“Mugsy’s Rap Sheet”

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills.
- Mugsy

Last year was my first attempt at making political predictions for the coming year. I’m not sure what the typical batting average is, but my “2 out of 10: 20%” success rate is arguably above average:

• God told Pat Robertson that the United States would be hit by another terrorist attack in 2007. This would be the same God that told Robertson to endorse the cross-dressing, thrice married, adulterer Rudy Giuliani for President.
• The BBC made six predictions for 2007. Of those six, they got two right (33%)… predicting 2007 would be “the warmest year on record” and that “Gordon Brown would succeed Tony Blair”. You didn’t need a crystal ball to see those coming.
• Actual psychics faired no better, scoring just two (technically 1-1/2) correct predictions out of 13. The two predictions they got right: More political sex scandals (only half right because they cited “both Parties”), and Hillary will become a “Top Tier Candidate”. Multiple predictions of Bush’s impending impeachment seem to stem from the recently elected Democratic majority in Congress and not any real “psychic” prognostication.
• Compared to “psychic” Jane Doherty (1 for 31), I should be inducted into the Psychics Hall of Fame.
• And I’d put my predictions up against Dick Cheney’s any day.

Both the psychics and I incorrectly predicted a Cheney resignation in 2007… both of us unaware of just how determined our Svengali-in-Chief is to hold on to power.

So, now that I feel better about my own batting average, how about twelve more predictions for 2008?

1. Hillary’s huge lead in the National polls continues to mystify me. She has back-tracked on National Healthcare… her iconic issue… with a “solution” that mandates every person simply purchase health insurance the same way we mandate liability insurance for cars. Anyone that has ever tried to file a claim with their insurance company after a car accident knows that this is no solution to providing every American with guaranteed healthcare. She is the most hawkish of all the Democratic candidates, voted for the infamous “authorization to use force in Iraq” at a time when literally millions of people were protesting in the street (very good link with lots of pictures) against attacking Iraq; and is arguably in a mud-slinging contest with Barack Obama. So my first prediction for 2008 is a holdover from #6 last year: that as the Primaries loom closer and voters actually have to cast that ballot, they’re going to think twice about voting for Hillary and, if she wins Iowa and NH at all, it will be by very slim margins… no more than 2%-4%. Should she not come in first in either of the first two primaries (plus the Iowa caucus), her drop in the polls thereafter will be precipitous.
 
2. The Democratically controlled Congress, unwilling to “make waves” in the days/weeks/months before the looming November election, will continue to roll-over and not challenge President Bush on anything relating to Iraq or Afghanistan, creating an opening for a Third-Party Presidential bid that would hurt Democrats far more than Republicans. While I do not foresee Ralph Nader running again, the possibility of NYC’s billionaire mayor “Michael Bloomberg” getting into the race grows. While Hillary’s candidacy is most likely what kept former VP Al Gore from entering the 2008 race, it is too late for him to change his mind now even if Hillary tumbles in the polls. So don’t expect a Gore comeback in ‘08.
 
3. The recent assassination of former Pakistani PM Bhutto will continue to rattle the Futures Market as turmoil in the Middle East continues to spread. The price of oil has already begun to climb again back toward the $100 a barrel mark (closing at just over $97/barrel on Friday). The market will struggle for a long time to avoid breaking that historic/catastrophic milestone, but if & when it does, the price of oil will not hesitate to surpass the $120/barrel mark sometime during the year.
 
4. The current mortgage crisis will leave the Federal Reserve with no choice but to cut rates… after trying/failing every other trick in the book first… to rescue the growing list of failing banks and mortgage lenders. Lowering the rate will result in the Federal Government being unable to borrow enough money to cover the Bush Administrations’ 2008 fiscal budget, caped by a Democratic Congress unwilling to raise the Debt Ceiling to break the $10 TRILLION mark. A number of federal programs will be slashed and Republican Presidential candidates will herald it as an example of “unprecedented fiscal responsibility” going into the November elections.
 
5. The Religious Right… still the deciding factor in who leads the Republican Party… finding Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson sufficiently lacking in religious piety, will hold its nose and nominate the former minister Mike Huckabee as the GOP’s 2008 candidate for President.
 
6. Easy one: Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will win the Presidency.
 
7. The subject of “electronic voter fraud” will slip from the radar screen (more of a 2009 prediction) as a result of the Democratic win. The Democratic margin of victory will be large enough that any attempts to steal the election will be insufficient to change the outcome. Plea’s to follow up on Electronic Voting abuses and standardization will decline despite revelations of widespread abuse and evidence of election tampering.
 
8. No longer a guarantee for the GOP, the Republican Presidential candidates will find themselves needing to actively court the military vote for the first time in 40 years, campaigning in towns heavily supported by military bases.
 
9. By the end of 2008, the number of troops still in Iraq will be over 100,000 despite President Bush bringing home about 5,000-7,500 troops home in time for the November election.
 
