Redefining Democrats

It is very interesting how the media begins talking about the redefinition of Democrats when the Democrats aren't ready to commit to anything right now.

Redefining Democrats? There are essentially two indictments of the left as consistently mentioned in the mainstream media (or MSM, the anachronym used often by conservatives): The Democrats let their left-leaning base hijack the Democratic party; and the Democrats need to reconnect with middle America using the Moral Values issues.

Both are wrong. Completely wrong. The Democrats do not need to connect with middle America using the Moral Values issues. Democrats espouse moral values. How brilliantly the Rovian strategy plays out past the election! Karl Rove and the Republicans created a Moral Values dilemma by unfairly promoting a wedge issue. It is our achilles heel. We can't marginalize these people in the interest of appearing mainstream, and we can't embrace them in the interest of proving our inclusivity. It is a weakness for which we paid dearly. Do we abandon our base? Do we abandon the gay and lesbian issue?

No. We don't. We remain the party we've always been, accepting of gays and lesbians.

We just need to be smarter in how we address those attacks against our plank. It is very likely that Gavin Newsom in San Francisco created the mess that pushed Gay Marriage into the national consciousness in such a way as to create a backlash. That he shouldn't have allowed gays to marry isn't the point. He shouldn't have allowed gays to marry in an Election Year.

Our other achilles heel is the abortion issue, though it is not as divisive an issue as the MSM believe. There are far more pro-choice conservatives than there are anti-choice liberals. Democrats have faith that the pro-choice conservatives will enjoin the fight to keep abortion legal and safe.

The absolute truth is there aren't any moral issues that separate Democrats from the "heartland." The Republicans have been brilliant in the ways they create a false sense of that.

Where Democrats have failed is in allowing Michael Moore and MoveOn.org to become the defacto voice of the liberal left within the party. The largest tool in their toolbelt is anger. Anger at Republicans and anger at George Bush. Anger is a motivating force, but it is a lousy messenger. It is a terrible messenger, because not only does it cloud the message, it DECIDES which message to broadcast.

MoveOn.org became a very good anti-War mouthpiece. They were on top of events, statistics and the misinformation that was disseminated by the Bush Administration. They would have served their constituency if they had remained just that. The problem that MoveOn experienced is almost entirely borne of anger. They chose sarcasm and anger to bring forth their message rather than PERSUASION.

As an example, MoveOn enlisted the help of their members in choosing video advertisements to air on national television. There were some very creative minds behind many of these videos. Some of the messages were very direct (and angry), while others were more subtle and thought-provoking. When the membership chose the videos to broadcast, they invariably selected the ones that appealed to the base - venting anger, frustration through cynicism and sarcasm. How very bold, how very compelling...to a liberal. When it came to choosing those videos that appealed to middle America or Bush supporters, most members opted for the emotional angry message. These are the very messages that seem to be at the heart of the loss of influence the Democrats are experiencing right now.

There is a problem with liberal anger. Liberals have been the object of much derision, negativity and ridicule by the right, ever since George McGovern's failed bid for the presidency. McGovern allowed liberalism to ascend to the ranks of the demonized, and Jimmy Carter cemented it there. Liberals are right to be angry, but wrong to employ it in politics. Politics are as conniving and underhanded as ever. The power comes in the deception, not in the appeal. Until the liberal wing of the Democratic party realizes that you catch more flies with honey, they'll consistently remain outside of the political power circles, as angry and marginalized as ever.

There will be a lot of soul-searching (to borrow a cliche from the MSM) by Democrats, and Michael Kinsley has exactly the right self-examination and apologies in mind when Democrats ponder what they should do.

This election was not about Moral Values. It was not about Terrorism. This election was about a fairy tale complete with immoral ogres and evil nymphs who wait to pounce upon the unsuspecting God-fearing, true-American citizen of the heartland. It is a story so compelling, it has the ogres and the nymphs wondering how they became so evil. The storyteller? None other than that masterful weaver of yarns himself, Karl Rove.

Eve of Choice - You will listen to us, Mr. President

Here it is, folks, the Eve of America's choosing.

How could a race be any fairer?

The American public split right down the middle. For two men, that situation is somewhat comforting. Neither man's worth has been abandoned by Americans at large.

Both Bush and Kerry can say with certainty and pride, "Half of the American people chose me to be their leader."

There's a lesson here as well. As we gaze upon what could very well be George Bush's last political hurrah, we can honestly cite many reasons for the mighty President who crafted our response to terrorism to suffer a defeat at the hands of his constituency.

