Both of these guys acknowledged that they cannot wait any longer for the federal government to get behind this issue. They have both vowed to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for both of their respected places. Hopefully, this coast to coast example can spread across the country. Republicans have largely ignored the environment, especially during this current administration. It is an issue that cannot be ignored any longer. It is a security issue and it is a moral issue.

This is a great step by the state of California. Automakers are not doing enough to stop the global warming. As anyone with a worldly mind knows, the United States has some of the worst vehicles for fuel efficiency in the world. Statistics prove it. While of course there are people saying it won’t be that easy and it’ll require making smaller vehicles and American consumers don’t like smaller vehicles. I think this is all hogwash. We’re ruining our own earth at the earth faster than the speed of our unnecessarily big and inefficient gas guzzling engines. Vehicles that get less than 30 miles per gallon should be scare with today’s technology. Hopefully, this lawsuit can make an impact.

(This post is in reference to NBC’s Meet the Press debate that airred on September 17, 2006)

I have to say for two Southern good ol’ boys, George Allen, son of a famous football coach by the same name, and Jim Webb, a Southern military man, there was a lot more real discussion as opposed to vague talking points like the two candidates of my home state of Pennsylvania debated in just two weeks ago.

However, bringing Pennsylvania back into the equation, I feel that George Allen is the Rick Santorum of Virginia. He’s a good ol’ boy that has voted 96% of the time with everyone’s favorite good ol’ boy George W. Bush.

What is very interesting about all of this is Jim Webb actually endorsed George Allen in 2000. But like many other high profile political relationships since the Iraq War, their relationship has, obviously, been tattered.

So, anyway, you have Jim Webb who was the Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. George Allen who has no military record. Jim Webb certainly out did his opponent on seeming to know what is up with the military and the war. Jim Webb has been opposed to it since the beginning and went through this debate with a sort of “I know my stuff” attitude that really made him look like the better candidate.

Jim Webb has a plan for Iraq and I feel he should commended for it. A military man with real experience should have been the ticket to a win in 2004 with John Kerry, but it’s like Republicans think you are a military hero only if you are a Republican. It’s like people who deny the Holocaust or something. Like, if one is a Democrat or opposes President Bush, he or she certainly could not have served in the military or be a true patriot.

That last paragraph may be exaggerated but that is the vibe I get from our friends on the right.

Anyway, in typical Tim Russert style he brought out an equal amount of controversies surrounding the opponents. Russert brought up borderline sexist remarks (well, let’s rid the bias and just say it, they were sexist) that Webb had said regarding women’s involvement in military combat in the past. I guess he did an okay job of sugar coating, but he did not really seem to retract it for the most part.

Russert also brought up Allen’s infamous “makaka” statement and Allen claimed that he made the word up and that he had never heard it before. He also said the “welcome to America” statement was in reference to Jim Webb fundraising and Hollywood because anyone who is affiliated with a Democrat must not know real America? Or real Virginia? Oh, come on George ADMIT IT ALREADY! You had a confederate flag on your vehicles in high school and college! I mean, it’s not hard to see that George Allen is probably slightly racist.

The Confederate flag controversy was also brought to the table by Russert. Allen said he was “anti-establishment” his whole life.

Russert said “you were a governor.” And let me tell you, this really bothers me because growing up in rural Pennsylvania people around here like to sport the Confederate flag as well. When they’re with their redneck buddies, they’ll act all racist. But in a formal setting, these people claim it is historical and a salute to being anti-establishment. And of course, like these good ol’ boy rednecks in rural Pennsylvania high schools, George Allen said he didn’t realize the flag was offensive to African Americans and taken as a sign of racism at the time. I mean, who would have ever though that a flag that represented a secession of a whole side of this nation on the basis of enslaving one race would offend that race? An educated statesman like George Allen just was completely oblivious that that flag might be somewhat offensive. I am sorry, I don’t buy it.

And finally, Tim Russert brought out the fact that both of the men are avid tobacco chewers. Jim Webb assured us he only does it “outside”. It is not surprising that George Allen is an avid tobacco chewer. He proudly stated “yes, I dip.” Maybe he should have proudly stated he gets the most money from big tobacco of anyone in congress that is up for election this year.

