Again, I REALLY wanted to stop posting other people's cartoons, but wow, this is something I feel really strongly about. Obama may want to play Ford to Bush/Cheney's Nixon and heal our polarized nation and all that, but come on. Right wingers are always going on about moral issues and absolute right and wrong. People need to be held accountable so that we don't fall so far from the ideas we claim to stand for again. Lower-level CIA or Administration officials, lawyers? Fine. I'm not looking for the former Vice President to be handed over to a tribunal in the Huague or anything, but we can't just let it slide and pretend that nother ever went wrong, either.

Pucker up, Butter-Cup!

http://thinkprogress.org: Steele Bows Down To Limbaugh: ‘No Attempt On My Part To Diminish His Voice Or His Leadership’

Sad legacy

If only regressives instead of progressives were on Mt. Rushmore

Don't they get it?

I was trying really hard not to post other people's cartoons on this blog anymore but I'm so frustrated with the crap that's going on in DC that I had to. And these three are abosolutely awesome.

The point is just to make you think

It's Thursday, they day I used to always write a column. I have a few spare minutes because the 7th grade Art class that I teach M, W, and F have PE on Th. So what do I do with myself? What is to become of this blog if it's no longer a repository of printed columns?

Well, that all remains to be seen. But I still have the itch. "Why do writers write? "May as well ask "why do fish drink?" It's a compulsion, even if there's no one reading. Ah, but I may be deluding myself here, but I've been led to believe that there are at least a few of you out there- if not several who didn't read my column in the Mapleton PRESS, you read it HERE. So how can I abandon you entirely?

If you are a regular reader, you know that I am an idiosyncratic person and I tend to spend an inordinate amount of time defending my political opinions from those who think I should fit in a box (preferably their box). Liberals (which are not bad) think that I am too conservative. Conservatives (also not necessarily a bad thing to be, if you genuinely are and don't just identify yourself as that) obviously think that I am way to "liberal" (especially if they're at all religious) although more often than not, those who identify themselves as "conservative" wouldn't know a REAL liberal if one bit them in the ass ( I feel like I can use language like that now that I'm my own publisher and I'm not writing for print, forgive me if I went too far).

Comedian Mort Sahl once said that if you "maintain a consistent political position for too long in this country, you'll eventually be tried for treason."

Kurt Vonnegut once noted that "Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."

I want people to know (and not just you few readers, so please carry this message to others- become my "apologists")- I want people to know that while yes, I'm a registered Democrat, and yes, I voted for Barack Obama and intend to give him a chance because I believe he is both more intelligent and more empathetic than George Bush, I am who I am, an independent thinker, responsible practitioner of representative democracy, and a deeply devout disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, the only begotten Son of the one and only living God, but I am not any kind of ideologue and I resent being labeled and compartmentalized almost more than I resent being pressured to conform to anyone's box.

So, as someone who- believe it or not-is fairly conservative on many issues and a deeply committed Christian, may I present the following cartoon critique of the Republican coalition:


I've wanted to do this one for a while, but couldn't find our copy of Hop on Pop. This cartoon is how I see it. You're certainly entitled to disagree, the point is just to make you think.

This is the crux of all I believe about the Republican Party. Not Republicans themselves, mind you. Many of my closest friends and best loved relatives are Republicans, and they are basically very good people with pure hearts and the very best intentions. But let's face it- as the cartoon points out, those religious and social conservatives are "in bed" with corrupt corporatism, and plenty of other unsavory characters.

George Bush is a long way from even Ronald Reagan, let alone Barry Goldwater. There's not much of Dwight Eisenhower's progressivism and internationalism left in the Grand Old Party. And Teddy Roosevelt's reform progressivism and conservation? Long gone. And don't get me started about Lincoln.

Friends, readers, neighbors, relations- if you are passionately identifying yourself with the Republican party or if you are zealously judgmental, intolerant or even just over enthusiastically skeptical of Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals of any stripe- beware. The conservative movement, Right-wing talk radio, and a few false prophets on TV want to continue to use wedge issues to make you think that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Think for yourselves instead. Evaluate policies, projects, proposals and people individually on a pragmatic, case-by-case basis. Be skeptical. The national Republican Party likes to "use religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon."

Hey, I believe in a balanced budget and reducing deficits and the debt. I believe in protecting American industry and American jobs. I love Jesus and attend church every week, I don't condone drugs or promiscuity. You'd THINK that that would make me a "conservative." But I believe in the little guy and the small town, the mom and pop business, and the family farm. I believe in oversight and accountability (AKA regulation) and it seems that in this day and age, at least in the area that I live in, I'm considered a "LIBERAL Democrat." As if that were some great sin anyway.

I don't believe in abortion- makes me conservative, but I recognize that rape, incest and life threatening complications ought to be exceptions to any prohibition of abortion. Besides, human nature being what it is in a sinful world, people will still seek abortions if they were outlawed, and the idea of going back to a time of coat hanger abortions makes me cringe. So I can life with permitting clean, safe, legal abortions in the first trimester. For some people that makes me an unforgivable godless liberal monster.

Interpreting the Constitution in such a way that "reproductive rights" and more importantly, a right to privacy is implicit may not be "strict construction," but by most definitions, Washington, Jefferson, and even more so Lincoln were liberal.

I believe that by definition, marriage involves one man and one woman. You can call a coup a sedan, but it still only has two doors. This makes me conservative, some would even call me a bigot. On the other hand, I believe that constitutionally, we cannot deny anyone equal rights and opportunities under the law. If two consenting adults have been living in a monogamous, committed relationship, we cannot legally and should not deny them insurance benefits, tax status and spousal rights. That, no doubt makes me a "flaming" liberal.

