Dubya, The Back Door Man

I somehow had a feeling that our red-state president would wrangle his way into the wingnut controversy over the New Jersey ruling that the decision of whether or not states should allow gay marriages should be left up to state legislatures.

It’s kind of funny to read our Mental Midget-In-Chief rail against the dreaded “activist judges” when his own Republican National Committee accepts funding from gay porn moviemakers (and I suppose Jeff Gannon/James Guckert is the “bag man” – I was wondering what he’s been up to lately, so to speak, since he got thrown out of the White House press corps for being a total fraud).

Also, I’ve been meaning to ask the following question: why does the Log Cabin Republicans organization continue to exist given the fact that the party they profess allegiance to will ridicule them every way they can, especially in an election year?

Suicide Is Painless

Let’s take a look at what Gen. Peter Pace said last week about what would happen if we engaged in war with North Korea, shall we?

"It would not be as clean as we would like it to be, but it would certainly be sure, and the outcome would not be in doubt."

Now let’s look at a bunch of dumb quotes about the Iraq war from the same government that now thinks that “the outcome would not be in doubt” if we fought North Korea.

(By the way, the quotes on Iraq come from a site that purports to be humorous, though I find absolutely nothing funny about the Iraq war.)

Of course, now we have these geniuses being countermanded by generals in Iraq who actually know what’s going on and say privately that three times as many troops are needed over the number that we presently have to engage al Qaeda in its Iraq stronghold of Ramadi, a province north of the Euphrates River that is estimated to be about three times the size of New Hampshire.

Also, there’s a question I’d like to ask, and I’ll admit that I don’t know the answer; do the insurgents/terrorists/whatever in that area of the world really give a flying you-know-what who wins the elections next week, or is that some make-believe freeper talking point? Actually, if they took a side at all, they’d have to support the Republicans, because they’re the ones responsible for the failed policies that have gotten over 2,800 of our people killed (over 100 in October alone).

Given all of this, I think we should take a look at who would be facing the greatest risk at this moment if we engaged North Korea in a war in which “the outcome would not be in doubt.”

This takes you to the U.S. Forces Global Security site which presents the following information regarding the total number of U.S. forces deployed in that area:

Prior to 2004 the total Army presence in the region was nearly 27,500 soldiers, of which 13,753 were assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division. However, it is important to point out that the Department of Defense indicated during a briefing on July 23, 2003 that the United States Army had some 4,000 additional soldiers in South Korea than what had been previously disclosed by the military. It was not clear is this is a mistake or not. If true, this would have brought the total number of soldiers in South Korea to 31,460. In any event, with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team going to Iraq in August 2004, the total number of troops declined by 5,000, to a total of 22,500 Army soldiers.

The Air Force has two wings located in the USFK region with some 8,300 personnel, operating a total of about 100 aircraft of all types.

US Naval Forces, Korea is particularly small, numbering around 293 sailors and 52 marines. CNFK normally has no seagoing forces assigned, though its personnel are assigned to various joint, combined, and Navy billets throughout the ROK peninsula. These personnel are actively engaged in planning and execution of numerous operations and exercises throughout the Korean theater. There is one ship that has been present in the region for over 30 years, that being the USS Pueblo which was captured on 23 January 1968. She is currently located at Pyongyang.

(I didn’t know that the Pueblo was never returned. Interesting…)

So the above information bears out the fact that we have somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 military personnel (not counting defense contracting personnel and dependents of both contractors and military personnel) currently stationed on the Korean peninsula.

We should also consider the fact (also noted at the U.S. Forces Global Security link) that we have 47,000 military personnel aside from contractors and military/civilian dependents in Japan to consider should hostilities break out between the U.S. and North Korea.

You would like to think that Gen. Pace considered all of this before he made his ill-advised comments, but again, given that he represents the bunch responsible for the Iraq war, you can’t take anything for granted.

Maybe Gen. Pace thinks that, after hostilities officially ended over there at the conclusion of his hypothetical war, we could send over Hawkeye, Trapper and B.J. along with Margaret Houlihan one more time to operate on everyone and put them back together again.

A Big Pickup For Admiral Joe

Along with the endorsement of Patrick Murphy by the Bucks County Courier Times (still in shock a bit from that), another Democratic candidate in an extremely high-profile race for Congress picked up an critical newspaper endorsement yesterday.

Joe Sestak was endorsed by the Delaware County Times in the PA-07 U.S. House contest against Crazy Curt Weldon.

In both instances, it looked to me like each newspaper was definitely leaning towards the incumbent Republican, but at a certain point they each said enough is enough for different reasons. In the case of Fitzpatrick, it was Kevin Kelly’s swift-boating of Patrick Murphy (probably shouldn’t use that term as a verb since the actual item itself is a noun referring to a piece of military equipment…after the election, I’ll try to stop doing that) as well as the trashy Republican National Campaign Committee mailers (what works in red states doesn’t necessarily work in blue ones too, Karl – I’m surprised a genius like you hasn’t figured that out yet); Mikey’s servile endorsement of Bushco’s conduct of the Iraq war lost the nod also (if you’re going to criticize the plan, you’d better have one of your own, especially since your challenger has been out front with his own for months already). Also, the paper noted that Fitzpatrick has never contested Dubya on his cruel and utterly brainless tax cuts.

In the case of Weldon, it becomes clear as you read the endorsement that the Delco Times isn’t in love with Sestak (though there IS much to admire about Admiral Joe, and for what it’s worth, his YouTube campaign videos have been terrific – Patrick’s have been good also, but Sestak, by virtue of his vast, high-profile military experience, is more accomplished at this sort of thing right now; in no way, though, is that meant as a knock on Patrick). However, the paper plainly felt that there was absolutely no way they could grimace and squirm and endorse Weldon any more in light of the FBI investigation. That would doom any candidate, as it probably should.

So congratulations to both Patrick and Admiral Joe, as well as Lois Murphy who, along with Sestak (albeit in an utterly tepid fashion), were both endorsed by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

We’ll see how that comes into play next Tuesday (certainly can't hurt).

Sunday Video

Getting ready for Halloween with this bit from "Young Frankenstein," with Peter Boyle as the monster and Gene Hackman as the blind man...

Patrick Gets A Big Boost

After seeing a note on the front page of the Bucks County Courier Times today that their endorsement in the 8th district U.S. House campaign between Patrick Murphy and incumbent Mike Fitzpatrick appeared on the editorial page, I opened up the editorial section of the paper expecting a predictable result.

Instead, I almost fell out of my chair when I read this.

A Change Of Course

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy holds out the promise of needed change in Washington, where the one-party rule has led us widely astray.

President Bush came into office calling himself a uniter, not a divider. But our nation is more divided today than it has been since Vietnam. And, once again, an ill-conceived and misdirected war bereft of allied support and without a clear mission is at the core of our fractured nation.

But it is not the only issue driving a wedge between our citizens - and our nation and the world.

