exico has their own Bill and Hillary—Vicente and Marta Fox. And, like Hillary, Marta is the overly ambitious political piranha of the Fox family. And, like Hillary as a young woman, Marta was also a Marxist civic activist who saw herself as a type of socialist Joan d' Arc who was going to single-handedly correct all of the wrongs of mankind. Unlike Bill Clinton, who aspired to be the leader of his country from his youth, Vicente Fox didn't have any national political aspirations as a young man. Like most of his advantaged peers in Mexico in the 1950s and 60s, all Fox wanted was a good job with a solid transnational corporation that would give him with an opportunity to advance into management and provide him with an adequate livelihood. His political ambition would come later, infused within him by his wife.

Vicente Fox began his career at age 22 as a Coca Cola™ delivery man in Mexico City—and ended up, 16 years later, as president of the Mexican division of Coca Cola™. Fox has the same magnetic charisma that endeared Bill Clinton to the voters of the United States throughout the myriad of sex scandals that would have ended the political careers of a lesser man. That's why the media called Bill Clinton Slick Willy or Teflon Bill. Clinton was so popular that the stigma of the scandals never stuck to him. Scandals and "rumors" of legal wrongdoing did, however, stick to Hillary. While 38% of the American people (all left of center) want to see Hillary's name on the presidential ballot in 2008, roughly the same amount of Americans believe Hillary broke the law when she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock; and that she escaped punishment only because she hid the law firm's incriminating billing records until the statute of limitation on prosecuting her expired.

Just like Hillary, Marta Fox is the ambitious evil twin who is equally determined to become president of her country. And, like Hillary in 2000, she has denied having any presidential ambition while covertly building a campaign war chest and a political organization strong enough to steamroll her competition and assure her electoral victory. Investigations initiated by the Financial Times of London last year revealed that Marta Fox planned to use money from two foundations she controls to launch a massive public relations/advertising campaign to convince the Mexican people that they need to "draft" her for office now held by her husband. Denise Dressler, professor of political science at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico [ITAM] told the Financial Times that "...it appears that the First Lady has a political piggy bank to campaign for office. The fact that she did not [reveal her ownership of ] Vision Mexico..." (an American 501[c]3 she controls} "...raises questions about why." Fox's foundations—one in Mexico and one in the United States—first surfaced in the fall of 2003 shortly after PRI Gov. Arturo Montiel from the heavily populated State of Mexico (that includes Mexico City) announced, in July, 2003 that he would seek the office of President in 2006. One of the major contributors to Vision Mexico—Marta Fox's American 501[c]3—was Coca Cola™, Vicente Fox's old employer. They doled out $1.9 million. Strangely, the contribution went from Coca Cola™ in Atlanta, Georgia to Vision Mexico. From Vision Mexico, the money was funneled through Marta Fox's Mexican foundation, Vamos Mexico and then, back into the coffers of Coca Cola through its Mexican Fundacion Coca Cola™ which then used the money to upgrade schools and provide educational materials in the poorest Mexican states. The money shuffle makes it appear, at least to the Mexican people who don't understand how the shell game works, that Marta Fox had contributed 20.8 million pesos to help improve the school system for indigenous peoples in the poorest States in Mexico. If she's not elected president, the Mexican people will likely anoint her a saint. Fox has refused inquires from the Financial Times to reveal the names of the donors to Vamos Mexico, or to reveal how much of the foundation's money is being used for political purposes and how much for the foundation's "charitable" work. Vamos Mexico is not chartered as a "charity" in Mexico.

As a "civic association" it is exempt from revealing the nature of its financial accounts, and who is contributing to the organization. I guess that's called a "blind trust"—which is precisely what the Mexican people feel towards their imperial family. Blind trust. Hurriedly climbing on board the presidential express after Montiel's announcement was Mexico City's populist mayor, Manuel Lopez Obador of the Democratic Revolution Party [PRD]. Expected to contest Obador's claim to the PRD candidacy is Michoacan governor Lazaro Cardenas, the grandson of former the PRI president of the same name. Most troublesome to the announced candidates has been periodic remarks from Marta Fox that indicate her interest in succeeding her husband. And even though she has repeatedly said she is not a candidate, Marta Fox is spending millions of pesos in what is now a year old media campaign extolling her virtues as the compassionate caretaker of the people. And, while she is not yet an "official" candidate, her image is plastered all over Mexico City's subway system. Mexican Boy Scouts have been enlisted by Vamos Mexico to pass out parenting guides with—you guessed it—large photos of a smiling Marta Fox. Indications are that Marta Fox will very likely make a grab for the political office currently being held by her husband—who, under Mexican law, cannot succeed himself in the national elections to be held in Mexico next year. Marta Fox, according to the polls, is the second most popular person in Mexico (next to her husband), and would very easily overwhelm any of the other announced candidates for the office if the election was held this year.

