KERRY: I think the person who has to worry about coming down to the South and campaigning is President George Bush, who's had 36 months of sustained loss of manufacturing jobs, who has ignored health care, who's turned his back on the schools in the South and who is fundamentally the worst administration in modern history with respect to the environment. And his foreign policy has been reckless and arrogant and led America to break our relationships around the globe.
* * *
EDWARDS: Historically we've never elected a Democrat president without winning at least five southern states.
* * *
KUCINICH: There's so much talent on this stage that I believe this race is going to go all the way to the convention. And what that means -- no one's going to get 50 percent of the delegates going to the convention.
* * *
DEAN: The president was not candid with the American people when we went to war. It's why I did not support going to war, even though I did support the first Gulf War and I did support the Afghanistan war. I simply didn't believe what the president was saying. What we now find out is that the Vice President Dick Cheney went to the CIA on at least one occasion, and maybe more, sat with middle- level CIA operatives and berated them because he didn't like their intelligence reports. It seems to me that the vice president of the United States therefore influenced the very reports that the president then used to decide to go to war and to ask Congress for permission to go to war. The president himself and the secretary of state have recently admitted that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11; that there was no connection and no evidence of connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. In that case, why are we in Iraq? And why are so many people from South Carolina there right now, when they should be home concentrating on homeland security and when they should be going after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida?
* * *
KERRY: The president gave guarantees not just to the Congress and to the American people, but to the world, about how he would conduct himself as president. He said he would build a legitimate global coalition. He said he would respect the United Nations inspection process and work through it. And he said to the American people he would go to war only as a last resort. I will tell you, and I think General Clark will share this, that those who've been to war know that the words "last resort" are important. And I intend to hold him accountable in this election, because the American people's pockets are being picked to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and our troops are at greater risk than they needed to be. And we deserve leadership that knows how to take a nation to war if you have to.
* * *
LIEBERMAN: The statements that this administration made before the war, the questions we now have about the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, the failure of the Bush administration to be prepared for what to do after we overthrew Saddam have all unfortunately given a bad name to a just war. So I will never waiver in my conclusion that the world and America are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison and not in power.
* * *
CLARK: The president is playing politics with national security when he says we'll be out (of Iraq) by the 30th of June. That's just an arbitrary date related to the presidential election. It's not related to what's going on on the ground.... I heard from the Pentagon two weeks after 9/11 that the administration was determined to go into Iraq, whether or not there was any connection with 9/11; that they were going to use it as a pretext for invading Iraq. And that was common knowledge in Washington. There should never have been a congressional authorization for the president to have a blank check to take this country to war, because everybody knew that's what he intended to do. And they knew what the timetable was. It was a politically motivated timetable to go in the 30th of March, just like this 30th of June date. We've got to change this government.
* * *
SHARPTON: We were told, in the wake of 9/11, we were in imminent danger with weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow him (Bush) to change this now and say we were just after Hussein because he was a bad guy. Everybody knows Hussein was a bad guy, and there are other bad guys who we didn't go after, and we didn't lie about it. I preached the funeral of a young man, Darius Jennings, who died shot down in a helicopter in Iraq. I preached it right here in Orangeburg, South Carolina. His mother was told he went to war to protect us from weapons of mass destruction. She was not told he went to war because we have a bad guy over there, because there's any number of bad guys. We should find a way to get rid of bad guys, but lying to the American people is not the way you run a country, and George Bush ought to be removed for that.
* * *
BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?
KERRY:Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. Nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. That said, they are really misleading all of America in a profound way. (The war on terror) is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations. And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path.
* * *
CLARK: The president did not do all he could have done to have prevented that attack (on 9/11).... When the Bush administration came to office, the Bush administration was told the greatest threat to America is Osama bin Laden, and yet almost nine months later, when the United States was struck, there was still no plan as to what to do with Osama bin Laden. But we had worked really hard with Vladimir Putin to do something about national missile defense and get out of the ABM Treaty, and a lot of other things had been done. This administration did not have its priorities right, and the president, not the intelligence community, and not the previous administration, President George W. Bush must be held accountable for that. That's the job of the president of the United States: to focus attention, to set the priorities, to take the actions to keep America safe.
* * *
KUCINICH: I think the problem is today is that the administration's approach, their doctrine is wrong. The doctrine of preemption led us into Iraq. The doctrine of unilateralism essentially led us into Iraq. The doctrine of first strike puts us at risk of expanding war. So this administration started off with the wrong doctrine. And you know what? It was ideologically driven. Because we know that the Project for the New American Century was talking years before about an attack on Iraq and their ideological adherents came into the administration. We need to re-engage with the world community and work with the world community through the U.N. Tom, that's the only way we're going to be safe as a nation.
* * *
SHARPTON: Mr. Bush and some of his crowd have said they represent a Christian view against the Islamic. And I don't think Christ could join most of their churches. But many of their supporters talk about how they represent Christianity. I don't think they represent Christianity any more than some of these murderers, and mass murderers, represent Islam. So let's not blame the religion. Let's blame those that use religion to do some ruthless, deadly, wicked acts. Having said that, I think we should build relationships with those nations around the world, and I have visited them. And how do you build relationships? Work with them on things of self-interest. Many of them need clean water supplies, clean sanitation, trade. They would become our partners if we engaged in partnership. But I don't that the way we do that is attacking people's religion, trying to act like our religion is better.
And as far as Mr. Bush saying that he doesn't need a permission slip from the U.N., he doesn't think he needs votes from the American people to be president.
* * *
DEAN: I think in some ways, unfortunately, the terrorists have already won. We have an act (Patriot) that allows American citizens to be held without knowing what they're charged with and without seeing a lawyer. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts.... I think none of us mind being searched and have our shaving kits rummaged through in the airlines and all that. But if we start giving up our fundamental liberties as Americans because terrorists attacked us, then we have a big problem. I honestly don't believe that John Ashcroft and George Bush and the members of the Federalist Society view the Constitution the way mainstream American attorneys or the way most American citizens do. We have a right to protection of our liberties. A lot of people died for that in the Revolutionary War. And I am not going to let the right wing of the Republican Party take those liberties away from us.
* * *
DEAN: We ought to change NAFTA. We've only done half the job with globalization. You've globalized the rights of big corporations to do business anywhere in the country, but what we now need to do is globalize the rights of workers, labor unions, environmentalists and human rights. If you do that, you raise the standard of living in other countries. And what happens is our jobs stop going away because the cost of production goes up. It also reduces illegal immigration, because now you don't have to come to the United States to make a living, you can make one in your country. People don't leave their countries because they hate their country; they leave their countries because they can't make a living. And now we can do that.
You've got to put the emphasis on fair trade, not free trade. And what the problem has been that when the Clinton administration and the Bush administration continued to push this, only half the job was done. We forgot about the workers. If you want jobs in this country, here's what you do. First, you've got to balance the budget. Not one Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years in this country. You cannot trust the right wing with your money. Secondly, you've got to invest in small businesses. Small businesses and self-employed people create 70 percent of all the new jobs in America. That's where our investments should be going, not tax credits to corporations who move their headquarters to Bermuda and their jobs to China.
* * *
BROKAW: Congressman Kucinich, I know you have some strong feelings about NAFTA, but let me just preface your remarks with this observation.
This material that's coming in now from foreign countries -- it's a tragedy to lose the jobs here in South Carolina, but if you go to Illinois or California or the Great Plains and people go to Walmart or Costco or any of the other big, big stores these days, they kind of like those prices. They've gotten used to the idea of not paying as much for shoes or shirts or clothing or any other number of items because they are manufactured offshore.
