I guess with all the bad weather and the wars and such, it does feel like a Mayday, but more Mayday like there's an emergency rather than Mayday, let's dance around the Maypole.

I thought that David Axelrod did better than his usual overpoliticized point of view on Meet the Press. He had excellent responses, with great timing, in rebutting republican governor of Virginia McDowell, and mayor of New York City Bloomberg, who were smug in trying to criticize Obama. I thought that Axelrod won the debate. Obama probably will be giving him a high five for his performance today.

The other conversation I want to comment on was on Inside Washington, and involved Charles Krauthamer, in desperate defense of republican extremism in relentlessly questioning everything from Obama's place of birth to his college records, tried to argue that anyone who questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush's "election" to the presidency.

In the case of Bush becoming president, first and foremost, he didn't win the popular vote - not even close. There is no doubt that at least in Florida, all the votes weren't counted and weren't counted properly. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the shining example of democracy in the world, shouldn't we, as a minimum, be able to guarantee that if you vote, your vote will be counted correctly? Shouldn't that have been the first goal of the supreme court in upholding the constitutionality of the election?

And what really gets me is that Justice Scalia, one of the highly politicized 5 member conservative majority of the supreme court that appointed Bush president, totally abandoned his principles in voting to appoint Bush. Let me explain. Scalia makes a cottage industry out of keeping the ordinary citizen from going to the judicial branch with a case or controvery by throwing them out on "standing," a principle that isn't in the constitution.

Scalia has reduced significantly the average person's right to use the judicial branch, which is supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution, by repeatedly writing decisions in which he avoids the equity of the parties' complaint, but instead throws them out of court on standing. Standing isn't even mentioned in the constitution. So much for "strict constructionist."

Yet, in Bush v. Gore, Scalia didn't even address standing. If he had applied the same standards he applies to the everyday person that he so scorns, no way Bush had standing. That shows what a hypocrite Scalia is.

So I believe that a person has a perfect right to question the legitimacy of the supreme court's decision in Bush v. Gore, thus questioning whether Bush should have been named president in such a way. To try and equate those kind of questions with those who continually question Obama's birthplace, college records, religion, etc. is totally wrong. The republican's questioning of Obama's birthplace, religion, etc. is personal, flies in the face of the truth, and has nothing to do with any kind of flawed governmental procedures.

So Mr. Krauthamer, I think your argument falls on it's face and has no legitimacy. In fact, I think that our argument is dangerous, and needs to be rebutted in the strongest fashion.