The Feld-Blog

Democrats have started to fight back. It used to be that much of the Democratic leadership was afraid to throw a punch, but it seems that Gore is not. Gore rips the Republicans a new one on the Early Show. When confronted with the idea that global warming might not exist Gore responds, "Well, I guess in some quarters there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged." Way to go. Gore finally made these people look as ridiculous as their argument. You can watch it here.

But its true. There is no more argument in the scientific community over climate change than there is about the moon landing or crop circles or any other ridiculous conspiracy theory. So there you have it. Anyone spouting off about how smog and fossil fuels aren't contributing to climate change must either be ignorant of the evidence or just plain crackpots.

This is what Clinton brought to the table - the ability to fight back. As much as I may agree with Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton's policy stances, they simply roll over and play dead when the GOP message machine rolls out its megaphones. Finally, Clinton's VP has rolled out a few megaphones of his own. Thank God there is finally a Democrat who will do some shouting of his own.

People think Conservatives are for smaller government and less federal spending. They are wrong. People think Democrats spend the hell out of the government. They are wrong. Historically and even today, Republicans have jacked up the charges on the Federal credit card without producing any real or lasting benefits.

I am not sure where this misconception came from... Republicans have always claimed to be "strong on the economy," but over the last 50 years or so, they seem to have done more harm than good. Reaganomics was a failure.

See Reagan wanted to try what FDR did - spend your way out of a recession. The problem is that Reagan's 'conservative' tack he used ballooned the federal debt, and only served as a band-aid for the gushing wound that was the federal deficit. See FDR created governmental programs that gave money to the 'little guys' of America - the ones who truly had it tough during the depression. Because they needed the money, they spent it, and it stayed in the economy. True to flawed Republican values, Reagan whipped out the Federal credit card and tried to spend his way into an economic boom, but unlike FDR, he gave all the money to large corperations and those who were already rich. He vainly hoped that this money would eventually "trickle down" to the people who actually needed it. Unfortunately, since these rich companies and individuals already had the money they needed to spend, this additional money was invested in stocks or kept in savings accounts and did not ever really reach the people it needed to help.

If you look at George W. Bush's record, he campaigned on decreasing federal spending, but today, the federal debt is larger than it has ever been - in real dollars or today's dollars or however you want to measure it. By any rubric, he's spend the most. In 1999, he said he would “oppose and veto any increase in individual or corporate marginal income tax rates or individual or corporate income tax hikes.” But Guess what? He did just that this week. He raised a variety of taxes on Americans oversees anTRIPLEDED taxes on students with college savings accounts.

Whatever you think about the policy itself, Bush violated a campaign promise. Not that I am surprised, but maybe those of you who think "Dems are good on social issues and Republicans are good on the economy" need to reevaluate.

Democrats know how to run the economy - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both oversaw booming economies and both reduced the federal debt and the federal deficitThroughgh his hard work, Clinton created a federal surplus by the end of his term (that was quickly squanderebybu George W.) Democrats are good for the economy. Period. Maybe we should start to vote like it.

WARNING: the opinions expressed in this article (and in the rest of my blog for that matter) are my own and not necessarily shared by any of my employers current or former.

In Democratic Athens, Greece there was no difference between the citizenry and the government. The citizens were the government. In early European and American democracies there were two entities: the government, and a separate citizenry who elect the government. We call this a Republic. In modern American (and to some extent European) democracies there is now a third entity: the Non-governmental organization (NGO). And just as Athenian and early American democracies transformed the topography of government, this new, powerful, and growing level of entities is transforming modern politics.

Some NGOs are exclusively dedicated to a advocating for an issue or issues. These are usually called interest groups. Then there are the organizations that advocate for a variety of issues, but that also do their own research to back up there positions. These are called think tanks. Finally there are the groups that specialize in communicating the ideas of other NGOs and getting paid for it. We call these the lobbying groups.

