Tuesday, August 31, 2004

MSNBC gives no choice - Vote GOP!

To MSNBC,

In your online poll this morning you give two options:
from MSNBC.com


Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?

Reassure
Move you to support

Vote to see results


Remember the old-Soviet journal Pravda? Sounds similar

Are you a Fox affiliate?

Can Air America have a similar poll?
-------------------
Is MSNBC a supporter or a mouthpiece of the GOP? 1) Supporter 2) Mouthpiece

Is MSNBC just un-American or a Communist Propaganda Machine? 1) Un-American 2) Communist
-------------------
Can your organization explain its betrayal of American values?

-Sent to MSNBC.COM


[UPDATE 1:52pm] Poll finally changed:
Did Rudy Giuliani's speech move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket? * 8197 responses
Yes
45%
No
55%
Thank you for voting. Click here for some background, and send us an e-mail to share your thoughts. Plus, see past voting results.


Monday, August 30, 2004

Oh Yeah, (allegedly) Ed Schrock (R-VA) is gay.

This is just gossip.
Except it sounds like its true and it reveals some self-loathing hypocrisy in the Republican Party.
It's also kinda sad, like the McGreevey thing.
Maybe they can talk. Maybe they have talked.
(Oh yeah, this is gonna get real old real fast. I should just check out Wonkette for this stuff.)

SO: An anti-Gay (Federal Marriage Amendment) sponsor, Republican Representative Ed Schrock, has abruptly decided to retire.

Why? He didn't say.

Apparently, a voice alleged to be his on a gay phone-sex line tells why. (Allegations also discussed here.)

Is this true?

If so, it makes sense he might want to cut and run, since
Congressman Schrock's district includes parts of Hampton and Norfolk and all of Virginia Beach, home to no less than NINE military facilities and Pat Robertson’s Regent University!


Also,
Congressman Schrock not only voted for the homophobic Marriage Protection Act, but he also signed on as a CO-SPONSOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment!

Ed Schrock has a voting record that the most right wing conservative would be proud of. The Christian Coalition gave him a 92% rating in their 2003 voting guide.


Schrock's voting record at the Christian Coalition: 92%

His score over at the Human Rights Campaign? ZERO!

Schrock's voting record at the Human Rights Campaign: 0%!


I guess we'll wait and see. I've never heard his voice on a phone before, but someone sure as hack has.

Republicans view all Democrats as non-Americans. True?

A really great observation piece here, called "The Excommunication".

It basically sums up what the public face of the Republican party feels about all Democrats.

Many Democrats think of the current brand of Republicans as Americans holding some very un-American views.

Republicans, on the other hand, just feel that all Democrats are NOT AMERICANS.

It seems as if they think we are actually foreign and should probably be deported, or worse.

Now the writer of the above linked observation piece didn’t go quite as far as that last statement. But that’s where it’s going.

(Rant Mode ON)
If any actual Republican says “well I’m not like that,” well, that would be fine if it was just a few fringe crazies spouting off that BS. I mean, that kind of crap happens in every political party everywhere. For instance, you think I view all corporations everywhere as inherently evil, seeping “Corporatist” Republican ooze over the world? Uh, NO. That view comes from very real and valid worries many people have but there’s a limit to that kind of talk, where it steps over the line of reality and into fantasy.

But this non-American view of Democrats by Republicans is coming from the majority of the GOP Congress, most of the news media, and common folk around the country. These people have skipped merrily across the line of honest debate and into political and social race-baiting. Has anyone in the Republican party said a word about that? Why, it wins elections! Do they know how 1930s German they sound? “How DARE you compare us to Nazis!!” Tough, your party sounds like them.

Go to www.freerepublic.com, a premier right-wing hangout, read the comments section replace with “Democrat” or “Liberal” with “Jew,” and there it is. Sorry but its true.
Mild recent examples from freeperville, responses to just one post about the NYC anti-Bush protesters
Just think about it ... we had all of these people in ONE place. It would have been so easy ..
6 posted on 08/29/2004 7:20:45 PM PDT by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")

To: TexasGreg
LOL! A target-rich environment.
10 posted on 08/29/2004 7:24:30 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree

A stinkbomb would have been redundant. So would chemical weapons most likely, for the same reason.
-Eric
12 posted on 08/29/2004 7:26:09 PM PDT by E Rocc (Theresa can afford John Kerry. America cannot.)