KUCINICH: Well, that presumes that people of this country do not have a social consciousness. I believe they do. That's why we've lost hundreds of textile plants in this country. That's why our steel, automotive, aerospace, shipping and textile industries are in such severe trouble. What I intend to do as president of the United States is to challenge this global trading structure where corporations are actually controlling nations with their trade rules. That's why I've said my first act in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO... and return to bilateral trade, which will be conditioned on workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles.
Tom, with all respect to Governor Dean, you can't just say you're going to fix these trade agreements, because they're written so as not to be fixed. They could have been fixed in 1993 when NAFTA was passed, and in '94 when the WTO went into effect. We are losing our manufacturing base. Some of these trade laws, you can't even buy America the way they're set up.
And so, you know, my position: Buy America or bye-bye America.
* * *
KERRY: I'm going to go to the tax code that's gone from 14 pages to 17,000 pages, and we're going to take out any benefit, any reward, any incentive, for any Benedict Arnold company or CEO to take American jobs overseas and stick the American people with the bill.
* * *
BROKAW: Reverend Sharpton, should wealthy Americans or people who are well off, for that matter, pay more for their Medicare benefits? Should we begin now a real test of means and apply it to the Medicare costs that are beginning to run exponentially out of control?
SHARPTON: I think they should pay their share, which is more. I think that when you have the present set-up that you have and you go above $80,000 and they pay nothing, I think that is absolutely ridiculous. I think that they must pay their share.
And, you know, it's absurd to me for people to come and look at the people in South Carolina in the face and say, "It's an honor for your sons and daughters to go abroad and die for others. But it is a burden for rich people to pay their tax at home." I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either all of us should be honored to sacrifice or none of us should.
In terms of jobs, I want to address that. We need to create jobs. Not only do we need to rescind NAFTA -- and I think we must rescind it. You can't correct it. It has cost jobs. It has sent jobs from this state to Asia and other places. This president has increased the deficit, has not increased jobs and is embracing the rich at the expense of working class and poor people. And it's double in communities of color. Black unemployment in this state is double. We face class and race. I don't think we can tolerate that four more years.
Highlights from the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
Let's "Harken" back to a more "innocent" era
As Martha Stewart's name and reputation did their requisite smears, it might do us well to revisit another, less famous, case of insider trading.
1986 - Harken buys Bush's Spectrum 7. Bush gets over 200,000 shares in Harken and a seat on the board of directors. (His daddy is VP at the time).
1989 - Harken attempts to mask losses by selling one of its subsidiaries in an Enron-style shuffle. They lent money to a group of Harken insiders, sold them Aloha Petroleum, and claimed an $8 million profit on the sale in its 1989 annual report (which meant it only lost $3.3 million for the quarter). Bush in on the audit committee and his daddy is President.
1990, June - Bush, while on the board of directors and the audit committee, sells 212,140 shares of Harken for $4 a share ($848,560). Harken's accountants warned the board that such sales would appear as dumping, since they would have information about the company's financial standing. Who's going to say no to the President's first born?
1990, August - Harken reveals its true financial condition - 2nd quarter losses of $23 million. Stock dives to $2.37. Bush got out just in time. Heh, heh.
1990, Fall - SEC investigates Harken's Aloha transactions.
1991, February - SEC requires Harken to restate its 1989 statements to reflect $12.5 million loss, not the original 3.3. Stock falls to about $1.
1991, March - Bush reports his sale of stock 34 weeks late. That stupid dog ate his statements.
1991, April - SEC investigates Bush for insider trading because he was on the board of directors and the audit committee. His daddy is President. The SEC does not exonnerate him, but suspend the investigation.
You can buy Harken stock. (HEC on the AMEX). It dropped 4 cents today. You can get it for about $1 these days. I might just get some for the fun of it.
As Martha Stewart's name and reputation did their requisite smears, it might do us well to revisit another, less famous, case of insider trading.
1986 - Harken buys Bush's Spectrum 7. Bush gets over 200,000 shares in Harken and a seat on the board of directors. (His daddy is VP at the time).
1989 - Harken attempts to mask losses by selling one of its subsidiaries in an Enron-style shuffle. They lent money to a group of Harken insiders, sold them Aloha Petroleum, and claimed an $8 million profit on the sale in its 1989 annual report (which meant it only lost $3.3 million for the quarter). Bush in on the audit committee and his daddy is President.
1990, June - Bush, while on the board of directors and the audit committee, sells 212,140 shares of Harken for $4 a share ($848,560). Harken's accountants warned the board that such sales would appear as dumping, since they would have information about the company's financial standing. Who's going to say no to the President's first born?
1990, August - Harken reveals its true financial condition - 2nd quarter losses of $23 million. Stock dives to $2.37. Bush got out just in time. Heh, heh.
1990, Fall - SEC investigates Harken's Aloha transactions.
1991, February - SEC requires Harken to restate its 1989 statements to reflect $12.5 million loss, not the original 3.3. Stock falls to about $1.
1991, March - Bush reports his sale of stock 34 weeks late. That stupid dog ate his statements.
1991, April - SEC investigates Bush for insider trading because he was on the board of directors and the audit committee. His daddy is President. The SEC does not exonnerate him, but suspend the investigation.
You can buy Harken stock. (HEC on the AMEX). It dropped 4 cents today. You can get it for about $1 these days. I might just get some for the fun of it.
Osama bin Laden In Custody by Christmas
from The Advertiser (AU)
from The Advertiser (AU)
The US-led coalition in Afghanistan is confident of capturing al-Qaeda terror network chief Osama bin Laden, who has long eluded determined efforts to catch him, by the end of the year, a US military spokesman said today.The Bush Admin gets legitimized amid widespread public criticism post-2000 dubious election by attacks by Osama Bin Laden, whose family sits on boards with the Bushes. Enter Afghanistan and oil pipelines, raise military budget, pay Halliburton (made up of the GOP heads). Invade Iraq, take oil, Halliburton gets caught overcharging. When Patriot Act 2 needs signing on a Saturday, trot out Saddam Hussein. Plant seed during election year of military's confidence in suddenly finding Osama this year, who should be dead from lack of dialysis technology, etc ...
Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty said the hunt for militant remnants of the ousted Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime, including its leader Mullah Omar, bin Laden and former Afghan premier and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was continuing.
"Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and Hekmatyar represent a threat to the world and they need to be destroyed. We believe we will catch them within this year," Hilferty told reporters in Kabul.
56+22=4,321?
That's how many delegates were at stake in Iowa (56) and New Hampshire (22). But you wouldn't know that from the media's coverage. Kerry is being called the frontrunner, Dean is being written off as dead in the water, and much of the punditocracy is now focused on who will be the Vice President.
Is this what our democracy has come to, where two small states with less than 2% of the electorate have the power to determine the Democratic nominee? What's behind "the Big Mo" and how does the media feed the perception that Iowa and New Hampshire are valid indicators of the national electorate's sentiments?
Is it reasonable to conclude that the system works if 9 of the last 10 major party presidential nominees were winners of either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary? Or does this fact say more about the disproportionate influence these two states have on national opinion.
And what about the media's coverage? Why has the significance of Iowa and New Hampshire been grossly exaggerated? What interest do they have in seeing a nominee chosen sooner, rather than later?
The pundits have given various explanations for why the sudden shifts in Iowa and New Hampshire away from Howard Dean, but they neglect one simple one. Most people are procrastinators -- they don't pay much attention or make up their minds until their vote is a week away. That's why the anti-Dean ads run by Gephardt and the Club for Growth had such an impact during the last week in Iowa, which in turn affected New Hampshire. And that's why Dean closed the gap in New Hampshire to 13% when it had been running higher than 20%.
New Hampshire's is an open primary, meaning Republicans could cast their lot in the Democratic Primary, potentially picking the candidate they would most like to face against their incumbent president. And who might that be?
Kerry and Dean received 65% of the votes cast yesterday in New Hampshire, leaving 35% to the rest of the field. there are a lot of votes up for grabs.