What I don’t understand is certain think tank’s adamant asserting that they are purely research organizations – that they don’t have any policy preferences. Yeah Right. It isn’t possible to spend your entire life researching the problems of the world and not have some opinion as to the better or worse ways to go about solving those problems. Some Think Tanks claim they need to remain nonpartisan, while others reply that they are “a think tank, not lobbyists.” But here’s a newsflash for you: No matter how much you emphasize the ‘non-governmental’ part of NGO, Think Tanks are a part of the political process. The virtue of think tanks is that they employ experts and specialists who can enlighten politicians (who tend to be generalists) about the best ways to solve this world’s problems.

So get off your high horse. What any NGO or think tank wants is to have the best public policy come out the other end of the political process. So then, if you as a think tank have spent years researching something, don’t just try to present dry and boring facts…TELL government what the best idea is. Think tank’s research exists to support governmental decision making. The employees of think tanks, then, should be helping elected officials make the decisions the think tank thinks are important. If you want to do pure, unadulterated, unfiltered research…get a job at a University somewhere. But think tanks need to begin to understand their role in the political process. Think Tanks are invaluable, but only if they tell elected officials what they think, not just what they’ve found.

We all thought Colbert was exaggerating when he told us to look up all the facts we need in our gut. Surely no politician is that blind to the facts. But it seems he was more right than many of us care to admit. When asked about Al Gore's new movie called "An Inconvenient Truth," Bush quipped "In my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects."Hmm.... Bush has pledged to solve the climate change problem, but he doesn't know what's causing it. In fact, when people tell him the definitive reasons, he ignores them. And this is the man leading our country.

Look at the facts. Not a single peer-reviewed study conducted between 1993 and 2003 challenged the consensus that the earthÂ’s temperature is rising due to human activity. Yet Bush pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why? He used tobelievee science and now he doesn't? I think Bush has a term for people like that. Ibelievee it was "Flip-flopper."

The White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton has apparently "been giving him [Bush] the same advice [as Al Gore] for years." So every important study in the last 15 years has agreed with Bush's lawyers and environmental advisors and Al Gore, but Bush "isn't sure." What the hell does it take to convince to this guy that we have a problem? As per usual, it seems everyone knows the story and everyone knows the solution except for Bush.

Government has a responsibility to the people of the United States. Time and time again it seams that Bush sees fit to ignore thatresponsibilityy. We can't put up with this anymore.

Bill Clinton famously said "Democracies don't fight each other." Since this famous utterance (and even before it) political scientists have scurried about trying to answer the question 'Why?.' But what if it's just a coincidence? What if it is not Democracy that stops wars and stops terrorism, but rather something else entirely?

I think political scientists may have missed the boat on this one. It's true that there have been very few wars between Democratic countries and that the biggest threats of terrorism today come from authoritarian, Middle-Eastern regimes, but it is also true that most of the Western democracies today are rich, independent of their regime-type.

Ok, that may have been confusing. Let's go through this slowly. In all likelihood, American and Britain will not be going to war anytime soon. Neither will France and Spain or Canada and Japan. But these countries are among the richest in the world. If we look at India or 'Democratic' Afghanistan or Iraq - all of these democracies are incredibly war-prone and are hotbeds of terrorism (Even if you want to take Iraq and Afghanistan out of the mix for obvious reasons, India has a tremendous terrorism problem and it has been a Democracy for a while now). Maybe it's because these countries are ranked 152, 153, and 218th respectively in per capita GDP.

Islamisism doesn't inspire terrorism single handedly - Qatar and The United Arab Emigrates are Predominantly Islamic states. And Democracy alone cannot prevent Terrorism (see India discussed above). In fact, if you buy into David A. Lake' argument in his paper, Rational Extremism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century, Democracy might actually make terrorism more effective.