Sorry, but neither my marriage or my faith are in the least bit threatened by permitting homosexuals their civil rights. Frankly, that's a VERY "strict" interpretation of the Constitution and while people may thing it opens up the door for a more permissive society, it is actually a very conservative approach to civil matters.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted to protect American economic interests. Outsourcing jobs overseas doesn't do that. Seeking the least regulation, oversight and taxation for huge corporations and the wealthiest 2% of our population definitely doesn't do that.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted fiscal responsibility and restraint, no deficits if at possible and limited debt. Pay as you go, transparency and accountability. Reagan didn't and neither have either Bush.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted to protect national security and was leery of unnecessary international entanglements, but also leery of a standing military that played too big a role in domestic life. Regard both Washington and Eisenhower's farewell addresses. I don't think that invading Iraq was conservative, I think it was reckless. I don't think that preemptive unilateral invasion was conservative, I think it was a radical new precedent. Especially when most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and based in Afghanistan, when Osama is a religious extremist whereas Hussein was a secular nationalist and they loathed each other.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted the federal government to leave decisions to states and municipalities. No Child Left Behind has been an intrusive, unfunded, misguided, misdirected, mistake that over burdened millions of schools that encouraged corruption, malfeasance and mediocrity.

In other words, I believe that I am a million times more "conservative" than most national Republicans today, including and especially soon to be former President Bush!

You're certainly entitled to disagree, the point was to make you think.

10 Myths conservatives believe about progressives

"For the record: Liberals love America. In fact, what makes us liberals is that we actually read and believed all those pretty words in the Declaration of Independence about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in the Bill of Rights about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, and all the rest of it.

We're idealists that way. We want to live in the country the Founders described. We believe that the nation's founding documents expressed a uniquely powerful moral contract between the people and their government, and an audaciously positive vision of people's ability and competence to shape their own future. When we get annoying and whiny, it's usually because we believe so much in America's astonishing promise—and our own responsibility for realizing it—that we're sorely disappointed when the country falls short of that standard. We really want to believe we can do better.

Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers hierarchy to liberty, and isn't completely convinced people can or should be trying to contravene the will of God or their betters by trying to arrange their own futures. This tends to lead to a selective reading of the Constitution (as well as the Bible), and—as we've seen in the Bush years—a far more flexible attitude toward its interpretation..."

"It's going to be a stranger season than most, in no small part because the changing political winds are going to put some fresh twists and turns into the same old holiday discussions. But holiday arguments over religion and politics are a tradition that's as old as the republic. For most of us, wouldn't be an American family holiday without a little hot conversation served up over a freshly roasted bird."

Oddly enough, while some of my Republican relatives are still leery of Obama, they seem pretty unanimous in the view that Bush has been a colossal nimrod. But these 10 myths are certainly alive and well in Western Iowa where I live. Myth #11 is that we hate Western Iowa because it's so staunchly Republican- and I love it here so much, I can't imagine living anywhere else. It's one of the things I'm most thankful for today. What's hard about it is that most of the right wingers who live here honestly swallow these 10 myths hook, line and sinker!

Maybe I'd still have a weekly column in the local paper if fewer people weren't so painfully prejudiced against us "Lefties."

If you're a lifelong, dyed in the wool Republican, please give this article a read and maybe you won't be so offended by me all the time.

Moderates, Independents and Democrats- (Blue Dog and Yellow) read this, print off a copy, study it and do your best to educate and enlighten our friends and family in the "Red" parallel universe, perhaps someday we can heal the tensions that have been straining America so severely for the last decade and a half or so.

Read the whole article at http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008114825/talking-turkey-ten-myths-conservative-believe-about-progressives

Conservatives vs. Progressives

Not long ago , this Schultz character who's a Republican candidate for our state legislature (District 55) got my Irish up. He's a fellow Lutheran, but he opens every campaign pitch with a Evangelical Religious Right wing diatribe about gay marriage, abortion and teaching evolution and prayer in public schools, while getting government off our backs, out of the social welfare business, stop giving health care to illegal aliens etc. etc.

After a few weeks time to cool off and reflect, it occurs to me that we're both right (and wrong) but also both as sincere as can be. He thinks that it's up to churches and charities to help the poor and disaster victims- not the government, whereas I think it's up to the churches and parents to teach about God pleasing personal and moral choices and to encourage and model prayer- not the government.

However you feel about it, whether you think that government is a means to reform society in preparation of the second coming, like Conservative Evangelicals (Restorationists & Calvanists), or whether you think that government is an instrument for achieving social justice or continuing Jesus' ministry to the poor, the sick, the widows and the aliens, like the Liberation-Theology (AME & Liberal Catholics) you have to admit that the convergence of faith and politics can be very sticky.

You also have to admit that Americans don't know the meanings of our own words. But then, so much of language is semantics.

I thought what follows was a fascinating discussion:

"The labels are somewhat oxymoronic if not paradoxical.

Progressives, for example, like to conserve nature, and historical buildings.

Conservatives like to put up new and more modern buildings after demolishing the old.

Conservatives mostly want to retain historical morals and ways of being: against stem-cell research, and abortion, and gay marriage, and want to retain the Judeo-Christian heritage based on the Ten Commandments.

Progressives want to retain historical cultures, and want the Native Americans to remain Native Americans, and want African tribes to remain tribal, and want each culture to retain its originality, even to the point of not being quite able to stand for women's rights in places like Afghanistan.

Conservatives (like Reagan) wanted to mainstream American Indians, bringing them up to date with the latest developments. Bush wants to mainstream Muslim countries, pushing them into the Democratic 21st century, where dictators disappear, and voting appears, and women have universal rights.

I'm sure there are many other ways in which the two terms aren't exactly adequate to what the supposedly rival groups claim to actually want.

And of course the two great streams have lots of crosscurrents within them.

But every time I hear the terms I giggle to myself at how inadequate they are.