So, there you have it. A political race against two good old boys. Only one of them seems to know what he’s talking about. Jim Webb has a plan for Iraq. He is politically brave. He endorsed the man in office now and the man he is running against. Instead of blind obedience to the neoconservative Bush agenda, Webb knew that the war was wrong and executed with no plan. Virginians need to get their head out of the sand if they put George Allen back in for another term. He is just another rubber stamp like Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania. He voted with George W. Bush 96% of the time. Please, Virginians, vote for Jim Webb.

Lincoln Chafee won’t have to petition to be an Independent on this fall’s ballot (har, har) because he has officially won his primary battle between Cramston mayor Steve Laffey.

Chafee’s win could have been driven by a variety of reasons. It could be because he is more likely to hold a seat with his more moderate views in a liberal state rather than Laffey who is very conservative and had little chance to defeat his Democratic challenger. Or, it could simply be voters being loyal to an incumbent. Who knows? This race was very important to Republicans, and it even drove Laura Bush (who is a lot more popular than her husband) to go and campaign for Chafee.

All in all, this does assure one thing: the Democrats have a tough road ahead in Rhode Island.

Left leaning Republican Lincoln Chafee leads in the primary race between Steve “Dunkin’ Donut” Laffey, the conservative mayor of Cranston. But, what is interesting about this race is that while Lincoln Chafee proudly states that he did not vote for President Bush in 2004, President Bush supports him, perhaps because Chafee has the upper hand in a race against a Democratic challenger.

And meanwhile in Maryland, Rep. Ben Cardin and former head of NAACP Kweisi Mfume face off in the Democratic primary for Senate filling in a vacancy. While both of these candidates remain pretty close on the issues, I am personally in favor of Kweisi Mfume and hope to find that he is victorious in the morning.

For those interested in Lincoln Chafee’s big political fight to keep his job in the US Senate, here’s a good report on it by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5338292.stm

The topic title of the post represents the apparent GOP mindset regarding the new information a Senate committee came up with in a 400 something page report of research regarding 9/11 and Iraq. So, Saddam had no ties to 9/11. The Republicans are now saying, well, duh, we knew that! Get with the program, Democrats!

But just as recent as August 21, President Bush suggested otherwise. Now the Republicans are getting all “hot” about the matter and acting as though this is no big deal. Yet, if this is no big deal, why do 43% of Americans believe there was/is a Saddam/Al Qaeda tie? Because the Republicans suggest it every time they get on a TV screen!

The reports showed that Saddam actually felt threatened by Al Qaeda!

The whole thing is ridiculous. The Republican scare tactic agenda is going to catch up with them. The American people are smart enough not to be scared into voting for these guys in 2006. I don’t think the Republicans will realize this agenda of fear and scare tactics is a tired agenda until Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House.

The whole ordeal is best summarized with a quote by the top Intelligence Committee Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller: “(The administration)…”exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.”

Instead, we all know now that invading Iraq was part of a greater deep-rooted neo-conservative agenda that has cost the life of over 2,000 American soldiers and countless Middle Eastern civilians.

With so much attention given to the Mexican/ United States border it is easy to forget about the other border. Here is an article about our beefed-up patrol along the longer border.

With all the attention focused on controlling the US-Mexico border, it’s easy to forget that America has a much longer international line to the north. It includes some of the roughest terrain in the West: a 500-kilometer stretch along the Washington/ Idaho/ Montana border with Canada. U-S Border Patrol officers use an old-fashioned kind of horsepower to monitor the territory — the kind with four legs and a saddle. The goal is to stem the tide of people, narcotics and even terrorists.

Canada has been under increasing pressure from the United States to toughen security at the border, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The U.S. Congress has mandated that visitors begin showing passports at the border by Jan. 1, 2008. It is a delicate balance for Canada, which wants to minimize delays for the 37,000 trucks that move goods across the border each day, and which already has seen tourism from the United States drop in anticipation of the passport requirements.

“Efficient borders support trade and tourists,” Harper said. “Secure borders keep drug smugglers, carjackers and terrorists out.”

The policy change will gradually give the Canadian border guards parity with their armed U.S. counterparts. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, along with local sheriff’s deputies, did fire their weapons last January to stop the two murder suspects at the Peace Arch Crossing near Blaine, Wash. One suspect was lightly wounded in a shootout after a sheriff’s deputy rammed his car into their fleeing vehicle right at the Canadian line. The arch had been built in commemoration of the unguarded border.

