The record of politicians issuing challenges to the press is not a happy one.  Just before his Donna Rice scandal broke in 1987, Democratic frontrunner Gary Hart dared the media to "follow me around."  The rest, as they say, is history.  Now, South Carolina Senator and John McCain water carrier Lindsey Graham has issued a challenge of his own.  Claiming on CNN that McCain "is his own guy," Graham then threw down the gauntlet, "Good luck making him George Bush."

Challenge accepted.

I can only say WOW upon reading this news.  Ok, I know this site is abuzz with what is happening in Pennsylvania tonight, but honestly, didn't we all already know it wouldn't end tonight?  I don't even care about the margins.  I prayed that Obama would win, it appears he hasn't, and now it is on to North Carolina and Indiana.  My attention is refocused on, of all places, Iraq.

I will start with this article...the Iraqi legislative panel proposing a ban on importing toy guns.  After all, it encourages violence in Iraqi children:

A parliamentary committee is drafting a bill that would ban imports of toy guns and fireworks into Iraq, hoping to curb increasingly aggressive behavior among children who have grown up amid real war, a lawmaker said Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/...

While the liberal blogosphere and media critics alike are fuming over the deplorable gotcha-fest that was the ABC Democratic debate Wednesday in Philadelphia, conservative talking heads are positively ecstatic.  In the New York Times, David Brooks called the questions on lapel pins and the Weather Underground "excellent."  The excreable Michelle Malkin snarked, "How dare they explore questions of character, truthfulness, and judgment?" And over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey offered "kudos to ABC News" while noting "John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included."

Back in 2002, Vice President Cheney famously told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."  Now just two months after promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term, self-described Reagan foot soldier John McCain has decided he agrees.

As ABC News helpfully reminds us, April 15th is John McCain Tax Flip-Flop Day.  McCain, as you'll recall, twice voted against President Bush's budget-busting tax cuts for the richest Americans who need them least.  But having undergone a supply-side conversion on the road to the White House, John McCain now wants to make them permanent.

Tuesday is the last day for paying your taxes. Please let your friends know that a very large percentage of their taxes will be going to pay for the US military. You can back this up with the graphs and references in my previous diary entry: Our Money is Off to War.

And please, go out tomorrow and hand out leaflets to people mailing their tax forms at the Post Office. There is no better time to remind people that their money is mostly used for war. If there is not a local peace organization doing this, you can download the War Resisters League's pie chart leaflet.

Once in a rare while, a single image tells you everything to know about the American economy.  On Wednesday, the New York Times featured a simple chart showing that President Bush has presided over the first post-World War II economic expansion in which Americans' median family income declined.  If the American Dream is defined in part as each generation doing better than the one before, then the Bush League Economy can officially be declared a nightmare.

Massive federal deficits, not enough money for social programs. Where have all our tax dollars gone?

The charts below (click for full page versions) show how our income tax dollars were spent in FY2007, which ended last September 30 (data from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009, Table 8.7). As you can see, 52.7% of these discretionary funds went to the military.  

More over the fold about military spending, federal deficits, and real security...

As much as anything else, presidential campaigns are won and lost by the media narratives that rightly or wrongly come to define a candidate.  In the case of Repubican nominee John McCain, the seemingly unshakable narrative of the political "maverick" could not be further off the mark. At almost every turn, McCain in his eternal quest for the White House has reversed long-held positions, compromised core principles and swallowed his pride in order to curry favor with both the leading lights of the conservative movement and right-wing Republican primary voters.  The untold story of campaign 2008 is simply that of John McCain's transformation from maverick to prostitute.

Faced with the dismaying prospect of Democratic unity and Republican schism during the 2008 nominating contests, conservative columnist David Brooks today turned time traveler.  Taking a journey through his own space-time continuum, Brooks argues that Democrats are not unified now because they not might be in the future.  In 2009 as in 1993, he claims, Democrats will splinter as they are forced to make excruciating choices in the wake of a devastating Bush presidency.  Call it Brooks' Law of Republican Fiasco Management.

We are in an election cycle where I hope the wonders never cease. Susan Eisenhower, Caroline Kennedy and Tom Hayden agree on the same thing. All three want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.

Who does this scare? It severely frightens the establishment of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The recent purpose of our two party system has been to ferment screams of ear popping loudest and conjure the best scare tactics to cause panic among the American people.

Tonight, President Bush will mercifully deliver his final State of the Union address.  According to press secretary Dana Perino, Bush's speech will "reflect the president's mindset that he is going to sprint to the finish."  Given former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' similar promise to "spend the next year and a half in a sprint to the finish line" just weeks before his resignation, Perino's preview may prove a bad omen for the President.