From what I've seen, Old hippies and their hippie offspring. Too bad all the drugs they took didn't make them sterile
29 posted on 08/29/2004 7:43:53 PM PDT by Kirkwood

a gathering of socialist, communist, anarchist and other freaks. I consider it a blessing in disguise. Just think if these mental morons worked at Nasa! They're better off left drooling in the streets. A nice outlet for the roving asylum aka liberal America.
51 posted on 08/29/2004 8:32:10 PM PDT by SunnySide

Does America want these great unwashed yucks running the country and sticking their hands in our pockets, pilfering our hard-earned money to finance their lifestyles?
Let's pray for the reelection of President Bush!
54 posted on 08/29/2004 8:48:19 PM PDT by Ciexyz


This appears to be the Majority view of the GOP, even if the party covers it up with some decent people at the convention (McCain, Ahnuld, etc). DO SOMETHING to stop this evil from infiltrating your party and I’ll respect Republicans in general much, much more.

(Rant Mode OFF)

ugh. Sorry bout that.

I just was NOT like this last year. It's very tiring.

Friday, August 27, 2004

He got Bush into the Air Guard, now Regrets it, Praises Kerry

A great clip from former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Governor, Ben Barnes, who long ago got Bush into the Air National Guard at the Bush family's request to avoid Vietnam.

In this clip, partly from a campaign rally (please watch it), he praises John Kerry up and down INCLUDING his service in Vietnam AND his testimony against the War.

First part of Transcript (read the rest from Atrios)

Speaking to an audience:
"Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush, and I know them both. And I'm not name dropping, saying I know them both. See I got...I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was the Lt. Governor of Texas, and I'm not necessarily proud of that. (audience laughs) But, But I did it, and I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that's what people should do when you're in office and you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked to the Vietnam Memorial wall the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed of myself than I've ever been because it's the worst thing I did was help a lot of wealthy supporters, and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very sorry about that, and I'm ashamed. And I apologize to you, the voters of Texas. (Applause)"

Presidential Qualities

A letter to the editor I sent to several papers. Doubt it'll get published but... I should think that there is nothing left to say re: Swift Boat stuff. Unless they pull something else out of their butts.

The Presidential qualities of Kerry and Bush are apparent from the ads of the two Presidential campaigns. John Kerry's ads are almost uniformly about the problems average Americans face and his vision for a better, safer, and stronger America. George W. Bush's ads are almost completely about – John Kerry?

Hasn't George Bush been President for 4 years? Where is the great record on which to run numerous ads? Usually the challenger is the one to relentlessly attack the sitting President, not the other way around. Which one of them is President? The only way this makes sense is – if there is nothing good for the current administration talk about.

John Kerry's speech Tuesday at Cooper Union makes this crystal clear. "I'm here to call for a truthful and robust debate about our values as Americans," he said. "But from the other side, we see a calculated effort to evade that debate." Kerry wants to help make America great again. Bush has nothing good left to offer us. That is why John F. Kerry already appears to be the President, even to the current administration.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Final Nail in Swift Boat Vets for Bush's Coffin

It has become completely clear that the "Swift Boat Vets" claims are complete lies ON EVERY COUNT.

Finally, the last straw of a life raft these guys have to hold on to is that somehow Kerry is lying about a stopover in Cambodia. According to CNN, one of the heads of the SBV group, John O’Neil - read about his lies and associations all the way back to Nixon here - has said it was impossible to get to Cambodia by river, and claimed he had never been there himself.

Except, he is on TAPE talking to Richard M. Nixon (Damn those Tapes!) stating, yes, he had gone to Cambodia and did it ON A SWIFT BOAT!

(Excerpted from CNN’s Newsnight, via Atrios)

The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.

O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.


(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry


Before this, every other made-up charge has been countered by scores of people associated with Kerry's Vietnam tour (except for 3 or 4 people in the SBV-for-T who were anywhere near him. Further every single Navy record of this period agrees completely with the accounts of Kerry and all his compatriots. (The latest confirmation here.)

Additionally, the claim that these guys have nothing to do with the Bush campaign and are just poor innocent Vietnam Vets standing up for “truth” is now proven false. The latest link to the Bush campaign is here.

These SBVT guys are toast.

