pulp

The Culture War Has Arrived

2004-11-10T10:40:00.000-06:00

The religious right claim the godless liberal elite in this country are jeopardizing their belief system. They are foaming at the mouth with the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade or to abolish those hedonistic homosexuals encircling their small farm towns in search of converts. They fear birth control, hate homosexuals wish death upon all those who participate in abortion or believe in a woman's right to choose. This culture war is the difference between imposing a religious set of beliefs upon an entire nation (the right) versus giving people the freedom to make their own decisions (the left). Who are the real elitists here? Who are the ones really being persecuted? The culture war has arrived now that the election has legitimized Bush's presidency. The religous arm of the republican party demands the right to abuse power in the name of God.

The hypocricy: they demonize the left for government programs that "run their life," yet are willing to use the government to impose their religious values on the whole of America. I don't believe in these religious views, that is my right and I'm willing to fight to keep it.

Enforcing Relgious Beliefs on Women Using Birth Control

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions [...]

We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

Demonizing Gays in Public School Textbooks

A State Board of Education member stalled a vote to approve middle school health textbooks Thursday by saying the books should condemn homosexuality and make clear that marriage exists only between men and women.

Board member Terri Leo, R-Spring, called for about 30 changes to teachers' and students' editions of proposed health books in grades six through eight.

[...]

Leo said that three of the 10 middle school books up for approval would not conform to a state law banning the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. She said they endorse same-sex marriage by referring to the heads of families as couples or adults instead of husbands and wives or fathers and mothers.

"We're considered a state agency, and we need public acts and records recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman," she said.

Some of her suggestions, however, go beyond the marriage issue.

One passage in a teachers' edition says that "surveys indicate that 3 to 10 percent of the population is gay. No one knows for sure why some people are straight, some are bisexual and others are gay."

Leo wanted to replace those sentences with: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide."

"This is an effort that is both ridiculous and hateful, to essentially try to eliminate homosexuality from health textbooks," said Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin group that monitors social conservatism in government.

State law says the board can judge textbooks for their factual accuracy and compliance with state curriculum guidelines. George Rislov of the Texas Education Agency's curriculum division said the guidelines for middle school health classes do not define marriage.

Seeking to Overturn Roe v.s. Wade

Conservatives are inundating those senators with calls and e-mails trying to sway those votes.

One GOP senator on the Judiciary Committee who asked not be identified because of the sensitivity of the debate said his office received more than 1,000 phone calls Friday opposing Specter. The senator said that was the most phone calls on one subject since the gay marriage debate in July.

The current chairman, Orrin Hatch of Utah, is stepping aside because of a self-imposed Republican rule limiting the lenghth of time a senator can head a particular committee.

No one in the Senate has openly opposed a Specter chairmanship, aides said, although several senators have said they wanted to talk to him before he gets the job.

"Very rarely do they speak out against other members," said Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who wants Specter voted down. Republican leaders "are putting their finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. This drama still has to be played out."

Abusing Scientific Facts

Women wrongly warned cancer, abortion tied

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Meckler

Nov. 10, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Women seeking abortions in Mississippi must first sign a form indicating they've been told abortion can increase their risk of breast cancer. They aren't told that scientific reviews have concluded there is no such risk.

Similar information suggesting a cancer link is given to women considering abortion in Texas, Louisiana and Kansas, and legislation to require such notification has been introduced in 14 other states.

Abortion opponents, who are pushing these measures, say they are simply giving women information to consider. But abortion rights supporters see it much differently.

"In my experience, this inaccurate information is going to dissuade few women from going ahead and having the abortion," said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "What it does do is put a false guilt trip and fear trip on that woman."

Falwell Calls for a Revolution

He says he wants a revolution

Seeing an opening after last Tuesday's evangelical turnout, Jerry Falwell reveals his plans: An "evangelical revolution."

From the AP: "Falwell, a religious broadcaster based in Lynchburg, Va., said the Faith and Values Coalition will be a '21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority,' the organization he founded in 1979.

Falwell said he would serve as the coalition's national chairman for four years. He added that the new group's mission would be to lobby for anti-abortion conservatives to fill openings on the Supreme Court and lower courts, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the election of another 'George Bush-type' conservative in 2008."

Terrorists target blue state cities, but...

2004-11-09T22:09:00.000-06:00

This is old news but important to keep in mind.

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com/

We get $5-a-head for security

By BRIAN
KATESDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, November
24th, 2003 New York, the world's premier target for terror, gets less homeland
security funding per person than virtually any state in the nation.

Man for man and woman for woman, Wyoming
(population 493,782) does better - $38.31 per person, compared with the paltry
$5.47 in counterterrorism funds spent on each New Yorker.
"Every square inch
of Wyoming is as vulnerable as every inch of New York," Joe Moore, Wyoming's
director of homeland security, told the Daily News. "If you say there are no
terrorists in Wyoming, that's just where they'll strike."

So far, though, whatever threat Osama Bin Laden and his
terrorist minions pose for Wyoming lurks primarily in the minds of its
politicians. New York, on the other hand, has been targeted five times and
suffered two horrendous attacks, including, of course, the one on Sept. 11,
2001.
Yet New York goes begging while Cheyenne, Wyo. (population 53,200),
now boasts two gleaming, state-of-the-art bomb squad units, special equipment
for neutralizing bombs and a new communications system for its 90-member police
force, said Police Chief Robert Fecht. And the department expects to receive
still more special equipment when a second grant is approved.

Never mind that the bomb squad of
Wyoming's most populous city comprises only three technicians, which it shares
with the police department in Laramie, 50 miles away.
And no matter that the
price tag for Cheyenne's new equipment was only $120,000. The amount represents
a huge percentage of the tiny police department's $700,000 operating budget.
"This is a tremendous amount," Fecht conceded. "It's major assistance."
Yet
of the $900 million New York City has determined it needs to counter terrorism,
it has received only $84 million from the federal government so far. Officials
expect to get $75 million more in the next round of funding.

The Fire Department, still staggering
from its losses on Sept. 11, has sought $331 million in homeland security
funding. It has been promised less than $36 million.

The NYPD has determined it needs $261 million. It has received
only $60 million.

"We are doing a lot and
it is costing us a lot - something on the order of $200 million a year in
operational expenses for counterterrorism in the Police Department alone," said
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. "We're funding this on our dime."

A purview like no other

New York's first responders must protect
8 million people - as many as 11 million during work hours - day in and day out.
They're charged with protecting the Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve Bank,
the United Nations and scores of foreign consulates. And since 1993, they have
had to secure high-profile trials of 25 terrorists at Manhattan Federal Court,
just a few blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Wyoming has, well, Yellowstone National Park.

Said Mayor Bloomberg, "Precious homeland
security dollars should be based on a complete threat analysis, not doled out
like political pork."

In fiscal 2003, the
federal government provided $3.45 billion for first responders across the nation
through three programs mandated by Congress:

$1.9 billion in state formula grants

$800 million for high-threat urban areas

$750 million in firefighter assistance grants.

Of the three, only the high-threat program takes into account
terrorist vulnerability. And it accounts for only 23% of the total.

The bulk of funding is distributed
through state formula grants, which allot every state - regardless of population
or the actual threat of terrorism - three-quarters of 1% of the $1.9billion pot.

In this Alice-in-Wonderland process, New
York, ranked by the feds as No. 1 in risk of attack, comes out almost at the
bottom - 49th - in per capita funding. New Jersey, 10th in risk, is ranked 42nd
for funding.

As Kelly put it, "More than
80% of the Department of Homeland Security's first-responder funds are being
distributed blind to the nation's counterterrorism needs."

So Wyoming - the least populous state, with no federal risk
rating - gets about six times more per capita than New York. The other small
states also share disproportionately in the bonanza.
Take North Dakota.
Grand Forks (population 70,000) got $1.5 million in homeland security largess.
It now has an armored van, decontamination tents and more biochemical suits than
there are cops to wear them.

The fire
department in Zanesville, Ohio, (population 25,600) now boasts a thermal imager
to find victims in heavy smoke, a test kit for deadly nerve agents and other
high-tech apparatus.
Meanwhile, New York's Fire Department has to make do
with only one fully deployable hazardous materials unit for the entire city.
Inflexible federal rules don't allow state grants to be used for increasing the
specialized manpower needed to create a much-needed second unit.
The FDNY
also has sought $207 million to upgrade its communications system; it has
received $3 million.

"The Fire Department
has to be prepared for things that we never had to be prepared for before," said
Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. "Training and equipment are needed to deal with
chemical disasters, radioactivity, dirty bombs, bioterrorism and so forth.

"But what frustrates those of us with big
departments is that the money is not there for us because the funding is being
dispensed on an equal basis to all the states."

The formula extends to other critical agencies as well. Of the $65
million in homeland security money earmarked for transit systems, for example,
Denver, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore., got $1 million each.

New York's Metro-North Railroad, which carries 72 million
commuters a year in and out of Manhattan, got nothing. Zero.

Last June, Homeland Security Secretary
Tom Ridge told lawmakers the Bush administration is working on a funding formula
"that better takes into account threats, population density and the presence of
critical infrastructures."

Cuts looming

But the inequity is only getting worse.

In fiscal 2004, the total amount
distributed on the basis of need will decline. High-threat urban areas will
receive about $725 million, a 10% cut, while the other programs will grow to
$2.95 billion, a 10% increase.

There are
three proposals in Congress to change the funding formula, including one by New
York Republican Rep. John Sweeney, whose district extends north of Albany -
hundreds of miles from Ground Zero.

"I am
from a rural area, so you'd think I'd like the current rules," Sweeney said.
"But I think we need to protect the areas that need protecting. We need to take
the politics out of this."

Red State/Blue State/Shut Up

2004-11-09T21:27:00.000-06:00

I say shut the fuck up already. Your missing the point and feeding into divisive strategy.

What is Conservativism and What is Wrong With It?

2004-11-09T21:14:00.000-06:00

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

The Destruction of Language

Reason occurs mostly through the medium of language, and so the destruction of reason requires the destruction of language. An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other. One of the central goals of conservatism, as for example with Newt Gingrich's lists of words, is to take control of every word and phrase in the English language.

George Bush, likewise, owes his election in great measure to a new language that his people engineered for him. His favorite word, for example, is "heart". This type of linguistic engineering is highly evolved in the business milieu from which conservative public relations derives, and it is the day-to-day work of countless conservative think tanks. Bush's people, and the concentric circles of punditry around them, are worlds away from John Kerry deciding on a moment's notice that he is going to start the word "values". They do not use a word unless they have an integrated communications strategy for taking control of that word throughout the whole of society.

Bush's personal vocabulary is only a small part of conservative language warfare as a whole. Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of the language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat an enemy but to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves to be conservatives and who constantly challenge themselves to ever greater extremity in using it.

A simple example of turning language into a weapon might be the word "predictable", which has become a synonym for "liberal". There is no rational argument in this usage. Every such use of "predictable" can be refuted simply by substituting the word "consistent". It is simply invective.

More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's. Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred in twisted way to people who oppose racism. What happened is simple: conservative rhetors, tired of the political advantage that liberals had been getting from their use of that word, took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist". Conservative rhetors have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies. For example they have referred to affirmative action as "racist". This is false; it is an attempt to destroy language. Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another. Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist. Many conservative rhetors have even stuck the word "racist" on people just because they oppose racism. The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race. In any event this too is an attack on language.

A recent example is the word "hate". The civil rights movement had used the word "hate" to refer to terrorism and stereotyping against black people, and during the 1990's some in the press had identified as "Clinton-haters" people who had made vast numbers of bizarre claims that the Clintons had participated in murder and drug-dealing. Beginning around 2003, conservative rhetors took control of this word as well by labeling a variety of perfectly ordinary types of democratic opposition to George Bush as "hate". In addition, they have constructed a large number of messages of the form "liberals hate X" (e.g., X=America) and established within their media apparatus a sophistical pipeline of "facts" to support each one. This is also an example of the systematic breaking of associations.

The word "partisan" entered into its current political circulation in the early 1990's when some liberals identified people like Newt Gingrich as "partisan" for doing things like the memo on language that I mentioned earlier. To the conservative way of politics, there is nothing either true or false about the liberal claim. It is simply that liberals had taken control of some rhetorical territory: the word "partisan". Conservative rhetors then set about taking control of the word themselves. They did this in a way that has become mechanical. They first claimed, falsely, that liberals were identifying as "partisan" any views other than their own. They thus inflated the word while projecting this inflation onto the liberals and disconnecting the word from the particular facts that the liberals had associated with it. Next, they started using the word "partisan" in the inflated, dishonest way that they had ascribed to their opponents. This is, very importantly, a way of attacking people simply for having a different opinion. In twisting language this way, conservatives tell themselves that they are simply turning liberal unfairness back against the liberals. This too is projection.