On a related note, if you're curious to see how your views match those of the candidates, take the "Vote by Issues Quiz" and find out for yourself.
That's how many delegates were at stake in Iowa (56) and New Hampshire (22). But you wouldn't know that from the media's coverage. Kerry is being called the frontrunner, Dean is being written off as dead in the water, and much of the punditocracy is now focused on who will be the Vice President.
Is this what our democracy has come to, where two small states with less than 2% of the electorate have the power to determine the Democratic nominee? What's behind "the Big Mo" and how does the media feed the perception that Iowa and New Hampshire are valid indicators of the national electorate's sentiments?
Is it reasonable to conclude that the system works if 9 of the last 10 major party presidential nominees were winners of either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary? Or does this fact say more about the disproportionate influence these two states have on national opinion.
And what about the media's coverage? Why has the significance of Iowa and New Hampshire been grossly exaggerated? What interest do they have in seeing a nominee chosen sooner, rather than later?
The pundits have given various explanations for why the sudden shifts in Iowa and New Hampshire away from Howard Dean, but they neglect one simple one. Most people are procrastinators -- they don't pay much attention or make up their minds until their vote is a week away. That's why the anti-Dean ads run by Gephardt and the Club for Growth had such an impact during the last week in Iowa, which in turn affected New Hampshire. And that's why Dean closed the gap in New Hampshire to 13% when it had been running higher than 20%.
New Hampshire's is an open primary, meaning Republicans could cast their lot in the Democratic Primary, potentially picking the candidate they would most like to face against their incumbent president. And who might that be?
Kerry and Dean received 65% of the votes cast yesterday in New Hampshire, leaving 35% to the rest of the field. there are a lot of votes up for grabs.
On a related note, if you're curious to see how your views match those of the candidates, take the "Vote by Issues Quiz" and find out for yourself.
At least Bush doesn't have that funny little moustache, part II
Harley Sorenson asks in today's San Francisco Chronicle, "Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy?" This question has been tossed around for many months now. The valid comparisons between Bush&Co and Hitler's Nazi Party are too numerous to simply dismiss as ridiculous, as some would like.
Harley Sorenson asks in today's San Francisco Chronicle, "Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy?" This question has been tossed around for many months now. The valid comparisons between Bush&Co and Hitler's Nazi Party are too numerous to simply dismiss as ridiculous, as some would like.
Could John Kerry Beat George Bush?
Should Sen. Kerry go on to win the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, as is expected, that will be the question on many voters minds in South Carolina, and in the much larger states holding primaries on March 2nd. Winning Iowa and New Hampshire will prove nothing about Kerry's electability -- except that he appeals to about a third of less than 2% of the nation's Democrats.
Kerry's interview with Ed Bradley aired on 60 Minutes tonight and it won't hurt his chances. Kerry comes across as a good man. The interview sheds light on his war hero distinction, but fails to depict him as a Renaissance man of sorts, who plays classical guitar and plays hockey.
Kerry would make a good President, if he could beat George W. Bush in the general election. I'm not so sure that he can. He's a New Englander, and seems much more like one than Howard Dean does. (For various reasons, Dean transcends the regional distinction.) The last New England Democrat to be elected President was John F. Kennedy. The Democrats have had much better luck with Southerners, so even if Kerry or Dean were to get the nomination, they would be well advised to add Sen. John Edwards, Gen. Wesley Clark or Sen. Bob Graham to their ticket, to garner some support in the red states.
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the interview was why Kerry won Iowa, and why he's leading in New Hampshire now. He says it's because he's doing a better job of connecting with the voters. "You kind of have to get out of Washington, get away from the language. Get away from the sort of formality, and break out. And that’s what I did."
Maybe, but that's not why he won Iowa or why he'll likely win New Hampshire. It has less to do with him than with Dick Gephardt and the national media. Gephardt spent everything he had running attack ads on Dean in Iowa. Voters there turned away from Gephardt for running negative ads, but got nervous about Dean. Kerry and Edwards seemed like reasonable alternatives, safe votes, good-looking Senators who seemed less angry, more like candidates who knew the system.
Even more important than Gephardt's ads was the national media's negative coverage of Howard Dean, which still continues. The negative blitzkrieg against Dean makes me think that the establishment is really worried about him, and will say and do anything to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. When it comes down to it, they want someone who gets money from large corporate donors, who represents moneyed interests, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (And don't forget, Kerry is also a member of Skulll and Bones, just like Dubya.) They want someone a little more like the Al Gore of 2000, who might rock the boat a little, but not too much. They want someone whom they can control, plain and simple. Even better if they get a Democrat nominee whom George Bush might possibly beat. They want the anti-Dean, and John Kerry may very well be their man.
Bush's Forest Service green-lights decimation of Sierra trees
Sacramento -- The U.S. Forest Service made final an ambitious plan for doubling the amount of timber cut in the Sierra Nevada forest Thursday, drawing the ire of environmentalists and only tepid support from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration.
The "Forests with a Future" plan is designed to decrease catastrophic wildfires in the Sierra Nevada's 11 national forests by aggressively thinning on federal land.
Officials said the devastating wildfires in Southern California last year should be a wake-up call for action for the Sierra, where 850 communities have been classified as at risk of a catastrophic fire.
"The total plan is one-fifth of the forests' annual growth," said Jack Blackwell, Pacific Southwest Regional Forester. "Forests will continue to get denser and denser."
How do forests get 'denser and denser', exactly? More than they've done in the last million+ years of evolution, anyway? This whole Saruman episode wouldn't be sponsored by timber robber-barons, would it?
It's a fact - certain trees need fire to reproduce and get 'denser and denser'. Fires are natural and help forests; that's why they happen every year. If they're getting worse, it's due to global warming.
Was James Watt this bad? Don't trees prevent landslides, silting over of streams [helping dams bring us all power, mind you], and turn carbon dioxide into oxygen? Didn't Reagan say trees were sources of pollution?
"Hands all over the inland forest
In a striking motion trees fall down
Like dying soldiers"
-- Soundgarden
What Difference Does Iowa Make?
I've talked with several Democratic friends in the last 24 hours about the Iowa Caucus, and the surprising 1-2-3 finish of Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Howard Dean. Some think that things now look pretty good for Kerry, whose fortunes had been falling since Howard Dean's campaign took off last summer. Some feel that Kerry is what the party needs: a tough, (true) war hero, with foreign policy experience and the look and presence of a statesman. (It doesn't hurt that his wife has enough money to match Bush's fundraising single-handedly, should she care to.)
John Edwards was an even bigger surprise than Kerry. By playing the nice guy to everyone's attack-Dean strategy, he apparently scored points with Iowans who want a nice candidate to represent them. If nothing else, his showing increases his chances of having a job come next January. (He gave up his post in the Senate to run.) I wonder whether his alliance with Dennis Kucinich helped him at all -- I've heard no reports of whether it did.
Howard Dean was the biggest surprise. Until a few weeks ago, he looked like the frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire. (Of course, Gephardt looked like a probable second two weeks ago, and he finished fourth and summarily dropped out of the race.) Ever since Dean charged ahead in fundraising, the GOP and the Bush team have been attacking and misrepresenting Dean as: too liberal, too conservative, easy for Bush to beat, a pacifist, another McGovern, another Dukakis, too angry, too short, from too small a state. The corporate media has dutifully delivered Karl Rove's message, and apparently it's sunk in for a lot of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. The main message: Bush is undefeatable, and Dean is unelectable.
Is Iowa a good predictor of success? It hasn't been since 1976. But finishing in the top three is important, if not absolutely necessary. New Hampshire isn't a particularly accurate indicator of ultimate success, either, but a strong showing there creates momentum moving forward.
It's easy to forget, given the attention that Iowa and New Hampshire have received this time, that these are just two small states. It's a huge leap to conclude that results in these states reflect the sentiments of the electorate on a national level. But that is what the winners would have us believe.
Who is the frontrunner now? It comes down to money and organization, and on both counts Howard Dean is still in the lead. Wesley Clark raised a lot of money in the last quarter, and Kerry and Edwards should expect a big boost from their Iowa showing. It's a four-man race, now, to be certain.
If Dean doesn't win or finish second in New Hampshire, is it all over for his campaign? Maybe, but it shouldn't be. A friend asks, will it be two and out for Dean, the "worst collapse since the UVa men's basketball team, which at one point two years ago was ranked #4 in the nation, then missed the NCAAs?" I doubt it. Dean is a fighter and his campaign is unusual in that it's a grassroots movement unlike any seen before in American politics.
The larger question is, what difference does Iowa make? And who has the greatest say in determining the Democratic nominee? Al Gore, Bill Bradley and Tom Harken endorsed Howard Dean, but that may not have mattered much to Iowans. The media has played favorites with Gen. Wesley Clark and denounced Howard Dean at almost every turn.
Most voters still haven't a clue of what distinguishes Kerry from Edwards from Dean from Clark. Many still won't know come Election Day. But if the winner of primaries in two small states in January determines who represents the Democratic Party in November; if Democrats in New York and California don't matter as much as those in Iowa and New Hampshire, then maybe it's time we take a close look at the process and consider making some changes.
I've talked with several Democratic friends in the last 24 hours about the Iowa Caucus, and the surprising 1-2-3 finish of Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Howard Dean. Some think that things now look pretty good for Kerry, whose fortunes had been falling since Howard Dean's campaign took off last summer. Some feel that Kerry is what the party needs: a tough, (true) war hero, with foreign policy experience and the look and presence of a statesman. (It doesn't hurt that his wife has enough money to match Bush's fundraising single-handedly, should she care to.)
John Edwards was an even bigger surprise than Kerry. By playing the nice guy to everyone's attack-Dean strategy, he apparently scored points with Iowans who want a nice candidate to represent them. If nothing else, his showing increases his chances of having a job come next January. (He gave up his post in the Senate to run.) I wonder whether his alliance with Dennis Kucinich helped him at all -- I've heard no reports of whether it did.
Howard Dean was the biggest surprise. Until a few weeks ago, he looked like the frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire. (Of course, Gephardt looked like a probable second two weeks ago, and he finished fourth and summarily dropped out of the race.) Ever since Dean charged ahead in fundraising, the GOP and the Bush team have been attacking and misrepresenting Dean as: too liberal, too conservative, easy for Bush to beat, a pacifist, another McGovern, another Dukakis, too angry, too short, from too small a state. The corporate media has dutifully delivered Karl Rove's message, and apparently it's sunk in for a lot of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. The main message: Bush is undefeatable, and Dean is unelectable.
Is Iowa a good predictor of success? It hasn't been since 1976. But finishing in the top three is important, if not absolutely necessary. New Hampshire isn't a particularly accurate indicator of ultimate success, either, but a strong showing there creates momentum moving forward.
It's easy to forget, given the attention that Iowa and New Hampshire have received this time, that these are just two small states. It's a huge leap to conclude that results in these states reflect the sentiments of the electorate on a national level. But that is what the winners would have us believe.
Who is the frontrunner now? It comes down to money and organization, and on both counts Howard Dean is still in the lead. Wesley Clark raised a lot of money in the last quarter, and Kerry and Edwards should expect a big boost from their Iowa showing. It's a four-man race, now, to be certain.
If Dean doesn't win or finish second in New Hampshire, is it all over for his campaign? Maybe, but it shouldn't be. A friend asks, will it be two and out for Dean, the "worst collapse since the UVa men's basketball team, which at one point two years ago was ranked #4 in the nation, then missed the NCAAs?" I doubt it. Dean is a fighter and his campaign is unusual in that it's a grassroots movement unlike any seen before in American politics.
The larger question is, what difference does Iowa make? And who has the greatest say in determining the Democratic nominee? Al Gore, Bill Bradley and Tom Harken endorsed Howard Dean, but that may not have mattered much to Iowans. The media has played favorites with Gen. Wesley Clark and denounced Howard Dean at almost every turn.
Most voters still haven't a clue of what distinguishes Kerry from Edwards from Dean from Clark. Many still won't know come Election Day. But if the winner of primaries in two small states in January determines who represents the Democratic Party in November; if Democrats in New York and California don't matter as much as those in Iowa and New Hampshire, then maybe it's time we take a close look at the process and consider making some changes.
Vivid Illustration of Why the Bush Space Plan is Moronic
Not only do NASA engineers agree that landing people is a colossal waste, but the ACTUAL, VITAL use of humans in shuttle operations for satellite maintenance is ending so we can plant a US flag on Mars... sigh. From Discovery Channel:
Say goodbye to the pictures of the universe, much less the colossal improvements in astronomy... gotta get that flag up and show the Martians they're living in an American colony now, just like the Iraqis.
With the shuttles' days numbered, NASA has decided to end servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, a move that likely will clip three years off one of the most productive science instruments ever put into orbit.
"Life without Hubble is going to be a shock," said Ray Villard, an astronomer with the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md. "But we are married to the shuttle, so our fate goes with the shuttle."
A new national space policy announced by President George W. Bush directs NASA to end shuttle missions by 2010 and refocus efforts toward developing spacecraft and technology to return to human expeditions to the moon and beyond.
Say goodbye to the pictures of the universe, much less the colossal improvements in astronomy... gotta get that flag up and show the Martians they're living in an American colony now, just like the Iraqis.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
While I have always been critical of comparing various US military experiences to Vietnam, since it was a unique situation, this one seems apt ... from The Washington Post:
The good news is that the Bush admin will pull out soon so they can disown the tragedy during the election season, leaving Iraq in a mess -- like the one that brought the Taliban to power in Afghanistan -- but Halliburton still holding all the contracts.
While I have always been critical of comparing various US military experiences to Vietnam, since it was a unique situation, this one seems apt ... from The Washington Post:
The U.S. military death toll after 10 months of engagement in Iraq surpassed 500 this weekend, roughly matching the number of U.S. military personnel who died in the first four years of the U.S. military engagement in Vietnam.
The death toll in Iraq, which had been 497 on Friday, rose by three on Saturday when a remote-controlled bomb made of two artillery rounds packed with explosives detonated beneath a Bradley fighting vehicle carrying five American soldiers and at least two Iraqi civil defense personnel in cane fields north of Baghdad.
This morning, at least two Americans and as many as 16 Iraqis were killed when a car bomb exploded near the main gate to coalition headquarters in Baghdad.
Military officials said Saturday's explosion occurred near the town of Taji, during a search for buried land mines and roadside bombs, which have previously claimed lives in the area. They expressed surprise that the Bradley was destroyed in the blast, according to a Post correspondent in Baghdad.
The cumulative toll of 500 deaths was reached in Vietnam in 1965, the year when the U.S. deployment there rose from 23,300 to 184,300 troops. In Iraq, in contrast, the United States is rotating forces, with the goal of reducing the total from 130,000 to 105,000 by June and also sharply scaling back its military presence in Baghdad.
The good news is that the Bush admin will pull out soon so they can disown the tragedy during the election season, leaving Iraq in a mess -- like the one that brought the Taliban to power in Afghanistan -- but Halliburton still holding all the contracts.
"One small step for man"
The first manned mission to the moon was an important step for the US space program. It mas mostly psychological and was nice in showing that Americans could trump the USSR in space as well as get humans there and back again.
Bush's plan to put people on Mars and on the moon again is stupid. The US dominates the heavens, and manned missions make absolutely no sense... see the shuttle disasters.
NASA engineers all agree that robots and satellites are the way to improve human understanding of astronomy. Sending people is extremely expensive, risky and stupid.
