Blue Collar Politics

[BREAK] Following a sunny blue sky horrific day in September, 2001, the Repugnants have, with much help from a manipulated mainstream media, heaped irrational fear onto the citizenry of the US, and tossed, or inspired to be tossed/placed by others, bomb loads of VERY RATIONAL fear onto countries far and wide. Now, as November looms large in their sights, fear has decided to take residence in the empty, dark recesses of the Repugnants themselves. This year, they fear those they once frightened, the American voters! How delicious is that bowl of irony! ===== [/BREAK]

GOP kisses up to liberal Chafee | Salon News Chances for a Democratic takeover of the Senate may hinge on whether Republican maverick Lincoln Chafee survives the Rhode Island primary. By Walter Shapiro Sept. 1, 2006 | PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- One of the nastier attack ads currently being aired anywhere in the country is being aired here, and is sponsored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the official arm of the GOP majority. The 30-second spot employs all the traditional techniques of political fear-mongering: a voice-of-doom narrator, grainy photographs, purported FBI warnings, menacing footage of a Willie Horton-like villain (a Hispanic illegal immigrant) and the stark closing question about the challenger, "Will he put our security at risk in the Senate?" The factual basis for the commercial is flimsy. The mayor of Cranston agreed in 2005 to accept Mexican-government-issued matricula cards as a valid form of identification, a position so radical that it is shared by the U.S. Treasury Department. But that justification is enough to allow the NRSC to tar the mayor, who is now running for the Senate, as a permissive advocate of open borders who is seemingly eager for every resident of a Mexican barrio to move into the mansions of Newport. What makes this GOP smear attack so unusual is that the target of this venom, Mayor Steve Laffey, is a Republican. And he is the only Rhode Island Senate candidate who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, supports the Iraq war and believes in the magic elixir of Miracle-Gro tax cuts. Laffey's unforgivable sin in the eyes of the national Republican establishment is that he has an even-money chance of defeating antiwar incumbent GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the traditionally low-turnout Sept. 12 party primary. More Here

[BREAK]
Karl Rove sycophant Bob Novak first released Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative, and then exposed her cover company, Brewster, Jennings & Associates, as being a CIA front. By doing so, Novak and his sources assured that not only would Plame's career be ruined, everyone who had any contact with Brewster Jennings would now be in danger. As we now know that Plame was the head of a large group that was gathering intelligence on any WMD program in Iraq, you could safely guess that any Iraqis known to have spoken with anyone associated with Brewster Jennings, as well as all those CIA assets who worked under that cover company, were placed in jeopardy by Novak and his hydra of traitorous sources!

[BREAK] I've liked to think that by keeping myself "aware," by keeping well informed, by reading voraciously, I and a large portion of the beings on this great nation with me have kept ourselves way above the fawning wackos who so eagerly fell for the Anti-Christ, Rapture and Second Coming crowd of fear mongers. We aware ones had no need to even acknowledge, let alone confront, those who so yearned for strict moral leadership that even sanctimonious evil (albeit evil that is poorly camouflaged by a covering cloak manufactured from a hodgepodge of misused religious phraseology and symbols) commanded their adoration and sacrifice. The fact that instead of debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, these priests of evil debate how much torture the masses would allow and pretended to care about the Constitution and Geneva Convention protections for detainees. We aware ones just shook our heads while observing how pseudo-moralistic fascist's who spout anti-fascist and oxymoronic rhetoric (Islamo-Fascists!, the Bushies cry) were allowed to confidently order the waste the lives of their most ardent worshiper's sons and daughters by using them as cannon fodder for artificially conceived wars, as the modern day corporate-government sock puppets knew colorful yellow-ribbons, red meat speeches and material carrying a red,white and blue pattern would suffice as reason for the ill informed worshipers. Today's Washington Post story, Corruption That Shook Capitol Isn't Rattling Elections, shows that we forget/forgive so quickly, it's a wonder more politicians don't cross the line. And, yes. Corporatist's have infiltrated both sides of the political spectrum, but there's still some difference between the Repugnants and the Dems.) That miraculous anxiety-numbing salve, of arrogant super-ego mixed with a dollop of disinterested sophistication, that kept many of us sated has been steadily and progressively weakened in the past few years, as more and more people fell under the spell of the war criminals who currently lead much of the Earth's human population. The ability to see right through the smoke and mirrors that Karl Rove and his ilk used to stupefy the masses no longer brings any relief or comfort, as the US is losing two wars, suffering the deaths of thousands of young troops, causing the deaths of a multitude of innocents and making preparations to add a third country to George Bush's death march to a bankrupt Empire. Now that we have placed war, war anytime/anywhere/anyone, above all other priorities, we can not handle any domestic crisis. Ask a homeless Katrina victim, an uninsured sick child, a veteran from Afghanistan/Iraq needing treatment or a 9/11 Ground Zero rescue worker who can't get medical care for his/her scorched lungs or decrepit kidney. Domestic security is in shambles, from poor port security, through flawed flight security to failed programs to protect us from bio-terrorism. And, while America is certainly leading the civilized world in deconstructing back to a more primitive state, it ain't just us yanks going crazy. While some sociopaths use their own warped interpretation on the Koran to try and justify mass murder, we have a Pope who decided to pick at scabs covering centuries of wounds from Christian and Muslim battles, then offended many Jews with his belated apology to the Muslim faithful. In England, our partner in crime and an exhausted ally in Iraq/Afghanistan, the now centrist Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, is holding on by its fingertips, while the Conservatives are salivating over polls that show them taking over Britain. In Germany, neo-Nazism is on the rise, to the point that swastikas are near to becoming a common fashion accessory. In France, escalating discrimination has led to bloody riots. In Darfur, where tens of thousands have died and over 200,000 have fled their country, and in other Hell-On-Earth spots that dot the globe, killing on a scale that could make Hitler envious is proceeding on a daily basis. And the march of right-wing governments are increasing as if contagious. [/BREAK]

[BREAK] This morning's Washington Post has a must read article by David Brown, that is derived from an AP report on a study conducted by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists. The article is titled Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 .

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

While polls seem to indicate that somewhere around 30% to 35% of Americans will read the horrible results of the study and come away smiling and praising the military genius of the Bush crime family (see: White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration - washingtonpost.com), the other two thirds of the saner folk will walk a little more slowly, bow their heads a bit more lowly, this morning. (And, with recent revelations about Republica's running in Congressional and State elections, the "Values Voters" are beginning to wake up. And it's doubtful that "Staff" will be able to deflect heat from the high level Republican cover-up in the Foley affair(s). Surprise, surprise! When you use all the horrendous weapons of conventional war, from pretty colored, toy looking cluster bombs through depleted uranium munitions that throw radioactive dust all over the environment of the country you claim to love so much you'll waste thousands of our own soldier's lives and the taxes of many future generations . . . all sorts of SHIT HAPPENS! And if there's anything Amerika has become expert at in the past 5 years, it's turning shouted good intentions into works resembling the most evil whispers of demons. On the other hand, if you read the unadorned AP report in today's NY Times, the chilling figures of death are given short shrift as early as the second paragraph: NY Times:

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

The whole damn Attack, Invasion, Occupation thing is nothing but politics, so how could a body count be not?! Just yesterday McCain blamed North Korea's nuke ambitions on Bill Clinton, 6 years into Bush's grabbing of the wheel of the good ship US. Was McCain's attempt to look good to the Repugnant, anti-Clinton base political. Of course it was. Yet, if a Democrat points out that the Bush administration is In Search of a North Korea Policy - washingtonpost.com, that person would be pilloried with "You're just playing politics!" As the US has a Congressional election every 2 years, and campaigning for the next one often starts before the votes have been counted in a current one, just when the Hell is it convenient to hang out the Repugnant's dirty laundry without being accused of playing politics? With the Repugnants damaging the fabric of America daily, and the corporate media laying back and counting the money left on the dresser (FCC "deregulation" bucks!), getting any facts on what is going on is a blessing. Be it the day before, the day after or the day elections are deemed unpatriotic. And that last wasn't meant as exaggeration to make a point. It was fearful, sorrowful prognostication, if anything. For redacting and shredding the Constitution has become the raison de être of this Administration, and it has had willing accomplices in the Republican AND Democratic parties. As Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, only the 3rd Amendment is still in effect. We don't have the King's soldiers in our living rooms nor his horses/tanks in our stables/carports. All other Amendments are no longer in effect, according to Bills passed by our fearful, spineless AND treasonous officials.

