Barack on Iraq

Dear Elephant-

With January 3rd fast approaching, let me give my official Donkey endorsement to the best candidate in the race. Mr. Barack Obama. Perhaps the best way to illustrate the many reasons I support Obama is to post the text of a speech he gave on going to war with Iraq. While we were not fortunate enough to have a leader of Obama's intellect, courage, and vision in the critical time following September 11th, we can now hope that through his candidacy we can get this country back on the right track.


Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002


Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.


Peace,

Donkey

Uh Oh, Clinton Mistress Likes Romney

CNN Reports:
LAS VEGAS (AP) — The one-time other woman in Hillary Clinton's life says she's considering casting her vote for the former first lady.

"I can't help but want to support my own gender, and she's as experienced as any of the others — except maybe Joe Biden," Gennifer Flowers said in a recent telephone interview from her home in Las Vegas.

Flowers said she is still undecided, supports abortion rights and has long wanted to see a woman in the White House.

"I would love to see a woman president, I just didn't think it would be her," Flowers said.

In the 1992 presidential race, the former television reporter claimed to have had a 12-year affair with then-candidate and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. Clinton initially denied the allegation, but later, during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, acknowledged a single sexual encounter with Flowers.

Today the media frenzy, the book tour and the Penthouse shoot is behind her. The defamation suit she once filed against Hillary Clinton was dismissed. The 57-year-old lounge singer says she plans to stay far away from presidential politics.

"I don't have any interest whatsoever in getting back out there and bashing Hillary Clinton," Flowers said.

That's not to say she isn't watching the race closely. Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, she said, is "smart, sexy and experienced." She liked Clinton's response to a question about immigration at a recent debate in Las Vegas ("I like the way she was so definite about it, the others are trying to play to the middle.")

Mitt Romney is also on the short list, though in general "the GOP has yet to start impressing me," said Flowers, a registered nonpartisan who has recently voted Republican.

Huckabee's Willie Horton

Apparently Huckabee pressured parole board members to free a convicted rapist, who after being released raped and murdered a woman in Kansas City. What's frightening is it's looking more and more like Huckabee wanted the criminal paroled for political and "religious" reasons. Here's the story.

Oh, and as for Willie Horton, he's the murderer who doomed Michael Dhukakis' presidential race against George Bush in 1988. If Huckabee somehow made it to the general elections, the dems would use this story to dash any hope he has for the presidency. Huckabee will lose his presidency bid for this gross error in judgment. I think you can mark my words on this one.

Another Rudy Scandal

Hey Elephant-

What do you think about the recent Rudy Shag Fund Scandal? When is this stuff going to start sticking to him? How can he still be the GOP front runner? Hopefully Democrats can do a better job than his current Republican rivals are at holding him accountable. This guy would be a mess as a President.

Donkey

Reply to City upon a Hill

Aw Donkey, protection, reformation, and deterrence; the post reminds me of late nights, pizza, and flow charts in the good ol' days studying criminal law. 

Instead of telling you why the death penalty protects society better than life in prison (no parol and no prison escapes from the death penalty; essentially, no chance of recidivism plaguing society again), why it reforms perpetrators better than life in prison (somebody facing death is forced to think long term--I mean, really long term), and why it deters murder more than life in prison (frankly, death scares most people more than blank prison walls), let me just say that the majority of your post fails to consider another equally important rationale for how we administer justice--proportionality.

In law, proportionality is what we refer to when we say, "Let the punishment fit the crime." So when you ask why immigrants shouldn't face the death penalty, my reply is that illegal immigration is not commensurate with the punishment of death. But death does fit the crime of death, especially since a murderer facing the death penalty often has killed many people or has committed the most egregious type of murder, like that of Baby Jane.

Returning to forgiveness, in my mind that argument just doesn't fly when we're talking about a justice system. As a society, we are not asked to forgive murderers. We are not asked to forget the grotesque circumstances surrounding a loved one's death at the hands of a murderer. We are not asked to turn the other cheek when our child washes ashore in a cardboard box in Galveston Bay. As I said in my last post, God intends that we as a society administer justice. And for many Americans, the proper combination of protectionism, reformation, deterrence, and proportionality only comes in the form of the death penalty when dealing with murder; that is, we "affirm the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most strict form."

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

--Sir Elephant, the perhaps not-so-gifted Master of the Scientific Method

A City Upon A Hill

Sir Elephant-

I apologize if I misstated your previous argument. As to your brilliant hypothetical, I have no doubt that the death penalty deters murder, but does it deter more murder than life in prison? I am not convinced that the answer to that question is yes, even in your hypothetical. And statistical analysis on that very question is at best inconclusive. Moreover there are many other cases or hypotheticals where the answer is most likely no. Such as the story of Baby Jane.

Second, if in fact the death penalty does have a greater deterrent effect, shouldn't we apply that punishment to criminals convicted of other crimes? Child Molesters, rapists? What about non-sexual child abuse or kidnapping? Aren't we equally concerned with obtaining additional deterrence of those crimes? Now that I think about it, you have found the perfect Republican solution to the immigration problem. You should run on this Elephant, I really think you could win the nomination. If you think the Republican base gets excited about building a wall, wait until they hear this. After all, the immigrants are here ILLEGALLY.

