Pro-Discrimination as a Platform Issue
The Bush administration seems to be its own worst enemy these days. The waffling over National Guard service, backsteps from overly-optimisitic job projections, Rod Paige's claim that teachers are akin to Osama bin Laden, Condy Rice's refusal to testify before the 9/11 commission, and, the kicker, the gay marriage ban amendment have done nothing but give the Dems more and more ammunition. It's enough to make one wonder if Bush and Rove have simply lost control of their people and their already ailing campaign.

The gay marriage amendment is a perfect example of how Bush is attempting to narrow the upcoming campaign to an over-riding issue in order to divert attention from his failings, which is not only sad, but in this case sickening. He's attempting to secure votes through a threat of pushing discrimination through Congress and the state system. While the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, as unenlightened as that stand may be, Bush's raising of the issue to the constitutional level will only serve to alienate a number of them, especially the millions of Republican gays that voted in the 2000 election. Also, since an amendment would never pass Congress nor the number of state legislatures required, many of Bush's fellow Republicans are slinking away from the administration's radical stand:

After Bush's announcement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it would take time to gauge the level of support in Congress for a constitutional amendment. He suggested the difficulty of passing one may cause lawmakers to take a different approach to preserving marriage as a solely man-woman union.

"We don't want to do this in haste," DeLay said.

...

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn't support a constitutional amendment. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary," he said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

With some conservatives wanting a broader approach than Bush supports, and others opposing federalizing the issue, DeLay said it's "going to take some time" to unify those groups and examine other options.

"Constitutional amendment - I believe that is the ultimate remedy left for the Congress," he said. "We are looking at other ways of doing it."

The New Democrats have an article up today that very accurately portrays Bush's current conundrum, pointing out how the President himself doesn't seem to know exactly what he's proposing to begin with:

The panicky thoughtlessness -- or perhaps cynicism -- of Bush's intervention on this issue is rather breathtaking. He is proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States, but cannot articulate the language of such an amendment, and will not endorse one of the existing formulations making the rounds among social conservatives in Washington. In his statement yesterday, he suggested he did not want to override the power of the states to authorize same-sex unions or equal rights provisions that do not utilize the word "marriage" -- embracing a position more common among Democrats than among conservative Republicans. Yet he offered no thoughts on how to accomplish this crucial distinction, or how to prevent a constitutionally sanctioned national rollback of basic citizenship rights for gays and lesbians.

Bush even claimed as early as 2000 that gay marriage was a state issue.

Not even Rove will be able to fix this one.

The Kerry Anti-Vietnam Non-Issue
While driving earlier today I tuned-in to ultra conservative talk show host Neal Boortz's show for no other reason than self-loathing, it seems. His subject for the particular segment I was inflicting upon myself centered around John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War after him having served there. Boortz, with all the flair and style of a traditional right-wing talking head, frothed forth a ridiculous decree: Kerry believes he should be exempt from criticism over his Vietnam protests because he served there. Oh, and Boortz isn't the only one who's bringing this up as an issue.

But why is this an issue? Certain veterans may be overly sensitive to criticism of the war, but it's not exactly a guarded secret that we lost that war and really had no reason to be in Indochina to begin with. Kerry's experiences there are what fueled his dissent as he saw corruption and brutality firsthand. If Kerry had stayed quiet and ignored those events, he would have been doing a disservice not only to himself, but to democracy. The Right seems to have a difficult time digesting the fact that dissent is just as patriotic as, well, blind patriotism. In actuality, dissent is more patriotic than being led haphazardly by inept leaders. Had those leaders listened to the protests earlier during the Vietnam debacle, years of struggle and death could have been avoided. No matter what anyone on the Right may say, Kerry did the right thing by protesting with his heart at the time, and he should not back down from that. In fact, he should use that to prop up what I've outlined here -- The fact that dissent is at the core of democracy, at the base of being American.

I'm very much against looking to Vietnam as a key to this upcoming election, and I fear those within the Democratic party selecting Kerry due to his service may be making a mistake. However, when it comes to this key issue of public dissent and discourse, it tends to strike a nerve. It's quite easy to tell it's an election year.