Vicente Fox, 62 is the most popular politician in recent Mexican history. Fox entered the history of his country during a time when one political party—the Revolutionary Institutional Party [PRI] controlled Mexico. Presidential succession was a staged event. The outgoing president would hand-pick his successor. A mock election was held and the outgoing president's man was unanimously elected. The PRI controlled politics in Mexico this way for seven decades. Rules were zealously enforced, and any politician who tried to violate the status quo was exiled from the PRI. Not only was his political career over, he became a virtual political outcast. Elections were a sham. The turbulent 1990s brought radical change to Mexican politics. President Carlos Salinas anointed Luis Donaldo Colosio as his successor in 1994. While campaigning in March of that year, Colosio was assassinated. The PRI then anointed his campaign manager, Ernesto Zedilla to replaced him. Zedilla was a democratic reformer. When Zedilla's six year term ended in 2000, he refused to pick a successor, opening the door for Mexico's first truly democratic election in seventy-one years. The election of 2000 in Mexico was so unusual that they actually counted the votes. The contenders for the office of president in 2000 were Francisco Labastida, the last PRI presidential candidate and Vicente Fox of the newly formed National Action Party [PAN]. In reality, all of the candidates in 2000 were PRI members, since prior to that election, the PRI virtually held all of the public offices. Fox became the 62nd president of Mexico. He holds the distinction of being the first truly democratically-elected president of Mexico. The test, next year, will be whether or not Mexico's second free election will occur in Mexico, or if dynastic control will play a role in that election. While there is apparently nothing in the Mexican constitution that will prevent Marta Fox from throwing her hat in the ring, it is clear that the growing number of potential candidates do not believe a Marta Fox candidacy is in the best interests of Mexican democracy. Fox will likely be offered an unopposed seat in the Mexican Senate or, if she prefers, she can become the mayor of Mexico City. But, when you have been helping steer the ship of state, its hard to become just another political passenger.