10. Not much of a prediction, but oil companies will increase gasoline output by bringing oil refineries back into full production (just as they did prior to the ‘06 election) in time for the ‘08 election, dropping gasoline prices back down to the $2/gallon mark. This time around, the obvious manipulation of gasoline prices will become a political issue as more and more people take notice.
 
11. As I’ve noted in this blog previously, the current reduction in violence in Iraq is merely the result of “tightening the lid on a boiling pot” and “outside influences” that owe nothing at all to the Bush Doctrine. Should the current state of the Iraqi Government remain unchanged by July, a serious escalation in violence will result, with more Iraqi-on-Iraqi civilian bombings and rising violence. The number of U.S. troop deaths will be manipulated by restricting the number of patrols prior to the election (contributing to Iraqi civilian violence). The continued decline in troop casualties will be touted by GOP candidates as a victory for the Bush Doctrine.
 
12. As neighboring Turkey continues military strikes against the PKK in Kurdish Northern Iraq… once the jewel of the Bush Administrations’ Iraq success story… even the Kurdish North will erupt into violence, leaving no part of Iraq safe from war & violence.

Once again, the predictions for the coming year seem more bleak than optimistic. Chalk that up to the current state of the country under the Bush Presidency. Oh well, there’s always 2009.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills.
- Mugsy

The TV news Christmas morning was hopeful and optimistic: Large numbers of Christian pilgrims were once again able to travel to Bethlehem, (located 6 miles South of Jerusalem inside the disputed “West Bank”) in relative safety “for the first time in years“, trumpeted just about every major network news broadcast both here and in the UK.

Fighting in and around the historic Biblical birthplace of Jesus had diminished in 2007 to the point where it was once again safe enough for hundreds of thousands of Christians wishing to visit The Church of the Nativity to do so.

So went the story on network after network. ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC-America, all telling essentially the same Associated Press story of “Christmas Returns to Bethlehem”. Hurrah, hurrah! Three cheers for the Bush Doctrine! A wellspring of peace appears to be spreading across the Middle East! Violence has diminished so much in Bethlehem, it is safe enough for tourists! Violence is down in Baghdad as well (back down to 2005 levels, due in part to ENTIRE CITIES now ethnically cleansed), Iraqi’s are returning to Iraq (because they are going broke, forbidden from working in the countries they evacuated to), and now even violence between the Israeli’s and Palestinians has diminished to a point where it is safe enough for tourists… Just don’t look too closely.

“This is the largest number of Christian tourists to visit Bethlehem in seven years!” claimed both the news and residents of Bethlehem.

Seven years, hmm? That would be 2000, wouldn’t it? Bill Clinton’s final year in office? So the great “victory” of the Bush Doctrine has been to bring violence in the West Bank back down to pre-Bush levels.

But even if the recent reduction in Israeli/Palestinian violence was due in any part to President Bush’s “Peace through violence” ideology, a trend of diminished violence over just the past few years would be a positive trend that, if it continues, would eventually vindicate Fearless Leader… except that it isn’t & doesn’t.

The reduction in violence in and around Bethlehem that once again renders it safe enough for tourism, can best be attributed to the enormous 24′ tall concrete “security wall” separating Bethlehem from embattled Jerusalem.

So when you hear Bush Administration officials in the coming days taking bows for Bethlehem once again being “safe enough for tourists to visit”, just remember: It was safe enough for hundreds of thousands of Christians to visit BEFORE George Bush became President, and the recent reductions have NOTHING to do with the administrations policies, but everything to do with Israel constructing a concrete wall around the city.

 

Manger scene carved in olive wood by Palestinian artist Talfiq Salzar, depicting The Three Wise Men unable to reach the baby Jesus, blocked by a Security Wall:

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills.
- Mugsy

I‘ve always loved all those Christmas specials. From the marionette based classics like “Year Without a Santa Claus” and “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town”, to the classic cartoons like “Frosty the Snowman” and “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown” (I’m a bit of a purest, so revamps of the classics like “Frosty Returns” and “Olive, the Other Reindeer” make me wanna barf).

But when it comes to laugh-out-loud Christmas hilarity, Rankin/Bass’ 1964 classic “Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer” wins hands down. Besides the fact that throughout the film, Santa, the adult reindeer, and the Head Elf are total jerks throughout the film, insulting the poor young Rudolph, making fun of his deformity, publicly humiliating him and treating him like a freak quite literally from the day he was born, one scene has me coming back for more year after year:

I’m not sure when I first caught this blooper, but few have in the 40+ years the special has been running on TV, which makes it very special to me. I clipped the appropriate parts and uploaded it to YouTube for all to enjoy. How many of you have had days like this?

So the next time you thing YOU’RE having a bad day, just think of this video. I swear, it helps! - Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills.
- Mugsy

I just finished watching “NOW” and “Bill Moyer’s Journal” on PBS Friday night.

