It’s been a wild ride for me, as for many progressives.

Nationally, the election exceeded my expectations. The recovery of both houses of Congress is fabulous. I’m hopeful the Democratic leadership will use subpoena power judiciously, not so much as to make it seem like a witch hunt, but enough to expose the damage caused by the Bush/Republican campaign of rotten legislation, bad policy and dishonesty.

This isn’t sex with an intern, folks, it’s been a full-scale assault on our system of government to consolidate power for old wealth in this country. Not only has this Administration threatened to condemn a large percentage of the population to declining standards of living, but it’s stifled the entrepreneurial energy of the nation. (More on this some other time.)

I also believe that Bush committed impeachable crimes against the constitution, but I think more good will be done by two years’ exposure of his deeply flawed and corrupting activities than by a traumatic impeachment. Moreover, I think the bogus impeachment of Clinton looks politically brilliant now, since a Bush impeachment would be widely seen — or at leat played in the media — as political payback, rather than the constitutional corrective it really would be.

[Note to David Brooks: You lost. America elected people in favor of a national health care policy, a forward-looking energy policy, and a decent minumum wage. They elected people of faith whose faith is not threatened by science. (See e.g.) Those are not your “conservative” values.]

I feel that we’ve killed the Bush/Rove campaign of government by smear, fear and secrecy. The task now is to bury it.

Regarding the Wisconsin vote, this was bittersweet. On the one hand, we

1. rejected the attempt to bring Washington’s failed policies to Wisconsin (via the Green, the Republican gubernatorial candidate), and re-elected Gov. Doyle
2. turned the state Congressional delegation over to the Democrats (two Senators and 5 of 8 U.S. Representatives),
3. gave a state senate majority to the Democrats,
   and reduced the GOP majority of the Assembly
4. overwhelmingly accepted referenda calling for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq

On the other hand, we

1. Passed an advisory referendum in favor of the death penalty; and
2. passed an amendment banning gay marriage and civil union

The first benighted referendum is mitigated by the election of a Governor and Senate that will not pass a death penalty amendment.

The second is more troubling, but I’m hopeful that it will eventually be rescinded when people recognize the harm it does to people they know and love, as well as the cultural harm caused by building discrimination into our constitution.

On the whole, Wednesday, Nov. 8, was a good day.

What was it Lincoln said about fooling the people?

I’ve been making phone calls for the Dems, and have had a number of people say they were disgusted by the negative ads. Yet, they were willing to talk about the election.

Could this be the year that the negative ad finally ricochets back at the perpetrators? I think so.

I think the GOP is going to go thermonuclear in its negative ads, and will prove to be so shrill and ridiculous that people will see through it.

I don’t think that will motivate people to go out against and vote against the GOP, but there’s already sufficient motivation for that. Also, it might actually turn off enough GOP voters to hurt where it really counts.

What do you think?

I have to admit that I’m reflexively against the death penalty. Besides the fairly high probability of mistakes, I just can’t abide the notion of the state as a killer.

However, I’ve been thinking about the question, anyway. In particular, I was thinking about what the Christian position ought to be. This, naturally, led me to thinking about what Jesus might say about the current proposal to amend the Wisconsin constitution.

I’m no biblical scholar, but the only instance in the Gospels relating to capital punishment that I can think* of is in Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John, in which a woman accused of adultery is brought to Jesus for his judgment.

According to the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, she is to be stoned to death, but Jesus’ judgment is to simply say to the woman “I do not condemn you; go and sin no more.”

I think from the words “do not sin any more,” we can surmise that Jesus accepts that she is guilty of the charge.

But Jesus also clearly refuses to condemn her to death.

So, if you’re looking for guidance on how to vote on the constitutional amendment to allow the death penalty, you can see how Jesus voted in John 8: 11.

[In case the language of the amendment causes any uncertainty, the correct vote is “No.”]

* [April 2, 2007] Doh! I just realized that each of the Gospels contains another reference to capital punishment: The execution of Jesus.