Lake posits that terrorists are rational - that they commit acts of terror in order to provoke a disproportionate response from the victim country, thus swaying moderates to the terrorists side back in the home country. This theory, however, necessitates that public opinion matters. In order for this theory to work, swaying people needs to make a difference, and it makes the most difference in a Democracy. Thus, Democracy may only feed terrorism. Look at India or Northern Ireland. They fit Lake's argument perfectly. They both have very low per capita GDPs and their people are not doing very well at all. Although they are both highly democratic, terrorism thrives - both transgressors and targets because terrorists believe they can sway people.

Instead then, perhaps it is a measure of sovereignty that stops terrorism. Folks in Northern Ireland and Terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan feel oppressed. What's more, one of Al Qaeda's most oft-repeated demands is American withdrawal from the Middle East. What they want is sovereignty. What they want is an end to de facto, if not outright Imperialism.

I am not advocating that America just stand up and walk out of the Middle East. I realize that is dangerous and impractical. Instead I just think that America needs to take a real look at its 'Democracy Promotion' initiative. I don't think it is going to stop terrorism.

The Bible decrees the death penalty for a variety of crimes. But when they started to interpret it, the Rabbis thought it was so morally reprehensible that they made it practically impossible for anyone to qualify for it. They made it almost a non-issue, even though it technically remained on the books. Since February of this year, California developed the same stance. A new law declared that only a licensed doctor can administer a lethal injection, but Hippocratic oath which begins "First, do no harm" prevents any doctors from agreeing to perform the injection. As a result, all death penalties in California are stalled.

Here is an interesting dilemma (and in my opinion a beneficial one). I think most of us can agree that a doctor (or nurse) should be the one to administer an injection, be it lethal or otherwise. And I don't think anyone would fault a doctor or nurse for refusing to violate the oath of their profession by doing so. And so we are at an impasse. Perhaps, however this speaks to the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. When doctors refuse to administer the only death-penalty method that California believes isn't "cruel and unusual," we have to ask ourselves "is it possible that ALL death penalties are cruel and unusual?"

I have made my stance on the death penalty before, so I won't bore you with it again, but I thought the above facts, which just came to my attention, were interesting and speak well to the moral vacuum surrounding many people's discussions of the death penalty.

Francine Busby (Democrat) and Brian Bilbray (Republican) are vying for a seat in Congress (the CA-50 was recently vacated when Duke Cunningham resigned in bribery scandal). But something doesn't add up. Mr. Bilbray has his permanent residence listed as Fairfax County, Virginia. But Congressmen have to live in the district they represent(NOTE: see David Daitch's comment to this post - I was wrong about this statemtnt), so Mr. Bilbray also has his permanent residence listed as Carlsbad, CA (where CA-50 is). But wait... there's more. Bilbray also owns a House in Imperial Beach, south of San Diego.

Where does this guy live? How many counties does he vote in? Exactly how illegal is this? It's not just that he's a carpetbagger, it's that this is VOTER FRAUD. I know Members of Congress often have multiple residences since they spend half the year in DC and half the year in their home district, but legally they can only have one permanent residence (as any other citizen) and it must be in their home state.

So now, not only did he get his but kicked by Susan Davis (D-CA-53) a couple years ago (when he was running in that race), now he is gonna get his but kicked by a Democrat in a signigicantly more Republican district (CA-50) becuase he is such a schmuck that he has 3 permanent residences. Oy Vey. What these people will do...

I am sorry... I normally try to avoid unbridled rants on my Blog, preferring instead to approach issues with conviction, but reasonably calm, collected and even handed. Today, I simply don't have that choice.

Today Arlen Specter's Senate Committee marked up a proposed Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Knowing Republicans affinity for renaming bills to sway voters, I would like to rename this the "intolerant bigot" Amendment. Honestly, in the 21st century is it still an uphill battle against the ornery forces of ignorance and intolerance just to afford equal rights to citizens of this country?

There are still problems in America. Women are earning 70 cents to the dollar compared to men, Black Americans, Latino Americans and other minorities are still discriminated against throughout society. But at least the overwhelming percentage of the population understands that these are problems. How can a majority of Americans still see members of the Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT)community as less than citizens. It is unfathomable to me.