Conservatives actually want progress on certain fronts: they want universal human rights based on Lockean Christianity, and they want to build an aggressive economic sphere that looks to the future.

Progressives actually are quite conservative on certain fronts: they want to retain each culture's wisdom, based on a Unitarian belief that Diversity of ideas is a good thing, and must be retained, and they want to retain the look of the 19th century even in the midst of our business spheres so that some kind of link to our history remains."

Posted by Kirby Olson on http://lutheransurrealism.blogspot.com

D.C. needs more Bull (Moose, that is)

I’ve been thinking a lot of my favorite Republican lately. Mom? No, not Mom. Clarence Hoffman? No, as much as I like and respect him and appreciate his years of service to our communities and love his family, no, not him. Barry Goldwater? No, even though I’m an Arizona native and many of his positions are more aligned with today’s Democrats then contemporary Republicans. Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel? Even though I admire their political courage to oppose the Iraq war, putting them out of step with their party.

No, my favorite Republican is the President with the coolest first name, Teddy Roosevelt.
Some of my Republican friends may resent my admiration of this GOP icon. I have a Republican Aunt who will probably tease me that I’m becoming Republican. And I’m sure I have plenty of Democratic friends who will accuse me of selling out by singing the praises of such a bully cowboy.

I know that he was only human and certainly not pure as the driven snow. Long before there was a CIA, Teddy is suspected of sending Marines (in civilian clothes) down to encourage a revolution in Panama when Columbia wouldn’t let us dig a canal there. Sure, he led a volunteer regiment in the Spanish-American War and probably would’ve gotten us into WWI much sooner than Woodrow Wilson did, when it got down to it, he was a much more shrewd and wary leader when it came to foreign policy then some Republican Presidents we’re having to endure.

Teddy Roosevelt knew it was better to “speak softly and carry a big stick,” than to talk loud and throw stones. Of course, he’s not the only Republican to have such a wise, mature attitude.

In a recent Omaha World Herald I was proud to read, “Rather than acting like a nation riddled with the insecurities of a schoolyard bully, we ought to carry ourselves with the confidence that should come from the dignity of our heritage, from the experience of our history and from the strength of our humanity — not from the power of our military," Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said in a speech hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week. "Loose talk of World War III, intimidation, threats, bellicose speeches only heighten the dangers we face in the world," said Hagel, clearly being critical of President Bush’s recent comment and policies.

One of the saddest things about the current wars we are fighting is how we’ve been letting out veterans fall full the cracks when they come home. The state of affairs was seen clearly this year at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Roosevelt told veterans on July 4, 1903 "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."

Those who keep denying both global warming and our need to become independent of foreign oil let alone from fossil fuels altogether need to consider Teddy. I don’t know what he would’ve thought of Al Gore, but I do know that no president did more to protect our natural recourses. Republicans could start whoopin’ Democrat butt if they’d adopt the motto that nothing’s so conservative as conservation.

In 1907 he told a group of school children that they would blame his generation “not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted...So any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life."
A hundred years ago he knew that the environment was the main issue we had to grapple with, "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."

Teddy Roosevelt was a reformer. While he was on the U.S. Civil Service Commission and as police commissioner of New York he fought corruption. Whereas the Bush Administration politicized the Justice Department, Roosevelt was dedicated to cleaning up government.
He told Congress in 1903, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it...Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."

In 1905 he talked about the kind of people who we should really be worried about. "This country has nothing to fear from the crooked man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds who is a threat to this country."

Since 1980, Reagan-Republicans have been systematically dismantling the reforms made by Teddy’s younger cousin Franklin which promoted and protected the middle class with safety nets, regulations on big corporations and a tax structure which asked people who could afford to bare a greater portion of the burden to do so. Bush handed huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% and never asked anyone but military and National Guard families to sacrifice anything even after 9/11 and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

More than anything, Teddy Roosevelt wanted everyone to have a fair shake and on an even playing field. He demanded that both government and business be square with everyone.

"Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense...” he told people at the 1903 New York State Fair, “We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less… The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."

I for one think that America is ready for a president like Teddy Roosevelt again. In fact, I think we need someone like him pretty badly.

Sorry right-wingers

If it walks like a duck...

I'm sorry. I've had someone call me a reactionary. I've offended dearly loved friends by being so frustrated with them for seeing the Bush administration in a favorable light. I'm sorry, sue me.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, or as they teach you when learning how to mount a horse, "left is right and right is wrong."

You'll know a tree by it's fruit. Jesus said that. So okay, look at Republican policies and this Administration, then look at all those "bleeding heart liberals" (including Jimmy Carter) that you think are such America-haters and unpatriotic, slimy socialist- Which group has the right kind of fruit? Check out Galatians chapter 5 (it's in the Bible).

Bad Apples;

• sexual immorality (Senator Craig, Senator Foley, Pastor Ted Haggard...)
  
• impurity and debauchery
• idolatry (Ronald Reagan, god of all that is 'Right') and
  
• witchcraft (Nancy Reagan's Astrologers)
  
• hatred (nooses in trees, torture at Abu Ghraib, xenophobia, racial profiling, gay bashing, alarm about illegal immigration, etc. etc....)
  
• discord (The religious right, the Big-business right, the internationalist right, the Neo-Con right, the gun-nut right, the nut-job in the woods in a militia and or white supremist group right....)
  
• jealousy (First Bill Clinton, now Hillary Clinton)
  
• fits of rage ( Vice President Cheney telling people to "F--- Off" all the time)
  
• selfish ambition (MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY, MONEY... big oil, Enron, stock portfolios, the Carlyle Group, Haliburton, did I mention big oil?
  
• dissensions
• factions and
  
• envy (did I mention the Clintons?)
  
