Republicans Anonymous

Looks like saying "I believe in a strong dollar" isn't good enough to change reality for currency traders. From the New York Times:

Dollar continues record declines
The dollar has continued its record-breaking slide against many of the world's major currencies, with analysts predicting it could fall further.

Comments by the US administration that it favours a strong dollar failed to stem losses as analysts say little is being done to match words with actions.
...
The dollar fell to a record low of $1.3059 against the euro in London trading. It also slid against the yen and hit a seven-year low against the South Korean won.

"The US dollar will remain under pressure," Merrill Lynch said in a note to investors, citing China's attempts to rein in its booming economy as a main contributing factor.

This isn't Bush's fault, of course. The dollar would be strong if those darn financial reporters would listen to Bush Administration representatives and stop taking things like our fiscal deficit, trade deficit, low true employment levels, and massive Iraq war debt out of context. But then, isn't the messenger always to blame?

Isn't it odd that the US Papers haven't picked up this story from Bahrain's Gulf Daily News

A correspondent who drove through the city saw utter destruction. Bodies lay in the streets. Homes were smashed, mosques ruined, and power and telephone lines hung uselessly.

But a Marine spokesman said the Red Crescent did not need to deliver aid to civilians and questioned whether there were any. He said he had not heard of any Iraqi civilians being trapped inside the city (Fallujah) and did not think that was the case.

The assertion contradicted accounts from residents inside the city, where intense violence has halted medical services and made any independent assessment impossible since Monday.

It's the Bush Doctrine in action: if you deny something, it didn't happen - because you always tell the truth. Actually investigating the situation is disloyal and merely encourages the insurgents.

Under tort "reform" it would undoubtedly become more difficult to sue railroads for crossing accidents such as those described in this new York Times Article.

Operation Lifesaver is the nation's most influential rail-safety group, preaching its gospel of driver responsibility to judges, police officers, elected officials and the news media. No one disputes the value of its message - that motorists should pay attention at rail crossings - or the dedication of many of its volunteers. And its work is widely praised by police and community groups.

But documents show that the organization is tightly bound to the railroad industry, and critics, including many accident victims, say the group's message serves another agenda: to inoculate the railroads against liability in grade-crossing collisions.
...
And even as Operation Lifesaver speaks out about changing drivers' behavior, it spends little time on a range of safety matters that are the responsibility of the railroads and is largely silent on the benefits of warning lights and gates, which many experts say are among the most effective of all safety devices.
...
...Ms. Hall said. "(Operation Rescue) is a good organization with big hearts." She said plaintiffs' lawyers were behind the criticism of her group because, with the number of rail-crossing deaths declining, "they are losing their base of operation." Operation Lifesaver, she added, wants to look at all factors involved in accidents, including dangerous crossings.

But Ms. Moore, the mother whose son was killed by a train, remains unconvinced. She asked to join Operation Lifesaver's board last year, but the board unanimously rejected her, saying the group did not wish to become involved in "advocacy." Why, she asked in a letter to Operation Lifesaver, is she called an advocate, when railroad officials on the board are not?

Ms. Moore says she never received an answer.

Maybe someone should get out in front of this issue, like say Democrats in "red" states.