A Republican Congress that has acted more like a rubber stamp for the president than a constitutional check on presidential power is both enabler and accomplice. Howling partisanship trumps thoughtful deliberation, corruption arises, ethics pale.

We are worried.

Against this troubling backdrop, congressional races are playing out across the nation. Here in Bucks County freshman congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, hard-working and earnest and with an accomplished 10-year record of public service, faces Democrat challenger Patrick Murphy.

As always, don't forget the "ic."

Needed change

An Iraq war veteran who has never held public office, Murphy is an experienced military and civilian prosecutor and a former West Point professor. As a former Army captain, Murphy is used to commanding others and making tough decisions.

As a congressional candidate, he embodies the promise of needed change.

First and foremost, Murphy backed a timed withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, now gripped by sectarian violence - if not civil war. Yet he is not proposing to "cut and run," as he's been accused. He would get our military men and women out of harm's way but redeploy a strategic strike force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops outside Iraq.

A timeline for withdrawal, he believes, would encourage the Iraqis to take control of their nation's security and their citizens' future. We think he's right. And we think his desire to keep a low-profile toehold on Iraq makes sense.

Too little, too late

Fitzpatrick no longer backs Bush on Iraq. He has called for a new strategy and is awaiting the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by Congress with the president's approval. We're encouraged by the congressman's changing view, but President Bush has already made it clear that he will not be bound by any of the study group's recommendations.

Typical.

Our concern is that we could be in store for more of the same.

This is our central fear in returning Fitzpatrick to Congress - that he will not be as strong a force for change as Murphy.

We are likewise concerned that the congressman will continue to cast votes advancing this administration's short-sighted and unfair tax cuts. We also believe that his conservative beliefs put him out of step with his mostly moderate district on the promising science of embryonic stem cell research and on the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

That said, the congressman's values are among his strongest points. A former Eagle Scout, Fitzpatrick is honest and thoughtful. He shows a command of detail. That's why his willingness to engage in sleazy negative campaign tactics is disappointing. Unfortunately, this isn't new.

Negative campaign

In his race against Democrat Ginny Schrader two years ago, the congressman failed to keep a check on the tactics of national party operatives. When Schrader was slimed, Fitzpatrick said he wasn't responsible.

He sang the same refrain when Iraq war vets questioned Murphy's war record while appearing at a press conference he convened a few weeks ago. Fitzpatrick should have prevented this from happening at his own event - or at least denounced their comments immediately.

We are likewise offended by Fitzpatrick's television ads and mailings.

They diminish the quality of character we've come to expect from him. They also raise legitimate questions about how independent he can really be within his own party if he can't control the tone of his own campaign.

We do want to note that Fitzpatrick has had a distinguished record as a county commissioner and that his solid work as a freshman congressman deserves praise. In his first term, he authored 24 bills and proctored several measures into law - an uncommon achievement. And he demonstrated a willingness to break stride on a number of issues with his party and president. Indeed, he's been cited as one of the most independent members on Capitol Hill.

Right on the big issue

This is the sort of bipartisanship we need in Congress. Unfortunately, on the overarching issue of our time, Fitzpatrick for too long was unable to break rank. The Courier Times Editorial Board has had its own lengthy, spirited and even contentious debate - perhaps paralleling the national debate - and has decided to issue its congressional endorsement to Patrick Murphy.

Murphy's young, we know. But we regard him as bright, accomplished for his age, and committed to public service. He has insights from his first-hand experience in Iraq that are not to be discounted. His values and character are also strong.

Murphy is committed to a new direction, and at a point when so many Americans believe major change is necessary, his timing provides him with a significant boost to secure an edge over the long popular and respected Fitzpatrick.

I really hadn't planned to say much about this because I expected an automatic endorsement from the Courier Times for Fitzpatrick, but as I said above, this absolutely shocked me.

Even at this shining moment for them, I believe the Courier Times still gives Fitzpatrick too much credit for his accomplishments. However, though I believe Fitzpatrick has been an utter pestilence as a congressman, I should admit that I've had some direct communication with him, and I have to give him his due for being professional (albeit I categorically disagree with him on just about everything). If I had actually worked one-on-one with him on a regular basis, it's possible that I may have a slightly different attitude.

The message I receive from this endorsement, though, is that Fitzpatrick was absolutely sunk by the NRCC in the eyes of the Courier Times, a spot-on assessment if ever there was one. This little tease of Mikey's where he expects his precious Iraq Study Group to bail him out on the war may have been good enough to earn him the endorsement if it weren't for Kevin Kelly's swift-boat nonsense on Patrick Murphy and, as the paper noted, some of the sleazy mailings from his campaign. That stuff plainly was too far even for this very conservative newspaper (which also rightly gives Patrick credit for being an outstanding candidate). Another message I receive is that even the Courier Times is astute enough to recognize that the Republican Party, primarily because of Iraq but other issues also, has absolutely lost the moderate voters in this country.

I'm not sure it's possible to overstate how much guts it takes for a newspaper in this area (Bucks has a lot of moderates, but it has a lot of bedrock, "God and guns" Republicans too) to give Patrick this endorsement, something much more thorough and deliberate than that joke of an endorsement the Inquirer gave Fitzpatrick a week or so ago.

I've pilloried the Courier Times in the past and rightly so, but not now. Endorsing Patrick, aside from the fact that it was simply the right thing to do, took true courage, and they should be commended.

And speaking of Iraq, Max Cleland slaps down "The Beard" on CNN and anyone else spinning this fiction that, somehow, disgust in this country with the Iraq war is somehow mobilizing "the base" (hat tip to the Daily Kos).

Biting The Hand

Given what Blogger has been doing today (or not doing, to be more precise), I have no idea when this post will see the light of day, but I'm entering it anyway.

Out of sheer rage and disgust over this week's HORRIBLE performance from Blogger, I went to their "Blogger Buzz" site, and it was nice to see a post from someone who is presumably a Blogger tech dated 10/26 saying "Sorry, I know," with the stated excuse being that there have been some hardware upgrades taking place over the past week that have been responsible for the outages.

(By the way, when going to Blogger Buzz, is it too much trouble to provide a link back to the Blogger dashboard seeing as how you've already logged on and it's a pain in the ass to basically log off and start all over again after you leave Blogger Buzz? And is there a particular reason why comments aren't allowed to the Blogger Buzz posts?).

Being generally suspicious of these things, why do I get the feeling that this is part of an effort to cram Blogger Beta down our throats (especially since the author of the 10/26 Blogger Buzz post noted that Blogger Beta had no outages this week)?

If anyone from Blogger is reading this, let me pass along this idea to you.

Try publishing statistics of bugs and support issues from your help site for regular Blogger vs. Blogger Beta. I entered a bug related to my inability to upload to Blogger from YouTube (for which you never replied, by the way, and thanks so much for that - don't worry; I came up with a manual workaround), and I happened to notice A LOT of bugs for Blogger Beta (the name implies that that would be the case, I know).

