There is some actual Skull and Bones news out there… which involves Bush appointing a Skull and Bonesman to head the investigation into the Plame load-o-crap. It all starts to make sense, doesn’t it.

But… I have little to say about it. Actually, I’m wanting to add some local color to this here here blog. Hm. A list of Portland Celebrities:

(Am I the only one who wants to punch this guy?)



(Conductor on the Trolley-Max: “And to the right there’s Elvis. HEY ELVIS!”
“That’s the even older, fatter Elvis. As he is now, years after the second stamp.”)

“You look familiar. Do I know you?”
“I don’t think so.”
“Why do you look so familiar then?”
“I dunno. I’ve lived in this city for five years.”
“And before that?”
“Um… Eastern Washington.”
“Hm. […] Ever been to prison or jail?”
“Oh, no.”
“Are you sure?”
“Pretty sure.”
” […] You have an evil twin.”

MEANWHILE, Across town:

“Hey! Justin! Remember me? Lived in the Ondine across the hall…”
“um… no. Sorry.”
“Oh, must be someone else. Sorry.”
“Don’t worry about it” (walks away, shifting through contents of wallet he just pick-pocketed.)

There was a letter in last Sunday’s “Parade Magazine” newspaper insert. It went like this.

Q. Are there any politicians in France and Germany who aren’t anti-American?
—Gregory N., Chicago, Ill.

A. Yes. In fact, the next elections in both countries may well lead to the emergence of new, friendlier leaders. In Germany, Angela Merkel, leader of the pro-American Christian Democratic Union, is expected to take over as chancellor. And in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, a staunch ally of America, is expected to replace the consistently anti-American President Jacques Chirac.

I’m pondering the question and the answer. It seems to come from a sort of myopia of how other nations’ politicians shoud acceptably behave… which is, to follow lock-stop behind the interests of the American elites. What the heck is “anti-American” about Jacques Chirac and Schroeder? Both of them politically tapped into anti-Iraq War sentiment, largely cynically, to prolong their political careers. Anything less would make them terrible at pandering.

I recall during the Iraq War, probably right after the statue-falling triumph, someone commenting that “Turkey made a huge mistake by not letting Americans use their land.” This made no sense to me. Beyond anything else, Turkey is as democratic a state as there is in the Muslim world.

Once again, a myopia as to what a state gains or doesn’t gain from these things.

I’m tempted to lower the “Color Code” to either blue or green (Cookie Monster or Oscar the Grouch.)

Reasons:
#1: The “War on Terror” was recently (albeit temporarily) renamed the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism”. “GSAVE”. GWOT.

Apparently, Bush (1) still desires the “war” concept and (2) Nobody told him about this goddamned change.

#2: Bush is on vacation. This suggests that all is well everywhere and anywhere. Otherwise, the leader of the Free World would be hard at work, facing the troubles of the day. Eisenhower was often called the “Golfer in Chief” — he generally remembered amiably as floating the US around the crises of the moment. Bush is Eisenhower. What can possibly go wrong while on vacation? (Note: there’s this absolutely fascinating press conference that took place at Bush’s Crawford ranch circa that month-long vacation Bush took in the summer of 2001, basically of reporters asking what the dog was up to and how much fun Bush had removing brush that day. It’s on whitehouse.gov, but I can’t immediately find it.)

Unlike years ago, they say, when FDR and Truman were Presidents, the recent past has been filled with what America might call “fungible Presidents.” You’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all, so to speak. The reason that most people shove them all in the same basket is that the rhetoric is amazingly the same, what gets done is relatively elusive and tends to be here today, and gone tomorrow – the pattern of Presidents that come and go. Even the brighter lights are folded into the pages of history with amazing obscurity. It’s possible that the White House of today isn’t run the same it was in the days of more prominent Presidents, or perhaps longer terms are necessary to augment the common demeanor that is so much a part of public protocol in fulfilling their duties. Far from spectacular, most have been what the public senses as mediocre, momentary alpha characters drawn from a flurry of political insiders hoping to garnish their day in the sun with a style too often the same, an endless array of suits to accompany the suits of today and yesterday. Perhaps the weakness is in the American people, fed ever heightened genre of action films that renders Presidents more ordinary than not, or maybe Americans have simply seen too many come and go. The ability to retain a memory often resides with the spectacular now, or rooted in war zones of the men who fought there. In the endless parade over a lifetime, as we see from history, only history tends to remember their names, much less their records. Passing into the night, few retain former prominence or popularity without the constant, continuous beat of their drums……for those who will listen……unique soldiers of their own fortune, and of America’s effort to make progress in an ancient world. Should they be more, a greater model of humanity, perhaps, or the wise sage of the past that envisioned the future? Possibly, but is the public willing and able to allow that persona to develop wings when they know that in four years, or eight at best, it will be yet another soldier at the helm?

