NewsFlash: A Serum Made From Toxic Botulism Can Kill And Make You Sick! Who'd A Thunk?

Gee, when I think of something like Botox/botulism which can cause a miserable death, I just don't simultaneously think, "Wow, let me inject it into my face on a regular basis. And, while I'm at being effing moronic, let me have those injections done by a person who didn't necessarily graduate high school who buys this shit off the black market where who the bleep knows WHAT you're getting and then there's that question about whether the needle used is sterile."

Yup.

Granted, perhaps I may reach a day when I feel I MIGHT do something silly - not deadly silly, thank you - to look younger. But that day isn't here - thank God for some genes, eh? - and I'm hoping it does not happen. When it does, injecting botulism into my face for kicks won't be a consideration.

Now, also granted, botulism is used FOR actual medical purposes. I in fact once had a severe muscle problem where it was considered as a short-term "fix" to stop spasms that responded to nothing else. Some of the folks who've died, in fact, were medical rather than plastic surgical users. But anyone who HAS a different option probably isn't racing out to use Botox, and men and women with a few character lines shouldn't either.

Hey, Healthy People: You Cost TOO Much!

A new report says that healthy people who live longer COST society MORE than smokers and the obese. Oops.

Thankfully, I'm only moderately healthy and will probably die early so I won't cost too much. ;)

The Loss of John Edwards Is The Loss of a Voice For Regular Americans

Yesterday was a very bad day for Americans who are not wealthy, don't own mega corporations, who don't have health care or job security or big political connections.

I won't pretend that I'm not bitter, sad, and very angry that Democratic presidential nominee candidate John Edwards suspended his campaign yesterday. I thought he and his wife, Elizabeth, and many fine Americans of all economic backgrounds, waged a brave and brilliant campaign that focused on something almost NO ONE else in this campaign, short of Dennis Kucinich who dropped out last week: the rising majority of Americans suffering at the bankrupting of America by Republican rule and Democrat-capitulation.

We ALL lost, regardless of your party or preferred candidate, when we let the media and the Republican party turn this race only into an Obama-Clinton slugfest, and let Edwards get pushed ever back and finally out of contention. Unlike most - virtually ALL - presidential candidates since I became eligible to vote in 1980, I really believe Edwards meant just about everything he said. And that Elizabeth, with incurable cancer, insisted he run AND participated with him, impressed the hell out of me.

As much as I can't imagine voting for ANYONE but a Democrat in November, I do not feel either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton speak for the majority of Americans. I think they, at another time, would be viewed as somewhat moderate Republicans. But, as I've said, if Republicans won't elect moderate Republicans to office, why the hell should the Democrats. All I can do is hope that we hold their feet to the fire if one of them wins Election 2008 and that they are just sounding "conservative" and ever so careful during the race, while they show less concern for millionaires and billionaires and corporations once they get to the Oval Office.

The South Carolina Democratic Debate: Who Won? Not Us

If I had to sum up my reaction to the South Carolina Democratic debate Monday night in just one sentence, I would paraphrase what contender John Edwards said, "Excuse me, there are three people in this debate, not TWO and with all this squabbling, how many kids will be able to get health care or go to college because of this meanness."

Not only did this become a Hillary-Barack slugfest with their behavior along with how debate host CNN's Wolf Blitzer handled it, but the media after the fact seemed to ignore that Edwards was even present. Most of the clips of it shown offered no glimpse, much less a soundbyte, from the former North Carolina senator.

The relatively few who DID notice Edwards was there, like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown, noted that he came out as the soul of reason, the only one who realizes this isn't about Hillary or Barack or even himself, but a nation filled with hurting people who can no longer afford their mortgages, their health insurance, or to be guaranteed a decent education for their kids. As Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out with Keith, if Clinton-Obama fights like this continue for the next month, Edwards is almost guaranteed to come out ahead of both of them put together.

Finally, the media was far more focused on the arguments between the woman candidate and the black candidate, making it sound like it was just wrong. As a pacifist and as someone who rarely feels she learns much from arguing, I'd agree. However, the media ONLY looks at Clinton and Obama and the fighting, giving almost NO attention to harsh words exchanged between Republican candidates or many of the lies the GOP runners tell about the Democrats as well as their own voting/business history. Given how the media presents this stuff, how can we possibly trust their overall analysis? Hell, they didn't give Mike Huckabee this kind of heat when he came out a few times last week to declare that the U.S. Constitution must be completely rewritten to document the word and laws of His God - something that affects all of us a HELL of a lot more than whether Hillary and Barack love each other or engage in verbal smackdowns

John Edwards: Stay or Go?