Publish the list of the bugs of the one app vs. the other from week to week, and when I see a decline in the Blogger Beta bugs, then I'll decide that it's a good time to do the conversion.

Check Them Off Now Too

So CBS brings us The Katie Couric Evening News with a supposed free speech segment in which the only people who are entitled to speak their minds are conservatives, most notably the OxyContin addict Flush Limbore.

(And if anyone has an update to the "Free Speech" post at Media Matters, I'd like to know about it because I haven't been able to find one.)

Next, ABC presents "The Path To 9/11" containing fictional scenes that are roundly disputed but the network decides to air anyway.

Now, NBC has refused to run an ad for "Shut Up And Sing," a new documentary about The Dixie Chicks and all of the mess they faced after criticizing Bush on the Iraq war.

It is now official; I no longer have a reason to watch non-cable commercial network television.

Nice work, guys!

And speaking of the Dixie Chicks, even though I'm not a fan of this video, I am definitely a fan of this song.

Friday Videos

"The Diary Of Jane," by Breaking Benjamin (something a bit gothic as we approach Halloween)...



...and since it's Friday, we should pay homage to the '80s (should we?) with one of the evergreens of pouty-big-hair-band, neon-rain-soaked-street, dry-ice-misted music videos, and that of course would be "Here I Go Again" by Whitesnake, with Tawny Kitaen draping herself all over everything in sight (works for me).

Bring This Guy Off The Bench

As somewhat of a Phillies fan, it’s kind of tough to have a rooting interest in this year’s World Series, where the St. Louis Cardinals are leading the Detroit Tigers by three games to one, and I believe the Cards can wrap things up tonight.

I was glad to see Jeff Suppan get knocked out last night since he, Patricia Heaton, and the guy who starred in Mel Gibson’s Jesus snuff film decided to respond to Michael J. Fox and say that they thought stem cell research will automatically lead to cloning humans (which echoes the paranoia of Amy Sullivan in my earlier post today with Beavis and Butt-head channeling "American Gothic" - love it!).

Let me know when “the rapture” comes along and lifts all of you guys right up to Heaven, OK?

The reason why I say it’s kind of tough to root in the Series is because ex-Phillies play on both teams. All-world third baseman Scott Rolen of the Cards busted his butt here for years, but he acted like a real jerk when he left, actually forcing the trade. Placido Polanco of Detroit, on the other hand (who, oddly enough, was traded here from St. Louis for Rolen), did the same thing and has shown nothing but class before and since (as far as I know, anyway – I’m a bit “out of the loop” on this stuff).

This post, however, though it has a nod to baseball, is really about politics. Specifically, it’s directed to one-time Democratic U.S. House candidate Andy Warren, who was defeated in the primary last spring by Patrick Murphy in the U.S. House 8th district congressional race.

I admit it’s a long shot that he will actually read this somehow, but I’d like to ask him this question anyway:

How will you feel somehow if Mikey is standing at the podium on Tuesday night November 7th waving to everyone with his wife and six children by his side and a big grin on his face with all of his followers whooping it up because he managed to pull out a victory due to a relentless torrent of negative advertising and provincialism while you did nothing to help Patrick Murphy?

I know that’s a lot to digest, so I’ll digress briefly and let you ponder it while I compliment you on your efforts to unravel the voting machine mystery here in Bucks and the 8th district in particular.

I remember quite well last spring how disenchanted you became with the Repugs, particularly over the Terri Schiavo circus, which was your stated reason for leaving the party. Actually, I don’t know how any individual would NOT be repulsed by the conduct of our politicians and assorted other “pro-life” zealots in that fiasco.

So you became a Democrat, and as far as I’m concerned, by doing so, you pledged your loyalty to the party. And during the primary, you pointed out that defeating an incumbent becomes exponentially harder the longer they’re in office (you didn’t phrase it that way, but that’s what you meant).

Well, I’m sure that, after all these months, you can swallow your pride and admit that Patrick Murphy is an outstanding candidate, and his campaign and the force of national and local events has put him squarely in contention for the 8th district house seat.

However, aside from the aforementioned torrent of negativity (and really, there’s only so much anyone can do about that despite the fact that we must continually fight it; we can't control what people decide to believe, nor should we be able to), you can help Patrick with the “provincialism” factor.

You can state that, even though you’re a lifelong resident of Bucks (I believe), you could argue that excluding anyone merely on the basis of how long they’ve lived in a certain area is a particularly backward way of thinking. You could stand up and say that, even though that was part of your campaign strategy at one time, you now realize how counterproductive that really is. You could say that that type of thinking deprives Bucks County of the element of vitality and fresh thinking that is missing so desperately in our political dialogue in these parts, and that it has a lot to do with why we can’t seem to resolve the issues that make a difference in people’s lives.

Basically, this would be kind of a “Nixon Goes To China” moment for you.

As a matter of fact, you probably could get away with not even endorsing Patrick by name if you didn’t want to (though everyone would know that that’s what you’re doing). You could do it strictly on behalf of the Democratic Party and its efforts to put an end to this blight of Republican government that is ruining this country for everyone but the investor class.

Because, Andy (may I call you Andy?), let’s face it: Mike Fitzpatrick’s accomplishments as our U.S. House Rep, such as they are, have been truly negligible – you and I know that. His support comes from people who hate Democrats anyway, though who have some principle of self interest in voting for him (I don’t like that, but I have to admit that I can relate to it), and others who are fooled by this ridiculous “nice guy” persona that he has been able to capitalize on, mythologized in part by the Bucks County Courier Times among others, all based in the mindset that he’s “one of us.” And as I said earlier, you could articulate the case that just being “one of us” isn’t even close when it comes to qualifying someone for the job Mikey presently holds.

So give it some thought, would you please (time is short, though). I’m sure that speaking out in this way wouldn’t represent a decisive moment in the campaign, but as a member of the Democratic Party, helping out one of your own sure would be the right thing to do.

Lois On The Move

Here’s an update on Lois Herr’s campaign to unseat Republican Joe Pitts in U.S. PA District 16 (from loisherr.us):

- A fundraiser is taking place tonight from 7-9 pm at Café Aroma Borealis and RainbowNet Creations at 52 North Queen Street, Lancaster (in the Place Marie/Central Market Mall).

- Lois will appear at a rally with Bob Casey on Monday October 30th from 12:30 pm – 1:30pm at the Democratic Campaign Headquarters, 151 North Queen Street in Lancaster (RSVP to Erin Wilson at ewilson@bobcaseyforpa.com or 215-567-4190).

Also, did you know that Lois has outraised Pitts by a margin of over 3 to 1 in contributions from individuals in the third quarter?

Another item of note – Lois appeared recently with Lois Murphy (running against Repug Jim Gerlach in U.S. PA District 6) and pledged that the city of Reading will have a joint congressional office when both Herr and Murphy are elected to the U.S. House.

