“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

The founder of Neo-Conservatism, William F. Buckley, passed away today. The TV news opined about Buckley as being “The Founder of Modern Conservatism” as well as his magazine “The National Review“, which Ronald Reagan once called “his favorite magazine”.

If you don’t recognize William F Buckley, you would almost assuredly recognize his distinctive way of talking. Not an insult, Buckley’s speech always reminded me of a rich English billionaire that just jumped out of the swimming pool with his nose full of water: “Hfaw, faw, wah-ha-fah.” If you were to accuse someone of “putting on aires” for the way they talked, they’d sound like Buckley.

But in all the Conservative nostalgia served up this day, the media was reluctant to report that Buckley renounced the Grand Experiment that was Iraq in a 2006 column in his own magazine, The National Review.

The Associated Press dedicated a grand total of two sentences to Buckley’s denouncement of the war in Iraq, which is better than NBC News (video on the page) did, omitting any mention whatsoever of his recent criticisms of Iraq and Neo-Conservatism in general. It is because Buckley was SO Conservative that he often found himself on the outs with the modern Neo-Conservatives in and around the current White House. One thing modern Conservatives DID inherit from Buckley, a vapid disdain for all things “Liberal” and occasionally allowing his racist/sexist/misogynistic attitudes to leak out unchecked.

So, while Conservatives genuflect tonight over the passing of the man that gave us the modern Conservative movement, I think it is only proper that we go back and revisit Buckley’s 2006 criticism of the folly that was Iraq:

It Didn’t Work [...] Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. [...] The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are “Zionists.” It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others’ throats. A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed. One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. [...] Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. [...]

(Emphasis mine, pointing out Buckley’s recognition of Bush’s inability to acknowledge his own failures.)

But Buckley’s criticism of the Neo-Cons in Washington did not end with Iraq, nor can any Neo-Conservative say, “Yeah, but that was before the Surge!”

Here is Buckley less than a year ago (April, 2007) on the subject of a dying GOP:

The Waning of the GOP The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war. [...] When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it. [...]

(I encourage you to read the full article.)

So on this day when Neo-Conservatives morn the man whose movement gave us Ronald Reagan, let us not forget that even this Conservative monarch could see the devastation the Bush Doctrine was having on his brand of Conservativism.

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‘m no Hillary supporter. Let’s put that right up front. Nor am I an “Obamaniac“. Calling me an “Independent” is as offensive as calling me “indecisive” or “uninformed” and calling me a “Republican” runs you the risk of coming away with a bloody nose.

But I’ve bemoaned here frequently that I’m not happy with my remaining two choices, foisted upon us by both the Media and first-time voters that decided the front-runners should be two candidates whose marquee attributes are their minority status without regard for policy or qualifications for the job.

My problems with Hillary stem mostly by the fact she has consistently been perhaps the most hawkish Democrat in the Democratic Caucus after Joe Lieberman. But when it comes to health care, I find her “mandate” strategy superior to Obama’s. So despite my mistrust of her foreign policy, I could still see myself voting for Senator Clinton.

My problems with Senator Obama are a bit more nuanced. I can overlook the inexperience and his heavy reliance on encouraging people to vote for him based upon what it would mean to elect him (”Hope”, “Change”) rather than sell us on “policy” & “issues”. He was right about Iraq before we invaded. Great. So was I. But no one is saying I should be President because of it. There needs to be more.

Our state primary is fast approaching on March 4th, so the campaign ads are running with increased frequency. And with deeper pockets, I see the Obama campaign ads twice as often as the Clinton ads. I haven’t seen any McCain or Huckabee ads, but it appears Ron Paul would dearly love to win his home state and has been running ads of his own on late night TV. I find the Obama ads reminiscent of the Ron Paul ads, where Paul was excellent as pointing out the mistakes and identifying the problems of the current administration, but it wasn’t until you hear his solutions that you have any idea whether or not this candidates’ solutions are what we need. Senator Obama’s stirring “Super Bowl” ad is running frequently here, which is long on identifying problems, but short on details of how to fix them. I’m glad he recognizes these problems, but when you run lots of ads like this that highlight problems but give few answers, it bugs me. It’s what Ross Perot did in 1992… who was able to attract a huge following (at first) by staying vague on specifics.