...

Which reminds me, Boortz weasled his way out of Vietnam. Ah-hah, I can play dirty, as well, so let's see how far it gets me.

Did Wes Clark Betray the Draft Movement?
Wes Clark's exit from the race for the Democratic nomination and his nearly immediate endorsement of John Kerry have been waffling in my mind for the last several weeks, which would explain why I have yet to put down anything truly concrete on the matter until this point. The main problem I was having as I went over events was whether or not General Wesley K. Clark, the man I initially supported to be president, betrayed those who initially drafted him into the race by his endorsement of Kerry.

First off, it's somewhat important to know the background of why I was so drawn to Clark and his platform, because it may give an insight into what those within the Draft Clark movement saw and may continue to see in the General. Wes Clark, to me, represented a change of direction for the Democratic party, and on paper he seemed to be the most direct foil to George W. Bush -- Rhodes Scholar, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, economist, and, on top of all that, he was anti-war while also being a General. No wonder he seemed to be the ideal candidate to those within the Draft movement. With the rising backlash within the party against Bush's Iraqi escapade, Wes Clark became a figurehead of the anti-war movement. He was the peaceable general who only fought when necessary and lost nary an American life in the subversion of all-out genocide during the Kosovar war and promised similar results through exhaustive documents and plans for the implementation of a stable Iraqi democracy. Howard Dean, the first to mine the underlying and long-building anger of the Democratic party toward Bush for his war policies, could not present the same sort of credentials that Clark did. No one could when the race was planted firmly around the issue of war, but the focus eventually changed and both Clark and Dean paid for it.

Despite Clark's credentials, I was also drawn to how the Draft movement itself was organized and operated. It was my first exposure to the "netroots", and instilled a sort of hope that political efficacy could be spread by way of organized internet usage. It opened up what seemed to be an entirely new dimension to the political process, one where the citizenry had direct access to the process itself and could affect where it was headed in a way never before seen. I became an avid follower of the Clark Community Network and posted sporadically while lurking constantly, always keeping up with whatever the General was working on while making and seconding suggestions whenever I saw fit. And, the funny thing, many suggestions brought about through the CCN caught the campaign staff's attention and were worked into the campaign itself. It renewed my hope in the system's ability to change and be progressive. Not only had the People brought a man into the race, they were actually making a difference through him.

But the credentials and the support of the netroots did not mean that Clark knew how to be a politician. Despite the General's freakish ability to learn quickly, several missteps in his campaign were enough to offset the credentials and platform the Draft movement, and myself, were so set on promoting to other voters. The media was no help, nor was Clark's lacking skill in handling them. When the campaign seemed to lose steam after Iowa, where Clark mistakenly did not participate, it became more and more obvious that the General would not be able to attain the nomination. The most dedicated Clark supporters had difficulty believing this, although some were able to see the reality and prepare for Clark's inevitable exit, such as myself. However, it's the abruptness of that exit and the endorsement of Kerry that confused and angered many among the Draft and CCN movements.

Initially I did feel betrayed by Clark when he left the race after his third place finishes in Tennessee and Virginia. I had convinced myself that he would at least stay in through Super Tuesday, bolstered by the monetary support of his CCN followers. However, the exit was not as bad as the Kerry endorsement and its relative immediacy to end of the campaign itself. At first, I was confused -- How could a supposedly anti-war candidate endorse a Senator who backed the Iraqi war? How could a man whose campaign staffers dug into Kerry's personal life for political gain suddenly support Kerry himself? (As a sidenote, it's doubtful that Clark, a political novice, actually had any say into his staffers attempts to uncover a fictionalized Kerry intern scandal, although it still seemed odd at the time -- Was the endorsement partly an apology?) Theories have been formulated into why Clark acted in the fashion that he did, ranging from the excessively negative to the overly positive. Some saw Clark's endorsement of Kerry as an ill-thought out career move, only done in order to secure some high level position within a Kerry cabinet. Others, specifically those within the Clark campaign itself, spun the endorsement as exemplifying the General's vision concerning the unification of the Democratic party against Bush. I, however, tend to fall in between the polarized views.