Ron Paul was the subject of NOW, and how the campaign owes its surprise success to the grassroots, even comparing it to the Dean campaign of 2004.

Watching all the apoplectic Paul supporters cheering, waving signs and swooning at the mere mention of his name, I wondered just how much do these people REALLY know about politics and what a Paul Presidency could do to the country. Almost on cue, they noted that the man that helped Paul raise 4 of his record 5 million “in one day” had “never voted before the age of 37″ (the 2006 election).

On the next program, Bill Moyer’s discussed the subject of “Media Consolidation”, which made me think of an interesting conundrum for Paul supporters:

“Where does Ron Paul stand on media consolidation?”

I scoured the Net for a while but found no answers. If he sticks to his Libertarian principles, he’d oppose government regulation, perhaps even disbanding the FCC, resulting in fewer restrictions and unabated media consolidation (the “free market” at work). Yet, ironically, “media consolidation” is probably one of the primary reasons why Paul must depend so heavily on New Media. And I’d suspect that Paul’s supporters are more the type that would prefer MORE diversity in the media than less… the very adverse outcome a Paul presidency would likely result in.

If Paul is opposed to greater media consolidation, that would demand greater government regulation and more government oversight. It would mean maintaining yet another government program that has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the government or national security. I don’t see that happening.

So my question again to any Paul supporter that might be lurking is: “Where does Ron Paul stand on media consolidation?“

My next question: “Where does he stand on Net Neutrality?” Think about where the Paul campaign (and its ENORMOUS dependency on the Internet community) would be if government didn’t stop telecom companies from selling off bandwidth to the highest bidder?

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

The election of “‘08″ is quickly turning into The election of “Oh, wait.” Another day, another National Security scandal.

The “National Intelligence Estimate” released on December 3rd by the sixteen agencies of the American intelligence community, revealed that Iran appears to have suspended its pursuit of nuclear weapons back in 2003, some time after the invasion of Iraq. Instead of sharing this good news with the world, this (pardon the pun) “inconvenient truth” was suppressed by the White House on the grounds that it needed a greater level of “confirmation”.

But despite KNOWING that there were strong doubts about Iran “actively” pursuing nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration chose to speak with GREATER certainty and MORE urgency regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And just as they did with Iraq a year before talking of “mushroom clouds” and providing terrorists with a nuclear bomb, they suggested Iran was becoming SO great a threat, we were running out of time to act. The rhetoric seemed to hit a fever pitch last October when President Bush invoked “World War III” when speaking about the looming threat of Iran.

Then the bottom fell out.

We learned, not only that Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, but the White House knew and had been suppressing the news for nearly a year. What’s worse, photographic proof that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program had been available on the Internet for months as the CIA was able to compare the intel they were receiving with photos taken by journalists touring Iran’s nuclear facilities last year.

The questions started flying. “What did Bush know and when did he know it?” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton went on several TV and Radio shows to suggest that “rogue elements in the intelligence community were out to discredit the Bush Administration”, basically calling them liars and accusing them of treason, but not claiming anything they said was an actual “lie”, nor was he willing to call for anyone in the intelligence community to be fired and brought up on charges of treason. If you are a Neocon and you get caught in a lie, you don’t face up to it. You claim there’s a “conspiracy” out to get you. When Hillary said it, they laughed and ridiculed her. When they say it, it’s not paranoia, it’s a serious national emergency.

I believe that, caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar, the White House needed a distraction. One that took the focus off their own lies and discredited the people that exposed them at the same time. That’s when the “CIA destroyed taped evidence of waterboarding“ story broke.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that just two days after the nations intelligence agencies exposed the fact Bush had been lying all along about the threat from Iran (essentially telling President Bush they were tired of him hyping a threat they knew not to be true), “someone” leaked to the New York Times that the CIA destroyed video taped evidence of them using torture to interrogate prisoners in 2005. And now suddenly, the CIA find themselves having to answer questions about their own misdeeds.

Which piqued my curiosity: “Who told the NY Times about the CIA tapes?” We know who told about the NIE: the intelligence agencies themselves. But someone MUST have told the Times about the tapes. Did someone contact the Times at the behest of the White House in retaliation for the NIE leak? I scoured the Net for hours, but not only is no one in the media revealing “who told The Times?”, no one is even asking the question!

Now, just as in the Valerie Plame affair in 2003, “someone” that knew the true identity of Ms. Plame HAD to of told the White House. The CIA does not make a point of providing bureaucrats with the true identities of their under-cover agents. Someone in the agency sympathetic to the Bush Administration HAD to of provided them the information.

Armed with the classified information of Ms. Plame’s true identity, Vice President Cheney unilaterally declassified her identity (as revealed in this appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that I’ve referred to several times before) and revealed it to White House support staff (the assistants to Powell, Bush and himself… that being Armitage, Rove & Libby) with orders to disseminate it among members of the press in an attempt to discredit former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

And here we are again, three years later. The CIA embarrasses the White House and suddenly information is leaked to the press that shifts the focus onto the CIA, accusing them of wrong-doing (only difference now is, the CIA actually is guilty of wrongdoing. But under whose orders?)