The following explains why this is important:

Reading has been gerrymandered into two Congressional districts and the City has suffered from the split representation. Herr's opponent, Rep. Pitts, has turned his back to the African American and Latino communities in the city by repeatedly voting for "Welfare for the Rich" and voting against programs that would promote minority business, make affordable healthcare available to inner-city constituents and provide resources to communities and neighborhoods.

"The idea of a single-point-of-contact resource center that we have heard proposed tonight is exactly what needs to be done to assure that federal, state, and community services and programs are readily accessible to every citizen in this city," Herr said to a group of leaders after the rally. "We have heard the Governor commit to placing state services in that resource center. By moving my Congressional office to that center, connections to federal services and programs will be located right where constituents need them to be."

Finally, the Alliance for Retired Americans, representing three million retirees, older Americans, and community activists including more than 301,953 members in Pennsylvania, endorsed Lois Herr, stating as follows:

"Your positions demonstrate a strong determination to improve the quality of life for older Americans. Your leadership on issues such as the need for a comprehensive prescription drug benefit plan under Medicare that benefits seniors -- not insurance and drug companies, the financial stability of the Social Security system, retirement and pension security, and quality long term nursing home care all exhibit a commitment to America's seniors.

"The Alliance for Retired Americans believes that your election to the House of Representatives will enhance the quality of life for older Americans. . . ."

Representative Pitts has a 0% lifetime voting record with the Alliance for Retired Americans.

Why am I not surprised in the least to hear that about Pancake Joe, by the way?

For more information on the Lois Herr campaign, click here.

Tell THEM To Back Off, Rummy!

By the way, Mr. “Defense Secretary You Have,” are you still stamping letters with your signature notifying family members that their sons and daughters have died in Iraq as opposed to actually signing them (as a follow up to this)?

Probably a dumb question to ask of this cretin, but I’m asking it anyway…

And by the way, not that Rummy would care I guess, but somehow he might be interested in knowing the results of his foul handiwork with the rest of Bushco from time to time by clicking here.

A Quagmire In The "Culture Wars"

I once asked awhile ago who it was who started the so-called “culture wars,” and I never received an answer. And somehow, based on this bit of theorizing by Amy Sullivan that appeared on yesterday’s editorial page of USA Today, I don’t think I’m going to get an answer anytime soon, seeing as how it is utterly full of tripe (this is actually a companion of sorts to the hit piece by CNN’s Candy Crowley the other day).

Despite my objections, I should give USA Today credit for putting this into a blog and allowing readers to post comments to the story online (would that Philadelphia’s “newspaper of record” did the same thing).

Why Democrats are losing the culture war
Republicans’ edge: Seeing the problem

And by the way, as nearly as I can determine, the “problem” is that Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever don’t bend over backwards for people who will never agree with them the same way that ABC producer Mark Halperin did yesterday).

By Amy Sullivan

On the surface, solid majorities of Americans agree with Democratic Party values. They want universal health care, support increasing the minimum wage, believe stricter environmental regulations are needed and worth paying for, and think the best way to achieve peace is through diplomacy.

By contrast, only 12% say abortion and gay marriage are more important issues than poverty and universal health care, according to a recent survey by the Center for American Values in Public Life, a project funded by the liberal group People For the American Way. And a paltry 5% of Americans identified abortion and gay marriage as their top issues.

OK, before this column gets started, I want to point out once again how all of this recycled “blame the namby pamby liberals and embrace the almighty Third Way to reach Mr. and Mrs. Bedrock Whitebread (for the most part) America” claptrap is nothing more than a “chicken vs. egg” conundrum that can never be solved, with Democrats looking bad no matter what they try to do.

If they embrace gay marriage and support abortion (and most Democrats I read and hear about support civil unions with the attendant legal benefits but not gay marriage, and I find a pro-choice position to be reasonable also along with most other people, something else that negative-narrative-reinforcing columns like this ignore), then they’ve surrendered to their liberal base. If they don’t and address the issues Sullivan mentions (which I personally believe are more important also, but I can easily understand why someone else wouldn’t feel that way), then they’ll be dogged by the Repugs (of course) and their media sycophants until they admit that they actually do, along with the attendant “AHA!” faux outrage.

Based on these numbers, Democrats should be beating Republicans at the ballot box. But precisely the opposite has happened in the past few national elections.

This is because the Republicans simply cannot be touched when it comes to appealing to people’s prejudices and baser instincts, along with some heaping doses of voter disenfranchisement and fraud in strategic Democratic areas, though the Democrats aren’t utterly blameless either. The Repug strategy works best primarily when the charade is successful, but since Katrina and its aftermath, it has crumbled to pieces.

One answer is that national security is still a major issue, generally favoring Republicans. But more important is the fact that abortion and gay marriage are proxies for deeply held cultural concerns. They tell voters something about the character of a candidate — or a party.

“Proxies for deeply held cultural concerns”...what clever wording for southern and western white rural prejudice and northern “lu-bu-ruul” resentment.

So Sullivan said earlier that “only 12% say abortion and gay marriage are more important issues than poverty and universal health care,” though it turns out that they may be more important statistically than that? I’m confused (guess I’m not smart enough to properly interpret such deep analysis).

Real anxieties

Most voters worry about escalating challenges to family stability and the losing battle to instill good values in their children instead of the materialism and coarseness peddled by popular culture. They fear that our society has developed a casualness about life, especially as science has made it easier to manipulate and create beings.

Uh, where the hell is she going with this? Now, the issues of abortion and gay marriage are somehow morphing into cloning..??

Banning gay marriage and outlawing abortion don't directly address those anxieties.

Ah, but if the Democrats did advocate that, then those so-called “values voters” would just flock to our party in droves, wouldn’t they?

Can we explode and utterly destroy that fiction once and for all now and forever, please? That being said, though, I realize there are rare exceptions to everything, including Mr. Casey Jr. who is about to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Pa. running on a similar platform. I should add, though, that Casey has been aided in no small part by the fact that he’s running against a Repug incumbent who has completely and utterly lost his mind.

But proposals like these at least acknowledge that the concerns exist and are valid. So while Republicans offer the wrong prescriptions, they get the diagnosis right.

Over time, though, the “patient” would die anyway.

And they win because most of the time, Democrats won't admit that anything is wrong. In politics, as in most areas of life, something always beats nothing.

Sullivan will provide a couple of anecdotes shortly to support this flimsy contention – I’ll give her credit for trying to back this up with some chronological events from the real world.

However, I absolutely and utterly defy her or anyone else to provide an example to me of a Democratic politician ridiculing “people of faith” or their religion or stating that they don’t think their concerns are valid. THAT is what (as nearly as I can determine) is at the heart of this “value voter” resentment. The only reason I know of why they would feel that way based on the conduct of a Democratic politician is because of John Kerry’s decision not to campaign in southern states where he was projected to lose in 2004, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s a flimsy excuse to hold a grudge.

Despite the uproar over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction a couple of years ago…

You just knew “the tit that will never die” would figure into this somehow, didn’t you?

…most parents don't fret that the accidental sighting of a breast or hearing of a swear word will scar their children. They're more concerned about the unrealistic ideas kids get from popular culture about consumption and body image and violence as a way of handling conflict.

