography on the Internet. Now you're going too far!

Oh, my God! He likes to look at porn! Lock him up and throw away the key!

I don't want to sound too flippant about this because any divorce can be considered a bad thing, particularly when it's acrimonious and children are involved.

But Jesus Christ, who the hell did she think she was marrying, anyway? Billy friggin' Graham?

Charlie Sheen, at the time when Denise Richards married him, was a known quantity. He was a notoriously compulsive pussyhound who blew a lot of money on booze, drugs and prostitutes. He dated porn stars and had a well-publicized drug problem. If Denise Richards, knowing this, decided to marry him anyway, then she has no one to blame for her current situation but herself.

Does that mean I believe her charges that he constantly threatened to kill her? Not particularly. I don't necessarily disbelieve them either, but since she's still breathing for the time being (and because she doesn't claim that he actually harmed her physically) I think I'll give Sheen the benefit of the doubt for the moment, particularly since he insists on having a record of their phone conversations, which would seem to indicate that he has nothing to hide.

Sheen is trying to maintain a dignified silence in the press, which is probably the smartest thing he can do at this point. Nobody is helped at this point by flinging charges around in the press. I'm hoping that one or both of them takes a deep breath, calms down a bit, and tries to find a way to come to some kind of amicable solution for the sake of their two kids.

And Charlie, from now on, stick to hookers. They're a lot less trouble in the long run. At least with a hooker you know you're getting screwed. And the price is agreed-upon in advance.

Tom Moran

Karl Rove as Fall Guy

Karl Rove is being demoted. That's the party line at the moment.

The AP reports that: "Rove gave up his responsibilities as chief policy coordinator, a position he assumed just over a year ago that strengthened his influence over matters ranging from homeland security and domestic policy to the economy and national security. The promotion had left him stretched too thin in the eyes of some officials, as the White House grappled with mounting problems."

That's not, by the way, the kind of mounting problems that Clinton had in his second term. Whole different kind of mounting.

But what I find interesting in the AP story (which I found in the Washington Post) is the next paragraph:

"With Wednesday's change, Rove will be able to focus more on politics, fundraising and big-picture thinking with the approach of the November congressional elections, officials said."

In other words, the Bush Administration is hoping that Karl Rove will be able to salvage the Republican majority and keep the Democratic wolf away from the door of the House and Senate. By using his patented dirty tricks, no doubt.

The funny thing about all this is that Bush really isn't bringing any new blood to the White House, the way Reagan did when the Iran-Contra scandal broke: he's just moving people around. You don't get close to Bush in this White House unless your nose has been nuzzling his sphincter for at least a decade or so -- therefore this little game of musical chairs in the West Wing is ultimately meaningless. It's not like he's going to be hearing any new ideas from these people.

Human Events magazine (the rag that's just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun) has a different take on the Rove matter:

"Somebody has to be the "fall-guy" for the November election debacle that is brewing for the Republican Party."

From your lips to the Almighty, babe...

Tom Moran

Goya -- Oh Boya!

I just got back from what is, as far as I know, the first public screening of an unfinished print of Milos Forman's new film, "Goya's Ghosts," starring Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman, Michael Lonsdale and Stellan Skarsgard as the painter Francisco Goya.

Since the film was made by a director whose work I respect, and since the film was quite obviously not in its finished state, I will refrain from commenting on it for the time being. But I will be quite interested in what the public and the critics have to say about it when it's released in November (according to the producer, Saul Zaentz, who was in attendance).

And I will discuss it at length when it's released.

Tom Moran

Two Little Girls

You have to love the irony.

Last year, Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields got into a very messy public controversy over medication and post-partum depression. Now they have both had children on the same day.

Katie Holmes, the actress, convert to Scientology and soon-to-be wife of Tom Cruise, gave birth to a 7 lb., 7 oz. daughter named Suri, which they apparently got out of a book of "Idiotic Celebrity Baby Names." It could have been worse, I suppose -- after all, they could have named her L. Ron Cruise.