Clark was no politician to begin with, but he was in no way stupid. I recognize that he must have saw possibilities within the endorsement, and there is little doubt that he took that into mind in some fashion. However, it is highly doubtful that alone is what drove him to push so quickly toward Kerry's direction. I believe that the idealized Clark I saw through the lens of the Draft movement was actually real to some extent, and that he truly did believe his endorsement would prove the need for a unified anti-Bush front. The General's continued support of the party after his exit, including his elicitation of support for Ben Chandler, made me feel even more that this was the case to some extent. He's made a commitment to the party, and he's going to be around for a long while as now was simply not his time and it was this he realized. Can I fault the man for arriving at the truth, a truth even we were blind to? And, can I fault him for wanting to prove his loyalty through an endorsement to a party that has doubted that very loyalty in the recent past? Yes, actually, because I didn't necessarily find the timing tactful, but I do understand his reasoning and I do not believe it to be out of pure, note pure, political opportunism. He is not a traitor.

I'm proud to have been a supporter of Wes Clark. He made me and numerous others excited about the domestic political scene once again, and that is something the General himself should find comfort in as he looks back on the roller-coaster experience that was his and a bevy of others' first presidential campaign.

Teachers = Terrorists, It Seems
While most everyone probably knows about this by now, it definitely deserves some space here for posterity: Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a terrorist organization today:

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so.

...

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark.

...

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."

It just keeps getting better for Bush, eh? Foot-in-mouth syndrome seems to be running rampant, although it has generally not been as blatant, let alone as revolting, as this. Documented lies on National Guard Duty service from administration officials seem to pale in comparison to something such as this from a cabinet secretary.

MoveOn Supporting Rep. Doggett, a Victim of Republican-imposed Gerrymandering
MoveOn has sent out their first PAC emailing of the election cycle, asking for support for Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a progressive Democrat who has been a target of gerrymandering by way of a re-districting map initially proposed by Tom DeLay and passed this past December through a Republican-packed judiciary.

One of DeLay's prime targets is U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Lloyd has been one of the most progressive leaders in the House. He was a leader against the rush to war in Iraq and has consistently stood his ground against the extremist policies of the Republican leadership. Here’s what Republican staffer Joby Fortson had to say in an internal memo, upon seeing what they were able to do to Doggett’s district: "ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"

...

Congressman Doggett helped lead the effort to oppose the invasion of Iraq and aggressively lobbied his colleagues in an effort that resulted in a majority of Democratic members of Congress voting "no" on the Iraq war resolution. At a February 2003 anti-war rally in Austin, Doggett told a cheering crowd:

"Mr. President, the policies that you are pursuing in the name of our security are wrongheaded. They will make our families less secure. You jeopardize the security of our families when you insist on a land invasion and umpteen years of occupation of Iraq..."

...

DeLay's re-districting map was approved in December by a court stacked with Republican appointees. It's designed to knock off Democratic incumbents who stand in the way of the far-right's agenda, giving Republicans an edge at the expense of large numbers of Texas voters who will be disenfranchised. In the words of Republican staffer Joby Fortson, "This [map] has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood." This is not democracy. It's gerrymandering at it's worst, and yet another attempt by the Republican national leadership to game the system.

...

You can help keep a strong, progressive leader in office and at the same time send a clear message to DeLay and the Republican leadership by supporting Doggett's primary bid. You can contribute online at the following web page:

https://www.moveon.org/pac/doggett/

For those who have not yet checked out MoveOn, it's a must. The organization represents what may be the only counterbalance to the big-corporate-funded Republican machinery, and has served to mobilize over two-million Americans alone in the quest to bring about Bush's ouster.