Come on people, get out of the dark ages. Come to the light. Realize that no matter what your opinion of someone is personally, every American is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in this country - including those associated with marriage.

The only, and I mean only people in this country whose rights are legitimately abridged are convicted felons. Not just the accused and not the probably guilty and not even those who have committed misdemeanors, but FELONS. Felons lose their right to vote. Other than that, they retain the right to a trial, to a lawyer, to freedom of speech, to be married, and to live life as an American.

Shame on Mr. Arlen Specter for even allowing this exercise in intolerance and bigotry to enter the legislative process. Shame on Majority Leader Bill Frist for brining it to a vote.

Kudos only to Senator Russ Feingold who stormed out of the meeting in disgust. I cannot imagine a more appropriate response.

To donate to the Human Rights Campaign to stop this amendment in its tracks go here. Until May 1st, any donation you make will be matched by HRC Board Member Bruce Bastian, doubling the effectiveness of your contribution. Go do it now. Even $10 will help.

Click here to fill out your information so that the HRC can hand deliver a post card to your Senator Declaring your opposition to this amendment.

I normally don't condone this kind of a call to action in my Blog, but even considering such legislation infuriates me. We are America. Land of the free. Let's start acting like it.

Yesterday, four years after GITMO opened its gates, the Department of Defense released the names of the prisoners being held there. Keep in mind that the DoD never actually contested the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petitions that the AP filed, they merely refused to release the information. Finally, though, The DoD released 558 names of prisoners who had been or are currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Almost one third of these people (201) had never been released before. Yet many of the known, big-name terrorists are not on the list.

The absence of many terrorists who are known captives of the US from this GITMO list has prompted many to ask "so where are they being held?," but this is the wrong question. The right question is this: So then, who are we holding in this detention facility?

This administration has tried to appease the public by telling them two things about GITMO: (1) that these are terrorists who don't deserve our sympathy, and (2) We are treating them well. But are either of these claims true?

GITMO holds "enemy combatants" without benefit of charge, trial or lawyer. Furthermore, the term "enemy combatant" is undefined and Bush and Condi and Rummy refuse to define it. So we are holding a classification of possibly suspected terrorists, but we don't know how to classify the group and now it seems that the actual suspected likely terrorists we were holding there, AREN'T THERE. So who is there? Are we holding innocent American citizens who placed one unlucky phone call caught illegally by the NSA? Are we holding American political dissidents that this administration just decided to call 'suspects' or "enemy combatants? SO MUCH FOR statement 1.

As far as treating them well goes, the static GOP talking points look more like bald-faced lies. The Red Cross has said that GITMO interrogation techniques are tantamount to torture. The RED CROSS! This is not some partisan game, as Limbaugh would have you believe. This is not a battle in the left-right war. This is the American government committing acts of torture.

The Political game only enters it when Limbaugh and others attempt to mollify the American public by reading us gourmet GITMO menus. If you feed people well and then torture them, YOU ARE STILL TORTURING THEM. Not to mention, the people I know who have visited GITMO have said the food was rather dry and not good. Also, look at the leaked picture I have included in this post. Does that look like America is treating these people well? So much for statement #2.

Who are these people we are torturing? The primary terrorists aren't there. Are these just unlucky shmucks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are they just distant family members of informants? America needs to get a grip. I understand that terrorism is a crisis, but adding human rights abuses is not the way to solve the terrorist threat.

Where does corruption come from? Well... In the United States, campaigning for office is incredibly expensive and if you're a politician and you don't get elected, you're out of a job. This leaves a gap for lobbyists and special interests to sneak in. If they can bankroll a politicians campaign, that government official can't risk offending his donors, or he will be out of a job come election time, with no money to campaign to get re-elected.

The situation is even worse in state and local elections. It is much harder to raise funds for lower office, but oftentimes, national companies will pour money into an opposition candidate in order to oust and incumbent. This makes state legislators, governors and mayors even more susceptible to the wiles of interest groups and lobbyists.