Pellerin-Fowlie said the union is dismayed that about 2,000 airport customs officers are not being armed and that the arming of officers along the land border will take 10 years. In part because there are so few firearm ranges in Canada, the Border Service has said it will train only about 500 officers a year. Harper said the first 150 officers with weapons would be on duty in March 2008.

“We have lobbied to have our members armed for 21 years,” the union official said. “To wait for another 10 years for it to unfold seems unrealistic and unnecessary. We ought to find the resources, the training courses and the personnel to conduct the training faster. There’s a pressing need.”

The official policy at the border is that Canadian agents are not supposed to try to apprehend armed and dangerous persons, but are supposed to call for help from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or local police departments, Pellerin-Fowlie said. But he said a dangerous confrontation could occur.

“We have been saying for 21 years, do we have to die for you” before officers are armed? he said.

Bernie Sanders is a force to reckon with, however, his opponent is self-financing himself to the point that he is outspending Bernie. Sander’s has a grass-roots campaign of about 6,500 Vermonters; however, the netroots needs to step in and help a candidate with all the right credentials.

Did the split from the AFL-CIO cancel solidarity?

In the Twin Cities there is a tradition where Labor Day is spent on Harriet Island in St. Paul. However, this year there is no picnic, and the reason may be schism in the AFL-CIO.

The event was modeled after the Labor Day picnics held at the turn of the 20th century, when 30,000 people would show up to celebrate at White Bear Lake.

But there weren’t too many workers with golf club memberships in 1905. These days, staging a picnic that can compete with other attractions is costly.

For example, two years ago, vice presidential candidate John Edwards spoke at the picnic. His appearance drew thousands, but it also blew a hole in the picnic budget because of costs associated with security and a good sound system.

But Riehle believes that the biggest cloud over the picnic has been created by political woes at the top of the union movement. Last year, in an ego-driven rift, several major unions pulled out of the AFL-CIO. It dealt a severe blow to so-called organized labor. Suddenly, instead of one umbrella labor organization, there are two.

“I think the ultimate reason we’re not having the picnic is because of the split,” said Riehle. “It creates one more hurdle you have to deal with when you’re trying to bring everybody together.”

State labor leaders work hard to make it appear that the ugly divorce in Washington is having no impact on worker solidarity in Minnesota. So, not surprisingly, they deny that the chaos at the top canceled a little picnic in St. Paul.

“The split has absolutely nothing to do with it,” said Brie Halvorson of the St. Paul Assembly. “The budget just didn’t come together. It was decided if we couldn’t break even on the picnic, we shouldn’t do it this year. We hope that by next year we can have it again.”

Meantime, this will be a labor-free Labor Day in the Twin Cities.

I’m not sure if the reason is the split, debt from last years rally, or other interests, but it is never a good thing when a labor tradition is stopped. One of Labor’s finest points is the philosophy of unity. However, the author needs to understand there are plenty of events still going on.

I thought this was interesting article, especially in regards to immigration:

MEXICO CITY — Mexican president Vicente Fox refused to deliver his state-of-the nation report to Congress Friday, after leftist lawmakers seized control of the stage. It was the first time a Mexican leader hasn’t given the annual address.

Mr. Fox’s office said he would give a televised speech to the nation later Friday, exactly three months before he steps down. The written copy of his address called on Mexico to mend deep divisions that he said threatened the country’s newfound democracy.

Mr. Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive, ushered in economic stability and brought inflation to record lows, but he has been unable to secure a migration accord with the U.S. or significantly reduce poverty.

Based on the information, it seems that immigration will be a large issue on both sides of the border for years to come. I am especially interested in seeing if CAFTA will get passed anytime soon. With immigration such a large issue that has not been addressed correctly in regards to free trade, I don’t see an easy victory–free trade without free movement of labor causes problems.

With the 2006 election coming, it seems, everyone is proposing ideas about how Democrats can win. One such case is Elizabeth Warren’s article titled “A Happy Face Isn’t Enough.”

Her article can be summarized superficially as proposing Democrats pay closer attention to the middle-class because they are the power behind the politics and, so far, haven’t been won over completely by either party—but in many ways suffer the most. And because this is the case: more attention and complimentary programs could give Democrats exactly what they need—a more consolidated base.

