The Prohibition Party reportedly has splits aplenty.

A split that’s somewhat analogous (analogous in my mind solely because it’s the only point of reference I have here) to the split that occurred in the Reform Party in the year 2000, wherein, as you recall, Pat Buchannan and John Hagelin both accepted the nomination and staged concurrent conventions. (Mish-mashery of political philosophies came to rot, as the cult of Ross Perot faded, the cult of Ventura wasn’t quite cementing, Buchannan looked for a home and stormed the party with his Brigades, to the horror of some Reform Party minions, who gravitated toward anyone who cared, and that was Hagelin who schlepped on in.)

In the case of the Prohibition Party, first came the disatisfaction over the party’s dwindling fortunes:

After Dodge captured just 208 votes in the 2000 election — the party’s worst finish in nearly 130 years — a faction within the party wanted new leadership. They argued that Dodge ran the party like a personal fiefdom and seemed to be using the party to promote his personal business activities (i.e., selling campaign buttons).

Then came the revolt.

The anti-Dodge faction — which grew out of activists within the Partisan Prohibiton Historical Society — called a national meeting and wrested control of the party’s national committee away from Dodge in September 2003. The Prohibition National Committee elected Don Webb of Alabama as the new National Chairman and retired Dodge to “Chairman Emeritus.”

But, was the coup legitimate?

However, that came too late to stop Dodge from calling a Presidential Nominating Convention in August 2003. Dodge’s “convention” consisted of eight people — most of whom were Dodge relatives — who met in Dodge’s living room and nominated Dodge again for President.

And, we have the controversy, exploding in the party’s face, where the two sides are going to work out their differences through litigation… the Reformers of the Party charging forth with GENE AMONDSON, Historical Recreationist of Prohibitionist Glory Past…

Hm… Looking forward to the Past?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html?ex=1394686800&en=03106322a35655a1&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, “In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan reporting.”

…

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law “helps you better afford your medications,” and the customer says, “It sounds like a good idea.” Indeed, the pharmacist says, “A very good idea.”

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: “In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details.”

And the Bush Administration defense?

“The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector,” Mr. Keane said. “Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools.”

Jon Stewart’s response: “Yeah, didn’t you read the ‘Modern Public Information Tools’ Manual?”

Actually, for more on “modern public information tools” such as the one employed by Bush Administration, try books Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, Trust Us: We’re Experts, and website Disinfopedia.org.

#1: Kerry is reported to have said, “I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, ‘You’ve got to win this, you’ve got to beat this guy, we need a new policy.’ Things like that”.

#2: Bush Administration wants “names”. Colin Powell says so on the Sunday Morning Talking Show,

#3: The wire service reporter reports that he screwed up. I mistranscribed a key word,” explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

“Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear ‘more leaders’ and I am certain that ‘more leaders’ is what Senator Kerry said.”

I HAVE A Question: What’s the difference between the two? Why are the left-ward blogs saying that there is a difference?

#4: The “right”ward chatterers bounce off of this. “What endorsements?” The thought is just soooo absurd, after all…

I’ve this weird sense of what to me looks like the obvious: QUESTION: who do you think Germany’s Schroeder, France’s Chirac, Canada’s Martin, and Spain’s Zapatero would rather see as America’s president?

Isn’t the Bush line supposed to be that they’re all cheese-eating surrender monkeys anyways without a clear grasp of our righteous mission*, and we can’t capitulate to them (“America needs not wait for a permission slip) — no, our mission is not to create a coalition… or is there a sufficient political shift going on in this nation that that line of tact simply won’t get as far as it used to?

Question: What would happen if whatever foreign diplomat that Kerry might have spoken to comes out and says whatever they might have said to Kerry?

Would anyone care? Should anyone care?

………………………………………….

* David Brooks’ Example in Waiting: *Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn’t Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?

The answer to that question cracks me up. See first *asterix* mark.