OK, try this one on for size:

While you keep hearing that the GOP holds the high cards on national security, and some airheads like O’Reilly keep saying the terrorists want Democrats elected…

I have to believe that Osama bin Laden would much prefer Bush to be President. Why? Because Bush’s policies serve to radicalize Muslims, and that helps recruit suicide bombers, etc.

You only have to look to Iraq to see how obvious this is.

It seems clear to me that John Kerry had it right: Fighting terrorism is not a military problem, but a law enforcement problem. Again, having 130,000 American troops in Iraq hasn’t done anything to reduce terrorism. Certainly not in Iraq.

I’ve been making phone calls through MoveOn.org (it’s fabuous, go to callforchange.org), and it’s forced me to think about how to distill the many travesties of the Republican government into a 15-second litany.

Here’s what I”ve come up with:

1. restore checks and balances; this Congress is a rubber stamp
2. curb the President’s monarchist tendencies
3. correct Congressional inaction on minimum wage, health care, homeland security measures, and energy policy
4. correct horrible legislation such as Medicare Part D and the Military Commissions Act (aka the torture bill)

Am I coverering the high (low) points?

Let’s be clear about something: The House Republican leadership failed to act to protect pages from a pedophile. And, like so many things Republican these days, politics trumped good judgment and policy.

Mark Foley himself had to be talked into running again in 2004.

Now, you may want to believe that this scandal was somehow engineered by the Democrats to maximize the political damage to Republicans but

• there’s no evidence of that; the reporter who broke the story points out that his source was a Republican House staffer
• the Democrats wouldn’t have been a position to engineer the scandal if something scandalous hadn’t been committed by the GOP leadership

The second point is the one to keep in mind. If I wait to disclose my enemy’s embezzling church funds to maximize his embarassment, that’s bad. But it’s not nearly as bad as the embezzlement, for crying out loud!

Let’s be clear about something else: As bad as this is, it’s not the worst case of Republican nonfeasance in Congress, and it’s not nearly as bad as the many acts of omission and commission by the Republican Administration.

In church the last Sunday I was struck by a passage in the Gospel in which Jesus says, “those who are not against us are for us.”

Hear any echoes there? Harken back to George W. Bush’s remarks to a special joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001 (link):
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

And on Nov. 6, 2001: “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”

Note the difference. Jesus makes common cause with those not actively against him; Bush attacks those not actively with him.

So, George got it backwards. Consequently, he’s isolated America in foreign affairs.

This by the way, is the same manner in which he’s run domestic politics, with his “mandates” to “reform” Social Security and repeal the estate tax.

Which is why he’s becoming increasingly isolated himself.

In 2000 , George W. Bush and his cohorts were willing to subvert the electoral process to win control of the country. In 2004, they probably did it again, and certainly used the unifying tragedy of 9/11 to further divide the country and win again.

So, Bush has controlled the U.S. since 2000. And since 9/11/01, he has invaded two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether he controls them or not is open to interpretation, I guess.

But let’s take a quick inventory of the countries Bush has attempted to assert control over.

After letting Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora (shades of his father letting Saddaam Hussein “escape” in ’91!) he essentially turned his back on this country. Now the country is the leading source of heroin in the world, and the Taliban is back, terrorizing the country (and funded in large part by the heroin traffic).

It’s a fairly well-documented fact that one of Republican strategist Karl Rove’s main tactics is to attack an opponent at his strength. Perhaps the best example is the “swift-boating” of John Kerry, an attack on his war record, which was clearly a strength in light of George W. Bush’s wartime “service.”

It worth looking at a more recent canard or talking point, if you will: That the Democrats have no ideas.

For starters, it’s obvious the Democrats have plenty of ideas, on health care, social security, the war on terror, and fiscal responsibility. The Republican “ideas,” such as they are, are cut taxes for the wealthy and “stay the course” in Iraq.

