Did you hear the one about Prescott Bush helping finance the Nazis?

… which was fairly common for American industrialists to do pre-WWII, and there was a decent amount of pro-Nazi and anti-Communist sentiment in the throngs of “isolationist” mindset, so so what?

… Did you hear the one about Prescott Bush helping finance the Nazis after it was illegal to do so?

True? I don’t know. It pops up in the mainstream press from time to time (and yes, even past the liberal “Guardian” newspaper), and is the topic of conspiracy theorists throughout the world ever since the name “Bush” became synanomous with “the Establishment” of our government. (“New World Order” indeedy.)

So, um… apparently because the founder of Air America Radio buys into the concept and because it is shared and brought forward by Lyndon LaRouche, the founder of Air America is a Lyndon LaRouche Sympathizer?

Actually, the reason given here is that Sheldon Drobny cited a Lyndon LaRouche sympathizer for an editorial he once wrote. Which, I guess, would make Sheldon Drobny a Lyndon LaRouche sympathizer sympathizer. May the buyer bewar.

There’s a short book he wrote entitled Road to Air America, and he devotes space to this little controversy, and tosses in a couple of mainstream news articles about the “Prescott Bush” phenomenom. More interestingly than a supposed (and false) admiration for Mr. LaRouche is the historical political figure that Drobny is an admirer of: Henry Wallace (and, yes, Drobny provides a “conspiracy theory” on how the political bosses thumped the Democratic Party masses from nominating Wallace for vice president instead of their pick, Harry Truman, at the 1944 nominating convention). This piece from Henry Wallace is found in the appendix, and I guess you can admire the gusto and political hyperbole of Henry Wallace…

… and at least smile that the founder of the pre-eminent liberal radio network isn’t simply a straight center-liberal Democrat… a good thing for the purpose of providing falling into “our team”-itis.

I think Sam Rosenfeld is asking the wrong question here on the paragraphs he keyed in on from this Time article. Think about this for a minute:

However improbable the odds at this point or modest his short-term goals, aides say, Bush still subscribes to Rove’s long-held dream that his will be the transformational presidency that lays the groundwork for a Republican majority that can endure, as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition did, for a half-century or more. Once he gets past the midterm elections, Bush plans to introduce a concept that, if anything, is even more ambitious than his failed Social Security plan: a grand overhaul that would include not only that program but Medicare and Medicaid as well. Says strategist McKinnon: “He knows that part of what he brings to the presidency is an ability and commitment to chart a long course under public pressure.” The question that will be answered in the coming year is whether America still believes in George Bush enough to follow.

Granted, Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign was a bit lukewarm in showering his vision, a vision that I guess you would have to say is what created this coalition that endured, as this article puts it, for “half-century or more.” But four years into it, his 1936 campaign was pretty up front on what Franklin Roosevelt was doing and where he was taking the country.

Now take a look at Bush. When is he going to “introduce a concept that, if anything, is even more ambitious than his failed Social Security plan”? Why… “once he gets past the midterm elections”!! In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, Bush’s supporters (at the National Review and in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, and I guess on right wing radio) proclaimed that Bush’s mandate was greater than — say — Ronald Reagan’s because, while Reagan won in a landslide, Bush won with boldness and clarity of vision. None of which worked out well this year because, quite frankly, nobody could really figure out what bold and clear domestic program that Bush supposedly had in the 2004 elections was, and so on a handful of key policies (though, unfortunately, not on bankruptcy reform), the Democrats laughed it off, Bush got himself entangled in paying back the supposed key constituency of his breath-taking 3% victory in the Terri Schivo affair, the Democratic Party realized that if they can’t defend the legacy of FDR with Social Security they have nothing, and Bush’s vision of inept government finally was exposed with Hurricane Katrina.

Why do you suppose Bush would have to unveil his ambitious strategy for reshaping America after and not during the 2006 midterm elections (elections, in theory, being where you put up your idea for America and the other party puts up their idea for America, and may the most popular idea for America win), and why do I figure that the answer to that question sort of scuttles the image of a “Republican majority that can endure, as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition did, for a half-century or more”? (By the way… aren’t we in the midst of a Republican majority that takes us back to Nixon, or if not Nixon than Reagan?)