Anticipated to emphasize the slowing economy and the war in Iraq, the goals of the speech are said to be "modest."  The President's dual needs to begin rewriting his legacy and badger Democrats in an election year suggest the direction and tenor of the SOTU.  Still, we face the annual question: what will Bush cover in his address?

With a nod to Super Bowl week and the odds-makers in Las Vegas, here are 10 things to look for - or not - in George W. Bush's last State of the Union:

A million homeless children in the US. 82 million Americans who lack or have woefully inadequate healthcare insurance. Healthcare spend, at 16% of GDP, is 65% higher than neighboring Canada (universal, government-run).  Hundreds of thousands continue to die in Iraq. We understandably look with a mix of disappointment and disgust upon our ruling elite in Washington, who cannot get modest versions of popular bills enacted on the our behalf.

Looking at the facts on (and in the ground) it’s hard to see progress being made for working people. One almost wants to give up and say pox on the entire political elite. But that would be wrong. In fact, it is possible to, like Obama says, bring people from both parties together to get things done. In fact, a lot of progress is being made, locally and at the state level. You just have to look in different sections of the newspaper than you are accustomed to looking.

For many years, Americans assumed that the great majority of money available to be taxed, was earned income.  After all, everybody works, everybody generates income, and it seems fair to tax this money as it comes in.  It was the bulk of money earned in the United States.   After all, the USA was the place to be, to earn a good income.  Since the Reagan administration, we have created a different kind of America.

    So the GOP's grand bait-and-switch scheme is finally out in the open.  All three of the (momentarily) leading GOP candidates Wednesday night all but pledged to cut into Social Security and Medicare benefits, while keeping bailouts for billionaires intact.  It's right there in the transcript.  Grandpa Fred was practically salivating at the prospect (or maybe he was just salivating generally, who knows...).  The only GOP candidate who came out at least remotely sounding like a sane human being was McCain.

    I'm really surprised at the lack of reaction to the GOP candidates' direct attack.  It's as if, since we knew this was the plan all along, when they finally come right out under the klieg lights and confess to it, everybody yawns.  Are we really that enervated?  We ought to be spitting mad!
    To be blunt, Democrats need to start asking Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani exactly what cuts in Social Security and Medicare they intend to make, and what other programs they intend to cut.  They've confessed to wanting to do so; the American people deserve to know the specifics.  And to choose accordingly.

    The specifics of the GOP frontrunners' betrayal their true intentions, below the fold.

    It pi**es me off to no end to see a cornerstone of the 20th century progress forged by the democratic party, namely, Social Security, caught up in the partisan wrangling over our current crop of presidential candidates.  Diarists and commenters have defended or inveighed against positions that Social Security is in "crisis" or is just a "real problem" but it is "manageable, " or has a "gap" that needs a "fix."
    It's obviously time to have a reality-based discussion about Social Security, a/k/a the truth, and the truth is that Social Security is not in "crisis", and is not a "real problem,"  manageable or not, needs no "fix," nor any intermeddling "Commission."  As stated by the official projections by the Social Security trustees, the program will be solvent without so much as lifting a little finger by anyone old enough to read or write on this blog.
   It is disgraceful that this debate has not been presented truthfully, in a progressive frame that does not buy in to right-wing lies and distortions.  The proper frame is, "How will the "General Fund" raise the needed monies to pay off the loans it has taken from the trust funds?"
    The Truth about Social Security, below.

Conservatives like to say that the President and the Republican Congress have sold out the conservative vision on spending.  This isn't untrue, though I'd say the concept of limited government is what has been trashed even more.  But it's important to look at the budget as a full document.  Cutting spending in high-profile yet miniscule projects like earmarks (which should be regulated) are usually the first ones cited by these conservatives.  But the structural problems with the budget, the major sacred cows, are never expected to be touched, and what inevitably does get cut has disastrous effects for the public at large.

On the flip...

So ABC News is reporting that the Fiscal year budget for 2007 will total almost $170 billion for operations in Iraq and Afganistan. ABC is also reporting that military commanders are drawing up plans to deploy three brigades to Baghdad and two brigades to El-Anbar province. That totals around 25,000 troops.

Let me preface this with a simple note that I opposed invading Iraq back in 2002. I saw the reasons why Saddam wasn't taken down in 1991 and those reasons hadn't changed in 2002. I thought and still think there are far bigger fish to fry and North Korea is the biggest fish of them all. (A nuclear arms race in the Far East is the last thing the planet needs and that is another post.)