But I digress. The reason why the death penalty is more vengeful and unforgiving than life in prison is because justice is the primary rationale for choosing to execute prisoners. As you state in your previous post, "that's the punishment that we as a society have determined that justice demands." But other punishments such as life in prison have different primary rationales behind them, such as protection, reformation, and deterrence. That is why the penalty of life in prison is not necessarily more vengeful than the penalty of 6 months in prison. We lock people away for life because they are dangerous, and because a penalty of 6 months in prison would not achieve the goals of protection and deterrence. But we execute people because they deserve it, not because life in prison does not deter murder or protect society from the murderer.

Now you can point to studies that may show the death penalty deters more murder, but at bottom that is not the reason why you or anyone else supports capital punishment. You support it because you feel justice demands it. You are outraged when you hear stories like that of Baby Jane. Those murderers do not deserve to live. I understand that position as I have often had similar feelings myself. But I do not see that position as consistent with the spirit of forgiveness. A spirit exemplified by the good people of this country, and a spirit that should be embodied in the policies of this great nation. We should set an example for the rest of the world. We should be "a city upon a hill" or "a model of christian charity." As Winthrop said in that famous speech, we should "love mercy." By doing so we light a higher path, affirming the morals and faith which make up the fabric of our country.

Peace, Love, & Life,

Donkey

Response to the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Donkey,

Evidently I need to reread my posts before publishing them. I didn't mean to imply the debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty are no longer contested. The debate definitely continues. My point was that in the past several years more conclusive studies have emerged suggesting that the death penalty does in fact deter murder. And I don't think anybody reading those studies should be surprised that people criticize the studies' methodologies, as you pointed out. After all, there's a lot at stake here. But remember, for every person who criticizes the study, there's also somebody who supports it--often an academic just like the critics you pointed to.

But since we're on the subject of flawed studies, let me put forth one of my own. Let's say John Doe is premeditating the murder of his wife. According to Doe, she's a mean, nasty ol' lady and he's tired of her constant nagging. John Doe is a lawyer and he plans to commit the perfect crime (yes, we've heard this story before). He obviously understands the law, and he knows the repercussions of his pre-meditated actions. After all, they are PRE-MEDITATED; he has lots and lots of time to think about it. Can you tell me than under no circumstance will the thought of the death penalty deter Mr. Doe from preceding with his plan? Because if you can't, then there's a CHANCE that the death penalty may deter a murder. And in my mind, if there's a chance we can save one innocent child, one innocent mother, one innocent bystander, then that chance, combined with several other reasons (some of which we have already discussed), is enough for me to support the death penalty.

And quite frankly, I think there's much more than a chance that the death penalty deters murder; in fact, I think the death penalty does deter murder, just like a ticket deters speeding and the threat of jail time deters drug dealing, perhaps not in all instances but in many and that's all that matters.

--Sir Elephant, Master of the Scientific Method

Deterrent Effect of Death Penalty

Elephant-

The debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty continues today, and the statistical research is far from conclusive as you suggest. Indeed the studies you cite have been criticized by many in academics as unsound and statistically flawed. Check out the following link which provides further links to the studies you cite and to the critiques of those studies. The following are representative examples:

Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence: In testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary regarding proposed legislation to initiate a "foolproof" death penalty, Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan analyzed recent studies that claimed that capital punishment deters murders. He stated that the studies "fall apart under close scrutiny." Fagan noted that the studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, and other deficiencies. "A close reading of the new deterrence studies shows quite clearly that they fail to touch this scientific bar, let alone cross it," Fagan said as he told members of the committee that the recent deterrence studies fell well short of the demanding standards of social science research. (J. Fagan, Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence, testimony before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts Legislature on House Bill 3934, July 14, 2005).

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence: In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility." (The Economists' Voice, April 2006).

New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?: A study conducted by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has identified significant statistical problems with the data analysis used to support recent studies claiming to show that executions deter crime in the United States. In "New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?," Professor Berk addresses the problem of "influence," which occurs when a very small and atypical fraction of the available data dominates the statistical results of a study. He found that this statistical problem is found in a number of recent studies claiming to show that capital punishment deters violent crime. The UCLA study conducted by Berk found that in many instances the number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years execute no one and few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. These values represent about 1% of the available observations that could have been used by researchers to draw conclusions for earlier studies claiming to find that capital punishment is a deterrent. In Professor Berk's study, a re-analysis of the existing data shows that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%. (Published on UCLA's Web site, July 19, 2004).

Donkey

Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others

I find the results of this poll conducted by the Gallup organization very  interesting. Can we attribute the disparity to the perception that Republicans are generally more religious than their Democrat peers? Or is it perhaps that Republicans are generally more wealthy? It would be interesting to see what factors contribute to these numbers.

Reply to Reply to "Death Penalty Vindicated"

Donkey,

I too believe that we're held to the higher law of forgiveness, but what God requires of us as individuals is not equivalent to what he requires of our society's system for administering justice. Certainly God intends that we as a society administer justice, and our system of justice is not unlike His system insomuch that "mercy cannot rob justice," with only one single exception. That exception is when a person exercises faith unto repentance. In that instance, mercy can satisfy the demands of justice. This exception for repentance is evident in our system of pardons, parole, and limitations of state sentencing laws.