Another common theme of conservative strategy is that liberals are themselves an aristocracy. (For those who are really keeping score, the sophisticated version of this is called the "new class strategy", the message being that liberals are the American version of the Soviet nomenklatura.) Thus, for example, the constant pelting of liberals as "elites", sticking this word and a mass of others semantically related to it onto liberals on every possible occasion. A pipeline of "facts" has been established to underwrite this message as well. Thus, for example, constant false conservative claims that the rich vote Democratic. When Al Franken recently referred to his new radio network as "the media elite and proud of it", he demonstrated his oblivion to the workings of the conservative discourse that he claims to contest.

Further examples of this are endless. When a Republican senator referred to "the few liberals", hardly any liberals gave any sign of getting what he meant: as all conservatives got just fine, he was appropriating the phrase "the few", referring to the aristocracy as opposed to "the many", and sticking this phrase in a false and mechanical way onto liberals. Rush Limbaugh asserts that "they [liberals] think they are better than you", this of course being a phrase that had historically been applied (and applied correctly) to the aristocracy. Conservative rhetors constantly make false or exaggerated claims that liberals are engaged in stereotyping -- the criticism of stereotyping having been one of history's most important rhetorical devices of democrats. And so on. The goal here is to make it impossible to criticize aristocracy.

For an especially sorry example of this pattern, consider the word "hierarchy". Conservatism is a hierarchical social system: a system of ranked orders and classes. Yet in recent years conservatives have managed to stick this word onto liberals, the notion being that "government" (which liberals supposedly endorse and conservatives supposedly oppose) is hierarchical (whereas corporations, the military, and the church are somehow vaguely not). Liberals are losing because it does not even occur to them to refute this kind of mechanical antireason.

It is often claimed in the media that snooty elitists on the coasts refer to states in the middle of the country as "flyover country". Yet I, who have lived in liberal areas of the coasts for most of my life, have never once heard this usage. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Nexis database does not contain a single example of anyone using the phrase "flyover country" to disparage the non-coastal areas of the United States. Instead, it contains hundreds of examples of people disparaging residents of the coasts by claiming that they use the phrase to describe the interior. The phrase is a special favorite of newspapers in Minneapolis and Denver. This is projection. Likewise, I have never heard the phrase "political correctness" used except to disparage the people who supposedly use it.

Conservative remapping of the language of aristocracy and democracy has been incredibly thorough. Consider, for example, the terms "entitlement" and "dependency". The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Everyone else, by contrast, was dependent on the aristocrats. This is conservatism. Yet in the 1990's, conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency. But, as I have mentioned, welfare is precisely a way of eliminating dependency on the aristocracy and the cultural authorities that serve it. I do not recall anyone ever noting this inversion of meaning.

Conservative strategists have also been remapping the language that has historically been applied to conservative religious authorities, sticking words such as "orthodoxy", "pious", "dogma", and "sanctimonious" to liberals at every turn.

Values? I Got Your Values Hangin'!!

2004-11-08T18:50:00.000-06:00

I refer you to what Joe Conason of Salon fame said about Liberal Values:

"The most basic liberal values are political equality and economic opportunity. Liberals uphold democracy as the only form of government that derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and they regard the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights as essential to the expression of popular consent. Their commitment to an expanding democracy is what drives liberal advocacy on behalf of women, minorities, gays, immigrants, and other traditionally disenfranchised groups.

--snip--

If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people."

What else is there to say? Conservatism is ignorant, backwards, and hurtful to the public at large compared with Liberalism.

Say it Loud, Say it Proud

2004-11-07T13:04:00.000-06:00

I've been looking for the best description of what it means to be a liberal and I think I found a good'n.

What is a Liberal?

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

You should never be affraid to call yourself a liberal, if you are one. That is numero-uno is taking back this country. The democrats need their moxy back in full and the best way to start is to feel as good about being a liberal as the conservatives feel about being conservative. Ain't nothin' wrong with either, s'just diff'rnt phi-losophies.

The Long Full Circle

2004-11-05T13:33:00.000-06:00

I'm tired of the republicans saying democrats can't reach out to the red state voters. The Republicans can't reach out to blue state voters either. Bush and Kerry could not reach out like Reagan or Clinton, hence the close numbers that don't offer any kind of mandate. Bush won this election like he's won every single election in his life - by a few percentage points. I think that speaks more towards how many people are willing to vote out of fear: just enough to put him over the top.

Below are two maps. One is the electoral map of 2004, showing the sharp blue state/red state split. The one below it is the sharp split of pro-slavery/pro-rights states from the Civil War. Did we come full circle or have we never changed? Lyndon Johnson, after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, said he feared the democrats had lost the south for a generation.

Today's Theme Song

2004-11-03T14:25:00.001-06:00

David Bowie: The Man Who Sold the World.

We Have Only Just Begun

2004-11-03T14:05:00.000-06:00

Don't stop the fight! There's plenty of work to do and plenty of optimism to work for. Thanks to all of you out there who remain encouraging.

Josh Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo.com

[...]

Yesterday evening I heard various commentators say that Kerry's defeat would usher in a civil war among Democrats. Tucker Carlson said it would or should lead to a 'Goldwater moment' for the Democrats.

As I've noted above, I don't want to diminish the scope of what's happened. But a civil war over what exactly? Yes, some consultants will get a hard shake. And I'm certain there will be backbiting against Kerry (which I for one will very much disagree with.) But a civil war over what? The right and the left of the party were remarkably united in this cycle and managed to find points of compromise on key issues.

In some ways this would all be conceptually easier for Democrats to deal with if President Bush had managed a realignment of our politics in the post-9/11 world. But when I look at the results from last night what I see is that they are virtually identical to four years ago. Pretty much the same states going each way and a very close to even race -- though of course the president's 51% makes all the difference in the world.

As I said, if the Dems had been crushed, that would be one thing. If the American people were coalescing away from them, etc. But that's not what has happened here. In 2000 the country was divided into two (increasingly hostile) camps. And it's still exactly the same way. If anything it seems only more entrenched -- perhaps symbolically and geographically captured by the flip between New Hampshire and New Mexico from 2000.

The country is bitterly divided. And as much as anyone President Bush has divided it. But president Bush got 51% and if there's anything I've learned from watching him for the last four years-plus, it is that his team will take this as a popular mandate for an aggressive push for their agenda -- notwithstanding the profound division in the country or what has happened over the previous four years.

For the Democrats, what I fear most (and what I've privately worried about for months) is this: Energy cools after an election. That's inevitable. But organization and institutions can survive. And it is within institutions and organizational infrastructure that energy and power exist and persist.

[...]

Kos, DailyKos.com:

[...]

I've always said today was merely a battle in a long war. The GOP built its electoral dominance over 40 years by building a massive, well-funded message, training, and media machine.

We started putting ours together last year.

You all have much to be proud of. But please don't think your job is done, or that your hard work was all for naught. It's not, and it wasn't.

This is just the beginning, not the end. Regardless of who takes that oath next January we still have a war to wage. We won't wage it with violence, but by building a solid foundation for a new progressive movement.

Meteor Blades, DailyKos.com:

[...]

Why were we in this fight in the first place? Because terrible leaders are doing terrible things to our country and calling this wonderful. Because radical reactionaries are trying to impose their imperialist schemes on whoever they wish and calling this just. Because amoral oligarchs are determined to enhance their slice of the economic pie and calling this the natural order. Because flag-wrapped ideologues want to chop up civil liberties and call this security. Because myopians are in charge of America’s future.

We lost on 11/2. Came in second place in a crucial battle whose damage may still be felt decades from now. The despicable record of our foes makes our defeat good reason for disappointment and fear. Even without a mandate over the past four years, they have behaved ruthlessly at home and abroad, failing to listen to objections even from members of their own party. With the mandate of a 3.6-million vote margin, one can only imagine how far their arrogance will take them in their efforts to dismantle 70 years of social legislation and 50+ years of diplomacy.

Still, Tuesday was only one round in the struggle. It’s only the end if we let it be. I am not speaking solely of challenging the votes in Ohio or elsewhere – indeed, I think even successful challenges are unlikely to change the ultimate outcome, which is not to say I don’t think the Democrats should make the attempt. And I’m not just talking about evaluating in depth what went wrong, then building on what was started in the Dean campaign to reinvigorate the grassroots of the Democratic Party, although I also think we must do that. I’m talking about the broader political realm, the realm outside of electoral politics that has always pushed America to live up to its best ideals and overcome its most grotesque contradictions.

[...]

Oliver Willis, OliverWillis.com:

Do you want to win in Congress?
Do you want to win back the White House?
Do you want to do these things by standing up for what youu believe and not moving to some mythical "center"?

After the Republicans got creamed in 1964, they built up institutions to incubate their candidates and build a majority. Groups like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Media Research Center, etc. begat candidates like George Bush and media institutions like Fox News and The Washington Times.

I was stunned when I realized there was nothing like that on the left.

But there is now, and you can help them out.

Center for American Progress
Democracy for America
Media Matters for America
Campaign for America's Future
People for the American Way
American Civil Liberties Union

Get angry. Get sad. Get even.

Atrios, Eschaton:

Onward

I'm not all that interested in election post-mortems because it isn't important. People tend to take a loss like this as "proof" that their personal pet peeve about the campaign was correct, and too much discussion of it reinforces the tendency to try to keep trying to fight the last campaign. Elections are not deterministic things, and the binary nature of their outcomes tends to obscure the underlying complexity. What matters isn't what was done wrong, but what needs to be done right for the '06 elections.

Ezra Klein, Pandagon.net:

[...]

And, for now, we must admit that the superstructure the Republicans have spent 40 years building beat the shit out of the one we spent 4 years building. For whatever reason (call it the internet), we hadn't expected that to be the case. I highly recommend Paul Waldman's comments on this matter, because the sooner we admit this, the sooner we go back and build some more.

When I was at The Washington Monthly, we ran a feature entitled "What If Bush Wins", featuring contributions from leading political thinkers on the shape of this guy's second term. I found the feature vaguely offensive -- of course this guy won't win! -- but it's ended up being quite prescient. Of particular note is an entry by Todd Gitlin, which correctly predicted the outcome and provides the best blueprint I've seen for how we should respond. So today, on a really tough day, my advice for you to read it, print it out, make notes in the margins and tape it above your desk. We lost this round and I hardly need to tell you how bad it hurts. And sure, we deserve a couple days to heal (I'm going on a pre-planned trip to Santa Cruz tonight, where I'll relax with my girlfriend and blog very, very little until Sunday), but after that, we have to pick up off the floor and reenter the fight. Because if there's one thing I've understood as countless schoolmates -- both gloating and depressed -- have asked me what happened, it's that this wasn't a predictive exercise or some sort of enjoyable contest, this election was an attempt to forestall some truly bad things from being done to this country. We lost. But that doesn't change how serious our cause is, or how badly we need to win it over time. Come Monday, I'll be back in the trenches, and I hope you will too. After all, 2006 is just around the corner...

Andrew Sullivan, AndrewSullivan.com:

ACCOUNTABILITY: Here's an email with which I concur entirely:

I didn't vote for Bush for lots of reasons. But it seems to me that maybe the result, much as it was not what I wanted, will be good for the country. We are in the middle of a war whose outcome is very much in doubt. We have a fiscal policy that may or may not prove successful. Issues that have seemed remote to many like abortion and the Patriot Act's definition of rights and privacy are likely to become more immediate over the next few years. Had we changed leadershop now, it would have been difficult to assign accountability, for good or bad, for these policies and decisions. I always feared, in fact, that Kerry would have had little chance of success in the face of a conservative chorus of "everything was going in the right direction in Iraq when we handed it over to you". Whatever the result, over thee next few years we all will be better able to asses the success or failure of many things that are unfinished now, and hold one team accountable.

Exactly. My main fear with a Kerry victory was that the hard right would never have given him a chance in the war, and would have savaged him as commander-in-chief in order to pave the way for a victory in 2008. Ratcheting the country back to fiscal sanity would also have been a thankless task. Now, Bush will face the consequences of his own policies and we will be able to judge him on that. He has no excuses any more. I hope he succeeds in Iraq, in reforming social security. But no one should give him an easy pass if he fails.

On the Brighter Side: The Bush Nightmare II

2004-11-03T13:32:00.000-06:00

I feel like my fellow Americans, out of fear and misunderstanding, have played right into the hands of our enemies by reelecting an icon of hatred. The American people have been strait up lied to and yet they feel comfortable enough to reelect a president that doesn't respect us.

Well, the brighter side is that now I'm forced to continue this blog. And so are the rest of you. I was worried if Kerry won, I would lose the momentum to continue blogging. It's so energy-draining and time consuming. I just wanted Kerry to win so I could stop my hair from turning gray and I could at least take it easy for four years and spread out my focus a bit. That isn't gonna happen and I predict full salt-n-pepper helmet for me by the age of 32.

