Is George Bush so far removed from reality that he fails to see how vulnerable he is when he calls the ruthless and undemocratic government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe "illegitimate"?

Mugabe has something in common with George Bush in that he has legitimacy problems on his own behalf and achieved "victories" in 2000 and 2004 amid ruthless and undemocratic practices that were aimed at African Americans.

Bush's own brother Jeb, as governor of Florida, teamed up with then Secretary of State Katherine Harris to create a successful scheme to disenfranchise thousands of African American voters in the Sunshine State.  

As a result the vote was close enough to allow the Federalist Society to prevail with a U.S. Supreme Court majority of one to shut down a democratic recount in that crucial and deciding state and throw the election to Bush.

Bob Herbert had a column in the New York Times September 25 that by all rights deserved strong mainstream media attention based on the importance of its subject matter.

The Don Imus and Bill O'Reilly controversies pale into comparative insignificance next to what Republicans are doing to African Americans seeking the basic right of congressional representation in the seat of the nation's federal government, Washington, D.C.

Despite all the bold talk by leading Republican Party operatives that the party seeks to reach out to everyone including minorities, this claim has once more been reduced to hypocritical posturing due to the point Herbert made that is receiving so little comment within the mainstream media.  

African Americans have been rebuffed by Republicans in an attempt to secure voting rights in Congress through the creation of a congressional seat in Washington, D.C.  The Republican race card is alive and regrettably doing all too well.

Since January 2001 I have withheld the term and designation of President from the current occupant of the White House for the basic reason that he was never elected.  

The unconscionable fraud and blatant racism of the Jeb Bush-Katherine Harris team in perpetrating fraud in Florida during the 2000 presidential election and its aftermath was nothing other than the kind of pernicious fascism that has reigned in banana republics and prevented honest victors from attaining office.

More of the same occurred in 2004 in Ohio, as unmasked by Robert Fitzakis and others.  Meanwhile mathematics professor Steve Freeman and others have validated the reliable exit polls that revealed John Kerry as winner of the popular vote over Bush by a 51-48 margin.  

In Ohio Ken Blackwell orchestrated the same kind of banana republic fraudulent activity to obtain that key state for Bush and Cheney.  

Recent news about Florida experiencing more voting problems prompts wags to exclaim sarcastically, "Really?  What else is new?"  Voting difficulties are now etched into Florida's firmament as indelibly as bright sunshine, sandy beaches, hurricanes, and humidity.

I can qualify as a before and after experiment pertaining to my own experiences living recently in Florida as well as what I encountered when I moved one year ago to my current home of Seattle.  The voting procedures were as different as between day and night with land of sunshine Florida occupying the level of darkness in the stark equation.

After much enthusiastic trumpeting Florida's political power elite gushed that a new and advanced age of technology had arrived with the advent of touch screen voting.  I was present when the new technology made its debut in my Fort Lauderdale precinct.

The new apparatus was being unveiled in Broward County at a time when the circumstances appeared at least superficially simple.  I turned out to vote against Mayor Jim Naugle in his umpteenth reelection attempt, spurred on once more by the local power structure.  

Unmitigated gall is frequently linked to appalling ignorance, the type that feeds colossal delusions of grandeur.  Such is the case with George W. Bush in his recent bold attempt to lecture Russia's President Vladimir Putin on democracy.

According to Bush, Putin has not been opening up the windows sufficiently to allow the fresh sunshine of democracy to radiate Russia.  In one of Mike Wallace's most important interviews toward the close of his long CBS career, the television journalist questioned Putin on the leader's home soil about democracy.

Putin had a quick response.  Knowing that Wallace worked for CBS, he asked bluntly about one of his veteran colleagues.  "What happened to Dan Rather?" the Russian president wanted to know. He was aware of the tragedy that occurred during the 2004 election.  

Fearful of offending the Bush White House and Karl Rove, CBS essentially bounced its veteran evening news anchorman for pursuing a story about Bush's National Guard service.  With the exception of some allegedly false documents represented by examining experts to be authentic, the story contained the solid ring of truth.  

There was evidence that Rove may have been involved in creating and planting the false documents, but that part of the story was never seriously investigated.  

For those of you who loathe the current Bush Administration, there is something lurking in the political shadows likely to send shivers down your spines...

...a third Bush in the White House:

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush "has what every potential Republican candidate covets: national name recognition, access to his family's powerful fundraising machinery and...a sterling reputation among the core of the GOP base. One recent poll reported his approval rating across Florida at 63% -- a strong position in what is the nation's most populous battleground state."

Potential White House Candidates and strategists "are eyeing his value as a running mate, particularly for candidates such as McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who are viewed warily by coveted evangelical voters."

Surely, Jeb is infinitely more qualified for the job than brother George (Ideology notwithstanding). He would be guaranteed Florida's electoral votes, and he would add conservative appeal to otherwise perceived moderate GOP presidential candidates.

--shiver--

Remember Senator Orrin Hatch's great performance during the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings?  

In between pouting and childish tantrums he managed, with help from Arlen Spector, to trash Anita Hill when it was later confirmed by David Brock, who was helping lead the smear brigade and later turned on the radical right, that the law professor was telling the truth.

It was Hatch who hatched a booby hatch theory that Hill's testimony describing devout rightist Thomas's penchant for pornography stemmed from plagiarizing the famous seventies' book and later film, The Exorcist.  Hatch ultimately got his wish to have Thomas confirmed, where he has become a reliable rubber stamp marching to the tune of the patriarch of judicial reaction, Antonin Scalia.

Cross Hatch's path by daring to take an opposing view and he is quick to label you a "propagandist", a classic case of being called ugly by a frog.  He is currently singing his familiar tune again pertaining to Samuel Alito, Jr.  

"Under any reasonable, objective or traditional standard, the Senate would overwhelmingly confirm this exceptional nominee," the Utah solon declared in his traditional holier than thou fashion.