Warning: not to be taken literally

On January 31, 2006, President Bush gave his State of the Union address, and among the issues he mentioned were America's "addiction" to oil. On February 1, 2006 -- less than 24 hours later -- two administration officials, the energy secretary and the national security advisor told us this was not to be taken literally, that these words were only meant to be spoken in terms which the American People could understand. Bush didn't really mean we had to break our oil addiction. It was just an "example", they said, but what they meant was that it was a metaphor, which Merriam Webster defines as 'an elaborate or fanciful way of expressing something <"it's raining cats and dogs" is just a colorful metaphor and not a meteorological announcement> -- see CONCEIT '. So apparently it was only a figure of speech; something between truth and untruth.

This past week Bush spoke in Los Angeles -- presumably to defend his domestic spying program -- and in it he disclosed for the first time a 2002 plot to fly a plane into a building in L.A. Indeed, the president went into more detail than has ever been usual regarding threats to The Homeland, and even told how the plot was thwarted. Almost immediately, the mayor of Los Angeles responded by saying he had never heard about the plot before. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also said he had requested meetings with Bush in the past to discuss homeland security issues and as yet there have been no meetings. However, former administration officials said that there was no direct threat to Los Angeles -- not in 2002, and not at the present time. So was this just another example of something the President said that shouldn't be considered seriously?

We seem to be entering a new realm of administration prevarication. Previously when Bush has been questioned on the "truthfulness" of his statements, his lackeys have been quick to cover it up by saying "the President misspoke". Now the spin is "it wasn't meant to be taken literally." Just an example, random musings, presidential ramblings spoken off the cuff ...

Could this mean when Bush said Iraq had WMDs -- Rumsfeld even said he knew exactly where they were; "around Tikrit" -- that he didn't mean it literally? Was that actually just a postulate, a hypothetical scenario?

How about his statements regarding "not knowing Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff"? Did he really mean that when he said it? Or was it another statement we shouldn't take seriously?

We've been told since the 2000 campaign that Bush is a straight shooter. Over and over again, press secretary Scot McClellan has said, "The President meant it when he said ..." Is 'straight-shooter' a figure of speech? A metaphor?

Perhaps the Traditional Media should consider running a disclaimer when broadcasting a Bush speech, as a crawl beneath his picture: Warning: Not to be taken literally. Or perhaps the corporate press corps could simply ask Bush or designated spokespeople a permanent followup to every other question they ask: "Can we take that literally? Or is it just a metaphor, a figure of speech, a hypothetical scenario, random musings ... ? "

A disturbing hypothetical scenario to consider: when Bush took the oath of office and swore to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, did he mean it metaphorically?

Was that not to have been taken literally?

Greg Abbott takes on an invisible issue

Ed Ishmael takes him down:

Like most Republican leaders these days, Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott seems scared. He sees the writing on the wall in large urban counties and knows there is little he or any Republican can do to keep those counties from turning Blue. What with Republican corruption, a do-nothing Governor and a Republican- controlled legislature that cannot even fund our schools, the only thing the Republicans have left may well be the one thing Abbott is advocating: voter suppression.

In his recent opinion piece Voter Fraud Must Stop, Abbott takes a well-worn page from the Republican’s playbook and twists himself in knots setting up a straw man -- voter fraud -- which he then attacks. He claims we have an epidemic on our hands but predictably offers no evidence supporting his wild assertion. His attempt would be laughable if it did not involve the denial of voting rights to hard-working concerned Texans and if it wasn’t costing you and me $1.5 million dollars.

If you were surprised by Mr. Abbott’s epidemic alarm, you’re not alone. Even noted experts on Texas politics in general, and on Texas voting in particular, have no idea what he’s talking about. You see, you haven’t heard about this so-called epidemic before because it does not exist.

If you want to understand the smoke and mirrors trick Abbott is performing you must look no further than his own words. He starts his presentation by listing instances he claims prove voter fraud in Texas.

And what is the first example he references? One from 1948. That alone should tell you how weak his coming argument will be.

Go read the whole thing, and then read Phillip Martin's post at Burnt Orange Report, which is quickly becoming the go-to blog on Texas politics. Commenter Sonia cogently explains there why this is garden variety, poll-tax-style voter suppression and intimidation.

I'm guessing we'll be talking about it some at the Tejano Democrats' convention this weekend.

Tejano Dems, Bell/Gamage face off, and the Band of Brothers in DC

The Tejano Democrats are here in Houston to screen and endorse candidates. There are several events open to the public, and lots of candidates for you to see, hear, and meet.

Bob Gammage and Chris Bell debated on a live television feed this afternoon, carried by WFAA in Dallas. BOR live-blogged it.

The Band of Brothers gathering in Washington yesterday was nothing short of awesome.

More on all this later.

Kay Bailey caves in to BAR and the vets

See? It works.

"The people, united, can never be defeated":

After U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky's nearly two years of advocacy for a VA hospital south of San Antonio, Kay Bailey Hutchison asked the Veterans Administration yesterday to consider turning a former regional hospital into a VA hospital for South Texas veterans.

In her June 27, 2005 press release Radnofsky formally called for a veterans' hospital south of San Antonio as soon as Hutchison entered the race, and she repeated that call in over 300 campaign stops, rallies, meetings and press conferences throughout Texas, as well as in media advisories and position papers including her most recent press release on February 2, 2006.

Succumbing to Radnofsky's advocacy, the activities of local veterans, South Texas legislators, and a resurgent Democratic Party, and feeling the pressure of declining support among Hispanics (56%, Nov. 2005 to 46% in Jan.2006) in the most recent Zogby Battleground States poll, Hutchison moved to limit the damage by finally moving ahead with a much-needed hospital.

"Hutchison, as Veterans Affairs Subcommittee chairwoman on the appropriations committee, has failed to fill the gap in projected VA budget shortfalls and has deserted our veterans," says Radnofsky. "Her resistance to a hospital south of San Antonio until forced by my campaign, and her repeated votes against increased veterans’ funding, demonstrate that our veterans need a real advocate in Washington, not a rubber stamp for the administration."

According to Radnofsky, "Sen. Hutchison, after following my lead on a VA hospital for South Texas veterans, now needs to follow my recommendations on guaranteed funding for the VA, protection of veterans and service personnel from unscrupulous lending practices and discrimination in bankruptcy proceedings, insurance reform, and federal research authorization for pharmacy and medical schools in South Texas and El Paso."