So how do we save ourselves from this trap? Well in the long run, public funding of campaigns (as occurs in many other countries) could easily mitigate the problems we experience today. Until then, Candidates who can finance their own campaigns, though often eccentric, hold the promise of uncorrupt government. When people like Steve Westly (running for California governor) can back their own campains, it is a good sign they won't be in the pockets of the interest groups (or at least not as much as other candidates.

Steve Westly is now independently wealthy from his time as an eBay executive. He has poured millions of dollars of his own money into his campaign instead of soliciting money from oil companies, unions or other special interests. As such, he will be less susceptible to such political forces once in office. Furthermore, the friends and allies he made while working at eBay position him ideally to govern California and its huge tech industry.

As we begin to scratch the surface of the pervasive culture of corruption seeping into every corner of our government, we must turn to those we know can weather the political storm - those who aren't taking huge contributions for the corporations and interest groups that are hurting honest public policy around the nation.

Well... I was gone for the weekend... hope you weren't too disappointed, but now I'm back to fill you in on the absurdity of that institution we call our government.

So tonight President Bush is scheduled to announce that he will send about 10,000 troops to the US-Mexico Border. But deploying troops to secure our borders will likely only hurt the US immigration situation. It strains an already overstretched, underpaid, overworked military; it aggravates US-Mexican relations; and it doesn't really help the border patrol do their job.

Military force is a very specific kind of tool. You wouldn't want your surgeon to perform open heart surgery on you with an ax, and trying to control immigration flows with the national guard is no better. Many situations call for military force, but this isn't one of them. Our military is trained to kill. That is simply what they do. They carry guns and when charged with defending a city, a building or anything, they shoot at the people they are defending against. Now I know there are a lot of people in this country who don't like illegal immigration, but shooting people trying to cross the border seeking a better life seems terribly excessive.

Border Patrol are trained in the delicate art of securing our borders - how to spot people trying to cross and how to scoop them up, arrest them, and send them back without actually harming them. The military simply isn't trained for this task. Maybe they could be, but at the moment they aren't. It is bad policy to send American armed forces to do a job they don't know how to do. The whole country roared when they found out Bush had appointed an Arabian-horse trainer to direct FEMA. It's no different now. 'Brownie' wasn't trained to clean up after hurricanes and look what happened. Our military isn't trained to control immigration, I shudder to think what Bush wants them to do.

And finally, we don't have any troops to spare. Since the military cant really do anything to help the border patrol, I can only assume that this is some kind of political game, but if so, its a dangerous game to play with the few troops we have left to defend our own country. For more on this see my post: "Victims at Home, Victims Abroad."

Sometimes, political situations require a scalpel, not a hammer. There is no cosmetic solution to America's immigration problem. We need to train more border security agents, and we need to have a meaningful discussion with Mexico, California and Texas (primarily) about what to do about the illegal immigrants already here. Bush seems to think that throwing troops at any situation will solve it. This philosophy has already inspired most of the world to hate America. Are we really going to try to bolster those statistics?

Contrary to popular belief, podiums are not fountains of eternal truth. In fact, in Washington today, it seems that lies and inconsistencies flow freely from Bush, Jackson, Snow and Rumsfeld's respective podiums (or rather "podia," which, as my co-worker David has pointed out to me, is the correct pluralization of the word podium). Elected officials and appointed bureaucrats fling them at reporters so often and with such veracity I can hardly keep up. Here's a quick rundown.

The Administration released a 'list' of the times Jack Abramoff visited the White House, but it leaves off at least 5 or 6 visits per year that are photo-documented in the press already (including Christmas and New Years parties as well as Bush's press conferences where he appointed Abramoffs old colleagues).

Alfonso Jackson, director of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) took the podium and publicly stated that he rejected contract bids because the bidders "criticized Bush." When members of the Press pointed out to him that this is illegal he quickly changed his tune saying he hadn't mentioned a specific contract and even stating that he is not involved in any of the contracting procedures. Both are blatantly false and contradict his statements as well as his spokespeoples'.

Finally there's good old Rummy. Giving a speech a few days ago, 3 protestors stood up at various points throughout his speech to criticize him and accuse him of war crimes. When a 27-year CIA veteran took to the microphone to ask a question, I was hopeful that reason would prevail. This 27-year veteran prefaced his question with a quote from Rummy where he said "we know where they [weapons of Mass Destruction] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat." Even though he is on record saying this and it is one of Rummy's more famous utterances, He flat-out denied ever having said it. HE WAS ON MEET THE PRESS WHEN HE SAID IT. IT'S DOCUMENTED ON TV. There is no doubt he said it, and yet he refuses to come back to reality.

Another interesting Rummy moment was when he spent only 40% of the billions of dollars allocated to train Iraqi troops. The Defense department appropriated billions of dollars in 'emergency' supplemental spending bills. How emergency could they have been when more than a year later, only about 40% of that money was spent? And furthermore, Rumsfeld railed the congress for threatening to scale back future defense appropriations. He had the gaul to pass blame onto congress for his underfunding this war effort.

And this concludes tonight's episode of liars and Crooks.

P.S. The Primary elections are coming up on June 6th (in California). Are you registered? If not, do it. And vote in the primary. These are just as important as the general elections for deciding who will be running your state or your country. Register absentee if you have to. If you're from California, go here or call (916) 657-2166. Do it today. Deadlines area approaching fast.

Go here right now and read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush. It is worth every second you spend reading it.

Some of it is brutally incisive. Some of it is outright offensive. But in its entirety, it is an important document that ANYONE interested in politics of any kind must read.

We all remember standardized testing. We all hated the SAT. Those of us unlucky enough to be subjected to the PSAT, or worse, the GMAT, GRE, LSAT or MCAT cringe at the very mention of the word standardized test. But Schwarzenegger and some other California legislators want to give California students one last punch in the gut before they swing their tassels and toss their mortar boards. They have instituted a standardized high school exit exam, with no function other than to rip diplomas out of the hands of high school seniors who fail the test.Now, they are resisting Superior Court Judge, Robert Freedman's tentative injunction against the test.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for accountability and raising California's education standards. I truly believe that education is what will maintain this country's greatness. But a standardized exit test is bad policy, and possibly unconstitutional (according to the California constitution).

Non-native speakers of English and kids who live in underprivileged areas and in poor school districts simply don't have the chances to pass this test that others do. It is an inherently unfair system - punishing kids who have already had to endure bad school districts and underfunded schools. Any law with such a disparate impact on racial and socioeconomic groups is unconstitutional according to California law. And besides, what is more likely? That students who fail this test will renew their efforts in the next year to get their diploma or drop out and simply look for a job without the benefit of a high school diploma? Probably the latter.

If you really want to make schooling better, administer the test at the end of sophomore year. If students fail then, give them specific goals they have to reach before they can graduate. At least in this instance the test can act as a motivator - inspiring the student to work to get their diploma. By administering the test at the end of senior year we are just ripping diploma's out of student's hands without giving them so much as the slightest chance to remedy the situation.

This simply isn't helping anything. California's educational system certainly needs improvement, but encouraging students to drop out at the last minute not the way to improve graduating seniors' test scores. It might make the statistics look better, but it is an incredibly dangerous band-aid on a deep, hemorrhaging wound in California. The band-aid may cover up the problem, but just because we stop seeing it in the statistics doesn't mean we've actually improved anything.

On Friday Porter Goss, Head of the CIA resigned suddenly and effective immediately - an incredible rarity for Washington resignations. On Monday, Bush is expected to name Gen. Michael Hayden, currently the deputy National Security Advisor and General in the Air Force, to Goss' old post. Republicans in Congress think this is a bad idea, and get this: I agree with them.

