Hot Potato Mash

EXCLUSIVE: PELOSI CLASHES WITH PROTESTERS OVER IMPEACHMENT

By Jason Leopold and Alan Breslauer, Cross-posted at The Public Record

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance Monday at a West Los Angeles college to discuss her recently published book was marred by dozens of protestors and several angry outbursts by audience members who demanded Pelosi immediately authorize a House committee to hold impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush.

The Speaker made it clear she would not support any effort to hold impeachment hearings against President Bush saying that the president "will be gone in a hundred days."

Halfway through her discussion at The American University of Judaism, where more than 300 people paid $30 each to hear Pelosi speak about her upbringing and her family's impact on her political career as detailed in her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, the topic shifted to Congress's historically low approval rating and how it reflected on Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker.

American University of Judaism's Rabbi Robert Wexler, who led the 75 minute interview, asked Pelosi to analyze a recent Rasmussen poll that found nine percent of individuals polled believed Congress was doing a good job, far lower than President Bush's overall approval rating.

Pelosi responded by defending her performance and the performance of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

"I preside over the greatest collection of integrity and idealism," Pelosi said.

Prior to her appearance in West Los Angeles Monday evening, CNN’s Larry King interviewed Pelosi. She told King she was willing to drop her staunch opposition to offshore drilling and would likely allow the House to vote on the issue.

She said, in her opinion, the reason behind Congress’s low approval rating was largely due to the fact that Democrats could not muster up the votes to end the Iraq war, which the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco said she could not do much about because of the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in both Houses.

Wexler, however, continued to press Pelosi to elaborate on her response given that the Rasmussen poll suggested that a wide-range of issues beyond the Iraq war was responsible for Congress’s single-digit approval.
Pelosi, visibly flustered, said she was well aware that “much more work needs to be done.”

In November 2006, Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift the balance of power in Washington for the first time in 12 years.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

But Pelosi, who became House Speaker, never managed to exact the change she promised. She explained that she and her colleagues tried vigorously to pass legislation to end the war in Iraq.

"The public doesn’t want to know about process and 60 votes, they want outcomes, they want results," Pelosi said, explaining why Democrats could not end the war as promised prior to the midterm 2006 elections.

But Pelosi’s comments appeared disingenuous to many, since she was largely responsible for crafting an appropriations bill in backroom discussions with House Democratic leaders, passed in June, and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions on Iraq war benchmarks if Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill with little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

In fact, since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables that Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

When Pelosi launched into the reasons an administration led by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would be dangerous for the country, identifying the candidate's support for an endless war in Iraq and his intention to uphold many of the questionable constitutional interpretations relating to torture and civil liberties during the Bush administration, Pelosi said the only way to "dig our way out" is by electing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today."

Her response led Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, to demand Pelosi do her job and pursue impeachment hearings against President Bush for launching a war on false pretenses.

"Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet? Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium. “One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments."

Pelosi seemed stunned by the outburst, but the way she addressed Thottam’s charges further fanned the flames and led to additional verbal protests over her decision not to hold the administration accountable for what many individuals in the audience believe are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by President Bush.

When a member of the activist group Code Pink stood up and insisted Pelosi brush up on her reading regarding evidence of the Bush administration's long list of alleged constitutional violations, Pelosi reacted angrily.

"I take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't tell me that I don't do that,” Pelosi said, using hand gestures to emphasize her disdain over the impeachment demands. "Why don't you go picket the Republicans in Congress that will not allow us to have a vote on the war. This is not very effective. Not very effective."

"As Speaker of the house, the third highest office, first is the president, then vice president, and then Speaker, I take my responsibilities deadly seriously,” Pelosi said. “I try to promote bipartisanship but that's not what the other side wants."