Having said that, there are extreme instances of crime--specifically, murder--when our system of justice must demand the most sacred of a person's liberty--that is, life itself. But, how does demanding life as justice for murder make a society more vengeful or unforgiving than demanding life in prison, as you suggested? The only logical answer to this question is that it's a question of the degree of the punishment, the death penalty being more extreme than life in prison. But under that reasoning, wouldn't life in prison as justice for murder make us more vengeful and unforgiving than, say, 6 months in prison? Yet certainly you wouldn't claim that our society would be less vengeful and unforgiving if we limited the prison term of a vicious killer to 6 months. Consequently, imposing a life sentence does not make us more vengeful or unforgiving than imposing a 6-month prison term. Simply put, we impose a life sentence (or the death penalty) because that's the punishment that we as a society have determined that justice demands, not because we are being more vindictive or unforgiving.

Indeed, in many cases where the death penalty is warranted, I do not think the death penalty satisfies all that justice demands, but it's the only tool we have at our earthly disposal which comes close. We leave the rest to God.

On a more secular note, you may want to read some interesting research from the past six years that indicates the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

--Elephant

Reply to "Death Penalty Vindicated"

Dear Elephant,

How can I respond to such a terrible story? It is certainly natural to feel outraged at the perpetrator of such a crime and to demand justice. But unfortunately, only God can provide that to this child. The death penalty, life in prison, or any other punishment is insufficient. Neither penalty adequately deters such crimes (plus there is considerable debate about whether the death penalty actually results in more deterrence), neither will bring true peace to family members baby Jane leaves behind, and neither will undo the horrible crime that was committed. I have another story for you. One that I just so happened to teach a lesson on in church last Sunday:

In the beautiful hills of Pennsylvania, a devout group of Christian people live a simple life without automobiles, electricity, or modern machinery. They work hard and live quiet, peaceful lives separate from the world. Most of their food comes from their own farms. The women sew and knit and weave their clothing, which is modest and plain. They are known as the Amish people.
A 32-year-old milk truck driver lived with his family in their Nickel Mines community. He was not Amish, but his pickup route took him to many Amish dairy farms, where he became known as the quiet milkman. Last October he suddenly lost all reason and control. In his tormented mind he blamed God for the death of his first child and some unsubstantiated memories. He stormed into the Amish school without any provocation, released the boys and adults, and tied up the 10 girls. He shot the girls, killing five and wounding five. Then he took his own life.
This shocking violence caused great anguish among the Amish but no anger. There was hurt but no hate. Their forgiveness was immediate. Collectively they began to reach out to the milkman's suffering family. As the milkman's family gathered in his home the day after the shootings, an Amish neighbor came over, wrapped his arms around the father of the dead gunman, and said, "We will forgive you."1 Amish leaders visited the milkman's wife and children to extend their sympathy, their forgiveness, their help, and their love. About half of the mourners at the milkman's funeral were Amish. In turn, the Amish invited the milkman's family to attend the funeral services of the girls who had been killed. A remarkable peace settled on the Amish as their faith sustained them during this crisis.
One local resident very eloquently summed up the aftermath of this tragedy when he said, "We were all speaking the same language, and not just English, but a language of caring, a language of community, [and] a language of service. And, yes, a language of forgiveness."2 It was an amazing outpouring of their complete faith in the Lord's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount: "Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."3
The family of the milkman who killed the five girls released the following statement to the public:
"To our Amish friends, neighbors, and local community:
"Our family wants each of you to know that we are overwhelmed by the forgiveness, grace, and mercy that you've extended to us. Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. The prayers, flowers, cards, and gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you.
"Please know that our hearts have been broken by all that has happened. We are filled with sorrow for all of our Amish neighbors whom we have loved and continue to love. We know that there are many hard days ahead for all the families who lost loved ones, and so we will continue to put our hope and trust in the God of all comfort, as we all seek to rebuild our lives."4
How could the whole Amish group manifest such an expression of forgiveness? It was because of their faith in God and trust in His word, which is part of their inner beings. They see themselves as disciples of Christ and want to follow His example.

-James E. Faust, The Healing Power of Forgiveness. The entire talk can be found here.

Now to be clear, I am not saying that James E. Faust or any other leader of the LDS church is against the death penalty. To my knowledge there is no official church position on that subject. And as Faust himself says in this talk: "Of course, society needs to be protected from hardened criminals, because mercy cannot rob justice . . .'Forgiveness is a source of power. But it does not relieve us of consequences.' When tragedy strikes, we should not respond by seeking personal revenge but rather let justice take its course and then let go."
What I am arguing is that to me personally the death penalty is contrary to the spirit of forgiveness, and should not be part of a Christian society. If we can lock these people up for the rest of their lives without parole, then there is no need to kill them. In my mind, the power of life and death is sacred. I am uncomfortable with a random jury loosely wielding that power as they routinely do in states like Texas. For every baby Jane, there is a much closer case where the death penalty may not be so obviously justified. There are also serious problems with racial bias in sentencing and with wrongful convictions. But most importantly this issue speaks to the ultimate question of what kind of a people do we want to be? I don't believe we should be a vengeful and unforgiving society. Nor do I believe we should give a free pass to criminals. Life without parole to me strikes a better balance between justice and mercy. The death penalty in is an old testament eye for an eye type policy, while a punishment like life in prison is more in tune with the higher law of the new testament. It embodies the remarkable attitude demonstrated by the Amish. And it reflects our "faith in God and trust in His word. Such faith 'enables people to withstand the worst of humanity. It also enables people to look beyond themselves. More importantly, it enables them to forgive.'"

Donkey

Death Penalty Vindicated

There's nothing more infuriating to me than hearing about a child who is abused, and when I read stories like that of Baby Jane--a 2-year old girl who washed ashore in Galveston Bay, Texas last month--it reminds me why we need the death penalty in this country. There's no greater crime against a person, a society, or a family than the murder of an innocent child. 

