Part 1: Why do members of the House and Senate bother to come up with legislation and go through all the machinations and negotiation to get it to the President's desk? Do they like to fight with each other for no reason?

Part 2: Why does Bush even sign bills that get to him? He should just have a rubber stamp made that says "Yeah. Or not." It would save him the agony of printing all those letters. (The capital Ws in particular are really, really hard.)

A respected newspaper (or even its "separate entity" website) doesn't thoroughly check the professional credentials and work of a potential employee. Dumb.

Yet we expect these people to create an environment that supports their reporters' efforts to thoroughly check the facts behind statements that our elected officials make. Dumber.

1. Open web browser.

2. Open search engine. (It actually doesn't have to be Google.)

3. Type in phrases from the writing of someone you're "checking thoroughly."

4. Click "Search Now."

5. Compare already published results with your candidate's writing.

6. Bust a plagiarist.

How do these journalists at a supposedly "elite" organization (not to mention their human resources staff) lack basic skills that teachers across the country have used for a decade?

Lazy. Ignorant. Weak. Lame. This is the Washington Post?

Are factions within the party so strong that someone's staffer screwed up on purpose to make Pelosi and Reid look incompetent?

Are Dems' staff members stretched so thin or trained so poorly that they can't bother to check the entire text of their email before they click Send?

Is this part of a huge plot by the Democratic Party to reduce voter's expectations of minimally competent elected officials? (Not that's a bad idea -- after all, it did work for the Republicans. Got them into the White House.)

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as bad publicity, and elected Democrats are up to their eyeballs in it. This problem was completely preventable. If the Democrats are going to present themselves as the party that would have (for example) prevented the post-Katrina flooding, they can't keep (a) doing stuff like this (b) in public.

Voters, too. And yeah, that whole "running for office" thing.

... on the Wishful Thinking Express.

McCain only pretends to have principles. He supported Bush in 2004. He lost my respect then.

The term "paranoid" has lost its meaning in this administration. Whatever actions you can imagine -- if they build unbridled presidential power, then yes, those actions have occurred.

"Truth," "facts," "intelligence" (in all its meanings), "law," "patriotism," and a host of other formerly "self-evident" concepts have been redefined.

We need to redefine "homeland security" in a way that protects us from the whims of our own leaders. We're more vulnerable to those whims than ever.

Bush says that one of his strategies for fighting terrorism is to "spread freedom."

And a couple of sentences later he describes terrorism as "...a strategy by a totalitarian, ideologically based group of people who've announced their intentions to spread that ideology...."

Hmmm. Maybe that petulant smirk is his version of an ironic smile.

...and I mean NEVER. But can't politicians, even Newt Gingrich, change their minds?

Before the shouting starts, I know, I know: I know the misrepresentation that's been going on for the past three years about Iraq (and longer about Bush). I know that anyone even suspected of thinking that the war might possibly not be going well (let alone thinking it was a bad idea in the first place) has been painted as unpatriotic and as undermining the very success of the misguided enterprise.

And yes, I know that there's a difference between a true change of opinion and a change for political opportunism. I know that some minds respond to reason, new information, and soul-searching, while other "minds" sniff the winds of expediency.

But the Democratic party has to be able to run a viable candidate soon. Blaming Bush for his "misleading" "intelligence" will go only so far. Everyone on both sides of the aisle who voted for the war in Iraq and who has voted to extend the war during the past three years must answer for those actions.

It's one thing to call out Newt and other two-faced leaders, ex-leaders, pundits, and bloviators as hypocrites. It's another to get them to publicly acknowledge that holding this administration accountable for the deaths of U.S. forces, coalition forces, and Iraqis is a patriotic, responsible action. That's the rhetorical war that the country should be fighting.

Because as days go by without a united demand for accountability for past actions and a solid plan for future actions, soldiers and civilians die. Both sides must stop posturing and slinging mud. Someone has to stop first. So I'll give Newt and his buddies a pass on this one. But I do expect action in return.

Our president: He's an educator-in-chief. And now he's a listener and a decider.

He's learned that if you add -er to a verb, you can claim an action without having to actually do it. So there's an obvious next choice: think.

But if he claims to be a thinker, will anyone have the guts to laugh?