WorldTribune.com: "'Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats,' Hollings said in a column first published on May 6 in the Charleston Post and Courier. 'You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq.'"

A few thoughts for the day, starting with this:

I am worried that a lot of the neo-cons and people defending them are Jewish. I am worried that the best reason for invading Iraq seems to be to spread the democracy around the middle-east and to secure Israel. I am worried because all of this has nothing to do with anything but pealing Jewish voters away from Democratic Party. I am concerned that this will result in some expressions of anti-semitism. I am afraid that it simply has to. At some point people will look for somebody to blame, and even though all the leadership: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice are not Jewish, there are a lot of Jews in powerful behind the scene positions. I really do not want to see the Democratic Party to become the Anti-Semite party. And I certainly do not want Jews to be punished as a race for misguided ideas of a few. Hopefully it will not come to that yet, as the catastrophe in Iraq just is not big enough YET. And in the end, I lay the blame on Bush and Cheney Administration, as they are the ones who made the decisions based on the information provided to them by the people that Bush and Cheney themselves put into positions of power. If that thought was too complicated, go vote for Bush/Cheney.

I do not think that McCain is going to be the VP. He is doing such a superb job blowing up the Republican Party from the inside, I don't see how he could do better as VP. Unless he was Bush's VP. But you surely can the signs of McCain for VP in the fact that Dennis Hastert is starting the process of disowning the Senior Republican Senator from Arizona. "Is he a Republican?" McCain is exactly what I have always pictured Republican party at its best to be about. He's got his principles, (pro-business, pro-personal responsibility, pro-life, etc.) but he remembers about the good of the country. It seems that everybody else from Bush on down (and that is never a coincidence) does not care about anything but what will help them win the next election. Pathetic really. And dangerous. Which brings us to the next point.

What is also scary is people cornered. Especially when it's the president of the most powerful country in the world. I would almost prefer him thinking that he is going to win, as he will be (hopefully) less likely to do all the stupid things that he is doing now and is going to do in the future to help him win. Question, if Rove was convinced through some great polling data, that detonating a nuclear device would ensure Bush re-election, how long would he hesitate before he started to plan the best possible timing for such an event?

"He's gone,'' Pelosi said of Bush. "He's so gone.''
Being in the low 40s on his approval rating seems to me much more important then whatever Kerry's numbers are. By the way, did everybody notice that nobody is talking to us internationally until after November? On the other hand, Sharon has until November or possibly January to get his ideas put into place without any interventions from US. I mean Bush/Rove really can't control anything or anyone anymore. Even media.

I am curious about Bush in June when he's supposed to do all this travel abroad to 'shore up' our alliances. What alliances? We have no allies that we're not paying money to and our credit card balance is past the limit. But the PResident has faked the country's signature on the loan application and has lied to the bank. Foreclosure is near.

Long live Drudge - the King of News.

Looking forward to watching exactly how and when the Republicans are going to bail on Bush. Should be fun to watch. Me thinks - September.

9/11 Commission is doing a good job of exposing NYC leaders as people who were put on pedestal a little pre-maturely (but probably inevitably).

When will GWB reverse himself (again) and change his position on Strategic Petroleum Reserves? I can't say that I know too much about it, and the last thing that I heard was, that it would not do much to fix the current crisis. Still, I would bet the farm (if I had one) that there is nothing that King George II won't eventually reverse himself on, except for tax-cuts of course.

I am pleased that Josh Marshall is agreeing with my point that when things are going so bad for the Administration, the best thing Kerry can do is not inflict any damage to himself. I think that there is no need to come up with ideas and policies when the public will automatically convince itself that Kerry will do SOMETHING different from Bush, who seems to have done EVERYTHING wrong.

Saw an editorial by Mr. Broder where he is criticizing McCain-Feingold bill as having 'flunked the grade'. I'm sorry, but I think that that's awfully short-sighted. I see lots of positives: it has evened out the playing field for the Democrats, who were afraid that they won't be able to get enough hard money to compete with Republicans. But as I have always believed, more people agree with Democrats then with Republicans. It's just that those who agree with Republicans tend to have more money. Now both parties have similar limitations. And as far as introduction of internet is concerned, that has been a great thing as well as it brought more people then ever before into the political process, which is awesome. Now Mr. Broder contends that both Kerry and Bush have abandoned the system, but I don't believe that McCain-Feingold bill had to do with federal funding of elections and limits on it, as it was defined under...Ford Administration? Overall, I feel that so far the campaign finance reform has been a step in the right direction. And hey, as long as Mitch McConnell disagrees with it, I don't see how that can be a bad law.

I wish somebody would do a break down on all the factions running the Bush Administration, similar to the one that came out in... Slate (?) few weeks ago. There's the Vulcans, the Christians. There are more then that but I suspect that there is a lot of in-fighting going on (with a possibility of more to come). Following the logic that every columnist out there has sources that are linked to the particular faction of the government, which is where his/her inside info comes from, a question rises: When George Will criticizes Bush, who exactly is he representing? According to Chomsky, Thomas Friedman is the 'mouthpiece of the State Department'. After reading Mr. Friedman, I see what Mr. Chomsky is right on again. Novak obviously represents different channels. But when Peggy Noonan, George Will, Tucker Carlson and Robert "I-do-not-reveal-my-sources" Novak criticize Bush and his rule, I am not sure if the description of 'conservative base shows cracks' describes the problem accurately enough. Of course, that's not precisely MY problem, so go ahead and crack up.

Well, that made me feel better. Thank you.