• drunkenness (Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and oh yeah, is 'W' a "dry-drunk?" How come no one cares that he usded to have a cocaine problem, but they freaked out when they heard that Bill Clinton once tried pot?)
  
• orgies, and the like (well, okay, who doesn't like a good orgy? Republican or Democrat)
  

Good Fruit:

• love (see also compassion, empathy, caring...)
  
• joy
  
• peace (blessed are the peacemakers, who said that? Hmmmm)
  
• patience (okay, not me)
  
• kindness
  
• goodness
• faithfulness
• gentleness and (you're right, not me again, or any other political humorist or cartoonist)
  
• self-control (yeah, I know- obviously I need to work on this one otherwise I wouldn't go off on rants like this or let my blood pressure go up every time someone compares George W. Bush to Abe Lincoln or Jesus or whoever. Breath, breath, find your happy place...)

Longshot visits pizza joint

Traci and Pete Christophersen listen to Republican Presidential candidate John Cox at the Picadilly Circus Thursday afternoon, July 26.

John Cox is a venture capitalist from the Chicago area who is running for the Republican Presidential nomination. Cox stopped in Mapleton last Thursday as part of a tour of all 99 counties in Iowa.

Cox spoke mostly about Iraq, pointing out that it is producing less oil than it did before the United States invaded four years ago. He believes that it is a mistake to expect either a military solution to work, like other Republicans, or to look for a political solution, like many of the Democratic candidates propose. Cox believes that the best thing for Iraq is an economic solution.

Cox proposes an approach similar to the “Marshall Plan” used to reconstruct Europe after WWII. Except that rather than having America pay for it, he believes that Iraq can pay for it’s own recovery because it is capable of producing five million barrels of oil per day. According to Cox, that much oil would bring Iraq somewhere between 75 and 80 billion dollars a year, enough to pay for plenty American force or private security.

Cox imagines that kind of prosperity arousing envy among Iranian citizens and transforming the Middle East.

The former lawyer and accountant considers himself a Reagan-Republican and proposes eliminating all income taxes and replacing them with a 23% national sales tax that he believes would discourage indebtedness and encourage investment.
___________________________________________________________________________________ Back Story; The regular reporter was gone today at the Mapleton PRESS offices so Ann, the Office Manager asked me if I wanted to go over and get a picture of this guy, "if you want to, I don't really care."

Neither of us had ever heard of him. I looked him up on the web to get a little background.

Seems he told the Sioux City Journal that he's "No Barack as far as drawing crowds," but that's not going to stop him. Traci, Pete, their son and I were the only three people in the place. He rattled on about how we could win in Iraq if we could just have their power on for more than an hour a day and then zeroed in on me, like I'm gonna give him SO much publicity and it will be SO positive.

Our publisher made it clear back when I tried covering Obama that our coverage of candidates will be short and general for all of them in order to be fair and balanced.

Note to ALL candidates if you want a crown, tell people sooner than ten minutes before that you're coming.

"Did you give him the hard questions?" Ann would ask me later. I don't know, we had all of five minutes and I hadn't really prepared.

The 23% sales tax really threw me. Here I thought that most Reagonomics fans were brazenly in favor of helping the super-rich and the corporations enough already- AND I thought that Steve Forbes was a nut job with his idea for a 10% Flat tax back in the 90's. Could you imagine having to pay 23% on a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread? How about adding 23% more to a gallon of gas? Try tacking on another 23% to the cost of a house. What is he THINKING?

Talk about hurting the poor, working class, and middle-classes and letting the wealthy and big companies hold onto their stock options, portfolios and inheritances! I appreciate his concern that America had a negative savings rate last year and that credit is way too easy to come by so we're all spending ourselves into a hole, but get real.

And these Reaganites think we Lefties are whacked? No wonder in recent polls most Americans say that their favorite G.O.P. candidate is "none of the above!"

More from the Department of Injustice

More on the Department of Injustice
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper — Schleswig Leader, Thursday, May, 31, 2007 – Page 3 by Ted Mallory http://tmal.multiply.com

“Caging” is a technique that political operatives use to disqualify voters. This is not just another political “Dirty Trick,” (remember those from the Nixon era?) Caging is a way of targeting a group of voters that you suspect will vote for your opponent, and making sure that their vote doesn’t count.

One way to cage is to send registered mail to a voter’s address. The cager hopes that the mail will be returned as undeliverable, or that the voter will refuse to sign for the letter. When that happens, they can use the failed delivery to call the voter’s home address into question and force them to prove that they can legally vote.

“Caging lists” are simply rosters of people who didn’t respond to the registered mailing. These lists are given to political operatives who volunteer to work at the polls on election day. When someone on the list shows up to vote, the operatives will challenge them. Often voters give up and leave without voting, or cast a provisional ballot which is less likely to be counted.
Caging targets the most vulnerable voters, people who might have the hardest time proving their status. For instance; the elderly, Black veterans or homeless people.

Former liaison to the White House for the Justice Department, Monica Goodling testified to the House Judiciary Committee, last week that Deputy Attorney General McNulty knew that the White House’s pick of interim US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas, Tim Griffin, had been involved in vote caging during the 2004 presidential election. Griffin, a former research director of the Republican National Committee, was behind a plot to disenfranchise 70,000 Florida voters during the 2004 presidential election, according to BBC News.

Hmmm. Sure would be convenient for Republicans to be able to suppress votes in Arkansas come 2008. In the event that the Democratic Presidential candidate were to be, say, the former First Lady of that state, delivering a big win to whatever Republican candidate is running would sure make her look bad.

The most frightening thing about this whole Justice Department mess is that it has turned up proof like this, that there is a ruthless movement among some (not all, mind you) Republicans to establish a one-party system in our country.

I have moderate friends who say, “yeah but we shouldn’t concentrate too much power in the hands of the Democrats either, because neither party should control all three branches of government.

