I don't know if Oregon here is still listed as a swing state. Probably not, but I don't think that it ever should have been in the first place.
Oregon was close in 2000, but the Democratic voter registration and GOTV effort this year is the most intense by far that I've ever seen. (Canvassers end up canvassing each other.) Nader isn't a factor this year, and a significant number of moderate Republicans, including former statewide officeholders, have come out in support of Kerry. (The wingers Bush plays to have crippled the Oregon Republican party statewide, and winger control of the legislature has led to crisis after crisis.) Furthermore, I've seen reports that in Southern Oregon, which is usually reliably right-wing, Kerry and Edwards are doing far better than expected.
Everything I know tells me that the media are lowballing Kerry's chances to prevent the bandwagon effect. Some of it is political bias, some of it is pure airheadedness, and some of it might just be the desire to see a close election. But I don't think that there's any countervailing anti-Bush media tendency at work, and there's also not much voter movement in Bush's direction from Democratic ranks.
Kerry is in the driver's seat -- if the voters get to vote, and if the votes are counted. The only other thing to worry about the October Surprise, and people have been talking about that for so long that its effect should be pretty diluted by now.
(Or I could be wrong. But if I am, I'll have far more serious things to worry about than simply having miscalled this election. )
10/23/2004
Send To Relatives and Friends!
Go see Needlenose: Visualize Winning and send it to relatives and friends.
10/22/2004
Prediction
I have a prediction for election day. Republicans will be challenging lots of voters at lots of Democratic-majority precincts. The intent will be to tie up the polls, creating extremely long lines, and causing people to turn away and not vote.
I usually work at a polling place on election day, and I know how quickly one roblem can back up a line. I can imagine that a few people, frequently challenging voters, could cause as very large percentage of voters to leave without voting.
Anyone want to bet this happens all over the country, in the Democrat areas of swing states, as well as in minority districts in the South?
Update - Right after posting that I came across this story. In Ohio the Republicans are hiring thousands of people to do exactly that - to challenge voters in minority precincts, in an attempt to cause long lines. Ohio is a swing state with a very close race. Causing a few thousand voters to leave without voting could very well change the results!
I usually work at a polling place on election day, and I know how quickly one roblem can back up a line. I can imagine that a few people, frequently challenging voters, could cause as very large percentage of voters to leave without voting.
Anyone want to bet this happens all over the country, in the Democrat areas of swing states, as well as in minority districts in the South?
Update - Right after posting that I came across this story. In Ohio the Republicans are hiring thousands of people to do exactly that - to challenge voters in minority precincts, in an attempt to cause long lines. Ohio is a swing state with a very close race. Causing a few thousand voters to leave without voting could very well change the results!
Another Defector
Paul Craig Roberts defects. Writing at VDARE, in a piece titled Three Books On The Brownshirting Of America, he says:
"Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.Here is a brief bio for Roberts, from the end of the piece:
I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties.
Today’s young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad.
[. . .] Today, there is no one to correct a lie once it is told. The media, thanks to Republicans, has been concentrated in few hands, and they are not the hands of newsmen. Corporate values rule. If lies sell, sell them. If listeners, viewers, and readers want confirmation of their resentments and beliefs, give it to them."
Dr. Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. During the Cold War era, he was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. He is a former Associate Editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a former contributing editor of National Review.
Reality-Based Election
The phrase "reality-based" entered the lexicon last weekend, in a New York Times Magazine story by Ron Suskind, titled Without a Doubt. The story contained the following remarkable passage:
Along these lines, a public attitudes poll released yesterday by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes shows how voters' understanding of reality itself is affecting the election. From the survey:
And they certainly have been using their understanding of the ways people receive and retain information to full advantage in this election. We should not underestimate how important the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey and Fox News are to the election process! I suspect that many of you sophisticated, well-informed blog readers don't know that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. reported -- over and over -- that the recent Iraq Duelfer WMD report supported President Bush's position that Iraq had WMD, and that the 9/11 Commission found that Iraq did support al Queda! You probably assumed that these reports would help Kerry in the election because they flatly contradicted Bush's positions. But Limbaugh and the rest have a lot of listeners and viewers, and they repeated over and over that the reports backed up President Bush, as this poll shows.
How many of us make assumptions based on what we know about the facts? But what if others are using different facts? What if others believe that 2+2=5, and are using that as the basis for their decision making? You can not effectively communicate with them if your arguments start with an assumption that you share agreement that 2+2=4, when actually you do not. Instead, to be effective, you need to start your discussion by proving that 2+2=4!
Where MoveOn and The Media Fund have been running election ads based on an assumption that basic facts are understood, it might have been better to run ads that served the function of news organizations and simply reported over and over nothing more than basic facts, like that the Duelfer Iraqi WMD and the 9/11 Commission reports did NOT back up Bush. That is the starting point -- proving that 2+2=4 before you can move on to broader arguments. Another example of the basic facts problem -- as we saw above, the survey found that among Bush supporters, "An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements." Sheesh.
When President Bush said during the most recent debate that we should not accept mainstream news organizations as credible sources of factual information, he was revealing his understanding of the core deciding factor of this election, in my opinion. That core fact is that people are being propagandized by a right-wing machine that simply tells lies. They are intentionally misinforming people, tricking them into voting for people who will, once in office, do things like hand their retirement savings over to big corporations, start wars, ignore public health concerns -- and tell them not to believe what they hear on the "mainstream" news.
The entire report of findings is available as a PDF document here.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.Salon has an interview interview with Suskind, titled Reality-based Reporting.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Along these lines, a public attitudes poll released yesterday by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes shows how voters' understanding of reality itself is affecting the election. From the survey:
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.I think this points to a major failing on the part of those opposed to Bush. The Republican "machine" - their network of "think tanks", and advocacy/communications ideology marketing organizations - has for decades studied how people receive and retain information about the world and is using that information to get their information into people's minds.
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.
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.
Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.
And they certainly have been using their understanding of the ways people receive and retain information to full advantage in this election. We should not underestimate how important the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey and Fox News are to the election process! I suspect that many of you sophisticated, well-informed blog readers don't know that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. reported -- over and over -- that the recent Iraq Duelfer WMD report supported President Bush's position that Iraq had WMD, and that the 9/11 Commission found that Iraq did support al Queda! You probably assumed that these reports would help Kerry in the election because they flatly contradicted Bush's positions. But Limbaugh and the rest have a lot of listeners and viewers, and they repeated over and over that the reports backed up President Bush, as this poll shows.
How many of us make assumptions based on what we know about the facts? But what if others are using different facts? What if others believe that 2+2=5, and are using that as the basis for their decision making? You can not effectively communicate with them if your arguments start with an assumption that you share agreement that 2+2=4, when actually you do not. Instead, to be effective, you need to start your discussion by proving that 2+2=4!
Where MoveOn and The Media Fund have been running election ads based on an assumption that basic facts are understood, it might have been better to run ads that served the function of news organizations and simply reported over and over nothing more than basic facts, like that the Duelfer Iraqi WMD and the 9/11 Commission reports did NOT back up Bush. That is the starting point -- proving that 2+2=4 before you can move on to broader arguments. Another example of the basic facts problem -- as we saw above, the survey found that among Bush supporters, "An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements." Sheesh.
When President Bush said during the most recent debate that we should not accept mainstream news organizations as credible sources of factual information, he was revealing his understanding of the core deciding factor of this election, in my opinion. That core fact is that people are being propagandized by a right-wing machine that simply tells lies. They are intentionally misinforming people, tricking them into voting for people who will, once in office, do things like hand their retirement savings over to big corporations, start wars, ignore public health concerns -- and tell them not to believe what they hear on the "mainstream" news.
The entire report of findings is available as a PDF document here.
10/21/2004
"Win Back Respect"
Via Josh Micah Marshall, here's a link to "Win Back Respect", a group which produced an ad juxtaposing Bush's clown show in front of a media group last March (the one where he joked about the missing WMD) with statements by the sister of a GI killed at shortly after then. I haven't been able to view the ad because of my software-hardware problems, but it's guaranteed to be very powerful. At the WBR site it is possible to donate money so the ad can be shown more widely.
Social Security
Here is my Social Seucrity post from Wednesday's American Street. I'm hoping we can get a discussion going here.
There's a lot of talk about Social Security today, so I thought I would weigh in.
You and I pay a big Social Security tax, something like 15%. (If you work for someone the employer pays half of that.) But you don't pay when you make more than about $88,000. You don't pay it at all on capital gains, which are also taxed much lower than income, or dividends, which are not taxed at all. For many people this is the largest tax they pay.
Once again, just to make sure you hear it, you only pay this tax on the first $88,000 of your income, even if you make vastly more than that. And rich people don't pay it at all if their income is from capital gains or dividends.
So where does this money go -- this money collected from a tax that ONLY lower and middle incomes pay, and only on income from actually working for a living?
There's a lot of talk about Social Security today, so I thought I would weigh in.
You and I pay a big Social Security tax, something like 15%. (If you work for someone the employer pays half of that.) But you don't pay when you make more than about $88,000. You don't pay it at all on capital gains, which are also taxed much lower than income, or dividends, which are not taxed at all. For many people this is the largest tax they pay.
Once again, just to make sure you hear it, you only pay this tax on the first $88,000 of your income, even if you make vastly more than that. And rich people don't pay it at all if their income is from capital gains or dividends.
So where does this money go -- this money collected from a tax that ONLY lower and middle incomes pay, and only on income from actually working for a living?
How Kerry can blow this race wide open
There's been a lot of chatter about Kerry's goose-hunting expedition. Supposedly it makes him seem like a down-to-earth, regular guy with a macho streak.
Maybe, but any yuppy can hunt goose. In England, that kind of hunting is the preserve of the pansy aristocracy. What Kerry really wants to do is go to the town dump somewhere and shoot rats. Shooting rats is so down-to-earth it makes you sick. He'll put himself right square in the middle of NRA / militia territory, and Dubya won't know what hit him.
Maybe, but any yuppy can hunt goose. In England, that kind of hunting is the preserve of the pansy aristocracy. What Kerry really wants to do is go to the town dump somewhere and shoot rats. Shooting rats is so down-to-earth it makes you sick. He'll put himself right square in the middle of NRA / militia territory, and Dubya won't know what hit him.
Famous asshole Karl Malone endorses Bush
The Bush campaign has scraped together 24 -- count 'em -- Olympic and professional athletes from five decades to endorse George W. Bush. Included on the list are Todd Walker, Janet Lynn Salomon, Dot Richardson, Natalie Golda, Adam Dunn, Chris Spielman, Josh Davis, and Daniel Beery, plus 16 other people who you've actually heard of. Altogether there are eight football players, seven Olympians, seven baseball players, a basketball player, and a golfer.