The other bright side is, in four years we liberals and moderates will be stronger and more organized. I do fear our country will be divided for much longer than four years. It could be decades. The fever in this country has not been raised to a high pitch - yet. The country didn't explode in 1964 when LBJ was reelected. We burst out four years later. For the love of my country and the people in it, I hope we get to purge our country again.

The most anticipated best-case-scenario is that Bush FINALLY takes accountability for his mistakes and blunders. If Kerry won, he would have most certainly been blamed by the right for not succeeding in Bush's mistakes. Cheney's energy task force will be revealed soon. The rest of the 911 Commission report will be released. If jobs aren't created and the economy keeps taking a dump, at least Bush will take the wrap.

And finally, Bush won't be campaigning this term. He actually can spend time governing, which in a way I'm releaved for. He's free to make mistakes or make champion policies. Based on the last four years, I'm gearing up to get really screwed. Our country could very well be burning in flames sometime over the next four years and the only thought I have on that is that I will have the ability to say, "told you so."

Bush won't go down in history as a Reagan. Get ready for LBJ II.

Update: This from Kos:

We put together an unprecedented ground operation, but it was matched by the zealots on the right. We experienced an explosion in the blog world and started a nascent liberal radio network, but our message machine was far outmatched by the rightwing noise machine (Fox News, the Washington Times, Drudge Report, Talk Radio, etc.) We put forth quality candidates in races nationwide, only to see most outclassed and outgunned by a GOP which ran on three simple tenets: God, guns and gays.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but one that should hopefully lead to a brighter future. Bush owns his messes, and now he'll be forced to clean them up. He won't be able to hide behind 9/11 seven years into his term. Unless the Republicans can engineer a recovery of epic proportions, they will have a great deal to answer to in the 2006 midterms and 2008. And God help Bush if this nation suffers another terrorist attack.

But best of all, we'll continue to see this great resurgence in progressive activism - the kind not seen in American politics in over a generation. None of these new activists heeded the call to arms only to abandon the fight today. We are energised, and will continue to fight for a better future for our country.

WTF

2004-11-03T01:37:00.000-06:00

I'm going to bed now...and I'm hoping the world turns right-side up when all the ballots are counted.

And the dam bursts

2004-11-01T22:26:00.000-06:00

I called it months ago, when more "reasonable" people said it would be close.

Months ago.

It is now less than 9 hours before I vote and 30 hours before we get the "results" from the networks....

And I still say, Kerry wins with 350 plus electoral votes and Virginia is the big shocker.

So funny to see the hesitant, the shy, fumbling their way towards the inevitable...

Kerry wins and wins big.

Trouble Voting?

2004-11-01T17:21:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the friend who found this for me, here is additional information about the 1-866-MYVOTE1 number:

Description: 1-866-MYVOTE1 is a toll-free telecommunications system that allows voters who are experiencing difficulty in the voting process to record (in English or Spanish) a brief statement of their problem, and transfer, at no cost, to their local county/municipal board of election. Voters can also call the Voter Alert Line to find their polling location. The Voter Alert Line is up and running, and thousands of calls have already been processed.

InfoVoter Technologies’ MYVOTE1 Voter Alert Line (1-866-MYVOTE1) will be operated from the National Constitution Center on Election Day, November 2, 2004, from 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
NBC News' Natalie Morales will report on information coming through the Voter Alert Line from the Constitution Center, as well as Cristina Londono from Telemundo, NBC's Spanish language network, with additional coverage from locations around the country. The nationwide broadcasting of the Voter Alert Line analysis is part of “Making Your Vote Count,” one of the centerpieces of NBC News' Decision 2004 political coverage. NBC 10 will also feature live coverage throughout the day and Renee Chenault-Fattah will co-anchor Election Day newscasts from the Constitution Center.

The Voter Alert Line is funded by a range of non-partisan organizations and academic institutions including: The Common Cause Education Fund, The University of Pennsylvania Fels' School of Government, The Reform Institute, and The Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University. The National Constitution Center is a partner in this consortium.
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/visiting/CalendarofEvents/Events/2004_11_02_12752.shtml
or http://tinyurl.com/4ce48

National Constitution Center
525 Arch StIndependence Mall
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Denise Venuti Free
dvfree@constitutioncenter.org

Go Packers!

2004-11-01T13:02:00.000-06:00

It's official. The Packers beat the Redskins yesterday - Bush is
going down. Since 1936, if the Skins lose the last home game before
the election, the incumbent party loses; they win and the incumbent
wins. Kerry's a shoe-in.

Vote or this is the message for all of us Nov. 3

2004-10-31T21:37:00.000-06:00

Al Qaida Never Attacked Sweden

2004-10-29T18:15:00.000-05:00

Osama on Video

2004-10-29T15:24:00.000-05:00

I'm watching MSNBC right now and OBL has released a new video.

So far, they are saying it contains no terrorist threats and the White House is not going to raise the terrorist alerts. They had knowledge of this before the press.

Osama says security is not in the hands of Bush and Kerry, but in our own hands and to not touch their security. He also said that the terrorists don't hate our freedom, as Bush keeps saying. He does talk about the elections and election fraud in Florida. He also slips in that the Bush administration resembles corrupt mideast governments.

Not sure what to believe here, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Its the Confetti, Stupid

2004-10-29T14:35:00.000-05:00

I love it. The republicans look at the malfunctioning baloons at Boston's DNC and say its clearly a metaphor for the Kerry campaign. Looking back, they were fairly accurate. The month after the democratic convention was horrible for Kerry, his campaign nearly coming off at the wheels. Democrats were tearing their hair out and centimeters away from releasing the towel from their fingertips.

If party tricks are metaphors for polical campaigns, then today had one hell of a whopper. The Drudge Report has the scoop:

BUSH EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Event workers had been told to fire off confetti pods when Bush said, 'God Bless'... his normal closing line. But 5 minutes before the end of his speech, Bush offered a "God Bless" to Arlene Howard, mother of George Howard a Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Officer killed in the World Trade Center... BLAM!!!!! Everyone first ducked -- hard -- then looked up to see confetti falling. Bush looked momentarily stunned, then plain unhappy, then just went on with his speech as the confetti rained to the floor of the Verizon Wireless Arena...

A clear metaphor for the Bush campaign. Off message, off balance and shockingly disturbing.

Transcripts From Summit County Ohio

2004-10-28T20:37:00.000-05:00

This is a must read (Akron Journal story) and kudos to mydd.com for alerting all readers everywhere.

Years and years ago, my maternal grandfather was a Summit County deputy sheriff. He had been a firefighter for the city of Akron, retired, and took a job as a deputy sheriff. He was a big guy, huge, powerful, some might even say a tad on the grumpy side (I can say not so nice to 10 year old boys playing with rocks and when one "accidently" hit his car...leaving a tiny almost imperceptical scratch...well enough said).

I still have his sheriff jacket.

My gramps is in the football Hall of Fame. The reason is he was on the Akron Redpeppers, the second professional football team ever (the reason the hall of fame is in Canton is because it is home to the first pro team, the Canton Bulldogs). My brother has the team photo of the Redpeppers used in the Hall of Fame that has gramps and his brother, my great-uncle, in the picture (gramps played, great-uncle was a manager of some sort).

Gramps was a life-long Republican. So are most of my cousins, aunts, etc. on my mom's side. Ohio has had only one president, and he was a Republican, so there is a tad of generational, "we are Republicans", kinda thing going on in Ohio. People would do well to remember that. Of course, people would do well to remember that Ohio is also the home of Kent state, where they gunned down "dangerous" college students for daring to criticize a Republican president in May of 1970....hmmm....

But I have a feeling gramps would have had little time or patience for the crap that Summit County Republicans are trying to pull in the election of 2004. I am quite sure he would have had none of it. Having grown up with Republicans all around me, I learned that ideas matter, and maybe even more, behavior (such as personal responsibility, repsect for law, etc.) matters. Heck, it matters a lot.

So my dismay at the behavior of the current crop of Summit county Republicans in trying to "suppress" the vote by challenging voter registration is all too genuine.

I think I can state fairly that the behavior of Republicans in 2004 (well, ever since 1994 if the truth be told) is a disgrace and the blame for this goes directly to the party's leadership. If they condone it, either openly or by silence, then the fish is rotting from the head. I blame Bush and his cromies for turning the Republican party from one of loyal opposition to one of dysfunctional tendencies...using fascist tactics to cling to power. It makes me sick to my stomach. He has to go and the party needs a cleansing of a kind rarely seen since the great purges in the 1930's (of course I am not advocating rounding up all the little Sean Hannity's in the US and sending them to Siberia, but certainly denying them platforms from which to spew their hateful un-American rhetoric isn't too much to ask is it?).

A tip of a respectful hat to the Republicans on the County Election Board who publically diasscoiated themselves from the type of behavior Bush and his minions are actively encouraging.

Here, for your perusal, is the transcripts of the Summit County Election Board Hearing:

Mr. PRY: Ms. Miller, you filed a challenge to the voting residence of Catherine Ann Herold, who lives at 238 30th Street Northwest, Barberton, Summit County, Ohio; is that correct?

MS. MILLER: I did.

MR. PRY: And have you ever been to that residence?

MS. MILLER: No.

MR. PRY: Do you know Catherine Ann Herrold?

MS. MILLER: No, I don't.

MR. PRY: You have indicated in this challenge form that the person - that you believe that she does not live at that residence; is that correct?

MS. MILLER: That's correct.

MR. PRY: And what is the basis for you making this challenge?

MS. MILLER: That was my impression that these items that I signed were for people whose mail had been undeliverable for several times, and that they did not live at the residence.

MR. PRY: Did you personally send any mail to Ms. Herrold?

MS. MILLER: No, I did not.

MR. PRY: Have you seen any mail that was returned to Ms. Herrold?

MS. MILLER: No, I have not.

MR. PRY: Do you have any personal knowledge as we stand here today that Ms. Herrold does not live at the address at 238 30th Street Northwest?

MS. MILLER: Only that which was my impression; that their mail had not been able to be delivered.

MR. PRY: And who gave you that impression?

MS. MILLER: Attorney Jim Simon.

MR. PRY: And what did --

MS. MILLER: He's an officer of the party.

MR. PRY: An officer of which party?

MS. MILLER: Republican party.

MR. PRY: Where did you complete this challenge form at?

MS. MILLER: My home.

MR. PRY: What did Mr. Simon tell you with respect to Ms. Herrold's residence?

MS. MILLER: That the mail had come back undeliverable several times from that residence.

MR. PRY: And you never saw the returned mail?

MS. MILLER: No, I did not.

MR. PRY: Now, you've indicated that you signed this based on some personal knowledge.

MR. HUTCHINSON: (Joseph F. Hutchinson, Jr. Summit County Board of Elections) No

MR. ARSHINKOFF: (Alex R. Arshinkoff, Summit County Board of Elections) Reason to believe. It says, "I have reason to believe." It says it on the form.

MR. JONES: It says, "I hereby declare under penalty of election falsification, that the statements above are true as I verily believe."

MR. ARSHINKOFF: It says here, "I have reason to believe."

MR. HUTCHINSON: It says what it says.

MR. ARSHINKOFF: You want her indicted, get her indicted.

MR. PRY: That may be where it goes next.

MR. HUTCHINSON: Yeah, give it a try.

MR. MORRISON: I'm going to enter an objection.

MR. JONES: Can we have you name?

MR. MORRISON: Yes. Jack Morrison. I've just been informed by Mr. Pry that an indictment may flow out of this, and therefore I'm instructing Ms. Miller to exercise her privilege against self-incrimination. She will not answer any further questions.

MR. PRY: There's no basis for this challenge.

MR. JONES: Since she's here, we're going to allow Ms. Herrold share with us -- thank you, Ms. Miller.

MS. MILLER: May I sit down?

MR. JONES: Yes.

As if you needed another reason, now you have one. Get to the polls and vote for Kerry.

Behavior of this type cannot be rewarded in any fashion.

When in Doubt, Blame it on the Troops

2004-10-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

After a day of Bush criticizing Kerry for demoralizing our troops, Bush's super surrogate, Rudy Guiliani, takes it a step further:

The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

The excuse president has his excuse surrogates in place. Watch the video.

Fuck You America, Love G. Dubya

2004-10-27T17:49:00.000-05:00

George Bush is caught on tape during his years as Texas Govenor. Is this how the leader of a state and the President should act? Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but next to David Letterman's video, this just goes to show that Bush is "off the hook." He doesn't think seriously about democracy nor is he sincere about values.

Hell, I've given a camera a bird or two in my life time, but I also smoke pot, drink and have a pretty fucking dirty vocabulary. Maybe I should run for leader of the free world...

And Lynn Cheney's mad at Kerry for calling her daughter a lesbian. I'll check the lesbian daughter jab and raise the GOP a "Dubya Fuck You."

My Electoral Vote Prediction: Kerry 370 - Bush 168

2004-10-26T08:37:00.000-05:00

Kerry 370 - Bush 168

My methodology:

Any state that has poll numbers for Bush below 50% one week before election went into the Kerry column.

In that case, Kerry carries the following "battleground" states: MN, IA, WI, PA, VA, WV, OH, FL, AR, MO, NM, AZ, NV, OR, WA. CO. (A good place to play around with this is "vote tracker" at the LA Times, I recommend a visit.)

I know, I know, one or two of you will freak out if Kerry wins Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, etc. But Bush has had 4 years to build support. If he is under 50% in polling in all of those states, do you think people need 4 more years to get to know him better?

Only way he wins any of these states is through voter suppression, and with record numbers of new voters and highly motivated Democratic GOTV efforts, I think in a week people will call me prescient.

Your thoughts?

A Must See Post for Purposes of Clarity

2004-10-25T17:46:00.000-05:00

From Abu Aardvark:

The Election Made Simple

Vote for this or against it.
It really isn't that complicated.
The world is watching. The world wants to know which America is the real America: the one which offers a vision of a better world, a more liberal and free world, a safer and more just world... or the one in this picture, a world brought to you by George Bush and his administration and for which no-one of any consequence has been held accountable.
Vote for one.

Two Huge Stories to Carry Us to Victory in November

2004-10-25T17:22:00.000-05:00

Number One: Josh Marhsall at Talking Points Memo is a must read for all the juicy details on the al Qa Qaa cache of high grade explosives.

This is just stunning. One more reason to join the freindly family of the reality-based community. Somethings you just can't take on faith alone. Bush's word is one of them.

This is incompetence on a grand scale. Here's a good question to ask yourself when the curtain closes and you are ready to cast your ballot...."did any of this nasty stuff kill any of our military?"

The painfully obvious answer is yes. So, if the answer is yes, how can anyone in their right mind vote for four more years of gross negligence?

Number Two: The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is dying. I heard on NPR this afternoon from Ms. Totenberg that the procedure he had done was extreme and when statistics are looked at for who gets this procedure done, the morbidity rate is very high. My guess is he won't last long. He is 79 years old and was appointed to the court by Nixon in 1972.

Why is this story important to the election? It brings to the forefront of the undecided voter's mind that the court is in play. In addition to Requinst, I would guess 2 or maybe even 3 more will retire in the next 4 years. Kerry could appoint up to 4 justices in his first term. I highly doubt this type of news would push undecideds into the Bush column. Especially not with all the talk the media will be doing about story number one above in the next week.

In short...I say once again....Kerry wins big....not even close.

Has the Kool-Aid Finally Worn Off?

2004-10-25T14:01:00.000-05:00

I keep reading about Republican governors, senators, and lots of Republican newspapers endorsing Kerry. Any guesses on the impact of this? I feel as if the long national coma is about to abate and people will see GW for who he is. I remember my first time in the voting booth. All the ideology and party loyalty went right out the window. Suddenly, it is you, the candidates, and the best interests of the nation. Speaking as one who has voted all over the political map, I feel very confident that when confronted with their conscience and a closed curtain, people will vote GW out of office. Kerry wins, but not in a squeaker, this is not 2000. Kerry wins big. I have been saying this since April and I still remain confident.

Tenet: Iraq war is "wrong"

2004-10-21T20:49:00.000-05:00

A little gem found today:

Exclusive for Local Reporter: Ex-CIA Chief Tenet Comes to Town

By E&P Staff

Published: October 21, 2004 5:30 PM EDT

NEW YORK The guest speaker was famous, and he was visiting a small town far from the spotlight of network TV cameras and the reach of big-name reporters from national newspapers. In other words: It was a perfect scenario for a local reporter to snag an exclusive. And Anna Clark, 24, correspondent for The Herald-Palladium of St. Joseph, Mich., was there to grab it.

Addressing the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan Wednesday night, George Tenet, former director of central intelligence, called the war on Iraq "wrong," according to Clark's article on Thursday, although it was unclear whether he meant the war itself or mainly the intelligence it was based on.

Tenet also said that the Iraq war was "rightly being challenged," but the CIA was making important strides toward success in the greater war on terrorism, according to the reporter.

Tenet added that while the CIA boasts "tremendously talented men and women," the agency "did not live up to our expectations as professionals" regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the search for WMDs in Iraq, according to Clark.

"We had inconsistent information, and we did not inform others in the community of gaps in our intelligence," Tenet said, with surprising frankness, as recorded by Clark, who recently covered a speech by Paul Bremer before the same group. "The extraordinary men and women who do magnificent work in the CIA are held accountable every day for what they do, and as part of keeping our faith with the American people, we will tell you when we're right or wrong."

Tenet spoke before 2,000 members of The Economic Club at Lake Michigan College's Mendel Center.

In a wide-ranging speech, and in a Q & A afterward, he said the United States is "winning the war on terror" due to the CIA's efforts to "capture or kill" three-quarters of al-Qaida's leaders, and that he expects to see Osama bin Laden captured.

As for the regime of Saddam Hussein: "I believed he had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. At the end of the day I have to stand up accountable for that. In the meantime our nation needs to honor the commitment we made in Iraq."

Just this week, news emerged that Tenet had been appointed a professor at Georgetown University.

Special thanks to Salon.com for this baby.

uh... ok. Bullshit

2004-10-21T17:52:00.000-05:00

interesting bit about how evangelical christians did not vote in high numbers 4 years ago...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/arts/24rich.html?oref=login&8hpib

"To understand what strange game is playing out here, you must go back to the equally close 2000 election. In the campaign postmortems, Karl Rove famously attributed his candidate's shortfall in the popular vote to four million "fundamentalists and evangelicals" in the Republican base who didn't turn up on Election Day. A common theory among Bush operatives had it that these no-shows had been alienated by the pre-election revelation of Mr. Bush's arrest for drunk driving years earlier."

karl rove can kiss my royal scotish ass...

I don't believe a word of it. Many evangelicals think every 4 years they can get the conservative elected to overturn roe v. wade... they are more dependable voters than probably any other group out there.

karl rove will say anything... God, I hope his career is finished on Nov. 2.

ps:

don't forget to look at my art project:

http://www.missionaccomplished.tv/index_new.php

Fahrenheit For Free

2004-10-21T15:59:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore and the nation's video stores bring you Fahrenheit 911 for free, October 26. Talk about a little payback for Payper View. The republicans don't understand that you can't put out a grease fire with water.

MICHAEL MOORE ANNOUNCES "FAHRENHEIT FOR FREE" OCTOBER 26

VIDEO STORES ACROSS THE NATION TO RENT CUSTOMERS "FAHRENHEIT 9/11" FREE OF CHARGE

While on his 60 city "Slacker Uprising Tour," Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore is joining forces with video store operators in an effort to get as many Americans as possible to see the film before the election. Video stores across the country will be waiving the usual rental fee for "Fahrenheit 9/11," beginning on October 26. A recent Harris poll showed that 44 percent of Republicans who have seen the film gave it a positive rating. "It isn't possible to view this film and come out saying you are voting George W. Bush," stated Moore.

Moore is currently on a 60-city tour to the 20 battleground states to rally non-voters and slackers, America's majority, to give voting a try, just this once. He's offering clean underwear and Ramen noodles to slackers, which has Republicans in his home state of Michigan calling for his arrest.

Moore is appearing on college campuses, arenas, stadiums and field houses. Nearly all venues hold between 5,000 and 15,000 people, with students -- historically the largest block of non-voters in presidential elections -- admitted for free at most events.

If you are a video store owner interested in getting involved, please e-mail us at F911ForFree@michaelmoore.com.

Bush Makes You Look Stupid

2004-10-21T15:50:00.000-05:00

A new PIPA survey shows that an alarming amount of Bush supporters believe things that are objectively untrue. Looks like Bush's Geobble experiment has paid off.

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

Kerry Rollingstone Interview

2004-10-21T14:15:00.000-05:00

Read the Rolling Stone interview with Kerry here.

Highlights:

I wish he'd say these things more often:

What do you mean when you say you know how to do it?

I've spent thirty-five years dealing with these kinds of issues. When I came back from fighting in a war, I fought against the war here in America. As a senator, I led the fight to stop Ronald Reagan's illegal war in Central America. I helped expose Oliver North and Manuel Noriega. I've been at this for a long time. You know, I led the initial efforts to change our policy on the Philippines -- which ultimately resulted in the elections, and became part of the process that helped get rid of Marcos.

I negotiated personally with the prime minister of Cambodia, to get accountability for the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime. I've negotiated with the Vietnamese to let me and John McCain in and put American forces on the ground to resolve the POW-MIA issue. I've spent twenty years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; I've been chairman of the Narcotics Terrorism Subcommittee. I have five times the experience George Bush does in dealing with these issues, and I know that I can get this done.

And of course, me being the film snob I am, I have to give Kerry props for calling this one:

OK -- enough. Let's talk about movies quickly. Of the Vietnam movies you've seen, what's the most accurate? And your favorite?

The most powerful Vietnam movie, to me, was The Deer Hunter, which was more about what happened to the folks who went, and about their relationships . . . and about what happened to this small-town community. I thought it was a brilliant movie, because the metaphor of Russian roulette was an incredible way of capturing the fatalism about it all: the sense that things were out of your control. And it really talked to what happened to the folks who went. So I thought it was a very, very powerful movie.

DeLay Gets Served

2004-10-21T14:09:00.000-05:00

Oh this is just too sweet not to point out:

Tom Delay Subpoenaed for Role in 2003 Texas Redistricting

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) was subpoenaed in Houston to an October 25, 2004 deposition concerning his role in the controversial dispute between Democratic Legislators and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) during last year's redistricting struggle. Texas State Representative Lon Burnam (D--Fort Worth) subpoenaed DeLay in his ongoing lawsuit challenging DPS's use of public funds to achieve political ends and for its destruction of documents following the exodus of Democratic Legislators from the State to prevent a quorum in a redistricting effort that Democrats claim was illegal.

Burnam's subpoena of DeLay comes just days after the Republican House Majority Leader was officially rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for his inappropriate use of government resources in an effort to track down and arrest House Democrats--including Burnam--who went to Ardmore to block redistricting efforts of the Texas Republicans.

Burnam's lawsuit alleges that the DPS destroyed documents regarding their efforts to apprehend the Legislators and that DPS had no lawful authority to arrest Democratic members who went to Ardmore. A number of high ranking DPS officials have given their depositions, as has Burnam in the case. An Austin Appeals Court recently held that Burnam's case on the open records issue could go forward.

"Questions have been raised about Majority Leader DeLay's role in directing both DPS and Homeland Security personnel in the use of the state and federal funds in the search for House Democrats. We believe these funds were improperly used for political gain and House Majority Leader DeLay should be required to testify about his role in the matter," said Fort Worth lawyer, Art Brender, who together with Austin lawyer Catherine Mauzy represents Burnam in the case.

"I believe DeLay's testimony is especially important in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision ordering a reconsideration of the redistricting plan to determine whether it was overly partisan," Burnam said. This Monday, October 18, 2004, the United States Supreme Court reversed the three judge lower federal court ruling that upheld the Republican drawn congressional lines and remanded the matter back to that court in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case in Pennsylvania.

Burnam claims DeLay continued a pattern of obstruction and abuse of power in avoiding service of the subpoena. Burnam had sought to subpoena DeLay at a major Republican fundraising event in Austin on the evening of October 1, 2004, but DeLay and his supporters secretly rescheduled the event to 7:00 a.m., thwarting Burnam's process server. Preventing execution of civil process is a misdemeanor under the Texas Penal Code. On Wednesday, DeLay's attorneys agreed to accept the subpoena for him to prevent service at the event.

"I brought this lawsuit because no government official should be able to use government resources for partisan political purposes and to oppress duly elected officials who are acting in their official capacity," Burnam stated. "If they can do this to an elected official and get away with it, then no citizen's rights can be protected against abuse."

Homeland Unsecurity

2004-10-21T11:38:00.000-05:00

Public Citizen has published a report on the failures of Bush's homeland security.

Bush Administration Leaves Chemical and Nuclear Plants, HazMat, Ports and Water Systems Vulnerable to Terrorists

Bush Aversion to Regulation and Allegiance to Campaign Contributors Has Blocked Progress on Homeland Security, New Report Shows

[...]

Chemical plants

A strike at one or more of the 15,000 chemical plants across the United States could cause thousands, even millions, of injuries and deaths. But the Bush administration and the chemical industry have blocked legislation that would require chemical plants to shift to safer chemicals and technologies, and blocked Environmental Protection Agency efforts to compel security improvements via the Clean Air Act.

Nuclear plants

Twenty-seven state attorneys generals warned Congress in October 2002 that the consequences of a catastrophic attack against one of the country’s 103 nuclear power plants “are simply incalculable.” The plants were not designed to withstand the impact of aircraft crashes or explosive forces, and the government does not require nuclear plants to be secure from an aircraft attack. Radioactive waste is stored in standing pools or dry casks, making it vulnerable, and the plants have grossly inadequate security. But the Bush administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have resisted congressional efforts for additional security regulation. In fact, the NRC proposed weakening fire safety regulations, which would make it harder for a reactor to be safely shut down in the event of a terrorist attack.