Matthew Yglesias over at Talking Points Memo, however, ridicules this idea on a technicality. He cites Warren’s piece:

When I talk with families about politics, I often hear a variation on this theme: “Democrats care most about the poor. They tell me I’m better off than the poor, and that I should give up more of my money to help the poor. Well, I’m stretched to the breaking point, and I just can’t do it any more.” Whenever a Democrat stands up and says, “I’ll help every child go to college,” then cuts off benefits at $20,000 a year, the message just burns deeper.

Matt argues that this isn’t the truth with the poor or the programs, but does admit that “politics is all about perception, and so it’s very possible that the Democrats are perceived as favoring narrowly targeted programs that only help the poor. Insofar as that’s true, it’s a noteworthy fact about the country. But the perception is wrong and that’s worth pointing out.”

Good point, but I think that Warren’s piece simply implies that we need to bring the “Great Society,” Common Good, or some other powerful policy piece that connects with Middle Class as the staple of a stump or speech. The poor can benefit from Democratic ideas, but the swing lies in the Middle Class benefits. Lastly, if the Democrats pass legislation that keeps the Middle Class on their side, they relieve the poor with wage increases, easier union-organizer procedures, and higher emission regulations to curb gasoline inflation at the pumps.

“The Fix” by Chris Cillizza is starting to keep track of the most competitive races of week. Check it out: Here is a preview of what they are doing.

Remember the #1 ranked race is the most likely to switch parties, and your comments are welcome below.

To the Line!

20. Pennsylvania’s 7th District: Rep. Curt Weldon (R) needs to remember two names: George Gekas and Phil Crane. Both were Republican congressmen who hadn’t had a real race in years and when faced with strong challengers were unable to restart their political operation. And, Weldon currently represents a district much more favorable to Democrats (Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry won 53 percent there in 2004) than those of Gekas and Crane. But Republican insiders insist Weldon understands he’s in trouble and that he is campaigning hard. Still with retired Rear Admiral Joe Sestak’s strong fundraising — $994,000 on hand at the end of June — this is a race to watch. (Previous ranking: 17)

19. Iowa’s 3rd District: This district has the ignominious distinction of being the lone Democratic-held seat on this month’s Line. Yes, we know the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently halved their planned independent expenditure on behalf of Rep. Leonard Boswell (D) (figuring he will need less help), but this race still intrigues us. State Sen. Jeff Lamberti (R) has largely focused on raising cash to date, a strategy that has paid off in the amount of $775,000. Boswell seems to have recovered from the health problems that plagued him earlier in the cycle, but even Democrats acknowledge Lamberti is the best candidate the incumbent has ever faced. In a neutral year, Boswell might be in worse trouble. (Previous ranking: 12)

18. Virginia’s 2nd District: This race was on no one’s radar screen at the start of the cycle. But Rep. Thelma Drake (R) has struggled to build on her 2004 victory, and Virginia Beach Commissioner of Revenue Phil Kellam (D) has gained some traction for his change message. Drake is an unapologetic supporter of the war in Iraq and rejected the idea of adopting a timeline for withdrawal. Kellam has been more difficult to pin down — he supported invading Iraq but has described the current state of affairs as a “mess.” The question is which viewpoint will win support in a district that boasts one of the largest military populations in the country. (Previous ranking: 19)

17. Connecticut’s 4th District: This race slides down the Line as we hear that Rep. Chris Shays’ (R) favorable ratings are extremely healthy — making it difficult for 2004 nominee Dianne Farrell to peel away the necessary votes to defeat the incumbent. Shays, who recently made his 14th trip to Iraq and proclaims that he understands the situation there better than any other member of Congress, is expected to lay out a plan for a withdrawal timeline next month. After years of support for the war, will voters see this as a flip flop on Shays’ part? Or will the move win him support among war opponents who will give him credit for searching for solutions? (Previous ranking: 9)

16. Ohio’s 18th District: A month has been like an eternity in this district. Rep. Bob Ney (R) bowed to the inevitable by announcing his retirement, and a special election to choose the replacement Republican nominee is set for Sept. 14. State Sen. Joy Padgett (R) should win the primary, but Democrats believe the fact that she called herself Ney’s handpicked candidate could give them an opening in the fall. Attorney Zack Space (D) is a passable candidate, but if the race is not about Ney it will be hard for him to win in a seat in a district that President Bush won by 14 points. (Previous ranking: 4)