Clearly, Mexico is still on a democratic learning curve. The Mexican people still tend to view their presidents in more imperial terms—which is precisely why Fox launched the type of pre-campaign "campaign" that worked so well for her husband in 2000. That is also the reason why a growing frenzy of presidential-wannabes threw their hats in the ring in 2004 for an election that was still two years away. They want the Mexican people to understand that, under the new rules established by Zedilla, anyone can be president. Which is precisely why Marta Fox has chosen to use her two foundations to help her look like Mother Teresa. She wants to be seen, and revered as Mexico's patron mother. When she officially leaps into the campaign—with a $20 million dollar war chest—she will most likely become the front runner with a two furlong lead over the growing stable of PAN candidates.Already announced PAN candidates include Fox cabinet officials Josefina Vazquez Moto, an attractive woman who heads the Department of Social Development; Santigo Creel, the Interior Minister and Felipe Calderon, Minister of Energy. Also very likely to join the fray are tourism minister Rodolfo Elizondo and Baja, California Governor Eugenio Elorduy, and Senator Carlos Medina. The Mexican national election of 2006 should be a free-for-all. For election watchers around the world, it will prove to be as interesting a race as the American presidential election of 2008. But for all appearances, if she decides to run, Marta Fox will be the avalanche that no one can stop. The only question is, will Mexico's first female president be working with America's first female president?Democrats dig in for pitched battles to block Bush's judicial nominees as GOP warns Democrats to expect the "nuclear option."The stakes for liberals and conservatives alike were never higher. President George W. Bush will very likely replace at least two, and quite possibly three US Supreme Court Justices before he leaves office in 2008. In addition, it is also within his grasp to alter the ideological slant of at least three appellate courts. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—the most liberal federal court in America—will not be one of them. Bush's judicial appointments will greatly impact the court's interpretation of national law since if he is able to confirm enough "rule of law" jurists in the federal courts, Bush possesses the ability to slow down the internationalization of American law. In addition, by replacing, say, John Paul Stevens in addition to Sandra Day O'Connor (who would like to retire to care for her ailing husband) with strict constitutioalists, and if the court accepts a Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton challenge, the 1973 decision that legalized the slaughter of 49 million unborn babies in the United States will be overturned. (But, it is important to understand that the invisible power barons behind the seats of government recognize that legalizing abortion in the industrialized nations had a detrimental impact that no one could foresee in 1973—depopulation well below replenishment levels. Depopulation so severe, in fact, that is now a crisis levels that threaten not only the tax base of the nation but the monetary system of the free world because its debt ratio is too high. The power players who manipulate Congressmen and Senators from "on high" are now ready to reverse Roe v Wade. Expect it to happen before Bush leaves office.)Senators on the Judiciary Committee know just how high the stakes are. The fiery rhetoric exploded and any chance for compromise vanished when the president bulldoggedly renominated seven very conservative judges who were "dismissed" without their "day in court" by Senate Democrats in the 108th Congress under then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who sanctioned the filibuster of their nominations and kept them from getting an up-and-down Senate vote. Shortly after the 2004 election, Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist warned the Kennedy-Kerry Kamp [the new KKK] to watch out for a "nuclear option" that might explode in their faces if they decide to use the Daschle tactics to stall or kill Bush judicial nominees without the advise and consent of the full Senate. Frist's remark was made when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV], bolstered by the KKK, warned Senate Republicans that Daschle's departure did not signal that it would be a "walk in the park" for the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee since, he said, the options that were available to Daschle were still available—and would continue to be used. The Democrats, he warned, were as determined as ever to prevent right-wing judges from advancing in the federal court system. Frist, however, cautioned by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter [R-PA] who recently announced that he is suffering from Hodgkin's Disease (he has also ha s a brain tumor and has had bypass surgery) that using the "nuclear option" would kill any bipartisanism on Social Security reform. He has now backed off the hard-line approach and appears less eager for a floor fight with Democrats. "I'm trying to show restraint," he said. Since Frist has already announced that nothing with happen with Social Security this year, it is clear there will be no bipartisan support for Bush's plans to revamp Social Security anyway. As usual, the Republicans delude themselves by thinking the Democrats will ever agree to a Republican plan on anything that would actually benefits middle class conservative Americans. Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is under no such illusions. The Louisiana Senator has not only proposed that Republicans proceed with a simple majority vote that will change the Senate rules that requires the vote of a super-majority to stop the filibuster of judicial nominees. Senate liberals would like the American people to believe the tactics used by the liberal KKK is a historic practice that is almost as old as the nation itself, and that Senators have used the filibuster to block unqualified presidential nominees since the days of John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay. In reality, the practice of mandating that the vote of a super majority of 60 Senators was needed to end a filibuster was implemented by the Democratically-controlled Senate in 1986 to block the confirmation of conservative judges by Ronald Reagan. The real reason the GOP Senate has not changed the rules is that they are afraid when they lose control of the Senate they will have lost the only tool at their disposal to stop liberal appointments. (Even though they never learned how to use that leverage when they were the minority.) During the 2004 campaign season, Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA], head of the leftwing KKK, sent out a fundraising letter to Democratic loyalists asking them to help defeat "...George Bush's effort to pack our federal courts with reactionary, right-wing judges." When Lott began building a coalition to carry out Frist's threats—even if First decides not to—Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV] gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, warning the GOP not to change the rules that allowed Democrats to block Bush's nominees. Byrd warned that doing so would "...poison the Senate's deliberative process." In point of fact, it would not. It would end gridlock in the Senate since issues before that body would get a simple up and down vote. Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] favors the simple 51-vote majority rule since it make it easier for presidents to enact their legislative agendas—regardless which party occupies the White House since all the president would have to contend with would be getting enough Senators to vote for his plan to enact it. The problem at this moment is Specter. If you recall, shortly after his reelection, the Senator who was scheduled to take over the Judiciary Committee—and who should be given honorary membership in the liberal KKK— said judges who oppose abortion would have a hard time winning confirmation. Today, Specter is aiding his Democratic allies by warning the Republicans that by changing the rules they will get Bush's judicial appointees in, but the fallout will cost them on other important pieces of legislation. Specter is wrong. The Democrats can be counted on—without fail—to resist the GOP agenda regardless what legislation is proffered. If the Republicans sponsored legislation that the left had championed for decades, the liberal KKK would do everything possible to kill it. The Medicare prescription drug coverage initiative passed by Bush during the 108th Congress verifies that fact. That's how the game of politics is played. The Democrats can't afford to give the GOP bragging rights over the passage of any societal initiatives since that could swing voters from casting ballots for liberal candidates to voting for conservative ones—and, they can't afford to risk it. If the Republicans have not learned anything else since taking control of Congress in 1994 it should be that [a] you can't trust the Democrats, and [b] any compromise the Democrats offer will benefit the left and penalize the right. You can bet if the Democrats had a 55/45 majority in the Senate right now, and the Republicans were using the 1986 Democratically-created filibuster rule to kill a Democratic president's judicial nominees, you can bet your sweet bippie, they would explode their nuclear option and today—not tomorrow—liberal judicial nominees would be confirmed by straight up-and-down votes, and by a partisan vote along ideological lines, far left social justice jurists would fill every vacancy in the federal court system and the constitutional rule of law would die in America.