Still Fighting

Activism

Oh, California. Where would we be without your intelligence? We're all tired of drug company ads that promote their new products (if we have to see one more Erectile Dysfunction ad...), but California is doing something about it. There are two propositions on the California Special Election ballot (November 8th) that deal with prescription drug costs. Watch the "Don't believe their lies" ad here, and then you'll be directed to a page detailing the differences between proposition 78 (vote no) and proposition 79 (vote yes). More states could take notice of what California is trying to do here; we're sick of the health care system in this country, and it's high time to make some changes.

News

Bush Pushes Canada for Lumber Settlement. There's an interesting story that has been brewing out of Canada for the last few months, and it's not really being talked about. The U.S. had imposed tariffs (totalling $4.1 billion) on the wood imported from Canada. NAFTA has ruled, on several occasions, that the U.S. tariffs are illegal. Canada wants the money repaid. Bush wants to go back to the negotiating table, but Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin argues that there's no reason to go back to the table, as NAFTA has sided with Canada every step of the way. Martin not only warns that Canada may take the U.S. to court over the tariffs, but Canada is also now looking to trade more with China (at the expense of the U.S.?), and we can't say we really blame them. Bush imposed the tariffs in 2002 "at the urging of the U.S. lumber industry, which contended it was losing thousands of jobs because of unfair subsidies provided to Canadian producers." Is this going to be yet one more example of Bush spurning another ally?

Democratic Radio Address on Iraq. Saturday was fun. We got to listen to Wesley Clark give the weekly Democratic Radio Address. Clark started a message that, we hope, other Democrats will pick up. Namely, Iraq is a sinkhole and we need to change the way we do business. The current plan obviously isn't working, so why are we still trying the same old methods? If a Fortune 500 company lost 29 billion dollars last year, do you think that the CEO would keep the same plans in place for the next year? He'd be sacked by the Board of Governors quicker than you can say "hostile takeover." So why is Iraq any different in this regard? Whereas a Fortune 500 CEO has to answer to the Board of Governors, the president has to answer to the American people. And what better way to tell the president that we want a change than to vote Democratic in 2005 and 2006? The status quo is no longer acceptable, and it's time for a change.

White House Press Secretary Gets Personal. We almost feel bad for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Almost. McClellan has a horrible job; he has to be Bush's spokesman. Job requirements: Trumpet the party lines and stick to the talking points. Basically, lie all the time. But lately, McClellan has been feeling the press's anger. You see, with Bush holding so few press conferences (and refusing to answer questions once he's in them), McClellan is really the only voice of the White House that the press can ask questions of. McClellan speaks with the full authority of the White House, for good and for bad. So when McClellan jumped down the throat of a CBS correspondent, well, the press didn't take too kindly to that. What is normally polite sparring between the press and McClellan has now become far more testy, what with everything the White House is being forced to answer for. If Bush would allow McClellan to simply tell the truth, he might not need to get so defensive. Oh, right...the truth is what Bush wants it to be - nothing more.

Editorials

It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby. Truthout has the latest Frank Rich column, and it's a bit of a wake-up call. Although we'd be pleased as punch to see Rove and Libby indicted (Hannukah come early!), we need to remember that this was all sanctioned by Rove's boss, Bush, and Libby's boss, Cheney. Since Plamegate bisects the Iraq war, things stand to get very messy for the White House. But Rove and Libby will be the fall guys. Nothing much will change, though. Bush will simply have to call Rove to get advice, or send an intermediary, instead of having him in the Oval Office. Rich also focuses on WHIG - the White House Iraq Group. Started by Chief of Staff Andrew Card, WHIG was created in August 2002 with no fanfare and one purpose - market a war in Iraq. All in all, indictments would be nice, and certainly a black eye on the GOP, but we can't forget that the real culprit is our Commander-in-Chief, who, well after Scooter and Rove pack their bags, will still be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Torture on the Hill. We read a novel recently that had the following quote: "A war criminal commits his crimes to further his war aims. He murders and tortures in order to help win the war." It's the best definition that we've heard so far, and it certainly applies to this White House. We talked last week about Senator John McCain's torture prohibition amendment (Editorials - Who Isn't Against Torture?). As this editorial points out, McCain is certainly honest in his feelings, but he's also trying to "extricate the government from direct complicity in crimes of war." So what does it mean that Bush is threatening to veto it? We could argue that the Senate is contributing too little too late, but we know McCain has been pushing this for months. So why is Bush so against this amendment? It seems to us that he wants to "win" the war, at all costs. That would make him a War Criminal, in our book.

Blogger Commentary

The Normalization of Treason, the Republicans' Gift to America. This is just a fantastic commentary by John, over at AMERICABlog. Republicans have become the party of treason, and somehow that's OK. Karl Rove outs an undercover CIA agent, and the worst that happens is that he might lose his job? We ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits us, and that's acceptable? "The Republican party...[is] trying to convince Americans that betraying our country during wartime for personal gain is no more serious than running a stop sign or going 60 in a 55 zone." Read this article, and then give us one good reason to vote Republican in 2006 (one that doesn't begin with "John McCain," that is - we're sick of hearing that one, and it's pretty much no longer applicable).

Pushing Our Buttons, Redux. Remember the little boy who cried wolf? We've seen this story played out so often since the Department of Homeland Security was created. From blue to yellow to orange, vague half-threats and rising levels have left Americans feelink skeptical about them all. But Republicans have used our fear against us, partially to look like they are continuing to do something, and partially to get re-elected. As David Neiwert writes, look at what happened in New York recently. Baseless, groundless fears led to many New Yorkers being inconvenienced. And really, had there actually been a threat, there would be no argument. But there was no threat. So now Americans are even less trusting of the Republican-led administration. You can only cry wolf for so long before people ignore you. It's human nature. It's been argued several times by several people that the changes in the terror alert level and/or specific alerts have immediately preceeded or been subsequent to Republican screw-ups. Most recently, with New York's subway, the announcement came on the same day that the story broke of Karl Rove's possible indictment. Keith Olberman (quoted in the column) notes that this has happened 13 times so far - "a political downturn for the administration, followed by a "terror event" -- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." There is something to be said for coincidence, but there is also something to be said for 13 times!