I remember watching the 2004 Democratic National Convention when the young Illinois state senator running for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, gave his stirring “unity” speech (part 1, part 2) to convention-goers. Everyone… even Republicans… all noted what a great speech it was. I remember clearly my reaction when he finished: “Great speech, but I hope people don’t convince him to run for president just two years from now (either against Kerry or after Bush) because of it.” Not even elected to the U.S. Senate yet, and people were ALREADY pondering an Obama presidential run after just one speech (he’s even using clips from that speech in his latest campaign ad).

My biggest fear should we see an Obama Presidency (which I’d say is about 98% certain at this point) is what the consequences might be should he fail. For some reason I’ve yet to fathom, the American public gives Republicans an inexplicable amount of slack that Democrats don’t get. I mean, if a Democrat had gotten us mired in a $2 Trillion-dollar war without end in Iraq, doubled the price of gasoline to $3 a gallon and gave us $100/barrel oil, lost an entire city of a half million people (New Orleans) with dead bodies floating in the streets, violated the Constitution nine ways to Sunday, was unrepentant after getting caught lying of warrantless wiretaps, and most notably, failed to protect the country from a terrorist attack on 9/11, do you think for one moment that that Democrat wouldn’t have been impeached within 24-hours, let alone a prayer of even CONSIDERING running for re-election, let alone winning??? Of course not.

A friend of mine expressed an oft-repeated worry of hers should we see an Obama Presidency:

> I am Obama - all the way….but I’m so afraid that if he looks to win, or DOES win the presidency, > that someone will not like his bucking of the establishment - and he’ll go the way of JFK and MLK. Nah, no need to worry about that.   He’ll be the most protected president in U.S. history. It any President ever had to worry about an entire population gunning for him, it’s Bush. He’s pissed off about a billion Muslims that wouldn’t think twice before blowing themselves up if they could even get near him.   My biggest fear is that, just as Carter was elected following the outrage over Watergate and a Republican Party so rife with liars and criminal activity that some members of the Nixon Administration actually went to *jail*, yet four years of Jimmy Carter, an inexperienced one-term governor from Georgia, who was deemed SO unprepared for dealing with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, coupled with soaring oil prices and a slumping economy that Republicans were back in power just four years later (despite Nixon/Watergate) and controlled at least half of the government for the next 26 years… that Obama could be the next Carter… a very good man, but inexperienced and unprepared, and despite the disaster of Bush, could revive the Republican Party and put them back in charge for another 30 years. Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC just 45 days into Clinton’s first term. They attacked it again just 8 months into Bush’s first term. Failing to prevent a major attack early in Obama’s first term would have Republican’s screaming, “We told you so!”, put them back in the majority of Congress in 2010, and they’d impeach him (because that’s what Republicans do).

So you can imagine my surprise when I hear one of the resident Right-wing Neo-Conservative nutjob pundits on “Fox News Sunday” make the same observation:

The Right-wing really really wants Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, so when they make an observation about her opponent, it shouldn’t be dismissed out-of-hand. When the Neo-Conservative wackjobs on the Right at Fox ”Newz” are making the same observations about the potential legacy of a President Obama as I am here on the Left, take heed.

I don’t point this out to sway or endorse either candidate. Only to serve as a “cautionary tale” to whomever wins… President Obama.

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 apologize for the lack of posts lately. Other commitments have consumed my time as of late.)

In 2005, the 78 year old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected to succeed the late Pope John Paul II, who passed away at the age of 84.

When asked why they choose someone so old to be the next Pope, the Cardinals basically admitted that Ratzinger was really just an “interim” choice, not expected to live very long, but will give them the opportunity to appoint someone better in a few years. I can only imagine just how under-whelmed the new Pope must of been upon hearing the news.

I live in Texas and our Presidential Primary is fast approaching, and I hate my choices. I’ve written on here several times of my problems with both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. My first choice, Bill Richardson, was the last of the “Second Tier” candidates to drop out of the race… which says to me that I did a good job of picking a candidate whose experience and record struck a cord with those of us that care more about “accomplishments” than “promises”. And when he dropped out, my natural second choice was former Senator John Edwards. But now that he is out of the race, I find myself interminably vacillating between my two remaining Democratic choices: Hillary and Obama. Early voting in Texas ends on the 29th, so I’m waiting until the last possible moment before casting my vote.