Hazardous materials transport

The trains and trucks that carry tens of millions of tons of toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials annually on our highways make tempting terrorist targets. More than half of the nation’s 60,000 rail tank cars carrying hazardous materials are too old to meet current industry standards and thus are more likely than newer cars to break open after derailing. A weapon as simple as the legal, widely available 50-caliber rifle has the potential to inflict serious damage on a train car or truck carrying lethal materials, by penetrating tanks and causing an explosion or derailment. Despite the risk, though, there are insufficient checks on where trucks carrying hazardous materials may drive; insufficient oversight and tracking of the types, amounts and locations of trucks moving these lethal loads; and insufficient controls on the issuance of commercial licenses for drivers of trucks carrying hazardous materials. Legislation to assess rail security has been blocked by members of the president’s party, and other safety proposals have been dropped because of industry opposition.

Port security

Every year, 8,100 foreign cargo ships make 50,000 visits to the United States. International sea transport is an attractive terrorist target because there are millions of shipping containers, hundreds of ports and dozens of methods to damage infrastructure, disrupt the world economy, undermine our military readiness and harm Americans. Just 4 to 6 percent of shipping containers are inspected today. Inspectors are not adequately trained. And innovative pilot security programs have not been implemented. At least one important security initiative has been adopted since 9/11, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, but new security measures and proposed funding put forward by the Bush administration fall far short of what is needed.

Drinking water systems

Few acts of sabotage against the public could be more insidious than delivering poison into a family’s home through tap water. The water distribution network—the pumping stations, storage tanks and pipes that might cover thousands of miles within a metropolitan area—provides countless opportunities to introduce biological, chemical or radiological contaminants. But there is no funding mechanism for the federal government to provide direct grants to cities to upgrade water security, and the private water utility industry’s campaign to take over public water systems is getting a push from the Bush administration. This could make securing our water supply even more difficult because private water companies, like chemical companies, nuclear power companies and other industries, will resist strong security standards mandated by the government.

The terrorist threat is particularly acute in Washington, D.C., where 8,500 rail cars carrying hazardous materials travel through the city each year. Ninety-ton rail cars that regularly pass within four blocks of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., contain enough chlorine to potentially injure or kill 100,000 people within 30 minutes and could endanger 2.4 million people.

The D.C. Council considered a bill requiring the rerouting of hazardous material-carrying trains away from the city, but it was postponed because the federal government promised to study the matter. In May 2004, though, a Transportation Security Administration official told Congress that the federal government intended to continue allowing trains and hazardous materials to pass close to the Capitol.

“A year of hearings, meetings and entreaties to the Bush administration has failed to persuade them to take obvious action to protect the safety of Washington residents,” said D.C. Councilmember Kathy Patterson. “I am urging my colleagues to move ahead with our legislative remedy, and urge other communities to follow suit.”

Added Rick Hind, legislative director of the Toxics Campaign at Greenpeace USA, “The good news is that threats to chemical plants and train shipments are preventable. In fact, the most serious threats can actually be eliminated thanks to safer available chemicals and safer rail routes. The bad news is that the Bush administration would rather listen to the Dow and Exxon lobbyists than take action to prevent a disaster.”

Stolen Honor Transcript

2004-10-21T11:35:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Kos for posting this:

Read it and respond.

Contradicting Statements

2004-10-21T10:28:00.000-05:00

Today is the day I publicly concede agreeing with Bush. As he has recently and adequately put it, "it is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls."

With republicans like Cheney and Hastert practicing passionate McCarthyism, the choice the choice this November, according to the president, is pretty clear.

Cheney

10-20-04:

"I'm fearful that John Kerry has that kind of pre-9/11 mind-set."

"Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities."

9-8-04:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

10-19-04

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us -- biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said."

Bush

March, 2004

"[John Kerry] has a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services"

Hastert

9-20-04

[Hastert's] spokesman, John Feehery, said Sunday that the speaker's comments "were consistent with the speaker's belief that John Kerry would be weak on the war."

9-24-04:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."

and...

Orrin Hatch

Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

"Terrorists are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."

John Thune on Tom Daschle

"His words embolden the enemy."
"[Daschle has brought] comfort to America's enemies."

Richard Armitage

"[Terrorists in Iraq] are trying to influence the election against President Bush."

Gee, Thanks

2004-10-20T15:49:00.000-05:00

What does Sinclair do when faced with public pressure to shut down their hot partisan "newsworthy" documentary? They promise to air only parts of it and get "commentary" later. Gee, thanks for missing the point. The dog is now eating it's own tail.

Sinclair backs down; or does it?

Sinclair Broadcast Group is rethinking its controversial decision to use its more than 60-plus television stations nationwide for political purposes on the eve of the election by forcing them to air an anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor." Under siege from angry Democrats, and hearing from unsettled advertisers, analysts and shareholders, the Maryland-based communications giant, with a heavy Republican slant, moved on Tuesday to clarify its plans. It now insists "Stolen Honor" will not air in its entirety, instead the news special "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" is scheduled and will be seen on 39 of its 62 stations.

What exactly is "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media"? According to Sinclair's rather muddled press release, the "news special will focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries. The program will also examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage."

Sweetness

2004-10-20T15:06:00.000-05:00

This election has proven that the speculative power of the internet - the modern day free press, if you will - has transformed into a reality.

Today, we enter phase 2: www.p2p-politics.org.

Revealing Endorsement

2004-10-20T14:38:00.000-05:00

Iran has officially endorsed President Bush. Why in the world would one of the Axis of Evil want the arch-enemy of terrorism in the White House, you ask? Because they don't like Democratic administrations. Why would they fear President Bush when he's done almost nothing to stop them from coming closer to having actual nuclear weapons? I suppose empty threats and labels just aren't the show of force they used to be in the days of the Cold War.

Iran also doesn't like Democratic administrations because they tend to pressure them on human rights issues. Stop me from laughing, I might have to get a hernia operation and I'm not insured.

Bush receives endorsement from Iran

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

Oct. 20, 2004 | TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

The Bush campaign said no thanks.

I wonder if he'd turn down David Duke, too.

When Irony is Real

2004-10-19T15:48:00.000-05:00

Actual CNN headline. Posted on Salon's War Room:

From CNN's crawler, courtesy of War Room reader A.B.

"PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER"

Waiting Until After the Elections is Downright Anti-Democratic

2004-10-19T15:12:00.000-05:00

How are we supposed to elect the right man for president when important information about the incumbents presidency is deliberately stalled until after the election? What if you were interviewing me for a job and you asked me if I had ever gotten high at work before and I told you I'd let you know after you hired me?

Many people, like devout democrat and former NY Mayor, Ed Koch, are voting for Dubya soley because they feel safe with him. Yet, there is new evidence out that contradict the theory that the Commander in Chief can actually do it. Aside from actual facts that support otherwise - the mishandling of Iraq for example - Bush is trying to convince the nation that he's the man for national security. Bush's only strength in the polls has been wittled down to "who will make us safer." Apparently, everything else from domestic issues and now likeability, is in Kerry's favor.

LA Times reports that a new CIA document, which finally names names of those who fucked up before 911, will be suppressed until after the elections.

Let me get this strait. Sinclair gets to show a dishonest, partisan documentary attacking John Kerry's anti-war invovlement from over 30 years ago with no lashings from the media or the government itself (i.e. the toothless, spineless F.E.C.), but its completely wrong to show important evidence behind one of the biggest blunders in American history that involves the current administration?

I'm sorry, but I'm not voting this year just to change presidents. I want Bush on the coals, telling us that he's sorry for fucking up and I want to at least see some wraps on the knuckles drawing blood. Our country was vicously attacked on his watch, because apparently vacationing was more important than doing things involving leadership. He has not once apologized, let alone mentioned one fuck up on his part and he wants us to re-elect his ass?

Please, God, I don't ever ask for anything or write often, but for the love of yourself, strike this man dead for the sake of the world. Clearly, a half a life time of acoholism, a bicycle and a pretzel have not finished the job.

LA Times reports:

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

DUH! I think we came to that conclusion when we learned Condi thought those PDB's were "historical."

Update: Rising Sinclairity

2004-10-19T13:39:00.000-05:00

Great news for us, bad news for Wallstreet. If I had to pick between supporting a stock or a democracy, I'd rather be poor and free.

Follow closely here.

And then there's this doozy: Sinclair Broadcasting Shareholders Demand Officers Return Profits From Insider Trading

SINCLAIR BROADCASTING SHAREHOLDERS DEMAND OFFICERS RETURN PROFITS FROM INSIDER TRADING

Officers Who Ordered Stations to Show Anti-Kerry Film Also Sold Stocks at High Mark, then Drove Values Down

DETAILS:

Famed shareholder attorney William S. Lerach will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. today to discuss insider self-dealing by officers of Sinclair Broadcasting, the Baltimore-based television chain that is forcing its affiliates to show a propaganda film that attacks presidential candidate John Kerry. He will release a set of demands aimed at making Sinclair executives disgorge millions of dollars in unjustified profits taken out of the firm when stock prices were high during the past 12 months. Yesterday the company's stock fell a further 8 percent after being down more than 50 percent from the year's beginning, as advertisers pulled back to avoid the station's self-generated political controversy.

[...]

For more information on Boycotting Sinclair, check this shit out.

Bush Deceptions

2004-10-19T11:14:00.000-05:00

Thank you, Center for American Progress, for your hardwork and diligence over the years. Today, they outline some key Bush deceptions:

BUSH DECEPTION #1 – TERRORISTS NOW OPERATE IN A LIMITED AREA: Bush said that the war in Iraq and other administration policies have worked "to shrink the area where the terrorists can operate freely, and that strategy has the terrorists on the run." The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, however, found the occupation of Iraq actually helped al Qaeda recruitment. In its annual report, the IISS said "the network has reconstituted itself after losing its Afghan base." It estimated al Qaeda today has "18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries."

BUSH DECEPTION #2 – ASHCROFT'S COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS ARE EFFECTIVE: Bush bragged that "since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals have stopped terrorist activities" in eleven states, including New Jersey. It's unclear how the Justice Department has "stopped terrorist activities" because it hasn't convicted any terrorists. According to Georgetown Law professor David Cole, "On September 2 a federal judge in Detroit threw out the only jury conviction the Justice Department has obtained on a terrorism charge since 9/11... Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000."

BUSH DECEPTION #3 – 100,000 IRAQIS ARE TRAINED: Bush claimed, "more than 100,000 soldiers, police, and border guards are already trained, equipped, and bravely serving their country." Bush has repeatedly made that claim in campaign appearances during recent weeks. But, according to the Pentagon, "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training."

BUSH DECEPTION #4 – HE NEVER WAVERS IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM: According to Bush, "winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words repeated in the election season. America needs clear moral purpose and leaders who will not waver." But Bush himself has wavered on whether the war on terrorism can be won. On Aug. 30 he told NBC's Matt Lauer, "I don't think you can win it [the war on terrorism]... I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

BUSH DECEPTION #5 – HE NEVER WAVERS ON IRAQ: Bush accused Kerry of taking "almost every conceivable position in Iraq" and that such vacillation will "lead to a major defeat." An analysis by the Los Angeles Times illustrates that "Bush's statements on Iraq show that he also has sent differing...signals" on the justification for war in Iraq. For example, before the war, "the major chord was security and terrorism. Bush continually warned that Hussein could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists." When it became clear Iraq did not possess WMD, "Bush increasingly has argued that building a democracy in Iraq would inspire democratic change across the region in a domino effect." Read the full article, complete with timeline.

BUSH DECEPTION #6 – KERRY OPPOSES ALL PREEMPTIVE ACTIONS: Yesterday, Bush said that "Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit." Kerry has specifically endorsed the use of preemptive force. During the first debate, Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

BUSH DECEPTION #7 – KERRY'S RECORD ON INTELLIGENCE FUNDING IS SHAMEFUL: Bush said that Kerry "has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence." His evidence is that Kerry "proposed a $6 billion cut in the nation's intelligence budget" in 1993. Kerry's proposal was part of a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. In fact, "Kerry's proposed intelligence cuts were smaller than those proposed in 1995 by Bush's choice to head the CIA, Porter J. Goss."

BUSH DECEPTION #8 – KERRY DOES NOT SUPPORT VITAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS: Bush accused Kerry of voting "against vital weapon systems during his entire career." The nonpartisan factcheck.org notes, the "Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons." Nevertheless, Kerry voted for Pentagon bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should – on balance – be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons."

