In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush stated that

America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity:  the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance.

Yes, from what we've witnessed since this address, the statement would be funny if the consequences of its falsity weren't so damned deadly serious.

But there is an element of truth in those words: The Bush administration was for the rule of law before it was against it. The evidence is in the administration's actions on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When I was 12 or so, I got interested in watching football. Naturally, I had questions about what was going on. I'd ask my dad, and he'd say, "Shut up and listen. Maybe you'll learn something."

Not the nicest way to talk to your kid, but it was effective. I learned what was going on in the games in short order and to this day (on the very rare occasion that I watch any football) I can still call the penalty and tell you who recovered the fumble before the ref does.

What's the point? It's below the fold.

A hyperbolic title, yes, but not by much. According to the Detroit Free Press, International Truck & Engine Corp., a customer of Delphi, is warning of dire consequences should Delphi's workers go on strike:

"The seriousness of such work stoppages/strikes cannot be overstated," ITEC, which buys $46 million a year in parts from Delphi, said in its filing [with the bankruptcy court]. A strike would have an "enormous negative impact," not just on Delphi's customers, but "consumers and the U.S. and global economies as a whole."

But ITEC isn't arguing that cutting wages at Delphi is a bad idea. Rather, it's trying to get the bankruptcy court to ban Delphi workers from striking.

JLFinch posted a diary about HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson telling an audience that only pro-Bush bidders get contracts, which rocketed to the rec list. Rock Strongo has the Secretary's follow up in a diary that similarly deserves rec status. The good Secretary, it seems, was speaking hypothetically.

The initial story made me mad. The follow up got me thinking: Haven't we seen this before?

Let me start with a line from, of all things, the movie "You've Got Mail."

Tom Hanks is in Meg Ryan's book store. He picks up a pricey book and the nerdish clerk gives him its background (the details of which I forget, but it's "first edition" type stuff).

Hanks asks if that's why the book costs so much, to which the clerk replies, "That's why it's worth so much."

Last November, I stopped into a book store at LaGuardia because I needed something to read on my flight. I found, "What's God Got to Do with It? Robert Ingersoll on Free Thought, Honest Talk & the Separation of Church & State," a collection of Ingersoll's work edited by Tim Page. The description on the back intrigued me:

Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) is one of the great lost figures in United States history, all but forgotten at just the time America needs him most. An outspoken and unapologetic agnostic, fervent champion of the separation of church and state, and advocate of the rights of women and African Americans, he drew enormous audiences in the late nineteenth century with his lectures on "freethought."

Ken Blackwell, infamous overseer of elections in Ohio and candidate for Governor, is at it again.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported today that Blackwell may not be complying with HAVA.

(I admit this post is the product of spring cleaning, made easier by a good soundtrack.)

Back in 1979 or so, the band Supertramp warned us about opposing the President: "Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal."

They foretold the Bush dynasty:  "You say it all depends on the money, and who is in your family tree."

They even honed in on the hypocrisy that abounds nowadays...

I am the proud product of taxpayer investment. In exchange for my giving this country two years of military service, they gave me enough money to get through college. When I decided to go to law school, they chipped in again by subsidizing my student loans, giving me help with daycare expenses and letting me have some badly needed cash in the form of an earned income credit. I'm not rich by any stretch, but I'm comfortable. Without the "hand up" from the American taxpayer, I'd probably be worrying that my $10 an hour receptionist job was about to be offshored.

What's your story?

Ahead of the Ohio primary, a Rasmussen poll shows Democrat Ted Strickland solidly ahead of the two leading Republican gubernatorial candidates, Ken Blackwell and Jim Petro.  

According to a Zogby/Wall Street Journal poll, Sherrod Brown leads Senate incumbent Mike DeWine, 45.9 percent to 37 percent. Rasmussen expects to release its poll numbers on the Brown/DeWine race this weekend.

No word yet on the all important race for Secretary of State, which oversees Ohio's elections.  

Every now and again, I run across an essay or speech by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and I ask myself, "Why hasn't Bush sent this guy to Guantanomo?"

On March 30, Rep. Paul gave a speech before the House, in which he said:

The obvious shortcomings of our regime change and occupation of Afghanistan are now readily apparent. The Taliban was ousted from power, but they have regrouped and threaten the delicate stability that now exists in that country. Opium drug production is once again a major operation, with drugs lords controlling a huge area of the country outside Kabul. And now the real nature of the government we created has been revealed in the case of Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who faced a possible death sentence from the Karzai administration for converting to Christianity.

Until I read this, I hadn't noticed that hardly anyone is using "Karzai administration" when they speak of the threat to Abdul Rahman's life.  

As recently reported, Sen. DeWine (R-OH) introduced a bill that would, in essence, codify the President's surveillance conduct. Some details of that bill are provided in the extended entry below, including information to help anyone interested read and track the actual bill without relying on the media.

Remember:  Sen. DeWine is up for reelection this year and the word is his seat is among the most vulnerable. His opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown, has a record of protecting Americans' civil liberties. Among other things, Brown was one of only a handful in Congress to vote against the Patriot Act back in 2001.  As an Ohioan, I'm going to do everything I can to get Brown elected to the Senate.  I hope others will join me in that effort.

I admit it.  I forgot that Bush promised to give a speech in each of five weeks leading to the June 30 (sic) transfer of "sovereignty" over Iraq to Iraq.  Thanks to a BuzzFlash reader for remembering:

Beginning with Monday's address at the Army War College, Bush will give a major speech on Iraq every week through June 30, when the U.S.-led coalition is due to turn over limited authority to a new interim Iraqi government. "We're entering a critical phase, and the president will be speaking out each week to discuss with the American people, and the world, the way forward in Iraq," said a White House official.

"Some speeches will have more details than others, and will be given at different places and times. All have the important goal of explaining the essential tasks at hand and the significance of June 30," the official added."
Bush to Detail Transition Monday in First of Several Iraq Speeches (Washington Post).

(Link:  http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/04/06/mai04176.html)

I'm interested in what people think of the following proposal for the Kerry campaign:

What Kerry Should Promise America
The Cafe Elaine blog makes the following proposal, a ten-point plan, for the John Kerry for President campaign.    

Kerry should promise the American people that, as President, he will:

-- Own up to his mistake in voting for the Patriot Act, saying that never in his wildest dreams did he believe it would be abused to the extent it has in John Ashcroft's hands.  He should promise a repeal of that Act except for the provisions that are essential to protecting the United States against terrorism, and those should remain only with appropriate checks on law enforcement power.

[See extended copy for the rest.]