Here is the scorecard:

Iraq:

When it comes to Iraq, Obama has the clear advantage as being opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the start. After hours of extensive Googling, I was able to find interviews with then Illinois State Senator Obama where he did indeed speak out about the lack of a “need” to invade Iraq… which is a question that has bothered me ever since the second Democratic Debate when he said he opposed invading Iraq only because of the “timing” (calling it a “distraction”), something that could wait till later. So on the subject of Iraq, Obama scores an A-.

Hillary, on the other hand, has always been a hawk on Iraq, second probably only to Joe Lieberman. She has not committed to ensuring that all of our troops will be out of Iraq by the end of her first term, and has suggested leaving as many as 70,000 troops there until the end of her first term (2012). However, she is now claiming on the campaign trail that she will “begin withdrawing troops [from Iraq] within 60 days“. So on the subject of Iraq, Hillary scores a C-.

But on the subject of Iran, both candidates have made hawkish statements advancing the falsehood that Iran “is” developing nuclear weapons and “no question” they are aiding the insurgency in Iraq, the first of which was found to be completely false when the 2007 NIE, released last December, revealed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003; and the other assertion which has LONG been in question. So on the subject of judicial use of our military in the future, I rate Hillary & Obama a wash, both earning a C-.

Next subject: Health care:

In 1994, in his first State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton announced his plan to bring a National Health Care Program to the United States, and announced the formation of an exploratory committee to be headed up by the First Lady, Hillary Clinton. The reaction from Republicans and the media was much as you’d expect when a $500 Billion dollar a year industry is threatened. Hysteria over “Socialized Medicine” and “rationed health care” flooded the airwaves for more than a year, driving the issue to a quick and painful death, never to return for the rest of his Presidency.

The result: 14 years later, Hillary has abandoned the Canada/England “single payer” health care model of covering every American in favor of a new system that involves “restructuring” the existing “insurance-based” health care model to make insurance more affordable. In acknowledging that the best way to control costs is make health insurance a “mandate” the same way we mandate car insurance for drivers, in a plan already being derided as “Hillary-care“, Clinton’s program will require all employers to insure their employees, purchasing “price-controlled” insurance (regulated much the same way state insurance boards regulate other types of insurance now). She also stated in a recent debate that the term “pre-existing condition” would be banned under her program. However, if you are unemployed or are self-employed, you must still purchase this “affordable” insurance to remain covered. But, as I pointed out before, the attacks on the Hillary plan are already underway. Google the subject and you’ll find almost nothing but Right-wing negative spin regarding her health care program clogging the blogosphere already, so the likelihood she’ll be able to pass her program is questionable. On the subject of National Health Care, Hillary scores a solid B.

Senator Obama’s health care program is not a mandate, though also focuses on making insurance affordable through price controls and modernization. Like the Clinton program, employers would carry the burden of insurance premiums, but according to his website, the government would “reimburse” employers a “portion” of their costs should an employee fall to “catastrophic illness”… but what exactly the government is “reimbursing” is not clear. Would it offset part of the cost of increased premiums as a result of that employees illness, or does it mean reimbursing the company for its losses due to not having that employee there at work… or maybe it means something else entirely? The website is not clear. And what is there for the government to “reimburse” if you are un/self-employed? Mostly, his entire program consists of making insurance cheaper. Like the Clinton plan, Obama also promises no one can be refused insurance due to a “pre-existing condition”, But without a mandate, there will be a disproportionate number of seriously/chronically ill people in the system pushing costs upwards, whereas a mandate has more “healthy” people in the system to offset those costs. Obama once expressed support for “single payer” health care system, but has since recanted his support for the idea. Overall, Obama’s plan rates a C+.

The Economy:

After reining in our out-of-control “Military Industrial Complex” that needs a steady diet of wars to feed the machine and use up the bombs for more Defense dollars to build more, our National Debt is my most important next issue.