But the larger point is, to the extent that Republicans have ideas, they are wildly out of step with most Americans. This is why Rove’s tactics and those of the right wing echo chamber (Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Kristol, et al.) involve not ideas, but deceit. Rather than advance their weirdly bad ideas, they misrepresent the sound liberal ideas that made this country great.

Now, I don’t want to tar all Republicans with that brush; I think there are plenty of truly thoughtful, patriotic Republicans with interesting ideas. You just don’t hear from them nowadays.

In a recent column, Cal Thomas wonders why the coverage of Mel Gibson’s recent drunken misbehavior hasn’t dragged Gibson’s marital problems into the discussion. (Apparently there was a young woman with Gibson.)

Because, you idiot, it’s none of our business. That’s between Mr. Gibson, his wife, and whomever he may or may not have been acting adulterously with.

Thomas is more concerned about people’s behavior in their personal lives than their public lives. This explains why he finds eight years of peace and prosperity under Clinton as time in the wilderness, whereas he thinks the corruption, deceit, hubris, and reprehensibly inept and inappropriate warmaking of the George W. Bush Administration so wonderful.

This, I think, is a good working definition of lunacy.

I’ve written before that I trust the wisdom of Wisconsin voters sufficiently to actually look forward to a referendum on a constitutional amendment essentially banning gay marriage.

My question is, will enough Wisconsinites actually vote?

The issue, I believe, is that people who hold what I regard as irrational views about gays generally, and about gay marriage specifically, are more motivated than people who are not concerned about it; hence supporters of an amendment are more likely to vote. (Someone who doesn’t believe it will rain, or who doesn’t mind getting wet, is less likely to carry an umbrella than someone who believes that it will rain and it will be harmful, e.g.)

But I would remind people of three things:

1) It’s important not to let fanatics take over governance in our state.
2) You need think about looking your gay family members, friends, and acquaintances in the eye and telling them “I think you’re less of a person ethically and emotional than me because you’re different.” (If you can do that, I guess you’ll vote for the amendment; not voting against it ethically amounts to voting for it.)

For a guy who basically ducked military duty, George W. Bush sure is quick to call out the military. (Compensation, maybe?)

His recent ploy to call out the National Guard to secure our southern borders may appeal to nativists, but isn’t going to relieve the pressure of people whose economic prospects have taken a sharp downturn in recent years, probably because of NAFTA. Nature abhors a vacuum, folks, and economic pressure is simply lower here than in Mexico.

(By the way, the immigrants are doing the “jobs Americans won’t do” because employers want to pay substandard wages for those jobs.)

All this is economics 101. And Bush isn’t really doing anything about it.

But we have his next “Mission Accomplished” photo op to look forward to.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen’s column about Stephen Colbert’s performance is the complaint of someone who’s a little uncomfortable with the heat.

Was Colbert unfunny and rude? Well that’s satire, not comedy. I’ll grant that satire is widely regarded as rude, must obviously by those being satirized ? Cohen included, in this case.

As to the risk of speaking truth to power, Cohen might ask Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson about the consequences of crossing this administration. He might also ask whether it was fear or something baser that has made the news media this administration?s lap dog as Bush lied us into war.

Besides, saying the emperor has no clothes is a form of speaking truth to power. As polls show, most Americans are seeing what Colbert said: This emperor has no clothes, and the truth — on the failure in Iraq, on fiscal responsibility, on health care, on the environment, etc. — is finally being laid bare. What should upset Cohen is that we’ve been reduced to hearing it in satire, rather than in news reports, over the past six years.

But in the end, Cohen’s right. What Colbert said isn’t funny. It’s sad but true.

It’s been a long time, and revisionism has been running at full speed, so I’m not sure how people react to the Viet Nam era phrase, “We had to destroy the village to save it.”

I bring this up because our President seems bound to destroy the Constitution to save it, and I wonder what people are thinking about that.

As amply documented by Charlie Savage (summary and link to Boston Globe’s registration site here), George W. Bush is attempted to subsume both the legislative and judicial branches of government under the presidency.