I now present the classic hack sports writer “clever” headline for the weekend, published in newspaper after newspaper, and spouted out by tv and radio sportscaster after sportscaster throughout this great nation of ours: BUSH WINS IN A LANDSLIDE.

Har de Har Har.

They say that Reggie Bush is a once in a generation running back, and that an NFL team with a number one pick that passes on him in favour of one of the stand-out quarterbacks may be making the kind of mistake that Portland Trailblazers made in selecting Sam Bowie in front of Michael Jordan. Far be it for me to make guestimates on such pronouncements, but the last two “once-in-a-generation” running backs, as far as I can tell, would be O.J. Simpson, for a Buffalo Bills team that never wandered into the Superbowl under his tutelige, and Barry Sanders, for a Detroit Lions franchise that has won one playoff game in the last 40 years. (But he did thrill multitudes of football fans on Thanksgiving Day television year after year, and momentarily made the Detroit Lions something other than the Great Joke of the League, so he did do some good.)

The Game of the Year would thus be the final week game between the currently 1-12 Houston Texans and the currently 2-11 San Francisco 49ers. Houston came into the season riding a high of a decent season last year with expectations that they may be a playoff conteder this year, and have, as of late, been finding creative ways to lose and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. San Francisco is a franchise that decided to start sucking back around 1999, but somehow Steve Mariachi produced a winning team or two, so he was let go so that the franchise could commence sucking, Steve Mariachi being hired by the Detroit Lions — a franchise that is incapable of not sucking.

There is no reason for the teams to get a victory for the rest of the season. I guess the Houston Texans have a larger margin of error in this regard — they can win and come into the final game with 2 wins, or maybe even 3, and as long as they lose to the San Francisco 49ers… they’ll be home free. That may be why they team is managing to nearly win, whereas the San Francisco 49ers know they don’t have any room for error and thus… that explains yesterday’s 42-3 defeat at the hands of the Seattle Seahawks.

The NBA, I regret to say, lost this kind of mentality when they changed their draft positions to the lottery system. (A bunch of balls bounce around, bingo-style, in a canister of air; all the non-playoff teams have balls in the machine — the worst team has more balls than the next worst team than the next worst team and so forth… the result being that the Orlando Magic won Penny Hardaway and than Shaquille O’Neal for the honor of being destroyed in the NBA Finals, and the San Antonio Spurs had one off-year and thus won Tim Duncan to get them some championships.) The funniest thing I ever heard with the lottery system was the Los Angeles Clippers winning the lottery, and the sports-man on tv saying, “And the Los Angeles Clippers now celebrate the tenth anniversary of the last time they won the lottery” — which was… um… a joke… because… you stink ten years ago, and you stink now? (Well, not now now, but then now… which gets me to…)
……………….

Last year, I was following two NBA teams’ win-loss record, watching an informatl competition between the down-and-just-destroyed Los Angeles Lakers and the sort-of-possibly-on-the-grow Los Angeles Clippers. For most of the season, the Los Angeles Lakers still held the upper ground in this fight for supremacy of the Los Angeles area. But then, after the all-star break, the Lakers started compiling losses, and falling out of their bottom tier playoff-picture berth. Phil Hendrie wound up on a Los Angeles Sports station, and thus played “Brian Grant” for a “Lakers Talk” segment. (An inspired bit, I must say.) Which gave us the classic discussion “You know, I don’t get much into politics, but I must say: Terri Schiavo is showing more signs of life than the Los Angeles Lakers! Terri Schiavo’s heart is beating more surely than Kobe Bryant’s!”

Final Record:
LA Clippers 37 45 .451
LA Lakers 34 48 .415

This year, it’s shaping up to be not even close.
LA Clippers 14 6 .700
LA Lakers 10 10 .500

The Los Angeles Clippers being an … um… elite team. (?)
………………………

Prediction: the Seattle Seahawks will play in the Superbowl. Where they will be thumped and whacked by the Indianapolis Colts by more than three touchdowns. Good Stuff!

The House ethics committee, the panel responsible for upholding the chamber’s ethics code, has been virtually moribund for the past year, handling only routine business despite a wave of federal investigations into close and potentially illegal relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists.