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report discusses the big question(s) before 2008 Dem presidential candidate (and John Kerry's VP choice in the 2004 race), John Edwards, regarding whether it's time for him to pack it in or continue on toward the Dem convention this summer which is what Edwards has said he will do.

As I've said, I'm undecided at this time. However, Edwards (along with Dennis Kucinich) comes closer to my "ideal" candidate than do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who, IMHO, are too willing to make concessions I don't like, don't believe are good for the country in its current shape (which isn't all that good). To me, both represent the DLC approach to Democrats which I find too much like middle ground Republicanism to help Democrats as a whole. If the Republicans don't want to elect moderate Republicans, why should Dems do it for them?

Interestingly enough, I did NOT support Edwards in 2004 though I came to support the Kerry-Edwards' ticket simply because Edwards was on it and I saw a progressive-ism growing in him that seemed utterly absent from Kerry. The Edwards running today is a much-changed man, I believe, from 2004 and I do NOT believe this is an act. John Edwards' approach on universal health care, the working class, and so many other issues.

Right now, his campaign isn't doing super great. But what's strange is that he's got at least half the delegates of Obama and Clinton WHILE, where Republicans like Thompson and Giuliani barely have a handful of delegates BETWEEN them, pundits aren't shouting to push Fred and Rudy off the campaign trail as they are with Edwards. Why? What's the difference? Could it be that Edwards is simply not "corporate money" enough for the DLC crowd while among Repugs, Rudy and Fred will definitely sell their souls?

What's your take?

Yet Another Fat, White Fascist GOP Lawmaker Wants Rights To A Woman's Womb

Dolt.

Gee, what a surprise; a Republican who wants to force his beliefs upon others. Who'd a thought? Mind you, there are many women doctors who will NOT undergo an ultrasound with their own pregnancies (except in extraordinary circumstances) because they question the "health" of doing so.

Women seeking an abortion would first have to undergo an ultrasound under a new bill proposed in Kentucky, reported Louisville, Ky., TV station WLKY.

Members of the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Louisville had a lot to say about the bill. They drove to Frankfort hoping to get more information about it, and hoping to convince the senator who sponsored the bill that it should not get passed at all.

"I think defeating it would be the best thing for the people of Kentucky, regardless of your feeling about abortion," said coalition member Anne Maron.

The new bill would make it mandatory for doctors to perform an ultrasound on a woman seeking an abortion, provide an explanation of the results and provide the ultrasound images to the pregnant woman and review them with her.

"I want to make sure women understand fully what is happening if they get an opportunity to see the little fingers and toes of the baby that they're thinking about aborting," said state Sen. Jack Westwood.

Come to think of it, "dolt" is too kind for a man like Westwood who would probably kill before he'd let a law directly act on his penis.

Pot Boosts Brain Cell Growth?

It almost makes me wish my smoking days were not long behind me; this from Libby posting at Newshoggers under "Marijuana is good medicine":

The prohibition profiteers lie to you when they tell you that pot has no medicinal value. A new study just out shows marijuana increases brain cell growth.

ST. JOHN’S, Nfld — Supporters of marijuana may finally have an excuse to smoke weed every day. A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Investigation suggests that smoking pot can make the brain grow.

Though most drugs inhibit the growth of new brain cells, injections of a synthetic cannibinoid have had the opposite effect in mice in a study performed at the University of Saskatchewan. ...

The researchers found that rats treated with HU-210 on a regular basis showed neurogenesis — the growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus. A current hypothesis suggests depression may be triggered when the hippocampus grows insufficient numbers of new brain cells. If true, HU-210 could offer a treatment for such mood disorders by stimulating this growth.

Now cannabis is a complex plant and the research was conducted with only two of a multitude of elements it contains so this study isn't really a license to smoke pot, but this could explain why so many people who suffer from depressive disorders self-medicate with marijuana. Taken in moderation, it works better than Zoloft with a lot less dangerous side effects.

Meanwhile, I have mixed feelings about this research. It's good to establish that cannabinoids are useful as medicine but the focus on using synthentic compounds suggests to me that prohibitionists want to profit from marijuana without having to give up their equally lucrative war on the natural plant.