I warn you that the following excerpt from a CNN article is heart wrenching, and you shouldn't read it if you don't want to know the details of Baby Jane's horrific death.

The stepfather of a 2-year-old girl lost control and beat her to death because she wouldn't say "please" and "yes sir," an attorney for the girl's mother said Wednesday.

Zeigler wanted his wife to spank Riley with a belt when she failed to say things like "please" and "yes sir" or "no sir," Stickler said Wednesday. Zeigler didn't believe Trenor was doing it, however, because the 2-year-old's behavior wasn't changing.

The fatal beating happened after Zeigler stayed home from work to make sure his wife was following his discipline plan, Stickler said.

In her statement to Galveston authorities, Trenor said the girl was beaten with leather belts, had her head held underwater in a bathtub and then was thrown across a room, her head slamming into a tile floor.

Although the affidavit said the couple abused Riley over a four- to six-hour period, Stickler said it wasn't a continuous event. Instead, Zeigler grew increasingly enraged as he spanked Riley and she kept forgetting to do things the way he wanted.

Thank goodness this happened in Texas where vicious murderers get the death penalty.

On Behalf of Big Oil Thank You Elephant

Republican Candidates Short on Cash

As the New York Times Reports:

The most recent figures show that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $56.6 million and has $29.2 million at its disposal. By contrast, the National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $40.7 million with a cash balance of $2.5 million.
That is a striking turnabout for the Republicans, who have outraised the Democrats by considerable margins for years. As recently as 2006, the Republican Congressional campaign committee raised $40 million more than its Democratic counterpart, $179.5 million to $139.9 million.
. . .
Confronting an enormous fund-raising gap with Democrats, Republican Party officials are aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates who can spend large sums of their own money to finance their Congressional races, party officials say.
. . .
Some senior Republicans, frustrated with what they describe as anemic fund-raising by the party’s House campaign committee, say that luring wealthy candidates is no easy fix, as it does not guarantee victory. “I’ve seen many a rich guy blow cash and still not become a member of Congress,” said one top House Republican, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as criticizing his colleagues.
. . .
In fact, past elections show that candidates who spend large sums of their own money frequently end up losing. In 2006, for example, only 2 of the 10 candidates who spent the most of their own money on their own races for House seats won the elections, according to an analysis of finance records and election results.

This could spell trouble for the Republicans in 2008? The Democrats are in a good position to expand their majorities in the House and Senate.

Hillary's Support is Waning

I don't imagine this is a result of my post about Hillary having ties to a communist-leaning law firm, but a new poll shows that Hillary Clinton would lose the general election to all of the top 2008 Republican contenders. This must be disturbing news for the Hillary camp, since just 4 months ago, she held a solid lead above her Republican peers, but it comes as even more disturbing to me because I own a black "Madame President" T-shirt sporting a profile of Hillary Clinton's face; and I shall have no use for it if she loses this election.

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans [Reuters]

Reply to Reply that Former Press Secretary Confirms Bush Involved in Criminal Conspiracy

Dear Elephant-

Lets see, why is it that you have seen no judge, jury, or indictment?

Could it be that we have a justice department run by Bush Cronies, i.e. Alberto Gonzalez, and a Republican Congress that turned a blind eye to all of the Bush administration wrong doings during his first six years in office. Or maybe its because we have a President that has invoked executive privilege more then any other in recent memory, and who was willing to pardon the one person who was convicted in order to keep him from revealing what he knew. What's more we now have Republican presidential candidates that suggest they also would have pardoned Libby.

All of this demonstrates that the media has good reason to ask tough questions of George Bush and of the Republican party's notion of justice generally. Questions they should have asked a long time ago.

Why can't this administration just be honest? Who knew what and when? The criminal conspiracy is the cover up. Regardless of what Bush knew about Plame, it is more then obvious that he was involved in the cover up, and at the very least has allowed those who were definitely involved in the leak directly, (Rove, Libby, Cheney, Card), to continue serving in their positions. This, despite his public pronouncement that he would not do so.

Finally, I find it ironic that you chastise me for throwing stones when in your previous post you accuse Hillary Clinton of having ties to communism on the shaky ground that she had a summer job with a law firm whose named partners were alleged communists. So Elephant, does that mean that I am a Republican, because I worked for a law firm whose named partners are Republicans including one who is now Bush's chief counsel? If it does, I am doing a pretty good job of covering it up. Almost as good a job as this administration has done at covering up their criminal behavior.

Peace,

Donkey

Reply to "Former Press Secretary Confirms Bush Involved in Criminal Conspiracy"

Donkey,

Being a law student, I thought you would be the first to embrace a central tenant of our criminal justice system--innocent until proven guilty. Certainly Mr. McClellan is not a judge and jury, and if you had read his words carefully, you would have noticed that he has not incriminated our President--only the press has done that.

In fact, the publisher says the book won't say President Bush deliberately lied. I think that's a fair statement against our leftist, even slanderous, news media.

Having said that, I believe there should always be investigations into any allegation of wrongdoing in the White House, and if enough evidence is discovered to indict our President or his aides, then they should be held accountable. But as of now, I have seen no indictment, and I have seen no judge and jury. Let's not throw stones until the justice system gives us a right to do so.

Hillary's Ties to Communism?

Clockwise from top, the future first lady while at Wellesley College in 1969, and partners at the law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, Robert Treuhaft, Doris Walker, and Malcolm Burnstein.

From AbovetheLaw.com...

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as a summer associate may come back to haunt her. And not because she stripped down to her undies and took a swan dive into the Hudson.

Rather, it's because she worked for a bunch of Commies. From a piece by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun:

In a life marked largely by political caution, one entry on Senator Clinton's résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971 at one of America's most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America's most "dangerously subversive" lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady's enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

Senator Clinton tends to be tight-lipped about Treuhaft. In her memoir, Living History, she gives her summer stint rather cursory treatment:

I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland, California and he announced that he would like to go with me. I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case.

Why doesn't Hillary make more of her time at this ultra-liberal law firm, and embrace her past as a radical leftist? Might the Daily Kos krowd warm up to her, if they knew about her time as a fellow traveler?

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer: A Season of Love and Leftists [New York Sun]

Pilgrims and Indians

Dear Elephant,

Happy Thanksgiving!



Peace,

Donkey

Former Press Secretary Confirms Bush Involved in Criminal Conspiracy

Elephant-

Though the evidence from the Scooter Libby trial revealed much of the same, yesterday Bush was dealt a damning blow when his former Press Secretary released the following excerpt from his upcoming book:

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.

This is so troubling because of the repeated public pronouncements from the President that nobody in the administration was involved, and looks even worse given the pardon of Scooter Libby by the President. Was the President granting that pardon to protect himself from criminal liability? This is truly a corrupt White House.

As others are reporting, this also creates problems for Republican Candidates who will have to distance themselves from the President on this issue. In the CNN Republican Debate, many of the candidates including your man Romney waffled on the question "Would you give Scooter Libby a pardon?" A video of their answers can be found here. To me this raises serious questions about their ethics. I admit Scooter Libby got a raw deal, but only because the White House made him the fall guy. To even hint at possible support of a subsequent White House pardon is to justify and condone a system where politicians can lie and break the law and not be held accountable. It is a mockery of the justice system and the candidates answers suggest that they have no more respect for the truth and for the law then the current administration.

Peace,

Donkey

Surge Revisited

Elephant-

Here is a very interesting article out today that hits on many of the ideas we have been discussing recently about Iraq.

Obama admits to drinking, drugs

I actually like Obama, definitely more than Hillary, but in my view, anybody running to be President of the United States, the leader of the free world, needs to be a role model for us and for our children. I recognize that people make mistakes in their younger days, but why would you speak publicly about it, especially to a group of high school students who are eager for any justification that they can find for drug use? I can almost hear angry teenagers across the country yelling back at their parents, "Well Barack Obama did it, and look where he's made it in life." Obama's comments are just ammo for these young people, and I don't think they belong in a presidential campaign.

-Elephant

P.S. Bush and Giuliani (and Bill Clinton, unless of course he didn't inhale) had some of the same habits in their younger days, and they're just as accountable. Hopefully none of them is going around the country speaking about their problems to high school students.

Work Ethic by the Numbers

If the number of a candidate's campaign events is any indication of work ethic, these figures are telling.

No. of Events Held by Each Candidate since January 2007

1. Mitt Romney- 493 events

2. John Edwards- 443 events

3. John McCain- 401 events

4. Barack Obama- 398 events

5. Bill Richardson- 393 events

6. Hillary Clinton- 368 events

7. Rudy Giuliani- 266 events

8. Mike Huckabee- 257 events

9. Fred Thompson- 74 events (projection: 222)

10. Ron Paul- 113 events

It seems Romney has exceeded the number of the next Republican candidate's events by nearly 25% and Rudy Guiliani's events by nearly 100%. Can we say that Romney is the hardest working candidate in the campaign? Hmm.

Response to the Response on the Troop Surge in Iraq

Donkey,

I don't understand how you can say "decreasing violence is certainly not a success." If saving peoples' lives, especially lives that by our own fault are threatened to be lost, is not success, then I don't know what is. You ask, "Where will Republicans take us from here?" I don't know the answer to that question, but I can tell you that wherever it is, it will be a better place than where we would have been if we'd followed Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, and Carl Levin's advice to leave Iraq as it is. What kind of irresponsible behavior are we promoting in this country? 

You say it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and perhaps it was, but two wrongs never make a right, so leaving Iraq to fend for itself after we destroyed its infrastructure, government, and sovereignty is just a flat out crime against humanity. That's why we are there, and that's why we will stay. The reality is it's not popular for Democrats to agree with Bush's stay the course strategy, and that's what drives them to the irresponsible alternative of leaving Iraq. Mark my words on this one. If a Democrat goes to the White House next year, he or she will not bring our troops home because then it's their political capital at risk, and nobody--Democrat or Republican--is going to leave the Middle East at war to save face on a policy commitment they made when running for office.

When we put our troops on Iraqi soil, we undertook a moral duty to bring peace to the Iraqi people, regardless of the motive for the war. We are still Americans in this country, and I don't frankly care whose fault the Iraq war is, it will be your fault and my fault if we don't do everything within our power to restore civility to those people. We broke it, and now we have to fix it.

We are not cowards in this country.

-Elephant

Response to Troop Surge Gains Ground

Elephant-

I am happy that deaths in Iraq have decreased, and I sincerely hope that the trend continues, even if it means that it hurts Democrats in the next election. Nevertheless, decreasing violence is certainly not success. Where will the Republicans take us from here? Also, as Barrack Obama pointed out in the debate last week, the fact that deaths have decreased from horrific to simply intolerable is not saying much, particularly when you look at the overall trend in deaths since the war started. And if the surge is really working, why is Bush planning to again reduce troop levels next year?