Rather than a long post here (I'm awfully tired), let's just say that while his strength was laudable, he never fulfilled his duty to the American people. George Bush was never accountable to the American people. His administration was shrouded in secrecy, and his decisions alone seemed to guide the country in a direction that was accepted through resignation by more than half the country, and bitterly criticized by the rest.

To a man who, when asked about the divided country, claimed he just didn't see it, it was clear that he wasn't interested. You never listened to us, Mr. President.

George Bush, you had one of history's most advantageous opportunities to be greatness, itself. Instead, you chose Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. You could have been the leader for the 21st century, but you chose divisiveness and greed.

There was a time, after the spy plane incident with China, after the first tax cut, when I thought I could learn to accept your 2000 victory. It was not to be. I watched in disappointment as you gazed inward as Israelis and Palestinians ramped up their violence towards each other. I felt a twinge of alarm as the faith-based initiatives began to sprout some political power. And I watched with great dismay as the first tax cut gave way to new tax cuts, our projected surplus quickly sliding out of reach.

I thought, as so many others did, that you were going to be a reasonable man. As the deficit continued to grow, and the economy slunkered, you were redeemed by your response to the terrorist attacks.

Violence begets violence, many of us thought, but we stood silent as Afghanistan shook with dust and blood. We praised the swift victory, and the liberation of so many oppressed women and Afghan citizens. Then we got our taste of fundamental Islamic justice with the murder of Daniel Pearl. We appreciated the forcefulness you exhibited towards that violent and unforgiving aberration of peaceful religion.

You should have stopped there, Mr. President. You should have concentrated on rebuilding America, strengthening her economy, fighting for those who can't fight themselves. Instead you chose a direction that only a few wanted. We all voiced our opposition, and you never listened. You committed America to a mission that was not in her best interest at the time. You never listened to us.

As powerless as we were to stop you, you added insult to injury by squandering success in front of our noses. Knowledgeable critics and colleagues beseeched you to commit America's resources to ensure victory. You cast aside their concerns, just as you dismissed the pleas of millions of your countrymen, and the world population at large. Mr. President you squandered America's destiny and paid with the lives of our soldiers. You never listened to us.

A leader who claims to know best for his followers, without accepting advice from them is not a leader, but a dictator. Unfair comparisons abound, but you, Mr. President and your Administration, have been as close to a dictatorship this country has ever seen.

Democratic government is a devotional structure - by the people and for the people - the many, not the few.

These lessons were never learned during your four years, Mr. President. Perhaps on this Election Eve, the lesson will come home.

Are you listening now?

The new Bush/Cheney campaign ad is Brilliant!

Have you seen the new Bush-Cheney ad? It is absolutely brilliant!

It clearly illustrates that if the Democrats and their environmental-friendly candidate reclaim the White House, the wolf will remain on the Endangered-Species list, resulting in more Timber Wolves bent on attacking humans!

Scary!


They do look like puppies, don't they?

War on Terror vs. The Iraq War

I'm afraid we can't all agree that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. To see and illustration of exactly how a lot of us feel, see yesterday's David Horsey cartoon in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It pretty much says it all. Here's the link:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1080

The War in Iraq is a distraction. It is taking more and more effort to keep things from slipping into a bloody civil war. True, there are terrorists there, but they're not the same terrorists that would attack the U.S. on our soil. U.S. Intelligence says the same. In fact, most experts agree that going into Iraq began was a noble mission, but miscalculations and insufficient post-war planning have completely sabotaged the objective and created a bigger danger to U.S. interests than existed before.

The whole time our military is being engaged in Iraq, the rest of the world is becoming bolder and bolder, realizing that we're overextended and focused on Iraq.

So to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on Terror, is correct only in that the Iraq war is greatly benefitting the wrong side in the War on Terror.

If this is just liberal thinking, then we must have an abundance of liberals in the CIA, DIA, FBI and NSA. Who'd have guessed?

Reprint: The Photoshop Age

The mainstream media have absolutely no desire to be practicers of the craft any more. Eric Severeid introduced the idea, and Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS...CBS! killed it.

Why is there such a political divide in this country? Because the mainstream media does all they can do to spin the rotors of hyperbole, without elevating the discourse. It's the Gingriching of society, plain and simple.

The most damaging effect of all of this is that there are actually close to 50% of polled citizens who support one of the most un-American, secretive, Machievellian Executive Branches this country has ever seen. Their ideals are not American ideals. They feed upon fear. And mainstream media is wholly complicit in this ruse.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself, how could a nation sacrifice its most precious commodity over faulty intelligence? No, wait, I'm not blaming the administration. I am blaming the media. They had a job to do, and they did not do it. They never questioned a) the Executive Branch on its objectives, b) the Intelligence Community on its intelligence, c) the Pentagon on its war planning. For crying out loud, we all sat on our hands, knowing that the Pentagon refused to tell Congress how much they estimated this war would cost. They didn't know, and yet, we allowed them to invade Iraq and put our young men and women's lives on the line.

American mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda machine. You can see how embedded the media is in the policies of George Bush. They keep quoting figures that illustrate Americans' support for the war. Americans did not support the war -- not until 'major combat operations' were concluded. On the day of invasion of Iraq, support for a largely unilateral war was almost evenly split - 47% to 51% for, 49 to 53% against.That is not overwhelmingly supportive of the war in Iraq.

In his State of the Union speech Bush claimed that 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. What the media should have followed that assertion with is that the leaders of 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. The vast majority of citizens in every single one of those 34 countries vehemently opposed the war.

Revisionist history is so rampant, that one has to wonder who'll write the history textbooks. In this day and age, at the flowering of the information age, we've hijacked objectivity. Facts aren't reported any longer. We now hear the ramblings of journalists everywhere talking about how they didn't question the Administration in the run-up to war. Hell, they're not questioning the Administration's assumptions now, any more than they did then. Bush and Co. claim that the Duelfer Report only fortifies their pre-war positions. (crickets chirping)

A Photoshop artist can re-touch any photo to represent any reality. And it can be done so well that reality becomes (like quantum physics) entirely dependent upon the observer. Re-touch the photo, artificially change the experience of the observer, and you've altered one's sense of objective reality. It's that simple. A practice that is in abundant use with our mainstream media. They are the Photoshop artists with the facts and public opinion. In my book that's abuse of the information age. It's the Photoshop Age.

Someone or something needs to instigate a groundswell change in our media. Thankfully, the efforts of the FCC are being challenged as they strive to perpetuate the death of media responsibility. Media ownership is a very important issue, and looking at the new power of the media, vital to our national preservation.
Where are you Howard Beale?

A Hearty Endorsement - WHAT?

A hearty endorsement of George W. Bush by the Bloomington Pantograph in Illinois has this great statement:

Bush's methods and rationale can be -- and have been -- questioned. The intelligence information provided to Bush and Congress before the invasion of Iraq was clearly faulty. The Bush administration also underestimated the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein

Oh, they underestimated? They ignored EVERYONE who tried to counsel them on reality.

And in trying to justify their endorsement by raising economic issues, they talk about tax cuts:

Plenty of Democrats have gone along with the so-called "Bush tax cuts." Kerry has said he would retain tax reductions for the "middle class" and working poor.

Both candidates -- and Congress -- should pay more attention to spending reductions and paying down the national debt rather than pandering to certain sectors with tax cuts. Use the veto, if that's what it takes.

In determining who would better control the tax-and-spend mentality of Washington, it is revealing to look at the ratings given by the National Taxpayers Union to lawmakers. These "taxpayers scores" are based on votes with an impact on federal taxes, spending, debt and regulation.

In the last five years, 1999 through 2003, Kerry's scores have ranged from 7 percent to 18 percent. His running mate, John Edwards, wasn't much better, with scores of 12 percent to 22 percent over the same period. Having not served in Congress, Bush was not rated by NTU. However, during Vice President Dick Cheney's service as a Wyoming congressman, 1979-88, his ratings ranged from 50 percent to 70 percent.

In other words, because Cheney has a better record concerning "tax and spend" sensibilities, even though his running mate has ballooned the federal budget deficit to record levels, Bush is clearly the better choice to reign in that mentality.
It looks as though the Pantograph believes (because we're engaged in a war on terror) "borrow and spend" is a much wiser policy.

I have been asking myself (and only myself, thus far) for an articulate argument from someone about why they would support another four years of Bush in the White House. I think I've found the perfect specimen. They appear to be articulate to some degree, but I should have asked for "intelligent" as well.

I sure hope the Bloomington Pantograph serves its community with the most outstanding coverage of local news. Given this endorsement, I can't see any reason why they should keep publishing.

Republicans angry at Kerry's Job Number accusations

Okay, so Kerry can't blame Bush directly for losing jobs.

What Kerry says is that Bush is presiding over a period of four years where there are fewer jobs than when he started. So Kerry can't blame Bush directly for the loss of jobs. But he tries to blame him for not putting into place economic policies that Kerry believes would stimulate job creation. Now the job decline in and of itself may not seem like very big deal - the job market fluctuates like any other economic factor. What is most troubling about these job numbers is that the number of people entering the workplace has been steadily increasing. So, the number of jobs required to break even means that there still must be more jobs than there were four years ago. It hasn't happened.