Who contacted The Times? Is it unreasonable to suggest that someone working at the CIA is feeding the White House classified information to take the heat off the Bush Administration and attack the CIA? If someone at the CIA is leaking classified information (whether the recipient has the security clearance or not is irrelevant) solely for political purposes, then someone is jeopardizing national security to play political games. We need to know who that person is.

Postscript: With the revelation that Iran’s nuclear threat has been over-hyped, the price of oil, which rushed right past the chilling $75/barrel mark just four months ago towards the once-unimaginable $100/barrel mark last month, rapidly backed off to below $90/barrel. However, the price leveled off in recent days as President Bush continues to hype the Iranian nuclear threat, stating that nothing about the leaked NIE report contradicts what he has been saying regarding the seriousness of the Iranian nuclear threat. Is this all about ratcheting up the price of oil? I’ll let you be the judge.

Oh, but before you decide, I’d also like to point out that President Bush has threatened to veto the Democrats’ bill requiring raising the average gas mileage to a mere 35mpg by 2020.

(ADDENDUM: It has been pointed out that with Poppy Bush being former head of the CIA under President Ford, and Cheney’s ties to the DIA when he was Secretary of Defense under Poppy, that the White House has long standing ties in the Intelligence Community and therefore do/did not need a “mole”. But being “connected” to the IC does NOT make them omnipotent. Neither Poppy nor Cheney would of known Plame’s identity nor about the destruction of the Torture Tapes unless someone told them. Who that someone is, is the question being raised by this Op/Ed.)

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

I started out this blog entry taking on the monumental task of providing a “Voters Guide” that intended to examine the positions of all the candidates to assist readers in selecting their choice for President. But it quickly became apparent that such a column would be FAR too lengthy and ultimately incomplete to be of any use to anybody.

Full disclosure: I’m a Richardson supporter. But no matter who the Democratic nominee will be, rest assured they have my vote come the General Election next November. But I have serious problems with the current “Top Three” front-runners (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) that has focused me on fourth place: Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson.

If you are not sure which candidate best reflects your views, I direct you to this excellent online “pick your candidate” quiz (link below)… it’s a weighted quiz that asks how “strongly” you feel about a particular issue, so even if you disagree with a candidate on something, if you don’t feel particularly strongly, that candidate may still rank high on your list of recommended choices. Because of this, be EXTREMELY dutiful when deciding just how important a particular issue is to you when answering. Results can vary greatly if you rank “immigration” as highly as your concern over “Iraq”.

Select a Candidate 2008

I frequently post comments on other political blogs, haunting them daily. And oddly, occasionally, someone will mistake my “even-handness” towards some Republicans as “support”, and suggest I am actually a Republican lurker and not the proud Liberal I claim to be. This always amazes me, since, whenever I take the above test, Dennis Kucinch always comes up as my #1 recommended candidate. Yet, I do not endorse the Ohio Representative. And here’s why:

For me, there is no more important first-goal for the next president than getting our troops out of Iraq… not years from now, not “start to withdraw eventually”, but NOW. I often direct people to the following video for my reason why:

Iraqi Police Join Insurgents to Ambush US Troops - 2:22

When we are arming and training the very people attacking us, it is time to leave, not wait until we’ve trained MORE Iraqis to shoot at us. Every Iraqi we train is a potential insurgent out to kill the occupiers in his country. And the 90% decline in violence following the recent withdrawal of British troops from Basra is ample proof that the very presence of foreign troops in Iraq is only aggravating the situation, not helping it. President Bush’s “Surge”, which is currently holding down violence in Iraq, is simply clamping down the lid on a boiling pot. That lid can not be held tight forever. If no political progress is made in the very near future, I fear that pot is going to explode in a fury of violence and bloodshed that has made everything we’ve seen up to now look like a drunken frat party.

Hillary has advocated the most leisurely withdrawal from Iraq of any Democratic candidate, unwilling to commit to removing all troops from Iraq by the end of her first term (2013).

Senator Obama and Fmr Senator Edwards have likewise refused to commit to withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. Edwards has suggested leaving a small compliment of 3,500 to 5,000 armed U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely to guard the enormous U.S. embassy… typically the domain of the U.N..

Your choices

Now, if getting the troops out of Iraq ASAP is what you are looking for in a candidate, your choices are few (”three” in fact, Kucinich, Richardson and Republican Ron Paul). If you also want a candidate with decades of executive experience, including Ambassador, diplomat, Energy Secretary and governor of an entire state, you choices are one: Bill Richardson.

