Did you know the Iraqi economy is booming?

• GDP growth in 2005 was 17%, in 2006 13%
• Salaries have risen more than 100% since 2003
• Real Estate prices have risen several hundred percent in the last two years, indicating a red hot real estate market
• 7,100,000 cell phone subscribers - up from 1,400,000 only two years ago. This nation's leading cell phone company took in $333,000,000 in 2005, and is on track to take in $520,000,000 in 2006
• $41,000,000,000 in oil revenues in 2006
• Since January 2006, the Iraqi dinar has steadily increased in value against the Iranian rial, the Kuwaiti dinar and the U.S. dollar
• A private firm marketing soft drinks has seen profits double since the end of 2003
• The number of luxury cars imported has risen from a few hundred in 2002 to more than 20,000 this year
• Gasoline is .14 cents a liter

All "facts" from a series of articles from Newsweek, the New York Post, Townhall.com and RedState.com.  Of course, the MSM is not covering all of this good news from Iraq.  And of course, it's all cherry picked facts yanked out of context or flat out wrong.

The Republicans are trying to blame the Democrats for the Foley scandal and are calling for Pelosi and other Democrats to testify. Pelosi should call and raise on them - announce that she and the Democratic leadership will testify about Mark Foley under oath on TV and that she expects Hastert and the Republican leadership to do the same.

During the year of Monica, whenever any on the Left discussed Clinton in the MSM, they had to concede that (1) having an affair in the Whitehouse was bad and (2) lying to the American people about the affair was bad.  Then, the the person would say that while they find Clinton's personal actions abhorent, that is Clinton's personal life and now let's talk about his policies.  It seemed to be a requirement in order to speak in the MSM.

Today, it's clear to me that (1) outing a CIA officer (covert or not) was bad and (2) lying to the American people about it for two years was bad.  Yet, the Right's standard seems to be that Rove didn't knowingly commit a crime, so nothing bad was done.

Every day, Bush is looking more and more like a lame duck.  You have to give the Bushies their due - they have been extraordinarily successful in keeping Bush popular despite achieving poor results and ramming through an unpopular agenda.  However, their methods are running into trouble and I think it is only going to get worse for them.  Below I discuss why I think the Bushies have been so successful, the four problems they have encountered in 2005 and how the Bolton nomination fits in.

The story says:No! No! No!  It takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule.  More on the flip.

I dislike the death penalty.  It's far more expensive than keeping someone locked up for life, research shows that it doesn't deter anyone, and far too often a poor innocent is executed.  However, there is one case where I can understand the use of the death penalty - for when people have gone to war against innocent, law-abiding Americans and our government, trying to overthrow the American way of life through senseless slaughter.  In a word, terrorists.  Once someone shows themselves to be at war with America, I can understand America fighting back to the fullest extent possible.

Today, a terrorist got off with a life sentence instead of the death penalty.  [More on the flip]

A logical consequence of all the fundamental Christian extremist talk about how important it is to save Terri Schiavo, a 50 year old man tried to steal a gun in Florida to I find it quite scary to consider what would happen if the man had gotten a gun, given what he said to the gun shop owner who stopped the robbery:

Link

I was checking out the funds on Vanguard.com and here are the funds that have better than a 5% YTD return:
Energy Fund Investory - 14.45%

Precious Metals and Mining - 8.87%
Emerging Mkts Stock Index - 7.70%
Internatl Explorer Fund - 6.49%

I don't know all the much about investing and the markets, but here is my take on why these four are doing so well:

Right now, it's basically the word of the US military versus the word of the Italian government on what happened.  From CNN:Gen Casey in his latest press conference:

We can't even agree on the simplest facts:

Yesterday, I listened to KERA in Dallas air excerpts from a round table discussion of Bob Schieffer, Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer, Tom Friedman and Bob Woodward.  I can't find a transcript and here is the only coverage I could find.  The gentleman discussed the WMD's in Iraq.  They made it clear that they felt they didn't have the technical savvy to challenge the Administration's "facts", saying something like:Then they made it clear that all resistance to the administration's WMD story collapsed after Powell's UN Presentation:

James Guckert is rapidly becoming the second most famous fake, behind the infamous members of Milli Vanilli, Rob Pilatus and Fabrice Morvan.  Guckert was a fake journalist.  He didn't write stories, but instead edited Republican spin points.  He didn't research his articles, unless you call listening to Rush research.  His publisher, Talon News, wasn't a real news organization and he wasn't even an employee of Talon News.