There are mitigating circumstances that we can all point to: the terrorist attacks, the trickle-down effect of corporate bankruptcies, the burst of an over-valued high-tech bubble. They all contribute to the loss of jobs.

Bush used a stop-loss strategy of tax cuts to stimulate growth. For the most part they succeeded (how could they not?). But Bush also increased spending by an enormous amount. What's really perverse is that some of Bush's policies would fit into his idea of "Compassionate Conservativism", such as a large increase in funding for Education. But he hasn't brought in the money to pay for them. Instead, he decreases the amount of liquid funding available.

Bush also decreased taxes during wartime. This is the first time that has ever been done for the duration of the war. So now we've got enormous bills, a war that needs funding, and even less money to pay for them.

The biggest problem we're all facing is that now Bush's economic stimulus (the tax cuts) have played themselves out. The economy is growing at a good rate in some sectors, loping along in others, and stalled in even some others. But the good effects haven't trickled down to those sectors that create jobs. What should Bush have done? Well, for one thing, he could have been more discriminating in the tax cuts, by cutting payroll taxes instead of dividend taxes. This would have put more money directly into middle class pockets, and the pockets of their employers. By giving the middle class and their employers more money, the local economy stays healthy. This in turn, aids interstate commerce, and a trickle-sideways effect.

Remember, it is the middle class that essentially drives the economy. There are many more arguments and examples for trickle-UP than trickle-down.

Instead, Bush chose the corporate and investor class tax cuts. We all know what happens to an investor once they've been burned by a economic downturn or a stock market deevaluation: they hold tight to their money, until they see enough indicators that the economy is turing around. Only after they're assured that the climate is suitable for investing, do they begin to pour investment back into the economy. This presents a serious lag time between the infusion of money back into business, and the creation of jobs.

The Bush tax cuts, policies and economic stimuli have all been targeted towards the investor class, and large billion dollar companies. True, the middle class did receive a tax cut and tax credits, but their effect on the local economies spikes once or twice a year and that's it. So, here in Washington, one can complain about how the state's regressive tax structure is responsible for the loss of Boeing jobs, but the trade-off is that we would need more taxation on the citizens to soften the tax structure for business. Economically speaking, that's a dead horse.

Too much taxation on the middle class results in a debtor's economy with deflation and higher interest rates. Bush's tax cuts have been very good for Boeing, but have they resulted in job creation? A little here or there, perhaps, but there have been quite a few layoffs, too.

The point is, if Bush had put the tax cuts to work in areas where they were most needed: the middle class and middle class employers, the economy might have stimulated more job growth by now.

Okay all you economists, out there. Come and tell me how full of BS I am.

P.S. One last point. I don't pretend that John Kerry has the right answer to this. So far, I'm not convinced. Where I see an advantage to Kerry is that if something ain't working, he'll change it. That doesn't seem to be the modus operandi of our current fearless leader.

People want to talk about the amount of taxes that are taken out during Democratic Administrations, but I must remind them that two of the biggest tax increases came about during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. I would also point out that with the exception of Jimmy Carter, most Democratic presidents have presided over very strong economies.

As Harry Truman was reported to have said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."

2nd Debate shows Bush taking a stand.

George Bush was much better prepared this evening, and it showed. He was also more shrill towards the beginning of the debate. He tried to use the flip-flop accusation against John Kerry, but they were only glancing blows.

John Kerry allowed himself to get nicked here and there because he can't seem to abandon the positive talk and defend himself for a moment. Is that good or bad? It shows that he definitely has a message he's trying to put forth.

Bush for his part, was forceful, but also a little defensive. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the post-debate spin.

I give the decision to Kerry 57% - 43%.

John Kerry's Global Test - BE TRUTHFUL

Unfortunately, John Kerry doesn't realize that his message is still getting lost through his rhetorical style. We now have the media all abuzz about his term "Global Test" which, I'll admit, is an unfortunate term for the concept he was talking about during the debate.

As one Kerry supporter, I feel it is necessary to talk about what he means by a "Global Test" because so many people are misinterpreting it. Even John Edwards couldn't bring himself to explain it in terms most could understand, so here it is.

Here's what John Kerry said:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

John Kerry is stating that any preemptive action has to be done for a LEGITIMATE reason. Legitimate in the eyes of Americans and legitimate in the eyes of the world. It does not mean that you ask the world's permission before you act. It simply means that you can't invade Iraq because of the oil reserves and tell the rest of the world and the American people that you're invading because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you give the world a reason for preemptive action (before or after the action itself), it had better be truthful, and above all, it must not be for less-than-honorable objectives and THAT'S John Kerry's global test. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is not a flip-flop, nor is it a weakness. It is to do what has been traditionally done, and in a way that upholds the standards so many of us hold dear. There is no permission slip in this quote except from the American People. That's as it should be. And, YOU TELL THEM THE TRUTH.