A lot of Democrats have pondered voting for Republican candidate Ron Paul in the upcoming primary. The logic here mystifies me. Simply by virtue of being “a Republican” (actually, he’s a Libertarian), somehow that makes him more electable. That is because Democrats know Republicans will vote for an anti-war Republican before they’d vote for an anti-war Democrat. Problem here is that, after Paul orders the troops home on day one, what does he do with the remaining 1,460 days of his Presidency? Paul’s Libertarian credo is to strip the government of all but its most basic functions: safety and security. Everything else is for the states and private industry to work out. If you thought “privatization” in Iraq was a colossal disaster of catastrophic proportions, just multiply that times 1000 when every formerly government run institution is handed over to a for-profit corporation. No more federal funding for everything from schools to Social Security. No FDA (”Food & Drug Association”), no Pell Grants (college tuition for the poor), and sure as hell no National Healthcare System. If you thought FEMA was bad now, imagine the nightmare when states are left to fend for themselves in the midsts of a natural disaster.

But even if you agree with all that, one other thing to consider: If you vote “Republican” during the primaries, you can’t vote Democrat in the General Election no matter who the candidate ends up being. That’s right. Even if the candidates turn out to be Dennis Kucinich vs. Rudy Giuliani, you can’t vote for Dennis. Why? Because once you vote in the Republican primary, you MUST vote Republican in the General Election. This prevents people from a rival Party from trying to influence who the opposition will be. Voters can’t turn out in droves to nominate the candidate they think would be the easiest to beat only to vote against them in November. So if you vote for Paul in the Primaries and he loses, you can’t vote against the Republican nominee come November. Keep that in mind when choosing your candidate!

ADDENDUM: There is some question regarding the universality of the aforementioned restriction. Some have suggested that there is no such restriction in their state and they can alternate Parties after voting in their state primary.

So that eliminate Paul as an option. What about Kucinich? A favorite of the online community leading many online polls, why shouldn’t he be the obvious choice?

Kucinich’s platform is admirable… “Strength through Peace” being his campaign motto. He has the most accelerated plan for withdrawing our troops from Iraq… just four months. He is the only candidate advocating switching to a straight “single-payer National Healthcare System” similar to what they have in Canada and Great Brittan. He says he’d create the Cabinet level position of “Secretary of Peace” to balance out the “Secretary of Defense”, and is strict vegan (a vegetarian that eats no cheese, eggs, or any other product of animal abuse).

And all of those reasons are why Kucinich will never be President.

His platform could best be described as “Utopian”. You may agree 100% with everything the former Cleveland mayor stands for, but reality has a way of intruding on wishful thinking. Let’s go through the above list point-by-point:

o “Withdrawing all troops from Iraq in just four months” - The ONLY way to achieve this is by way of a “full and immediate retreat”, leaving literally BILLIONS of dollars worth of military equipment behind, abandoned to the Iraqi insurgency (or worse). Many state National Guard departments are reporting that they do not have the equipment they need to respond to natural disasters, like the California wildfires or the New Orleans flood because 40% (or more) of their equipment is in Iraq. Any equipment we leave behind in Iraq will have to be replaced. It would take an army of recovery troops to go back in after we just pulled everyone out, to collect all that equipment and bring it back home… a “second invasion of Iraq” if you will, with armed U.S. troops once again going around the country searching for equipment stolen after our hasty retreat. That just would not be a palatable option for a President Kucinich, who would rather spend billions buying all new equipment than go back to Iraq to bring home what he left behind.

Also consider the implications such a hasty retreat would have image wise. Even in clear defeat, Saddam Hussein declared “Victory over the U.S.” after we kicked him out of Kuwait in 1991 but didn’t proceed on into Baghdad to oust him. Saddam celebrated “Iraq’s victory over the U.S.” every year on the anniversary of our withdrawal. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union following their U.S. assisted ouster of the Soviets following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Deluded, certainly, but effective propaganda is simply convincing people that a “defeat” was actually a “victory”. A rapid four-month withdrawal from Iraq where billions of dollars worth of equipment is left behind on “the battlefield” will play out as an American “retreat”, defeated and running for their lives from the all powerful Muslim “freedom fighters”.

While you may admire and respect Dennis’ reasoning, not every world leader is as rational and responsible as he. Many more are like President Bush… zealots that disavow reality in the face of hard facts, with ambitions of endless power. Plenty of countries are being led by Dick Cheney wannabees. In a negotiation between Dennis and “Cheney”, does anyone doubt that “Cheney” would not steamroll right over him?

o Second factor: immediate implementation of a Single Payer national healthcare system - No question “Single Payer” is the way to go. It is the preferred and most successful means of covering every person there is. Despite what GOP candidates may try to convince you, no other nation on Earth with National Healthcare is clamoring to trade in their system for the U.S. model.

But once again, reality intrudes on Dennis’ Utopia. Switching over immediately to a “Single Payer” government run system will instantly put tens of thousands of heath insurance workers on the unemployment line. Entire corporations have been built around the Health Insurance Industry. HMO’s. PPO’s, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, etc and so on, each employing thousands of workers. Doctors assistants across the country whose sole job it is to file claims with insurance agencies would likewise find themselves without a job. Even companies that specialize in providing computer software to doctors to aid in billing would find themselves without a market. The heathcare billing industry would be thrown into chaos.