(Two pennies to whomever can tell me where I got that from.)

If Schmidt’s victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP.

Thus saideth Charles Cook, professional political prognesticator and pollster.

We began this race way back in late March, and no one had thought we’d be the focus of the national media or be the so-called first test of the Republican Party and the Bush mandate. Well, ladies and gentleman, we passed that test.

Thus saideth the victorious candidate, Jean Schmidt. The comedy of the statement comes due to the reason why “nobody thought [they’d] be the focus of the national media or be the so-called first test of the Republican Party and the Bush mandate.”

Which is to say… she won by three and a half percentage points. It wasn’t supposed to be like that. It wasn’t supposed to be like that at all.

Hackett told USA Today that Bush’s taunting line, “Bring ’em on!” was “the most incredibly stupid comment I’ve ever heard a president of the United States make.” He also told the newspaper that, while he was willing to put his life on the line for the president, “I’ve said that I don’t like the son-of-a-[expletive] that lives in the White House.”

Both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have bought TV time for commercials over the weekend. “He called the commander in chief a son-of-a-[expletive],” said NRCC spokesman Carl Forti. “We decided to bury him.”

Does a three-and-a-half point victory count in this district count as a “burial” of candidate Hackett? I don’t know. I do know, or do believe, that Hackett probably would not have come as close as he did had he not shouted out such rhetoric… tapping into Ohio’s frustration on state and national politics as of the moment. (How many Ohio National Guards do we hear about in the news as the latest casualties of the Iraq War?) Nor would he have had the credibility in the public eye if it weren’t for his service in the Iraq War. Which is the trouble for the Democratic Party — whom are they going to recruit to make a race of these races?

But, in the end, Schmidt won, and Hackett has a “moral victory”. A victory is a victory. Even if your victory margin is some 40 points less than any victory margin your party has held in three decades.

2004: Rob J. Portman * (R) 72
Charles W. Sanders (D) 28
2002: Portman (R): 74%
Sanders (D): 26%
2000: Portman: (R): 74%
Sanders: 24%
1998: Portman: 76%
Sanders: 24%

And the election returns are like that. The Democratic Party has won all of nine elections in this district since the dawn of its existence.

A moral victory isn’t a victory. Just ask Al Gore. But… there’s this problem that John Kerry faced in campaigning in the critical swing state of Ohio in 2004. There were no local popular Democrats he could campaign with. He stood behind John Glenn, out of politics since the 1980s (off the moon since the 1960s). Ohio is a one-party state, which serves to explain why everything is going hay-wire for their Republican Party right now… the governor has a nineteen percent (or thereabouts) approval rating.

Now, Paul Hackett probably has to be key-noting the next Ohio Democratic State Convention. His moral victory is simply this: in any other district in the state of Ohio (save, perhaps one), he would have won this race.

And Senator Mike DeWine has to be wondering right now.

“Ask that guy over there!”
“Erm?”
“Who’s Ben Franklin?
“Um. Hm.” (Tricky one, not so much that I don’t know who he is, but I don’t know what from Franklin I’m supposed to latch onto. I’m so tempted to say “Poor Richard’s Almanak”, but somehow that seems… emptyish.) “A founder of this country.” (Feel a bit annoyed because that’s a bit vague.)
As it turned out the answer they were looking for was “Free Mason”.
“Wasn’t he president?”
“NO. No he wasn’t.”
“But he’s on money!”
“He’s the exception to the rule that they place presidents on US money. Well… he and Susan B Anthony, but that doesn’t really count.”
“Wasn’t he that guy with the kite?”
“Yes. Yes he was.”
“Also a Free Mason.”
“Probably.”
“[Name of friend of his] sent me some copies of a book on the Illuminati. She asked ‘Do you believe in the Illuminati’ and I was, like, f’ yeah!”

From there the conversational cross-currents got weird. He knows everything about the Illuminati, and the Free Masons’s place in it. Just not a lot about Benjamin Franklin.