Yeah, okay, except that they’re forgetting that as Will Rogers once said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
This caging business is more than enough reason for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be impeached.

Much of Goodling’s also testimony underscored the inconsistency (dishonesty?) of Attorney General Gonzales’ previous testimony.

And incase you didn’t hear about it from the mainstream media (Larry King was busy talking about Joey Buttafuco and Amy Fischer’s affair- circa 1997!) There’s also the little thing about how Gonzo tried to strong arm his predecessor into violating the Constitution for the President.
You hadn’t heard about that? Oh, well, it seems like former Attorney General John Ashcroft (no great defender of civil rights and civil liberties himself) was on his death bed after an attack of gallbladder pancreatitis.

According to testimony from former Deputy Atty. Gen. James Comey, Gonzales, then the top White House lawyer, and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card tried to persuade Ashcroft to sign papers reauthorizing President Bush’s controversial warrantless domestic wiretapping program.

Ashcroft, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and FBI Director Robert Mueller all believed the program to be illegal and were all willing to quit, rather than sign off on it.
Ashcroft reminded the two thugs that he wasn’t even acting Attorney General at the time and that they’s have to ask Comey. The left without even acknowledging Comey was in the hospital room.

That night Card called Comey and demanded that he meet with them in the White house.
Comey refused to meet with them without witnesses. He asked FBI Director Oslon to accompany him. The four men discussed their differences over the program and the next day the White house reauthorized the program without any approval from the Justice Department.

I know that the Democrats will never have the votes to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney, but I think that there may be enough Republicans who actually value the rule of law that they could impeach Gonzales. I don’t think that a mere non-binding “no confidence” vote goes far enough.

Please, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, write your Congressman and tell them that you value justice too much to let Gonzales continue as the top law enforcement officer of the land. Write IA Dist 5 Rep. Steve King Write IA Sen. Tom Harkin Write IA Sen. Chuck Grassley

___________________________________
PS (About the Cartoon) Man, Lieberman burns me! Everyone is angry that the House Dems gave Bush what he wanted on the Iraq Funding bill, but the fact is that part of the pressure they're facing from Republicans is because of this dweeb from Connecticut. If only South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson would get healed-up and head back to DC.

On the technical side. I spent WAY too much time on this cartoon. ( I SO need to be getting the yearbook done) I'm also afraid that I relied on the "warp" tool in PhotoShop too much, instead of my own caricaturing skills. Be that as it may, I kind of like how it turned out. I think it looks like some REAL professional cartoonist somewhere did it, instead of me.

Oh, by the way- check out his tie! Cool huh?

Go see a lot more of my cartoons at http://tmal.multiply.com/photos/album/2

'Ol Ronnie is back!

Here's my editorial cartoon for the Charter Oak-Ute and Schleswig papers for Thursday, May 17. Day late and a dollar short, I suppose- I really ought to be drawing about Gonzales having to testify again or the Iraq War spending bill- or who knows what will happen by next week.

As usual, you can see this one bigger and over 120 more cartoons in my cartoon gallery at http://tmal.multiply.com/photos/album/2

Requiem for a decent guy from Omaha

Some men strive for greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them. Gerald Ford was such a man. Ford brought Midwestern common sense and sense of community to a difficult time in our history. Ford wasn’t a general or a revolutionary. He wasn’t aggressive or power-hungry, you might even think he was kind of “square.”

Ford was the right man at the right time and did the right thing, even though at the time, it was very unpopular. Ford had other Midwestern qualities that made him just what America needed as it celebrated it’s turbulent 200th birthday. He was practical, pragmatic, and realistic. He was self-effacing and grounded. He was patient and unselfish. He led by example, rather than by edict, rhetoric, scheme, or coercion. These qualities that were all so needed by our country at the time are attributes that would probably make him unelectable today.

Like Eisenhower, he sometimes may have appeared that Ford wasn’t really in charge because he was surrounded by so many strong personalities with high profiles. People thought Ike was constantly taking naps or on the golf course while his Vice President, Richard Nixon ran the show. People feared that Ford’s Chiefs of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney ran Whitehouse while Ford was off skiing.

History has since revealed that both Presidents were much more decisive and in-control that it may have appeared. They listened to subordinates, but in the end, made their own decisions that frequently ran counter to the party line or their advisors’ ambitions. Both rose above the influence of ideologues and wanna-be power brokers.

Ford was the Congressman for Grand Rapids, Michigan when he was picked to replace Nixon’s first Vice President, Spiro Agnew. No doubt, he was chosen because he was known for his integrity. Agnew resigned under suspicion of accepting bribes back when he was governor of Maryland. Not only was Ford someone without skeletons in his closet, but as Minority Whip in the House, he was a proven consensus builder.

Ford’s hope was to get enough Republicans elected to Congress, that he could someday move from being Minority Whip to being House Speaker. Nixon was a hot dog, a glory-hound, a ball-hog. He wanted to be the star. Ford was a team player, and really, America was his real team, the Republican Party was just the squad he played on to scrimmage.

Vietnam and Watergate had polarized Americans more than anytime since the Civil War.

Senate Minority Leader Barry Goldwater convinced Nixon to resign rather than face Impeachment in the House and removal from office by the Senate. Impeachment is like indictment and the House of Representatives is like a Grand Jury. The Senate has never had to serve as a trial jury to determine guilt and implement sentencing. They recognized the Clinton impeachment as political theatre and didn’t even begin proceedings. When Nixon left office, his Vice President, who had been appointed, not elected, succeeded him as the 39th President.