Before You Start Playing Defeatist

2004-10-19T01:06:00.000-05:00

Perhaps its our own sense of denial or a lack of understanding the basics of reality, much like our own president. If there are any indications that Kerry is going to come out on top this election year, I'm placing my bets on pollster John Zogby. Its good practice to find a set of polls you have faith in and can trust and follow them. I have been following Zogby's polls, mostly because of Charlie Rose. Analysts on his show have said repeatedly, Zogby was the "standard" when it came to polling. I don't claim to be an expert, but Charlie never hangs out with an awry crowd.

Through all the muddled, barf-bag wielding, contradicting polls out there, the good news is in the Kerry camp. Anyone who's been reading the blogosphere the last couple of days has heard this little ditty, for sure:

Analysts watch the incumbent's numbers in the polls so closely because most voters who stay undecided until the very end of a presidential campaign traditionally break for the challenger. As a result, challengers often run ahead of their final poll results, while incumbents rarely exceed their last poll numbers.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I won't bore you with the repitition after that doozy, but I would like to shed some light on the chance of a Kerry win. My man, Zogby, has come out and openly staked his entire 20 year career in polling on a win for Kerry, barring any illegal voter supresson:

John Zogby's Reuters Asia Tour - Tin Man vs Scarecrow - Who will Americans vote for? - US pollster is betting on Tin Man Kerry winning the race against Scarecrow Bush

LOST in the maze of conflicting views as to who is likely to win the US presidential election? The Tin Man and the Scarecrow from the Land of Oz may prove to be useful guides. They did for top US pollster John Zogby.

In 2000, Mr Zogby took a novel approach to predicting the race between Mr George W. Bush and former vice-president Al Gore.

He asked voters to make a choice: 'You live in the Land of Oz, and the candidates are either Tin Man, with all brains and no heart, or the Scarecrow, who is with all heart and no brains.'

The score - 46.2 per cent to the Scarecrow (seen to depict Mr Bush) and 46.2 per cent to the Tin Man (Mr Gore).

That made him conclude that Mr Gore had drawn level with Mr Bush when other polls had predicted a shoo-in for the latter.

It was a more accurate reading of the situation.

In the end, Mr Gore went on to win 48.4 per cent of the popular vote - higher than Mr Bush's 47.9 per cent. But he lost to Mr Bush in the Electoral College tally, which determines who gets to occupy the White House.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mr Zogby sees the Tin Man-versus-Scarecrow model as still relevant in the present race, with Mr Bush now facing a new Tin Man in the form of Senator John Kerry.

And the pollster is staking his 20 years of experience in a Kerry win - at least from soundings of America's 'undecided' voters.

Kerry's now back to a tie in Zogby's latest national tracking poll, at 45-45, with Zogby saying, "If I were to factor in the leaners in the 3-day track, it would be Kerry 47.2% to Bush 46.6%. Kerry has the lead because of Independents."

Dissention at Sinclair

2004-10-18T15:40:00.000-05:00

Finally, a journalist with a conscience. Sinclair's D.C. Bureau Cheif lambasted his employer in the Baltimore Sun today.

"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. "For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election."

Read the full article.

update: Unless I'm mistaken (and if I am I do apologize), it has been reported that Jon Leiberman was fired this afternoon as Sinclair's D.C. Bureau Cheif. If this is true, Jon, then you are a real patriot and we respect you more now than before.

update: Looks like the rumors are true. Jon, if I had any extra cash, I'd mail it to you. But, chances are you made in one year what I've made in a lifetime.

Rising Sinclairity

2004-10-18T13:55:00.000-05:00

Sinclair Broadcasting stock has been falling for over a week now. Today, it has been taking its biggest and fastest dive yet.

Follow closely here.

You Call That a Major Speech?

2004-10-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

Bush has fooled the cable news yet again. Claiming today's New Jersey speech a "Major Speech on Terror," Bush pulled the rug out from under the American people by doing another lame stump speech.

I'm sorry, but it's extremely petty for a President to constanly trick the media and his people by claiming that an hour long bash on his opponent is news-worthy. We have actual problems with our country, like a misguided war in Iraq, a bungled war on terrorism, a deeply divided country, a lack of leadership in the presidency, eroded border control, skyrocketing debts, and healthcare problems.

The President thinks you're a douche.

Salon.com has the story:

Bush's "major" stump speech

There he goes again. Right now, George W. Bush is delivering what his aides have billed as a "major speech" on terrorism in New Jersey. But after his last "major speech" in Pennsylvania, we knew better than to expect actual news or substance. As Bush would say, "Fool us once, shame on … shame on you … If fooled, you can't get fooled again." Or something. Unsurprisingly, Bush's speech is anything but "major," unless you were looking for a major campaign event. Instead, it's Bush's typical stump speech fare, complete with the usual stretched and mangled truths, trumped up to sound like something more in the hopes of tricking cable networks into carrying the whole thing live -- and to trick viewers into thinking Bush was actually saying something new and substantial. As they did with his last "major speech," the cable networks carried it live, with Fox News obediently labeling it on-screen "a major speech on war on terror."

Delivered to appropriately-timed boos and cheers from a partisan crowd, Bush's "really important speech," as Nicolle Devenish called it on Fox this morning, included gems like: "Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit. This kind of Sept. 10 attitude is no way to protect our country." And then this distortion: "The senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his way to a dangerous postion. My opponent has settled on a strategy, a strategy of defeat," Bush said. Mischaracterizing Kerry's position, Bush said, "'America's overriding goal in Iraq is to leave, even if the job is not done.'"

The Kerry campaign issued rebuttals to the president's address even before he delivered it, with Joe Lockhart mocking the very idea of it: "What the Bush campaign considers to be a major address provides a telling window into this President and his priorities: He considers a nasty, vitriolic attack line to constitute a significant address. What might have been new and significant would have been the President addressing a health care crisis that has forced New Jersey to hold a lottery to decide who should get flu shots. But no, that would involve being straight with the American public and taking responsibility for his Administration's inaction."

John Edwards also went for the flu-shot dig in his response to the president's speech -- wethinks the Democrats have Floridians of a certain age in mind with their two-pronged flu-shot/Social Security assault on Bush. "George Bush is so out of touch," Edwards said. "And he couldn't even manage this latest flu vaccine crisis. How can we trust him to deal with anthrax? This is not leadership. This is incompetence. He has failed and it is time for a change. And John Kerry will bring that change."

-- Geraldine Sealey

Limbaugh Sings

2004-10-18T10:30:00.001-05:00

In case you never heard this before, give it a listen. Its not only a good laugh, but catchy, too!

Rush Limbaugh is a Nazi.

Wedgie Voters in your life...

2004-10-17T23:18:00.000-05:00

If any of you are suffering from "wedge issue" voters in your life, here are two articles that may crack open the tunnel vision they may have concerning abortion. I have a whole family of lower-middle and middle-class kin that only vote for Repugnicans due to vehement "Pro-Life" views.

I learned that when Chimpy took over in 2001, the abortion rate in this country was at a 17 year low, and was dropping every year. Fast forward 3 years? The abortion rate has increased every year under Repugnican leadership.

Read This

and

this on which i stole from atrios

Social Security Spam

2004-10-17T12:22:00.000-05:00

BEGIN SPAM

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic party. Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI SocialSecurity.

The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it. Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

Pass it on please!

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it. If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

BEGIN REBUTTAL

Let's see if I understand the point. Our Social Security money is being taxed and its because of the democrats. Well, goodie, goodie, then I can put full support behind the president and his brilliant economic policies such as a 700 billion dollar tax cut that will aid only the richest 1% of the nation or the one closer to our topic, the privatization of Social Security.

The United States will put the financial care of the elderly into the hands of Meryl Lynch, and Sherson, and T Rowe Price. After all, as we are reminded by their many commercials, they care about us. Isn't it dangerous to assume
that these financial institutions will be around longer than the United States? Isn't it monopolistic to make doing business with specific private companies compulsory? I guess such a move would only spark the creation of
many new financial groups and therefore, greater economic growth. And of course those new institutions would be aloud to compete on a level field of play and not be consumed by multinational conglomerates like USB Warburg
Paine Webber Kitchen Sink Longwinded Name. If my sarcasm has been lost, then
I will try one without a joke.

President Bush would like to turn our Social Security money into a 401k. That is the long and short of it, or in
republican-speak, the black and white of it. There is no appreciation for the grey area in such an idea. It is irresponsible in its optimism. Sitting smack dab in the middle of the grey area is the strong likelihood that these
honest joe companies, which are not elected and not beholden to citizens, would skirt the law to inflate stock prices. In the end, the investors lose everything and the CEOs lose nothing. Am I a worry wart? Too bad I wasn't
emailing before the Enron Corporation did exactly what I just described. Furthermore, I wonder how those 401k's are doing for Global Crossing investors, or WorldCom, or Adelphi, or United Airlines, or or or. Is Ken Lay in jail? Well, his wife says they might as well be having to give up three of their five homes. At least we can hold our politicians accountable by not voting for them.

So, that is why the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

Now, let's address the veracity of the dastardly deeds the Democrats did to Social Security.

LBJ did in fact move SS from an independent fund to a general fund. This move pooled the money so that it could grow more rapidly and allowed for the creation of Medicare. The money was indeed being spent by Congress... on
seniors. The democrats did spearhead the tax and the increase on SS. That is not paid by the citizens, but is incurred by corporations. Having said this, I would also like to again point out that the budget was balanced and there
was even a surplus. Where is it now and when will it be back? Will we be around?

My last response to this slanted email is that I have found this exact email posted throughout the internet on hoax websites. Its completely made up and worded to tell half of the story. Feel free disregard its points, its tone, and especially its logic.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

Rove Finally Brought to Court

2004-10-15T15:13:00.001-05:00

Where's Novak? Its his turn...

Full Article

Rove Testifies in CIA Leak Investigation

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified Friday before a federal grand jury trying to determine who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer.

Rove spent more than two hours testifying before the panel, according to an administration official who spoke only on condition of anonymity because such proceedings are secret.

Saving Mom from Right-Wing Spam

2004-10-15T12:21:00.000-05:00

I just got this great little piece of spam and I felt like a little exercise.

Normally, this kind of poop would simply be flushed. But I worry for my mom. She gets these and she reads them and she believes them sometimes. She is not alone.

These spams make very good arguements sometimes. They fall flat when one looks at the veracity of the "facts".

Here is the spam followed by my rebuttal:

Bush

Learn these facts to properly debate our poor misguided friends and family before election time !!!

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following ............

FDR...led us into World War II.Germany never attacked us. Japan did.From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ...liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Just some facts would be nice but I am sorry, there is not a single accuracy in this email. Not one. I am not surprised because it take a very familiar form. Lots of spam just like this is sent out daily by many right-wing 527 groups. This particular email can also be found posted to such fact finding websites as BeerLoverCam.com (http://www.beerlovercam.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1072) and The Baptist Board (http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/23/2647.html). Enough of the theories, let's get to the facts.

Bush

Learn these facts to properly debate our poor misguided friends and family before election time !!!There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

This must be an old email since January was 10 months ago now. There were actually 47 American fatalities in January. There were also 5 British soldiers killed and none from any of the other countries of our vast coalition.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

If you want to compare apples and oranges, then we will compare murders in Detroit to soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=398411

Not too many people in Detroit were killed by F-16 fighter planes, either. I think it is important to remember that 13224 Iraq civilians have been killed so far.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

We should keep that number front and center in our thought processes since our true reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom is to liberate Iraqi citizens. The country may be on fire to this very day, but we can be sure that 13224 Iraqis have been liberated from the pains of this earth.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following ............

FDR...led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us.
Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Well, Germany did attack us. Repeatedly. They sunk over 200 merchant ships in 1939, over 1000 in 1940, and about 1300 in 1941. We declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Bound by a treaty with Japan, Germany declared war on us on December 11, 1941. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm Subsequently, we declared war on them.

I find it humerous when people try to compare Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Adolph Hitler's Germany. Germany was a wealthy industrial powerhouse. Iraq has not been described as a prosperous country since the 1980's.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

North Korea invaded South Korea. That was the equivalent of the U.S.S.R. moving to take over West Berlin during the Cold War. Korea was conquered by both the United States and Russia in World War II and then split up into north and south like with Germany. The north invaded the south and The U.N. went to stop that. So, North Korea did attack our allies.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Well, Dwight Eisenhower sent the first troops to Vietnam in 1958. Is that a deliberate deception by you or just a lie?

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Johnson was president from 1965-1975? How could that be? Oh!!! You want to only point out democrats who have been in wars. Those warmongering democrats really get my blood boiling. They should just be hawks and not actually serve. I have taken the time to compile a list of those evil serving democrats and those courageous republicans who get deferments.

Democrats
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts.
John Edwards: did not serve.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: VietnamHowell Heflin: Silver Star.
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received 311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Wesley Clark: U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam, Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.
John Dingell: WWII vet
John Conyers: Army 1950-57, Korea

Republicans
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor.
George W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment (in four).
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.Clarence Thomas: did not serve

Pundits & Preachers
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

I love when people point out the French! Being French, I just love it. The French had a larger contingent of troops committed than the Brittish did. Clinton didn't go to war in Kosovo (I know you meant to say Kosovo - we'll let it slide), NATO went to war in Kosovo. It's funny that Bush's threats to Slobodan Milosovich never come up. Anyway, General Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO Allied Forces Europe, led the NATO forces to victory in 8 months. Not one American was killed.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ...liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Well, it has been 3 years now and the terrorists are attacking us daily. Not here, mind you, but in Iraq. Okay, Iraq and Afganistan have been liberated. What does that mean? The warlords are still in control of large parts of Afganistan and terrorist groups actually hold entire cities in Iraq. Heard of Fallujah? Heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Yes, he is the guy who cuts off American citizen's heads. He is controlling Fallujah right now.

The Taliban is not crushed, in fact, they have meaningful control of part of the south of the country, and have driven doctors without borders out of the country.

Al-Qaida is barely crippled. They have a presense in most countries including the United States. They are recruiting new members daily. Al-Qaida is attacking daily and I don't just mean in Iraq. Remember Bali? Remember Turkey? Remember Madrid?

As far as the nuclear inspectors, what in hell are you talking about? Iran just told the International Atomic Energy Association to get out. There are no inspectors in North Korea and on Bush's watch, they have developed 4-7 nuclear bombs. Libya negotiated disarmament with Europe, not George W. Bush. It did happen on his watch but so did Brittney Spears popularity. He is as responsible for Libya's disarming as he is for Brittney Spears being pretty and flirty and slutty.

The British have admitted that the mass graves thought to have hundreds of thousands buried number less than 5000. That is still genocide. It is horrible. But 5000 is not 300,000.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

Has Iraq been taken? That's good. Now all my friends in the National Guard will be coming home now. That's great news. It's also a lie. That 'Mission Accomplished' banner really fooled those at home watching TV. The mission is far from accomplished and we have experienced more casualties since the war was declared won. It has been over a year now.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Not really. We have been looking for chemical weapons in Iraq since 1991. Great shot at Hillary Clinton, though. Real good showing of non-partisanship. She wasn't convicted of anything, by the way, but why let that get in the way of propoganda.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Wow. Is it really a good idea to make a joke about somebody getting dead? Mary Jo Kopechne drowned in that Oldsmobile. Never pass up an opportunity to zing Ted Kennedy.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Wrong again. We are still losing in Iraq and the votes were recounted... and Gore won.

Learn these facts because they are facts.

America's Twelve Step Program

2004-10-15T10:51:00.000-05:00

Whoever thought unilateral foreign policy would be popular? We sharply pushed away our allies, tromped over opposing views and renamed anything with word "french" in it with "freedom" and some people wonder why the world hates us so much. Those in denial call this "pessimism" and stick the label onto the backs of democrats.

Acknowledging world resentment is not pessimissm. In any twelve step program, the first step is always admitting your mistake. President Bush has not admitted to making one mistake. You'd think he'd have enough experience to bring America to step one. Apparently, he learned nothing and we're all suffering.

What we have today is a growing world resentment towards America. The Bush administration solves the problems of America today and worries about the fallout tomorrow. Dubya is the only president in modern history to think that the earth is synonomous with U.S.A.

As Bill Maher adequately put it last weekend on Real Time, "The world hasn't changed. America finally joined it." If John Kerry were elected on November 2nd, it would be step one for America.

Here's another poll from the Guardian. Like we didn't already know what it reveals...

Poll reveals world anger at Bush

Eight out of 10 countries favour Kerry for president

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday October 15, 2004

George Bush has squandered a wealth of sympathy around the world towards America since September 11 with public opinion in 10 leading countries - including some of its closest allies - growing more hostile to the United States while he has been in office.

According to a survey, voters in eight out of the 10 countries, including Britain, want to see the Democrat challenger, John Kerry, defeat President Bush in next month's US presidential election.

The poll, conducted by 10 of the world's leading newspapers, including France's Le Monde, Japan's Asahi Shimbun, Canada's La Presse, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, also shows that on balance world opinion does not believe that the war in Iraq has made a positive contribution to the fight against terror.

The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the US and a not-too-strong endorsement of Mr Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68% of those polled say they have a favourable opinion of Americans.

The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support amongst its closest allies.

The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis - who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the US as their security umbrella - and the Russians who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favourable attitudes towards the US in the survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.

Note: Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor for Bush Sr, said in a Financial Times inverview, "Sharon just has [Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerised."

Post-Debate Affects Settle In

2004-10-15T10:13:00.000-05:00

Days after the third debate, the american consciousness is lapping up the damage. We see honest pundits, who may have been Bush supporters at one point, admitting defeat and reality. There are some who still cling onto the sunset of a dying dream. Frankly, I'm dying for a reality bite. The last four years have become a distant and vacant memory, a hole in my life which I desperately wish to forget. I'm happy to see some rational-thinking people finally get it, if they hadn't before.

E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post Columnist

Full Column

"In President Bush's worldview, everything is "post-9/11" except his campaign tactics. When it comes to the tired, shopworn ways in which he's attacking John Kerry, the president is, as Dick Cheney likes to say, in a "pre-9/11 mindset."

The debates altered the campaign in Kerry's favor because Bush could no longer run and hide from his own record and cast Kerry as a cardboard character. The debates showcased Kerry as presidentially consistent. Bush kept changing his act. He scowled in the first debate. He practically shouted in the second. He pasted a strange smile over the scowl in the third.

---------------------

Richard Cohen

Washington Post Columnist

Full Column

"For months now I've dropped bets on the presidential election like Hansel (of "Hansel and Gretel") dropped pebbles. For honor and money, I've wagered on George Bush, not because I wanted him to win but rather because I thought he would. Now I'm changing my mind. It's not the tightening polls that have done it -- I knew that would happen -- but rather something I could not have predicted. The president is missing.

The president I have in mind is the funny, good-natured regular guy I once saw on the campaign trail -- a man of surprisingly quick wit and just plain likeability. I contrasted this man to John Kerry, who is as light and as funny as a mud wall, and I thought, "There goes the election."

Where it has mattered most -- the three debates -- Bush has been wooden, ill at ease and downright spooky. He makes bad jokes, cackles at them in the manner of a cinematic serial killer and has lacked the warmth that he not only once had but that I thought would compensate for a disastrous presidency and give him a second -- God help us -- term. In short, he could take over the Bates Motel in an instant."

---------------------

Robert Scheer
LA Times Editorial

Read Full Editorial

So, once again, as with Bill Clinton, I find myself supporting a Democrat with a domestic agenda to the right of Richard Nixon. Yes, the man Arnold Schwarzenegger eulogized at the GOP convention was in favor of a guaranteed annual income for all Americans — something that can be made to sound even more socialist than liberal. Nixon's point man on such issues was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who as a Democratic senator from New York later blasted Clinton's anti-welfare bill as an immoral assault on the poor.

I interviewed Nixon in 1984, long after he had been chased from office, and found him to be quite proud of his domestic agenda. How sad for the nation that his domestic policy is now considered progressive compared with Bush's. Many excellent programs such as Social Security and Medicare that once had strong bipartisan support are now under attack by a perversely destructive president.

OK, Kerry may not be a daring liberal, but he is an enlightened moderate who would at least safeguard the gains made since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. By contrast, the Bush administration seems determined to return us to the 19th century, when corporate robber barons owned the White House and employed crude "gunboat diplomacy" to serve their greed.

Swift Vet Liars Got Owned

2004-10-15T09:43:00.000-05:00

ABC News Nightline ran a story last night thoroughly discrediting the Swift Vet Liars claim that John Kerry is not an honest man. The former Nixon attack dog, John O'Neill, had pulled himself out from the carcass of the former President to attack Kerry once again 35 years later, with brand new fantastical claims that everyone involved in a firefight in February 1969 lied to get silver stars.

Nightline interviewed Vietnamese witnesses from the incident who coroborated with the Navy reports which led to a hand out of honorable metals to many of the soldiers involved. When confronted by Nightline's Ted Koppel, O'Neill refused to address the content of the report, afterwards rushing to the bathroom to clean his underwear.

Read the full story here.

In the controversy over Sen. John Kerry's service in Vietnam, Americans have heard from Kerry, from the crew of the Navy Swift boats he commanded and from other Swift boat veterans who question the official account of a 1969 incident for which Kerry was awarded a Silver Star. But there is one group they have not heard from: the Vietnamese who were there that day.

According to the military citation, Kerry was awarded the medal for his actions during an intense firefight on Feb. 28, 1969, during which he shot and killed a Viet Cong fighter who was armed with a rocket launcher. Members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group have charged that the Viet Cong fighter was a teenager who was alone, who was not part of a numerically superior force, and who was already wounded and running away when Kerry shot him.

Sinclair Update

2004-10-14T19:31:00.000-05:00

Oh, the Sinclairty of it all! Joe Trippi nails it again!

From MSNBC's Hardblogger 10-13-04:

Sinclair knows not what it has unleashed (Joe Trippi)

[...]

My view for some time has been that the Internet is changing [the bottom-up empowering nature of the Internet]. That the Internet is the first medium that allows thousands (sometimes millions) of Americans to come together and combine our power to challenge top down institutions that are failing us and our country.

That is because in a society where information is power— then the Internet is not distributing information, it's distributing power. And in a top-down society, it’s distributing power to the bottom.

Sinclair Broadcasting Inc.’s top brass does not understand this. So when they made the decision to air the anti-Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” they made one of those top-down decisions they thought the rest of us would simply accept. Wrong.

[...]

We love you, Joe. When you talk about Robert Kennedy with a lump in your throat, we hear ya, man.

Catastrophic Success

2004-10-14T18:50:00.000-05:00

Lynne Cheney is pissed. John Kerry talked about Mary Cheney's lesbianism in the debates and the republicans are calling it "out of line." Today, all over cable news and talk radio, pundits and republicans are crying foul. What do we make of it?

Well, to quote George Bush, "it was a catastrophic success" for the democrats. At a post debate rally, Mrs. Cheney fired back at Kerry for mentioning her daughter, using it for "cheap and tawdry" politics. I gotta laugh at this. I also have to laugh at Karl Rove for this strategic blunder. Karl Rove, for all his mastery, probably didn't want to make an issue out of this and I think that Lynn is truly outraged. What mother wouldn't defend her children if they thought they were being picked on? But, she must have pushed aside Rove to let her emotions out and this plays directly into the hand of the Democrats.

What are people talking about today? The question has become not if Kerry went over the line, but of Mary Cheney being a lesbian, the daughter of the VP running with a conservative base against homosexuality. My question is, who in this country is it going to affect? It certainly won't affect any pro-gay people out there. It won't affect any homosexuals. On local right-wing talk radio this morning, the pundits were making a big issue out of it, and several pro-Bush callers had made the point that they thought Kerry hadn't gone over the line and him brining it up wasn't a big issue on his character. In fact, most of them wondered why they were even talking about it. On Hardball tonite, Chris Matthews was talking to the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Nation (sorry, I don't remember their names - touche gin and tonics - but I will try to update when I read the show transcript later). The SF Chronical editor, who was clearly a Bush supporter in her rhetoric, in the end said this was not a big issue for her, right after she spent five minutes on a diatribe about how great Bush was. Clearly, this republican was not affected by this.

But, it does put a quandry on the table for those homophobic conservatives who would like to see an ammendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I think this tactic by the Kerry campaign has put the Bush team unknowingly on the defensive.

First, let me ask any of you who think Kerry was out of line if you think it was as unethical as Bush promoting a federal ban on gay marriage? If you think it was, then you'd be hypocritical if you were outraged. Kerry did not out Mary Cheney, as she was already openly talked about by Dick Cheney live on television and she also is part of homosexual organizations. Not only that, but John Edwards brought this same thing up during the VP debates and it clearly did not phase Dick Cheney. He even thanked Edwards for his understanding.

So, I will have to thank Lynne Cheney for making such a debacle over something so insignificant. Confuse your base with mixed messages over homosexuality and empower your opponents. You've now tangled the web of Bush courting the religious conservatives for over sixteen years. There is no way in hell any of this is going to be flak on John Kerry, who by the way gave a warm and loving statement today about it.

Statement from John Kerry in Reaction to Comments by Mrs. Cheney

Las Vegas, NV - Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

"I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue."

Now, instead of Bush commanding the news with his constant barage of Kerry rips, we democrats get a couple of days of breathing room. With nineteen days to go before the election, every minute counts.

Update: from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

A TYPICAL POINT: Here's an email that makes a point many others have. I cite it because it's representative:

You won't read this or reply, but that's fine. Your support of Kerry's bringing up Mary Cheney in the debate just lost my respect completely. The best analogy I can think of would have been Carter mentioning Betty Ford's addiction or someone mentioning Martha Mitchell's instability and alcoholism in a presidential debate. Just beyond the pale. The young woman, and the family, are entitled to their privacy on private matters.