On the same day, Brooke Shields gave birth to a daughter named Grier Hammond Henchy.

I wish both moms the best and hope they each get the help they need to get through the difficult post-partum months to come.

Tom Moran

Long Time Gone

Good ol' boys in the Red States are miffed that the Dixie Chicks are back after a silence of three years with a new CD.

Their new CD, "Taking the Long Way," isn't even due to be released until May 23, but their first single off the new album, "Not Ready to Make Nice," is already getting airplay on country stations (after its first full week of airplay, according to the AP, the song is number 36 on Billboard's country singles chart). Which is what's pissing off some of their redneck former fans.

It seems that, after Natalie Maines made an impertinent comment about President Bush at a London concert on the eve of the Iraq War in 2003, some of the country fans who had admired the group before now think they're a troika of Commie witches who should be burned at the stake. And who should not -- repeat, not -- be given any good old American airtime to spew their anti-American propaganda.

The group in turn, after a tearful apology for their ill-timed remarks on national television, observed how rock musicians came to their defense while their fellow country performers more or less kept silent. Afterwards, the group has said that it no longer considers itself to be a country group.

What do I think about all this? Well, my take is sure to be considered a little heterodox by both sides.

While I don't consider myself to be a fan of the Dixie Chicks, I like the group -- sort of. They've done work that I've liked and work that I haven't, as well as at least one song ("Goodbye Earl") that turned my stomach. But in general I think that they're three extraordinarily talented women. And I admit that I like "Not Ready to Make Nice" as a song.

As a statement, however, it leaves a little to be desired.

On the question of whether or not they should getting airplay I agree with a blogger named Somah who makes an interesting point (although he makes it a little ungrammatically):

"So many in country music fans are up in arms about the single demanding radio stations not to give it airtime. Ironically enough, this crowd that wants the Dixie Chicks banned from the radio is the same crowd that rallies behind Dubya to bring "freedom" to the world!"

One can't help but find that to be a nice little irony.

On the other hand, the video for the single is just obnoxious -- seemingly portraying the group as a troika of Joans of Arc standing up bravely against bigotry and injustice.

The facts are somewhat different.

The lyrics to the song have Natalie Maines saying that "I'm not ready to make nice/I'm not ready to back down." But the reality is that "back down" is exactly what the Dixie Chicks did after the controversy that blew up in their faces once Maines's overseas remark about the president was made public in the American press.

Contrary to what the song and the video might have you believe, when the shit hit the fan, they tearfully apologized on network television and then they hid. For three years they kept silent.

If "Not Ready to Make Nice" had been released in mid-2003 I would have been the first to applaud the Dixie Chicks for their courage. But putting it out now, when the War in Iraq has clearly failed and the president is a lame duck who'll be lucky if he makes it to the end of his term without being impeached, strikes me as being too little, too late.

And, under the circumstances, way too self-congratulatory.

Tom Moran

Going By The Numbers

Want to feel good about being an American? Want to feel a surge of patriotic pride? Want to feel like your country is doing good in the world?

Then check out this website:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

And then make sure you vote for a Democrat this November.

Tom Moran

Mutually Reinforcing

There's a nice story in the Washington Post today by staff writers Richard Morin and Claudia Deane about President Bush's ratings and how they may affect the upcoming midterm elections (thanks to Robert George and his blog Ragged Thots for pointing this one out):

"With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years.

The negative judgments about the president and the congressional majority reflect the breadth of the GOP's difficulties and suggest that the problems of each may be mutually reinforcing. Although the numbers do not represent a precipitous decline over recent surveys, the fact that they have stayed at low levels over recent months indicates that the GOP is confronting some fundamental obstacles with public opinion rather than a patch of bad luck.

A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s."

There's even more worrisome news for the Republicans:

"As Bush and the Republicans falter, Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with such issues as Iraq, the economy and health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job of handling Iraq.