Monday, August 23, 2004

Dole's purple heart injury was from his own grenade!

On Sunday, former Sen. Dole claimed that Kerry's Purple heart injuries were superficial, that he didn't deserve them. Bob Dole should know about not deserving Purple Hearts. Bob Dole long ago admitted that Bob Dole's first Purple Heart injury was FROM HIS OWN GRENADE!

From Joshua Marshal, at Talking Points Memo,

In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."



And Kos rightly points out:
Notice that even though much was made of Dole's military service during the 1996 election (comparing it to Clinton's draft avoidance), Democrats were much too classy to try and smear Dole's war record or question the validty of his first Purple Heart.


Done. Done. And Done!

Are George W. Bush's Medals Fake?

There is a great entry by Kos at Daily Kos. It points out that:

(1) All of Kerry's army documentation is already available to the public, unlike former Sen. Dole claimed on Sunday.
(2) Bush could NOT have completed his Texas Air National Guard service. He should have gotten a medal just for fulfilling his 3 years of service. He didn't
(3) The medals he appears to have (in a widely available photo), must be fake, since the only documents Bush has released state he was given NO medals.
(4) It is possible that his final discharge papers might reveal a last minute awarding of medals. But BUSH won't release his records.

Bottom line, since they are taking the fight to Kerry in such a vile way, I will be extreme which I usually don't like doing but it's so darned easy in this case:

John F. Kerry, in his Armed Forces service, did everything right and has been honest about everything. On this score, sine he has never made an issue of his opponent's very weak service record, he is to be respected.
George W. Bush, in his Armed Forces service, did everything wrong and has been dishonest about everything. On this score, sine he has made a major issue of his opponent's very strong service record, he is to be reviled.

The fact the he is respected or is viewed as a good Christian in any way is something I can not understand. He and his compatriots live by pure deceit. Lies from the father of lies. Or is that too harsh?

Anyway, go read the details here.

Saturday, August 21, 2004

"You should be ashamed."

A slamming TV Spot for John Kerry featuring...John McCain.

Short and sweet.

If any have problems with the video feed, especially Mac users and Quicktime users, go here.

(From Atrios)


Friday, August 20, 2004

Hardball slams anti-Kerry bigshots

Chris Matthews, of MSNBC's Hardball, has taken two people to task regarding deceptions by the Bush campaign.

First, he slammed the senior stategerist of the Bush election team, Matthew Dowd, for deceptively editing an interview with John Kerry on Hardball, and using the altered clip in a Bush campaign video. See that quicktime video here. See the Hardball's commentary here.

Then, just yesterday, he slammed commentator and apparent spokesperson for the Swift Boat Vets for Truth Bush Lies, Michelle Malkin, for basically saying that John Kerry's wounds were self inflicted! See the quicktime slam here.

Chris Matthews' politics seem a bit rightward normally, I think, but it was very refreshing to see this!

UPDATE:

Now a third slam here!
(See the video links near the top of that page)


Very Old, but...The Sloganator Montage!

Months back, the Bush campaign made a page where you could create your own Bush-Cheney '04 Banner, as a PDF and print it out. Good idea.

Problem One: You could make the top text pretty much anything you wanted like: "A More Perfect America" above the BC logo. That's fine if only the BC faithful see it.

Problem Two: Thanks to bloggers like Wonkette (see posts here), alot more people saw it.

Result: Sloganator was shut down.

This is something I missed (how?!?) but, here is a lovely montage of many of the "Not Approved" BC04 banners.
"Goodbye, Sloganator. [Cue that Green Day song they play when people die on television. . . ]" - Wonkette, 3/04.


(I love that line!)


Thursday, August 19, 2004

bin Laden Cornered?

Referenced on BOP News, blogger Abu Aardvark has a link to an Arabic news organization al Arabiya claiming "Pakistan has down bin Laden's location to a specific point along the Pakistan-Afghan border."
Abu claims that this news is al over the Arabic-speaking media. Since I don't know Arabic, I can't verify if (1) the story is really about OBL being cornered or (2) if the Arabic media is running with this story.


If it is true while we English-speakers are still being told OBL is nowhere to be found, it is obviously disturbing. (The usual stuff, Rove, October surprise, etc.)


I asked on Daily Kos if there were any Arabic speakers on this site who can look at the al-Arabiya article and verify its subject, etc? (Or, I offered, if paranoid, could they send the link to an Arabic language professor or something, somewhere unidentified, and report back on the contents?)

