From the SF Chronicle: Approval of Bush on war, economy skids to new lows/No president since Nixon has rated worse in California.

"California voters' approval of President Bush -- now engaged in a war of words with Democratic congressional leadership over funding and American troop withdrawals in Iraq -- has disintegrated to the lowest levels since he took office, according to a Field Poll released today. "  more

Californians know "bad" when they see it. 

Comments

[tylin]

Yeah, we know bad; yet, Bush gets up in front of a camera and blusters, threatens and struts as if he's totally unaware of how he's perceived. Isn't there a name for people with that malady: the inability to see how he's seen by others?

But three cheers for Don Perata's plan to put the war to a vote in California!

[california1st]

echo...3 cheers for don, 3 jeers for george. 1 vote for don, 1 vote to impeach george or send to full-fill the national guard duty he avoided yet sending current national guard for a 2nd time.

[Bill Fletcher]

Hey Howard Dean, I am not happy with the way the war is going, that's very true. I voted Democrat because you promised you had a better plan for Iraq. That does not mean I want to surrender! When you said you have a better plan, I thought you had a better plan to win! So what is your plan to win? Please stop saying we voted for you because we all want to lose in Iraq.

Mr. Dean please tell us all exactly what your intelligence tells you will happen in the middle east if we bail out according to your plan. I hold the Republicans responsible for the current mess in Iraq, but we will all hold you responsible if you make it worse.

Sincerely,
Democratic Voter.

[peter the bellhop]

Nice to see tylin again. How's the health Mary? Ca1st, still reading here. How's the school?

Sure W's down, not out yet. Must wait till January 20th, 2009 for that. Then the next GOP administration will be sworn in.

How about the Governator's poll numbers, rising all the time. What a great governor the people of California chose. Great choice California!!! Viva the people!!!

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to say that I love the blog.

[Arnold Simmel]

Has treason so prospered that none dare call it treason?

Veterans who served in the armed forces during World War II will remember that we were read “The Articles of War”, the law governing military personnel. It was strongly impressed on us that certain actions, loosely called “treasonable”, had a certain consequence for their perpetrators: they “shall suffer death”. We took it lightly, because we could not imagine that any of us would do any such thing. Now it clearly has happened–not on the part of our men and women risking their lives around the world, but in the safe, ever so protected precincts of Washington.

Article 75: MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY.– – Any officer or soldier who..by any misconduct, disobedience or neglect , endangers the safety of any fort, post, camp, guard or other command which it is his duty to defend, or speaks words inducing others to do the like...or by any means whatsoever occasions false alarms in camp garrison or quarters, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Noone mentioned “such other punishments” to us. We’d be shot. Period.

Article 81. RELIEVING, CORRESPONDENCE WITH, OR AIDING THE ENEMY.– – Whosoever..gives intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death....

The “outing” of CIA agent Plame may have had lethal consequences for–we don’t know how many–other agents, nor can we know what other consequences it had for the defense of our country and the safety of our intelligence agents and our troops. The number are irrelevant, the possibility is all that counts. The responsible parties, under the articles of war, are in serious danger of their lives even if they only spoke “words inducing others” to give such “intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly”, even if it was not done by “ misconduct or disobedience” but by “neglect”. Note that “neglect” is explicitly mentioned in Article 75.

There is no escape from describing the outing of the CIA agent in terms similar to those explicitly mentioned in Articles 75 and 81. Wilson might have rescued the White House cabal from its efforts to “occasion false alarms” to justify our attack on Iraq. But the administration neglected to listen, as is had neglected to listen to General Shinseki, the Chief of Staff of the U.S.Army, nor to the advice of other experienced military, diplomatic and intelligence experts. When Wilson then published his findings in the newspapers, it was clearly not by chance that somehow, it drifted down, clearly from sources high in our government, that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent. Apparently this resulted in her loss of usefulness to the CIA. Consistent with the despicable pettiness of world view of our administration, this was a petty revenge. But more than that: A treasonable revenge.

Of course, the Articles of War are the law only for military personnel. Yet our Constitution makes it explicit that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”–does that exempt him, or the Vice President? Is there any doubt about Harry Truman’s interpretation of the Constitution about where the buck stops?

Presidents, and I hope vice presidents, can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Treasonable activities surely qualify as high crimes. Perhaps a further piling up of misdemeanors is “supererogatory”, more than is needed. But let us be clear, and the public must clearly understand that the neglect of the global warming problem qualifies as a “culpable mental state of reckless indifference to human life”.

Elizabeth Holzman, in an article in the Washington Spectator (Nov.15, 2006) adds to my list of the treasonable “outing” and the lies regarding global warming and the failure to take effective action. Shed mentions the mind-boggling Katrina neglect and the failure to provide our soldiers with body armor. She then cites “a classic nineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation” in which Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."”

The time has come to stop pussyfooting.

[Mary]

Bill Fletcher asked: "So what is your plan to win?:"

If you listened to Senator Reid this morning, you heard him say that we did win the war in Iraq. We achieved the goals we stated pre-war: we elimated the threat of WMD and we removed Saddam Hussein from power. The job of our armed forces there is over, but our president isn't getting the message. He's always been a slow learner. Congress will give him a little nudge in the right direction to see if he can pick up his cues.

Oh, and incidentally, Bill, Iraq couldn't get worse. It's time to abandon our less-worthy goals in Iraq and turn to the world community for help in cleaning up the mess we created. It won't be resolved with bullets. Too bad Bush doesn't know how to use anything else.

[Mary]

The perennially optimistic Peter is still posing impossible pictures of a future powerful GOP. Fergetaboutit! You all have made your bed, and it's wide and it's deep. That's a good thing - very prescient - because you're going to rest there for a long, long time. Nobody's going to forget very soon the strutting, swaggering Bush standing under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished," then walking off to see 3,300+ American troops come home in coffins. Remind me, what was that mission? And if it's accomplished, why aren't we home? Oh, wait! The oil. The elephant in the room.

[hurst sommer]

kathy did u get the fax from me ??

[peter the bellhop]

The Nevada Democrat did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."

So lets just say "Mission Accomplished" Mary as Harry backs up our President and that sign now. Sure he's saying it for 'other' reasons. He wants them to come home. Why haven't we ever come home from Germany, Japan, Guam, Bosnia, Kuwait and many other places we've gone to? Political reasons for each one of them. None of them are looking agressive right now, none. Senate Majority Leader and President both say "mission accomplished" now. How nice for this agreement, should have happened a lot sooner.

There's the 'oil' thing again. Why did the Democrats plant right in the middle on the Irag funding bill now being debated in conference something about foreign ownership of Iraqi oil for a generation or two. Democrats seem to want this 'control' not Republicans. They seem to lust after this oil.

On to 2008 Mary, Is there any other reason California and New York moved up their primary dates other than to herald Rudi Guliani to the head of the GOP nomination list. Californians will like Rudi just like they liked Arnie last November. NY'ers will even go for Rudi over HRC should she win the nomination. With NY and California joining with 'red' America, he's the next president, easy. Funny how willing California Democrats were to move their primary. The Democratic leadership in California must not like HRC too much.

What a great wave Rudi will be riding this time next year. Then we'll have eight more years of strict constructionist justices to replace the four seats vacated. Did you like the affirming of Majority Leader Harry Reid's and 16 other Democrats vote to ban partial birth abortions last week by SCOTUS? More coming soon.

Mary it's always nice to read you. Truely, I do hope all is well with you. I'm wondering about bob and vanna. This place has been very vacant lately.