15. Connecticut’s 5th District: Given her demonstrated fundraising ability ($2.6 million on hand at the end of June) and her longevity in Congress (24 years), Nancy Johnson (R) isn’t an obvious target. But, Republican insiders say that MoveOn.org’s “red handed” commercials that ran earlier this cycle did damage to Johnson’s image. Plus, state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) is running an extremely active campaign with $1 million in the bank. The district is extremely competitive (Kerry won it by 1,100 votes in 2004) and if voters are looking for a fresh face Johnson could be in trouble. (Previous ranking: N/A)

14. Ohio’s 15th District: Since coming to Congress in 1992, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R) has never won re-election with less than 60 percent of the vote. But, her district has grown increasingly more competitive in statewide races. In 2000 Bush won the district by 8 percentage points; four years later he won it by just 2,000 votes. Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy (D) has a base in the district and has raised a creditable amount of money, though Republicans insist they have a thick book of opposition research that will make her life difficult. (Previous ranking: N/A)

13. Kentucky’s 4th District: Having just returned from this northern Kentucky district, we are at a loss to predict who will win this fall. Former Rep. Ken Lucas (D) still carries considerable name recognition from his six years in Congress (1998-2004) and is the right ideological fit (anti-abortion rights, pro-Second Amendment) for the seat. But Lucas won the seat against a less than stellar opponent in 1998 and nearly lost to current incumbent Rep. Geoff Davis in 2002, despite the fact that national Republicans barely spent a dime in the district. Davis (R) has outdistanced Lucas in fundraising and is touting his ability to bring home pork to the district. This is certainly a Democratic opportunity, but far from a slam dunk. (Previous ranking: 13)

12. Indiana’s 9th District: Republicans are feeling better and better about Rep. Mike Sodrel’s (R) chances to win another term against former Rep. Baron Hill (D). They believe the attacks they used to defeat Hill two years ago remain potent, and Sodrel is better financed this time around. We are wary. The combination of President Bush’s dismal approval rating and the ongoing struggles of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is creating a VERY hostile environment for Republicans in the state. Sodrel may be in better shape than his colleagues in the 2nd and 8th districts, but he is far from out of the woods. (Previous ranking: 6)

11. Connecticut’s 2nd District: There are two ways of thinking about this race. If voters in this eastern Connecticut district see their vote as an expression of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, then Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is in serious trouble. If, however, the main motivating factors for voters are more local in scope — like Simmons’ help in saving the Groton submarine base from closure — then the incumbent could pull it out. Republicans note that Simmons already beat Democratic nominee Joe Courtney soundly in 2002, but the environment has changed drastically since then. (Previous ranking: 7)

10. Florida’s 22nd District: The battle lines are drawn. Rep. Clay Shaw (R) is painting himself as an independent voice for the district and attacking state Sen. Ron Klein (D) for his ties to the sugar industry. Klein, in turn, calls Shaw a loyal foot soldier for President Bush and labels himself a voice for change. Both candidates have raised stunning amounts of money and the bashing should continue unabated through election day. It’s tough to tell how the top of the ticket will impact this race. Republicans are favored to hold the governorship, but Rep. Katherine Harris’ ill-fated Senate bid could counteract any positive trickle-down effect for GOPers. (Previous ranking:

9. New Mexico’s 1st District: Democrats admit that Rep. Heather Wilson (R) effectively scored points over the past month by hitting state Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) over her failure to investigate former state Treasurer Robert Vigil. Madrid may have finally changed the subject with a stirring ad that attacks Wilson for never raising questions about the war in Iraq and missing a vote on setting a timetable for withdrawal to attend a fundraiser with President Bush. Wilson is as savvy as they come, but her district is split absolutely down the middle — meaning even a slight wind could push her out of office. (Previous ranking: 11)

8. North Carolina’s 11th District: This race keeps moving up the Line. Former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D) has proven to be a solid candidate, although we have been led to believe that his business career after football could be easily mined for negative television ads. On the other hand, Rep. Charles Taylor (R) has never run particularly professional campaigns, and national Republicans worry that he may not be ready for the onslaught that is sure to come. One ace in the hole for Taylor is the state’s Republican lean; Bush won by 14 points in 2004. (Previous ranking: 14)

7. Pennsylvania’s 6th District: While Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) remains among the most endangered incumbents in the country, both sides believe this race will be decided by a few thousand votes. Democratic challenger Lois Murphy, the party’s nominee in 2004, has run a superb campaign to date and will benefit from the Philadelphia voter turnout machines of Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D). A recent poll for Murphy showed her ahead 42 percent to 41 percent. That sounds about right to us. (Previous ranking: 5)

