John McCain recently seems to have little problem uttering such blatantly false and idiotic statements that it  makes President Bush look like a statesman.

Today, Sen McCain said that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times.”

He said this the same day that investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch narrowly missed insolvency by selling itself to Bank of America. Saying that while two of the four remaining large investment banks on Wall Street give up the ghost is a rather clueless statement but he managed to top that later in the day by redefining what economic fundamentals are.

And my opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals — the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they’re strong

It’s not just that his opponents disagree, the entire field of macroeconomic theory disagrees with him. American economic fundamentals are the inflation rate, gross domestic product (GDP), unemployment rate,  and other hard measurable factors.  According to Forbes magazine, core inflation “is up 3.6% over the past twelve months, the fastest unadjusted annual pace since May 1991.” Real GDP has been shrinking each year since 2004, and unemployment has gone up considerably since August 2007 from 4.7% to 6.1%. The sky may not be falling but these are not strong fundamentals.

This isn’t just a misstatement or an unusual errant assertion. Senator McCain has increasingly been making statements that are a blatant denial of reality.

Setting aside the normal political blather and partial truths both campaigns have engaged in, John McCain actually had the gall to publicly state that “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations” after Russia invaded Georgia last month. Upon hearing that, I was half-expecting his head to implode from cognitive dissonance or to see him struck by lightning for saying it.

I expected a much more honest and higher level of discourse from him. For a man who sells himself as a straight talker, he’s been anything but the past couple months. What happened to you, John McCain?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University today brought out the best and worst in modern American culture. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger showed courage in inviting such a polarizing and controversial figure to speak. There were calls to cancel the Iranian president’s invitation and now some politicians want to cut funding to Columbia University because he was allowed to speak at all. First I’ll speak about the man before I explain why he should be allowed give his speech and why those who wish to prevent him from doing so are performing a disservice to their country.

Ahmadinejad is without a doubt a smart, though intellectually dishonest, politician. Some may say that I’m being redundant but I want to make clear he’s not an idiot. He knows what he’s saying and why he’s saying it. He’s a talented speaker which only gives credence to the deceptions he bandies about.

But let’s be clear about one thing; he is not the source of power in Iran. He is largely a figurehead president who executes the wishes of the Leadership Council.

Article 113
After the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership.

Ahmadinejad may be elected but that only gives the presidency a veneer of democracy on what is actually an autocratic theocracy. He doesn’t command the armed forces, he doesn’t issue binding decrees except as confirmed by the Leadership Council, and is only responsible for that which the Leadership Council has decided is not important enough for themselves to decide. The real power lies in Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has held that post since Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989 and also appoints the members of the Leadership Council. So let’s put to rest the notion that Ahmadinejad is the source of Iranian foreign or domestic policy. He’s the true-believing, media-savvy puppet of Khamenei and the Islamic revolution.

The American constitution guarantees our right to free speech. Period. No exceptions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Iranian constitution does not have such a blanket guarantee.

Article 24
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.

It is those exceptions that set Iran’s form of government apart from America’s. Any time allowance is made for exceptions to a fundamental right, it ceases to be a fundamental right. It is that exception that allows governments to dictate its’ opinions on those who would disagree and thus strip them of their ability to exercise that right.

You want to criticize the the U.S. President? Americans do it everyday without fear of being jailed for it. That is the beauty of the first amendment. You can say the most rancid, vile and moronic things and you’re safe from criminal prosecution.

You want criticize the Iran’s Supreme Leader? You better have a high tolerance for pain. In 2005, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported on how the independent media was faring in the face of the ascendant power of Iranian hard-liners.

Bloggers instantly became a popular source of dissident news and opinion, drawing the ire of Iran’s powerful judiciary, which launched a wave of arrests. All the bloggers detained in a 2004 crackdown were released except for Mojtaba Saminejad, who was sentenced in June 2005 to two years in prison and denied appeal. He was convicted of “insulting the supreme leader.” Many of the released bloggers said they were tortured in jail. Former Iranian president Mohamed Khatami ordered an investigation into the torture claims, but the judiciary threatened those who made the complaints. Since conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in June 2005, little has come of the investigations.

Does this mean Iranians can criticize the Supreme leader as long as they don’t insult him? What’s to criticize? He’s infallible. Just ask him.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that his authority is indisputable, apparently rejecting criticism from reformists who say he is not above the law.