In many ways, Ford was the antidote for Johnson and Nixon. He was calm, steady and paternal. He had the opposite of a mandate, he knew that none of his constituents actually chose him, so he didn’t try to impose any half-baked agenda. Where Nixon saw himself as above the law, operating outside the system, Ford sought to impress upon us the merit and effectiveness of our Constitutional system of checks, balances and the processes that have our founders so carefully engineered for us. Maybe he didn’t think of himself as god’s gift to politics, certainly in true modest Midwestern fashion he didn’t claim to be. But in many ways he was indeed a godsend. He helped us heal and bridged tears in the fabric of our society. Many would have liked to have seen Nixon prosecuted and held accountable for Watergate. Ford recognized that our system received what it needed in his resignation, for national and international balance, civil and economic, what we needed was not to become even more divided and more focused on our problems, but instead to move forward. Like Lincoln, Ford recognized the importance of forgiveness and reconciliation for the sake of National unity. He put country before party, and the interests of the common good ahead of personal ambition. He paid for that politically.

If only there were candidates running for President with the same kind of character as Gerald Ford. What a shame that someone with down to earth Midwestern values only came to power by accident, and yet, what a blessing. And this, from a “yellow-dog” Democrat like me.

Bonus for Blog Readers:

Many attribute Jimmy Carter’s victory over Ford in 1976 to Ford’s pardoning Nixon. Carter would pay a similar price for pardoning people who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft. Both men would eventually develop a close and lasting friendship after their presidencies. That friendship may not be as famous as that of other rivals, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but it was a testament to putting country before party, and putting the interests of the common good ahead of personal ambition.

While Ford’s love affair with his wife Betty may not have been as famous as that of John and Abigail Adams, it was a model of fidelity, candor and commitment.

Johnson connived a blank check from Congress for military action in Vietnam without an actual declaration of war. He later lied about American casualties there. Nixon talked about having the South Vietnamese stand up for themselves but secretly escalated the war including illicit operations in Laos and Cambodia. To prevent further leaks like the ones that exposed Johnson’s dishonesty (revealed in the New York Time’s “Pentagon Papers”) Nixon established a secret security team called “the plumbers.” In order to insure his re-election and guarantee himself a landslide, Nixon and his inner-circle pulled “dirty tricks” and had the “plumbers” break into the Democratic Party’s national headquarters at the Watergate.

In recent interviews with the Washington Post, Ford made clear his disappointment in the decision to invade Iraq and the subsequent mishandling of the war. He didn’t shrink from criticizing his former staff members Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s good to know that there area at lease some “cloth-coat” Republicans who aren’t in lockstep with the radical-right and the neocons. Maybe if Ford were President today, both would have been fired long ago. I’d like to think that if Ford had been head of the RNC back in 2000, George W. never would have been nominated.

Long time readers know me as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but as a student of history, I can’t help but admire and appreciate what Ford tried to do for our country. Sarcasm and hyperbole are a columnist’s stock and trade- but when I urged Republicans to regain their self-respect by voting against Congressman Steve King, I was genuine and didn’t mean to demean or offend anyone. If more Republicans were on the mold of Gerald Ford instead of Steve King and George H.W. Bush, maybe we could debate actual issues and ideas rather than having to suffer personal attacks and faux-patriotism.

Blue Elephants, Red Donkeys

Lets see if they’re really different or not;
Why Blue Elephants made the difference- by a Red Donkey
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper Schleswig Leader, Thursday, November 16, 2006 Page 3

Last week a very dear Republican friend of mine sent me an E-mail: “So...Have you calmed down since the election is over and Rumsfeld is out? What is your reaction to the fact that a number of states have voted for protection of/clear definitions of marriage amendments?”
I don’t know... what’s calm? Political and news junkies like me get off on letting our blood pressure boil over pundits, party talking points and politicians. Other people watch football or bet on basketball.

I’m fine with defining marriage as one man and one woman as long as you don’t deny anyone equal treatment under the law. Of course I think that having to pass a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is superfluous, it’s like passing a law to define the sky as blue, so it was obviously a flawed attempt by extreme right wingers to “activate their base” and get the gay-hating Christians to come out and vote.

Some of us are Christians, agree that the Bible pretty clearly prohibits homosexuality, and agree that marriage by definition is only for one man and one woman, yet we don’t have a huge irrational fear and hatred of gay people and we believe that they live under the same Constitution.

Should Rumsfeld have been removed from office sooner? Heavens yes? Would that have helped Republicans fare better in the election that was just held? Gee Wilikers? Who knows? Is it pretty convenient that since he’s getting the boot now, his replacement (who was pretty involved in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s) will be confirmed by the current 209th Congress rather than the newly elected 210th with a Democratic majority in January? By Golly, you betchya!

You know what? Now is when the rubber really hits the road. It was pretty easy for the Democrats to win a majority. They didn’t have to run for anything. The Republicans were so steeped and soaked in scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, mistakes, extremism, and of course the muck of a miss managed war and a stubborn, Presidency.

Some Democrats would like to think that the voters sent President Bush and the Republicans a strong message, that they’re ready for change. But I don’t put much stock in alleged “mandates.” I don’t think that Liberals have any more mandate than Bush mistakenly claimed when he was barely reelected.

Democrats won because most Americans are centrists. They won because moderate Republicans jumped ship because they got tired of people who talked about compassionate conservatism but really aren’t either.

This election saw a new development. “Goldwater Democrats.” That’s right. Sound like an oxymoron? No more than “Reagan Democrats.”

Growing up in Arizona, I came to see Goldwater, our senior Senator for most of my life as sort of a patron saint. When the shrimp hit the fan with Watergate, he went to Nixon and told him to step down. Goldwater was angry that Nixon had been lying to him.

Now mind you, I disagree on his stand on states-rights in opposition to civil rights, especially integrating schools and of course there was the idea he had about using “strategic” nukes in Vietnam. Nobody’s perfect. But time and time again, I find myself agreeing with him on many things that I used to be able to find common ground on with my Republican friends- things like deficit reduction, government reform and smaller, streamlined government. Not to mention keeping the Government out of your private life.