Picking on someone your own size

At last, Tom Friedman has come full circle, finally speaking sense again.

Bush is turning all of his strategic energies towards defeating John Kerry, instead of re-examining a strategy in Iraq. His ideological base have been dictating the game plan for years now.

The debate clearly illustrated the fact that Bush cannot develop a strategy on his own. Perhaps he should start reading newspapers?

Kerry will say anything?

There are a lot of you who continually tell us that John Kerry will say anything to get elected. As written, that statement isn't accurate. What John Kerry does is change the nuance or the focus of his campaign on different issues, day to day. Any candidate with a lick of sense does the same. If they didn't, no one would see any reason to vote for them.

Some candidates change their message, others put forth a message that is so rosy that they would think the public fools for not following them into the polls.

Bush is steadfast and consistent in his message, consistent in his attacks on Kerry (accurate or not), and consistent in telling the American people the state of affairs as he would like them to believe. In other words, Bush has been consistently lying about Iraq, lying about the economy (economic indicators these past three months spell a picture much gloomier than the president portrays - just look at oil prices), and lying about his record of helping the working class. His own record in the White House is quite contradictory to the message the President broadcasts.

The biggest irony? President George W. Bush, with more reversals in policy than any president in recent memory, has the gall to label John Kerry a flip-flopper.

About Bush's Iraq message - he is right about part of it:

The world is safer because Saddam is no longer in power. True.
The world is safer now that Saddam isn't in power. FALSE. The world is less safe because Iraq has become a de-stabilized mess, bogging down our military in an increasingly unwinnable war, and causing us to focus on a hotbed of terrorism when there are other terrorists bent on attacking us here. Where are those guys?

I can tell you one thing...they're not in Iraq.



So, when Bush says that the Economy is getting stronger, tax relief is working, more and more Americans are finding good-paying jobs, Iraq is on its way to a Democracy, and the world is much safer now that Saddam is no longer in power, how many of you really believe him?

...Thought so.

At least he's consistent, right?

The Gang that couldn't report straight

Dan Rather's political leanings have never been a mystery. I think CBS is predisposed to picking up an investigative story due to the fact that they've been the host network of "60 Minutes" for exactly 36 years. It's a brand recognition concept. That this Bush National Guard story has been around since his campaign in 2000 but always given a pass by the media meant that it was again ripe for picking. The CBS producer who had been tracking this story for the last five years was so caught up in the notion of there finally being absolute "proof" that she jumped without looking.

Perhaps a part of the CBS team felt like moving out from beneath the Bush Administration media access shadow. The term "liberal media" has been batted around forever, but in the last four years, the Bush team has been most effective in changing media from objective or even liberal reporting, to reporting the story the Bush Administration wants published. The liberal media are out there, but they are no longer the lone crusader with "the scoop."

Nowadays, If the news organizations broadcast a story that's at all critical of the Bush administration, they lose access to the White House press corps (under the guise of helping the enemy, or being unfairly critical of a wartime president). That can conceivably breed a lot of resentment by the media as they see their industry change from being independent and objective to being market-driven with the advent of cable. Take an Administration, or political party for that matter, that further constrains their ability to get the story, and you have a media that lays on its back as they're told what to report and what to downplay.

So, perhaps CBS felt an obligation or desire to level the playing field somewhat. After all, with the GOP monopoly in government, the anti-Kerry message has been given more airplay, reinforced with the constant repetition of misleading sound bites, and commentary that plays into the GOP message.

Kerry [voting for the $87 Billion war funding package before voting against] is a classic example of how the media have given the teleprompter joystick over to GOP operatives. It's pretty clear by those who are interested enough in getting the real story that Kerry voted for the funding package that made the most fiscal sense and that was most beneficial to the U.S. Likewise, it is as obvious that the bill passed by the GOP led majority was short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible. How fortunate that in an election year, Americans can be given information on who voted what, rather than information on exactly what this expensive bill contained.

John Kerry's Vietnam service was rightly or wrongly given a lot of emphasis during the Democratic Convention. It was, after all, one of the main reasons he was trotted out by the Democrats as an answer to Bush's National Security image. John Kerry has talked very little about his Vietnam service and focused more on policy issues since. The SwiftVET campaign forced him to talk about it again, but it's very clear to a lot of people that John Kerry would rather talk about this year and not what happened 30 years ago. But that isn't the message that gets out.