Estimated costs of putting a human on Mars range as high as a trillion dollars, and humans would contaminate Mars with microbes if they weren't killed. ("The costs could be phenomenal," said Alison Fraser, director of economic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has backed Bush's tax cuts and many of his other initiatives.)
NASA needs to focus on missions that aren't stupid, like seeing if there is life under the frozen crust of Europa's oceans. Not planting a flag on Mars.
Bush, as usual, is an idiot with no concern for science or sound economic policy.
It's not monopoly money, you illiterate, war-mongering, oil-stealing, rich people tax break giving, deficit exploding, 9-11 KNOWING, big-government pushing assclown !
In a small step for man, Howard Dean won the moral victory of the nonbinding D.C. Democratic primary today.
Dean for president 2004.
The first manned mission to the moon was an important step for the US space program. It mas mostly psychological and was nice in showing that Americans could trump the USSR in space as well as get humans there and back again.
Bush's plan to put people on Mars and on the moon again is stupid. The US dominates the heavens, and manned missions make absolutely no sense... see the shuttle disasters.
NASA engineers all agree that robots and satellites are the way to improve human understanding of astronomy. Sending people is extremely expensive, risky and stupid.
Estimated costs of putting a human on Mars range as high as a trillion dollars, and humans would contaminate Mars with microbes if they weren't killed. ("The costs could be phenomenal," said Alison Fraser, director of economic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has backed Bush's tax cuts and many of his other initiatives.)
NASA needs to focus on missions that aren't stupid, like seeing if there is life under the frozen crust of Europa's oceans. Not planting a flag on Mars.
Bush, as usual, is an idiot with no concern for science or sound economic policy.
It's not monopoly money, you illiterate, war-mongering, oil-stealing, rich people tax break giving, deficit exploding, 9-11 KNOWING, big-government pushing assclown !
In a small step for man, Howard Dean won the moral victory of the nonbinding D.C. Democratic primary today.
Dean for president 2004.
What Can We Expect in the Debates?
I know the Democratic Primary season is just getting underway, and it may seem like November is an eternity away, but I've begun thinking about the 2004 Presidential Debates. Given George Bush's tendency for malapropisms and his general ignorance, and given the relative strength of any potential Democratic opponent, whether it's Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Edwards or whomever, how many presidential debates do you think we will see this time?
Bush doesn't like to give press conferences. He doesn't like to travel overseas or hold state dinners. His Vice President rarely comes out of his spider hole, except to raise cash at $2,000-a-head dinners. According to Paul O'Neill, Bush doesn't like to ask questions or be bothered with anything remotely presidential. He's the least presidential President we've ever had. So should we expect him to want to match wits with a Democrat in televised debates?
How many times did Bush end up debating Al Gore in 2000? Three. I recall that expectations were set so low, Bush succeeded simply by showing up and not making a complete ass of himself. Of course, it didn't hurt that Al Gore gave one of the worst performances of his political life in the first debate, and no one really watched the debates who hadn't made up their mind.
I would be suprised if we got more than three debates this year. But they should be highly entertaining, whoever gets the chance to embarass George.
I know the Democratic Primary season is just getting underway, and it may seem like November is an eternity away, but I've begun thinking about the 2004 Presidential Debates. Given George Bush's tendency for malapropisms and his general ignorance, and given the relative strength of any potential Democratic opponent, whether it's Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Edwards or whomever, how many presidential debates do you think we will see this time?
Bush doesn't like to give press conferences. He doesn't like to travel overseas or hold state dinners. His Vice President rarely comes out of his spider hole, except to raise cash at $2,000-a-head dinners. According to Paul O'Neill, Bush doesn't like to ask questions or be bothered with anything remotely presidential. He's the least presidential President we've ever had. So should we expect him to want to match wits with a Democrat in televised debates?
How many times did Bush end up debating Al Gore in 2000? Three. I recall that expectations were set so low, Bush succeeded simply by showing up and not making a complete ass of himself. Of course, it didn't hurt that Al Gore gave one of the worst performances of his political life in the first debate, and no one really watched the debates who hadn't made up their mind.
I would be suprised if we got more than three debates this year. But they should be highly entertaining, whoever gets the chance to embarass George.
Step 5 from Eight Steps to Becoming Dictator
Trade Unions banned - 2 May 1933
"The Trade Unions offices were closed, their money confiscated, and their leaders put in prison. In their place, Hitler put the German Labour Front which reduced workers' pay and took away the right to strike."
At least Bush doesn't have that funny little moustache
We all know that Bush is a corporate tool (opposition to unions, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition to job creation). As part of their overtime pay take-away, the Bush Labor Department is giving out tips to employers on how to make some workers ineligible for overtime pay.
Since the Democratic candidates are jockeying for endorsement by every union under the sun, you know the Rove administration is going to do all it can to fight the unions. "We're talking about an administration that opposes regulation on air quality, water quality, on forests, on food safety, on repetitive-stress injuries in the workplace ... but when it comes to unions, requiring them to itemize every expense, that doesn't seem to trouble this administration at all." Clearly the White House is ramping up an effort to ensnare unions in legal aggravations in time for the 2004 election campaign."
October 2002, Bush ordered the California dockworkers back to work, citing the Taft-Hartley Act, ending their strike without any real resolution of the issues.
Oh, by the way, the man who replaced Paul O'Neill as Treasury Secretary, John Snow, used to be the CEO of CSX. He got the treasury job after selling CSX's shipping line to - you guessed it - the Carlyle Group.
Trade Unions banned - 2 May 1933
"The Trade Unions offices were closed, their money confiscated, and their leaders put in prison. In their place, Hitler put the German Labour Front which reduced workers' pay and took away the right to strike."
At least Bush doesn't have that funny little moustache
We all know that Bush is a corporate tool (opposition to unions, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition to job creation). As part of their overtime pay take-away, the Bush Labor Department is giving out tips to employers on how to make some workers ineligible for overtime pay.
Since the Democratic candidates are jockeying for endorsement by every union under the sun, you know the Rove administration is going to do all it can to fight the unions. "We're talking about an administration that opposes regulation on air quality, water quality, on forests, on food safety, on repetitive-stress injuries in the workplace ... but when it comes to unions, requiring them to itemize every expense, that doesn't seem to trouble this administration at all." Clearly the White House is ramping up an effort to ensnare unions in legal aggravations in time for the 2004 election campaign."
In December 2002, "the Labor Department issued new union reporting regulations, which would require itemization of every expense greater than $2,000 spent on organizing and strike services, lobbying or political activities". This "administrative nightmare" would cost unions millions.
The administration indicated that it would ask the Republican Congress to pass civil penalties for unions that don't meet reporting deadlines. George W. Bush's budget, unveiled in early February, cut money for enforcing workplace health and safety laws, and for investigating corporate violations of minimum wage, Family and Medical Leave mandates, and child-labor laws. But Bush dramatically increased the budget for auditing and investigating labor unions.
October 2002, Bush ordered the California dockworkers back to work, citing the Taft-Hartley Act, ending their strike without any real resolution of the issues.
Oh, by the way, the man who replaced Paul O'Neill as Treasury Secretary, John Snow, used to be the CEO of CSX. He got the treasury job after selling CSX's shipping line to - you guessed it - the Carlyle Group.
Dishonest Dubya
It looks like the 60 Minutes interview with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is getting some much-deserved traction. I thought the White House would ignore it, and wait for it to go away, as all these stories eventually seem to do. President Bush, in Mexico, had only this to say, "I appreciate his service to the country. We worked together during difficult times."
Despite Bush's cool, detached demeanor, the White House is requesting an investigation into whether or not O'Neill violated any laws by sharing classified documents with Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. Never mind the validity of O'Neill's criticisms, let's focus on document classification?! Well that's a stupid way of spinning the story, if you ask me. And let me get this straight, they're upset about a leak? What about when they leaked the identity of Joseph Wilson's CIA agent wife as retribution for Wilson's criticism of Bush&Co's lies about yellowcake uranium?