Aristide Accepts Peace Plan, Violence Continues
So, Aristide has indeed accepted the peace plan proposed by international envoys where he would allow a prime minister and bi-partisan Cabinet to be elected, although it seems the rebel opposition doesn't care. Aristide's political opponents have not warmed to the peace proposal, and it doesn't seem as if they will by today's 5PM deadline (whatever happens after that isn't exactly clear -- perhaps the world explodes, or Pat Buchanan votes socialist.) Even if the political opposition did accept the plan, there'd never be a gurantee the rebels fighting in the streets would follow suit. This is a mass uprising that's growing in strength, and it doesn't seem as if it'll be easy to quell. U.S. officials are still being rather quiet, although some such as Representative Chris Cox are basically claiming that Aristide is getting what he deserves, while placing blame on the Clinton administration for returing the president to power in 1994 (political maneuvering doesn't take into account the lives of innocent men, women, and children currently at risk today, it seems.) It'll be interesting to see where this goes from here, although it certainly doesn't look any more promising.

Update: CNN currently has a breaking news blurb that combat-ready US marines are enroute to the US embassy in Port-au-Prince.

Nader's In?
It would seem so, and he'll most likely announce his presidential bid as an independent on Sunday's Meet the Press.

Of course, the DNC is scared out of their minds that a repeat of 2000 is now in the works, but it seems doubtful this'll be the case. Nader is without party backing this time around, and many of those who voted for him in 2000 may be suffering from voter's remorse due to their supposed handing of the nation to Bush. So, while I'm all for the expression of ideas outside the two-party norm, getting rid of Bush is slightly more important come November, and hopefully the traditional Naderites realize this.

Haiti on the Brink
The intensification of civil strife within Haiti has impeded aid from reaching the north now, making the situation even more dire than it was before. Diplomats from a wide range of organizations are currently attempting to forge a peace, but it's doubtful the terms -- Aristide as a head of state along with a newly appointed, more powerful prime minister -- will be acceptable to either side. The US response currently seems to be rather subdued, which isn't exactly unexpected. Support for Aristide has never been widespread within the American government, asides from his military-led reinstatement as Haitian president in 1994 (which was only done due to mounting public pressure.) Despite the growing aid crisis, Colin Powell and Scott McClellan have assured that there will be no US-policing force in order to subdue the violence and growing upheavel, and that it is up to the Haitian people whether or not the democratically-elected Aristide stays in power.

Kerry's AFL-CIO Endorsement, the "Rally-Around-the-Donkey Effect"
The AFL-CIO has hopped aboard the electability bandwagon and endorsed John Kerry, proving exactly how much they hate Dubya Bush. Considering Kerry has been "wishy-washy" at best on NAFTA and trade/job protection, AFL-CIO's idelogical choice should have been Edwards. Although, since Edwards doesn't appear as "electable" (despite what this new poll suggests), he's going to be hurting in the organized labor states come Super Tuesday. All of this proves that people will throw away their ideals if it means the ousting of Bush, and I've become more and more convinced that a mossy stump or a rusted-out Ford pickup would meet approval if people were assured those things could win in November.

UN to Recommend Against Direct Iraqi Elections
It seems Kofi Annan will make the UN's final recommendation to the US on Thursday concerning the best way to transfer power to an Iraqi sovereign government. What exactly that recommendation will be is not exactly clear, but it will not be for direct elections before June. However, it's also doubtful it will be for the initial US caucus-based election proposal. Support for the caucus system has been crumbling within Iraq ever since leading Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani spoke out against it and in favor of direct elections a few weeks ago. Backing among the US-appointed Governing Council for caucuses has even begun to break down as popular Iraqi opinion (read: Shi'a opinion) has called for a more direct alternative. The UN proposal, in an attempt to please both the Shi'a and those within Iraq fearful of majority mob rule, should attempt to create a combination of al-Sistani's plan for direct elections and the US caucus system. If they do not, it might as well be the match that sets off the powder keg. Although, considering the vast differences among the peoples of Iraq, it's difficult to envision an acceptable outcome for the West or the Iraqis themselves at this point. It took a dictator to keep the Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds under one flag, and it'll take another to do the same, which doesn't exactly bode well for anyone involved. Cheers to Bush and his obviously well-thought-out foreign policy.