Financing Tax Cuts for Billionaires And Corporate Welfare With Lives of Sick Kids

As promised, President Bush - who has never met a tax cut for the wealthiest or a way to have taxpayers foot the bill for mega corporations such as making Americans pay for oil industry refineries at a time when energy companies are seeing their most massive profits EVER - has vetoed the Congressional bill which would have allowed more kids to be covered by health care insurance under SCHIP.

Calling this disgusting and unconscionable simply does not begin to describe this.

Think about this: thousands if not tens of thousands of kids could be covered SIMPLY for the cost of what taxpayers will be expected to pony up so that Jenna (the even dumber Bush twin) can get married at the White House. Guess Bush has his priorities straight.

Bush: "To Prove I'm Relevant, I'm Ready To Let Your Sick Kids Suffer!"

Just when you thought it couldn't get anymore bizarre and bastardly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue....

That Bush thinks he's relevant must be of great comfort to parents of sick kids this president BOASTS he wants kept from any kind of meaningful health care coverage. For a man who proves day in and day out (those few days Dubya bothers to pretend to work, that is), his comment today he is PROUD to veto the Dem-pushed provisions for government-aided health care for children (Ricky Shambles posted powerfully about it here (aka Schipstorm) at All Things Democrat earlier this week) to prove his relevancy as a president reaches a whole new subterranean L-O-W.

I overheard a woman today, a woman I have heard defend Bush right and left (and man, is he ever to the right), an ardent conservative Republican who does not believe in social programs to help anyone who makes less than 100K, completely lose it upon learning of the president's latest lunacy. "How does taking away basic health care from poor kids make him a better president?" she demanded in complete consternation as she literally threw up her hands.

Even this loyal GOPer seemed to see through the ridiculous fog of lies the Bush-buttkissers put up about how rich adults were using the kids' health care and how those from families earning $85K or more were "swindling" the system when people who cannot afford rent and food should pony up $400-800 a month in health premiums. Anyone with half a brain (OK, Bush doesn't qualify even by that lesser standard) has been appalled at the tighty righties' miserable position on this.

If the latest Bushism sounds even worse than the classic Ebenezer Scrooge bit from Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" who, when asked to help the poor at the holiday season, inquires of the do-gooders if the debtors' prisons still operate since his taxes support those institutions, you aren't far from the mark.

Writes Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post on this matter:

Asked how he found himself vetoing a children's health insurance bill that had passed Congress with bipartisan support, Bush insisted that using a veto is "one way to ensure I am relevant."

When a reporter followed up and asked Bush if he felt he was losing leverage and relevance, Bush replied: "I've never felt more engaged and more capable of getting the American people to realize there's a lot of unfinished business."

Which, let's be blunt, is hard to believe.

For seven years now, everything that has come out of Bush & Cheney's mouth has been hard to believe. No, correction: impossible to believe. Nice that they'll take a stand on the fallen bodies of sick kids, eh?

Gives a whole 'nother sick meaning to No Child Left Behind.

Too Bad The Bushes Didn't Use Contraceptives...

Also posted elsewhere and proof that most of the worst assholes in the world are on Dubya's speed dial:

How many ways has the Bush Administration done its utmost to destroy the hearts and minds and soul of Americans (not to mention the devastation they've wrought in the rest of the world)? Even the world's finest supercomputers can't count that high.

The latest - and sadly, not the worst - is this from Think Progress on how Bush's new "family planning" appointee, Susan Orr, refers to simple contraceptives as an evil element in the "culture of death" promoted by progressive minds. [Too effing bad that Babs and Papa Bush didn't use some contraceptives along the way; would have saved countless lives, jobs, hearts, minds, etc.]

This is yet another cesspool of depravity dug by a group who imposes their twisted brand of morality on the rest of us while they seem to engage in nothing but perverted, sick, definitely-not-Bible-sanctioned acts, usually in and around their second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth marriage themselves. Their sense of family values always extend both to their multiple sexual partners AND their multiple spouses. All while they claim that allowing same sex marriage will destroy the heterosexual unions they can't seem to keep from killing all by themselves.

(Waving to Larry Craig, "Morals czar" Bill Bennett, Ken ("My closet is very large yet I prove that being gay doesn't always mean being merry") Mehlman, et al.)

Bush Retains Deep Burrowing Bug Up His Butt

[On Saturday morning, as CNN ran the breaking news headline for hours saying they were awaiting news of Bush coming out of his colonoscopy, I was still woozy from a lack of caffeine. Thus, when they showed video - while that banner headline ran - of a bust of more than 30 pounds of marijuana found in the trunk of a car driven by a teenager, I slapped my head and thought, "Geez. Is THAT what he's had buried up there all this time? You'd think if it was pot, he wouldn't have been such a paranoid, perverse, and antagonistic little prick!" Turns out, these were two separate stories.]

On Friday night or so, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann joked that President Bush had to rush to sign the "new" anti-torture legislation bill (one meant to "clarify", as if it was anyone but the Bushies who needed such clarification, the rules against torture during interrogation laid out by the Geneva Convention) into effect before he "handed over" temporary control of the presidency to Vice President Dick Cheney while he underwent general anesthesia for a routine colonoscopy Saturday morning, just in case The Dick got any "funny" ideas.

There were also more than a few jokes running around (not exactly the ha-ha variety given what these chickenhawks are willing to do when someone else is in the line of fire) that we should pray like hell that Cheney didn't decide to use his few hours as commander-in-cheat to declare full scale war on Iran.

The sad news? Well, it's pretty damned clear that Bush's colonoscopy failed to dislodge the very deep, dangerous, and dum-bulbafying bug he's had buried up his sigmoid (one of the lovely stretches of intestine we call the colon) for at least the last seven years. Also, according to the president's doctors, they found no brain wedged up there, finally putting an end to the theory that this is where Bush has had his mind buried all this time.

Yet Another Bush "Veto on America" As He Wages Bloody War on Science

Grrrrrr.... What is even MORE infuriating is that we've seen examples of several cases where the rabid rightwingers who fight against any use of embryonic stem cells (taken only from those that would be lost anyway) then turned around and used their OWN money and their OWN clout to seek the benefits FROM those stem cells. These, the same folks demanding that embryos that are barely more than a few cells deserve far more right to life than the women carrying them or the fully-cooked human beings who could benefit from REAL science. From Think Progress:

Today, President Bush issued the third veto of his presidency on legislation expanding funding for embryonic stem cell research, which recently passed Congress with a bipartisan, overwhelming majority.

Faced with the opposition of nearly two-thirds of Americans, White House spokesperson Tony Snow today attempted to spin the veto as a positive development. Snow claimed that Bush has a “unique and unprecedented role” in supporting stem cell research, and attacked critics for “misstating” the administration’s policies, claiming that Bush was in fact “putting science before ideology.”

In an attempt to drum up support for less potent alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, Snow falsely characterized the science behind stem cell research, claiming scientists “are not even entirely sure about what the possible benefits of embryonic stem cells [are].”

Just another loud, arrogant, and infinitely harmful "Fuck You" from the White House we pay to abuse us.

Gee, is Tony Snow, battling colon cancer, using stem cell treatments or at least using doctors willing to explore this? I (sadly) would not be surprised.

Yeah, Bush's War on Science is as well founded in fact and executed just as effectively as his other wars (on health care as a whole, on public education, on reason, on brown people not named Alberto Gonzales, to name a few).

Flag Day - Don't Wave It, SAVE It

I've grown to have mixed feelings about Flag Day (today) because it always seems like all the wrong people wave the American flag and proclaim it as their own and then deny its "rightful" ownership by those more committed to the ideals on which this country was founded. HOWEVER...

Today, perhaps we ALL need to commit at least ONE act to restore the fundamental principles for which we love our country which provides the underlying value which the American flag symbolizes. If all this flag symbolizes is greed and hypocrisy and exclusionism and brutality, then the flag means nothing at all. So we must make our flag symbolize what it should, rather than what the Bushies and the rest have done to shat upon our land.

Write or call your Congress critters and tell them you're sick of having them in thrall to the Bush Right Wing. Stand up for universal health care or Immigration Reform (our founding fathers did NOT limit who could come) or the homeless or the poor (and remember, many of the homeless today HAVE a job; but one - or two or three - job in many sectors does NOT always guarantee Americans a place they can live).

Stand up today. Don't wave the flag until you've done your very best to try to ensure a change for the better, back to the basics of what our founding fathers (and the women who sacrificed behind them) envisioned. Take our country back for you, your family, and for every other American already here or to be born or to immigrate here.

And if you're smart - and I bet you are - you won't stop at just Flag Day. Do your best again tomorrow, and the weekend, and Monday, and... you get my drift.

"Diagnosis: Conflict of Interest"

Perhaps another reason to see Michael Moore's "Sicko"? Or just another indication of how much the FDA is in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies who decide what your doctor knows about treating you with what drug?