Here's what Rove is having them say, and tell me if you think it makes any sense at all:
That's not George W. Bush. Maybe they forgot what year it is or something.
I was saddened to see Ernie Banks and Bob Feller on the list, but a lot of the rest of them could have been predicted: Steve Largent, Roger Staubach, and Jack Nicklaus, for example, or the notorious asshole Karl Malone. Rove might have asked himself whether some of these guys actually are going to gain the Republicans more votes than they lose.
If that's the best they can do, I think that we should just award the election to Kerry right now.
P.S. "Beneath our belts" sounds odd -- shouldn't it be "under our belts"? Perhaps the phrase "under our belts" sounds a little too close to the groin for these nice Republican folk.
Here's what Rove is having them say, and tell me if you think it makes any sense at all:
"We have given much thought to the values and characteristics that make a great athlete. Our lives have been spent trying to run farther, push further, and jump higher than the person beside us, or across the field of our chosen sport. With years of training and exhaustive competition beneath our belts, we have identified the values necessary to compete and win--values like personal strength, determination, a sense of fair play and faith.
The same qualities that make a great athlete make a great President...."
That's not George W. Bush. Maybe they forgot what year it is or something.
I was saddened to see Ernie Banks and Bob Feller on the list, but a lot of the rest of them could have been predicted: Steve Largent, Roger Staubach, and Jack Nicklaus, for example, or the notorious asshole Karl Malone. Rove might have asked himself whether some of these guys actually are going to gain the Republicans more votes than they lose.
If that's the best they can do, I think that we should just award the election to Kerry right now.
P.S. "Beneath our belts" sounds odd -- shouldn't it be "under our belts"? Perhaps the phrase "under our belts" sounds a little too close to the groin for these nice Republican folk.
Voting Machines - MOVIE!
There's a new movie about the problems with electronic voting machines! Go see Votergate.
(If you move your mouse over the brown "Card" at the top of the page you'll see a button that says "Enter." Click that to enter the site.)
(full disclosure.)
(If you move your mouse over the brown "Card" at the top of the page you'll see a button that says "Enter." Click that to enter the site.)
(full disclosure.)
10/20/2004
Well done, young man
The Grey Lady nods approvingly in the direction of Jon Stewart. One wonders what might be said were Stewart to tell the world what he thinks of Judy Miller.
How to
Jeanne at Body and Soul regularly amazes me. She has a special talent for putting a simple story, something that lots of blogs cover, into a genuinely personal context. It's enlightening, not some stupid kool kids me-me-me framing. Jeanne runs a how-to for blogging.
If They Win With Lies II
Rick Perlstein, in 'Sucking democracy dry':
In If They Win With Lies?, I wrote,
"These are the people whose candidate just might win this election. If he does, he will have proven but one thing: Those who are willing to do anything to win can win."Go read.
In If They Win With Lies?, I wrote,
What does it mean for the future of the country, and the world, if they are able to hold power using methods like these? In history, what kind of governments emerge from such tactics and lies, and what are the consequences to the citizens and the rest of the world?What is in store for us if they do win? What do you think they will do? Will they be putting bloggers in jail? Maybe that's not as important to you as to me ;-)
Another "chain letter" from our side.
[Nancy Macy is a prominent Santa Cruz area environmental activist. I thought this was a detailed and well written letter, so I'm passing it along, and encourage you to do likewise. -Thomas]
Here is a letter my sister and I composed and are sending to family and friends throughout the US. I hope you will do something similar. Feel free to use any of this if it helps. Thanks Nancy Macy [deleted]
Here is a letter my sister and I composed and are sending to family and friends throughout the US. I hope you will do something similar. Feel free to use any of this if it helps. Thanks Nancy Macy [deleted]
October 20, 2004
Dearest Family and Friends,
We decided we had to write to you to express our concerns about the importance of this election, because of an issue that is being ignored, in spite of its overwhelming importance to us, to our children, and to our planet. This issue is global warming.
The consequences of global warming can no longer be ignored. It¹s not just that polar bears are losing their habitat as the ice floes melt in the arctic, not just that coral reefs are bleaching and dying as their waters heat up, not just that whole island nations are being submerged as the seas rise. Global warming will affect us all. In California wewill have water shortages as winter snow is replaced by rain. This will cause either huge floods, or the rainwater will have to be stored in expensive new reservoirs. Tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever will migrate north into California as the temperatures rise and rainfall increases. The eastern U.S. coastline will change radically as lowlands are flooded much of the Gulf Coast within the next 70-80 years, and Manhattan Island lose land mass. Weather extremes such as tornadoes and hurricanes will increase, with enormous social and financial impact. Increased water shortages and eternal droughts will affect the Prairie states, and worsen tensions between Western states. Water will become more precious than oil, and disputes over water will increase armed conflict around the world. As land becomes uninhabitable, whole populations will migrate to cooler climates, causing massive social disruption. Florida had four hurricanes in a few short weeks this year country and around the world as global warming progresses. We are having small tornadoes here in Richmond, California, already. The climate models all agree on the major effects: the weather is only going to get worse and worse. We must take action now since our government is ignoring this problem.
Our President has sided with his friends in the oil, coal and power industries, and has caused a desperate situation to worsen. President Bush still refuses to acknowledge the fact of global warming, and the importance of taking strong, effective steps to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. He refuses to work within the Kyoto Treaty, which is taking effect in December 2004. We have lost credibility in the world for our failure to take responsibility for our own pollution.
Mr. Bush¹s claims that reducing emissions will damage the economy are NOT correct. The Global Warming articles in Business Week of August 16, 2004 confirm this. (www.businessweek.com) Economists all agree: there will be some job loss in specific industries such as coal mining, but our economy will actually benefit by implementation of limits on carbon dioxide emissions. New industries will spring up to provide the needed products for reducing emissions, creating thousands of jobs. Huge companies such as BP (formerly British Petroleum, now Beyond Petroleum), IBM, Royal Dutch Shell, Boeing, and many others have already reduced the carbon dioxide emissions of their operations. They have found that investments in energy conservation and changing their business processes are SAVING them HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.(www.pewclimate.org) Again and again it has been proven that environmentally responsible business practices, especially conservation, are money savers and moneymakers for business.
In addition, Mr. Bush is responsible for widespread and unprecedented manipulation, distortion, and suppression of government science on a wide range of issues relating to public health and the environment. It is now unstated policy to ignore scientific information and research when they disagree with it, and they try to hide it. This has been documented over and over by the Union of Concerned Scientists, among others, who have documented hundreds of examples of this. More than 4000 scientists have publicly signed a statement of concern, urging us to speak out against this effort to mislead the country. This report and their reports on the effect of global warming in California, the Gulf Coast, and the Upper Midwest are found at the UCS website, www.ucsusa.org. (We apologize to those of you who do not use the internet. Your local library will be able to help you find information on this issue, and the other issues covered in our letter.)
Mr. Bush has undermined every important environmental Law of the past thirty years -- all which had passed with bipartisan support. The Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act have been responsible for the improvement to the air in Los Angeles, the improvement in the Hudson River, and all the environmental improvements we¹ve seen since their passage. We have been enjoying the benefits for decades. Protections of our air, water, rivers, wetlands, oceans and deserts, their many forms of life, and our health! have all been drastically worsened by hundreds of changes in regulations; by removing funding for enforcement of the law; and by initiating moratoriums on regulations and relaxing rules. Mr. Bush is implementing policies that are bringing commercial development and resource extraction into areas preserved for generations as wilderness. These policies will continue and be exacerbated by four more years of the President¹s actions. The country cannot stand four more years of Mr. Bush. Our environment will be devastated if he remains in power.
Please vote for Senator Kerry for President. He understands global warming and the importance of a healthy environment to a healthy economy and healthy communities. His environmental record is at 100% FOR the environment, according to Environmental Defense and other institutions which track such records. He will engage the international community again on this most important issue of global warming. He will restore the hard-won protections of our environment put in place under President Nixon. He will work with the developing countries that have no carbon dioxide emission limits in the Kyoto Treaty to help them implement energy policies that reduce the total load of carbon dioxide emissions. China, India, Brazil, and other booming economies in the third world are facing huge environmental problems, and are already coming to recognize that they will also need to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases. We have to face this problem NOW in order to prevent major disaster for our children and grandchildren. It is our responsibility! Please vote FOR Senator Kerry.
Global warming is THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM facing us. The war on terror is big, but global warming is MUCH more important in the long term. We must act NOW.
If you have questions on global warming, what it is, more specifically what will happen soon, please contact Martha. I have been studying this for over 5 years, and am familiar with the issues.
Sincerely, with love,
Martha Booz and Nancy Macy
[contact info for both available on request]
"Left Out" Tour - Interview with Pat LaMarche
[One more short one. Then I'll return you to your regularly scheduled Anybody But Bush Again programming.
The Green Party's nominated candidates are laying it on the line for the values and principles that they advocate. John Edwards talks about "Two Americas" - Pat LaMarche lives it. Actually, I think John Edward's "Two Americas" speech leaves out the "Third America" - people like the ones Pat encounters in this article, who aren't just struggling, but are completely wiped out. I'm proud to have my party's banner carried forward in 2004 by people like David Cobb and Pat LaMarche.
Oh yeah...
Pat on the Bush Administration:
"The bums need to go. Period. End of sentence. They’ve got to get fired. It’s
the worst administration in the history of the United States of America. And
it’s run by cowards."
Pat on the Democrats:
"Well, you know, I think your toaster oven would be better. And you’d get
toast. An occasional Pop Tart. So, they can’t help but be better. Will they be
better enough? No. If they would be better enough, I’d be a Democrat."
-Thomas]
Pat LaMarche feels left out
And not just because Dick Cheney and John Edwards wouldn't let her debate
with them
David Cobb, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, resorted last Friday to
civil disobedience, getting himself arrested in St. Louis while ambushing the
second presidential debate of the campaign. That’s the kind of tactic you
need to get attention in the presidential campaign if you’re a third-party
candidate. It’s clear that getting ballot status in 28 states and representing a
party that collected 2,882,995 votes in the last presidential election isn’t
enough.
Cobb’s running mate, Maine’s Pat LaMarche, took a slightly different tack.
She decided to embark, on September 21, on her "Left Out" tour, during which
she would sleep either on the streets or in homeless shelters in 14 cities
across the US, "to raise awareness about America’s least-privileged citizens"
because "no vice-presidential candidate has ever been bold enough to walk in
their shoes."
Sure, it was a bit of a public-relations gambit, but LaMarche hardly took the
easy way out. She traveled by herself, with fellow Greens picking her up at
airports and helping her with transportation but then dropping her off to fend
for herself in what were possibly dangerous situations. As LaMarche herself
notes in the following interview, women are raped after only an average of 11
days on the streets. LaMarche spent a total of 14, winding up in Cleveland on
the day when John Edwards and Dick Cheney debated there, while the rest of the vice-presidential candidates had their own debate across town.
[...]
full story on the Portland (Maine) Phoenix web site
--Thomas Leavitt
The Green Party's nominated candidates are laying it on the line for the values and principles that they advocate. John Edwards talks about "Two Americas" - Pat LaMarche lives it. Actually, I think John Edward's "Two Americas" speech leaves out the "Third America" - people like the ones Pat encounters in this article, who aren't just struggling, but are completely wiped out. I'm proud to have my party's banner carried forward in 2004 by people like David Cobb and Pat LaMarche.
Oh yeah...
Pat on the Bush Administration:
"The bums need to go. Period. End of sentence. They’ve got to get fired. It’s
the worst administration in the history of the United States of America. And
it’s run by cowards."
Pat on the Democrats:
"Well, you know, I think your toaster oven would be better. And you’d get
toast. An occasional Pop Tart. So, they can’t help but be better. Will they be
better enough? No. If they would be better enough, I’d be a Democrat."
-Thomas]
Pat LaMarche feels left out
And not just because Dick Cheney and John Edwards wouldn't let her debate
with them
David Cobb, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, resorted last Friday to
civil disobedience, getting himself arrested in St. Louis while ambushing the
second presidential debate of the campaign. That’s the kind of tactic you
need to get attention in the presidential campaign if you’re a third-party
candidate. It’s clear that getting ballot status in 28 states and representing a
party that collected 2,882,995 votes in the last presidential election isn’t
enough.
Cobb’s running mate, Maine’s Pat LaMarche, took a slightly different tack.
She decided to embark, on September 21, on her "Left Out" tour, during which
she would sleep either on the streets or in homeless shelters in 14 cities
across the US, "to raise awareness about America’s least-privileged citizens"
because "no vice-presidential candidate has ever been bold enough to walk in
their shoes."
Sure, it was a bit of a public-relations gambit, but LaMarche hardly took the
easy way out. She traveled by herself, with fellow Greens picking her up at
airports and helping her with transportation but then dropping her off to fend
for herself in what were possibly dangerous situations. As LaMarche herself
notes in the following interview, women are raped after only an average of 11
days on the streets. LaMarche spent a total of 14, winding up in Cleveland on
the day when John Edwards and Dick Cheney debated there, while the rest of the vice-presidential candidates had their own debate across town.
[...]
full story on the Portland (Maine) Phoenix web site
--Thomas Leavitt
Top 12 Issues Censored From the Bush-Kerry Debates.
[Excerpts from a Green Party press release. Greens have a fundamentally different agenda from that of the two major parties in the United States--who are happy to remain silent about the unweaving of the global web of life and the fact that our economic and trade policies under the last two presidents, Clinton and Bush alike, have fostered a global "race to the bottom". Opinion surveys I've read recently show that a majority of Americans favor a single payer system (which is what senior citizens have with Medicare), and yet it isn't even on the radar screen of the national Democratic Party. -Thomas]
Thursday, October 14, 2004
GREENS LIST THE TOP 12 ISSUES CENSORED FROM THE BUSH-KERRY DEBATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders and candidates charged that the presidential debates, limited to the candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, have effectively censored numerous issues important to Americans.
[deleted]
Greens listed the top twelve issues censored from the Bush-Kerry debates:
(1) When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it violated international laws against "preemptive" and "preventive" war (enacted after Hitler used these excuses to justify invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France); and violated the U.S. Constitution's limit on the deployment of armed forces to immediate protection of U.S. borders (Article I, Section 8), and requirement that the U.S. adhere to international treaties (Article VI).
[four other Iraq-specific issues deleted -Thomas ]
(6) The USA Patriot Act violates numerous rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, especially freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure without a warrant, and guarantee of due process. Whether Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush is elected, if another terrorist attack occurs there are already plans to extend the USA Patriot Act even further, effectively nullifying the Constitution.
(7) If we intend to avert catastrophic global climate change, the U.S. must rejoin the Kyoto agreement, strengthen and adhere to its provisions, and make conversion to non-fossil and non-nuclear energy the great project of the 21st century. (Mr. Bush withdrew the U.S. from Kyoto, Mr. Kerry is silent about rejoining the accord.)
(8) Republicans and Democrats have abandoned working people, while coddling CEOs and major shareholders with a $137 billion tax break package for corporations. Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry mentioned a national guarantee of livable wages, repeal of Taft-Hartley limits on workplace organizing, or the Million Worker March, planned for October 17 in Washington, D.C..
(9) Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry rejected "government-run" coverage, but Congress's General Accounting Office has determined that the only health care reform that will save money is single-payer national health insurance. Under single-payer, all Americans would be guaranteed quality treatment and medicine regardless of income, employment, age, or prior medical condition, and patients will enjoy choice of physician. Middle and lower income Americans will pay far less for single-payer coverage than they do now for private coverage through profit-driven HMOs and insurance firms.
(10) The 'War on Drugs' has not only failed to stem drug abuse, it has resulted in the highest number ever of Americans incarcerated (over 5.6 million have served time, the highest percentage in the world) -- especially young people, poor people, African Americans, and Latinos.
(11) Thanks to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and other deregulation measures, fewer and fewer corporations own more and more of the media and regulate our news and entertainment. Democrats who voted for the Telecommunications Act have only themselves to blame for the Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to air an anti-Kerry documentary on 62 TV stations.
(12) At-large winner-take-all elections have allowed two parties corrupted by corporate lobby money to dominate our political system. We can restore our democracy through various reforms: Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, "clean election" options that enable candidates to run without taking corporate money, free time for candidates on our publicly owned airwaves, and auditable paper ballots. More information on election reforms: http://www.fairvote.org
Read the complete release on the Green Party web site.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
GREENS LIST THE TOP 12 ISSUES CENSORED FROM THE BUSH-KERRY DEBATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders and candidates charged that the presidential debates, limited to the candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, have effectively censored numerous issues important to Americans.
[deleted]
Greens listed the top twelve issues censored from the Bush-Kerry debates:
(1) When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it violated international laws against "preemptive" and "preventive" war (enacted after Hitler used these excuses to justify invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France); and violated the U.S. Constitution's limit on the deployment of armed forces to immediate protection of U.S. borders (Article I, Section 8), and requirement that the U.S. adhere to international treaties (Article VI).
[four other Iraq-specific issues deleted -Thomas ]
(6) The USA Patriot Act violates numerous rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, especially freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure without a warrant, and guarantee of due process. Whether Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush is elected, if another terrorist attack occurs there are already plans to extend the USA Patriot Act even further, effectively nullifying the Constitution.
(7) If we intend to avert catastrophic global climate change, the U.S. must rejoin the Kyoto agreement, strengthen and adhere to its provisions, and make conversion to non-fossil and non-nuclear energy the great project of the 21st century. (Mr. Bush withdrew the U.S. from Kyoto, Mr. Kerry is silent about rejoining the accord.)
(8) Republicans and Democrats have abandoned working people, while coddling CEOs and major shareholders with a $137 billion tax break package for corporations. Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry mentioned a national guarantee of livable wages, repeal of Taft-Hartley limits on workplace organizing, or the Million Worker March, planned for October 17 in Washington, D.C.
(9) Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry rejected "government-run" coverage, but Congress's General Accounting Office has determined that the only health care reform that will save money is single-payer national health insurance. Under single-payer, all Americans would be guaranteed quality treatment and medicine regardless of income, employment, age, or prior medical condition, and patients will enjoy choice of physician. Middle and lower income Americans will pay far less for single-payer coverage than they do now for private coverage through profit-driven HMOs and insurance firms.
(10) The 'War on Drugs' has not only failed to stem drug abuse, it has resulted in the highest number ever of Americans incarcerated (over 5.6 million have served time, the highest percentage in the world) -- especially young people, poor people, African Americans, and Latinos.
(11) Thanks to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and other deregulation measures, fewer and fewer corporations own more and more of the media and regulate our news and entertainment. Democrats who voted for the Telecommunications Act have only themselves to blame for the Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to air an anti-Kerry documentary on 62 TV stations.
(12) At-large winner-take-all elections have allowed two parties corrupted by corporate lobby money to dominate our political system. We can restore our democracy through various reforms: Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, "clean election" options that enable candidates to run without taking corporate money, free time for candidates on our publicly owned airwaves, and auditable paper ballots. More information on election reforms: http://www.fairvote.org
Read the complete release on the Green Party web site.
Renegade Green for Cobb
[Take that Dave. :)
From the Boston Globe. The question is not: is there a real difference between Kerry and Bush... but rather, is there more of a difference between David Cobb/the Green Party, than there is between John Kerry/the Democrats and George Bush/the Republicans? David Cobb makes a strong case that there is. -Thomas]
WELCOME TO THE MAINSTREAM
BY DAVID COBB
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT OBJECTIVELY AND IGNORE EMOTIONS AND UNSUPPORTED PERCEPTIONS, JOHN KERRY AND GEORGE BUSH ARE IN AGREEMENT ON A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES WHICH DEFINE OUR DOMESTIC AGENDA, OUR FOREIGN POLICY, AND WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE. WHAT MAKES THIS ALL THE MORE INTERESTING IS THAT THIS PLACES BUSH AND KERRY AT ODDS WITH MANY MAINSTREAM AMERICAN BELIEFS. IN FACT, THESE MAJORITARIAN AMERICAN VALUES ARE ACTUALLY BEST REFLECTED IN THE PLATFORM AND POSITIONS OF THE GREEN PARTY.
Most Americans, I'm sure, believe that people working full-time should be able to support their families without using public assistance, but many full-time wage earners making minimum wage have to do just that. I support increasing the minimum wage to a living wage; Bush and Kerry do not. Most Americans are burdened and scandalized by the skyrocketing costs of health insurance and prescription drugs. I support single-payer health insurance that will provide lifetime coverage to every single citizen and cost less than our current system; Bush and Kerry do not.
Most Americans value their privacy, cherish the Constitution, and believe in due process. I support a repeal of the invasive and unconstitutional USA Patriot Act in its entirety; Bush and Kerry do not.
Most Americans are tired of spending cuts in education, social services, and environmental protection. I support shifting 50 percent of the military budget over 10 years to fund these programs; Bush and Kerry do not.
more on unrepentandnadervoter.com...
--Thomas Leavitt
From the Boston Globe. The question is not: is there a real difference between Kerry and Bush... but rather, is there more of a difference between David Cobb/the Green Party, than there is between John Kerry/the Democrats and George Bush/the Republicans? David Cobb makes a strong case that there is. -Thomas]
WELCOME TO THE MAINSTREAM
BY DAVID COBB
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT OBJECTIVELY AND IGNORE EMOTIONS AND UNSUPPORTED PERCEPTIONS, JOHN KERRY AND GEORGE BUSH ARE IN AGREEMENT ON A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES WHICH DEFINE OUR DOMESTIC AGENDA, OUR FOREIGN POLICY, AND WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE. WHAT MAKES THIS ALL THE MORE INTERESTING IS THAT THIS PLACES BUSH AND KERRY AT ODDS WITH MANY MAINSTREAM AMERICAN BELIEFS. IN FACT, THESE MAJORITARIAN AMERICAN VALUES ARE ACTUALLY BEST REFLECTED IN THE PLATFORM AND POSITIONS OF THE GREEN PARTY.
Most Americans, I'm sure, believe that people working full-time should be able to support their families without using public assistance, but many full-time wage earners making minimum wage have to do just that. I support increasing the minimum wage to a living wage; Bush and Kerry do not. Most Americans are burdened and scandalized by the skyrocketing costs of health insurance and prescription drugs. I support single-payer health insurance that will provide lifetime coverage to every single citizen and cost less than our current system; Bush and Kerry do not.
Most Americans value their privacy, cherish the Constitution, and believe in due process. I support a repeal of the invasive and unconstitutional USA Patriot Act in its entirety; Bush and Kerry do not.
Most Americans are tired of spending cuts in education, social services, and environmental protection. I support shifting 50 percent of the military budget over 10 years to fund these programs; Bush and Kerry do not.
more on unrepentandnadervoter.com...
--Thomas Leavitt
Republican National Convention in a nutshell.
This hilarious video montage (courtesy of BuzzFlash) of Repblican National Convention quotes demonstrates quite concisely the Republican Party's strategy in this election cycle. Terrorize the American public into re-electing Dubya. Pure and simple.
--Thomas Leavitt
--Thomas Leavitt
10/19/2004
Don't let up
A diarist at dKos has the right take on Sinclair:
See, almost everyone is missing the point here. Sinclair has not changed its position one bit. They are spinning, hoping to relieve the pressure of the boycott by giving a false impression of what they are doing. But what they are doing is even worse than if they were airing Stolen Honor in full. In fact, the whole thing is a winger's dream, a Free Republic version of the perfect media event.Read what he says, and don't let up on Sinclair. These are really nasty bastards and they will say anything to get you off their backs. But they won't stop the smear!
Calming the Public -- THIS Time
The Bush Administration is doing everything it can to calm fears caused by the shortage of flu vaccine.
Compare this to the Bush Administration's stoking of terrorism fear! IMAGINE Bush telling people to take a breath,calm down, and not be afraid!
Ain't gonna happen.
"We've successfully worked through vaccine supply problems in the past and we're doing so this time as well," said Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. "We need all of us to take a deep breath."This is because the flu vaccine shortage makes the Bush administration look bad, and they are afraid people might vote against them as a result.
Compare this to the Bush Administration's stoking of terrorism fear! IMAGINE Bush telling people to take a breath,calm down, and not be afraid!
Ain't gonna happen.
"Love of power for its own sake is the original sin of this presidency."
Al Gore yesterday:
"Most of the problems he has caused for this country stem not from his belief in God, but from his belief in the infallibility of the right-wing Republican ideology that exalts the interests of the wealthy and of large corporations over the interests of the American people. Love of power for its own sake is the original sin of this presidency.
[. . .] The essential cruelty of Bush’s game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals then cloaks it with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world. And in the process he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities. Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the citizenry of America and give as much as possible to the already wealthy and privileged, who look at his agenda and say, as Dick Cheney said to Paul O’Neill, “this is our due.”
DRAFT - Krugman
Krugman: Feeling the Draft:
"Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.
[. . .] Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.
This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft."
10/18/2004
No one wants us to vote
The Republicans don't want us to vote. Neither do the terrorists. Voter suppression, terror alerts, terrorist attacks -- be sure to vote, no matter what.
Kos on voter suppression
Recent history of voter suppression
Education department declares all schools (many of them polling places) to be terrorist targets
Terror warnings spread fear
Election day terrorism warnings have chilling effect
Kos on voter suppression
Recent history of voter suppression
Education department declares all schools (many of them polling places) to be terrorist targets
Terror warnings spread fear
Election day terrorism warnings have chilling effect
"Mission Accomplished" again
He's going to fly to Iraq again for another flightsuit photo-op? Mmmm... someone tell Peggy Noonan. He's one sexy guy who can really dish out the turkey. He just has to move that bulge down where it belongs.
But this is Halloween, not Thanksgiving -- maybe an Alfred E. Newman mask might help the troops lighten up a little. Some of them are reportedly taking all this more seriously than they really should. Or he could give them all little Snickers bars.
The same old "Mission Accomplished" banner should be fine. He'll be able to use it every year from here on out, if he gets reelected. The war against terrorism is an endless one, so you can declare victory any time you want to. Or maybe make it an annual event -- every Halloween, maybe, or every April first. Peggy's a sentimental, old-school babe, and she never gets tired of that kind of shit.
But this is Halloween, not Thanksgiving -- maybe an Alfred E. Newman mask might help the troops lighten up a little. Some of them are reportedly taking all this more seriously than they really should. Or he could give them all little Snickers bars.
The same old "Mission Accomplished" banner should be fine. He'll be able to use it every year from here on out, if he gets reelected. The war against terrorism is an endless one, so you can declare victory any time you want to. Or maybe make it an annual event -- every Halloween, maybe, or every April first. Peggy's a sentimental, old-school babe, and she never gets tired of that kind of shit.
October Surprise?
There's a rumour going around. October Surprise: Would Bush Make Another Visit to Baghdad?
Would this be an effective gimmick by Bush, or just transparent? And what do YOU think the October Surprise will be?
Would this be an effective gimmick by Bush, or just transparent? And what do YOU think the October Surprise will be?
Reasons for Optimism, II
Reading the polls can be depressing, so here are a few things to remember:
1. Very few of the polls take new voters into consideration, and this year the Democrats are putting on the biggest voter-registration drive in my memory.
2. Traditionally, undecideds break for the challenger.
3. Some of the polls have a Republican bias, especially Gallup. (And incidentally, did anyone take the recent GI poll seriously? The military has its own special way of handling that sort of thing, and I wasn't too surprised at the 70-30 Bush advantage. Let's just hope that the troops get to fill out their ballots personally.)
4. In 2000, the polls wildly underestimated Gore's vote in the Presidential race.
The main things we have to worry about are election fraud, voter suppression, and the October Surprise. I think that given the present polling numbers, Kerry should be the favorite.
Salon on the polls
Soto on Gallup (October)
Soto on Gallup (September)
1. Very few of the polls take new voters into consideration, and this year the Democrats are putting on the biggest voter-registration drive in my memory.
2. Traditionally, undecideds break for the challenger.
3. Some of the polls have a Republican bias, especially Gallup. (And incidentally, did anyone take the recent GI poll seriously? The military has its own special way of handling that sort of thing, and I wasn't too surprised at the 70-30 Bush advantage. Let's just hope that the troops get to fill out their ballots personally.)
4. In 2000, the polls wildly underestimated Gore's vote in the Presidential race.
The main things we have to worry about are election fraud, voter suppression, and the October Surprise. I think that given the present polling numbers, Kerry should be the favorite.
Salon on the polls
Soto on Gallup (October)
Soto on Gallup (September)
Reality-based community
A lot of people are commenting on the following passage in Susskind's NYT article. According to a Bush aide, Bush's critics are from
You can get a great anti-Bush zinger out of this, and I heartily endorse doing so. However, people are, to a significant degree, missing the point. The Bush aide's statement actually highlights one of the Republican party's strengths and one of the Democrats' weaknesses, especially in political campaigning.
Democrats are too tied to public administration and to the normalizing social sciences, where you try to keep things under control and running smoothly, or try to figure out the most likely thing to happen based on observed regularities. Republicans are more likely to come from wildcat entrepreneurial backgrounds, often of a semi-criminal type, where the goal is to seize a momentary advantage, find an exception or a weak spot, or find a new angle. As a result Republicans are better at spotting and exploiting the unrevealed potentials of an unstable or evolving situation.
If you don't believe me, name a national political campaign since 1976 when the Democrats outcampaigned the Republicans. There's only Bill Clinton, and he strikes me as a pretty good guy at finding an angle. Republicans hated Clinton's sleaziness, not because they hate sleaziness, but because they want a monopoly on it. Clinton beat them at their own game.
On Matt Yglesias's comments, "Cranky" pointed out that the Republican aide's assertion is pretty much what they teach in business schools these days – you don't manage based on your past experience, but upon what is going to happen in the future – and the future is something that you can do something about. Another commenter, JS, cited Marx: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it."
Ariel Sharon's "facts on the ground" is another example of what I mean. By taking bold actions, the executive can make his opponent's objections and proposals irrelevant, and this method works even if the bold action makes things worse. "So what are you gonna do now, buddy?"
However, most entrepreneurs fail, and most adventurists are defeated. Bush's great adventure is in collapse phase. In Iraq, things didn't go the way the Bush team had planned. (This is true even if you grant that their actual plans were different than their publicly-expressed plans). They gave it their best shot, but that wasn't good enough.
Adventurists cannot afford to admit defeat, because they've staked too much on success; once the jig is up, they're through for good. Bush can only try to save himself by upping the ante. If he wins in November, we can expect him to invade Iran, institute a draft, and attack the traitors and naysayers in our midst even more viciously than before.
Adventurists are only forgiven if they succeed, and Bush didn't. He gambled and lost, and now is in the running to be named the worst President in American history. It's time to escort him off the stage.
"the reality-based community....[people] who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.....That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
You can get a great anti-Bush zinger out of this, and I heartily endorse doing so. However, people are, to a significant degree, missing the point. The Bush aide's statement actually highlights one of the Republican party's strengths and one of the Democrats' weaknesses, especially in political campaigning.
Democrats are too tied to public administration and to the normalizing social sciences, where you try to keep things under control and running smoothly, or try to figure out the most likely thing to happen based on observed regularities. Republicans are more likely to come from wildcat entrepreneurial backgrounds, often of a semi-criminal type, where the goal is to seize a momentary advantage, find an exception or a weak spot, or find a new angle. As a result Republicans are better at spotting and exploiting the unrevealed potentials of an unstable or evolving situation.
If you don't believe me, name a national political campaign since 1976 when the Democrats outcampaigned the Republicans. There's only Bill Clinton, and he strikes me as a pretty good guy at finding an angle. Republicans hated Clinton's sleaziness, not because they hate sleaziness, but because they want a monopoly on it. Clinton beat them at their own game.