We hear it time and again that John Kerry is making his Vietnam service of 30 years ago part of this campaign. The truth is, by intention, he is not. John Kerry's problem or virtue is that he was a public figure 30 years ago. He made an impression and was a political force back then. How can his involvement in the Vietnam war not be an issue that is remembered, revered, reviled, whatever? It is part of this public man's history. But to say that he's trying to promote the relevance of his Vietnam experience is not accurate at all. It follows him whether he chooses to promote it or not.

What is more amazing and frustrating is that any reporting or stories that are now critical of Bush in the run up to election are always accused of being motivated by partisan politics. Kerry has resisted attacking Bush's TANG service, because he knows very well that it is counter-productive and frankly, beneath him. I think most people agree that it isn't consequential. But that doesn't matter. Any anti-Bush message, whether reported or spoken in sound bites is part of a smear campaign by the Democrats. In other words, if we hear of any news that isn't favorable to Bush, it will almost certainly be attributed to the Kerry campaign.

Perhaps CBS, or more specifically Dan Rather, tired of it all, like the rest of us, decided to stick a thorn in the foot of the Bush campaign if for nothing else than to repay a little aggravation.

Kerry's Record? The President's Record Stinks!

Bush and his cabinet are the most business friendly administration in history. Nothing wrong with that...except:

The Bush idea of pro-business means that his Administration is:

1) Anti-Science - they've ignored or suppressed universally accepted hard scientific facts (from emissions, global warming, and chemical dumping) to tilt policy towards large corporate contributors;

2) anti-Environment - Bush's energy and environmental policies are destroying protections that have preserved America's natural resources for nearly thirty years;

3) Anti-Middle Class - The Bush tax cuts have resulted in tax relief for the very wealthy, and for the middle class at the federal level, but have created huge state fund deficits that end up costing the middle class taxpayer more in property taxes, usage fees, and other regressive taxes. The tax burden on the middle class has actually significantly increased in every single one of the fifty states;

4) Anti-Military - Bush's Pentagon policies are tilted towards large defense contracts with the result of ignoring or eliminating more basic military personnel protections (body armor) and weapons. The Bush War machine has counted on being able to fight wars with technology instead of manpower. This under-funded military policy has created a considerably more dangerous environment for our fighting men and women who are deployed.

5) Anti-Conservation - oil prices have a direct effect on the cost-of-living for every single American. Those at the lower end of the economic field are being severely hurt by oil prices, affecting family balance sheets. The Bush Administration's avoidance of modernizing power plants, mills, and fuel efficiency standards mean that we're all more dependent upon foreign oil than we should be.

Each one of these issues has a direct bearing on you and me. It's essential that we make the right choice in November, or the damage is going to be that much harder to recover from.

Don't Support Bush. He's been bad for America. He does not deserve four more years.

Difference between Kerry and Bush

George W. Bush is an unwavering leader, a man who proudly follows his convictions, and leads with his gut. George Bush's decisions never sway from the straight path of his vision. John Kerry examines the issues and tries to make the right decision. John Kerry sometimes has a problem in deciding what's right, especially when there are numerous other conditions and consequences that go along with the decision.

John Kerry's decisions are right 83% of the time. And he knows it.

George Bush's decisions are wrong 100% of the time. And he doesn't care.

Republicans may unjustly call Kerry a flip-flopper, but at least he's right part of the time!

Republicans, always running from the issues

Has anyone seen any more hatred or vitriole spewed at political convention before in their lives? I mean the Republicans at the Convention are manic. One minute they're bowing their heads in tribute to Ronald Reagan, September 11 victims, and the next they're screaming about John Kerry.

All they can do when talking about George Bush is speak in large sweeping generalizations. They can't point to his environmental record. They can't point to his economic record. They can't point to his health care record. They can't point to his spending record, and they certainly can't point to his war record. All dismal stuff. And how many times has a Republican speaker mentioned fiscal conservativism in this convention? I've counted about six times so far. They've abandoned it in their platform.

Why do they keep bringing it up?

The Republicans are scared shitless. That's why they're resorting to so many constant attacks against John Kerry. They don't want to talk about issues. They don't want to talk about how poverty has increased by 1.5 million in the past four years - reversing a trend it took Bill Clinton eight years to turn around. They don't want to talk about the thousands of wounded soldiers who fought a war in Iraq that diverted attention and money away from a war on terror. They don't want to talk about the Corporate giveaways and relaxing of clean air laws so that companies who have been resistant to modernizing with pollution controls can sponge off of the emissions levels of those who have. They don't want to talk about how their controlled federal agencies have been dragging their feet in pursuing anti-trust cases that resulted in unjustly higher energy prices for citizens of the west coast. They don't want to talk about how it has taken them three years to put any sort of real money towards Homeland Security.