But even if the surge is working, it is too little too late for the Republicans. They will continue to pay a political price for what is arguably the worst political decision since Vietnam: the Iraq war in general. For the next election, I would much rather be a Democrat who opposed the surge than a Republican or Democrat who supported George Bush in his decision to go to Iraq in the first place.

Peace in Iraq,

Donkey

Troop 'surge' gains ground

Donkey,

Report after report is confirming that the recent troop surge of 30,000 American troops is achieving its objectives in Iraq. Casualties are at their lowest levels in years, and coalition forces are actually weeding out al Qaeda in Iraq from their strongholds in Baghdad.

Yet things haven't always looked so encouraging. When President Bush announced the troop surge earlier this year, Democrats were vehemently opposed. Let's remember some of their kind words on the matter.

-Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich criticized the new strategy claiming that the new plan could cause a war with Iran. 

-Chuck Hagel, Delaware Democrat Joe Biden (Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair), and Michigan Democrat Carl Levin (Armed Services Committee) chair co-sponsored a non-binding resolution that says it is “not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.” 

-After three days of debate, on February 16, 2007 the House of Representatives (a democratically controlled body) passed House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 63 on a vote of 246 to 182.[29] The resolution states:
Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Now, 10 months later, we have the benefit of hindsight, and as one senator suggested, "You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that the surge is not working."

Donkey, what's your response to the progress being made in Iraq? Perhaps you were for the surge when it was announced. But if not, how do you justify the progress? It seems the Democrat's anti-Bush rhetoric is coming back to bite them, and that bite is going to have more sting for your party if things continue on the rebound. 

-Elephant

Republicans and Race

Dear Elephant-

Now I know that amongst you and your fellow Elephants Ronald Reagan is the King of the jungle, but recently commentators have criticized Reagan for his use of race politics to attract white southern voters. Reagan and other Republican leaders may not themselves be racist, but is their party?

An editorial in today's NY Times suggests that Republican strategy may be to support policies which attract white southern voters, many of whom are against expansion of rights for minority groups. Whether it be opposing the civil rights movement or taking a hard line against undocumented workers, i.e. "send them all back" or "build a wall," it sure seems like the Republican party is always against (or at least indifferent to) the needs and rights of diverse groups.

Another recent example is the Republican presidential candidates opting to flat out skip a debate focused on minority issues. As the linked article quotes one commentator as asking, "What does it say when you don't think that black issues and brown issues and issues for red and yellow -- what does it say when you don't think that all of us are valuable in this process?"

Good question.

Peace,

Donkey

Down with the Rich!!

...and their snobby heirs! Here are all the reasons why: Hooray for the Death Tax!

Judging the Candidates

Elephant-

The New York Times has an interesting article which describes the various personal characteristics of the presidential candidates in a neat little table. I especially like the description of Hillary as "pant-suited" and Mitt Romney as a "mannequin."

The Table can be found here.

Take a look and let me know what you think?

Peace,

Donkey

Clinton Plants Questions for Easy Answers

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. You should know better than to make these kinds of mistakes in the final hours before the primaries. It just means more bad press for your campaign. You should know that the golden rule of politics is if you're going to play cheap, never, ever use somebody you can't trust.

Well, thank goodness there is still some integrity in this country and that this college student has spoken up about the Clinton campaign's unethical behavior.

Here's the Article

Saddam Confessed to Fabrication of WMD

In a strange twist to the ongoing debate about the American invasion of Iraq, NBC reported last night on the newly released book "The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack" by New York Times best-selling author Ronald Kessler. In his book, Kessler reported on an "FBI agent who extensively interviewed Saddam Hussein and found, among other things, that the former Iraqi leader had deliberately tried to 'fool the U.S.'" NBC told its viewers, "Saddam Hussein told his American captors that he so feared Iran, he wanted Iranian leaders to believe that he had nuclear and biological weapons. So he planned to fool the U.S. by, among other things, stalling U.N. inspectors to make it appear he had something to hide, weapons of mass destruction or WMD. But he hoped the post-Gulf War sanctions on Iraq would dissolve, allowing him to pursue a nuclear capability."

Saddam also confessed to killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds. When Saddam and this FBI informant finally said goodbye, Saddam reportedly teared up and cried like a baby.

Sometimes information like this helps us understand why Bush and his Republican and Democratic allies did what they did in 2003. Perhaps they were wrong, but hindsight is often 20/20. History is proving that Saddam called America's bluff, and unfortunately for him, the bet didn't pay off. 

Tax on Super Wealthy Fails in Congress

Hi Donkey,

I know people say that elephants have peanuts for brains, but even this Elephant knows something is very wrong in Congress these days. I wish I had time to discuss all of the problems (I guess that might be impossible), but one problem has really upset me. You see, I'm a young, mostly impoverished American (but with a bright future!), and after the democrats' relentless attacks on Bush's so-called "tax cuts for the wealthy" last year, I never thought I'd read the headline "'Carried Interest' Tax Unlikely to Rise in '07" when democrats are writing our tax bills.  Why o why would a democrat-led Congress object to closing a loophole used by the mega-rich in this country? 

I mean, sure, I know that big business lobbied Congress heavily not to pass the increased carried-interest tax, but I kind of figured the democrat majority would look through those dollar signs to the good of the people. Isn't that what democrats stand for? It just really chaps my hide, Donkey.