Before Election 2006, Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, with Democrats hoping to gain additional seats in Election 2008, a similar political calculation applies, fearing a backlash against a last-minute drive to impeach Bush and Cheney. Bush knows that Pelosi long ago rejected impeachment proceedings, the one instrument included in the Constitution for Congress to wield against a President who has abused his powers.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s presentation, Pelosi signed books but refused to answer questions about her policy decisions. The Public Record asked Pelosi whether she would authorize the full House to vote on contempt charges against former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Immediately following his query to Pelosi, Alan Breslauer was grabbed by Secret Service and dragged away from the table where Pelosi was signing copies of her book. The Speaker did respond to Breslauer's question, however, saying a vote on contempt charges against Rove is "up to [House Judiciary Committee Chairman] Conyers."

UPDATE: The L.A. Times picks up the story

SHOCKING! Pelosi Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

One wonders what the Republicans have on the Speaker of the House since she has continuously done the White House's bidding since the Dems took over in 2006...

From Pam Miles:

I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove.

Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems.

Time to burn up the phone lines.

800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 toll free to congressional switchboard

PLEASE CALL. House Judiciary Committee:

Here are the direct phone #'s of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. They're all democrats, and they're all congressmen:

All their phone numbers begin with 202, next three digits are 225. I will list only the last four digits, to save time:

John Conyers, Michigan - 1-202-225-5126

Howard Berman, California - 4695

Rick Boucher, Virginia - 3861

Jerrold Nadler, New York - 5635

Bobby Scott, Virginia - 8351

Melvin Watt, North Carolina - 1510

Zoe Lofgren, California - 3072

Sheila Jackson, Texas - 3816

Maxine Waters, California - 2201

Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts - 3111

Robert Wexler, Florida - 3001

Linda Sanchez, California - 6676

Steve Cohen, Tennessee - 3265

Hank Johnson, Georgia - 1605

Betty Sutton, Ohio - 3401

Luis Gutierrez, Illinois - 8203

Brad Sherman, California - 5911

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - 2906

Anthony Weiner, New York - 6616

Adam Schiff, California - 4176

Artur Davis, Alabama - 2665

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida - 7931

Keith Ellison, Minnesota - 4755

RESULTS TO BUSH ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION ARE IN AND THEY ARE NOT PRETTY

This is just classic. The Bush administration ignores all of the legitimate studies proving that abstinence only education is an inferior approach to safe sex education in order to appease the religious right and it turns out that there are real world consequences to such actions.

Now we find out that not only is teenage pregnancy on the rise but sexually transmitted disease (STD) infection rates have skyrocketed according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It found a startling 26% percent of teenage girls were infected with an STD! That's more than 1 in 4 for the mathematically challenged.

If this is not a microcosm for everything that is wrong with the Bush administration I don't know what is. And we will continue to feel the repercussions of this disastrous administration for generations. Of course, impeachment is off the table so that Bush can wreak more havoc on this nation and others like the soon to be bombed Iran.

All of which makes Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their sympathizers in Congress contemptible.

Technorati Tags: abstinence only, std, teenage pregnancy

She Had Me At "I'm Shirley"

Honestly, that is more than enough information to vote out the Speaker.

IMPEACHMENT TUESDAY: Bush Admin Retrofitting B-52 Bombers In Preparation For War Against Iran

This is an important clip if you can get beyond Tucker Carlson's inanity - he states that Vice President Dick Cheney's role is merely ceremonial, you know, “his job is to go to funerals for foreign dictators”. In any case, Rep. Dennis Kucinich argues for the impeachment of the VP by not only looking back at his past abuses of power but forward to the administration's plans to attack Iran:

“This administration is planning, at this moment, to go to war against Iran. The defense budget shows that they are retrofitting stealth B-52 bombers with 30 thousand pound bombs that would be used to drop bombs on nuclear research labs which exist in [locations] in Iran. That would create an ecological and humanitarian disaster.”

And Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will have blood on their hands. Sorry, more blood.

Will Congress Finally Hold Administration Officials Accountable For Lying?

Where would one start? Rice? Gonzo? McConnell? Chertoff? Oil company executives? Video is 52 seconds long.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE... So Do Something!