I wish that that were true, but somehow I have a feeling that it isn’t.

Sadly, too many liberals react to complaints about popular culture as if they're teenagers. They either jut out their chins and growl, "If you don't like it, don't watch it," or they stay silent for fear of looking like prudes. Given the ridicule that Tipper Gore faced for promoting warning labels for explicit music lyrics and the derision that followed Hillary Clinton's effort to keep violent video games away from kids, perhaps it's no surprise that most keep their mouths shut. That silence, however, hands conservatives a victory. As David Callahan points out in his book The Moral Center, "When the right complains about the media's descent into tawdriness, it puts them on the side of most Americans."

What a festival of generalities!

I don’t recall what happened in the case of Hillary Clinton, and I’m not going to do the research on this that Sullivan should have done herself. However, I admit that she has a point about the Tipper Gore thing with the parental advisories. I thought that was absolutely ridiculous at the time, but it’s kind of funny how being a parent changes your mind about some things.

Despite that, I still believe these two incidents are anecdotal and relatively trivial. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party doesn’t believe that the government has a right to intrude into people’s churches or bedrooms or doctor’s offices, and it doesn’t believe that it has the right to tell people how to take care of their bodies, practice their religion, or raise their kids. I think that’s sensible. And just because we believe that and stay out of these issues doesn’t imply that we don’t have an opinion on them. It just means that we believe that it’s none of our damn business!

And as far as this lie that conservatives are some kind of moral guardians (notwithstanding their support of the Iraq war, which is about as immoral an enterprise as this country has ever seen), consider that perhaps their biggest shout box is FOX Television. Well, do you know what Rupert Murdoch does with the ad revenue generated from “family fare” such as broadcasts by Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, and the rest of these holier-than-thou characters? He uses it to produce such morally uplifting programming as “How To Make Love Like A Porn Star.”

“Bait And Switch 101,” ladies and gentlemen...

Even an issue on which Democrats seem to have the winning position can turn out to be a loser for the party in the long run. Most Americans now believe that research on stem cells should be allowed. But as Noam Scheiber recently pointed out in The New Republic magazine, the polls also suggest that they have serious concerns about the morality of unrestricted scientific research. They don't want to wake up tomorrow and discover that we're cloning humans without ever having a conversation as a society about the moral issues involved.

Though there are currently no federal laws banning human cloning in this country (explained in this Common Dreams article), according to Wikipedia...

“Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institution such as universities which receive federal funding.”

The notion that anyone could “wake up tomorrow and discover that we're cloning humans without ever having a conversation as a society about the moral issues involved” is true freeper nonsense.

By framing the debate as a choice between theology or science, Democrats essentially argued that anyone who has qualms about scientific progress is a troglodyte.

Says you (and what else are Democrats supposed to do here? It IS a debate between theology or science!).

If I were to point out all of the ways that pioneering scientific advancement in this country has led to the development of the prosperity we’ve inherited and much of the way of life that we take utterly for granted, then it would probably take three days to read this entire post.

That puts them on the losing side of the moral question, even as they win the specific policy debate.

In those terms, it’s impossible to “win” on the “moral question.”

There's promising evidence, though, that this moral tone-deafness of Democrats may be about to change. Abortion, perhaps the most contentious moral issue of them all, is also the one area in which Democrats are poised to move past the political debate and address the real concerns of Americans. Over the past two years, a growing number of Democrats in the House and Senate have gotten behind "abortion reduction" efforts that seek to prevent unwanted pregnancies and provide support to women who want to carry their pregnancies to term.

I currently cannot obtain data on abortions in the United States performed beyond 2001 or 2002 – I have a feeling the number has decreased across the country, but I cannot confirm that at the moment.

However, the following from this article (again, courtesy of Wikipedia) is noteworthy..

The Democratic Party platform considers abortion to be a woman's right, while the group Democrats for Life of America has growing strength within their own party.

Chairman Howard Dean has welcomed pro-life Democrats more than previous chairs and DFLA's 95-10 Initiative has increasing support. There is also a large disconnect between convention delegates who pass the party platform and rank and file Democrats. In 2006 pollsters found that 74% of Democrats favor the availability of abortion in most circumstances.

By the way, when you talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies, you’re talking about contraception, which the Repugs and their followers have fought tooth and nail. Their “abstinence only” teachings don’t work, and most parents favor a mix of abstinence and teaching their kids about contraception also. I don’t have any links to verify that at the moment, but trust me; as a parent who spends time with other parents discussing kids, I know what I’m talking about on this.

This new approach reduces abortions without risking women's lives. And let us NEVER forget the political party that would advocate or encourage that, by the way (and it’s NOT the Democrats!). I have two words for you on that – South Dakota (I scanned this article and saw quotes so barbaric that I'll have to find a way to post on this by itself later).

The average American doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade or start locking up doctors. But neither does she buy the liberal line that 1.3 million abortions per year are just the price you pay for living in a free and modern society.

I don’t know what “liberals” Sullivan spends time with, but never in my life have I felt that way either.

Threshold issues

Democrats are right when they argue that their party's position on issues such as poverty, health care and job creation reflect a powerful moral value — helping those who have less. But they're wrong to think that's enough to win back the cultural voters they've lost.

Again with the “cultural voters”…yes, as a Democrat, you can tweak your fundamental message without altering it or outright lying and win over some “swing” voters in the process, but there are certain “cultural voters” who would slit their wrists before they voted anything but Republican.

Abortion and gay marriage — and the deep-seated cultural anxieties they represent — are threshold issues for voters. If a candidate can show he understands voters' concerns about the culture, then they'll listen to what else he has to say. If he tells them instead that there's nothing to worry about and tries to change the subject, they've already tuned out.

I was sympathetic (a bit) to Sullivan at the beginning of this, but as I read her continuing to use phrases like “proxies for deeply held cultural concerns,” “a casualness about life,” “getting the diagnosis right with the wrong prescription,” “winning the policy debate but losing on the moral question,” and “deeply held cultural anxieties,” I came to the realization that she’s merely pandering to the Fox/NRO/Jewish World Review/Free Republic crowd who she wants to buy her book. Beyond that, what she says has very little validity.

The good news for Democrats is that if the party can just get past the threshold, it stands a much better chance of connecting with voters who already agree with them on the pressing issues that should decide elections.

“Should” decide, but don’t (at least, not up to now).

But we’ll see about that in a couple of weeks, won’t we (and by the way, I don't want anyone buying Sullivan's book for me for Christmas, OK?).

And for what it's worth, this is actually my 1,400th post - no fanfare please...

Does The Slime Really Work, People?

I’m reading the text from this Keystone Politics link that shows Mike Fitzpatrick having a nine-point lead in the polls over Patrick Murphy in the 8th district congressional race (as noted in today’s Philadelphia Daily News also), and aside from wondering why Tom Lingenfelter is included in the poll sampling when he isn’t even on the ballot (as the commenter noted), I also wonder about the sampling of individuals polled and (age, geographic location in the country, income levels, etc.).