Sadly, any change to our national heathcare system will have to occur gradually. “Starve the Beast”, as it is commonly referred. The top tier Presidential front-runners offer solutions that don’t come even close to bringing U.S. healthcare on par with the rest of the industrialized world:

Hillary Clinton, once a proponent of Single Payer national healthcare, as Senator, Hillary now endorses Republican style “tax credits” so everyone can purchase mandatory heath insurance (similar to the way we require “car insurance” before you can drive).

Barack Obama wants to make heath insurance (once again, relying on the benevolence of HMO’s) “affordable” by having government manage the insurance industry like a utility and splitting the cost of insurance between employers and employees.

John Edwards has a more admirable plan on allowing any American, regardless of age, to buy into Medicare… the most efficient heath insurance system currently operating in the U.S.. Problem is, Medicare is highly selective on what it will cover. And frequently, Medicare offsets its costs by forcing the patient to pay a hefty chunk of the bill (as much as 50% to 100% for some tests). And Medicare’s “Prescription Drug Program”, even with fixing, is accelerating the current system towards bankruptcy. Edwards’ goal of “starving the beast” by gradually shifting people over from costly private insurance over to Medicare is probably one of the most responsible solutions, but will require an extraordinary amount of modification to make work.

And all three of these systems will require you to pay insurance premiums on top of the taxes you already pay. Are you unemployed and can’t afford insurance? You’re out of luck. “Affordable” insurance is still an extra added expense in a time when the average American has a net NEGATIVE savings rate. No system that requires people to “buy insurance” is going to solve our current healthcare crisis. But you can’t dismantle a multi-billion dollar industry overnight without incurring disastrous unintended consequences, either.

o Point three: A “cabinet level” Secretary of Peace - An admirable goal to be sure. Kucinich correctly points out that promoting peace and stability throughout the world would be more effective and far cheaper than using military force to impose our will upon unfriendly nations. Call it the “flies with honey” theory of National Security. But in addition to the less savory world leaders I refer to above that would not hesitate to take advantage of Kucinich’s good intentions, it should also be noted that cabinet level Secretaries are automatically granted budgetary power. Now, the obvious solution here would be to shift a portion of the bloated Defense Budget over to the “Peace” budget so as not to incur any additional fiscal burden on the government. No argument that the U.S.’s Defense budget is a gargantuan monster that has grown out of control by Congress members bending over backwards for the Defense Industry to save jobs in their districts. Once again, just as with the immediate switch to National Healthcare, massive unemployment in the Defense Industry would ensue. And the powerful Heath Insurance lobby and Defense Industry lobby would join forces to make it their mission to oust any member of Congress that supports President Kucinich’s agenda.

o Point Four: He’s a vegan - I’ve pointed to this fact before to friends as to why Kucinich will never win. In 1992 (?), the first President Bush foolishly admitted that he didn’t like broccoli. Farmers threw a conniption when broccoli sales plummeted across the country. More recently, TV’s Oprah Winfrey declared on her influential talk show that “she’ll never eat beef again” during a serious look at the disgusting practices of the American Beef Industry on her program. Beef sales plummeted and the Beef Industry sued Winfrey for slander (and won). In 1993, Indy 500 winner Emerson Fittipaldi chose to drink orange juice instead of the traditional bottle of milk in the winners circle because he was part owner of an orange grove, which outraged Indiana dairy farmers that pay $10,000 a year to ensure their product is the traditional victory drink.

The American public is full of morons. They pay a premium for overpriced shoes endorsed by their favorite athlete, buy bottled water that is no healthier nor tastes any better than what comes out of their tap, and they eat… or don’t eat… what famous people do. A President that can’t endorse eating meat or any animal product has about as much chance of winning the Presidency as your average cartoon character.

The fact Kucinich admitted to seeing a UFO during the debates… over Shirley MacLaine’s house no less… only helped brand the diminutive candidate… no matter how unfairly… as a “Left Wing Loon”. WHILE he was responding to the question, my minds’ eye was already picturing him in a Star Trek uniform with rubber “Spock ears”.

---

Kucinich voters should give Richardson a second look

Like Kucinich, Richardson has vowed to pull ALL U.S. troops out of Iraq his first year, but within nine months not four. A more orderly and responsible rate of withdrawal that provides time to bring much needed equipment back with them, without creating the appearance of a “where’s the door” full out retreat.

Richardson’s Healthcare Program is similar to Edwards’ plan, allowing consumers the option of buying into “the same insurance program members of Congress get”. And in a November 29th interview with Air America Radio’s Thom Hartmann, Richardson said he liked the “Single Payer” insurer model and would be looking at it more closely.