No, John Kerry is a flip-flopper and speaks French. Those are the big issues to Republicans. Makes you feel good about who's in charge, doesn't it?

Putting our faith in Fictionists

Michael Moore could be one of the most influential filmmakers in history, save for one small flaw (actually, make that a big flaw)-- he doesn't know when to stop. Michael Moore suffers from the same flaw that ails MoveOn.org. They both hold far too much anger to excel in their muckraking.
Now, I'm not saying their viewpoints are wrong. In fact, they're far from wrong, but they do themselves a severe disservice in the way their message is broadcast.
Take, for instance, Bush's military service (or lack thereof). MoveOn made a big mistake of running an ad that accused Bush of being AWOL - or words to that effect. Most thinking Democrats probably cringed at the gall of MoveOn to run the ad. I was one Liberal who fervently wrote to Eli Pariser, telling him to drop the issue. But, of course, they don't listen to one sensible person. John Kerry, to his credit, felt the same way many Democrats did - it wasn't going to get them anywhere, and it prevented us from taking the high road.
Even now, when we're trying to point to the unfairness of the SWIFTVet accusations, MoveOn completely disarmed our arguments for 527's with their boneheaded thinking.
Michael Moore suffers the same affliction. He's far too angry and that clouds his message. I'm not saying people can't be angry at Bush - I am, but I also know the old saying - You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's absolutely true. Michael Moore and MoveOn are wasting their time preaching to the choir. Of course Democrats and Liberals are going to eat the stuff up, but where does that get them? What Michael Moore and MoveOn SHOULD be doing is trying to convince the OTHER side that their candidate is the wrong choice. You do that with persuasive arguments and evidence. Not with rants. It has never worked and it never will.
I'm waiting for the new MoveOn ads to come out - the ones showing Bush supporters who've made the switch to John Kerry. I was one of the thousands (or millions) who voted on which ads were the most persuasive. The ones I picked? They were the ones that had normal people who many of us could identify with, but who didn't paint their criticism with a broad brush. I voted for the woman who wondered what was going to happen with oil prices, education, permanent tax cuts -- not the ones who said that Bush took the country's hopes and sold them to his cronies at Halliburton and the Carlysle Group -- or something to that effect. Guess which kind of ads it seemed MoveOn had chosen? Right. The ones that express their outrage, but do nothing to convince anyone from the other side, or any undecided folks.
The problem is that we Democrats are fed up with the corruption, the corporate welfare and huge giveaways, the disregard for the environment, unnecessary and costly wars, but we don't know how to be calculating and persuasive. It's one big reason why John Kerry hasn't pushed ahead of Bush by double digits. When John Kerry said he would have voted for the authorization of the war, but wouldn't have actually voted for the war, he threw away his chance to make an important distinction.
His comment about voting for the 87 billion before voting against it was taken completely out of context and twisted by the Republicans. Shame on them. When explaining his war authorization vote, there was no manipulation of his message, he simply botched it big time. Shame on him. I even heard his campaign spokespeople screwing up the message for days afterwards.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the poor persuasion skills that beseige the Democrats at every turn. I personally believe the choice of John Kerry over some of the other candidates is part and parcel of this talent for miscalculation that we Democrats just can't shake. Don't get me wrong, I do believe John Kerry is far and above a better choice for America, but I don't feel very good about the Democratic campaign machine's ability to get him elected. The machine needs a rebuild.
But we mustn't let Michael Moore or MoveOn touch even one spark plug!

Kerry Lied? It's Over

That's right. It's done. The damage to Kerry from the SwiftBoat Vets has played itself out. Kerry has survived the vitriolic attacks over his Vietnam war experience. It is becoming clear to many that the attacks against John Kerry have always been personal in nature. With more and more facts coming to light, it's clear that very few of these veterans have any substantial evidence to support their claims. John Kerry, on the other hand, has a wealth of evidence - both in witnesses and documentation that support his version of the events - with one exception: his assertions of being in Cambodia over Christmas in 1968. Of all of the accusations brought against him, this is one that he has been unable to completely refute. Whether it matters in the larger scheme of things remains an issue only the voters can answer.
The SWIFTBoat Veterans for Truth have attacked a man because they resented his anti-war efforts and testimony before Congress. Their resentment towards Kerry right or wrong has been exposed as the motivation behind the attacks. Even as the head of the group John O'Neill is attacking Kerry, he's made it clear that George Bush hasn't earned his respect either.
Unfortunately, the Bush campaign has made the mistake of not publicly distancing themselves from O'Neill and his SWIFTVets. In the long run, that may hurt Bush as people realize, now that potency of the SWIFTVet message has died, Bush never took the opportunity to stand on the side of truth.
Any further accusations against Kerry are quickly becoming empty shells of rhetoric, inflicting no more damage than what has already been done.