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard took a similar tact on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Rather than address what O'Neill said, he questioned the documents provided by O'Neill and used by author Ron Susskind to write his book.
Paul O'Neill is a smart guy. When asked by Leslie Stahl whether he thought there would be reprisals from the White House, he demured. "I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth. Why would I be attacked for telling the truth??
His timing, coming just days before the first Democratic primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, is impeccable. He is wise to salvage his reputation by distancing himself from the Bush administration as it continues to unravel. We've already seen Ari Fleischer, Christine Todd Whitman and Larry Lindsey leave or get fired, while Colin Powell has vowed he won't return if Bush is reelected. Will anyone else leave between now and November?
... Howard Dean is on the covers of the latest issues of TIME and Newsweek. Neither story is particularly favorable. There is some balance, I suppose, in that TIME makes mention of Willie Nelson's anti-war song and David Cornwell's (aka John Le Carre) feelings about Bush's foreign policy.
"It suddenly seemed to me that we were really watching the preparation of a much larger campaign based on very dubious grounds," he says.
"I kept thinking, Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Don't pretend that this is not religiously based. Don't pretend this is not a crusade. Don't pretend this isn't about oil. Don't pretend this isn't about making a fortune and keeping the American people on their heels in fear."
Immediately following the Dean cover story, TIME features some pictures of Bush at the "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas which could have been art directed by Karl Rove. (Exclusive pictures for TIME by Brooks Kraft reads the byline.)
I don't know which bothers me more, seeing George Bush with a chain saw or seeing his picture in TIME with the caption:
THE BRUSH
CUTTER Bush
clears cedar
underbrush to
allow for the
growth of
hardwoods and
plants.
"Allow for the growth of hardwoods and plants"?! Who wrote this nonsense that TIME felt was worthy of publication?
... Michael Kinsley explains why the logic behind Bush's tax cuts is faulty, at best.
... My favorite of the four outfits for the "Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure" is the "deranged mental patient."
But He Doesn't Have That Funny Little Moustache
From Laurence Rees' "The Nazis - a Warning from History"Fritz Wiedemann, one of Hitler’s adjutants, wrote that Hitler ‘disliked the study of documents. I have sometimes secured decisions from him, even ones about important matters, without his ever asking to see the relevant files. He took the view that many things sorted themselves out on their own if one did not interfere.’ The result was, in the words of Otto Dietrich, Hitler’s press chief, that ‘in the twelve years of his rule in Germany Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilized state.’
From Paul O'Neill's "The Price of Loyalty"
O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."
A lack of dialogue, according to O'Neill, was the norm in cabinet meetings he attended. And it was similar in one-on-one meetings, says O'Neill. Of his first such meeting with the president, O'Neill says, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on...I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening...It was mostly a monologue."
From Laurence Rees' "The Nazis - a Warning from History"Fritz Wiedemann, one of Hitler’s adjutants, wrote that Hitler ‘disliked the study of documents. I have sometimes secured decisions from him, even ones about important matters, without his ever asking to see the relevant files. He took the view that many things sorted themselves out on their own if one did not interfere.’ The result was, in the words of Otto Dietrich, Hitler’s press chief, that ‘in the twelve years of his rule in Germany Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilized state.’
From Paul O'Neill's "The Price of Loyalty"
O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."
A lack of dialogue, according to O'Neill, was the norm in cabinet meetings he attended. And it was similar in one-on-one meetings, says O'Neill. Of his first such meeting with the president, O'Neill says, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on...I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening...It was mostly a monologue."
Is Bush To Blame?
How much bad news can be blamed on the Bush administration? Certainly you can't blame Bush&Co for Britney's marriage, or the cougar attacking the cyclist in Orange County. What can you blame on this administration?
What about the costs of raising the security alert level to orange over the holidays? Was it really necessary? Did we avert another potential airline disaster on par with those of 9/11? Who knows? This administration still won't tell us what it knows about those attacks. And they've classifed things they've already told us, because we weren't paying attention or already forgot. They didn't even tell the Democrat leaders that they were secretly keeping hundreds of workers in government silos for six months after the attacks, in case the apocalypse came.
What about mad cow disease? Can we blame that on Bush&Co? What about their official response? "I plan to serve beef for my Christmas dinner." (Listen up, people. The only reason why we haven't found more cases may be because we're not testing for it.)
What about the shortage of flu vaccine and the number of adolescent deaths caused by influenza this year?
What about former Secretary Treasury Paul O'Neill's comments about the Bush White House, likening George to "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people?" Is this just sour grapes on his part, or should we take him seriously?
What about the mounting casualties in Iraq? Most Americans probably don't realize how many have died since Bush declared the "mission accomplished." I'd like to see a Gallup do a poll on that. (Read on for the current answer.) Oh, and never mind the costs of Bush's staged photo op landing on the USS Lincoln or his lies about the banner and delaying the ship's return to port.
These men and women who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are our fellow citizens, boys and girls, who proudly joined the military to defend our country, who are being cynically put in harm's way by a President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser who consider them little more than physical assets in their misguided "preemptive" foreign policy.
That's why Bush hasn't attended a single soldier's funeral. That's why the press isn't given access to funerals or showing us images of the body bags.
Some people seem to think that Bush will be difficult, if not impossible, to beat in November. They say that the economy is picking up. (Tell that to the more than 3 million who are unemployed.) And although there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, they say that most Americans believe that Bush&Co are doing a swell job running the country. They say that his announcements on plans to put men on Mars and give temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants are sure to win him more votes.
They say that Bush will have too much money to not win against the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Howard Dean. They say that Howard Dean can't beat Bush because he's too liberal, too conservative, too short, too angry, too inconsistent, too much like George McGovern, too much like Michael Dukakis, from too small a state.
Call me naive, or just foolishly optimistic, but I think that American voters are smarter than that. They don't like what Bush has done, and they don't like being lied to.
Granted, not everyone knows the truth yet about the Bush presidency (or the Bush and Reagan presidencies for that matter), but they're finding out, and they're not pleased. Those who know the truth must proclaim it loudly and consistently. And when bad news happens, point to the man in charge.
(356 US service members have been killed in Iraq since May 2, 2003. Total coalition casualties are 591 and counting. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.)
How much bad news can be blamed on the Bush administration? Certainly you can't blame Bush&Co for Britney's marriage, or the cougar attacking the cyclist in Orange County. What can you blame on this administration?
What about the costs of raising the security alert level to orange over the holidays? Was it really necessary? Did we avert another potential airline disaster on par with those of 9/11? Who knows? This administration still won't tell us what it knows about those attacks. And they've classifed things they've already told us, because we weren't paying attention or already forgot. They didn't even tell the Democrat leaders that they were secretly keeping hundreds of workers in government silos for six months after the attacks, in case the apocalypse came.
What about mad cow disease? Can we blame that on Bush&Co? What about their official response? "I plan to serve beef for my Christmas dinner." (Listen up, people. The only reason why we haven't found more cases may be because we're not testing for it.)
What about the shortage of flu vaccine and the number of adolescent deaths caused by influenza this year?
What about former Secretary Treasury Paul O'Neill's comments about the Bush White House, likening George to "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people?" Is this just sour grapes on his part, or should we take him seriously?
What about the mounting casualties in Iraq? Most Americans probably don't realize how many have died since Bush declared the "mission accomplished." I'd like to see a Gallup do a poll on that. (Read on for the current answer.) Oh, and never mind the costs of Bush's staged photo op landing on the USS Lincoln or his lies about the banner and delaying the ship's return to port.
These men and women who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are our fellow citizens, boys and girls, who proudly joined the military to defend our country, who are being cynically put in harm's way by a President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser who consider them little more than physical assets in their misguided "preemptive" foreign policy.
That's why Bush hasn't attended a single soldier's funeral. That's why the press isn't given access to funerals or showing us images of the body bags.
Some people seem to think that Bush will be difficult, if not impossible, to beat in November. They say that the economy is picking up. (Tell that to the more than 3 million who are unemployed.) And although there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, they say that most Americans believe that Bush&Co are doing a swell job running the country. They say that his announcements on plans to put men on Mars and give temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants are sure to win him more votes.
They say that Bush will have too much money to not win against the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Howard Dean. They say that Howard Dean can't beat Bush because he's too liberal, too conservative, too short, too angry, too inconsistent, too much like George McGovern, too much like Michael Dukakis, from too small a state.
Call me naive, or just foolishly optimistic, but I think that American voters are smarter than that. They don't like what Bush has done, and they don't like being lied to.
Granted, not everyone knows the truth yet about the Bush presidency (or the Bush and Reagan presidencies for that matter), but they're finding out, and they're not pleased. Those who know the truth must proclaim it loudly and consistently. And when bad news happens, point to the man in charge.
(356 US service members have been killed in Iraq since May 2, 2003. Total coalition casualties are 591 and counting. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.)
Has anyone seen The Club for Growth's television ad attacking Democratic front-runner Howard Dean? It sounds like a good one, and ripe for parody.
In the ad, a couple is asked what do they think of Mr Dean's plan to raise taxes on families by $1,900, based on his pledge to roll back President Bush's tax cuts.
The man says, "I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ...,'' and the woman continues, ``... body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs.''
So who makes up The Club for Growth and what do they stand for exactly?
Step 4 from "Eight Steps to Becoming a Dictator"
Gestapo - 26 April 1933
The Nazis took over local government and the police. The Hitler set up the Gestapo (the secret police) and encouraged Germans to report opponents and 'grumblers'. Tens of thousands of Jews, Communists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals, alcoholics and prostitutes were arrested and sent to concentration camps for 'crimes' as small as writing anti-Nazi graffiti, possessing a banned book, or saying that business was bad.
Quarantining dissent - How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
The ACLU is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere.
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.
George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.
Gestapo - 26 April 1933
The Nazis took over local government and the police. The Hitler set up the Gestapo (the secret police) and encouraged Germans to report opponents and 'grumblers'. Tens of thousands of Jews, Communists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals, alcoholics and prostitutes were arrested and sent to concentration camps for 'crimes' as small as writing anti-Nazi graffiti, possessing a banned book, or saying that business was bad.
Quarantining dissent - How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
The ACLU is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere.
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.
George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.
The Color of Money Project
Look up your zip code in the Color of Money database. Then get back to work.
Look up your zip code in the Color of Money database. Then get back to work.
Campaign money -- not votes -- is now the currency of our democracy, determining who runs for office, who wins, and who has the ear of elected officials. The candidate who raises the most campaign cash, more often than not, goes on to win the election.
Where does that money come from? The great amounts of cash come from neighborhoods where wealthy, non-Hispanic white populations dominate. Neighborhoods where African Americans and Latinos live are particularly underrepresented in terms of campaign dollars.
The Color of Money Project is devoted to illustrating this unfortunate fact--how a tiny elite group of privileged donors is more equal than others, and how there are direct consequences for people’s lives, from the wages they earn and the taxes they pay, to the quality of the schools their children attend and the air they breathe. We will demonstrate how Clean Money/Clean Elections campaign finance reform restores the American ideal of one person, one vote, and helps knock down barriers to participation in our democracy.
Laura Bush Lies, Too.
About three months ago, First Lady Laura Bush, in a speech to the National Book Festival, read a poem which she said had been written by her husband. It turns out that she was lying, but God only knows why.
It was a truly terrible poem, so why attribute it to your husband, Laura? I can understand why your husband lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, lied about his being absent without leave from his unit during Vietnam, lied about his cocaine use, lied about the true nature of his tax cuts for the rich, lied about the air quality at Ground Zero, lied about "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" ... but why would you lie about him writing poetry?
Laura, we know you're a liar, just like your husband. What I want to know is, did someone put you up to it?
About three months ago, First Lady Laura Bush, in a speech to the National Book Festival, read a poem which she said had been written by her husband. It turns out that she was lying, but God only knows why.
It was a truly terrible poem, so why attribute it to your husband, Laura? I can understand why your husband lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, lied about his being absent without leave from his unit during Vietnam, lied about his cocaine use, lied about the true nature of his tax cuts for the rich, lied about the air quality at Ground Zero, lied about "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" ... but why would you lie about him writing poetry?
Laura, we know you're a liar, just like your husband. What I want to know is, did someone put you up to it?
World Reacts to US Security Measures
In the last few days, flights on Air France, British Airways and Aeromexico have been grounded/cancelled due to security concerns, and the world community isn't overwhelming in its support.
The New York Times reports:
I count eleven cancelled international flights, and not seven as the New York Times reports: six on Air France, three on British Airways and two on Aeromexico, not to mention an Air France flight that was diverted and a British Airways flight from London to Saudi Arabia which was cancelled and whose 61 passengers were held under armed guard for two-and-a-half-hours.
Forbes validates and clarifies the count of seven by specifying “U.S.-bound flights,” but that still doesn’t explain the numbers. Forbes also makes a point to give Homeland Security a chance to defend their actions and interview passengers who appreciate the added security.
While France and Mexico are consenting to US demands by allowing armed sky marshals aboard their flights, other countries are less eager to comply, including Sweden, Thailand, Finland and New Zealand.
Tourists from 27 countries, including Brazil, will now be fingerprinted and photographed on entering the US as a security measure. In response, Brazil has announced that it will give the same treatment to Americans who visit their country.
In the last few days, flights on Air France, British Airways and Aeromexico have been grounded/cancelled due to security concerns, and the world community isn't overwhelming in its support.
French irritation over US controls on transatlantic flights was reinforced yesterday when the interior ministry revealed that American intelligence based its suspicions on passengers' surnames only.
This led to a child with a name similar to a Tunisian terrorist, a Welsh insurance agent and an elderly Chinese woman restaurant owner being questioned by counter-terrorist police when several flights from Paris to the US were cancelled shortly before Christmas.
The New York Times reports:
Seven international flights have now been canceled since last Saturday after the Bush administration began an aggressive approach to defending American airspace when the nation was put on orange or "high" alert on Dec. 21. Administration officials said no arrests had been made in connection with any of the more than a dozen international flights subjected to rigorous scrutiny. And officials have acknowledged that even now, they are uncertain whether they have succeeded in foiling a terrorist plot.
An American official said that the cancellation of the British Airways flights was not in response to United States safety concerns, but rather was prompted by the refusal of British pilots to fly with armed marshals on board.
I count eleven cancelled international flights, and not seven as the New York Times reports: six on Air France, three on British Airways and two on Aeromexico, not to mention an Air France flight that was diverted and a British Airways flight from London to Saudi Arabia which was cancelled and whose 61 passengers were held under armed guard for two-and-a-half-hours.
Forbes validates and clarifies the count of seven by specifying “U.S.-bound flights,” but that still doesn’t explain the numbers. Forbes also makes a point to give Homeland Security a chance to defend their actions and interview passengers who appreciate the added security.
"I think they've done the right thing. We can't just sit around and wait for another catastrophe. ... It's not worth putting your life at risk," said Mike Coppolelli of Washington, who lives in London.
While France and Mexico are consenting to US demands by allowing armed sky marshals aboard their flights, other countries are less eager to comply, including Sweden, Thailand, Finland and New Zealand.
Tourists from 27 countries, including Brazil, will now be fingerprinted and photographed on entering the US as a security measure. In response, Brazil has announced that it will give the same treatment to Americans who visit their country.
Threat? What Threat?
If we have a good reason to ground a flight for security reasons, then why not share at least some of our intelligence with a trusted friend? If we have a good reason, then why deny that a flight was cancelled because of our actions?
If we have a good reason to ground a flight for security reasons, then why not share at least some of our intelligence with a trusted friend? If we have a good reason, then why deny that a flight was cancelled because of our actions?
The U.S. government shared threat information with the Mexican government, which canceled a scheduled U.S.-bound flight from Mexico because of security concerns.
Agustin Gutierrez, Mexico's presidential spokesman, said Mexico did not receive convincing information for the cancellation.
"The question is what threat?" Gutierrez said. "This question must be answered by Homeland Security. If we are going to have a good climate of cooperation, the least that we can hope for are reasons."
Gutierrez also said the cancellation came after United States authorities said they would refuse to allow the plane to land, but Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied that.
Responding to Fascist Complicity in 2004
I was looking for bumper stickers that read "Defend the Constitution" and "Denounce Fascism" when I came across this site: http://www.rationalanarchism.org/fieldmanuals/bumper_stickers.htm
I am posting a portion of this page more or less in its entirety (editing and emphasis mine):
The Sieg Heil! Script
The Sieg Heil! script is more common with young males. For reasons unclear, this script always seems to involve young males between 18 and 29 years old with crew cuts.
The Sieg Heil! script ALWAYS starts the same way. The robot approaches you, puffs out his chest, looks down, and states: "You don't like George Bush! Why don't you like George Bush?" This script can take two turns. Which turn it takes is largely your choice. I prefer the suggestion branch (b) below. However, let's start with branch (a), which is best to avoid.
Branch (A) of the Sieg Heil! Script
You decide to answer the robot's question. This is a mistake, but you may wish to try it out a few times just to see. If you answer the question, "Why don't you like George Bush?" with an actual answer, the robot may get violent. Most robots executing the Sieg Heil! script are morons. They have absolutely no idea about what is happening in the world. They are authoritarians. They believe whatever Fox News has told them and had they been alive during WWII, living in Germany, they would have believed that the Jews were being resettled in Madagascar. You will make absolutely no progress explaining the truth of the world to these individuals. They are lost souls, useful idiots of the Bush Regime.
Branch (B) of the Sieg Heil! Script
In this branch of the script, you turn the burden over to the robot. Robots, by nature, are very limited. They have not been programmed to explain why they support Bush. They have only one answer to the question and that answer is obviously inadequate (even to themselves). This is what you do:
State, in a friendly tone, smile on your face, "well, my friend, since it is important to you that I like President Bush, please explain to me why I should like President Bush."
They don't expect you to ask this. However, they have no choice but to answer it. After all, they are asking you to like George Bush. Such a request must have a positive reason to like him behind it, right?
The robot will immediately state: "He's our President." The robot will also know that this is a poor answer.
Respond to this statement by informing the robot that Hitler was the leader of the Germans and those that remained loyal to him assisted their country in marching to self destruction, an act that was neither patriotic nor beneficial to the German people. Liking someone merely because he or she is in a position of power is beneath your dignity. In order to be liked or respected, an individual must earn that esteem. Ask again, "What has George Bush done to earn my esteem?"
At this point the robot will either self destruct or will attempt a silly answer. For example, the robot may respond that "George Bush is fighting for our freedom." To this, ask the robot if he or she knows what Bush was doing during the Vietnam War, explaining that he avoided service in the war and then went AWOL. Ask the robot exactly what freedom was endangered and how George Bush saved it. No one can provide an honest answer to that question by answering in the positive.
If the robot states that George Bush gives you the right to do what you are doing, laugh and reply that no one gives you your rights. They exist by nature and governments merely recognize them. Point out that if George Bush could stop you, he would. After all, George Bush, during his campaign, in response to a website that exposed his cocaine use, stated that "there should be limits to freedom."
If the robot states that you would not be permitted to do what you are doing in Baghdad, agree with him and point out that, yes, and under US occupation you would still not be able to do this. He will then rephrase and state that Saddam would not have let you do what you are doing. To this, ask whether he believes that one should express their liberty by shutting up? What use is a right if you do not exercise it? Point out that it Saddam's authority is irrelevant to the nature of rights, and therefore such a question is merely an attempt to distract from the issue. The issue is that Bush is a warmonger and an opponent of liberty and he must go.
I was looking for bumper stickers that read "Defend the Constitution" and "Denounce Fascism" when I came across this site: http://www.rationalanarchism.org/fieldmanuals/bumper_stickers.htm
I am posting a portion of this page more or less in its entirety (editing and emphasis mine):
The Sieg Heil! Script
The Sieg Heil! script is more common with young males. For reasons unclear, this script always seems to involve young males between 18 and 29 years old with crew cuts.
The Sieg Heil! script ALWAYS starts the same way. The robot approaches you, puffs out his chest, looks down, and states: "You don't like George Bush! Why don't you like George Bush?" This script can take two turns. Which turn it takes is largely your choice. I prefer the suggestion branch (b) below. However, let's start with branch (a), which is best to avoid.
Branch (A) of the Sieg Heil! Script
You decide to answer the robot's question. This is a mistake, but you may wish to try it out a few times just to see. If you answer the question, "Why don't you like George Bush?" with an actual answer, the robot may get violent. Most robots executing the Sieg Heil! script are morons. They have absolutely no idea about what is happening in the world. They are authoritarians. They believe whatever Fox News has told them and had they been alive during WWII, living in Germany, they would have believed that the Jews were being resettled in Madagascar. You will make absolutely no progress explaining the truth of the world to these individuals. They are lost souls, useful idiots of the Bush Regime.
Branch (B) of the Sieg Heil! Script
In this branch of the script, you turn the burden over to the robot. Robots, by nature, are very limited. They have not been programmed to explain why they support Bush. They have only one answer to the question and that answer is obviously inadequate (even to themselves). This is what you do:
State, in a friendly tone, smile on your face, "well, my friend, since it is important to you that I like President Bush, please explain to me why I should like President Bush."
They don't expect you to ask this. However, they have no choice but to answer it. After all, they are asking you to like George Bush. Such a request must have a positive reason to like him behind it, right?
The robot will immediately state: "He's our President." The robot will also know that this is a poor answer.
Respond to this statement by informing the robot that Hitler was the leader of the Germans and those that remained loyal to him assisted their country in marching to self destruction, an act that was neither patriotic nor beneficial to the German people. Liking someone merely because he or she is in a position of power is beneath your dignity. In order to be liked or respected, an individual must earn that esteem. Ask again, "What has George Bush done to earn my esteem?"
At this point the robot will either self destruct or will attempt a silly answer. For example, the robot may respond that "George Bush is fighting for our freedom." To this, ask the robot if he or she knows what Bush was doing during the Vietnam War, explaining that he avoided service in the war and then went AWOL. Ask the robot exactly what freedom was endangered and how George Bush saved it. No one can provide an honest answer to that question by answering in the positive.
If the robot states that George Bush gives you the right to do what you are doing, laugh and reply that no one gives you your rights. They exist by nature and governments merely recognize them. Point out that if George Bush could stop you, he would. After all, George Bush, during his campaign, in response to a website that exposed his cocaine use, stated that "there should be limits to freedom."
If the robot states that you would not be permitted to do what you are doing in Baghdad, agree with him and point out that, yes, and under US occupation you would still not be able to do this. He will then rephrase and state that Saddam would not have let you do what you are doing. To this, ask whether he believes that one should express their liberty by shutting up? What use is a right if you do not exercise it? Point out that it Saddam's authority is irrelevant to the nature of rights, and therefore such a question is merely an attempt to distract from the issue. The issue is that Bush is a warmonger and an opponent of liberty and he must go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)