A Vietnam Veteran (something he rarely talks about), Richardson has proposed giving Vets a “Hero’s Card” that allows them to obtain free, government paid heathcare at any hospital in the country… not just inconveniently located VA hospitals with questionable track records scattered throughout the U.S..

His peace credentials are unparalleled. having serving as Ambassador to the U.N. under Clinton, Richardson most recently negotiated with North Korea to allow UN inspectors back in, suspend its nuclear weapons program, and even release the remains of six U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War.

New Mexico’s “incentives” program for promoting renewable energy sources has made it one of the most “clean energy” friendly states in the country. And Richardson’s platform includes cutting U.S. dependency on all oil (not just imported oil) in half by 2020… a mere 12 years from now.

Last year, the NRA (National Rifle Association)… typically the sole domain of Conservative Republicans… endorsed Richardson in his reelection bid for Governor of New Mexico. Presently, the NRA has not endorsed ANY candidate for President, demonstrating a clear dislike for any of the current crop of GOP frontrunners. Love them or hate them, the endorsement of the NRA will make Richardson a far more attractive candidate to Conservative-leaning independent voters, which could tip the balance even more in the Democrats favor.

As the governor of a southern state, Richardson has the potential of being the first Democrat to carry BOTH California AND Texas since 1964 (and only the second since Harry Truman in 1948). A Democrat that carries both states would be nearly impossible to defeat in the ‘08 election. No other Democrat in the race has as good a shot at pulling that off than Richardson.

My personal opinion is that when comparing the platforms of Representative Kucinich and Governor Richardson, they are more similar than most realize. But the Richardson time frame for implementing similar programs is far more realistic and responsible.

Senator Clinton likes to tout her “experience” as reason to elect her President, but what “experience” is she talking about? First Lady? That was her only governmental title before being elected to the Senate seven years ago. Senator Obama was elected just three years ago in 2004 and Fmr Senator Edwards only served four of his six years before resigning to run for VP. Governor Richardson has more Executive Experience than the Top 3 candidates combined: former member of the House, Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the U.N. under Bill Clinton, and now in his second term as Governor of New Mexico. I also believe he has a far greater chance of drawing Moderate Republican, undecided and independent voters away from the front-runners than Hillary or Kucinich.

Some have tried to dismiss Richardson’s candidacy as “more Vice Presidential material”, citing his criticism of “personal attacks” at a recent debate as evidence of his desire to be considered another candidates’ VP, rather than him just following through on his promise to run a “positive campaign”. Ronald Regan was praised for his rule: “Never speak ill of a fellow Republican”, but when a Democrat says the same thing, it’s evidence of pandering to the other candidates and a lack of self-confidence in their ability to win. That would be a tragic mistake for any voter to make here.

I recommend giving the Richardson campaign website a much deserving look: www.RichardsonForPresident.com

Additional interesting reading… DailyKos: Bill Richardson: An Upset In Iowa In The Making.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

When I heard about Friday’s hostage standoff at Hillary’s New Hampshire campaign headquarters, my first thought was “Here we go again.” There just seems to be something about the Clinton’s that draw out the loonies. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the mentally ill “Leeland Eisenberg” was a Conservative (Eisenberg filed an “illegal search” complaint when NH police started leaving warning fliers in unlocked cars), he was admittedly suffering from mental illness and the very reason for his siege Friday was to discuss the need to include “mental” heathcare to Clinton’s proposed National Healthcare program. He eventually released all his hostages and peacefully surrendered. The “bomb” he claimed to be wearing was nothing more than road flairs and duct tape.

But just the sight of the standoff in NH brought back a flood of memories of all those Right-wing nutjobs that seemed to haunt the Clinton Presidency for eight years. People have short memories, but Republicans not only have short memories, they have greatly distorted and highly selective ones as well. Back during the Bill Clinton presidency, a number of Conservative wackos crawled out of the woodwork:

Militias:

One category that immediately came to mind was the wellspring of militia groups that kept holing themselves up in the remote backwoods someplace and denouncing the government.

There was the deluded “Republic of Texas” militia group that took two hostages and holed themselves up in a bunker, radioed for help from other militias across the U.S. via shortwave and their website, and fended off State police, demanding the release of one of their arrested members claiming Texas had seceded from the the U.S. and no longer had jurisdiction over them. The week-long standoff ended when the Texas Rangers stormed their compound, killing one member in the process and arresting several of its leaders:

Less funny but every bit as stupid, The Montana “Freemen” militia declared their 960 acre ranch a sovereign territory (the “Justus Township”) over which the U.S. government had no authority. The dozens of members of The Freeman, including its two leaders, were guilty of rampant check fraud and threatening to kill a local judge. The 80 day standoff ended with the 16 members surrendering to authorities.

It should come as no surprise that a great many of these people with a shaky hold on reality were also deeply religious, often citing Biblical Prophecy as the justification for their behavior.