Right now this Administration is only hearing from the voices that are telling it what it wants to hear. Rice, Rummy, Cheney and Negroponte seem only to tell Bush what he wants to hear. Appointing Hayden could only make this worse. While I would like to have confidence in Hayden, his current boss is Negroponte and he has worked directly under Cheney before as well. Furthermore, as a military general, obedience to Secretary Rumsfeld runs in his veins.

Suddenly appointing him to head his own agency will effectively castrate the CIA. It would be nice to have a former military officer heading the CIA to add more credibility to his position so that he won't merely be drowned out by Rummy. Even if he does get promoted, however, it isn't easy to suddenly see your former bosses as equals. Hayden will most likely (consciously or not) treat Cheney, Negroponte and Rumsfeld as if they were still his boss. (Rumsfeld technically still is his boss since he is an active military officer). What Bush needs right now is a powerful new voice. Someone who can hold his or her own in the intelligence community's debates and one who won't feel sheepish about contradicting former bosses.

The last thing this administration needs right now is another yes man.

Oh yeah... and then there was that whole NSA wiretapping thing. Hayden created and subsequently defended the warrentless domestic spying program that has drawn so much flak.

He's looking down the road at a rocky confirmation process and with Democrats and Republicans lining up to give him the thumbs down, it looks like the world will soon see Hayden for the empty shirt he is.

Progressives cannot deny that we are a country at war. National Security must become a central tenet of the progressive platform. Luckily, progressives can offer a viable, responsible and superior defense strategy. I call it: 'Progressive Strength.'

War Hawk Conservatives sent hundreds of thousands of troops, reservists and national guardsmen abroad, draining the forces we needed at home to protect against Katrina. War Hawk Conservatives forced the defense industry to pillage their own Research and Development funds to pay for the billions of dollars of repairs the Administration failed to budget for. War Hawk Conservatives are scraping the barrel - desperately begging the poor and destitue in our country to replenish our diminishing forces even as the Administration hacks military health care and benefits.

Progressive Strength will protect our nation's interests at home - not just abroad. Progressives understand the necessity of keeping troops at home to protect this country. Progressives understand the need for R&D to maintain America's military edge in an increasingly globalizing market. And Progressives seek to help the poor and destitue in our country and give our men and women in uniform the health care, pay and benefits they truly deserve for serving their country.

War Hawk Conservatives have squandered our military assets. Progressives can take it back.

It's all about marketing. It's all about packaging. It's all about the pitch. Progressives have come up with bold solutions to our nation's national security problem, but they are still afraid to shout this plan from the rooftops because the 'compassionate conservatives' have 'owned' the national security issue for so long.

Progressives need to sell their plan to the American people and do it in a way that will convince them it is a viable alternative. Actually funding the military, budgeting for it rather than begging for billions in supplementals, increasing not decreasing health and retirement benefits - moving our military forward: this is progressive strength. The strength of our nation is progress and Progressives are its core.

We need these tag lines. Rove has been feeding analogous ones to Conservatives for years. It's about time we fought back.

After a 17-year battle, a Federal judge forces the San Diego city government to actually respect the Constitution. For years a large, imposing cross has sat atop Mount Soledad on city property, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. 2 years after citizens brought legal charges claiming it is unconstitutional for the city to maintain a religious monument on public ground, a Federal appellate court confirmed the cross' unconstitutionality. Now, 17 years later, that same court gave San Diego 90 days to remove the cross and imposed a $5,000 per day fine if it isn't removed. Finally, San Diego will be forced to comply.

Citizens and city councilors in San Diego have pulled out every last trick in the book and every last obstructionist tactic to keep that cross on top of Mount Soledad, and although Mayor Sanders wants to appeal the decision (again), it's uncertain whether or not the city council will approve the appeal. They really have tried everything though - selling the site to a private owner for $1, designating it a historical monument, passing referenda with subversive language, land transfer schemes - but none of this negates the fact that "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion" are unconstitutional.

The Framers respected religion. Indeed, many of them were devoutly religious; but they believed emphatically that government should never have the power to impose any one religion on any of its people. Freedom of religion does not require that politicians relinquish their faith. But government cannot legislate religion.