I am real curious, because I'm worried about Bush/Rove playing that trick but also skeptical when someone says "someone said" something and I can't see it for myself.

OTOH, If we get him (OBL), it's still a good thing, in my book.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

"My Pet Goat" Reviews

As heard on the Al Franken Show, Amazon.com sells a book which contains the now infamous story My Pet Goat. You may remember that this was the story President Bush was reading when he was informed of the 2nd plane hitting the World Trade Center in NYC.

He read My Pet Goat from this book. Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1.

At Amazon.com, the some of the reader reviews were quite, uh, humorous. The best was the following, which over 500 1,500 people found "useful":

Presidential material, through and through!, July 6, 2004
Reviewer: Lolla Fallujah (Hannah Storm's house) - See all my reviews

After reading the enclosed story "The Pet Goat," I was stunned by its lyrical beauty and easy cadence. The tempo, the choice of words, and the layout on each page captured my imagination so much that it took me about seven minutes to recover my bearings.



(Pause to quietly chuckle)

Amazingly, within 2 hours after airing this funny little thing, Amazon.com removed ALL the customer reviews for this book from their site.

Why would they have done that? No, really, I don't get it. What do they care as long as people keep coming to their site?

Fortunately, Sadly, No has archived at least some of the choicest reviews here.
[update] And more HERE. Thanks, Sadly!



Bush Flip-flops and gMail funnies

Below is an email that I sent to some of my friends.
(Demonstrating the awesome power of Google gMail's advertising algorithm, this is the ad that was generated by my email. If the flip-flop fits, be stylish!)
-------------------------------------

Here's a slightly different take on Bush flip-flops:


George W. Bush has a funny way of flip-flopping on the issues.

He was against a Homeland Security Department. FLIP

Then he was for it. FLOP

He was against the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill. FLIP

But then he was for it. FLIP-FLOP

Bush said he was for free trade. FLIPPITY

But then he put on steel tariffs. FLOP

Then he was against the tariffs again. FLIPPITY FLOP

Bush said the states should decide about gay marriage. FLIPPITY

Then he was for changing the Constitution. FLIPPITY FLOP, OR IS IT FLOPPITY FLIP?

Bush said he would put mandatory caps on Carbon Dioxide. FLOOPITY

Then he said he wouldn’t. FLOOPPITY-FLEE

Bush said he’d leave no child behind. FLOPITTY

But refused to fund it, leaving millions of children of behind. BYE BYE POOR CHILDREN, WE’RE LEAVING YOU BEHIND, SORRY. OH, I CAN’T SEE YOU NOW, YOU’RE SO FAR BEHIND. I’VE FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOU.

Bush said he against an independent 9/11 commission. FLIIIIIIIIIIIIIP

But then reluctantly agreed to one. FLOPPITY FLOOP

Bush said we were going to war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. FLIPPITY

But when it turned out there weren’t any WMD’s, he said the war was to fight al Qaeda. FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY

But then he admitted there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOOP

So then he said the war was to bring Western style democracy to the entire Middle East. FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOP, FLOP FLOP FLOP FLOP

He said he wouldn’t invade Iraq without a vote in the UN. FLIP

But then he invaded without a vote. FLOPPITY FLOOP

But now he wants to UN to save his butt. (to tune of: [Follow the Yellow Brick Road]) FLIPPITY FLOPITTY FLOOP. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP

He said he was ushering in an era of personal responsibility. FLIPPITY

But refuses to take responsibility for all his flip-flops. FLIPPITY BYE BYE BUSH. SEE YOU IN FLIPPITY FLOPPITY LAND – THAT’S RIGHT – CRAWFORD FLIPPITY FLOOP TEXAS. FLOOP FLOOP

- Al Franken
(Transcript from The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio)

Sunday, August 15, 2004

Putting the Swift Boat Vets Claims to Rest

Just go HERE.

Very Extensive.

Saturday, August 14, 2004

The Dramatic Changes of Two Parties...

Or, How the heck could LINCOLN have been a Republican?!?

Something I'm working on...




Posted by Hello

How Could Lincoln Have Been a Republican???

A friend of mine asked me: "Someone told me that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. I told him he was full of crap." "But he WAS a Republican," I said. He was stunned. "How is that possible?"