--Elephant

P.S. Here's the article from the WSJ.

Reply to Aqua Dots and Laissez-faire

Dear Donkey,

This truly is a nightmare before Christmas, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that the government needs to tighten controls and increase funding to better protect our children. But before we start calling for our leaders' heads, let's get back to reality and put things in perspective.

We live in one of the safest countries in the world. Regarding food supplies, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt recently said the United States has "among the safest food supplies on the planet [and] we're very fortunate to live in a place where...problems are discovered quickly and responded to." The same can be said about consumer goods. Even Europe, a place notorious for its stringent product safety regulations, has recently experienced similar rates of product recalls as the United States. These recalls almost universally stem from the same problem on both continents--and no, it's not President Bush, even though I recognize Democrats consider him the root of all problems--manmade or otherwise. No, indeed, it's not Bush (or global warming for that matter) this time, but instead under- or un-regulated chinese exports. Yes, it's that simple.

Yet Donkey, your columnist wants us to see it from a more cynical point of view. She seems to have misrepresented enough issues that, if you took them at face value, would indeed lead us to believe that President Bush favors corporate interests over the lives of our children. You certainly can't get much more cynical than that. And yet this is exactly the type of political propaganda that democrats want us to believe. Fortunate for our readers, though, I--Mighty Elephant--can set the record straight on this perversely one-sided news piece promulgated by our very own and otherwise well-respected Donkey.

The truth is that President Bush and Nord are not opposed to additional funding and more staff for the CPSC, as your columnist led her blind readers to believe. Nord simply doesn't want the funds coming in the form of big, inefficient bureaucracy, which is precisely what Congress is trying to strong arm her to do. In fact, Nord is quoted as calling a proposed House bill doubling CPSC's budget “a win for consumers.” What differs between Congress and the Bush administration, however, is that the latter actually wants to spend agency dollars wisely, working with industry, rather than against it, to promote toy safety.

The Wall Street Journal does a fine job of clarifying the other misconceptions of your columnist's post.

Tinkering With Toys


November 9, 2007; WSJ, Page A18

Just in time for toy season, Congress is promoting new legislation to crack down on companies selling products said to be defective or dangerous. With an epidemic of tainted Chinese imports on their hands, industry and regulators have been clamoring for beefed- up safety standards. So far, more than 21 million products have been taken off store shelves since the summer. That's not enough for the Senate.

Under a Senate bill sponsored by Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor, the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission would be increased to $117 million from $62 million over five years. It would also raise the cap on civil penalties against a company selling a defective product to $100 million -- more than 50 times its current level.

While many agency complaints are now handled through negotiation, with a $100 million anvil over their heads, companies likely would litigate. Prosecutions would rise, while actual enforcement would fall. Meanwhile, the Pryor bill would empower all 50 state Attorneys General to effectively run their own consumer product safety adjuncts -- deciding what constitutes a safety defect and making their own judgments about appropriate remedies.

The result could be a jigsaw system of conflicting standards across the country. You can see where this is going: banned-in-Michigan Hot Wheels being smuggled across the border into Indiana and so on. And without a consistent national standard, small businesses would be particularly hard hit, lacking resources to monitor the evolving rules nationwide.

But wait, there's more. Mr. Pryor's proposal would also give whistleblowers within companies bonus cash for coming forward with the dirt. Fees would float between 15% and 25% of any civil penalties collected by the state or feds. At up to $25 million, that's not a bad finder's fee. Whistleblowers also cannot be fired if they are "about to" provide information on an "alleged violation" of law, which sounds like a license for any worker to make himself untouchable.

Among those objecting to this plan is the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission herself, Nancy Nord. While she'd be happy to have more resources, she would prefer to use them for hiring "more safety inspectors and scientists and compliance officers," she said, "I don't want to be hiring lawyers." In exchange for this honesty, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for Ms. Nord's resignation.

All of this is happening at a time when the appetite for business self-policing is strong. Businesses have every incentive to clean up their acts, given the costly damage to their brand equity from news stories about tainted toys. Mattel ran newspaper ads this summer speaking directly to consumers about its efforts to ensure its products were safe.

Other toy companies have already begun raising their own internal safeguards, with Toys "R" Us and Walt Disney joining Mattel in announcing more rigorous safety testing. Their action even earned them the praise of Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, who announced himself pleased that they "held themselves to a higher standard."

The industry has been loud in its complaints against Mr. Pryor's bill, and he may yet be willing to negotiate. The House has offered a more reasonable version, reducing the $100 million penalty to $10 million and leaving off the whistleblower provision. Congress's urge to legislate here is, we guess, understandable given that the Members can claim to be doing something to protect children. But as with many passing "scandals," the idea that federal legislators have the solution is itself most likely a defective product.

With that, all I can say is "Viva free enterprise!"

Kind regards,


--Mighty Elephant

Aqua Dots and Laissez-faire

Dear Elephant,

Yesterday's latest news on poisonous toys from China is perhaps the most disturbing yet. As CNN reports 4.2 million Aqua Dots toys were recalled because they contain a chemical that when swallowed by children metabolizes into the date rape drug GHB. Ironically "The toy was named toy of the year in Australia and recently made Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s list of top 12 Christmas toys."
The Donkey family fortunately did not purchase any Aqua Dots, but we very well might have if Donkey junior was a couple of years older.

But hitting even closer to home, last week I discovered that we had in our freezer a recalled Totinos frozen pizza that potentially was contaminated with E-Coli.

