Blonde, the official color of the GOP

I noticed an ad for a free calendar from the Clare Boothe Luce Institute which states on its website:

"Strong women leaders like Clare Boothe Luce, Margaret Thatcher, and Sarah Palin have inspired millions and impacted the world for the better."

Ignoring the fact that Palin really hasn't impacted the world, why the need to use a British woman, and how idealistically blinded do you have to be to put Palin in the same category as the Iron Lady?

On a related note I've noticed often lately that Republicans tout the beauty of the few women with clout in conservative politics (this calendar is just one more example), contrasting this with older female liberal leaders. It's not even an ideology anymore, it's a high school popularity contest.

Why does the GOP think it is right, and still somewhat gets away with, selling image over content? What will it take for those few good conservative politicians to abandon that floating shipwreck commandeered by insane ghost pirates whooping,, 'hallelujah!' and form a new party with their libertarian kin?

Bush playing poker

I'm watching the YouTube video of the interview Eric Schmidt has with reporter Bob Woodward.

It's 27 minutes into the video and Woodward is explaining that in his view Bush is like a poker player, who is so convinced in his position on Iraq that he is "all in", that is- betting everything. It sounds like a proper comparrison, and I just wanted to add the following:

I wish Bush actually bothered to look at his hand, or at least knew the rules of the game.

Annapolis, Peace, Lott

Is it just me, or is it hypocritical of George W. Bush to ask others to make compromises in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when he fails to seek a compromise on issues far less important (on a global scale, at least) such as the operation in Iraq and a national health-care for poor children?

I'm all for peace talks between the two sides in the conflict (I had advocated for the now-universally accepted two-state solution back when it was still deemed treasonous to do so), but the ongoing media campaign the administration is running makes it sound more like a photo-op and political maneuvering than an real attempt to solve the problem. Listening to the analysis from guests on NPR explaining the different motivations of the attending parties helped me notice this. What I don't understand is why they would all go into a process which they expect to fail. It seems very short-sighted and sure to backfire. Unless they have plans to blame the other side, which we've seen (perhaps rightfully so, but the blame continues) against Arafat following the previous series of talks years ago.

I don't see the US solving this problem. The people here in the States are too complacent. Half don't understand the true importance for world peace, the other half refuse on religious, national, or self-serving grounds. Democrats don't know how to do anything right, Republicans are terrific making the wrong things happen. The Republicans would surely lose even more seats in congress in the upcoming elections, if only there were a third party candidate to take them back for the American people, and the world.

Speaking of hypocrites, new is that Trent Lott is going to retire. Not when his term ends, but just a little before, beating the deadline for the new "cool down" period during which ex-congressmen cannot work as lobbyists. His retirement is attributed to the loss of his home during hurricane Katrina, but he won't work to the end of his term (read "the cool-down deadline") to serve his even less well-off constituents and neighbors.