Iranian radio quoted Khamenei as saying that the “true meaning” of the Iranian concept of “velayat-e-faqih,” or the authority of the leader, is that “the person in charge of the Islamic government does not make mistakes and if he does he will not be the supreme leader from that moment.”

“This is an obvious point that must be understood well and spelled out properly,” the broadcast quoted Khamenei as saying.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right in America and that protection is what sets us apart from Ahmadinejad and the tyrannical regime he represents. This is one of the very things our troops fight and die for everyday. So when Congressman and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter to threatens to cut off all federal funding to Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, he does a disservice to this country and the very troops he claims to be standing up for. The same goes for the New York state and city legislatures who are beating their chests in indignation that the Iranian president was allowed to speak. They are claiming that the university is legitimizing what he has to say and are therefore threatening to cut state and municipal funding. Allowing him to speak doesn’t legitimize what he has to say but it does reinforce the legitimacy of the first amendment. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

It is painfully simple; you can’t protect free speech by restricting it. It is important for Ahmadinejad to be able to give his speech not because what he has to say is important, but rather that he can say it all. If you don’t like what he has to say- protest, write, yell, or get yourself invited to a university to share your view of the world, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If you want to restrict free speech, move somewhere that endorses that principle- like Iran.

The political euphemism glossary, which is non-partisan and being built gradually, is a catalog of the tools, words, and phrases used by political minds to shape how we think or worse, lull us into such a complacency we fail to critically think at all.

The next euphemism to enter the complete glossary is below. Click on the word below for the political definition and description.

Legislatively Directed Spending

Think American confidence in the presidency is low? The public is even less confident in Congress. And that is also a result of the President Bush’s leadership.
Gallup conducts an annual poll of American confidence in 16 different societal institutions ranging from the military to religion, business to labor, the medical system to HMOs, news to government, and a few others in between. The confidence rate was measured by totaling up those who said they had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in each institution. According to a June 2007 Gallup poll, the presidency has only a 25% confidence level and that’s in the middle of the pack- 9th out of 16. Congress came in dead last at 14%

As you can see, the legislative branch has not done well the last few years but the presidency has done so poorly that what was nearly a 30 point gap between the two branches in 2002 has shrunk to 10 points. Even the Supreme Court has lost significant confidence.

At the start of the Bush administration, Congress’ confidence rating was 26% and that has been nearly cut in half to 14% since. This was under a Republican-led Congress and presidency. Because of this, President Bush effectively became the party’s leadership and set the agenda and tone for the entire government. Mix in the fact that he also named two new Supreme Court justices, named one of them the new Chief Justice, and you have the entire government being largely led by one man and one party.

President Bush and the Republican party took advantage of all that power to synchronize policy and politics in an effort to secure not only their policy objectives, but the dream of a permanent Republican majority in Congress. This effort resulted in previously politically independent positions promoting political agendas instead of executing their jobs in the manner and spirit intended. The more recent examples of this have come from the Justice Department and the Office of the Surgeon General. This has politicized the government bureaucracy to such a degree that Americans have lost significant confidence in all three branches.

The more politically charged every single aspect of governing has become, the less we trust them to govern well. The Republican party’s attempt to develop a permanent majority has backfired. The Bush administration has politicized all aspects of the executive branch by attempting to have policy and politics work in sync like a well-tuned political machine. By ensuring that presidential appointees place allegiance to President and party ahead of the integrity of their position, the Constitution, and the nation, the Bush administration has undermined not only the confidence we have in him, but in the entire government.

“Politics is the art of the possible” -Otto Von Bismark

There are growing number of folks with a full head of steam about impeachment. There’s impeachcheney.org. There’s impeachbush.org. The blogosphere is abuzz with the idea. The mainstream media is starting to discuss it. There’s actual articles of impeachment against Vice-President Cheney in the House, submitted by Dennis Kucinich and sponsored by nine other representatives. And it’s going to go nowhere.

Think it through. Let’s start with impeaching President Bush. Let’s say that someone introduced articles of impeachment in the House and the resolution began to take off. All you need is a simple majority to pass the resolution and since the Democrats control the 53% of the seats, it’s fair to say they can accomplish this.

Then it’s on to the Senate which is where the President would have to be convicted by a 2/3 majority. That’s a bit trickier. There’s 49 Senators from each party and two independents. It’ll take some convincing to get at least 16 Republicans to vote against Bush. But let’s assume you get 67 votes to convict and President Bush is removed from office or he resigns prior to the conviction.

The country would now begin to execute a change of course once President Cheney is sworn in. Right?