While I find this infuriating, my fury isn’t so much directed at George W. Bush, whom I basically regard as a stupid fool. Rather, I am bitterly disappointed and angry with the people who elected him and our various watchdog institutions — notably the news media — who are failing to pillory him at every opportunity.

Perhaps one of my readers can point to some success of this presidency, but in both foreign and domestic affairs, he is destined for the utter contempt of history.

But again, the larger question is, can we trust democracy? We have democratically elected someone who is acting with utter contempt for both our laws and the interests of the vast majority of the citizens of this country and the world. When will the electorate begin again to act it its own interests? When will demand responsible government from its leaders?

Enough!

I recently was asked by the Republican Party to submit a letter in support of our troops. Frankly, I’m not sure what this means. I support the USO. I also pay taxes to feed, arm and equip the troops.

If the administration can’t lead them properly, equip them properly, or allow them to properly execute their mission (not enough troops, lack of armor for Humvees, etc.), then the best support would be to throw out the administration.

I’m working toward that.

I believe it’s possible to support our troops without supporting their mission, which is predicated on lies. (I also believe it’s possible to support out troops without supporting George W. Bush, which is, of course the subtext of all those damned “support our troops” car magnets.)

I believe the troops are doing what they’re supposed to do, to the best of their ability. But our foolish leaders have put them in a horrid quagmire.

Bush’s Iraq war is a tragic mistake. God bless our troops; their civilian leaders are damnable.

It’s been a while, but I thought I should ramble on a bit about what’s been happening with the Bush administration and the wreckage they’re leaving in their wake.

I. I’m trying to think what Bush supporters would say he’s done well. It can’t be national security. The biggest single thing that’s been on that score has been the war it in Iraq, which only blind loyalists would say is a success by any measure. Oh wait, that has nothing to do with national security (there being no credible threat — WMD, for example — from Iraq); it’s all about spreading democracy. Oh, wait, we’ve created civil war. The next big initiative was Homeland Security, which brought us the pathetic Hurricane Katrina response. Then there’s missile defense, which surely won’t protect us from Al Qaeda — they don’t have missiles. Then there’s port security, about which next to nothing was being done until the Dubai Ports World cock up.

It can’t be the budget, which is a “borrow and spend” spree that beggars the imagination. Even conservatives are bailing out on this one. (See

It appears that the more we see of democracy in the Middle East, the more we see rejection of the West.

In Palestine we see the election of Israel’s implacable foe Hamas.

In Iraq we see sectarianism and the election of Iranian clients.

All in all, it doesn’t seem like democracy in the Middle East is going to turn out the way George Bush hopes.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing…

Notwithstanding justifiable anger over Western interference with their lives and culture, I’m having trouble sympathizing with Muslims who are protesting unflattering portrayals of Mohammed in some European papers.

Where are their protests over murders by Muslim extremists — murders, not just of non-Muslims, but of their co-confessors?

Call me an infidel, but murder trumps every other human offense, in my book.

At this writing, it appears that Wisconsin has avoided becoming the 48th state with a “concealed carry” law. We should be proud to have rejected a populace of potential killers.

I find it peculiar that the party that claims to have won the Presidency on values (read “Christian values”) — not least among them being “right to life” — would have supported the people carrying handguns, whose primary function , after all, is to kill people. People may claim that they want to carry guns as deterrents, but such deterrence is predicated on the killing power of the gun.

Frankly, I would have a gun if I believed it would have a reasonable chance of saving my life or the life of some innocent person. This seems absurdly unlikely. If I were to use it to save anything, the likelihood is that I’d be saving my wallet, which as a Christian I can’t value above a human life. To put it more plainly, I believe Christian morality (though certainly not exclusively Christian morality) dictates that I give up my wallet rather than shoot someone.

I’m prepared to entertain the possibility that I’d have murderous thoughts if someone were to grievously hard one of my loved ones. But that’s exactly why I should not have a gun.

It’s been said that for some, the right to life appears to end at birth. Concealed carry is a case in point.