I am also skeptical of this poll partly because of this story also.

And though the Letters To The Editor appearing in the Courier Times have tilted in Mikey’s favor at the moment (with some dirt thrown at Patrick so scurrilous that even the august Courier Times editorial board felt the need somehow to clarify a particularly odious letter today), I cannot imagine that he won’t pay a price at the polls for impugning Patrick’s service (indeed, some letter writers have stated that plainly…I thought John Kerry, appearing in a campaign visit for Patrick yesterday, had a good line when he said that Fitzpatrick’s attack on Patrick’s service “is like Jessica Simpson attacking Albert Einstein’s IQ”).

I have a feeling that there will be more reporting on this poll, and I’ll update this post as necessary.

And by the way, I was also skeptical of the DCCC poll last week that showed Patrick leading by four points, 44-40 percent. If anything, to me the poll showed a statistical tie at best, which actually was a bit worrisome because it came in the wake of Clinton’s visit, and rolling out The Big Dog is the biggest weapon in the Democratic arsenal, as it were (with all due respect to Kerry, he’ll never accomplish what Clinton does with likely voters).

But the title of this post still applies, as far as I’m concerned. And it still makes me wonder (and will right up to the closing of the polls on November 7th).

All we can do is our best in these matters. It’s very difficult to outspend the Repugs; we have to try and win through organization, communicating, and arguing based on the issues.

The drum beat over and over again in this campaign (and repeated in today’s Daily News story) is that, somehow, Fitzpatrick is some sort of “independent moderate” who has “paid attention to local issues” and benefits somehow from his past experience as a Bucks County Commissioner.

All of this is utter nonsense, and I’ve spent the vast amount of the last seven months or more doing my level best to prove that.

And as further evidence, we have today’s Courier Times story in which Patrick rightfully confronted Fitzpatrick at a candidates’ media forum last night over the slew of negative ads (as always, no link yet).

However, I do want to share this excerpt for now…

“..what had been planned as a debate turned one-sided when Fitzpatrick apologized to the crowd and said he needed to leave early to attend the Newtown Township supervisors meeting. The board was considering an ordinance supporting a proposed national veterans cemetery, and Fitzpatrick said he needed to speak to the board.

Murphy directed the television cameras to focus on Fitzpatrick leaving the room, saying the candidate didn’t want to debate the issues. Fitzpatrick stopped on his way out, turned towards Murphy and stared at him before leaving.”

Always the class act, Mikey.

If you wanted to speak to the Newtown supervisors about the proposed veterans cemetery at Dolington, I’m sure you could have prepared a statement in advance to be read into the meeting minutes. If a vote was going to be called for, you could have designated a proxy to cast your vote for you.

I’ll believe that Fitzpatrick has an edge in this race because there are sooo many people in this district who would sooner remove a body part from themselves without anesthetic than vote for a Democrat, but based on his swift boating and juvenile questioning of Patrick’s legal service (and by the way, read this post from Atrios to find out what to do about that) and assorted other nonsense from Mikey (including what I’m sure will be a continuing slew of attack TV ads and campaign mailers from the NRCC...and let's not forget Mikey's failure to call for Hastert's resignation over the Mark Foley stuff), as well as what Patrick brings to the table in his formidable candidacy, I refuse to believe that it’s a polling edge of nine points.

Update: This may be a first - I actually posted on this before Atrios did (don't worry...I have no "delusions of grandeur" here, and I'm sure he's seen more raw numbers on this than I have).

Thursday Videos

"Back To The Wall," by the Divinyls from 1988 (sounds like "wool," they being from Down Under and all that)...



...and as a tribute to drummer Sandy West, here's The Runaways (featuring Joan Jett and Lita Ford) and "Wasted."

Starving For The Truth

I came across this item yesterday and detected some stuff that I thought was worthy of note (you know me…).

The Yahoo News story has to do with the war on poverty (interesting to recall that ‘60s phrase, which I believe is heroic). It starts out with interviewing a survivor of Hurricane Katrina, and then follows up with a quote from John Edwards prior to this bit of editorializing:

Edwards ran for president in 2004 arguing there were two Americas, one for the well-off and another for those who struggle. When that effort failed, he ran for vice president on John Kerry's ticket. He said he has not decided whether to run again in 2008.

How exactly did Edwards’ effort fail? Does the writer mean his effort to win the primary or his effort to highlight and fight against the problem of hunger in America?

Edwards did finish second in the primary as I recall, and he pushed Kerry hard before the primary ended. But I guess the writer doesn’t believe that that context is necessary.

Also, though I’ve been “hot and cold” on Jesse Jackson in the past, I believe that when he’s right about an issue, he’s shown himself as a true visionary, as he does here with these words:

"There is a need to have politicians whose positions represent change for the better and not an accommodation with the worst of our status quo."

And the article next asks the question, “Does Poverty Exist?,” which is astonishing given what we witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina last year (which the article cited previously). It does present the following statistic, though, to answer a question which shouldn’t need to be asked.

The U.S. Census Bureau said in August one in eight Americans and one in four black people lived in poverty last year.

I believe “African American” is the commonly accepted parlance here, but I guess I’m just splitting hairs again.

My real objection, though, comes here…

Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank argued there is little actual poverty in the United States and most poor people had a house, car, television, air conditioning, food and medical care.

Democrats only employed the word to stir emotions and "low income status" would be a better description in most cases, Rector said in an interview.

Why don’t we call those who are poor and hungry “economically deprived” or “missing out on prosperity” or something if Rector doesn’t like those terms?

God, I detest these people.

That case gains traction in the United States, a society with a fiercely competitive ethic and a belief that hard work and self-reliance are a sure route to success, making it risky to promote a national goal of helping the poor.

The above paragraph is editorializing, by the way, and has no place in something that purports to be a news story.

Also, the article quotes Jim Wallis, affiliated with a Christian ministry group called Sojourners which “promotes spiritual renewal and social justice,” which I applaud. Wallis said that “the religious right has hijacked the agenda for Christian voters promoting opposition to abortion and gay marriage but pushing poverty off the agenda.”

I would tend to agree, and I would also tend to wonder why this isn’t the lede paragraph of the story and is instead buried near the end (further evidence of the hypocrisy of the so-called “moral values” crowd).

I’ll tell you what: for anyone who has any doubt whatsoever as to whether or not hunger exists in America, go to the Second Harvest site here and try linking to some of the statistics presented by these good people for a dose of reality.

And if Robert Rector reads this information and STILL doesn’t believe that poverty exists, then I’ll encourage him to travel to New Orleans’ Ninth Ward and see for himself.

No "Rush" To Judgement, I See

I know this is a post that I could regularly regurgitate if I wanted to with minor modifications, but in light of Flush Limbore’s recent rant that Parkinson’s disease-afflicted actor Michael J. Fox was “off his medication” when he appeared in an ad supporting stem-cell research, I’d like to say something.

