If the administration is good at anything, it's good at labeling things, e.g. "No Child Left Behind".

With respect to the whole FISA, NSA, warrantless wiretap imbroglio, they're at it again with "terrorist surveillance program". Let me submit a succinct counterpoint that we should all use ad nauseum--"illegal spying". I hope it catches on.

Help me out here. When the President talks about halving the deficit, what is the starting number?

Last I heard, we were still paying this guy. If not,maybe he's just trying to supplement his unemployment benefits. After all, you can't LIVE on those!

she's not worth our breath.

Why is he taken seriously by anyone?

Toward the end of the VietNam War, Lyndon Johnson said: "They call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do." It took him (and us) a while to figure this out. And today VietNam seems to be doing OK.

Unless and until the Iraqis sort out what they want,and how they can live with one another, our soldiers are in an untenable situation.

It will be harsh, and it will be bloody, but we have to let Iraqis find their own way out of this mess that we stirred up.

What greater good can we do with $1BILLION every month?

Either way we lose.

Why is there no outrage at the completely inadequate job that Condi Rice has done first as National Security Advisor, and now as Secretary of State? She is at least as bad at her assignments as Secretary Rumsfeld was at his. And with equally tragic consequences.

Can anyone name any initiative of hers that has been successful? The list of disasters, unfortunately, is impressive.

To think that even a far-fetched scenario rewards her with the vice-presidential chair makes me sick. It even violates the Peter Principle.

Let's start talking about replacing her, even if Cheney doesn't resign.

Maybe I'm getting into this late--I don't follow this every day--but jonathan's analysis is insightful. People can nitpick at the details, but the concept is sound.

Let me expand the idea. If you had $600billion to spend on anything--fighting global terrorism, encouraging democracy, educating girls in Afghanistan, giving scholarships to the most deserving Americans, underwriting healthcare, etc.--how would you spend it?

From my own perspective, I can think of 100 ways to spend that money that would make America safer and better and more admired around the world.

Things are working out just fine for GWB.

He and his Republican cohorts have done a great job of installing incompetents into every imaginable governmental job. They've dismantled as much of the progressive elements of government as they could, and hobbled the rest. They've stuck the nose of government into areas that Americans are uncomfortable with. They've put their thumb on the scales of justice so that people don't feel like they can get a fair shake in the courts. They've misspent and diverted billions of dollars of our treasure. They've watched as good jobs leave our country.

Many Americans look at all of this and have concluded, with the help of media controlled by ideologues, that government is the problem. They've been shown by this administration that government is only capable of screwing things up, and it's best if we don't encourage them. Americans have lowered their expectations of government.

This plays right into George's hand. If government itself is bad, less of it is good. Why waste your time participating in a totally disfunctional exercise? So, many Americans have become disengaged. And most of these disengaged Americans are most likely supportive of a progressive agenda.

Who cares if government doesn't work if you've got power and money? Less government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, "every man for himself" works GREAT if you're on the top and live in a gated community, paid for by your inheritance, with your kids in private schools.

Not so good if you work for a living, breathing polluted air, working hard for less than a living wage, unsure of the future of your job, your healthcare, your retirement, your kids education and their future.

Expect more of the same from George. He will do whatever he can to prevent any meaningful improvements for the middle class, to the benefit of the aristocracy. It will take a generation of hard work just to get back to where we were before he got started.

If you look at the data, the President has always been described as "Christian" by a significant number of people. In the last poll, not a single person described him that way. Maybe people have finally figured this deception out.

Maybe he's trying to be inconspicuous.

I find it interesting that if you look around the world at countries that are former colonies, a pattern emerges. The top ten former colonies by GDP are: The United States, India, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, Philippines, and Pakistan. Four English colonies, one English/French, one English/Dutch, three Spanish, and one Potugese. Whether it was their intent or not, it's pretty clear that the English were much more successful at producing economically successful former colonies. My hypothesis is that the English imposed a superior "rule of law", allocated property more broadly, and were more interested in two way trade with their colonies than the other colonial powers were.

A solution for Brazil that would be politically difficult, but successful long term, would be a redistribution of land across the poulation and associated legal reform. Concentrated land ownership in Brazil is among the worst in the world.