Glenn Greenwald at Salon may be the best and most important political “blogger” on the internet today. Among other things he has been admirably leading the fight against the absurd and utterly shameful (not to mention anti-American) idea of granting retroactive immunity for past law breaking to the telecom industry in the currently being debated FISA bill.

Most of the telcos including AT&T and Verizon have been breaking the law -- since before 9/11 -- by helping the Bush administration spy on Americans. The one exception was Qwest which, rather coincidentally, subsequently lost major government contracts and had its CEO investigated for three years by the SEC and FBI before he was finally charged with insider trading.

While the immunity debate is ongoing and the outlook for the rule of law is not good, the fact that there has been any debate at all is largely because of bloggers like Greenwald and the good folks at fire dog lake who inspired the masses into taking action. To this point Greenwald writes words that every American should heed:

There is never any shortage of super-sophisticated cynics to come along and say how none of this matters, how it's so pitifully naive to think that any difference can ever be made, how the System is so Corrupted and the Deck So Stacked Against Us that everything is doomed and defeat is the inevitable option. And there is an element of truth to the premises of that defeatist mindset. The principal reason blogs exist, after all, is precisely because all other institutions intended to provide some adversarial check on what our government does -- the establishment media, the “opposition party,” the Congress -- typically do the opposite: they serve as enablers of it rather than checks on it. That's all true enough.

But what incidents such as this one conclusively demonstrate is that it is always possible, if enough citizen intensity is mustered and the right strategy is formulated, for citizens to disrupt and defeat the best-laid plans of our corrupt political establishment. There's a comfort and temptation in denying that truth. Those who insist that defeat is inevitable and All is Lost are relieved of the burdensome task of trying. But defeat occurs because the right strategy isn't found, not because it is inevitable.

So to borrow the catch phrase from the great progressive video site, Brave New Films: “psssst...Do Something!”

CNN's Cafferty Calls Nancy Pelosi (And Crew) 'Beyond Pathetic'

Congressional Democrats cave AGAIN on the budget and AGAIN on war funding and AGAIN on everything and anything Bush desires which pisses of CNN's Jack Cafferty:

“I found it rather startling that he (Bush) was able to get through that entire speech without breaking into hysterical laughter. I mean, he has beaten Democrats around like a bunch of redheaded stepchildren. Pelosi and that crew are beyond pathetic...It's a joke.”

Just not a funny one.

SILENCE IS BETRAYAL!

One hopes that with all the money the wealthiest 0.6% of Americans - who received 75% of $92 Billion in savings from Bush's generous tax policies on capital gains and dividends in 2005 - were able to get themselves a sweet second or third yacht. Of course, this is a double whammy for the other 99.4% of us who not only didn't see much benefit from Bush's tax cuts but now share in the responsibility of making up those lost revenues to the government. Some more fun stats from Citizens for Tax Justice:

*Half of all tax filers (67 million Americans) reported an adjusted gross income of less than $30,000 and received virtually NONE of the benefits from the tax cuts.

*0.6% reported incomes greater than $500,000 and received tax deductions averaging $81,204 and accounted for 73.4% of the total tax savings.

*13,776 tax filers with gross incomes greater than $10 million or 0.1% of all filers, received 28.2% of the total benefits averaging $1,876,280 each!!!!!

Read the two page report from CTJ (PDF)

Meanwhile,

*The number of Americans living in extreme poverty has grown 26% since 2000. In all, 37 million Americans, or about 12% of the country, now live with “low food security,” uh, poverty.

*2 out of 5 elderly Americans live on less than $18,000 a year including social security.

*Low income Americans with disabilities experienced 50% cuts in their housing programs.

*Half of all IRS audits are now conducted on Americans making less than $25,000 per year.

For more dismal statistics on the rich poor divide see one of my earlier BRAD BLOG posts.

Thankfully Bush recognizes a problem when he sees it and before leaving on his month long vacation stressed that we need a new round of corporate tax cuts to make sure US corporations stay competitive!

In all fairness, it takes huge balls and a lot of propaganda to convince anyone that what the country needs is more corporate giveaways to the rich. That is a tall order that will require great effort by Bush. And it will be essential for him to recharge his batteries over a long vacation before the big sell. And if it means that he crushes Ronald Reagan's two term vacation record with 17 months to go in office, so be it.

Plus, nobody wants to be in the Capital during the God awful month of August when temperatures regularly hit a humid 100 degrees. Perhaps it was the heat that allowed Congressional Democrats to pass the new FISA law - which seems to get worse and worse by the day - before leaving on vacation. But Washington heat ain't nothing compared to Baghdad heat, huh, Tony Snow:

“You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August.”

Which helps explain why the Iraqi parliament is taking the month off as well. Surely our troops, a record 162,000 strong in Iraq, will get the month off too, right?  I mean, one suspects that with all their gear, outdoor work and combat, the misery index (weather, though both work) would be worse for our troops than say an air-conditioned Oval Office, uh, speed boat.

Actually, while George W. Bush smashes records for vacation days our troops are getting tours of duty extended from a year to 15 months. And it is a bit odd that Bush would take off so much time right before the crucial General Petreaus report on Iraq. Especially since we are amidst:

“the inescapable calling of our generation”

Oh, I almost forgot that the greater troop levels were the result of Bush's January “Surge” plan. You might recall that the new plan came after great deliberation and partying during which time hundreds of our troops lost their lives:

Ultimately Bush decided upon following neocon Fred Kagan's (fresh off a “very cool” chinook helicopter ride over the Potomac) “Surge” plan which called for an additional 50,000 troops, uh, 35,000, no, 30,000, wait, 50,000, no, 30,000, hold on,  31,500, stop, 20,000, then 35,000, oh, let's just say more troops.

But here's the thing, while Bush and the lawmakers are getting much needed R&R, our depleted troops are dying in the heat of the Iraqi desert by the droves.  Long time reporters in Iraq write about the grim picture. According to our own ambassador in Iraq, electricity in Baghdad can be counted on for “an hour or two a day” which is down from six hours earlier in the year and 16-24 hours under Saddam. Even the Brits admit the Surge will not succeed.

But none of this or the rising troop deaths can dissuade the Bushies who have already kicked up the propaganda so many notches that Emeril Lagasse must be envious. Sadly, the American people continue to buy into it. And the real big propaganda push will not hit until September.

Sadly, the truth is that there is nothing that Petraeus could say that would change the course of the war. As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post:

But if you think Bush is going to care what Petraeus's report says in September, get out of the sun immediately and drink lots of water. You're delirious.

Clearly Bush will continue this unjust, horrific war until the end of his presidency. And nothing from escalating American and Iraqi body counts to American geopolitical strategy can change his decision which was made long ago. W. has even stated that his presidency will be judged on the long term outcome of Iraq. And since pulling out or significantly reducing troops is akin to failure, Bush ain't budging. In other words, he's passing the buck to the next president. 

This alone is immoral and it is patently absurd that a decision of this magnitude should rest with a man with such an obvious conflict of interest. And since everyone knows this, it is also immoral for the American people to standby and leave the decision to Bush.

And that would be true even if Bush were a moral person. The fact that he is not just makes the situation that much clearer. Lest we forget that he:

*Continues to push legislation to further enrich the super wealthy at the expense of the most needy in society.

*Imposes anti-condom policies throughout Africa which has led to a remarkable rise in HIV/AIDS.

*Ordered the use of grotesque torture methods capable of causing severe psychological impairment on terror suspects.

*Signed a secret executive order authorizing the policy of “extraordinary rendition” which allows the CIA to kidnap any terror suspect from anywhere in the world and transfers them to prisons to be tortured and sometimes killed in countries like Uzbekistan and Egypt.

*Invades countries under false pretenses to further enrich the military industrial complex and his corporatist cronies.

Sick. Martin Luther King Jr. had it right when he said that “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” How can anyone read that short list of transgressions above and not believe that time is now?

 

More pertinent words of wisdom from Martin Luther King Jr.:

*In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

*When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.

*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

*Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

*The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

We Americans like to think ourselves noble and a country that has done great things for the world. We stopped Hitler for crying out loud. Yes, but that was a couple of generations ago. And by remaining silent, this generation is burying the memory of the “Greatest Generation.”  And our lack of action, for whatever reason, is as immoral as George W. Bush's action.

It is imperative that we wake-up to our faults and correct them before it is too late. For example, a glance at the two pictures below describe a world turned upside down by American military spending and penchant for war and killing:

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

Martin Luther King Jr.

More on these at Paulitics

We Americans seem to be the only ones oblivious to our faults. The entire world has been telling us we are ill for some time. The general consensus around the globe is that the US is a greater threat to world peace than even Iran and North Korea! And our best friends, the Brits, believe that only Osama bin Laden is a greater threat to world peace than the United States.

We are a sick country whose leaders continue to exploit our weakness. And our continued silence is immoral. We sit silently while our government exchanged our leader of the free world status with leader of rogue nations lambast. And if the people will not stand up united and force our leaders to listen to our will, we will become the “infamous generation” whose silence enabled George W. Bush and the corporate elite to destroy the Republic.

“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” (Jared Diamond)

“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” (Paul Kennedy)

*Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.“ --Martin Luther King Jr.

STOP THE SILENCE! SPEAK OUT NOW!

IMPOTENT DEMOCRATS NEED REAL LEADERSHIP TO STOP THE INSANITY!

I am dumb. I thought that the 2006 election was a make it or break it election for  the country. If the Democrats could not manage to win the House and God willing, the Senate, it would surely have been the nail in the coffin for the Republic. With the Republican led Congress refusing to perform its Constitutional duty of oversight and Republican partisans in the Supreme Court, it would be impossible to stop the criminal Bush administration from completing its goal of permanent Republican rule. But, lo and behold, the stars aligned perfectly, Democrats won both houses, and I began to believe in miracles again.

And I was a fool. That is, Harry and Nancy and the rest of the Congressional Democrats played me for a fool. They told us they would lead us out of Iraq and instead we got a “Surge”. It wasn't their fault, they cried, because they didn't have enough votes to override a presidential veto. But what good was the election victory if Democrats remained impotent? At least the Democrats were not the evil Republicans, I consoled myself, who were destroying the Constitution by advocating torture, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and attempting to subvert our democracy.

I was a fool. Here we are more than a half year after Democrats took control of Congress and we still torture, Habeas Corpus has not been reinstated and the White House continues to lie and obstruct Congressional efforts to investigate the US attorney scandal which, ultimately, is about stealing elections. Seriously, how is it possible that Habeas Corpus has not been restored after all this time? Yeah, I know, it's because Democrats don't have a veto proof majority. Thankfully, we were still better off with Dems than Republicans.

A fool, I was.  Then yesterday I read the following headline in the NY Times, “Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping” and I felt as if I had the wind knocked out of me. It was one thing to claim that the President and slim majorities prevented Democrats from ending the war and restoring our Constitutional rights and quite another to conspire with Bush to take away our rights. This was disgraceful and went beyond the pale.

According to James Risen, without whom we might not know about illegal spying on Americans by the Bush administration, “Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.” News flash, by capitulating on this issue Democrats will insure that those worries are realized.

Political weakness means not being able to get things done. When Democrats hold a majority in both Houses and cannot start a troop withdrawal from Iraq, stop a surge, restore Habeas Corpus, prevent torture and stop the government from spying on Americans, they are the definition of weak. Meanwhile, George W. Bush is a lame duck president, who is universally despised with approval ratings worse than Nixon's, whose minority party barely supports him and yet, he can seemingly get Democrats to agree to allow the most untrustworthy administration ever to spy on Americans without a warrant.

Believe it or not, it's far worse for Democrats than it appears. Because not only are the Democrats proving themselves impotent, but they are empowering a president who has shown nothing but contempt for Congress. See video below for a couple examples of this contempt:



To summarize, the Bush administration stonewalls Congress at every turn. It claims executive privilege for everyone and anyone and even in the case of a deceased soldier. The president refuses to replace the nation's chief law enforcement official who has repeatedly lied to Congress. The White House impedes Congressional attempts at oversight by refusing to turn over documents and emails necessary to investigations. And Bush has literally made an end run around Congress by way of Presidential signing statements. 