Notice two things. First, the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That's why Rove's base is so outraged. But if you don't believe this, it's no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate's son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry's immigrant wife. You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That's why it's a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn't private. She ran gay outreach for Coors, for pete's sake. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She's running her dad's campaign! Whatever else this has to do with - and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not - privacy is irrelevant.

Thanks, Andrew. Point taken.

Three Strikes for Bush

2004-10-14T11:22:00.000-05:00

Kerry handily defeated Bush in last night's debate. In fact, I think Bush did a lot worse than the town hall meeting, for many reasons. He continued to pounce Kerry will heavily debunked claims, which are transforming into a feeble attempt to keep the criticism off himself. Bush also did not defend his policies well, other than staying on the offense by using antiquated slogans like, "tax and spend liberal" (although he rephrased it with a hacked paraphrase, "pay-go liberal". Kerry had mentioned the "Pay as you go" standard of fiscal responsibility from the 90's). Staying on the offensive (Bush's main strategy in the war on terror) does not hold with the same might in his campaign strategy. Staying on the offensive is great for say, football, where the complexities are limited by the rules of the game. But, this is real life, full of complexities that cannot be contained in a set of agreed upon limitations.

This was the last time Bush had to show his strengths over Kerry's. Bush failed to define himself the clearer choice of the two, leaving the debates with the American people more in doubt over President Bush instead of Senator Kerry. Though his jabs and smirks might have energized his base, we could all agree that no matter what Bush says or does will not deter his dearest supporters. There is a minute and fragile core of those people who are undecided still, and I doubt weak jabs by either side are going to ultimately change these people's minds one way or the other. The strength for Kerry is that he looked more mature and had command of policy facts and consquences, overwhelming Bush and shrinking his image into a goofey jokester. In a serious debate about serious issues, with the next man elected most certainly going to decide the fate of millions of people in the world, I doubt the class clown attitude was the sales pitch undecided voters were asking for.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Bush is staking his reelection on negative attacks against John Kerry. The problem with that is he leaves his own record behind to be ridiculed by the DNC, dismal ecnomic reports and bad news coming out of Iraq. As Joe Trippi pointed out on MSNBC's Hardblog, Kerry has shifted his campaign from rhetoric to telling Americans his presidential plans. Bush has yet to address his future plans concretely and leaves us to believe Kerry's assertion that a second Bush term would be "more of the same."

Both men used facts and figures, some out of context, some complete lies. However, if FactCheck.org's research points to an obvious consistency, it is that Bush has been overwhelmingly misleading and at times, flat out lying.

As we shift into the final lap of the race, the attack ads will no doubt become extremely negative, especially on Bush's side. Perhaps those udecideds will become increasingly turned off by the tone. If Trippi is correct and Kerry finishes the race on his plans for the future, undecided voters will no doubt lean towards his optimism.

Debate Polls

2004-10-14T11:02:00.000-05:00

I just pulled this off of www.dailykos.com

-----------------------------------------------------------

Clean sweep
by kos Thu Oct 14th, 2004 at 15:55:04 GMT

Kerry won all the "who won the debate" polls conducted after the three presidential debates.

Debate 1
ABC: Kerry won 45-36
CBS, uncommitted voters: Kerry won 44-26.
CNN/USA Today Gallup: Kerry won 53-37, 60-29 among independents
Democracy Corps: Kerry won 45-32
ARG: Kerry won 51-41

Debate 2
ABC: Kerry wins 44-41
CNN/USA Today Gallup: Kerry wins 47-45
Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 45-37

Debate 3
CBS, undecideds: Kerry wins 39-25. Before the debate, 29% said Kerry had clear positions on the issues, after, that number doubled to 60%.
ABC: Kerry won 42%-41% in a poll that surveyed 8% more Republicans than Democrats. Independen voters thought Kerry won: 42-35
CNN/USA Today Gallup: Kerry wins 52-39. Among independents, Kerry won: 54-34.
Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 41-36

Bush Loses: A Theory

2004-10-13T16:59:00.000-05:00

The first thing that can be said of Bush in campaigns and policies, is that he's resolute and will live or die by his decisions. That may be admirable, if you think that allowing someone to die without understanding the consequences were a resolute decision. What we can extract from Bush's resoluteness is his unrestrained ability to come to a quick decision on very complex ideas. He cannot or will not understand the full spectrum of human emotions.

A review of Rove's final round strategy at NewDonkey.com is a good foreshadow into the demise of incompetent incumbent. Bush has bet all his money on the Iraq War and tax cuts. However, as each day passes, the growing concern about the Economy and the war are on the minds of Americans and his chances for reelection are becoming slim and slimmer.

Rove's final strategy has morphed the campaign into complete negative attack on John Kerry. Bush unveiled this strategy with his mock policy speech last week, which duped cable news programs to cover the entirety of his post-debate "I fucked up" stump speech. As New Democrats Online points out, "Bush has all but abandoned any effort to defend his own record, much less offer a compelling agenda for the future."

Translation: Bush has stocked the rest of his campaign on Kerry's record as a Senator and human being. Bush, in order to scare people to vote for him, will in turn scare voters into John Kerry's corner. When John Kerry talks or shares his opinion, he doesn't live up to what Bush makes him out to be. Contrastly, the president starts deflating as Kerry transforms into a very presidential candidate.

The pundits don't like talking about substance, they only talk about style, as if each candidate were just the shell of a hotrod, ignoring the power of the engine. Why did Bush lose the first debate? It's simple. He spent weeks beforehand mocking Kerry with his oath-sworn supporters, completey void from reality. What we witnessed last Wednesday wasn't Kerry kicking George Bush's ass into a spittling chimpanze, but rather Bush suddenly at the doorstep of reality. His attacks on John Kerry only hold water when Kerry is not present to defend himself and return fire on the president.

The second debate was far worse. This time, Bush was prepared to fire back. He got lucky with his stump speech and thought he could run over John Kerry in a town hall meeting. But, things started to go wrong the minute an audience member asked him a question that didn't start with, "Mr. Bush, I pray for you every day." The President's vacuum was shattered once more and he tried to revert back to Kerry being a liberal. This time, instead of being stumped by his own lack of imagination, he became uncontrollably angered that the audience couldn't understand his simple ideas. Watching the faces on those behind the President on Camera, it looked like he was losing his crowd.

So, what more does Bush have to offer in the third debate? We already know Kerry is a liberal. We already know he voted "98 times to raise taxes." We know all the labels and rhetoric Bush has thrown against his opponent, and yet Kerry is moving up in the polls and Bush is either stagnent or waning.

Here we are, in the final weeks and Bush has put all his money on going 100% negative on Kerry. As we know from the Iraq War and the Economy, we'll be seeing more of the same. Why, in George Bush's reality, his campaign is turning a corner and succeeding. We will find on November 2nd just how resolute George Bush really is as we watch him die by his own sword. I can at least respect that.

An Overdose of Voter Fraud

2004-10-13T10:46:00.000-05:00

What is wrong with this country? No wait, what is wrong with the Repugnicans? They have sunk lower and lower into the gutter. Now, they fear losing power in the white house and have resorted to cheating voters out of their voting rights. Are these the kind of people you feel comfortable voting for?

Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed

(Oct. 12) -- Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

Bradbury plans to investigate election complaint

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and Attorney General Hardy Myers plan to investigate allegations that a paid canvasser might have destroyed voter registration forms.

"There have been allegations made that someone threw out some voter registration forms that had been submitted to them," Bradbury told The Associated Press late Tuesday. "This is a violation of the law and I will meet with the attorney general in the morning to talk about what we can do to pursue this, and to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Janklow Criticizes GOP Vote Effort

Bill Janklow's commenting on the resignation of six people connected with the state Republican Party over absentee ballot applications.

The former governor and congressman says the national GOP is encouraging campaign workers to cheat. He says his ire is directed at the Republican Party's Victory operation, which helps register people and get them to the polls.

Janklow says his problem with the organization goes back to 2002 when he was a candidate for the US House.

Sinclairity, by David Shuster

2004-10-13T10:42:00.000-05:00

Some asshole on Eschaton told us "Democraps" that we were fucking with the First Ammendment and being hypocrits about the Sinclair debacle. Oh really? According to Federal Election Law, it is illegal for a broadcasting station to give a candidate free advertising.

MSNBC's David Shuster, on the Hardblogger, noted the clearest argument against the Sinclair broadcast.

Sinclair's sin (David Shuster)

Imagine if the CBS television network pre-empted "60 Minutes" this Sunday and broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Many of you might be thrilled. But many of you would be disgusted and outraged, calling it a deliberate, misleading, and unfair ploy to impact the presidential election at the very end.

Sinclair

2004-10-13T10:14:00.000-05:00

Will they stop at nothing?

The world of Karl Rove is a nasty nasty place.

As I'm sure most of you have heard, Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local television stations in the US, ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming to air an anti-Kerry documentary just a few days before the election.

There are, however, things we can do.

1) Visit http://www.freepress.net/sinclair/dn.php?zip=&h=t to find the address and phone number of Sinclair Boradcasting AND to send an e-mail to the FCC.

2) Go here http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx (and this is pobably MUCH more important than the first, sad world) to find out who is advertising with Sinclair and tell them that you are upset with the broadcasting of the film before the election.

The Argument on Religion in the White House

2004-10-11T01:08:00.000-05:00

On Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill and his panel discussed religion in the White House in regards to President Bush. After a long and exasperating debate including our forefathers, the ten commandments and law, Bush's believing God appointed him Emporer of the United States and so forth, they missed the opportunity to answer the question.

What should the role of religion play in the White House, if any?

The role of the President should not represent only his base, but all Americans. Bush does not represent us all nor does he try. During his acceptence speech at the RNC he poked fun at liberals and talked personally to his own people. The DNC was far more expansive, reminding us what it is to be an American and talked heavily on American History (refer to Kennedy's speech for a good chunk of that). Kerry may not represent all of America, but at least he tries to be that statemen-like.

The argument on religion in the White House is not what the religion of our Presidents should be or whether or not they talk openly about it. We need a President that doesn't wear his religion on his sleeves and takes in account the multitude of religious and agnostic beliefs of all of us.

In this case, I think Kerry nailed this argument on the head at the second debate:

Q: Senator Kerry, suppose you're speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

Mr. Kerry: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic - raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life, helped lea me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people, I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife, Teresa, does, about making other choices and about abstinence and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment.

Now I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning - you'll help prevent AIDS; you'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies; you'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

I Listened, Solvently

2004-10-10T03:17:00.000-05:00

Just got back from the Solvent show at the Empty Bottle. Holy crap, I've been waiting for years for this guy to do a U.S. tour and my dreams finally came true. Jason rocked the house, reminiscent of the Mooney Suzuki show over a year ago. The Bottle never bumped so hard before. I hope more people fall in love with his music.

I got the rare chance to speak to the Canadian master of beats, and he says he's been listening to Mute Records, bands like Soft Cell. Time to break out my record collection...

Ben Ginsberg Is Dead

2004-10-09T18:53:00.000-05:00

Or at least I wish he was...relative to MSNBC. I can't stand the guy. Chris Matthews goes through his panel, Andrea Mitchell and Ron Reagan have relatively rational, unbiased viewpoints. Joe Scarborough knows when to call it like it is (though he did slip on Tuesday -- what's up my man?) When the question moves to Ginsberg, he always ends his break downs with a GOP talking point. I'm starting to regret us all getting rid of Luntz! Did we just trade one Repugnican for a more repugnant one? I slap myself on the forehead: "Doh!"

Is his chin sewed to his chest? He can't look strait into the camera, he can only lurk for prey. He's also got that good-ol' boy smirk down just like Gillespie, except Ben looks stunningly evil...cyborg evil.

I shiver.

President Pissy

2004-10-09T18:16:00.000-05:00

The day after the second debate leaves me bruised and baffled. Kerry missed some open spots to really brutalize Bush on. Either he was too gentlemanly to sucker punch the President or was deliberately too busy with other pre-packaged attacks.

The most memoriable attribute of the night was Bush's anger. He genuinely seemed angry. Angry at Kerry for trying to steal his crown. Angry at Charlie for moderating. Angry at Americans who had the gall to question his policies. The world is very, very black and white in his eyes, justifying his anger. Bush can't understand why people don't get his simple ideas. Perhaps they're too simple, they leave out any room for the grey areas in an unpredictable world?

I hope people are generally offended. Bush's unhinged ramblings showed that he cannot control his emotions. A president has to be cool-headed and think rationally. The President is the guy with his finger on the button, afterall.

If anything revealed this more, it was his spar with Charlie:

Mr. Gibson: Mr. president, let's extend for a minute --

Mr. Bush: Let me just, well, I got--

Mr. Gibson: Let's talk about an issue of--

Mr. Bush: I got to answer this.

Mr. Gibson: Well, exactly. And with reservists being held on duty and some soldiers--

Mr. Bush: No, let me answer what he just said about--

Mr. Gibson: Well, I wanted to get into the issue about the--