THE revelation that the diabetes drug Avandia can potentially cause heart disease is the latest in a string of pharmaceutical disappointments. Vioxx was pulled from the market in 2004 because it doubled the risks for heart attacks and strokes. Eli Lilly recently paid $750 million to settle lawsuits alleging that Zyprexa causes diabetes. Many have criticized the Food and Drug Administration as being too lax about monitoring drug safety.

While those criticisms have merit, there is another culprit: the transformation of continuing medical education into an enterprise for drug marketing. The chore of teaching doctors how to practice medicine has been handed to the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, dangerous side effects are rarely on the curriculum.

Most states require that doctors obtain a minimum number of credit hours of continuing medical education each year to maintain their medical licenses. Not so long ago, most of these courses were produced and paid for by universities and medical associations. But this has changed drastically over the past decade.

According to the most recent data available from the national organization in charge of accrediting the courses, drug-industry financing of continuing medical education has nearly quadrupled since 1998, from $302 million to $1.12 billion. Half of all continuing medical education courses in the United States are now paid for by drug companies, up from a third a decade ago. Because pharmaceutical companies now set much of the agenda for what doctors learn about drugs, crucial information about potential drug dangers is played down, to the detriment of patient care.

On This Memorial Day Weekend...

Let us appreciate America's 25 million living veterans (one in every dozen citizens), demand we stop unnecessary aggression against other countries, and begin to worry about our own massive problems. At the same time, think about all the many wars this Republican chickenhawk vice president (Dick Cheney) and chickenshit commander in chief, Mr. Bush, have started since they used corrupt court processes to take the White House in December 2000:

Besides those declared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the proxy war Israel waged for Bush to break the spine of Lebanon in proxy:

• War on the military and our veterans (asking so much while cutting services to them every damned day)
• War on basic human rights
• War on individual privacy
• War not on poverty but against the poor
• War on families (you have to be the "right" kind of family not to feel "intruded" upon
• War on science
• War on reason
• War on truth and accountability as well as the whistleblowers who try to make the Bushies honest
• War on public education and against the best conditions for our kids
• War on young minds, trying to lure them away from high school or college with lies
• War on drugs (which got rolled into the War on Terror which, as they say, is a bumper sticker motto but hardly a game plan) which includes the ability for Americans to afford them, to get them for their most urgent needs (ex: contraception, pain relief, and yes, even decongestants in cold formulas), and to make decisions about their own bodies
• War on anyone who isn't of the Fascist Fundamentalist Christian "faith" (Muslims, especially)
• War on America's honor, its reputation, its compassion
• War on the sick (remember Terri Schiavo, kept alive when there was little brain left in her while the Bushies had no trouble discontinuing treatment to the ultra poor minority babies)
• War on journalism
• War on the United Nations, NATO, and other worldly agencies

Care to name some other wars?

Bush Does It Again! Promotes a Surgeon General With Extremely Questionable Skills And Agenda

What? Bush hire someone with an agenda (which is always totally supposed to promote only the benefits to the Bushies? You must be joking! [Or you're getting an early start on raising the blood alcohol as high as... well, quite possibly, NOT as high as the president's. Note too I refrain from past tense.

Here's a Buzzflash editorial on Dubya's next ass clown.:

Dr. James Holsinger was tapped by President Bush Thursday to be the nation's next Surgeon General. Sure enough, Holsinger's record is mired with incompetence, zealous conservatism, and, of course, sizable campaign contributions to Republicans.

As Chief Medical Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs under Bush's father, Dr. Holsinger was neglecting our vets long before Walter Reed made it fashionable. A government investigation found "several cases in which incompetence and neglect led to the deaths of patients." Dr. Holsinger was forced to admit blame for the deaths of six patients in less than a year at a single Chicago hospital alone.

But the problems weren't limited to Chicago. In a Wyoming, a patient scheduled for surgery for a treatable cancer died after he was ignored for 45 days following the resignation of the staff urologist over a contract dispute. Thirty VA hospitals were found to have "high numbers of patient complications and other indicators of substandard care."

It gets worse as you read on, including the Bushies' standard moralist homophobia.

Which leads us ever to the burning question, "Why Do George Bush AND Dr. Holsinger Hate Our Soldiers? And no, this is neither rhetorical nor mere sarcasm. The troops have had plenty enough trouble with the White House eager to veto a slight raise for American soldiers.

Paul Krugman: "Way Off Base"

Belatedly, here's Krugman's April 16th Op/Ed from The New York Times (read the entire thing at Casa Rozius):

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election.