My grandfather ultimately died from Parkinson’s disease. He gradually lost control of his motor functions until he was completely bedridden during his final days. This happened many years ago.

Now I will allow for the fact that medications have advanced since that time, and it’s possible that medication can mitigate the deterioration from the disease somewhat. But the medicine doesn’t stop the disease.

My point is that the question of whether or not Fox was taking his medication when he filmed the ad is utterly irrelevant (not really necessary to point that out to most people with IQs over that of a housefly, I realize, since the entire medication question from Limbaugh would only be considered credible by his zombie-like followers anyway). The disease (including the infamous Parkinson’s “mask,” which was plainly visible on Pope John Paul II before he died as well as Fox) will progress anyway, unfortunately.

I wish Godspeed to Michael J. Fox and all Parkinson’s sufferers, by the way, and I pray that the Democrats take over Congress on November 7th so we can revisit the issue of funding embryonic stem cell research again as soon as possible.

And I'm not going to ask the question "when is enough finally enough" with people like Limbore, Coulter, Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, etc. and the rest of their foul ilk, because obviously, they can say ANYTHING and never have to worry about whether or not they'll be granted a forum for their toxic blather.

Besides, Fox takes drugs out of necessity. At least he doesn’t do it by choice.

Update: Despite "talent on loan from God," it looks like Flush's little gambit isn't exactly paying off (awww...).

Just A Reminder...

Don't forget our 11/7 theme song ("Stand Up" by Trapt)...

A Trail of 8th District Ooze

(Maybe Blogger will keep from crashing again long enough for me to finish this post...by the way, John Kerry is going to appear for Patrick today at Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Pa. - see murphy06.net for details.)

As I arrived home from work late tonight, I walked up the driveway to my house and accidentally stepped on something that was kind of firm under the sole of my shoe. Since there were downed tree branches nearby, I thought it was a twig.

When I realized I couldn't flick it off, I soon found out that it was kind of firm and gushy, sticking to my thumb and forefinger a bit as I pried it off, leaving an oily coating on my hand. It turned out that what I had stepped on was a slug.

It turned out to be an appropriate harbinger when I entered our home, took off my shoes, and flipped through the pile of bills on the dining room table. It was then that I saw a glossy mailer with a red background and bold white type. Almost immediately after that I noticed that the mailer had a picture of Patrick Murphy looking a bit confused, and the sick feeling I felt instantaneously after that told me that this had invaded our house from the National Republican Campaign Committee.

On one side is a photo of a forlorn family, and on the other side under Patrick's photo is that of a little girl, arms folded under her chin with a spiteful look on her face next to the bold type that says, "Vote No for Patrick Murphy. He's not looking out for our families."

Here is the scurrilous text:

"With the rising costs of raising children in our state, Pennsylvanians can use all the help they can get. The recent federal tax relief included a doubling of the child tax credit. This has enabled parents to keep more of their hard-earned incomes - so they can better clothe, feed and enrich the lives of their children. In times like these, it's help we can all use."

Now comes the shot in the gut:

"Patrick Murphy's Law #5: You got kids, you got problems."

I shudder to think what lies are being told in #1 through #4, by the way, and I'm sure a mountain of this crap from these vermin awaits until November 7th.

And what exactly is Patrick guilty of, I wonder?

"Patrick Murphy has publicly criticized the tax cuts which have brought this much needed relief to the families in our state (The Intelligencer, 2/9/06). Apparently, under Patrick Murphy's law, the tax cuts should not be made permanent. If the tax cuts expire, it will cut the child tax credit in half for Pennsylvania families!" (the last sentence was highlighted in yellow, by the way).

"Patrick Murphy seems to believe the government needs the money more than our children do."

Ah yes, it's that bad "government's" fault, right? Well, I think this is an opportunity to link to what Mark Shields said about government a few years ago for some actual, real-world perspective as opposed to Repug propaganda.

I should note that I was unable to track down the reference in the Doylestown Intelligencer which states that tax cuts "have brought much-needed relief to the families in our state," so I can't comment on that, though I know speaking only for myself, I saw a check for $400 for the first tax cut after Dubya took over and NOTHING after that, while the investor class has ended up consolidating their wealth beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

And by the way, the "our" references in this mailer (implying this originated from Pennsylvania somewhere) is yet another lie. Here is where this mailer came from:

The Republican National Committee
320 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003

And as far as the child tax credit under Bush is concerned, Paul Krugman (the noted economist from Princeton University and the New York Times) notes the following here:

"...the 2001 tax cut included a $400 child credit and also created a new 10 percent tax bracket, the so-called cutout. These measures had the effect of creating a ''sweet spot'' that could be exploited for political purposes. If a couple had multiple children, if the children were all still under 18 and if the couple's income was just high enough to allow it to take full advantage of the child credit, it could get a tax cut of as much as 4 percent of pretax income. Hence the couple with two children and an income of $40,000, receiving a tax cut of $1,600, who played such a large role in the administration's rhetoric. But while most couples have children, at any given time only a small minority of families contains two or more children under 18 -- and many of these families have income too low to take full advantage of the child tax credit. So that ''typical'' family wasn't typical at all. Last year, the actual tax break for families in the middle of the income distribution averaged $469, not $1,600."

Yep, about $400 - as I said, that's what I saw one time also.

And what about the wealthy and tax cuts anyway? Well, as Krugman also notes in the same paragraph:

"David Stockman (former budget director for Ronald Reagan) famously admitted that Reagan's middle-class tax cuts were a 'Trojan horse' that allowed him to smuggle in what he really wanted, a cut in the top marginal rate. The Bush administration similarly follows a Trojan horse strategy, but an even cleverer one. The core measures in Bush's tax cuts benefit only the wealthy, but there are additional features that provide significant benefits to some -- but only some -- middle-class families (which Krugman notes in the paragraph I cited above)."

Here is what the Repugs know but don't want to talk about: what really bites into our paychecks are inflation and energy costs (which are related), and payroll taxes. According to what I read, inflation rears its ugly head when energy prices go up, thus raising the price of anything dependent on energy (which is basically everything in the world, and this usually occurs right at the beginning of the summer travel season...what a coincidence, right?), but when energy costs go down, inflation is abated somewhat (of course, wages are depressed by offshoring and raises - if you're lucky enough to even get one - don't keep up with inflation anyway, but that's another story).

As I noted here, Mike Fitzpatrick had a chance to do something about energy costs, but he took a mulligan, as it were. And as far as payroll taxes are concerned, Patrick provided some interesting information on Mikey's position here.

Concerning our actual wages, Mike Fitzpatrick had a chance to help pass national minimum wage legislation, but he gutted it by trying to help sneak in another estate tax cut for the rich (to say nothing of the fact that he didn't help with rising health care costs either).

That's about all of the analysis of this NRCC garbage that I care to perform for now. It is total propaganda meant only to dupe people into supporting the tax cuts so near and dear to Repug guru Grover Norquist, among others, who want to shrink government "to the point where you can drown it in a bathtub," and who equates bipartisanship with "date rape."