Impeaching President Bush is comparable to deposing the Queen of England- strongly symbolic but functionally pointless. President Bush is not this administration’s center of gravity. Dick Cheney exerts the real power and sets the strategic direction of this administration. Impeaching Bush without impeaching Cheney is nothing but political theater.

So impeach them both you say! Well ok. Let’s look at that.

Let’s say we got the articles passed in the House, and then the Senate voted to convict them both. Time to play “Hail to the Chief” for President Nancy Pelosi. The Democrat.

Do you think that the Republicans would willingly turn over the White House to the Democrats? Short of discovering Bush & Cheney in the Oval Office with pistols and machetes in their hands amongst bloodstained bodies, there won’t be anyone leaving office for the next 18 months. It’s just not possible.

Our political leadership, congressional and presidential, has turned the most urgent and critical issue facing our nation into a an exercise in sound bite governance and diplomacy. “Cut and run” and “stay the course” compete with “bring the troops home” and “support our troops” as empty slogans masquerading as policy. The nation deserves a well developed and nuanced approach towards this very difficult problem but instead we are getting simple minded pronouncements that are more political posturing rather than leadership, statesmanship, or governance.

All parties concede the following about the Iraq quagmire:

• a reasonable level of safety and security must be established.
• safety and security cannot be established by military action alone.
• safety and security requires a comprehensive diplomatic and political solution.
• a full military withdrawal before safety and security are established would be a debacle likely resulting in the catastrophic failure of the Iraqi state.
• a failed Iraqi state would descend into unrestrained civil war, become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, and possibly lead to an unraveling of what remaining stability there is in the Middle East.
• this scenario would likely require our military involvement again.

Yet the debate inside the beltway, if you can call it that, is whether to bring the military home or not. It has been already established that withdrawing the military from Iraq before there is a sustainable level of safety and security is only going to cause larger problems for the U.S on a global scale and probably here at home also.

Democrats need to stop trying to sell immediate withdrawal. Offering the opposite of what the Republicans propose is not policymaking. It’s knee-jerk politics. Republicans need to stop offering empty platitudes about staying the course. Continuing to repeatedly do the same thing while hoping for different results is not policymaking either. It’s desperate wishing while in a state of denial. It’s also the mark of a fool.

The President needs to swallow his pride, accept that U.S. is unable to unilaterally impose security in Iraq, develop a coordinated diplomatic and political solution, and make that the administration’s primary thrust. That means dealing with Iran and Syria to a certain degree. It may be distasteful to do so but they are the regional players with the most at stake in the outcome and an unrestrained Iraqi civil war is not in their best interest either. Keeping a low-grade civil war brewing that bogs down the U.S. military is.

We can’t immediately withdraw, though I wish we could. America made a promise to the average Iraqi to not leave them to the wolves, be they Sunni, Shia, or Al-Qaeda. We would do even more damage to our battered reputation and integrity to abandon Iraq after having gone in roughshod the way we did.

I’m not suggesting we go in with overwhelming force either, ala the Powell Doctrine, because President Bush repeatedly missed those opportunities long ago and it is now simply too late for that. Both nations are running out of patience with the war.

The reasons we invaded Iraq were thin, twisted, and resulted in bait and switch justifications from the Bush administration. However there are compelling reasons to stay in Iraq until we can reasonably expect that it’s not going to implode. But we must forge ahead with a sensible and nuanced policy that is rooted in diplomacy, realpolitik, and a more thoughtful application of military force.

If we leave Iraq to descend into civil war and wash our hands of the whole mess, it will be the harbinger of America’s permanently decreased moral stature in the world. Our credibility would be heavily damaged. Our ability to lead would be hampered by the global memory of what we did for generations. We would no longer be the world’s policeman, but rather its dirty cop.

In the very first session of Congress this year, the newly Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a resolution requiring members to disclose the earmarks they have placed in spending bills. It would identify what is was for, how much it is for and which House member requested it. This was hailed as fulfilling a promise House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made to “bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks.” Apparently the celebration came far too early.

Not only does House Speaker Pelosi not want to reveal any earmarks she’s added to the current spending bills, she doesn’t even want you to say the word “earmark.” She had this to say to her colleagues on the floor:

If I just might direct the record to another place, why don’t we just leave this room today forgetting the word earmark? This is legislatively directed spending as opposed to executive spending.