But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Iraq is the most dramatic example. Strange as it may seem, Democratic strategists were initially reluctant to make Iraq a central issue in the midterm election. Even after their stunning victory, which demonstrated that the G.O.P.’s smear-and-fear tactics have stopped working, they were afraid that any attempt to rein in the Bush administration’s expansion of the war would be successfully portrayed as a betrayal of the troops and/or a treasonous undermining of the commander in chief.

Beltway insiders, who still don’t seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush, fed that fear. For example, as Democrats began, nervously, to confront the administration over Iraq war funding, David Broder declared that Mr. Bush was “poised for a political comeback.”

It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given “carte blanche.”)

But the public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Mr. Bush’s leadership and doesn’t believe anything the administration says. Iraq was a big factor in the Democrats’ midterm victory. And far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support: according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

Health care is another example of the base being more in touch with what the country wants than the politicians. Except for John Edwards, who has explicitly called for a universal health insurance system financed with a rollback of high-income tax cuts, most leading Democratic politicians, still intimidated by the failure of the Clinton health care plan, have been cautious and cagey about presenting plans to cover the uninsured.

But the Democratic presidential candidates — Mr. Obama in particular — have been facing a lot of pressure from the base to get specific about what they’re proposing. And the base is doing them a favor.

The fact is that a long time has passed since the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the public is now demanding that something be done. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed overwhelming support for a government guarantee of health insurance for all, even if that guarantee required higher taxes. Even self-identified Republicans were almost evenly split on the question!

Read the rest!

Paul Krugman: "Emerging Republican Minority"

Here's the latest (this morning) New York Times' Op/Ed column by the one, the only, Paul Krugman:

Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.

But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.

Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.

Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.

But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.

For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.

Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.

And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.

The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year.

Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.

And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.

So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority.

Read the rest here.

Veteran Dies After Refused Treatment At VA Facility

Monty at Buzzflash brings us this terrible story from Democracy Now about just how well vets - and active duty soldiers - get (mis)treated under the Bush Administration.

Paul Krugman: "Valor and Squalor"

In his Times column today, Dr. Krugman turns his ink-loaded scalpel toward the Bush-worsened debacle surrounding care for our wounded troops at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. Read it all here or be satisfied with my thick sniplet:

When Salon, the online magazine, reported on mistreatment of veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center two years ago, officials simply denied that there were any problems. And they initially tried to brush off last month’s exposé in The Washington Post.

But this time, with President Bush’s approval at 29 percent, Democrats in control of Congress, and Donald Rumsfeld no longer defense secretary — Robert Gates, his successor, appears genuinely distressed at the situation — the whitewash didn’t stick.

Yet even now it’s not clear whether the public will be told the full story, which is that the horrors of Walter Reed’s outpatient unit are no aberration. For all its cries of “support the troops,” the Bush administration has treated veterans’ medical care the same way it treats everything else: nickel-and-diming the needy, protecting the incompetent and privatizing everything it can.

What makes this a particular shame is that in the Clinton years, veterans’ health care — like the Federal Emergency Management Agency — became a shining example of how good leadership can revitalize a troubled government program. By the early years of this decade the Veterans Health Administration was, by many measures, providing the highest-quality health care in America. (It probably still is: Walter Reed is a military facility, not run by the V.H.A.)

But as with FEMA, the Bush administration has done all it can to undermine that achievement. And the Walter Reed scandal is another Hurricane Katrina: the moment when the administration’s misgovernment became obvious to everyone.

The problem starts with money. The administration uses carefully cooked numbers to pretend that it has been generous to veterans, but the historical data contained in its own budget for fiscal 2008 tell the true story. The quagmire in Iraq has vastly increased the demands on the Veterans Administration, yet since 2001 federal outlays for veterans’ medical care have actually lagged behind overall national health spending.

To save money, the administration has been charging veterans for many formerly free services. For example, in 2005 Salon reported that some Walter Reed patients were forced to pay hundreds of dollars each month for their meals.

More important, the administration has broken longstanding promises of lifetime health care to those who defend our nation. Two months before the invasion of Iraq the V.H.A., which previously offered care to all veterans, introduced severe new restrictions on who is entitled to enroll in its health care system. As the agency’s Web site helpfully explains, veterans whose income exceeds as little as $27,790 a year, and who lack “special eligibilities such as a compensable service connected condition or recent combat service,” will be turned away.

Rozius has the rest.