My take is that all of this is a prime example of free market failures, and illustrates the need for greater government regulation in these areas. I don't care if I can get my frozen pizza for 99 cents at Walmart if that pizza can potentially kill me. I would rather pay a dollar fifty and not risk my life. Beginning with the Reagan administration Republican allegiance to the principles of Laissez-faire economics and small government has resulted in a systematic reduction of various government agencies. But the Bush administration has taken it a step further. They have gone beyond merely cutting the funding to these agencies, and are now appointing former industry insiders to lead them. As reported in the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Profits valued over children's safety
By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON-- It's a national embarrassment.

The Consumer Products Safety Commission is ordinarily not a controversial agency -- it is so small it operates largely in obscurity. But it has suddenly become a public outrage, a symbol of the Bush administration's cavalier attitude toward the public good when it conflicts with big business interests.

We have always known this is President Bush's basic notion of how to govern, but up to now we had seldom been hit smack in the face with it. The acting chairman of the CPSC, Nancy Nord, testified recently on Capitol Hill that the commission opposed congressional efforts to expand the agency's budget and powers in order to get a handle on tainted toys and other products flooding the U.S. from China.

Her indifference to the threat from lead-contaminated toys and other consumer items created a firestorm. It forced the administration to rush forth with an alternative plan that had been languishing for months. That plan would set up a system allowing most industries to police themselves but add more inspectors for companies with particularly dangerous products or bad safety records.

It is, predictably, far more limited in scope and authority than the congressional plan. But it will temporarily serve the administration's purpose of muddying the issue.

The decline of the CPSC is a shame. Congress proposed the agency at the peak of the consumer movement in the late 1960s, when the country was rebelling against the traditional concept of caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware. The public was tired of business getting away with shoddy practices and shoddy goods.
. . .

Nord and her predecessor, Hal Stratton, have made several trips around the world on junkets financed by the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

Nord rejected the congressional offer of more money and authority. She warned that the bill "would harm product safety and put the American people at greater risk."

Nord's logic seems a little nutty.

The bill would increase the agency's budget from $63 million to $142 million by 2015 and increase its staff by 20 percent. It would raise the cap on penalties for safety violations from $1.8 million to $100 million, ban lead in kids' products and make it illegal to sell recalled goods. It would add whistleblower protections.

But she is used to viewing the world from the one-sided viewpoint of business. She is a lawyer who worked for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and in private practice for clients such as General Electric and other leading manufacturers and retailers.

Her agency is responsible for overseeing more than 15,000 types of products. But it has only 400 staffers, fewer than half the number when the agency was formally established in 1973. It has only one full-time toy tester.

The CPSC has been without a chair for more than a year. In March, Bush nominated Michael Baroody, a manufacturing industry lobbyist, to become chairman. He withdrew his name two months later rather than reveal his severance agreement with the National Association of Manufacturers.

Democrats are now calling for Nord to resign. She is certainly in an inappropriate job. But Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., warned that if she leaves, Bush might just forget to replace her and leave the commission rudderless and helpless. That seems to have been Bush's goal all along. To get real consumer protection, we will have to wait for a Democratic president.

I could not agree more. The Bush team appears to be intent on corrupting as much of government as possible. Whether its Alberto Gonzalez at the DOJ, Halliburton in Iraq or Nancy Nord at the CPSC. His strategy is apparently to shrink government by ruining it? He has put the fox in charge of the hen house and in so doing has put our children at risk. The only hope is that in one more year we may be fortunate enough to elect someone who cares more about protecting our children from GHB induced coma's than promoting corporate profits and free market principles.

Sincerely,

Donkey

Romney up (and more importantly Rudy down) in New Hampshire!

The news about Romney's 15-point lead on his nearest contender Rudy Guiliani is certainly encouraging. If by some great misfortune the Democrats lose the presidential election, I can only pray they don't lose to Giuliani (aka "America's Cross-dressing Mayor"). I would even vote for Dennis Kucinich over Giuliani! Rudy vs. Kucinich? Now that is a deathmatch.

Peace,

Donkey

Politics and Poetry: In Response to Elephant's Tribute

Dear Elephant,

Let me begin by thanking you for your kind tribute. As the tattered outlaw of this blog I look forward to fighting on behalf of all the scourged and derided donkeys.

If I may, I would like to borrow your poetry convention and express my admiration for you Elephant, and all of the blind men you represent.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall".

The second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, "Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear".

The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake."

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

I see you Elephant, I see you.

Sincerely,

Donkey

Romney up by 15% in New Hampshire

It seems Romney's political strategy is paying dividends in New Hampshire this week. In the latest poll, Romney has support from 32% of likely primary voters. That's a 15-point lead on the nearest contender Rudy Guiliani, who dropped to 17%--2 percentage points lower than last month's poll.

Come next year, Guiliani may painfully regret ignoring the voters from the states holding early primaries this election year. If Romney wins in Ohio and New Hampshire, as the polls suggest he will, he'll have momentum that not even his untold fortunes can buy. And that spells real trouble for Rudy Guiliani.

Donkey, what's your take?

A Tribute to Donkey

Dear Donkey,

No death match should ever begin without first giving words of honor to the fierce opponenent at my very far left. Indeed, it is you Donkey who I wish to honor with this poem by G.K. Chesterton.

The Donkey

When fishes flew and forests walked
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born.

With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth,
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
I keep my secret still

...

Yes Donkey, your secret is still with me too.

Kind Regards,

Mighty Elephant