On Matt Yglesias's comments, "Cranky" pointed out that the Republican aide's assertion is pretty much what they teach in business schools these days – you don't manage based on your past experience, but upon what is going to happen in the future – and the future is something that you can do something about. Another commenter, JS, cited Marx: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it."
Ariel Sharon's "facts on the ground" is another example of what I mean. By taking bold actions, the executive can make his opponent's objections and proposals irrelevant, and this method works even if the bold action makes things worse. "So what are you gonna do now, buddy?"
However, most entrepreneurs fail, and most adventurists are defeated. Bush's great adventure is in collapse phase. In Iraq, things didn't go the way the Bush team had planned. (This is true even if you grant that their actual plans were different than their publicly-expressed plans). They gave it their best shot, but that wasn't good enough.
Adventurists cannot afford to admit defeat, because they've staked too much on success; once the jig is up, they're through for good. Bush can only try to save himself by upping the ante. If he wins in November, we can expect him to invade Iran, institute a draft, and attack the traitors and naysayers in our midst even more viciously than before.
Adventurists are only forgiven if they succeed, and Bush didn't. He gambled and lost, and now is in the running to be named the worst President in American history. It's time to escort him off the stage.
Tricked
Kevin at The Washington Monthly adds his voice to corporate efforts to block consumers from being able to sue corporations that harm them -- except he doesn't really realize that he has done so.
He cites a right-wing article, written by a right-wing think tank fellow, saying "huge awards in liability lawsuits" is part of why much of the American public can't get flu vaccines this year. This triggers readers to leave comments like, "Thank the trial lawyers, and those in power who get furious if a medical company makes a profit."
This is how it works. Watch your backs.
He cites a right-wing article, written by a right-wing think tank fellow, saying "huge awards in liability lawsuits" is part of why much of the American public can't get flu vaccines this year. This triggers readers to leave comments like, "Thank the trial lawyers, and those in power who get furious if a medical company makes a profit."
This is how it works. Watch your backs.
Christians will be judged too
Everything that the Bush team has done in the last several months has been calculated to stave off disaster in Iraq until after the election. At this point, even the Green Zone is no longer secure, so disaster looks pretty close.
If Bush wins, he'll have a free hand and a four-year blank check. If he loses, Kerry will have to clean up the mess (sort of like Clinton inheriting Somalia from Bush the first, except a hundred times worse).
There are literally thousands of media people and Republicans who pretty well know what's going on, but who aren't saying anything because of their career agendas, ideological obsessions, and utter cynicism and shallowness.
If Kerry wins, there really have to be recriminations and score-settling (as I think Krugman has said).
One peculiarity of the moral-clarity people and the religious right is that they frame their political fight as a moral fight against cynicism and relativism, but seem completely unaware that they too will be judged. The most dangerously cynical people in the U.S. today are conservative Republicans.
Anyone who's knocked around a bit has met cheesy, semi-criminal revival Christians who think that their piety gives them a special connection to Jesus, who they're counting on to save them if they ever get caught. That describes the Bush administration to a T.
(Apropos of Susskind's NYT article and this thread on Brad DeLong. Krugman called for recriminations here).
If Bush wins, he'll have a free hand and a four-year blank check. If he loses, Kerry will have to clean up the mess (sort of like Clinton inheriting Somalia from Bush the first, except a hundred times worse).
There are literally thousands of media people and Republicans who pretty well know what's going on, but who aren't saying anything because of their career agendas, ideological obsessions, and utter cynicism and shallowness.
If Kerry wins, there really have to be recriminations and score-settling (as I think Krugman has said).
One peculiarity of the moral-clarity people and the religious right is that they frame their political fight as a moral fight against cynicism and relativism, but seem completely unaware that they too will be judged. The most dangerously cynical people in the U.S. today are conservative Republicans.
Anyone who's knocked around a bit has met cheesy, semi-criminal revival Christians who think that their piety gives them a special connection to Jesus, who they're counting on to save them if they ever get caught. That describes the Bush administration to a T.
(Apropos of Susskind's NYT article and this thread on Brad DeLong. Krugman called for recriminations here).
10/17/2004
Times Change(s)
In 1971, in what is known as the Pentagon Papers case, the NY Times went to the mat to defend the right of the press to reveal that the government was lying to us about a war. A courageous individual risked everything to bring the "Pentagon Papers" and the information they contained to the public, and the Nixon Administration was trying to stop their publication.
Revealing government lies and corruption used to be an important role of the press.
Times sure have changed. The Times sure has changed. And, as we all know so well, the press and the role they see for themselves sure has changed. Now The Times and others are going to the mat to protect government officials who conspired to make war, and who hurt efforts to stop weapons of mass destruction from reaching terrorists.
A courageous individual named Joe Wilson risked all to reveal to us that the Bush administration was lying about their reasons for starting a war. To punish him, White House officials illegally revealed to reporters the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative. (This also intimidated others in government who might talk to the press.) To make matters even worse, Valerie Plame's job was hunting down people trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. They not only stopped her from this effort, by revealing her identity they alerted countries and organizations worldwide to look at who she has been meeting with over the years, in case they were informing on them.
See some editorials against revealing who in the White House did this: here, here, here, here, here, here ... many more...
Revealing government lies and corruption used to be an important role of the press.
Times sure have changed. The Times sure has changed. And, as we all know so well, the press and the role they see for themselves sure has changed. Now The Times and others are going to the mat to protect government officials who conspired to make war, and who hurt efforts to stop weapons of mass destruction from reaching terrorists.
A courageous individual named Joe Wilson risked all to reveal to us that the Bush administration was lying about their reasons for starting a war. To punish him, White House officials illegally revealed to reporters the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative. (This also intimidated others in government who might talk to the press.) To make matters even worse, Valerie Plame's job was hunting down people trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. They not only stopped her from this effort, by revealing her identity they alerted countries and organizations worldwide to look at who she has been meeting with over the years, in case they were informing on them.
See some editorials against revealing who in the White House did this: here, here, here, here, here, here ... many more...
10/16/2004
A "chain letter" from our side of the fence.
[Just got this from my mother. Did a Google search, and confirmed that yes, there is a State Senator named Howard Carroll who serves in the Illinois State Senate as a representative from the Chicago area. I was only able to find one copy of this list (posted on the 15th of October), so I think this is new stuff. Pass it on! -Thomas]
Date Sent: 12 Oct 2004 09:54 AM
Absolutely Infuriating!
Please pass this along.
FW: Military experience
Hi all - As Sen. Carroll requests (see below,) please keep this
info moving...
Pattern here? What does this say?
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 with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* 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; 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: Vietnam
* Howell 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.
Republicans -- and these are the guys sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* 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 flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
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.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Please keep this information circulating
Sen. Howard W. Carroll
senhwc@Hotmail.com
Date Sent: 12 Oct 2004 09:54 AM
Absolutely Infuriating!
Please pass this along.
FW: Military experience
Hi all - As Sen. Carroll requests (see below,) please keep this
info moving...
Pattern here? What does this say?
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 with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* 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; 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: Vietnam
* Howell 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.
Republicans -- and these are the guys sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* 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 flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
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.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Please keep this information circulating
Sen. Howard W. Carroll
senhwc@Hotmail.com
Rationing
A comment I made in a flu vaccine thread at Digby's:
Pretty funny. Our prevailing system of rationing health care (especially preventive health care) by wealth is temporarily replaced by a much more humane system of rationing by need. And what happens? People get pissed off about it! Fucked up.
Pretty funny. Our prevailing system of rationing health care (especially preventive health care) by wealth is temporarily replaced by a much more humane system of rationing by need. And what happens? People get pissed off about it! Fucked up.
Let's wait for the adult Republicans, Santa Claus and the unicorns to save us
From the New York Times (cited here, there, and everywhere):
What a load of crap. Supposedly, these guys are going to wait until after Bush is elected, and then, when they have no bargaining chips left, are going to talk to Bush about a few things. And Bush, sitting there with the four-year blank check in his pocket, is going to listen to them.
I can tell you what this civil war is really going to look like:
A dozen of the most highly esteemed centrist Republicans will gather together and file into Bush's office -- big-time Senators and high officials from several different Republican administrations. The most eminent among them will begin his statement and put forth his grave concerns. After about two minutes George W. Bush will say something like "I don't need to listen to this crap" and ask the Secret Service to escort the group out of the building. The eminent Republicans will jam the exit as they shuffle away. And Bush will call in a janitor to mop up twelve puddles of piss, and the civil war will be over.
The real adult Republicans, if there are any, will vote for Kerry. If Bush wins, he won't have to listen to anybody, and he won't. Bush's second administration will be revolutionary, transformational, and brutal, and instead of saying that the world changed on 9/11, we'll be saying that the world changed on January 20, 2005.
I suppose it's really my fault. The reason so many Democrats have this pathetic need to find adult Republicans somewhere is that they would do anything rather than buddy up to the likes of me and my friends.
Damn! we must be badasses!
Probably I should be making it easier for those guys to finally turn into partisan Democrats and ditch their imaginary Republican friends, but it's not like they're paying attention or anything. I imagine that the whole bunch of them will figure out what actually happened about two years too late -- the way they did with the Iraq War.
"Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion."
What a load of crap. Supposedly, these guys are going to wait until after Bush is elected, and then, when they have no bargaining chips left, are going to talk to Bush about a few things. And Bush, sitting there with the four-year blank check in his pocket, is going to listen to them.
I can tell you what this civil war is really going to look like:
A dozen of the most highly esteemed centrist Republicans will gather together and file into Bush's office -- big-time Senators and high officials from several different Republican administrations. The most eminent among them will begin his statement and put forth his grave concerns. After about two minutes George W. Bush will say something like "I don't need to listen to this crap" and ask the Secret Service to escort the group out of the building. The eminent Republicans will jam the exit as they shuffle away. And Bush will call in a janitor to mop up twelve puddles of piss, and the civil war will be over.
The real adult Republicans, if there are any, will vote for Kerry. If Bush wins, he won't have to listen to anybody, and he won't. Bush's second administration will be revolutionary, transformational, and brutal, and instead of saying that the world changed on 9/11, we'll be saying that the world changed on January 20, 2005.
I suppose it's really my fault. The reason so many Democrats have this pathetic need to find adult Republicans somewhere is that they would do anything rather than buddy up to the likes of me and my friends.
Damn! we must be badasses!
Probably I should be making it easier for those guys to finally turn into partisan Democrats and ditch their imaginary Republican friends, but it's not like they're paying attention or anything. I imagine that the whole bunch of them will figure out what actually happened about two years too late -- the way they did with the Iraq War.
Planting the seeds for the theft of the election by lowering expectations?
Bush Lawyer Anticipates Delay in Tally
sub required
By Jo Becker - Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A07
President Bush's top campaign lawyer said yesterday that the winner of next month's presidential vote may not be known for "days or weeks" after Election Day if the contest is close.
Experts predict that a large number of absentee ballots will be cast, which could take time to count. For the first time nationwide, voters whose names do not appear on the rolls will be allowed to cast "provisional ballots," which will be counted only after a post-Election Day review determines their eligibility.
In addition, some battleground states will count overseas military ballots received after Election Day as long as they are postmarked before Nov. 3. In Florida, for instance, military ballots received through Nov. 12 will be counted.
Tom Josefiak, the Bush-Cheney campaign's general counsel, said he worries that the uncertainty caused by potential delays could undermine confidence in the outcome. "If it's a close election in any one state, it may be days or weeks before we know who actually is the winner," he said. "I hope that doesn't happen.
Josefiak's comments came as most national polls show Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry in a dead heat. Four years ago, a similarly close race between Bush and Vice President Al Gore deadlocked in Florida and produced a 36-day whirlwind of lawsuits as Democrats sought to recount votes and Republicans pushed to stop while Bush was ahead.
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jenny Backus denounced Josefiak's comment. "It seems like the Republicans want people to somehow think that the results they see on election night aren't accurate, which is a far cry from where they were in 2000," she said. "Maybe they think they're going to be behind."
sub required
By Jo Becker - Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A07
President Bush's top campaign lawyer said yesterday that the winner of next month's presidential vote may not be known for "days or weeks" after Election Day if the contest is close.
Experts predict that a large number of absentee ballots will be cast, which could take time to count. For the first time nationwide, voters whose names do not appear on the rolls will be allowed to cast "provisional ballots," which will be counted only after a post-Election Day review determines their eligibility.
In addition, some battleground states will count overseas military ballots received after Election Day as long as they are postmarked before Nov. 3. In Florida, for instance, military ballots received through Nov. 12 will be counted.
Tom Josefiak, the Bush-Cheney campaign's general counsel, said he worries that the uncertainty caused by potential delays could undermine confidence in the outcome. "If it's a close election in any one state, it may be days or weeks before we know who actually is the winner," he said. "I hope that doesn't happen.
Josefiak's comments came as most national polls show Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry in a dead heat. Four years ago, a similarly close race between Bush and Vice President Al Gore deadlocked in Florida and produced a 36-day whirlwind of lawsuits as Democrats sought to recount votes and Republicans pushed to stop while Bush was ahead.
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jenny Backus denounced Josefiak's comment. "It seems like the Republicans want people to somehow think that the results they see on election night aren't accurate, which is a far cry from where they were in 2000," she said. "Maybe they think they're going to be behind."
No Government, Just Party
This is how Bush uses the people's government. This President's weekly radio address to the nation is now just one more campaign piece. Bush Uses Radio Address to Pan Kerry:
Bush repeated his claim that during the past 20 years, Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times, which he has said repeatedly to reinforce his characterization of Kerry as a free-spending liberal.
10/15/2004
Prove It!
Worries Persist Over U.S. Electronic Voting:
"'A lot of people, I think, saw it as a solution to the problems we had in 2000 but have now found that it has its own set of problems,' said Sean Greene, research director for Electionline.org, a nonpartisan research group. "Yeah, here's a set of problems for you: After the election, if they say "Bush won" or "Kerry won," if anyone says "Prove it!" THEY CAN'T! There is absolutely no way to know if the machines recorded the votes correctly. That's a problem, all right.
What Terrorist killed 18,000 Americans last year?
It’s happening again with the Mary Cheney meme: Republican slime is being flung at Kerry with such persistence that I am afraid some of it will stick.
The Republicans understand how to play the media as their own echo chamber. Of course, owning huge chunks of it doesn’t hurt. Andrea Mackris’ sexual harassment suit against Bill O’Reilly really shows how, for these guys, it’s all about one thing: power. Here’s Bill O’Reilly, showing off:
"If you cross Fox News Channel, it's not just me, it's Roger Ailes who will go after you. I'm the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what's coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he's going to get a knock on his door and life as he's known it will change forever." (The Smoking Gun)
But despite the zealots and the deep pocket financing on the other side, the Democrats could do vastly better in the rhetoric game. It amazes me how the Democrats don’t aggressively set the values agenda. This is the poetry of politics. It requires lyricism and an instinct for the jugular. This should be our hunting season! Under the ‘family friendly’ façade, Republicans are the party of ‘Americans Treat Americans Like Sh*t’. An aggressive values agenda would point this out, over and over and over and over, until even people who don’t like the Democrats would begin to doubt the Republicans.
Case in point: 18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance. Let’s put that into context of the casualties in Iraq, and the deaths at the WTC. Remember, we’re the richest nation in the world and we’re doing this to ourselves. Moreover, it is the Republicans who are primarily responsible for this situation, because they are the ones that oppose any and all reasonable fixes. You think my number is exaggerated? Not at all! This is a National Academy of Sciences study that came out this year.
It should be one of the campaign’s memes: “18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance… and I, John Kerry, will fix this situation, with my plan.”
Bush doesn’t even believe in health insurance! This is what he said in the 3rd debate:
“Health care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. Most health costs are covered by third parties. And therefore, the actual user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. And there's no market forces involved with health care.”
So now you know: we solve the crisis of 18,000 dead every year for lack of health insurance – by getting rid of health insurance. We’ll be dumping a portion of our shrinking pay into ‘health savings accounts’ instead.
The stakes of these issues need to be brought home forcefully. What is more important to you, American voter: the propriety of mentioning the lesbianism of Mary Cheney? Or the possible death of a family member from lack of health insurance?
This is not academic for me. A man I worked for a year ago committed suicide this year. He was a million dollars in debt from health care bills incurred when he was struck by a serious illness while uninsured. I believe the overwhelming debt was a large part of what drove him to kill himself.
The Republicans understand how to play the media as their own echo chamber. Of course, owning huge chunks of it doesn’t hurt. Andrea Mackris’ sexual harassment suit against Bill O’Reilly really shows how, for these guys, it’s all about one thing: power. Here’s Bill O’Reilly, showing off:
"If you cross Fox News Channel, it's not just me, it's Roger Ailes who will go after you. I'm the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what's coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he's going to get a knock on his door and life as he's known it will change forever." (The Smoking Gun)
But despite the zealots and the deep pocket financing on the other side, the Democrats could do vastly better in the rhetoric game. It amazes me how the Democrats don’t aggressively set the values agenda. This is the poetry of politics. It requires lyricism and an instinct for the jugular. This should be our hunting season! Under the ‘family friendly’ façade, Republicans are the party of ‘Americans Treat Americans Like Sh*t’. An aggressive values agenda would point this out, over and over and over and over, until even people who don’t like the Democrats would begin to doubt the Republicans.
Case in point: 18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance. Let’s put that into context of the casualties in Iraq, and the deaths at the WTC. Remember, we’re the richest nation in the world and we’re doing this to ourselves. Moreover, it is the Republicans who are primarily responsible for this situation, because they are the ones that oppose any and all reasonable fixes. You think my number is exaggerated? Not at all! This is a National Academy of Sciences study that came out this year.
It should be one of the campaign’s memes: “18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance… and I, John Kerry, will fix this situation, with my plan.”
Bush doesn’t even believe in health insurance! This is what he said in the 3rd debate:
“Health care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. Most health costs are covered by third parties. And therefore, the actual user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. And there's no market forces involved with health care.”
So now you know: we solve the crisis of 18,000 dead every year for lack of health insurance – by getting rid of health insurance. We’ll be dumping a portion of our shrinking pay into ‘health savings accounts’ instead.
The stakes of these issues need to be brought home forcefully. What is more important to you, American voter: the propriety of mentioning the lesbianism of Mary Cheney? Or the possible death of a family member from lack of health insurance?
This is not academic for me. A man I worked for a year ago committed suicide this year. He was a million dollars in debt from health care bills incurred when he was struck by a serious illness while uninsured. I believe the overwhelming debt was a large part of what drove him to kill himself.
Now It's Official
The lie about Democrats "making up" charges of voter fraud is now the official position of the Repubican Party. The headline at the front page of the Republican Party website reads, Chairman Gillespie Statement on DNC/Kerry Campaign Document Instructing Democrats to Make Up Charges of Voter Intimidation,
This document proves the Kerry Campaign and the DNC are more interested in scaring minority voters than in working to reach out to them on Election Day, even if it means completely making things up.Of course, the Democrats have done nothing of the kind. What the Republicans have done is isolate ONE SENTENCE in a document, removing the context, and claiming it says something entirely different from what it really says. This is what they have done through the entire Presidential campaign.
“The Kerry Campaign and the DNC are instructing Democrats around the country to make charges they know to be false, and to manipulate the media into printing and repeating the false charges in newspapers around the country.
Sinclair Brodacasting -- Advancing the Right's Takeover
Jay Rosen has a piece at The Blogging of the President titled Like Agnew with TV Stations: Sinclair Broadcast Group Takes On Kerry and The Liberal Media. This is an important read. Just what is Sinclair Broadcasting up to, consolidating media power to advance a right-wing agenda?
I don't think pressure on advertisers is going to stop this. The Moonies have no problem spending hundreds of millions on "news" media that always loses money. And public corporations justify to shareholders their political contributions quite frankly - as "investments" (bribes) designed to secure favorable legislation like tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, insider contracts, etc. It works.
Let's suppose for a minute that Bush and his crowd have the best of intentions, and are streamlining the government - systematically eliminating oversight and accountability, etc. - so they can better serve and protect the public. The problem with this is that there are always OTHER people with less noble intentions waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity. You remove the checks and balances, and someone ELSE can step in - someone corrupt or dangerous.
Whether Bush and his cronies want it or not, groups like Sinclair, Pat Robertson, "Christian Nation" activists, etc. will show up to feast on the harvest. Suppose Bush tries to object to their raw use of power -- with Democracy's protections removed they can just push him aside and take the chair themselves. THAT is where we are today, with the doors wide open and unprotected. Watch your backs!
I don't think pressure on advertisers is going to stop this. The Moonies have no problem spending hundreds of millions on "news" media that always loses money. And public corporations justify to shareholders their political contributions quite frankly - as "investments" (bribes) designed to secure favorable legislation like tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, insider contracts, etc. It works.
Let's suppose for a minute that Bush and his crowd have the best of intentions, and are streamlining the government - systematically eliminating oversight and accountability, etc. - so they can better serve and protect the public. The problem with this is that there are always OTHER people with less noble intentions waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity. You remove the checks and balances, and someone ELSE can step in - someone corrupt or dangerous.
Whether Bush and his cronies want it or not, groups like Sinclair, Pat Robertson, "Christian Nation" activists, etc. will show up to feast on the harvest. Suppose Bush tries to object to their raw use of power -- with Democracy's protections removed they can just push him aside and take the chair themselves. THAT is where we are today, with the doors wide open and unprotected. Watch your backs!