And despite it all Democrats are willing to work with the President? That is insane!  Have you no self-respect? How many times will you let someone punch you in the face until you say enough? Well, I have finally reached that point and I am saying enough. I will no longer play the fool. And I will no longer support the Democratic party until they start acting like the majority and representing their party. And that begins with telling the president to fuck off when it comes to spying on Americans. 

And if Harry and Nancy continue to capitulate to this lawless president you can damn well bet that Democrats and progressives will be telling them to fuck off too in November 2008.

Act For Change -- Don't give Bush the power to wiretap Americans without a warrant

Midweek Funny: The 4-Point Plan For Bush's Recovery

Can Bush recover? Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard and Quin Hillyer in the American Spectator are not only asking the question but advising the Republican party to stand by their man. The theory, according to Barnes, is that:

the candidate of the outgoing president's party is inextricably tied to that president. It's a political connection that can't be broken. The candidate can criticize the president, try to distance himself, and snarl like the president's worst enemy. But that not only won't work, it's likely to be counterproductive. After House Republican moderates met Tuesday with Bush, they leaked to the press that they'd informed him he's damaging the party by persisting with the war in Iraq. That won't help their re-election; they're tied to the president, too. The best tactic is to build up the president, not tear him down.

Republicans like to point to Ronald Reagan's recovery in the last year of his presidency which came after Iran/Contra and resulted in Bush the elder winning the White House. So, just how will W. make his comeback? Since Barnes' credibility is suspect, having written the laughable 

"Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush" (Fred Barnes)

we'll turn to Hillyer, who sees " a chance for at least a fairly significant comeback" by way of his 4-point plan:

1. Be a patriot. Okay, them my words. Hillyer calls for an improved Iraq which patriotic Americans can make a reality by wishing "succes on the 'surge' and on the overall mission". Also, because negative talk at home emboldens al-Qaeda, patriots will "want to counteract the morale boost" and buy more time for the surge by insisting we not cut and run "but win" (no emphasis added).  And if I may add, what must have been an oversight by Hillyer, please wish for a morale boost for our troops too.

2. It's the ethanol stupid. You see, Bush is not getting credit for the "phenomenally strong economy" because of the high price of gas, the predictable result of the GOP passed energy bill last year which included new expensive ethanol requirements, is "fooling the public" into believing the economy sucks.  For a quick fix just suspend the new requirements.  Hillyer doesn't mention why the cost of gas was so high before the bill or give ways to explain away the record number of defaults on home mortgages, the ever growing list of uninsured Americans or the dramatic increase in homelessness and poverty stricken Americans.       

3. More racism. Conservatives must pick "well-framed battles" which can win votes including emphasizing English as the official language, race-based quotas and various 'quota-lite' measures.  Hillyer would not want anyone to believe his recommendations racist, so he also advises using "the right non-quota-related words and actions" to evidence "sincere outreach to dispossessed communities and individuals".  Isn't that sweet?

4. Democratic extremism. The "anti-military, big-government extremists" that is the "Democratic congressional leadership" has already shown a "propensity to embarrass themselves". All conservatives need to do, according to Hillyer, is sit back and (COUGH!) act responsibly. And I thought the inability of conservatives to act responsibly is how we got into this mess.

That's it. Sounds pretty simple really. In fact, Hillyer is not asking much at all outside of repealing the ethanol requirement.  On Iraq he really only ask that Republicans turn their frowns upside down. Asking the GOP to be more racist is like asking Fox 'News' for more propaganda. And bullet #4 rests entirely on the Democrats. All of which might explain Hillyer's laughable final sentence about Bush which makes a mockery of his entire piece:

"And he merits some support." (emphasis added)

It also ignores the real way Bush intends to deal with his lack of popularity - with a bang, by attacking Iran.