One of the things that makes the National Debt such an enormous issue to me is the fact it is probably the least understood, most easily dismissed, and yet affects your daily life more than even George Bush’s disregard for our right of Habeas Corpus (the right not to be held without charge). When Bush entered office, the National Debt was under $5Trillion and shrinking thanks to a balanced budget and reasonable tax rate on the wealthiest 5%. But with the reduction of that tax rate, compounded by the astounding cost of the clusterf### that is the “War on Terror“, that debt has DOUBLED in just seven years to $9.2TRILLION DOLLARS! When Ronald Reagan increased the Debt from just $1Trillion to $4Trillion in his eight years, he was highly criticized, and Reagan himself actually raised taxes in four of his eight years trying to keep the rising Debt under control. George Bush has shown NO such compunction towards fiscal responsibility, not only refusing to raise taxes or cut spending to control the rising debt, but going so far as demanding that his fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy be made “permanent”. As a result, he has added an additional $5Trillion to the National Debt, with no end in sight.

The Gross National Debt

And WHY exactly is the National Debt so important? How does it affect your daily life? Regular readers of “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” will know that we must pay interest on that debt every year. If we don’t pay that interest, foreign countries will stop loaning us money, which is about all the Bush Administration has left to run the country. More than half of which the IRS takes in in taxes each year goes to paying for the War in Iraq and interest on the Debt, leaving precious little (about $450 Billion) to provide services here… everything from Social Security , National Defense (FBI, CIA, etc), Education, oversight (FAA, SEC, FDA, etc), student loans, the National Parks Service, libraries, museums, interstate highway funds, and MUCH MUCH more. If your credit card debt was this out of control, you’d be in serious trouble. Very soon (I’ve heard the year 2025 bandied about), every tax dollar we take in will go to pay for entitlements (”Social Security”, “Medicare”) and interest on the debt. And theoretically, eventually every dollar we collect in taxes will go just to pay interest on the debt, and the entire U.S. economy will have to be financed on borrowed money. Ignoring the National Security issues raised by depending so heavily on borrowed money from questionable sources (China, Saudi Arabia) just to maintain a functioning government, eventually, we won’t take in enough in taxes to attract more loans to fund the government. Consider that for a moment… every dime in taxes going to pay interest, and no country willing to loan us any more money to run the government, the United States will cease to exist. That’s not an overstatement, nor am I being overly melodramatic. Under Bush, we are already halfway there. We MUST bring our debt under control. Fiscally irresponsible Republicans (who boast of being “fiscal Conservatives”) will borrow without an iota of conscious, thinking the “National Debt” is one of those phony/overblown issues like “Global Warming“. So the burden falls to the Democrats, who will cut government spending and raise taxes to try and bring the Debt under control, which Republicans and other uninformed citizens will scream bloody-murder over.

So balancing the budget and bringing the National Debt under control so that we stop wasting BILLIONS of tax dollars on paying interest instead of spending it here at home, is of incalculable importance to the future of this country.

Okay, how to I say this? Hillary Clinton’s website DOESN’T EVEN HAVE LINKS TO “JOBS” OR “THE ECONOMY” on it, so I can’t tell you what her plans are to create jobs, stop the National Debt from hemorrhaging cash, or balancing the budget and paying down the debt. This, to me, suggests this subject doesn’t rank nearly as high of importance to her campaign as it does me. So on the Economy, Jobs & the National Debt, I have to give Hillary a D- (not an “F” because she has noted Bush’s out of control spending and the size of the Debt on the campaign trail).

The Obama website does include a section on the economy, but nowhere in it does he mention the out-of-control spending, bringing down the deficit or paying down the National Debt. The site does (irresponsibly) suggest “tax cuts for the middle class”… offset by rolling back the tax cuts on the rich (for a net benefit of zero). His website does list a number of ideas for ensuring job security and promoting job growth, and both Hillary and Obama’s websites talk of job growth through promoting “Green Jobs” (as does John McCain). So on jobs & the economy, Obama scores a C+.

There are plenty of other issues the candidates can be compared upon, but on the top two critical issues… war and the economy… both Democratic candidates score disappointingly. Here in Texas, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is running a close second to John McCain in the polls. Second only to California in the number of Delegates, a win for Huckabee here would do much to throw the GOP Presidential race into turmoil.

And what about voting for Huckabee in the General Election? Huckabee has made “taxes and fiscal responsibility” a cornerstone of his campaign with his “Fair Tax” pledge to replace our current “income” tax with a “consumption” tax (good in principle, but the “Fair Tax” organization’s stated program does not make the necessary adjustments needed to avoid shifting the bulk of the burden to the poor), which, if successful, could do much to bring our fiscal house in order.