Democrats also hold a six-percentage-point advantage over the GOP (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double digits on such as issues as immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points).

The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating."

When the Democrats and Republicans split almost evenly on who the people trust to handle national security and terrorism, the GOP is in serious trouble.

Of course, the Republicans have time to bounce back and do just well enough to hold onto control of Congress -- especially if, as I think they will, this White House decides to invade Iran within a month or two of the election.

But more importantly, it's time for Democrats to step up to the plate and provide an alternative vision for the country -- a dream to replace the nightmare we've been living with for the past five years.

They need to acquire a little discipline (a little, not too much -- I don't want them marching in lockstep like those zombified conservative Republicans -- a Democratic party without a little squabbling and internal dissension wouldn't be the Democratic party), and they need to tell the American people what they can expect besides, as the GOP can only promise, more of the same. And who wants more of this same?

I can picture the TV ads: "Vote for Republicans, and by this time next year we can have 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq!"

Somehow I don't think that's going to play. And the GOP can't do much better than that.

Now in reality I think the paradigm of the last 25 years is going to play out in 2006 (and 2008, for that matter) -- Republicans make a mess, and the Democrats are given the unpleasant task of cleaning it up. That's what Clinton had to do with the fiscal pig sty that Reagan and Bush left behind and because of the voting public's inability to learn the lessons of those years, we'll probably have to do it all over again with the Bush mess -- only this time it's military as well as economic. A double whammy.

One last tidbit from the Post story:

"Bush's job approval rating has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year. Perhaps more ominous for the president, 47 percent in the latest poll say they "strongly" disapprove of Bush's handling of the presidency -- more than double the 20 percent who strongly approve. It marked the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating. In comparison, the percentage who strongly disapproved of President Bill Clinton on that measure never exceeded 33 percent in Post-ABC News polls."

And keep in mind, Clinton was impeached. With better poll numbers than Bush has now.

Tom Moran

When a Bush Takes a Leak

"Bush is a far better man than Bill Clinton," an unnamed Republican consultant told ABC News on Friday, "but unfortunately, this will sound to people like something you would expect from Clinton."

What the anonymous consultant is referring to is the disclosure that Lewis "Scooter" Libby was instructed to leak what had been classified material about Saddam Hussein to the press, not by some mid-level flunky in the West Wing, not by Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney, but by President George W. Bush himself. You remember him -- he's the one who said that he hates leaks and didn't want anyone in his administration doing it. Except, he left out at the time, when I specifically tell them to in order to undermine my critics and their credibility.

Actually this is not something I would expect from Bill Clinton. This is something I would expect from Richard Nixon, whose approval ratings during Watergate Bush's own approval ratings are now starting to emulate (he's currently at 36 percent, and falling).

The person who was sounding like Bill Clinton last week was Scott ("The Human Piñata") McClellan, who said the following at a press briefing:

"The president believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious, and there's a distinction."

Do we understand the distinction? Let me see if I can elucidate:

Leaking classified material is illegal. Therefore, if anyone in the White House except Bush and Cheney had told Libby to leak the material, that would have been a criminal offense subject to either a fine or imprisonment, or both. But since both Bush and Cheney have the ability to declassify material ex cathedra if they so choose, if they tell Libby to leak the material, then by so doing they are declassifying the material, therefore it is no longer classified material therefore disseminating said information is not a crime. And, presumably, not a leak either.

In October of 2003, President Bush said (according to the Houston Chronicle, from which I've drawn this quote) that "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information. As you know, I've been outspoken on leaks. They can be very damaging."

Maybe the next time Bush wants to know who's damaging the country, he could look in a mirror.

But then, self-examination is not one of this president's strong suits. To put it mildly.

Tom Moran

A Hole in Texas

"This could take a lot of wind out of the Democrats' sails," Rush Limbaugh is saying about Tom DeLay's resignation. That seems to be the excuse de jour to rationalize DeLay's leaving office one step ahead of the sheriff.

Is DeLay's leaving Congress a brilliant gambit that will enable the Republicans to hold onto DeLay's soon-to-be-old seat? Or is that just the usual right-wing bullshit?

Well, there's one way to prevent that from happening. And that is for all of us progressives to do everything we can to support Nick Lampson, the Democrat who is running for DeLay's soon-to-be open seat.

"I hate that kind of thinking but that's what they're thinking," says Limbaugh of people within the Republican Party who claim that the GOP could lose at least eight House seats this Fall. And if that's what the Republicans are thinking publicly, can you imagine what their internals must be? It's break out the Depends time.

So check out the website of Nick Lampson. Lampson is running for Congress, and he needs your support. He needs your financial contribution. Let's snag that seat for the Democrats in 2006.

http://www.lampson.com/

Nick Lampson Headquarters:
Lampson for Congress
P.O. Box 58606
Houston, Texas 77258-8606
Phone: 281-488-4922
e-mail: campaign@lampson.com

Lampson's Houston Office:
17043 El Camino Real, Suite 107
Houston, TX 77058

Tom Moran

Another One Bites the Dust

Tom DeLay is going away. The only question is where -- and for how long.

The Associated Press is reporting that DeLay is going to quit the race to retain his Congressional seat in the face of internal polling that shows that he would most likely lose the race to Democrat Nick Lampson.

According to the AP article, DeLay will also resign his Congressional seat within a month or two.

Let's pause a moment and consider what this means. Jack Abramoff is on his way to prison. Tom DeLay has already stepped down as Majority Leader and is about to give up his seat in the House in the face of almost certain defeat in November. Two of DeLay's former staffers have pled guilty to federal charges in connection with the lobbying investigation that is sending Abramoff to prison. Will DeLay be following them to the slammer?

While I know it's way too soon to start singing "Happy Days Are Here Again," you also have to ask yourself: what were the odds, say, a year and a half ago, that on this date Jack Abramoff would be on his way to getting "three hots and a cot" in the cooler for the next five-plus years and Tom DeLay would be on his way from being the most powerful man in Congress to being completely incongruous?

Can anyone doubt at this point that the perfect political storm is coming that is going to wash away the Republicans out of both houses of Congress this November?

Tom Moran

"Castration Without Malice"

This is a pretty nifty story, you must admit. It's dated April 1st, so I suppose it could be a prank on the part of the AP, but I'm hoping it isn't. Because this is just too good.

"Three men have been arrested on charges of performing castrations on apparently willing participants in a sadomasochistic "dungeon" in a rural house, authorities said Friday."

Like it so far? It gets better.

"Sheriff's investigators said Richard Sciara, 61, Danny Reeves, 49, and Michael Mendez, 60, admitted performing at least eight surgeries, including castrations and testicle replacements, on six consenting clients over the past year. None of the three is licensed to practice medicine, officials said.

The suspects, all residents of the house in Haywood County, in western North Carolina, where the surgeries were allegedly performed, were arrested Thursday. They were being held on $150,000 bond each and could make their first court appearances Monday, Bonfoey said.

The sheriff's office had investigated reports of sadomasochistic acts at the house in 2004, but concluded there was nothing illegal going on because the participants appeared to be willing adults."

Still with me? Believe or not, it gets even better.

"Detectives who searched the home Wednesday found medical supplies that included scalpels, sutures, bandages, anesthetic and artificial replacement testicles, sheriff's officials said.

Also seized were videotaping equipment, and video recordings of the surgeries, sheriff's officials said. Photos and videos made at the "dungeon" were apparently featured on a locally produced sadomasochistic Web site, officials said.

"This right here beats anything I have ever seen," Sheriff Tom Alexander told the Asheville Citizen-Times, which reported that victims may have come from as far away as South America."

Okay, I admit it -- that last bit is my favorite part of the whole piece.