Guckert did enjoy faking his way through life, just as Rob and Fab did.  And why not?  Guckert got to enjoy all the perks of being a star White House reporter without any of the actual work associated with it.  He got to ask questions almost every day of the President's Press Secretary.  He got to go to two White House Christmas parties.  He got to interview a candidate for Senate and was a major factor in that candidate's winning the race.  He got to share his views on Fox News.  He even got to ask the President at a Presidential press conference.  I would guess he got more public exposure than 99.9% of all journalists.

Fareed Zakaria writes an editorial in the Washington Post that I strongly disagree with.  My first disagreement is with

During Bush's press conference, the reporter said that Gonzales had released written written answers to the Senate's questions that said that it was legal for the CIA to torture in foreign countries.  Did Bush approve or disapprove of this loophole?

Bush response: "Gonzales will be a great Attonery General and should be confirmed immediately"

I can't help take away that by that response, Bush approves of Gonzales' loophole and therefore approves of torture by the CIA overseas.

As a Christian, I have struggled hard with trying to understand why so many other Christians are fervent supporters of the Republican party.  (Note: this applies to only Christians who are American citizens.  Whenever you read "Christian", think "Christians who are American citizens")  After much thinking, I think it comes done to the conflict between the scientific community and Genesis chapters 1-11.  Genesis chapters 1-11 have the stories of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and the tower of Babel.  Chapter 12 begins the history of the Jewish people with Abraham.

You probably have heard Bush's statement on the missing explosives:
Cheney then opens mouth and inserts foot:
Well, I guess Bush agrees that Dick is someone we don't want a heartbeat away from being the Commander-in-Chief.

At this point in 1992, Clinton's opponents had convinced the public that Clinton was a draft dodger and a philanderer.  Clinton's "I never inhaled" was standard material for late-night comics.  The word "Clintonian" had become a part of the national vocabulary for making a misleading but factually true statement.  And the Whitewater "scandal" was already all over the media, which would eventually result in the appointment of Kenneth Starr as an Independent Counsel.

At this point in 2000, Gore's opponents had convinced the public that Gore had problems with exaggerations and truthfulness.  The accusation that Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet was standard material for late-night comics.  And the Buddhist Temple "scandal" was already all over the media and may have eventually resulted in the appointment of an Independent Counsel.

So far, Kerry's opponents have made four major attacks against Kerry - that Kerry is a flip-flopper, that Kerry is "too liberal", that Kerry didn't deserve his medals and that Kerry accused his fellow vets of committing atrocities.  The "flip-flopper" and "too liberal" attacks have wilted due to Kerry's rock-solid performance in the debates.  The "didn't deserve his medals" attack has melted in the face of massive amounts of evidence supporting that Kerry is indeed a war hero.  I don't think the last attack is sticking because (1) it is easy to disprove and (2) people know that atrocities did occur in Vietnam.  Drudge's "Kerry had an affair with a reporter" attack was such a massive flop that it should provide Kerry some protection on that front.  Nothing Kerry has said has become fodder for late-night comics.  There have been no "scandal" charges made against Kerry.

Nation Review has an 9/27 article predicting a two seat gain in the Senate for the Republicans.  The author, John Miller, puts the closest races into "Likely", "Leaning" or "Toss Up" categories.  Miller, for the most part, stays with calls he made in July, regardless of what the polls are doing.  When I rate the races with the latest information, I come up with a one-seat gain for the Democrats, giving them control of the Senate if Edwards is VP.

Here is the state of the Senate races, with both my assessment in bold:

Nation Review has an 9/27 article predicting a two seat gain in the Senate for the Republicans.  The author, John Miller, puts the closest races into "Likely", "Leaning" or "Toss Up" categories.  Miller, for the most part, stays with calls he made in July, regardless of what the polls are doing.  Miller also cherry-picks his polls in close races, citing Repbulican-friendly polls and ignoring Democrat-friendly ones.  When I rate the races with the latest information, I come up with a one seat gain for the Democrats, giving them control of the Senate if Edwards is VP.

Here is how I will call the races: (1) if an incumbent polls 54% or more, or if the leader in a non-incumbent race has at least an 8 point lead, then it is a likely win.  (2) If an incumbent is polling 45% or less, it is a likely loss.  (3) If an incumbent is polling 51% to 53% or if the leader in a non-incumbent race has a 4 to 7 point lead, then it is a leaning win.  (4) If an incumbent is polling 46% to 48%, then it is a leaning loss.  (5) If an incumbent is polling 49% to 50% or if the leader is a non-incumbent race has less than a 4 point lead, then it is a "Toss Up".  (6) In Louisiana, it is looking like a close December run off, so it is a "Toss Up"

Here is the state of the Senate races, with both my assessment in bold: