It looks obvious

Friendship between politicians is something that it is hard for me to envision. Take for example the famous long friendship between John McCain and John Kerry. Despite their difference political views, their party affiliation and the political needs they managed to maintain their friendship. Obviously most observers will remember how John Kerry considered McCain as his running mate in 2004. But I was more impressed by McCain standing by Kerry and condemning the “Swift Boat” attacks.

And now it is John Kerry’s to return a favor for his old friend. I guess calling your close friend a senile and out of touch in national TV will do:

“He confuses who Iran is training, he confuses what the makeup of Al Qaedais, he confuses the history going back to 682 of what has happened to Sunni and Shia,” Kerry said.

With friends like these who needs enemies?

As a side note I have to add that despite the fact that I disagree with McCain’s position on Iraq I found the criticism, in this case, unjustified. I heard the full quote and McCain’s argument is perfectly valid and consistent with what he said in the past. I understand that in political campaign it is very effective to attack the sound-bite, but in this case we have so much real issues to debate that I wish they wouldn’t refer to this kind of stupidity.

Windfall profit Tax is as stupid and as populist idea as its twin monster the gas tax holiday. It was quite obvious from the beginning that the suggestion to impose the windfall profit tax was made as a counter offer to the gas tax holiday. Therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that the democrat majority was blocked so easily. Both Republicans and Democrats scored points with their potential voters and cause no real harm.

Now lets see how much fun can it be if someone will suggest windfall tax on the farmers who enjoy the rise of food prices. After all it make as much sense as windfall tax on oil companies - none.

Is he serious? Or is it a new level of cynicism?

A spokesman for Blunt, R-Mo., a senior member of House GOP leadership who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, said the insinuation that lawmakers’ votes might be affected by their portfolios is “offensive.” Like Lieberman, Blunt has been a fierce supporter of the war.

“I don’t pretend to speak for other offices, but I am fairly certain that no member would consider their personal finances when voting on issues as important as sending our men and women in uniform into harm’s way,” (emphasized by me) said Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson. The Lockheed Martin stock was given to Blunt’s wife by her mother, he said.

This and more in a report on how much money congress members had invested in companies doing business with the defense department…

In a sane world the new news about the NY governor past use of drug will be a non-event. But in reality where we demand our elected official to hold extreme puritan standards this non-news getting amazingly large coverage. We grant a lot of power for our politicians and than set some crazy standards to drive a way any sane person from participating in this crazy game. No wonder we don’t see any more statesmen like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

This is funny:

What is interesting about the entire scandal is that Spitzers’ fall for his least offensive act. Although I will be glad if he will vanish, I prefer that it will be about his abuse of power, his authoritarian governing approach and the lack of understanding of the democratic process. Although, I guess, the reaction and the unavoidable fall is largely because of the former reasons.