Please let me tell you,
They own our homes, they own our banks
We take out loans to buy them tanks
They own our children, they own our pets
The owned Elvis and Bernhard Goetz
They own our rugs and our flower pots
There ain’t nothin’ they haven’t got
They own the papers and the TV’s
The water works, record companies

Let me remind you,
They own the talk shows
They make the rules
They own Geraldo and Donahue
They own the state, they own the church
They pick the winners on Star Search
They own the Christians, they own the Jews
They own the Moslems, Mormons, too
They put the holes in our socks
They put that snake in my mail box

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli
We are all tools of the conspiracy
From the littlest baby to the biggest V.I.P.
We are all tools of the conspiracy

Run to the window, they’re coming to get you
Hide in the basement, they’re coming to get you
Flee to the rooftop, they’re coming to get you
Don’t go outside, no don’t let them get you

Someone should tell you,
They own the CIA and the IRS
They tell us where to shop and how to dress
They own the workers, they own the boss
They know what’s in the secret sauce
They own the drugs, they own the narcs
We all know they own Dick Clark
They own it all, they own everything
They write the songs that make the whole world sing

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli
We are all tools of the conspiracy
From the littlest baby to the biggest V.I.P.
We are all tools of the conspiracy

Dead Milkmen…

Turn down the sound. Just stare at the visuals.

#1: Get off and running with I Like Ike. A simpler time, I suppose.
#2: Because we’ve seen the “Daisy Ad” one time too many. Besides, I think this ad is much more direct.
#3: We’ll Bury You. And we’ll bury you in return.
#4: This theme will re-emerge in 1988.
#5: Nixon’s indulging in some Psychadellics, ain’t he?
#6: Toy soldiers.
#7: Throw them together in one pot, and calvacade
#8: Sideshow Bob did a better job with this ad.
#9: There’s that Tank. Worth noting is Dukakis’s rather lame response.
#10: Paging Dan Quayle.
#11: A glitch in the program. A Clinton ad follows a Bush ad… try to find the split second where they change. Pretty rotten weather over there in Arkansas, eh?
#12: Time Magazine cover … or at least before the photograph was developed…

Some things I’m wondering.

Is Spain now part of Rumsfeld’s rubric of “Old Europe”?

(“New Europe” being those countries that simply had a gap between public approval and the government on the particular issue of the Iraq War.)

Is there a way that we can malign the Spanish in the same way that we maligned the French?

Perhaps we can refer to them as a bunch of burros… a reference that can easily be carried over stateside and attach itself with the Donkey of the Democratic Party.

Y’know: Spain’s great contribution to the literary canon: Don Quixote. Not the “Clear Eyed Realist” that we need to win a war against Evil.

(Oh, yeah. BTW: look over to the sidebar and click on the link “Coalition of the Willing theme song.”)

For the Democrats, the presidential hopes of many hang on what happens in 2004, but the Republicans seem rather… settled on who the big-wigs in the smokey rooms have set up to send down the pike.

Brief excerpt stolen from another blog: “We are not saying that he is absolutely running, but we’re saying that there are plans being made,” Peter Schweizer said in an exclusive interview with the Tallahassee Democrat before the book’s full contents are released next month. “Jeb has talked to his mother about his financial situation, in the context of running for president. So we know that within the family, they’re talking about the realities of running.”

Republicans Priming and Being Primed for the Presidency

(1) Jeb Bush
(2) Bill Frist
(3) Arnold Schwarzenegger

It war clear as early as the 1998 mid-term elections (and perhaps even 1996’s election) that the Bush Brothers were coming down the pike. I recall reading a George Carlin piece online back in ’98 marvelling on the coming Bushes… (somewhere plugged into the bit that we all know deep down that the country is run on bullshit, and Clinton won in ’96 ’cause he was honest about his bullshit, unlike Dole.)

As for Arnold… well, first there’s the matter of changing the constitution… which, I suppose, would have some muscle-room competition with that other constitutional amendment hopping about (and going nowhere fast, though int its semi-defense it’s not designed to go anywhere.)