The Changing Face of the Democratic Race
With Dean out of the picture now a new variable has entered: the Deaniac vote. Many of Dean's initial supporters jumped to Kerry in Iowa and ever since, yet the good doctor's true supporters stayed on right until the end. So, with a few alternatives left, what are the Deaniacs to do? They're obviously not being fooled by the media and Kerry campaign's electability blather, so while a potion may jump to Kerry, there's probably a good number flirting with Edwards or pledging to vote for Dean regardless. Those who turn toward Edwards may play a role in Super Tuesday, especially in manufacturing states such as Ohio where the races will be the closest. For instance, if Dean had not been in the Wisconsin race, a portion of his 18 percentage points would have, more than likely, gone to Edwards and would have made yesterday's contest that much closer.

Of course, this all was said about the Clark vote, as well, and it indeed may have been a small portion of Edwards' success last night. However, it's doubtful that the Clark vote movement is as homogenous as the Dean vote movement will be, mainly because of Clark's decision to endorse Kerry a day after he closed shop. Clark's decision to stand behind Kerry was confusing to many of his supporters, yet it sent a majority of them the frontrunner's way. Dean will probably hold off on making an endorsement since he dislikes Kerry (an understatement to be sure), yet does not want to be on the losing side come convention-time. This leaves the Deaniacs to make their own decisions, unbiased by their former nominee, and it's quite possible they may side with Edwards, making the remaining primaries much more interesting.

Dean's Out
And here's the story to prove it. Despite his earlier claims that he'd stay in, it seems the reality of the situation has finally sunk in. The dynamics of the race up to Super Tuesday have changed because of this, but I'll have to wax poetic on that later as I'm running short on free time currently.

Hope in India & Pakistan?
Pakistani and Indian leaders are to meet in Islamabad tomorrow in order to iron out a schedule for peace talks, which will serve as the first true attempt at peaceful resolution the two nation-states have seen since before the 2001 Indian parliament bombing. It's easy to let optimisim run high, but there's just something about this situation that seems too good to be true. There's simply too much happening for this to go off on a steady note. Of course, I hope it does, but when one takes into account the powder keg-like nature of this conflict and the region it's taking place in, it simply looks shaky. The terrorist element still exists alongside these talks -- attacks have even occurred over the last 24 hours, where Muslim militants have killed two officials in India-controlled Kashmir. The true power lies with these militants and those within Pakistan who support them. Another incident such as the Delhi bombing will be enough to dash these hopes, and it's up to Musharraf to cease Islamic extremists from passing into India and their portion of Kashmir, which is not exactly easy. The Pakistani army, in a sense, is pulling double duty as they patrol the Afghanistan border in an attempt to track down Al Qaeda members at the behest of the United States while also making sure extemists from within Pakistan do not billow into Kashmir. Of course, if American troops had not been misdirected toward Iraq Musharraf and his army's job would be a great deal easier.

So, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop, or, more specifically, a bomb to go off. Hopefully I'm wrong about this, but the track record when it comes to this conflict does not instill much hope.

Yay for Chandler, Democrats
Congratulations to Ben Chandler! He defeated Republican Alice Kerr by a sound margin (55% to 42%) and has won the right to represent Kentucky's 6th district, making him the 205th Democratic Representative out of the 435-member House. The netroots movement through this win has proved it has legs. Now it's time to build off this momentum and run with it.

Edwards "Stronger Than Expected"
It seems Edwards is showing "stronger than expected" in Wisconsin currently, so much so that CNN has stepped away from making an early projection of the poll results. All things considered, a strong showing by Edwards is a good thing for Democrats, no matter what the Kerry-backers, DNC, and Republicans may want one to believe. As the Democrats forge ahead to Super Tuesday and beyond, a tight race will keep the media spotlight planted firmly on them and away from Bush. Also, with more than a couple Dems left in the field, the Rove operatives will not know which one to focus on. Sure, they have recently attacked Kerry, but that has only gone to make some Democratic voters take a closer look at Kerry's record and give Edwards a second glance.