They're At It Again!
Remember our STF rule! When Republicans are accusing others of something it usually means it's something they are doing themselves. And now, just as the Republican Party has been caught in a national voter-registration fraud operation -- setting up voter registration drives and then throwing out all the Democrat registrations -- they start making accusations.
From the Moonie's Washington Times, Anti-Bush registration drive stirs fraud concerns:
And the other accusation? That Democrats are going to make up "pre-emptive strikes?" Turns out that's not what the documents cited say at all. They say to describe typical Republican intimidation tactics -- to warn people about what Republicans do -- as a way of helping PREVENT them from happening. The Republican claim that Democrats are being told to make stuff up is ... wait for it ... making stuff up. The rule holds.
From the Moonie's Washington Times, Anti-Bush registration drive stirs fraud concerns:
A coalition of liberal groups committed to defeating President Bush has spent more than $100 million orchestrating the largest voter-registration drive in U.S. history, raising concerns of widespread voter fraud in 14 battleground states.Why does a massive voter registration drive "raise concerns" of widespread voter fraud?
At the same time, Democratic Party officials are gearing up to challenge unfavorable Election Day results in a number of states through "pre-emptive strikes," charging that Republicans prevented minorities from voting even before any such incidents are confirmed.
In the past several months, coalition members have flooded minority neighborhoods in an extensive door-to-door voter-registration drive, using bar-coded sheets to identify undecided and potential Democratic voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin.Oh, I see. It's because MINORITIES are involved! BLACK PEOPLE! YIKES!
Colorado Gov. Bill Owens this week accused the groups of trying to undermine the election process and demanded an investigation by his state attorney of hundreds of questionable voter-registration applications.
"I am very concerned that such groups have registered people who are not qualified to vote," said Mr. Owens, a Republican.
And the other accusation? That Democrats are going to make up "pre-emptive strikes?" Turns out that's not what the documents cited say at all. They say to describe typical Republican intimidation tactics -- to warn people about what Republicans do -- as a way of helping PREVENT them from happening. The Republican claim that Democrats are being told to make stuff up is ... wait for it ... making stuff up. The rule holds.
10/14/2004
DAILY STUNNER: Iraqi nuke sites "carefully stripped", post-invasion.
Saw this report from Rueters on CNN just now:
"Iraqi N-sites 'stripped carefully'"
... how completely irresponsible and oblivious do you have to be in administering the security for a site containing equipment useful for nuclear weapons research and manufacturing (dual-use materials carefully tagged as such by the U.N.), to have the whole friggin' shebang disappear right out from under your nose without you noticing?
The International Atomic Energy Agency noticed this from satellite photographs...
Jesus honking Christ!
This is Keystone Cops material... someone ought to make one of those little Macromedia Flash movies... I can see it now. Dubya swaggering up and down the street, all macho and tough, while hordes of thieves with bulldozers and cranes and other such stuff swarm through the background, busily dismantling the town right behind him... there goes the bank... there goes the jail... there goes the courthouse... end it with a French guy going up to him and alerting him to the situation.
Unbelieveable. I wish this had come out yesterday, before the debate...
What reply could Bush make to a statement like this from John Kerry:
"Citzens of America: under George Bush's watch, Iraq has been systematically stripped of equipment and facilities potentially useful in the manufacture of nuclear weapons - these materials were taken from locations that were well known, that U.N. security inspectors had marked and monitored for years, that should have been at the top of the administration's priority list for protection.
Warehouses have been emptied. Entire buildings have vanished without anyone noticing. It took experts at the U.N.--people not even in Iraq--looking at satellite photos, to figure out that this was happening. The report I read said that 'dozens' of sites were stripped this way.
Citizens of America: I submit to you that the world is a much less safer place as a result of these events, the responsibility for which is entirely and exclusively that of my opponent. Ladies and gentleman - when the building is robbed... not just robbed, but systematically stripped of anything and everything valueable, you fire the people responsible for security and hire someone new. My opponent and his administration have proven incapable of securing Iraq and the world against the terrorists. It is time they are replaced."
UPDATE: Quote from Dick Cheney Speech of Oct. 12th, 2004
Hmm... spoke too soon, Mr. Cheney? Or did you know about the IAEA's pending report, and choose to ignore it (like so many others your administration has found inconvenient)? It would appear that you're correct, Iraq WAS the world's worst source of nuclear proliferation... but mostly AFTER the invasion, and the only reason it is "out of business" is because everything but the kitchen sink has been hauled off and sold to the highest bidder on the black-market, right under your nose.
Entire buildings! Entirely unnoticed! (except by those U.N. bunglers your administration so loves to bash)
What's next? The Washington Monument? The Smithsonian?
The entire speech is available via the White House web site. It was brought to my attention by Declan McCullagh via his Politech list, who found it "unintentionally hilarious" (I couldn't agree more) and was "compelled" to pass it along.
--Thomas Leavitt
"Iraqi N-sites 'stripped carefully'"
"We're talking about dozens of sites being dismantled," a diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Large numbers of buildings taken down, warehouses were emptied and removed. This would require heavy machinery, demolition equipment. This is not something that you'd do overnight."
... how completely irresponsible and oblivious do you have to be in administering the security for a site containing equipment useful for nuclear weapons research and manufacturing (dual-use materials carefully tagged as such by the U.N.), to have the whole friggin' shebang disappear right out from under your nose without you noticing?
The International Atomic Energy Agency noticed this from satellite photographs...
One diplomat said there were "dozens of others" that gradually disappeared from satellite photos analyzed by IAEA experts at its headquarters in Vienna.
Jesus honking Christ!
This is Keystone Cops material... someone ought to make one of those little Macromedia Flash movies... I can see it now. Dubya swaggering up and down the street, all macho and tough, while hordes of thieves with bulldozers and cranes and other such stuff swarm through the background, busily dismantling the town right behind him... there goes the bank... there goes the jail... there goes the courthouse... end it with a French guy going up to him and alerting him to the situation.
Unbelieveable. I wish this had come out yesterday, before the debate...
What reply could Bush make to a statement like this from John Kerry:
"Citzens of America: under George Bush's watch, Iraq has been systematically stripped of equipment and facilities potentially useful in the manufacture of nuclear weapons - these materials were taken from locations that were well known, that U.N. security inspectors had marked and monitored for years, that should have been at the top of the administration's priority list for protection.
Warehouses have been emptied. Entire buildings have vanished without anyone noticing. It took experts at the U.N.--people not even in Iraq--looking at satellite photos, to figure out that this was happening. The report I read said that 'dozens' of sites were stripped this way.
Citizens of America: I submit to you that the world is a much less safer place as a result of these events, the responsibility for which is entirely and exclusively that of my opponent. Ladies and gentleman - when the building is robbed... not just robbed, but systematically stripped of anything and everything valueable, you fire the people responsible for security and hire someone new. My opponent and his administration have proven incapable of securing Iraq and the world against the terrorists. It is time they are replaced."
UPDATE: Quote from Dick Cheney Speech of Oct. 12th, 2004
The biggest danger we face today is having nuclear weapons technology fall into the hands of terrorists. The President is working with many countries in a global effort to end the trade and transfer of these deadly technologies. The most important result thus far -? and a very important one -? is that the black-market network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to Libya, to North Korea, and to Iran has been shut down. (Applause.) The world's worst source of nuclear proliferation is out of business, and we are safer as a result. (Applause.)
Hmm... spoke too soon, Mr. Cheney? Or did you know about the IAEA's pending report, and choose to ignore it (like so many others your administration has found inconvenient)? It would appear that you're correct, Iraq WAS the world's worst source of nuclear proliferation... but mostly AFTER the invasion, and the only reason it is "out of business" is because everything but the kitchen sink has been hauled off and sold to the highest bidder on the black-market, right under your nose.
Entire buildings! Entirely unnoticed! (except by those U.N. bunglers your administration so loves to bash)
What's next? The Washington Monument? The Smithsonian?
The entire speech is available via the White House web site. It was brought to my attention by Declan McCullagh via his Politech list, who found it "unintentionally hilarious" (I couldn't agree more) and was "compelled" to pass it along.
--Thomas Leavitt
Latest Republican Smear
The latest Republican smear claims that a Democratic Party manual tells local party officials to "make up" stories about Republican voter intimidation "even if none exists."
Click here to see the ACTUAL WORDING AND CONTEXT of the Democratic Party manual.
Clearly what they are trying to do is seed the impression that stories of voter intimidation are just made-up. Now why would they be doing that?
(Credit to Drudge for linking to the Democratic Party response.)
Click here to see the ACTUAL WORDING AND CONTEXT of the Democratic Party manual.
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATIONNice try, Republicans. But the part you left out is where it says TO PREVENT. The document says to launch a pre-emptive strike to warn about and TO HELP PREVENT Republican intimidation tactics, not to invent them! Inventing things is what Republicans do, so I guess I can see why they might have thought it meant that.
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.
1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
[. . .] 2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
Clearly what they are trying to do is seed the impression that stories of voter intimidation are just made-up. Now why would they be doing that?
(Credit to Drudge for linking to the Democratic Party response.)
Voter suppression in Oregon
Election fraud and voter suppression efforts are going to be major parts of the 2004 election story. The Republicans are attempting to match Democratic GOTV efforts with their own voter-suppression activities, which are often illegal. Here's an AP story about what's happening in Oregon generally.
This story describes a bizarre variant. Apparently the contract group, realizing that they'd only be paid for Republican registrations, used deceptive methods to try to get people to sign voter-registration forms with blank party-designation slots, which they would later fill out and file as Republican registrants. It doesn't seem to me that the Republicans gain much by conning people into registering as Republicans -- seemingly here the contractors are just playing their own little game.
Presumably people are keeping record of this, and let's hope that the Democrats are prepared for a nasty fight. (The Republicans, as per usual, have already started accusing us of doing the same things that they're doing). It strikes me as unlikely that this election will be decided by November 3.
This story describes a bizarre variant. Apparently the contract group, realizing that they'd only be paid for Republican registrations, used deceptive methods to try to get people to sign voter-registration forms with blank party-designation slots, which they would later fill out and file as Republican registrants. It doesn't seem to me that the Republicans gain much by conning people into registering as Republicans -- seemingly here the contractors are just playing their own little game.
Presumably people are keeping record of this, and let's hope that the Democrats are prepared for a nasty fight. (The Republicans, as per usual, have already started accusing us of doing the same things that they're doing). It strikes me as unlikely that this election will be decided by November 3.
Cheney suppression in Oregon: smart move!
"If you're looking for Vice President Dick Cheney's photo and statement in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet, it's not there.