Can't you just picture it?

"Honey, why do you have to leave Buenos Aires on such short notice?"

"I have to fly to America to get my cojones chopped off by a couple of crackers in North Carolina."

"But do you have to do it now?"

"I'm really sorry, but a space just opened up. Don't worry, though -- you can watch it on the website."

They're being charged with 10 felonies, including "castration without malice," which is my new favorite phrase.

It's too bad Hemingway's dead -- I think he could have had fun with this one.

Tom Moran

The Next Big Thing: War With Iran?

Iran claims that it's on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration not only says that it won't allow that to happen but desperately needs to shift the focus of the American people off its disaster in Iraq with midterm elections coming up.

Guess where this is going?

This is what you get for being the world's bullyboy. George W. Bush has taught a very valuable lesson to all the dictators and crackpot heads of state out there.

It's almost a syllogism: Saddam didn't have nukes. Saddam was invaded and overthrown. Therefore, if you don't want to be invaded and overthrown, then you need to get yourself nuclear weapons -- pronto. Because that is the only thing that will keep the United States from invading your country.

In today's Washington Post, Dana Priest has an article that potends a grisly scenario should this country try to interfere in Iran's nuclear program:

"As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide."

Is that so bad? Well, yes it is.

According to the article, "terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

And keep in mind that while al-Qaeda got lucky on 9/11 to a certain extent (I don't think they really expected both of the twin towers to collapse), in many ways they didn't do nearly as much damage as they could have. If the planes has struck the towers of the World Trade Center a few hours later in the day the body count would have been far higher. It's been said that the only reason the third plane hit the Pentagon (on a side that was not occupied at the time) was because they couldn't find their real target, which was the White House. And the fourth plane, which was brought down by the terrorists themselves in Pennsylvania (not by courageous passengers as was wrongly reported at the time) might have been headed for a target in Washington as well -- quite possibly the Capitol.

Now imagine the damage that a smarter, better trained and far better financed group than al-Qaeda currently is could do both inside this country and against our interests abroad.

George Bush has implied that he would like many of our troops to be out of Iraq by the end of the year. But he hasn't said where they're going to go.

My guess is (and yes, I know I've said this before) that a well-timed invasion of Iran in August or early September would not only allow him to say that he was keeping the world safe from a potential nuclear catastrophe, but it will allow him to wrap the Republican Party in the America flag just in time for the midterm elections -- and, possibly, make Bush himself impeachment-proof.

Think that's cynical? Keep in mind that Karl Rove once bugged his own office so he could blame it on the Democrats. Under the circumstances I'm probably not being cynical enough.

The article in the Post continues:

"Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently."

And if you think that the fact this could quite easily blow up in the president's face might dissuade him from a potentially disastrous invasion -- well, then you just don't know this president.

Tom Moran

What Would Lennon Do?

Yesterday, The New York Times ran an interesting story about Condoleezza Rice and her trip to England.

Here's the part I found the most interesting:

"Ms. Rice wanted to meet Paul McCartney later in the day, when they were here in Liverpool. But he said he could not make it, so Ms. Rice visited the Liverpool Institute for the Performing Arts, where he was once a student."

In my reading of that sentence, "he said he could not make it" is polite, Times-speak for "Sod off, you bloody war criminal."

There's no doubt that Rice was deliberately, if politely, snubbed by Paul McCartney, who did not wish to be seen with one of the architects of this disastrous war. He didn't make a federal case out of it -- that's not his way. Paul was always the most polite of the four mop-tops.

But make no mistake about it -- he wanted it known that he wanted no part of Condoleezza Rice.

It made me wonder what John Lennon would have done in a similar situation. I have the feeling that Lennon would have met with her, and then given her an earful as the reporters took down every word.

But that's just my opinion. To paraphrase Wordsworth:

Lennon! thou should'st be living at this hour:
America has need of thee...

Tom Moran