Fair question. To us, everything seems reversed in 1860. Democrats were Pro-Slavery? Republicans were Radicals??

I sit around wondering at how we throw around terms like Democrat and Republican and assume we all know what that means. But if you look at the history, you can see those are just labels.
As a novice amazed by this history, I did an ultra-simplistic summary of the shift in beliefs for the two parties, dropping out a million important points (ie, the Cold War). But to my eye, if this were the year 1870, or even 1904, I probably would have been a staunch Republican. An amazing thing for me to say.

The transition from the Democratic Party being the party of Slavery to being the party of tolerance, etc., was a long process (with a booster shot in the 1960s) but it is quite complete. The same for the Republican shift from (in my mind) enlightenment to darkness of heart.

The point is that labels can be peeled off and put somewhere else. It's BELIEF that counts


I got alot of this info searching the awesome WikiPedia.
I also made some unscientfic plots of the two parties' journies here.


1850s – early 1900s:

Democrats: Essentially the pro-slavery party. After the Civil War, it was essentially linked to the values of the Confederacy. This is why the South used to be so heavily Democratic!
Republicans: Founded anti-slavery. First Republican candidate John Fremont's slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont!" Lincoln first Republican president. After Civil War. "Radical Republicans" pushed the earliest of civil rights laws including the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments to the Constitution. For good reason, Black men were almost universally Republicans.
My choice for party at that time: Republican

Early 1900s-1912:
Democrats: Though the South did not dominate the party as much, it remained staunchly Democrat.
Republicans: Under Teddy Roosevelt, while having militaristic properties, still pushed Progressive values: Increased labor regulations, food regulations, environmental regulations, etc.
My Choice: Still Sounds Republican

1912-1920:
Republican: Becoming more conservative and Roosevelt breaks from the Republican Party to found the Progressive Party. He beat the Republican, Taft, handily BUT the split ticket gave the election to the Democrat, Wilson. Roosevelt's departure from the Republican Party took many of his values away from the party as well.
My Choice: Shaky….I figure I would have voted Progressive, maybe stuck with Republican. Hard to say.

1920-1932:
Republican: Back in power after Wilson and World War I. Times were good. "Laissez-faire" economics. Care more for Business, less about individuals. But who cares, America was getting rich. Until 1929. The Great Depression. Now, everything sucks.
Democrats: Basically a weak counter to Republicans.
My Choice: Don't Know. After 1929, don't care. Until 1932.

1932-1950s:
Republican: Staunchly conservative in economics. Utterly opposed the New Deal of FDR. Isolationist. But then, alot of people were.
Democrat: Here Democrat = "Franklin Delano Roosevelt." In many ways Progressive. Progressive Republicans find new home. Government intervention in all things economic. Pro-union, etc. Heck, pro-WORK. In the late 1930s supports military entry into the brewing European War. After Pearl Harbor, gets instant support. Helps defeat Nazi Germany and Japan. Dies in 4th term.
My choice: Heck he WANTS me to have a job and GAVE me a job AND won WWII? Duh, Democrat.

1950s-1970s: The Beginning of the Parties We Know Today
Democrats increasingly supportive of Civil Rights, first under Kennedy and dramatically under Johnson. Does not sit well with the long standing Southern wing of the party, the "Dixiecrats." Slow but sure migration of the South away from the Democrats to the more Welcoming Republicans. Corresponding flood of black Americans from the Republican party to the Democratic Party.

Here was a major shift. Now the Democrats became the party of labor AND freedom. The Republicans suddenly became the party of conservative economics and meaner social values. My choice, as when I was a child: Democrat.

It seems to me that this shift resulted in a Democratic Party with a lot of new "radical" values that needed to be sorted out, leaving the party with a broad set of policy issues but no "anchor." Plus, a lot of these policies were "touchy-feely" – allowing the perception of being "wimpy." Imagine calling Truman or Kennedy "wimpy"!!!
Meanwhile, the Republicans were solidifying "traditional" or "conservative" values on both economic and social issues. While this made them a meaner (that is, uglier) party, it allowed an internal strength, albeit fueled by hatred of any and all change.

Today, it seems that the Democrats, with pressure from both the inside (Progressives, Liberals, Clinton conservatives, etc) and the outside (Duh!) are finally crystallizing a balanced set of values. Meaning I think we are finally going to achieve an overall consensus within the party that will work for us all.

Meanwhile, I honestly feel a real split is brewing in the Republican Party. If the neoconservative wing retains control, they will retain the haters and die-hard traditionalists. But by their decidedly "ultra-LIBERAL" economic policies, along with their relentless drive to the social conservative end zone, they will lose the long-standing economic conservative wing. Splitting the party has ALWAYS spelled doom for a party at a presidential election. I'm wondering if that's happening right now.






Wow... 40,000-50,000 in Portland, OR!


"Sen. John Kerry speaks to a crowd of about 40,000 yesterday at Portland's Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park. (LAURA RAUCH / AP)" Posted by Hello

Friday, August 13, 2004

Dick calls Bush a P***y

From my occasional email rants to friends and family

Dick Cheney Thursday (8/12)
"Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a 'more sensitive' war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive." (Cheney in Dayton OH)

What he was referencing?
Kerry during Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/5:
"The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us."

BuuuuuuuuTTTT
Who he was calling a girly-man?

BUSH during Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6:
"Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."

BUSH during Remarks at USS Regan Ceremony, 3/4/01:
"We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength."


Thursday, August 12, 2004

Kerry's Time of Service in Vietnam


Kerry's Service total Posted by Hello

This is an excerpt from John Kerry's military records (from the PDF file at the Kerry Edwards website)showing he served 1 years 7 months of ACTIVE FOREIGN and/or SEA service.

NOT just 4 months as many in the media are saying (as pointed out by Atrios)!

Saturday, August 07, 2004

Hmmm... too strident?

Still sounds alot like I'm AGAINST the other side.

Well, I needed to vent a bit.

Still, I want to ultimately write a short and direct letter emphasizing why Kerry is not the Better choice, he is the perfect choice for this time of trouble.

Got a long way to go.

Why I'm FOR Kerry

When I was a kid in the 70s and early 80s, all I knew about Democrats and Republicans is that my whole family was always Democrat, and the Republicans were, somehow, NOT GOOD. Mom never pushed us on this. Dad, well dad is an issue for another day.
But on the whole, there was very little indoctrination going on in my house. All I knew is FDR had helped saved the country from poverty and the world from the Nazis and Kennedy was remembered with teary eyes and regret for what could have been.
And Ford did something bad by letting some guy not go to jail. And Carter smiled and was nice. And Reagan got elected and somehow, took something away from all of us. I didn't know what. But seeing the transition of power, Carter leaving, Reagan entering the White House – well, somehow this was bad.

So, aside from occasionally paying attention to something during the Reagan years: revived nuclear threats, talk of the Evil Empire (dude, there's only ONE Evil Empire), KAL007, musical Soviet Premiers, and Miami Vice, I just assumed we'd get around to US winning the next time.

Well.

Mondale. Eh. Dukakis. Um, er, yeah: eh.
I'm sorry, that's how I felt back then. It wasn't in my bones.
Gulp….. I even voted for H.W. Bush in '88 – my first year I could vote for President. Well, actually I didn’t really. (My frieeends, he said "I voted for him before I didn't vote for him"!!!) See I was in college in Ohio, and filled in the NY absentee ballot for Bush and… never sent it in. I probably knew something.

Fast-forward, 1992, in grad-school. In Boston. Um, not so liberal as people outside of here seem to think. But anyways, here comes Clinton on the scene and POW-ZAM he offers me something so different from anyone before in my lifetime. No, not the jazz, the slickness, the charm… The ideas and the ideals. Aim high. We can do it. WE CAN DO BETTER.
No one ever did that for me, for my generation, before. Through everything, my vote for him was 100% assured – NEVER in jeopardy.
Meanwhile. 1994 – the Republican Takeover of Congress. Now why did that bother me so much? It wasn't just cuz it was the "other side" winning. It was because they said "We're Winning!" It was a game to many of them. It was dodgeball or something. For some reason they wanted to rub the "losing side's" face in the shit.

Why?

Weren't they supposed to be trying to make the country better, even if their views were different? In the end, aren't we all trying to make things work out?

Well, apparently, no.