Democrats won this recent election because, like Goldwater, American voters don’t like lies and secrets and have no patience for ineptitude- not because Americans suddenly all became progressives. Many of the Democrats who won consider themselves fiscal and social conservatives. Some are Iraq veterans who felt abandoned or betrayed.

What the Democrats had better do now is deliver. House Speaker elect, Pelosi promised the most uncorrupted, moral and reformed Congress ever. Its easy to be the “reform” party when you’re on the outside. If they let power corrupt them then they’ll deserve to get kicked out just like their predecessors.

We can only hope that the Democrats will finally put the brakes on the out of control spending habits of Bush and the Republicans.

We can only hope that they’ll REFORM (not raise) taxes in a way that benefits the middle class, not corporations and the super rich. But only time will tell.

On Barry Goldwater

Much is being said lately about Barry Goldwater. His granddaughter CC released a movie on HBO called "Mr. Conservative; Goldwater on Goldwater." Watergater John Dean put out a book he started with Goldwater called "Conservative without Conscience," criticizing the excesses of the "neo-conservatives" of the current Bush administration. Many Republicans, feeling betrayed by Bush and the current Congressional majority's abuses are re-registering as "Goldwater Democrats" (sort of like when "Reagan Democrats" became Republicans). Still other Republicans feel like the current power holders have abandoned Goldwater's ways. Prairie Home Companion host, Garrison Keillor wrote in his 2004 book "Homegrown Democrat," that the current Democratic party is more like the Republican party of his youth (1940's-early 60's). Humorist Al Frankin has been voicing similar feelings, that Democrats, not G.W.Bush-Republicans are the party of traditional American (dare we say "family") values.

Growing up in Arizona, I came to see Goldwater, our senior Senator for most of my life as sort of a patron saint. When the shrimp hit the fan with Watergate, he went to Nixon and told him to step down. Goldwater was P.O.ed that Nixon had been lying to him. When we got a wing-nut governor in the late '80's, he was highly critical of the corrupt, religious speaking, flag waving freak show that had hijacked his party. Now mind you, I disagree on his stand on states-rights in opposition to civil rights, especially integrating schools and of course there was the idea he had about using "strategic" nukes in Vietnam. Nobody's perfect. But time and time again, I find myself agreeing with him on SO MANY things that I USED to be able to find common ground on with my Republican friends- things like deficit reduction, government reform and streamlining. I think that if he were still alive today he wouldn't have much good to say about President Bush Junior, Speaker Haster, or former Majority Leader DeLay. As a matter of fact, I think he'd be pissed about how we got into Iraq and he'd probably take current Arizona Senator John McCain out behind the woodshed for a lashing a few times for what a whimp and a hypocrite he's been for not standing up to the Bill Frists, Carl Roves, and Dick Cheneys of this world.

Anyway. In honor of one of my favorite Republicans (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Ike, Clarence Hoffman, and Mom), here are some wise words from the old man of the desert:

"I am a conservative Republican," Barry Goldwater wrote in a 1994 Washington Post essay, "but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned." Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."

"Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . .

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

"on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" -- From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Bushenomics worse than Reaganomics

Think about it working class and middle class Midwesterners, today's Republican Party is not conservative at all, it's radical.

No nation has unilaterally invaded another while lying about it's reasons and using propaganda to contabulate the invasion with another agression that was totally unrelated since NAZI Germany.

They're not the party of fiscal responsibility anymore. They want you to believe that Dems" tax and spend," but they cut and spend and spend and spend.

They claim to be the party of "small government" yet they have systematically amassed control for their single party and power for the Executive branch that is unprecidented. They've revoked civil liberties of all kinds especially privacy, and hope to intrude on the most personal aspects of our lives- that's not less obtrusive government, that's totalitariansim.

Where they want less government is in oversight and regulation of massive corporate interests. This is the unscroupulously opportunistic agenda of an oligarcical class masked in the palattable concept of "globalism."

President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America's forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton's policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton's last budget was over $200 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation.

*from http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrat who led us out of the Great Depression and through WWII once said, "if you want to live like a Republican, you need to vote like a Democrat.

Take back your party Republicans, throw the "neocons" out, send the Bush Administration a message, either don't vote this November, or vote for Democrats or Independents.

Democrats, take back America, not for control, not for revenge, just for balance and logic and the real values and principles that the United States was founded on.

Over two hundred years ago, our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule. They believed that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and a stable government must be built upon a broad popular base...The late Ron Brown — former Chairman of the Democratic Party — put it best when he wrote, "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren." Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party.*

It's time to fight again. The first President Bush and his advisors tried to paint the Democrats as a party of elitist "boutique liberals," and insinuated that we were controlled by Hollywood (once upon a time that was also a thinly veiled antisemetic insinuation). But think, from MASSIVE deficit inducing tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the population to their campaign to repeal the estate tax, to the war profiteering of Haliburton and the Carlyle Group, the corruption of Enron, to all time high oil company profits, today's Republicans want us to believe that they're the NASCAR loving, blue-collar, grass roots, fundamentalis Christian party, when really they are more elitist than any other group in our nation's history.

We can't change the direction of our country and return to our true values unless we gain control of the Congress and Senate in 2006. Please vote and encourage everyone you know to vote and vote for Democrats. If you haven't registered to vote yet, register. And get everyone you know to register Democrat.

Some of my best friends are Republican, please PLEASE, send the neocons a clear message. Re-register independent or better yet Democrat. PLEASE vote Democrat. Congressmen only serve for 2 years, if you're disapointed with the Democrat, by all means, rejoin the Repubblicans and throw our candidates out again in 2008, but you have to see that your party has been stolen from you. Vote Democrat and save the Republican party you used to know.