A cross sitting on public property is hardly government prostheletizing, but it is certainly evidence of government-endorsed religious symbolism. And it is not acceptable. San Diegans who beleive that the separation of church and state is important haven't given up their struggle for constitutional vindication.

America is fighting two wars, drowning under the advancing tide of high oil prices, limping from corrupt politicians gushing from every corner of government, and this administration is crumbling beneath the lowest poll numbers they have even seen. So what is the president worried about? Apparently he’s worried about what language people sing our national anthem in.

This President rarely ever accepts pre-screened questions. When he does he often avoids answering the critical ones or has to pause for a few seconds to gather his thoughts. Instead, however, when asked last week in the rose garden what he thought about a music star singing the American national anthem in Spanish, Bush immediately quipped, “I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English. Responding so quickly, he must have been prepared for this question.

First of all, doesn’t the President have more important things to worry about than what language people are singing our national anthem in? Illegal immigration has a powerful effect on this Nation’s economy, but instead of emphasizing the importance of his guest worker program – actually a very moderate and relatively reasonable proposal – he jumps at the bait and spins the media into focusing the spotlight on this completely trivial, idiosyncratic detail (Yes, I am aware of the irony of my blogging on this subject after articulating this particular criticism)

Second, Bush himself has sung the National Anthem in Spanish during his 2000 campaign for the presidency. He also invited Jon Seceda to sing America the Beautiful in Spanish at his first inauguration.

Finally, such thoughtless quips are irresponsible. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander took up the Presidents remarks, drafting legislation that would require that the National Anthem be sung only in English, citing that the Star-Spangled Banner has “never before…been rendered in another language.” False. Not only has Bush himself sung the National Anthem in Spanish, but in 1919, the Bureau of Education commissioned a version of the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish – this even before it was declared our national anthem by Congress in 1931. The history of alternative-language versions of the Star Spangled Banner actually predates our National Anthem.

I don’t always approve of the decisions this administration makes. In fact, I rarely agree with Bush at all, but I would rather the President concentrate his efforts on more important issues – of which there is no shortage. Government should return to its responsibilities to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Stop micromanaging citizens and start doing some actual substantive good.

Who has the final word on our constitution? I thought we settled this long ago. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall had this debate in the formative years of our great nation. The Framers of our constitution followerd Montesqieu's advice that governmental powers must be seperated to prevent any one person or group of people from accumulating abusable power. Thomas Jefferson thought he could impose his own constitutional interpretations on Congressional law, disobeying what he thought violated the constitution and even ignoring Supreme Court rulings when they told him he was wrong. Eventually, the powers of the Supreme Court were vindicated - the Judiciary has the power to interpret the constitution, not the Executive or the Legislative Branch. Now, hundreds of years after we settled this debate, President Bush has tried to stir the pot again by quietly declaring that he, by himself, can declare hundreds of acts of Congress unconstitutional and ignore them.

What happened to Balance of power? Because of Presidents' ambitious tendencies, the Supreme Court of the United States had to fight an epic battle in the early years of this country to win the power granted to them at the very outset of our country's founding. See Article III and Article VI of our constitution and Federalist 78.

The Supreme Court must be the supreme arbiter of our laws. Mr. Bush - if Congress steps over their line and into your power sue them. I am serious. If they do something unconstitutional, take them to the Supreme Court and have the court tell them they are wrong. But you can't just take that power on yourself.

Bush seems to be trying to consolidate the powers of all three branches into his own office - undercurrent the very foundation of our society. By quietly overturning about 750 congressional laws by himself, he seems to be acting as a court, and when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came to congress to testify, he said something to the effect of "If congress has any legislative ideas, we're happy to listen," implying that Bush wants to be the primary legislator as well.

Well Mr. Bush, if you wanted to legislate, you should have run for congress. If you wanted to arbitrate, you should have become a judge. But as President of the United States, you simply do not have the powers to do what you are doing.