All I sensed was cockiness in the air, of a team with a temporary advantage talking trash to the other team. But they never stopped talking trash. Ever. And they dragged every group with some chip on their shoulder into their midst to muddy the waters and keep trash-talking and confusing and lying JUST SO THEY COULD WIN. Who gave a shit about our country being safe, or financially secure and even prosperous, THEY JUST WANTED TO WIN. And if by invoking the evil sides of human nature, they could keep winning, then by God that was what they would do.
I won't make the obvious comparisons again.

You know I started this post to sort of give an overview of the earthshaking dramatic shifts that have occurred under the names "Democrat" and "Republican." To show that the Names, and what they once stood for, are meaningless – it is the Ideas and Ideals that those names represent NOW that matter.

But I digressed, so I'll do that thing another time.

Lemme finish.

THEIR SIDE decided they are against all things beneficial from the government, no matter how disciplined or reformed they can be made, because that is what OUR side if FOR. So for THEM to win, they must destroy those things. But they know how hard it will be to just slash everything but the Armed Forces away. Not enough support.

How to do it?

Bring us to the brink of bankruptcy. Drain the country of all its disposable income. Reduce our tax supply over and over again, but then spend and spend like we never did before. Start wars, anger the world, lose financial support, take out massive loans, and then cut taxes some more. Heath? Can't afford it. Highways? Just some wasteful entitlement program? Bleed my beloved country until we're on our hands and knees begging to not be utterly destroyed – until there's just enough left that we can still save ourselves if we make one fateful choice:

"Pay for our armies or pay for your precious social programs. Choose one."



THIS is the plan. THIS is the way that "Their Side" is going for Victory.

I honestly don’t think that George H.W. Bush, or even Reagan, intended any of this. I really don't. I may be deluded, but I feel they was part of the Old Guard of the republican party. Their campaign advisers were of the New Slimy Guard, but not those two - not so much.

But Newt, Rove, Cheney, etc., and maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush – DID want it to be this way. To have our country slide into the dark abyss. To make Adams and Adams, Jefferson and Johnson, Franklin and Washington, fall to their knees and weep for ages.
Why should this be?

This is why I take very strongly the new vision shown by one I considered to be the most unlikely inspiration. I finally listened to many speeches and casual conversations by John Kerry, most importantly his convention speech.

He offers hope and strength and a BETTER WAY.

And I am convinced.

I am not AGAINST Bush. I am adamantly FOR Kerry.

Bush Approval Down... Time for Terror!

JuliusBlog has prepared a beautiful Graph superimposing Bush's approval ratings with Terror Alerts. It says alot!

So Says Julius:
There are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.



Bush: Approval vs. Terror. From JuliusBlog Posted by Hello

MSNBC - Pakistan: U.S. blew undercover operation

This is beautiful. One of the few sources we had inside al-qaida and Bush and co. out him just to win a political point.
MSNBC - Pakistan: U.S. blew undercover operation

What happened? Did this guy's wife write an article ritical of the administration??

Bastards

Friday, August 06, 2004

Haven't been here in an age...

... and just look at the place. Did I actually write about Lileks' "beautifully written piece" ? Meanwhile, I essentially disagreed with the essence of his whole piece.

So...at that time, I never read Atrios or Kos - or Wonkette, for that matter (though she didn't exist then). I was still just coming out of my political stupor that I'd been in since 9/11.
I knew I wanted to get rid of Bush, but I wasn't angry.
Over the turning of the year everything changed and scales fell from my eyes.
I had been badly deceived about the nature of our current government.
I could blame Bush, blame Fox, blame the Media...
But it was my fault. I deceived myself, thinking things were gonna work themselves out and just being unbiased and balanced was the right way to be.

Well, it is the right way to be. And I can be that way till the tanks roll over me.
But sometimes you have to stare evil in the face. And face it down.

That evil is what has happened to our country. It's not just Bush or Cheney. Not Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. Not Newt nor Ailes nor Murdoch. Not even Dennis Miller. The evil is the sum of things that lulls us into accepting that it's ok to hate, humiliate, and kill...first the outsiders ... then each other. That is what is happening right now. We - AMERICANS - are displaying the self-indulgent hate-filled behavior normally seen in states which had absolute power or felt they should have absolute power: i.e., 1930s Germany, 1990s Serbia. We crush people, physically, abroad, and crush each other, politically, at home.

I hate it. And it must stop.

On that note:

I didn't realize that Lileks was a right-wing loon.
Which I am most definitely not.

test

test