While making frightening and ridiculous statements about “changing the Constitution to bring it in line with God’s Law” and being one of three Republican candidates to admit that he “doesn’t believe in evolution“, the next President is going to have a Democratically controlled Congress to contend with, and with some 30 Republicans announcing that they will not be seeking reelection vs. just 5 Democrats, likely resulting in a veto-proof majority in the Senate, it is unlikely any extremist judicial appointments or Constitutional Amendments proffered by a “President Huckabee” would pass, so any batshit crazy Evangelical policies are sure to be kept in check.

Huckabee has likewise criticized President Bush’s lack of use of diplomacy, decried him as having a “bunker mentality” and blowing any chance at improving relations with Iran after 9/11 when they offered to help pursue bin Laden.

The first President I was old enough to remember life under was Richard Nixon, followed soon after by his VP Gerry Ford. I was too young to understand Watergate, but I do remember that a one-term Governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was appealing as a Presidential candidate because of his unquestionable honesty & integrity, something deemed to be in short supply after the scandals of the Nixon Administration. Members of the Nixon Administration were actually convicted and sent to prison. The discovery of a secret war run by the CIA in Cambodia and the fall of Saigon after promising victory in Vietnam, culminating with the President himself resigning in disgrace to avoid impeachment, the country was hungry for “change”. Sound familiar?

But with a failure to deal with the rise of radical fundamentalism in the Middle East, and the evening news updating us of the plight of the “Hostage Crisis at the American Embassy in Iran” for over 400 straight days (it would be 444 days in all), Carter was (unfairly) branded “inept”. This paved the way for three-time loser Ronald Reagan to win the Presidency on his fourth try, despite Democratic control over BOTH Houses of Congress, in 1980, heralding Republican control of at least half the government for the next 26 years. Republicans regained control of the Senate just two years later in 1982 and held it (with only a brief 18 month interruption in 2002) until just last year.

Jimmy Carter was a very good man, whose integrity and morality I’d put up against George W. Bush’s any day of the week. But he also was not experienced enough in the ways of Washington to prepare him for what lie ahead, and a mere four years after the Nixon/Ford legacy of a criminal White House, a Republican was elected President yet again, with more criminal wrong-doing than ever before… only now, they were better at covering it up (see: Iran/Contra). More fiscal irresponsibility, only now promoted as “fiscally responsible” (a term that endures to this day), the legacy of Jimmy Carter is George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Now, the country is again hungry for “Change” following the criminality and “fools erand” war of George W Bush. So hungry, they are once again rushing to nominate and inexperienced, honest but good man promising “Change” without regard for the consequences. And I fear that if he fails at undoing the mess left to him by his predecessor, A President Obama might not only set back the Democratic Party another three decades, but possibly set back African-American politics even further.

When it comes time for me to vote next week, my vote might best be served by casting my ballot for Mike Huckabee. The immediate effect would be to help extend the turmoil of the GOP Presidential race and force John McCain to concentrate more on his Republican rival than get a five month lead on attacking the Democrats. With a Democratic Congress in control, any damage Huckabee might do is minimal, and his focus on a “flat tax” means he’s not out there promising irresponsible “tax cuts” at a time when we can least afford it. And this government is sorely in need of someone whose making the National Debt a front-burner issue. If he’s a disaster, let him destroy the Republican Party for the next three decades, not the Democrats.

Much like the Cardinals in Rome did in 2005, now is a great time for an “interim” President till someone better comes along, opening up the opportunity for a more Progressive Democrat in 2012. Think about it.

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

(You may of noticed that I’ve widened the blog. Hopefully, this will make the articles easier to read, but it was also brought to my attention last week that the video archive is no longer compatible with the latest browsers, so I am working feverishly to port the entire archive over to YouTube and will add a video page to this blog as soon as the port is complete.)

For weeks now, the “mainstream media” (MSM) has been trying to convince us that the voting public is evenly split between the Democratic candidates and John McCain; that despite all the excitement over the possibility of the first female or first African-American president, and despite the record low approval ratings for President Bush and Republicans in general… loosing to Democrats in EVERY category from the economy to terrorism, voters are evenly split:

Are they prepping us for another stolen election?

What do you think? Check the numbers out for yourself here.