Former President George H. W. Bush said today that he would like to see another Bush in the Oval Office.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Mr. Bush said he thought his son Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, should run for the Senate when Mel Martinz vacates the seat in Florida in 2010 — if he wants to.

He then added, “I’d like to see him run for president some day.”

It was the way it was supposed to be.  President Jeb Bush, not President George W Bush.  But, as the Oliver Stone movie clip has it Bush Senior saying to Bush Jr, “You’ve ruined the Bush name!”

Well, there’s about one more chance to block a Bush from the presidency — 2016.  After that, the nation ought to be clear of the Bushes.  “I say America — stay out the Bushes”, as Jesse Jackson once said.

The end of the Bush Administration affords the opportunity to look back and recall some of the those minor controversies which flared up admist larger political concerns — the brush-fires off of the larger debates.  One item forgotten, when Richard Perle invited one Laurent Murawiec into a government policy board — one which had been refashioned in the Bush Administration to advocate the neo-conservative view in foreign policy — topple Saddam Hussein, put fear into Tehran, and on from there.  Of course, Murawiec is no longer an advocate for Larouche, and we see that he has been referred to as, “a real-life ‘Beetlebaum’ of the legendary mythical horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass, currently in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.” But the imprints of his time with Larouche linger — as the slate article aptly asks “and where did he learn to write like this?” — with a power point presentation that ends with “Egypt the Prize” — surely neo-conservativsm on hyper-drive — that perpetual half suspect whimsical thought pops into my head that maybe he was a plant of the organization all along, or I’d suggest more likely — it’s a logical extension of where he came from — the old ally of the Neoconservative Movement from back in the day — ie:  the Lyndon Larouche Movement — the advocates of a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union annoyed by what they viewed as a lax appeasement of real-politik from figures such as Henry Kissinger — the stance that would help propel Ronald Reagan and a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union “Evil Empire”, which as we can see here in this letter from Patrick Ruckert to the Seattle Times, the imprisonment of Larouche was all about the relinquishing of forces back to a policy agenda that would appease Moscow.

Politically, the rush was motivated by the fact that during the Reagan-Bush transition, the government wanted LaRouche out of the way while several policy actions were launched.The policy issues are the intent of the “establishment” to continue appeasement of Moscow; and to implement savage austerity against Third World nations and the U.S. population itself, to hold together a collapsing monetary and banking system.

Also, mind you,  The nation will slide into the police-state methods of the Nazis and the Soviet empire.  It all came to passed as predicted — this imprisonment brought upon a strengthening of the power of the Soviet Union to run roughside all over its sphere of Influence.  Right?

Because we’re always very concerned with Moscow’s treatment of its neighbors.

I think a lexus-nexis search (or some more scattershot variations I can partake of) for news conferences with “Executive Intelligence Review” with any variation of the phrase “note of puzzlement” would draw up a good number of “notes of puzzlement” — though, in this case the phrase “as I’m sure the Executive Intelligence group would be the first to point out” suggests the speaker preceeding him knew exactly who he was talking to.  This Brookings Institute press junket happened in August of 2008.  At the time the cult was pretty much dedicating all of its attention to supporting Putin in his spill-over into Georgia.  It was the daily briefing cause of the day, and the battle to stop the out-break of WW3 (here started by those dastardly neo-cons) was the reason given for sticking the information that Larouche appeared on a Russian tv show in the wikipedia article.  This all changed during the Great Crisis which had Treasury Secretary run to Congress for a massive bail-out, and we could pivot right back to the bread and butter Bank Collapse Panic.  Which, naturally, Larouche has been well ahead of — why, he saw it coming back in 1979 and had Carter have to hear his name — bold seeing as Carter was at the time plotting with Queen Elizabeth and others to assassinate him. 

 To summarize:  a one time supporter of the neo-con movement and the biggest War Mongerers out there despite what they will tell you annoy someone whose name is not Sara and continue on.  Also for some reason Jeremiah Duggan is on an anti-semites’ list of Influential Jews who are destroying British Society.  Well, let’s hope he proves to be influential, I suppose.

It’s never too early to figure out who should be the Republican presidential nominee for 2012.  Right?

So Mitt Romney has basically set up a rolling campaign.  Mike Huckabee has a book and a book tour which has hit into Iowa and New Hampshire.  Bobby Jindal has suggested he wants to punt to 2016, more or less, and craftily suggested Sarah Palin may well just go for it as a sacrificial lamb.  I hesitate to say this, but Jeb Bush may well just do the same — and enjoy one term as Senator as a lead-in.  I suspect the General Paetreus Draft Boom will peter out.

So who do I think the Republicans ought to nominate for the presidency in 2012?  Conservative Columnist and Game Show Host Pat Sajak.   They should pick him to run against Obama — as a thumb in the nose of what they perceive as Obama having won off of fluff.  Of course, Pat Sajack will need a running mate to fill in his weaknesses in the realm of government experience, particularly executive.  There I suggest his balance the ticket with fellow game show host and former Nixonite Ben Stein.  There’s your Republican ticket for 2012:  Sajak / Stein!

You have a better idea… this far out… before Obama has even started office?

There apparently exists a sub-culture of people who dress up in hand-crafted costumes and pretend for long evenings and nights to be superheroes, patrolling the streets of the city they live in or near.  It seems a mostly harmless fancy, as described by the Willamette Week, Portland’s Zetaman acts as well as various charity organizations do — walk around the city and hand out blankets and food to the city’s homeless.  Of course, the members of the charity organizations don’t have that need to emblazen their chest with a giant “Z”.  As for fighting crime, when Zetaman observes an act of violent from one of the city’s evil-doers he springs into action by… dialing up the Portland Police Department on his cell phone.  Some Superhero.

Apparently other superheroes are more pro-active in the crime-fighting arena.  The Willamette  Week update — at the end of that page –mentions his uneventful team-up with a guy who dresses up as a ninja in Anaheim, “Ragensi” described as having a more “hard core image”.  I assume that means he takes the fight to the criminals?  What else could it mean?  Just that he dresses up as a ninja while others are content to stick a giant letter on their chest and wear a cape?

There are two troubles with this cadre of vigilante superheroes.  One is the bright shining light of media attention which will expose the flaws — it’s a problem familar to anyone who’s read Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s Watchmen.  The media create a back-lash in investigating these costumed avengers.  Rolling Stone has apparently blown the lid off of a man who patrols the streets in Florida.  Apparently he’s a poor slob living in a shack and dons the costume to escape his existence.  But that strikes me as rather nit-picky: if I assume he’s acting like “Zetaman” that means he’s a dirt poor man running around helping dust-poor people.  A knock, how?  Also, has it occured to Rolling Stone that his alter-ego is actually the disguise, a ruse of assuming statue to…

But the real problem comes with the omega to this alpha, the yang to this yin.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  If there are people playing out their fantasies of donning capes and assuming identities as superheroes, it follows that there would also have to be people wishing to play out their fantasies and act as Super-villians.  The ninja figure in Anaheim (and really, if you see a man in a tough stance in a ninja outfit, would you assume he’s on the side of good?) apparently has attracted a costumed nemesis — one of the reasons for his “hard boiled” reputation, I assume.  The question is — do we really want to live in cities where superhero versus supervillian grudge matches exist?  Well, it’d be entertainment on the Max, I suppose.  Either that or it’d just resemble the lamest geeky comic book convention sparring ever.  But really, if these guys insist on running around in costumes under assumed “super” identities, they all each and every one probably deserve an arch super-villian nemesis.  So I beg of somebody, anybody… please… Zetaman needs an enemy.  If you want a back-story for motivation — I don’t know — apparently he’s starting to police and guard who gets to be superheroes?  It leads to something like this.   Proportinate with the situation, I don’t know what these guys deserve — rotten eggs thrown at them every so often?  They need adventure, folks!

Actually what we need is the Bizarro-version to appear.  That’s what is needed.

Y’know…

During the late 1990s, I was a frequent listener of Art Bell.  Less so now, as I don’t much like George Noory and don’t have a huge block of high school which would be best served to be half asleep through.  A lot of psuedo-science, a good dash of paranoia.  None of them should get the time on CNN.  There might occasionally be people who would serve well to find their way into the mainstream media — I remember a good tutorial on String Theory coming out of the Art Bell show once for example — but I would say that those examples fall into a definite minority  of show guests.

Such is the case with one Igor Panarin.  If you want to put him on Coast to Coast, that’s fine, and if Drudge wants to blare his existance, that’s fine too, but what is this?

Further, if this is a prediction he’s had for the past decade, how is it a “developing story?”  This is along the same lines of seeing “Exclusive Interview” for an interview subject who has made him/herself available to every media outlet everywhere — an occurance which happens with jarring frequency.

Maybe I’m part of the problem.  It’s a variation of the “Water skiing Squirrel” Syndrome — they cover what interests the public — I posted that Drudge noted this inanity a month ago and posted the Wall Street Journal article two days ago.  Fine… from now on it’s just details of budgetary processes for me.

I demand full wall to wall coverage of Mel’s Hole now.  I will not consider CNN a credible news organization unless they work to get to the bottom of that one.

The oddest items tend to stick out to me.  Today’s unsigned Oregonian editorial — available here — where it is signed — always a faulty object at best, the unsigned Oregonian editorials from an omniscent blurry figure.

“Bush sucks”, the editorial rages, and one would think that I’d have a few things to say about Bush sucking — and how the opinions expressed here adequately or inadequately or misdiagnose Bush’s suckiness.  Actually the presidency of Bush makes me try to puzzle out the legacy of Bill Clinton — Bush’s record simultaneously making Clinton look worse and better.  But here, no, what sticks out at me is this, in the old parlor game of ranking presidencies… after referencing James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson:

The amiably incompetent Warren Harding rounds out most worst-president lists, thanks to his grotesquely corrupt administration. Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover, James Polk and William Henry Harrison are often mentioned in such accountings, too, and Bush will likely join them.

James Polk tends to be ranked pretty highly, but that’s not the one that concerns me on this list.  The figure of William Henry Harrison is the problem here. He is often not ranked at all, taken out of contention along with James Garfield (to be fair, Garfield was apparently good enough to be shot).  How can he be ranked lowly when he didn’t do anything?  On the wikipedia page, we see him dropped from 5 out of 12 polls.  And Polk figures no lower than 14th, indicating this man’s lazy editorial writing.

On the same page, there is this editorial arguring that Portland needs to do more for preparing for Big Storms.  Dave Lister offers up a bad example.

The economic impact of the storm, not only on the private sector but also to the city and to TriMet, is huge. Dan Yates, president of the Portland Spirit, reports that cancellations of holiday cruises resulted in the loss of nearly 8,000 payroll hours and a quarter-million in revenue. And that’s just one business.

That’s one business where everyone would have been cancelling their cruises whether or not they would have been able to get down to the waterfront — unless the cruises was planning on a more exciting thrill-ride through giant chunks of ice.  So what was the point of that reference?