CLICK HERE to register

Good is bad, bad is good; Big Bird and Big Brother

Last month, Mark Felt, former Assistant Director of the FBI admitted to being “Deepthroat,” the high-level Justice Department official who was the secret background source for the Watergate stories in the Washington Post in the early 1970’s that eventually pressured President Richard Nixon to resign.

Nixon didn’t just want to win re-election in 1972, this time he wanted to win big, so that he could claim a mandate.

Burglars broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building in order to know the Democrats' strategies. They wanted to plant bugs, and they wanted to dig up dirt on the Democratic candidates in order to discredit them.

Thanks to the Post’s investigative reporting by Carl Bernstien and Bob Woodward, was only part of a much bigger campaign of intimidation, corruption, and “dirty tricks.”

Nixon seemed to have thought that because he was the President, he was somehow “above the law.” But the whole point of the United States is to be a governed not by men or political parties, but by laws and regulations.

Felt (Deepthroat) should’ve been lauded as a hero, but instead the mainstream media (not just Fox News, mind you, but all the networks and CNN) brought out all the President’s men instead, who proceeded to slander Felt’s character as someone who broke the law and violated the trust of his superiors.

Hello? Who broke the law? Who violated the trust of the American people? Chief among these Nixon defenders was Charles Colson. Colson is now a Conservative-Christian pundit who founded a prison fellowship ministry, but for Colson to portray Felt as some kind of sinner is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

I think that instead of the “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you…turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give them the shirt off your back (Matthew 5)” theology of Jesus and ‘the Bible,’ Colson subscribes more to the “the ends justifies the means” doctrine of Machiavelli’s ‘the Prince.’ Nixon’s followers believed that they were the only people morally qualified to control the country, therefore it didn’t matter what they did to guarantee that they remained in power.

Things haven’t changed much in thirty years. Last week the Republican controlled Congress decided to cut funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) by 46%. That means that “Sesame Street” may be on the chopping block. Some PBS stations won’t be able to offer local programming, like the “Market to Market” and Iowa State Fair coverage we enjoy on IPTV, a few stations may shut down entirely.

Why? Because some Republicans don’t like it when PBS and NPR news programs fail to report on Bush policies in the most favorable light possible. Public broadcasting was created to be an objective, independent agency that is free both from political pressures and from commercial pressures of ratings. There motto used to be “If public television doesn’t do it, who will?”
Like Woodward and Bernstien at the Post, public tv and radio should take a skeptical and challenging position toward any administration, Republican or Democrat. That’s what a free press is for.

But first Bush made Kenneth Tomlinson chairman of the CPB, a man who spent $10,000 to scrutinize the content of “Now,” a PBS news magazine hosted by Bill Moyers, because he didn’t think Moyers was “Fair and balanced” enough. Of course, to Tomlinson (like for Sean Hanity and Rush Limbaugh) “fair and balanced” means biased in favor of the Bush Whitehouse.
Tomlinson would’ve loved to make PBS stand for the “Propaganda Broadcasting System.” Who is Bush nominating to replace Tomlinson? Patricia de Stacy Harrison, a high ranking State Department official who’s a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. Does that sound like someone objective? Unbiased? Fair? Balanced?

Besides, wouldn’t you think that the head of public broadcasting should be- oh I don’t know- someone with a background in television? Radio? Journalism? Education?

I honestly haven’t figured out if this is all part of the right-wing philosophy that wants to privatize any and all social programs so that all the Federal government is involved in is the military, or if it’s more sinister. An attempt to exert one-party control over every aspect of our culture- “total” control (as in “totalitarianism”).

Maybe I’m over-reacting here, but either way, but it seems like things we were always taught were good, right, and helpful: standing up for what’s right, reporting crime, freedom of the press, free speech, and public television are all things that are under attack by the very people who claim moral superiority.

Republican Dictionary

For my fellow non-Republicans, the Nation magazine is compiling an English-Republican translation dictionary. For my Republican friends, (and by the way I mean that, you really are my friends, I don't hate you) these may not be nearly as funny to you, but please just THINK about them, because these are a progressive perception of conservative misperceptions. Ask yourself why we feel that way and what your leaders REALLY believe.

Here are a few of their entries so-far:

ACCOUNTABILITY, n. Buck? What buck?

BIPARTISANSHIP, adj. When Democrats compromise.

CHECKS & BALANCES, pl. n. An antiquated concept of the Founding Fathers that impedes autocratic efficiency; see also REFORM.

FOX NEWS, n. Faux news.

GOD, n. Senior presidential advisor.

NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL NOMINEE, n. An active member of the Federalist Society.

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, n. 1) A society where you're on your own. (John Read, Ownings Mills, MD); 2) A society where one-half of society owns the other half. (Anne Galvan Klousia, Corvallis, OR); 3) The euphemism used by robber barons and their political lackeys to promote or justify the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a powerful few. Synonyms: PLUTOCRACY, CORPORATE FEUDALISM.

SOCIAL SECURITY, n. Broker security.

SPREADING PEACE, v. Preemptive war.

STAY THE COURSE, v. To relentlessly pursue a disastrous policy regardless of how far conditions deteriorate. Antonym: "To cut and run."

TORTURER, n. 1) White House Counsel. 2) Attorney General.

They've got another one that is pretty confusing...

PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, n. Chinese Communist Party loans.

One of the biggest differences between Republican talk and Democrat talk is that the GOP loves sound bites, news nuggets, explanations that take 10 words or less. Dems tend to be more articulate and more detailed, unfortunately for us that also means we're less concise, sometimes even boring.

The definition of PRA's in this dictionary makes sense if you click here and read maybe three or four short paragraphs of the Nation's article.