The Wisconsin debate was an example of solidarity among the Democratic candidates, which not only benefits the party and cause as a whole, but may in fact make the remaining Democratic primaries a more issue-based race. It's very possible that the differences between Edwards and Kerry on trade policy may indeed have been a factor in Edwards' showing tonight. Perceived electability, not issue-based banter, has been at the core of Kerry's campaign since Iowa, and that momentum has been what's pushed him and pulled other voters along. Now that time has passed and more scrutiny has been placed upon Kerry's campaign by outside sources, his momentum may subside slightly. Whether or not it will be enough to make Edwards a viable alternative is an unknown at this point, but here's to hoping that the differences in campaign platforms will be what guides voters and not the misguided "electability" factor as it has until now.

Haitian Civil Strife Intensifies; A View Into a Future Democratic Iraq?
The Haitian rebels are gaining a foothold in the north, putting President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in a tough position. If any lesson can be gained from this, it's how democracy is not something that is easily implemented and sustained, even when the great United States initially supports it. Perhaps a parrallel between Haiti's issues during the `90s and Aristide's current troubles can be applied to Iraq today.

There are some deep-cedeing differenes between the two situations, of course, but it's those differences that exemplify exactly how difficult sustainable democracy will be to achieve in Iraq. The CSM has a comprehensive article on the background of the current Haitan conflict, so I won't go in depth on that. I will say that at the macro-level perspective, the problems facing democracy in Haiti are nothing like that which face the impending democracy in Iraq. The internal strife, the terrorist insurgance, the possibility of "Balkanization" does not exist in Haiti to the extent that it does in Iraq. If Haiti is used as any sort of case study, the Bush administration should be weary.

Sadistic Irony
Seems the Blogspot ad system has saddled me with a banner touting a stereotypical liberal-bashing book, which is highly ironic. Obviously I'd never support such a thing. Perhaps this is Blogger's attempt to get me to upgrade to a paid account simply so I can get rid of the advertisement eyesore altogether. Or maybe it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

Chandler and the Ascent of the Netroots
I thought I'd take some space and publicly wish Ben Chandler luck on tomorrow's special election in Kentucky's 6th. The most recent "Bluegrass Poll" from the Louisville Courier-Journal shows Chandler with a 9 percentage point lead over Republican Alice Forgy Kerr, so optimism's the tune at this point. Hopefully a win for Chandler will be the start of a new Democratic trend.

Netroots organization has been extremely important in Chandler's current lead, and the blogosphere should be applauded. While the two presidential candidates pushed forward by internet-based actions and funds, Dean and Clark, no longer have a shot at the Dem nomination, those claiming doom have to realize that it's quite the feat that both lasted as long as they did. Dean, for instance, is still plugging along due to the continuation of funding by way of the internet. Baby steps, my friends, baby steps. We're starting with the House and the Senate (FromTheRoots.org), and will eventually reach the White House through the use of netroots. Finally, a counterbalance to special interest money and influence may be developing, and thankfully it has been born from the populous' desire to not only be heard, but also to be a key component in the polticial process as the framers intended.

The Revenge of Perot: "The Great Sucking Sound"
So, riddle me this, Mr Bush: If the outsourcing of American jobs is a good thing, then why are the 9 million+ unemployed Americans so unhappy? Oh, that's right -- That fact simply does not matter. While those unemployed Americans, your true constituites, are fighting to forge a living and a satisfactory way of life, they are not the majority donors pumping the RNC and Bush coffers full of capital. It's those outsource-friendly companies that own the logos doing all of that, and it's their funds and interests that will push Bush's policies throughout the presidential race. Neoliberal free trade policy is going to be a key issue in this year's push toward the White House, and it's something the DNC and Kerry need to get straight.

Edwards is on the right track. As he stated at the Wisconsin debate last night, NAFTA needs to be repealed and not simply reworked. Attempting to put conditions on it now will not be successful, and the downward spiral of unemployment will simply continue onward without far-reaching change in response. Kerry, who voted for NAFTA, seems to be on the fence with the issue, which is not only ideologically dangerous but could potentially squander numerous key swing votes. Bush is extremely weak on the economy currently, and with his top economic advisor's claim about outsourcing this past week, he can be brought down due to it as long as a strong stand is taken. Simply insinuating changed language within the agreement will not make Americans feel their jobs and futures are any safer -- Taking a strong stand against it will.

This is a test post, inagurating the creation of my latest weblog. More to come soon!