These people truly are scum.

So I would only ask that you brace yourself for an onslaught of this crud, and remember that, as far as issues go, first and foremost, "it's the war, stupid" (and as I type this, Mikey STILL has no plan, and neither does his precious Iraq study group - I think it's safe to assume that this is the main reason why Chris Bowers of MyDD, who is generally spot on concerning these matters, once rated the PA-08 race as "skewing Republican" but now rates it "a toss up").

And by the way, if you want to know Patrick Murphy's position on the economy and family issues, click this link and read what he has to say.

So arm yourselves with the knowledge that, when you vote on November 7th, one candidate will stand with us to change the politics of poison in Washington, D.C. and represent us and on the issues that truly matter, and another will hide behind "swift-boating" garbage and mailers full of lies on the "bread and butter" needs and concerns that affect our families every day.

That should make it easy to pull the lever and touch the screen for the right candidate.

And last but not least, when you're walking to the polling station, watch out for the slugs.

Thanks For Remembering

Regarding this great post by Jonathan Tasini, I only wish to highlight this quote from Paul Wellstone:

"The future will not belong to those who sit on the sidelines. The future will not belong to the cynics. The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

So let’s go out and make that happen.

Hold Your Nose And Vote For Joe?

What the hell kind of an endorsement is this from today’s Philadelphia Inquirer?

So the paper supports Admiral Joe Sestak over Crazy Curt Weldon in the PA-7 U.S. Congressional District?

Well, that’s a good thing. However, the paper described Sestak and Weldon as “two disappointing choices.” I would agree in the latter case, but definitely not the former.

Editorial Joe Sestak for Congress
Pa. Seventh District

Historically Republican, the district covering most of Delaware and parts of Chester and Montgomery Counties voted Democratic in the last three presidential elections.

The Case for Sestak

Retired admiral, U.S. Navy
Democrat, 54
Wallingford

This seat, held by Weldon for 20 years, is ripe for a change. Sestak, a career naval officer, is a political novice - and it shows. But he's benefited from the mounting ethical woes of the GOP majority on Capitol Hill, including Weldon's.

Sestak's experience commanding a battle group in Iraq and Afghanistan is key. He'd bring valuable military expertise to Pentagon oversight. He seems eager to push for needed ethics reforms.

The Opponent

Curt Weldon
U.S. representative
Republican, 59
Thornbury

The Case for Weldon

Weldon wields the influence of seniority on the Armed Services Committee. He knows the district and has brought defense jobs back home. This centrist enjoys rattling government cages.

I think Blogger is going to have some more unscheduled scheduled maintenance shortly, so I won't be able to rip this laughable "centrist" label (??) to shreds.

Character / Ethics

The Justice Department is investigating whether Weldon used his position to help his daughter's lobbying/consulting firm. Another daughter was hired by a defense contractor after Weldon helped the company to get a federal contract. This smells as bad as it looks.

You expect admirals to have integrity and leadership. Sestak seems to. But he stumbled badly during an Inquirer debate, belittling Weldon's work with "bubbas" in the district.

And the Inquirer stumbled badly in not reporting on some of Weldon’s horrific screwups, including his reference to sailors onboard ship under Sestak’s one-time command as “servants.”

And Sestak seems to have integrity? If I were the Admiral, I’d tell the Inquirer what they could do with a remark like that in the most blunt language that I knew.

Edge: Sestak (Experience / Credentials)

Weldon is an expert on Russia and North Korea. But he can undercut his credibility with loose-cannon behavior, such as flogging his "Able Danger" theory of the Pentagon's failure to stop 9/11.

Raised in Springfield, Sestak has a Ph.D. from Harvard in political economy and government, and served in the Clinton White House on the National Security Council. He has commanded as many as 15,000 military personnel.

Even Ideas / Issues

Unable to defend the war in Iraq any longer, Weldon now wants the generals to decide when to bring troops home. His concern comes late. Sestak rightly believes the Iraq war is a "tragic misadventure" and wants troops withdrawn by the end of 2007.

Funny that somehow, to the Inquirer’s way of thinking, there’s a more dramatic difference here between Weldon and Sestak on the war than there is between Mikey and Patrick Murphy, when in fact it’s really about the same rift either way; the difference is that Admiral Joe wins points here (as he should), but Patrick doesn’t (Mikey’s “concern” came late too).

Weldon does not rule out tax increases to erase the budget deficit. Sestak would raise taxes on people earning $200,000 per year or more, and cap discretionary spending.

Edge: Sestak

Overall Edge: Sestak

By the way, while I’m on the subject of political endorsements by the Inquirer, I should mention something peculiar about their endorsement of New Jersey U.S. House representative Chris Smith last Saturday.

I should point out that Smith is an incumbent Republican who is facing Democrat Carol Gay (who, as “a longtime labor activist,” is automatically doomed as far as the Inquirer is concerned, though I hasten to add that I don’t know anything about how that race has been shaping up). Also, it’s a shame that Smith is such an anti-choice zealot also, because he has done good work for our veterans, and that leads me into this excerpt from the Inquirer’s endorsement:

“(Smith’s) dogged efforts on behalf of veterans cost him the chairmanship of the House Veterans Committee in 2005.”

This happens to be true, by the way. But let’s think about the fundamental absurdity of that sentence for a minute, OK?

Smith was removed from his post by Tom “The Hammer” DeLay because he showed up "The Bug Man" by doing his job too well on behalf of our service people. I think that’s about as damning a statement about the failed Repug leadership as anything I could muster on my own.

Which brings me to some final points I want to make about the Inquirer and their candidate endorsements – I realize they’re going to pick and choose and not really act in accordance with anything I say here (that would be nice, though – “if I ruled the world” and all that…), but I look at it this way.

When you are driving a car that is costing you hundreds upon hundreds of dollars due to frequent repairs, and you eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that what you have is a lemon, do you decide to fix it a piece at a time (a new alternator here, a new carburetor there, maybe a new oil filter or a tailpipe and muffler also)?

No, you chuck the whole thing and look for a new car.

To me, the 109th Republican Congress is a lemon (and based on the polls I read, a lot of other people feel the same way). You don’t chuck Crazy Curt and Gerlach (endorsing Lois Murphy was a nice move, though) but keep Mikey Fitzpatrick and Pancake Joe Pitts without the expectation that the car is going to break down all over again, since they’re all part and parcel of the same problem.

And you sure as hell don’t keep Rick (“Eye-Of-Mordor-Man-on-Dog”) Santorum either.

Also, the writing in these Inquirer endorsements shows no depth whatsoever, unless of course there’s some hidden rationale for some of them that the august Inquirer editorial board decided not to share with us.

So here’s what I think; the Inquirer should just give up endorsing candidates. Just cut and paste whole blocks of text from votesmart.org and other sites, list them in the editorial section under one column for each candidate, and let the voters decide for themselves.