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham

Invading non-aggressor nations, abrogating treaties and other agreements made under the bond of "America's bond", dissing all of our allies while enraging and empowering our enemies and, last but far from least, treating our troops as if they were literal cannon fodder, to be sent into battle for longer than they were prepared to fight, with insufficient munitions and supplies (including rationing their food and water, while Halliburton ran up huge and uncontested contract overages), then cast aside as an insignificant waste necessary in the pursuit of empire. That's ALL POLITICS . . . and shining a light on any of it, INCLUDING THE PRICE PAID IN BLOOD BY THE VERY PEOPLE WE CLAIM WE CAME TO HELP! Let's remember a very relevant and timely quote:

Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials, appeared to be advising the future neo-cons: Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in American, nor for that matter in Germany. that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." (interviewer) Gilbert: "There is one difference. in a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." —Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book, Nuremberg Diary

Controlling the media, especially by using the old dodge "We're at war, and even if the printed facts are true they hurt our country now.", or the present one which combines our War-time need for self censorship with the plea that bad news could influence an upcoming election, makes Goering's message all the more chilling. One must realize that the Bushies, lacking much intellectual initiative for innovation, has been clinging to playbooks from the past. They know how the country rallied behind Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor and gave him powers that allowed him to take on a war against 2 major powers. And how, after WW II, Roosevelt used that good will to push through policies not thought possible. From Social Security through a Marshall Plan that set up working social democracies in Europe and proved to the world that by taking care of the poor and cultivating a secure middle-class you can have a healthy economic engine the likes of which was thought impractical by most Republicans and fiscal insanity by many. So the Bush regime, fully aware of the philosophy expressed by Goerring, saw the opportunity handed them by 19 young fanatics who really did little more than hijack 4 American domestic airplanes (hardly as mighty an attack as Pearl Harbor). The Bushies stoked and stirred the cauldron of fear until it was boiling over. Once the people were so blinded by irrational fear, which was "politically" fueled by the ingenious misuse of color coded charts inspiring timely fear, they forgot the original American heroes who took on the mightiest army on Earth (the Brits) in 1776 to garner certain inalienable rights and desired freedoms for future generations, the Bushies began stripping those rights and freedoms with more skill than any of America's past enemies had ever dared believed possible. Some have taken notice:

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy." "This is not normal government policy. now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible." American 2001 Nobel Prize Laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof, who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley. The 61-year-old scholar's areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.

Of course, had Hitler stated, out loud, that, with the consent of a majority of both his people and the government officials of both his and the opposition's officials, he would destroy our Constitution, that he'd lock up Americans on a whim, with no regard for evidence (Habeas Corpus), that he'd torture those he arbitrarily chose . . . Japan might not have earned the dubious distinction of being the first nation to see only a mushroom cloud where a city once stood. Yet, here in Amerika, we allowed an elected leadership to turn America into something resembling the pre-Revolution colony of Royal subjects whose abuse in the name of the unjust regent was stirring the seeds of a glorious revolt. We, the silent citizenry who are turning our backs on the Washington's, Jefferson's and Lincoln's had both an Authorization For Force and a Patriot Act passed near unanimously, turning America into war-mongering freedom hating land. A further step back was the recent bill on Military Commissions that allows Bush to lock up Laura, if he likes, and she'd have absolutely no rights other than those King George would allow. (Thanks for your courage in opposition, Russ Feingold. May my nightmare of Hillary using you as her running mate to deflect the criticism of her jingoistic cheerleading for the illegal Iraq occupation, be something that scares me alone, and is never visited on the rest of our nation.) How then can we be told that any report that shows us exactly what we have become should be dismissed as "political?" Just because inconvenient truths are popping up all over now does NOT mean those truths were rushed, nor that they were held, just to harm the Republicans or help Democrats. Hell, I'd argue that most Democrats should carry those deaths over their heads as well. The harm those truths bring should have been front page news since prior to March of 2003, but should certainly be brought to light at whatever time the mainstream media finds itself with surplus testosterone . . . which, be it immediately prior to an election, may seem to be Divine justice for those who aided in the deaths so reported here. Remember:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1946

Should a country not hold those who began an illegal war responsible for that action? Or is it deemed only a fair election if the electorate goes into the booth wholly ignorant of the abominations performed by their elected officials in their names? ===== [/BREAK]

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 - washingtonpost.com A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government. It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group. The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

More Here

[BREAK] You can spend hours arguing with a Bushie about the way the country has gone downhill since Bill Clinton left office. The economy, deficit, world standing, Iraq etc., etc.. But, with most of those arguments, one side continually answers with "Clinton lied." So, you'd be forgiven if you thought that all Republicans demand absolute honesty to the public, even if the subject was something as personal and not germane to the carrying out of his Presidential duties as an extramarital affair. Astonishingly, even if the lies were about an attack on the United States, an attack that was used as an excuse to send nearly 3,000 American troops and over a half-million innocent Iraqis to their death, you'd be wrong! It seems that only personal sins upset a large portion of the Bush followers. Lies told to the nation that cause waves of blood to be spilled are not as important as one that is attached to a stained blue dress. Let me be straight here. I don't believe the Bush administration has been honest about 9/11, and I'd still carry an umbrella if Dick Cheney called and told me it was sunny and dry out. I'm biased, but it is a bias based on past experience. ("Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" Bush says, as I watch them monitoring missiles being sent to destruction.) But I always assumed that some difference in genetics made it impossible for Bush's followers to understand that they were being led down a path paved with lies, deception and misdirection. I figured that genetic tic was what caused those Bushies to now rally against David Kuo's stunning indictment of the whole White House "Faith Based" circus and to ignore the incompetence chronicled by so many recent books on the Bush admin... I was wrong. Polls keep showing that, even at his worst, Bush has about a third of the people who view him favorably. Yet, a new poll shows that only about half those fans actually believe the Bush Administration tells the truth about something as serious as the September 11, 2001 attacks.

- - - SNIP Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. - - - End of SNIPPET

Boy, finding out that the vast majority of the American people, who I might have said were kept ignorant by the corporate media, actually believe that Bush/Cheney are frauds . . . well, that's encouraging, to say the least! Finding that only 16% believe them, but twice that number supports them, says some interesting things about Republican politics, to say the least. This should be some election! [/BREAK]

[BREAK] Gonna take today off, as if it were a new American holiday - In Honor Of Retaining Our Democracy, Our Sanity and, with luck, Our Moral Compass!!! Jack =====

A new contract with America | Salon.com GOP corruption and an unpopular war bring an end to Republican domination in Washington -- and leave President Bush answering to a new Democratic majority. By Walter Shapiro Nov. 8, 2006 | "This is not a Republican victory. It's not a Democratic victory. It's about the American people making a set of choices." -- House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich in Marietta, Ga., on election night 1994 Twelve years later, the American people have made another set of choices, erasing the once impregnable Sunbelt-based House conservative majority that Gingrich and his successors worked so hard to maintain. But corruption will do that to you -- the outright money-for-favors corruption that pointed two GOP incumbents toward prison, the see-no-evil corruption that caused the House Republican leadership to wink at Mark Foley's preying on congressional pages and, most of all, the corruption of the idea that Congress is an independent branch of government.

=====

Democrats Take House - washingtonpost.com Democrats Take House Two Dozen Seats Gained in House

=====

A Loud Message for Bush - New York Times Everything is different now for President Bush. The era of one-party Republican rule in Washington ended with a crash in yesterday’s midterm elections, putting a proudly unyielding president on notice that the voters want change, especially on the war in Iraq.

=====

A Voter Rebuke For Bush, the War And the Right - washingtonpost.com

=====

Democrats Promise Broad New Agenda - washingtonpost.com

=====

The Democratic House - New York Times There was only one explanation for the crazy-quilt combination of victories around the country that gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives last night: an angry shout of repudiation of the Bush White House and the abysmal way the Republican majority has run Congress.

===== And here's some icing on that American cake!

South Dakotans Reject Tough Abortion Ban - washingtonpost.com

[/BREAK]

[BREAK] In today's Huffington Post, Arianna writes:

The Blog | Arianna Huffington: Murtha Loses... But It's Still a Victory for Pelosi

The Washington Post, with a much larger circulation, tells the story a bit differently:

Democrats Pick Hoyer Over Murtha - washingtonpost.com Democrats Pick Hoyer Over Murtha House Colleagues Elect Pelosi Speaker but Reject Her Choice for Majority Leader By Jonathan Weisman and Lois Romano Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A01 House Democrats elected Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) the new majority leader yesterday over strong opposition from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), exposing a deep political divide even before the party takes control. The 149 to 86 vote for Hoyer over Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) was viewed by many in the party as a repudiation of Pelosi's strong-arm tactics and a recognition of Hoyer's tireless work to elect a Democratic majority for the first time in 12 years. If the Hoyer camp's head count was correct going into yesterday's secret balloting, Pelosi and her allies may not have swayed a single vote for Murtha, a close associate.

And, this losing battle gave the media another shot at the Democrats . . . months before any of these jobs are even empowered:

Political Pragmatism Carried Hoyer to the Top - washingtonpost.com By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A06 Steny H. Hoyer is a practical moderate and Nancy Pelosi is a liberal idealist, and for more than 40 years they have competed like siblings, all the way to the pinnacle of politics. Hoyer's rout yesterday of Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), Pelosi's handpicked candidate for majority leader, validated the methodical, no-frills approach that the congressman from Maryland has taken throughout his long career, from his rapid ascent in state politics to his somewhat bumpier climb through the House.

The other major media all have Pelosi suffering a huge loss. And so called "progressive pundits", like E. J. Dionne, are already chastising Pelosi and the Dems as if this 3 day battle delayed important legislation.

E. J. Dionne Jr. - Remember Who Sent You - washingtonpost.com Remember Who Sent You Memo to Democrats: Stop Squabbling and Start Helping the Middle Class By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A25 Democrats might usefully take a break from their inane round of back-stabbing and score-settling to focus, for a few moments, on why voters gave them their congressional majorities. A lot of Americans are hurting in the pocketbook, and if Democrats don't use the next two years to help them, the party will squander the trust it has temporarily earned.

(Don't you love E. J.'s choice of words: . . . the party will squander the trust it has temporarily earned. After the stunning election victory had by the Democrats, and especially the progressives, most would say they had, for now and until they did something to have that trust removed, "earned" the voters trust. But old E.J. has his perspicacity at full tilt, so he knows this is only short term trust. Hence "temporary", I guess? I fear that the corporate media "liberals", like Dionne, will be a Hell of a lot tougher on the Democrats than they were on the Bushies . . . when they seemed to lay down wagging their tales while the Constitution was shredded and America began embracing a policy of illegal war and sanctioned war crimes. Of course, no matter how some blow up the impact of the loss, nor how much Arianna tries to morph it into a strategic victory, Pelosi did suffer a loss. The vote wasn't even close, and, unless Pelosi secretly wanted Murtha humiliated, she isn't celebrating a win today. She and Murtha could have done well, even with a Hoyer win, had she played their cards a bit differently. You know, I surely I marveled at how the Repugnants would, over the past 6 years, turn political sow's ears into silken GOP purses. How, no matter the level of awful in some policy defeat or news story, Rove and his ilk could make it appear, through their rule over the corporate media, that the Repugs had done well again. Look at Plamegate: 1) Libby indicted. 2) Karl Rove needs 5 trips to the Grand Jury in order to finally tell a believable enough story that proves he DID give classified info to a Time magazine reporter, but he gave it after Libby had already told Judy Miller. 3) Richard Armitage, Bush's number 2 at the State Dept., turns out to have been the first to reveal the secret of Valerie Plame's identity. There's much more, but let's just look at those 3. We have 3 top tier figures in the White House now known to have revealed secret info, put Plame and her whole crew of spies [working on Iran and WMD!!!] in jeopardy, but we, the majority at least, are told to be proud that it wasn't Bush or Cheney who may have committed treason. It was just their top people. In an unfortunate way, the Dems have learned from the Bushies . . . if learning to deceive is what you want? Problem is, without the Roveian advantage of having mainstream corporate media to trumpet in your deception, the only ones you play to are the more savvy political junkies who keep up with the important battles that occur daily in our government. When the press tells the vast majority of the voters that Pelosi suffered a big defeat. If past practice is a predictor, the people will believe what they've read. Hence, Arianna's spin goes mainly to the savvy political junkie . . . and there it dies. Because we all know it was NOT A WIN. Murtha lost, so did Pelosi. However, there could have been a far better result. And one that would have been seen as a win, partial or complete, by many more folks than those who read Arianna. Let's give this a closer look. Here we have Arianna saying, in a perfect example of Rovian double-speak:

- - - SNIP "It bodes well for Pelosi that was willing to spend her political capital right off the bat -- especially on the issue that will define her time at the helm. Far too many modern politicians save their political capital until it's lost all its value." - - - End of SNIPPET

If you read behind that pleasant sounding rhetoric, you find that, in reality-ville, Arianna is complementing Pelosi for spending her political capital on a LOSS? The term "political capital" has a definition, and when used in a battle it is always diminished, to some extent. If a politician proposes something with universal acclaim, no political capital is used. Only when a proposal requires arm twisting is political capital offered, and to the recipients of the twisted arm, some of that capital is lost. The encyclopedia at Free Dictionary defines this ethereal currency thusly:

Political capital is the quality of a public figure's favorable image among the populace. Also, his current standing among other important personalities (who are usually in government) is important. It is thought of as a commodity which must be spent wisely in pushing for an issue which may not be as popular unless advocated by someone popular.

Now, I am not knocking Ms. Pelosi for backing someone who aided her when she needed a friend. That is an all too lacking of an attribute amongst many politicians. And her use of political capital was a fine way of showing she is loyal to those who help her help America. On the other hand, I believe, in this instance, the important portion of the definition is: " . . . a commodity which must be spent wisely . . . " Using it on a losing cause is rarely a wise expenditure. Spending it on a friend with a bucket of ethical problems was a mistake. But it did not have to be. I believe it COULD have been changed from throwing that capital to the wind into an investment of capital to help a friend AND gain interest on the metaphorical cash. Pelosi and Murtha should have had their staffs work on a short proposal that Murtha would make to the Democratic caucus. Mr. Murtha would outline reforms he'd like made to guide the House Ethics Committee. Reforms that would toughen the committee and make clear some of the gray areas that still guide/camouflage problems wherein money/donations skirt the rules and help influence/buy Members of Congress. In the same week that Jack Abramoff was jailed, Jack Murtha could have given some tough talk about K Street's influence and pushed for rules making in impossible for the technically "legal" golfing/fishing/hunting trips that caught up so many Repugs in scandals these past few years. Murtha is also one of the few Members who could have brought up his own past forays into gray areas that taught him that better defined ethics rules can help "keep the honest person from stumbling into that gray area, while still needing to 'bring home the bacon' to her/his constituency/district and raise ridiculous sums of money for the next campaign." Of course, such a statement leads right into two areas of concern for intelligent voters. The misuse of "earmarks" in legislation and the horrible state of campaign financing. (See, instead of taking home a loss that cost Pelosi much capital, even a loss under this scenario could have been a major gain BEFORE Pelosi et al have even taken the reigns of power. It would have made Pelosi's choice to back him seem much more in the people's interest, instead of just having the corporate media pointing to Abscam and Murtha's more recent tap dancing around ethical conundrums. If Murtha won, Pelosi would win. If Murtha lost, Pelosi would look like a champion of clean-up, who could retain most of her political capital for another day. Karl Rove would have . . . defecated! [/BREAK]