So far this year, at least seven lawmakers have been indicted, have pleaded guilty or are under investigation for improper conduct such as conspiracy, securities fraud and improper campaign donations. In the past two weeks alone, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) resigned from Congress and pleaded guilty to tax evasion and conspiracy, and public relations executive Michael Scanlon admitted his role in a conspiracy to try to bribe a congressman.

There’s your latest Doc Hastings news. It’s the same news as my last bit of Doc Hastings news… such that it was, and is a recurring news-editorial feature in the national press. Nothing new is happening with the committee that Tom DeLay put him in charge of the committee so that nothing new can come out of the ethics committee. STOP THE PRESSES!

Richard “Doc” Hastings woke up this morning. He rubbed his eyeballs of the dark Insomnia-looking bags around his eyes. Then he went back to sleep.

Now There’s your latest Doc Hastings news.

I have no clue whether someone can win more than 40% in the fourth Congressional District of Washington in 2006… (which, I’ve joked, everyone’s best suggestion for every “red” district in America is to bus in Paul Hackett or Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, or preferrably both, and run him/them). I do know that this should be Issue #1, #2, and #3 of whoever is running against him, and I don’t even really care if it polls well. In 2004, there was a short spurt of advertisements in the middle of the summer designed to attach the Democratic candidate to Hanford — ineffectively since I had no idea what I was watching and it didn’t mention what exactly she was running for.

The comedian Eugene McCarthy and the politician Richard Pryor died Saturday. It’s worthwhile remembering their lives and their contributions to our society.

Richard Pryor upended the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. If I had Norman Mailer’s book ‘The Siege of Chicago’ at hand, I’d move into the tense scene at the Democratic Convention of that year.

Eugene McCarthy helped inspire the current generation of stand-up comics, particularly opening up the door to in-your-face African American comedians like Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy. Eugene McCarthy’s social satire in the comedy album “That Nigger’s Crazy” shows the frank, racial social commentary that he always provided.

On the flip side, you have to ponder some things about these two notable individuals. Richard Pryor’s post-1972 stabs at the White House — 1976, 1988, and 1992 — made him into a LaRouchite figure. And what is up with Eugene McCarthy’s appearance in Superman III?

I don’t know what it is that is a Community Watchdog. Categories are a little funny that way. Should I start watch-dogging my community for the sake of getting my peg correct, or do I look over the list, see that none of them fit, and shrug it off?

Nay. I didn’t come here for that question. I came here because I noticed a blog-entry from an incoming link, which brings us to a ‘heroes’ list of sorts: In no particular order, and with varying levels of love and respect, here are our very favorite Veterans who didn’t let the abomination of war or the regimen of subjugation diminish their humanity or lessen their contribution to our troubled species.

Pat Tilman Paul Riekhoff John Kerry, circa 1971
Jimmy Carter, post 1980 Howard Zinn
Max Cleland Kurt Vonnegut
Ron Kovic Norman Mailer
Smedley Butler Wesley Clark Edward D. Wood Jr.
John McCain Elvis Presley Jackie Robinson
John F. Kennedy Dr. Mary Walker

Hm. Bounces around from the pacifist Howard Zinn (Dear Mr. Zinn: so, in the end, I can’t escape this question with your histories: is there any escape?) to the hawk John McCain (endorsed by the Weekly Standard, lest I remind you). I suppose John McCain’s hawkishness can be tempered with the appreciation that he knows you don’t torture the enemy. The caveats to Jimmy Carter and John Kerry “post 1980” and “circa 1971” are telling — what are the over-bearing influences that strike when a person, presumably motivated by the highest of ideals, actually attains high office? I continue to wonder whether Max Cleland’s high standing in the mind of the Liberal American Democrat isn’t a little… conflated.

I’ve mused over the story of Pat Tillman story before. He turned out to be a propaganda miscue for the Pentagon, a fabricated embellished story of his bravery on the field followed by the revelation that… he was a Noam Chomsky fan. Both Ted Rall and Ann Coulter had to do a mind-contortion when that was uncovered, Ann Coulter’s reaction being simply to deny the duality of such a concept. (It destroys not only the stereotype of the happy warrior, but of a professional jock, which is to say part of the propaganda effort had to do with a sort of conflation of the faux-warrior spirit of the NFL with the real war, and ther personality type that gravitates therein: “a real man” who “is the true American”.) Go figure.