The very epitome of where Conservative fanaticism met Religious fanaticism was the Branch Davidian’s in Waco… a religious cult that stockpiled an armory to prepare for the looming government-led Apocalypse, which newly appointed Attorney General Janet Reno foolishly handed them on a silver platter. The leader of the cult, Vernon Howell who renamed himself “David Koresh” based upon the Book of Revelation, was wanted by State Police for transporting and selling guns across state lines without a license. Selling weapons at gun shows was the Davidian’s primary means of income. After tracking Howell’s movements for months, the government laid siege to their “compound” after members opened fire on BATF agents (”Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms”) that came to their door to arrest Howell.

A 51 day standoff followed that included flooding the compound with klieg lights, air raid sirens and nonstop blaring rock music. To the End Timers holed up inside, it truly must have felt like The Apocalypse. Rather than surrender to “The Devil” that was persecuting them, the religious cult set their fragile woodframed compound ablaze and burned to death as armored police vehicles stormed the compound once their patience ran out.

Lone Gunmen:

…which led fellow anti-government anarchist Tim Mcveigh to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building (home of the local ATF headquarters) in the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history before 9/11. McVeigh cited the Waco siege as well as an earlier siege at “Ruby Ridge” as justification for his private war on the Federal Government.

Then there was the suicidal man that crashed a stolen Cessna into the side of the White House. No reason for his targeting the White House was ever given, though family claimed the pilot, a 38 year old truck driver, held no particular grudge against the Clinton’s. But keep in mind that he “cut his engine” and glided into the side of the White House to avoid detection, ensuring that he would impact the building without being shot down first. He was “targeting” the building and consciously “evading detection”… suggesting this was “a man on a mission”.

Oh, and let’s not forget the guy that opened fire on the White House with a shotgun before being tackled by the Secret Service. The fact that the Chinese made semi-automatic SKS rifle used by the gunman had been banned from importation by the Clinton Administration five months earlier likely played a role in the gunmen’s motivation for spraying the White House with bullets through the fence.

There was “The Unabomber“, a former college professor that had been sending out letter bombs for over a decade to people he believed to be using science to harm civilization. After lying low for years, The Unabomber reemerged after Clinton took office, even getting his lengthy “Manifesto” published in the Washington Post and New York Times (part of an FBI sting operation, in hopes that someone might recognize the writing and turn him in).

The 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta gave us the Centennial Park bomber… a “Pro Life” extremist wanted for the bombing of two abortion clinics. This particular “Pro-Life” nutcase left a backpack full of nails and explosives in the middle of a crowd that killed one woman when it detonated. One thing these anti-abortion Conservatives hypocrites have made clear: “Pro Life” begins at conception and ends at birth.

The Olympic Park bomber evaded capture for years, using his Survivalist skills to live alone in the woods, though evidence suggests he received support from like-minded locals that likely knew of his whereabouts, but never told police.

Epilogue:

There is just something about Democrats… the Clinton’s in particular… that just draws out the most fanatical whack-jobs in this country. But consider the explanations for why they did what they did: they all believed the Federal government was violating people’s rights. They believed the government was run by a bunch of Godless headonists that threatened the very future of the United States. Their most cited proof of this was Bill Clinton’s crackdown on gun ownership, implementing greater restrictions, waiting periods, and bans on certain types of weapons and accessories altogether.

Certainly, you caught the irony. The inconsistency in their support for the Conservative Republican agenda vs their inexplicable loathing of anything “Clinton”. Despite all the violations of personal rights and freedoms violated by this White House, the wiretaps, bold-faced lying to the American people, staged/fake news, the indictments and prosecution of a half dozen people with access to the President, the exposing of a covert CIA agent investigating Iraq and Iran’s WMD programs, unrestrained spending, anemic economic growth, plummeting value of the dollar, skyrocketing price of oil, an over-extended military trapped in a war of choice, and an admitted former alcoholic with a drug problem as Commander-in-Chief who failed to prevent a terrorist attack he was warned of in advance and then failed to catch the man that did it… all dismissed because the Bush Administration was smart enough to let them keep their guns, decry abortion (without actually doing anything about it), quote the Bible in everything they do, and evoke 9/11 every time someone questions their policies.

“Compound” was a word we heard a lot of in the ’90s. “Militia group” was another one. The militia groups all shared several things in common: they were all white males, typically rural and uneducated, and all held a visceral distrust that the Federal Government was going to invade their privacy and take their rights away… namely, their Right to Bear Arms. No militia group ever cut themselves off from civilization and threatened the Federal Government over illegal searches & wiretaps, violating their right to free speech or over voter disenfranchisement.

(Which all reminds me of how Truckers threatened to go on strike on February 22, 2000 when the price of diesel hit $1.49 a gallon… but that’s a rant for another day.) Lord knows, I’m probably on some Terrorism Watch List by now thanks to all the Google searches I conducted over the past few days researching this column.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Conservativism is a “Mental Disorder”