CNN has reported that they asked all the House members to inform them of the earmarks, erm… legislatively directed spending requests they have submitted into the pending bill. The result of the new transparency is that only 31 out of 435 members, just seven percent, provided the information. 68 members flatly refused to provide the information and the rest just ignored the request. Even Nancy Pelosi’s staff said the they would not reveal her earmarks.

So when the House Speaker says she’s going to bring a new era of transparency and openness, what she means is renaming earmarks so they don’t sound so politically beneficial, and then declining to reveal what ones she’s responsible for.

The New York Times reported that Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, has decided to change how each congressmember’s pet pork barrel projects, known as earmarks, get reviewed. He’s decided that the 36,000 earmarks will be posted in the Congressional Record one month before they’ll be voted on for final approval. That’s 36,000 individual spending requests valued at over $64 billion on top of the normal budget. This will give the public an opportunity to raise questions and potentially force earmark sponsors to defend their projects to someone other than their enabling buddies in the House. Rep. Obey’s also indicated “that a crush of work gave the committee staff insufficient time to evaluate the thousands of requests for projects earlier.”

Want to help evaluate the requests?

Porkbusters is offering to help the committee out. They are running a letter template you can email to Rep. Obey offering to help him and his committee to review the earmarks in our spare time. Think of it as distributed budget evaluation support. While I’m sure some of the earmarks are valid and worthy of the expense, many others are nothing more than a way to payback large contributors by getting them the government project they’d like. These earmarks are the coin of the realm in Congress. You think the Congress wrote up 36,000 individual earmarks? Lobbyists and special interest groups write them up so their favorite representative can slip them into a much larger spending bill at a later time.

While I wouldn’t honestly expect anything to come from signing up, at a minimum it’s a show of support for a higher degree of financial accountability in an organization that currently shows close to none.

This from Bloomberg:

A resolution to express “no confidence” in Alberto Gonzales, President George W. Bush’s embattled attorney general, was blocked by U.S. Senate Republicans who called it a meaningless gesture… Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chided Democrats for “spending our time on a meaningless resolution about giving the president advice about who the attorney general ought to be.”

Apparently Senate Minority Leader McConnell feels that the Senate shouldn’t give advice to the President on who the Attorney General ought to be. He had no problem giving advice to the President about the same subject when he voted to confirm Gonzales two years ago.  Oh, and there is that politically inconvenient Article II Section 2 in the Constitution where the Senate is required to advise the President on his appointments.

Arlen Specter, lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, came right out and declared, “There is no doubt in my mind that there is no confidence residing in Attorney General Gonzales.” Senator Specter didn’t need a show of hands to know what the Senate thinks.

The House Judiciary Committee has pulled a truly galling maneuver. They have removed a provision from HR 2316, ironically titled the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, that would have required congressional staff to publicly disclose that they were negotiating for a job outside of Congress. The favorite career choice for Congressmen, Congresswomen, and staffers nearing the end of their time as public officials? Lobbyist. Who better to lobby Congress than someone who currently serves in it? The possibility for quid pro quo here is tremendous. There is no better way to prove your value as a lobbyist to a prospective employer than to help them secure the language they want in a bill. Especially if it can be done secretly.

The language in Rule 27 had required filing a notification with the House Clerk that employment negotiations were being conducted. That notification would have required public disclosure. The new language now requires the ethics committee be notified instead of the Clerk. This small change removed the need to publicly disclose the employment negotiation. It’s much easier to develop a secret deal if the public doesn’t know who you’re negotiating employment with.

This dovetails very well with another change made by the committee. CQ Today reported that House Judiciary Committee had also “stripped from a lobbying overhaul bill a provision that would have extended the current ban on “revolving door” practices from one year to two.” CQ Today further reported that both Chairman John Conyers, D-MI, and ranking member Lamar Smith, R-TX described the change as necessary to recruit future congressional staffers.

Both Conyers and Smith described the two-year ban on the lobbying of Congress by former members and aides as excessive and suggested it could make it difficult to hire qualified congressional staff down the road.

“A two-year ban is overly punitive to staff and some members,” Smith said during the markup.

Conyers said that the extended ban could have “potential unintended consequences … to attracting and retaining top flight staff,” who might be reluctant to work on Capitol Hill if their future job options were too tightly restricted.

So apparently in the congressional world, not being able to legally lobby your former colleagues for a year is a punishment and a ban of two years is so much punishment that no one will want to work for Congress anymore. This speaks volumes about the real motives staffers and elected officials have for wanting to work in Congress to begin with. The goal apparently isn’t to be a well-paid public servant but rather a highly-paid corporate servant.