6. Indiana’s 2nd District: No race has collapsed quicker for Republicans than this one, where Rep. Chris Chocola (R) finds himself in very serious trouble against 2004 Democratic nominee Joe Donnelly. The root of the incumbent’s problems appears to be the unpopularity of the president and governor, but Chocola seems to have also taken his re-election for granted — a cardinal sin for a Republican in this type of environment. Can Chocola come back? Republican strategists are very skeptical. (Previous ranking: N/A)

5. Indiana’s 8th District: We’ve been hesitant to write off Rep. John Hostettler (R) because he has shown a past ability to run and win without raising much money or hiring professional political consultants. However, not many Republican insiders hold out hope for Hostettler this time around. Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth is a good ideological fit for this conservative district and polling shows him with a comfortable lead. Is that the fat lady we hear singing? (Previous ranking: 10)

4. Arizona’s 8th District: The math in this southern Arizona district is simple. If conservative ex-state Rep. Randy Graf wins the Republican primary on Sept. 12, Democrats will almost certainly win this seat. If moderate state Rep. Steve Huffman is the GOP nominee, the road to victory for Democrats is much bumpier. Graf has to be considered the favorite in the primary (he remains the best known candidate due to his primary challenge to Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) in 2004), so this seat keeps its high ranking on the Line. Former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords is the likely Democratic nominee. (Previous ranking: 3)

3. Texas’ 22nd District: Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R) isn’t as smart as we thought he was. Although DeLay resigned from office and moved his official residence to Virginia, the courts refused to allow him to be replaced on the November ballot — meaning that Republicans must run a write-in campaign. Their chosen nominee? Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. Not exactly the easiest name for a voter to remember and write-in. Former Rep. Nick Lampson (D) is sitting on $2.2 million and, despite the strong Republican lean of the district, he should be considered a favorite this fall. (Previous ranking: N/A)

2. Iowa’s 1st District: Neither attorney Bruce Braley (D) nor businessman Mike Whalen (R) will bowl voters over with their candidate skills, but both national parties are already engaged in this race and their spending is sure to overwhelm that of the candidates. This eastern Iowa district clearly favors Democrats (Kerry carried it by seven points in 2004) and may be ready to return to type after supporting Rep. Jim Nussle (R) for the past 16 years. Whalen has a chance, but it is a slim one. (Previous ranking: 1)

1. Colorado’s 7th District: Former state Sen. Ed Perlmutter’s victory in the Democratic primary earlier this month makes Republican nominee Rick O’Donnell’s strategy even more complicated. Republicans were privately hoping former state Rep. Peggy Lamm would be the Democratic nominee because she was to Perlmutter’s ideological left and would have given O’Donnell a chance to co-opt moderate voters. Perlmutter is not easily stereotyped as a liberal, and this suburban Denver district grows more Democratic by the day. (Previous ranking: 1)

Iran has been a talking point in the news.

Three major themes can be seen coming out of the news that Iran has passed the deadline to suspend its nuclear program.

1) The United States is taking a tough stance arguing for immediate sanctions

2) Iran has a very powerful wedge in oil

3) The European Union, arguably, is showing its force as a counter weight to the United States for one of the first times (as the NY Times calls it good-cop, bad cop)

I think that the United States has a situation where there is room to move and they have upper hand. However, it would be smart for the United States to hear the Europeans out. Especially if they are going to make the sanctions work.

Does Santorum really live in Pennsylvania?

This has been a question that has come up a lot this election year; however, what is shocking is that Rick Santorum has now cost the Taxpayers an additional 55,000 dollars because the state is saying the rules were confusing on their part. Now everyone is out except Santorum.

I was thinking about the post I wrote the other day about how Bush is a divider not a uniter. Later, I thought to myself, Hey! I should put the article link online from the article by Ms. Mayer because it really shows the mentality of the Adminstration.

THE HIDDEN POWER

The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror by Jane Mayer (From the New Yorker July 3, 2006 issue)

Review:

Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter, has done the world and politics a favor by dissecting, in an essay size report, the quintessential traits of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror. In this fascinating account, Ms. Mayer brings forth the inside world of an Administration figure David Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, and arguably the key ally in the President’s agenda. And unlike anything comparable in history, the rules are made up not by experts but hand selected officials who best fit an ideology rather than knowledge.