Fred Neal, pamphlet supervisor at the state Elections Division, said Wednesday that the 40-page booklet, mailed to Oregon voters Tuesday night, lacks a separate section on President George W. Bush's running mate because Republicans decided not to file the material........
Neal said he made an effort to alert Republicans to the Aug. 24 deadline for placing Cheney's photo, personal information and a statement in the pamphlet. He said he talked to Amy Casterline, executive director of the Oregon Republican Party, to call her attention to the deadline.
Neal said he called her back on Aug. 25. She told Neal she talked to national party officials and that they decided not to file a Cheney statement.
"It certainly perplexed us," Neal said.""Voters' Pamphlet leaves Cheney out", Portland Oregonian, Oct. 14, 2004
10/13/2004
Demon litigation
Bush, after more-or-less addressing the debate question about flu vaccine, wanders into prepared text territory with:
We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.This kind of vaccine? Tainted vaccine? Damn lawyers!
Self-Destructive Institution
Bush made a "joke" about the press -- saying no one should trust the mainstream media. Is "the press" going to self-destructively tolerate that?
My local mainstream newspaper runs the Mallard Fillmore comic strip - a strip that tells its readers not to trust or even read mainstream newspapers! This sounds more than a little self-destructive. They put the strip in "for balance." Balancing the by giving people who think they should be dead a voice in their paper. Smart, huh?
This is what I call the "afraid Rush Limbaugh will say bad things about them" syndrome. Like when Democrats in the Congress vote for Republican tax cuts - and CIA Directors - thinking it buys them something with voters who are propagandized by the conservative machine... All they're really accomplishing is hastening the Right's takeover. I think Max Cleland knows what I'm talking about -- a little too late to do him any good, though.
The press currently sucking up to the Right is going to learn a very hard lesson if they are in office next year.
My local mainstream newspaper runs the Mallard Fillmore comic strip - a strip that tells its readers not to trust or even read mainstream newspapers! This sounds more than a little self-destructive. They put the strip in "for balance." Balancing the by giving people who think they should be dead a voice in their paper. Smart, huh?
This is what I call the "afraid Rush Limbaugh will say bad things about them" syndrome. Like when Democrats in the Congress vote for Republican tax cuts - and CIA Directors - thinking it buys them something with voters who are propagandized by the conservative machine... All they're really accomplishing is hastening the Right's takeover. I think Max Cleland knows what I'm talking about -- a little too late to do him any good, though.
The press currently sucking up to the Right is going to learn a very hard lesson if they are in office next year.
DRAFT - somewhere else
I forgot to mention that I have a post on the draft today, over at American Street.
Who Won?
I think Kerry lapsed into long-winded Senatorial answers, phrasing things in ways that regular people would not understand.
I think Bush lied with a smile.
So I think it was a draw. We all have to go out and work as hard as we can to get people to the voting booth! I believe we are literally trying to save democracy. If Bush and his cronies are in control next year we will lapse into a permanent one-party corporate-controlled state.
Bush sure did try to change the subject of several questions.
Update - I am changing my opinion. The result of the post-debate fact-checking is the TV showing Bush's press conference saying he is not concerned about bin Laden. Over and over. BIG win for Kerry.
I think Bush lied with a smile.
So I think it was a draw. We all have to go out and work as hard as we can to get people to the voting booth! I believe we are literally trying to save democracy. If Bush and his cronies are in control next year we will lapse into a permanent one-party corporate-controlled state.
Bush sure did try to change the subject of several questions.
Update - I am changing my opinion. The result of the post-debate fact-checking is the TV showing Bush's press conference saying he is not concerned about bin Laden. Over and over. BIG win for Kerry.
What Bush Said About bin Laden
Here is what Bush said that he never said. Transcript, Bush press conference, March 13, 2002:
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? ...
BUSH: ... So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you.
Ouch
"In those days after 9/11 I think the President did a terrific job."
- John Kerry, announcing that he plans to lose the election.
- John Kerry, announcing that he plans to lose the election.
Senatorial
It's 7:48, and Kerry is being so "Senatorial" that I can't understand what he's saying./ He's going on and on...
Fact is, Social Security is NOT "going broke" and the moderator is just repeating right-wing slogans.
Fact is, Social Security is NOT "going broke" and the moderator is just repeating right-wing slogans.
Kerry whips Bush's ass a third time; Kerry and Edwards sweep, 4-0
Even though President Bush's Wednesday debate performance was marginally superior to his hapless earlier appearances, it's no surprise that he lost again to the challenger, Senator John Kerry. When you're expected to strip the "Worst President Ever" crown from Franklin Pierce, who has held it for over a century and a half, re-election is unlikely indeed. And the most eloquent orator in the history of bullshit would be hard-pressed to defend the worst job-creation record since Herbert Hoover, the bait-and-switch Iraq War disaster, or several of our President's other dishonest policy initiatives.
After the debate Karl Rove said that debates are not really very important, and that he expects that negative campaigning, voter suppression, control of the voting machines, and promises of pork will be enough to bring the win to the Republican team. "But I suppose that we're losing the wonk vote on this", he said, laughing uproariously.
After the debate Karl Rove said that debates are not really very important, and that he expects that negative campaigning, voter suppression, control of the voting machines, and promises of pork will be enough to bring the win to the Republican team. "But I suppose that we're losing the wonk vote on this", he said, laughing uproariously.
Soros
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a93634.htm
http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_cellasreview_archive.html#107733306937661338
http://www.i-depth.com/P/o/ow00412.frm.czech1.msg/19904.html
false, incoherent and pernicious Paul CellaLech Walesa
http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/10/12/144246/91
Opposition such as this consists of sophisters and energumens who would murder this nation by their abstractions, and call the whole bloody crime an act of healthy self-possession.
The Devil or his demons who did the possessing were called the'energumenus,' and the possessed person was the 'energumen'
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040705&s=alterman
http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_cellasreview_archive.html#107733306937661338
http://www.i-depth.com/P/o/ow00412.frm.czech1.msg/19904.html
false, incoherent and pernicious Paul CellaLech Walesa
http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/10/12/144246/91
Opposition such as this consists of sophisters and energumens who would murder this nation by their abstractions, and call the whole bloody crime an act of healthy self-possession.
The Devil or his demons who did the possessing were called the'energumenus,' and the possessed person was the 'energumen'
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040705&s=alterman
Bush Senior may not be supporting Bush Junior
The letter from George H. W. Bush below has been floating around the internet. Some believe that it might be a hoax, but who knows, really? True, the fact that it all makes pretty good sense does cast doubt on the idea that it might be from a Republican.
(Recently the below was forwarded to me from someone who had played a small part in settling the affairs of an old friend of George H.W. Bush who had died unexpectedly. He does not want his identity to become public and has also suppressed the identity of the late friend, who was relatively unknown, but who had known Bush since childhood.)
Dear ****,
Just a note on your birthday. Bar and I often think of those wonderful times on the water back when the kids were young. At the end of a long life, your old friends become more important to you.It's been a good life, but this election has been a trial.
Loyalty requires public support for our son, which of course he gets, but you wonder whether reelection would really be the best thing. Maybe the family future lies in the younger brother, who has performed so splendidly in Florida.
The outlook in Iraq is appalling and maybe we should leave it for the other team to handle. Some of the choices made going in were terribly ill-advised, and I'm afraid that the team now in place is just not up to the job. Dick Cheney is not the man I remember. His face is twisted and you wonder whether ill health and his medication have affected his judgment. And Wolfowitz's kind should never be allowed in a serious policy position.
And you know that I think that a degree of religious belief is necessary, but some of the people my son relies on have gone far over the line on that.
I've stayed in the background. No other choice. But now I can't really talk to the boy any more, and Colin tells me he can't reach him either. I've lost good, old friends over this, and with several others it can get uncomfortable.
The stress of the job is greater now than it was during my day and we wonder whether his weaknesses haven't returned. His wife, God bless her, has been a real trooper. She keeps us posted and tries to keep a lid on things.We're hoping for the best.
Hope this hasn't been an imposition – if you can't talk to your oldest friends, who can you talk to? God willing, we should be able to see each other sometime in the next few months.
Yours,
G
Media complicity
Ok, this is the biggest story of the election to date. And I can't find it in the corporate media (except local news outlets in Nevada).
10/12/2004
Stopping Sinclair Broadcasting
By now you know that Sinclair Broadcasting is ordering all of their stations to broadcast during prime-time - just before the election - a smear "documentary" made by the Swift Boat Veterans.
The Democratic National Committee has a web page devoted to action on this: DNC Action Alert: Stop Sinclair's Anti-Kerry Smear.
Also, Steve at Left Coaster and Kevin at The American Street have taken the lead in blogging and suggesting ways to act on this.
But this is what AM radio is and has been for twenty years -- a full-time 24/7 commercial for the organized Right's takeover of the Republican Party and the country. I think this is the kind of thing to expect as long as the Right's powerful, well-funded network of ideological advocacy/communications organizations is not countered by similarly-funded and chartered Progressive organizations. I think it can only get worse until people who support OUR side and have money come to understand that they need to step up to the plate and get this underway. The organized "conservative movement" has somewhere betwen 350 and 500 organizations in place, employing literally thousands of professional propogandists. Meanwhile, "our side" has a bunch of broke bloggers battling for BlogAds bucks to boost bandwidth - and buy beer. (Please visit our sponsors.)
As The Party consolidates their control over all aspects of our society, more and more of our institutions will become little more than Party propaganda organs. First we saw the Republican Party itself fall, then churches, the military, sports and sporting events, even the Boy Scouts... Each of these have been infiltrated, overtaken ... As history warns us, next comes the purges.
The Democratic National Committee has a web page devoted to action on this: DNC Action Alert: Stop Sinclair's Anti-Kerry Smear.
Also, Steve at Left Coaster and Kevin at The American Street have taken the lead in blogging and suggesting ways to act on this.
But this is what AM radio is and has been for twenty years -- a full-time 24/7 commercial for the organized Right's takeover of the Republican Party and the country. I think this is the kind of thing to expect as long as the Right's powerful, well-funded network of ideological advocacy/communications organizations is not countered by similarly-funded and chartered Progressive organizations. I think it can only get worse until people who support OUR side and have money come to understand that they need to step up to the plate and get this underway. The organized "conservative movement" has somewhere betwen 350 and 500 organizations in place, employing literally thousands of professional propogandists. Meanwhile, "our side" has a bunch of broke bloggers battling for BlogAds bucks to boost bandwidth - and buy beer. (Please visit our sponsors.)
As The Party consolidates their control over all aspects of our society, more and more of our institutions will become little more than Party propaganda organs. First we saw the Republican Party itself fall, then churches, the military, sports and sporting events, even the Boy Scouts... Each of these have been infiltrated, overtaken ... As history warns us, next comes the purges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)