There isn't an ounce of doubt. John Kerry is the right man for the job.

I railed against Democrats for nominating John Kerry because he was more "electable" than Howard Dean. I was dismayed when his poll numbers and message were mired in the never-ending innuendo and negative "fact reporting" of the Republican campaign.

He pulled it off. John Kerry may not have the star-studded rhetoric and charisma of others, but his speech was pretty damn great. And I can honestly say that Howard Dean couldn't have appeared more Presidential than John Kerry did tonight.

Way to go, Senator Kerry. You nailed it.

Bill Clinton still inspires us.

For all of his faults, Bill Clinton does have the knack in telling us like it is.  I watched Chris Matthews' coverage on MSNBC, and for a political pundit, he sure threw his craft out of the window.  Clinton illustrated very stark differences between the administration and the Democrats, even though he framed it as Republicans and Democrats.  It's interesting to note that not all Republicans buy into the Bush template.

Matthews couldn't come up with any sort of intelligent comment, and even made Joe Scarborough seem scholarly by comparison.  What a buffoon!

Questions about the Separation between Church and State are kicking into high gear...and well they should!

I certainly don't see a problem with churches trying to get their congregations registered to vote -- even when they do so to promote religious value voting. I don't like it, but I don't see a problem. What I do object to is any church or religious group trying to make one candidate out to be more, uh, not religious, let's say holy than the other. When they start attacking the religious values of one candidate or another, they begin to cross the ad hominem line.

When one party endorses the view that another party is less worthy or less, God forbid, holy (save for an Atheist party, perhaps), then they are over the line and slogging through no-man's land.

Well, one party isn't doing it to another party, but you're seeing a lot of sanctioned speech about John Kerry's catholicism, and how that relates to his idea of values. I think politics are getting dangerously close to this line. My biggest fear is that as they approach the line more and more, it will lose its significance. Religious underpinings will become commonplace in the political discourse.

The Photoshop Age

The mainstream media have absolutely no desire to be practicers of the craft any more. Eric Severeid introduced the idea, and Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS...CBS! killed it.
Why is there such a political divide in this country? Because the mainstream media does all they can do to spin the rotors of hyperbole, without elevating the discourse. It's the Gingriching of society, plain and simple.
The most damaging effect of all of this is that there are actually close to 50% of polled citizens who support one of the most un-American, secretive, Machievellian Executive Branches this country has ever seen. Their ideals are not American ideals. They feed upon fear. And mainstream media is wholly complicit in this ruse.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself, how could a nation sacrifice its most precious commodity over faulty intelligence? No, wait, I'm not blaming the administration. I am blaming the media. They had a job to do, and they did not do it. They never questioned a) the Executive Branch on its objectives, b) the Intelligence Community on its intelligence, c) the Pentagon on its war planning. For crying out loud, we all sat on our hands, knowing that the Pentagon refused to tell Congress how much they estimated this war would cost. They didn't know, and yet, we allowed them to invade Iraq and kill our young men and women.
American mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda machine. You can see how embedded the media is in the policies of George Bush. They keep quoting figures that illustrate Americans' support for the war. Americans did not support the war -- not until 'major combat operations' were concluded. On the day of invasion of Iraq, support for a largely unilateral war was almost evenly split - 47% to 51% for, 49 to 53% against.That is not overwhelmingly supportive of the war in Iraq.
In his State of the Union speech Bush claimed that 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. What the media should have followed that assertion with is that the leaders of 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. The vast majority of citizens in every single one of those 34 countries vehemently opposed the war.
Revisionist history is so rampant, that one has to wonder who'll write the history textbooks. In this day and age, at the flowering of the information age, we've hijacked objectivity. Facts aren't reported any longer. We now hear the ramblings of journalists everywhere talking about how they didn't question the Administration in the run-up to war. Hell, they're not questioning the Administration's assumptions now, any more than they did then.
A Photoshop artist can re-touch any photo to represent any reality. And it can be done so well that reality becomes (like quantum physics) entirely dependent upon the observer. Re-touch the photo, artificially change the experience of the observer, and you've altered one's sense of objective reality. It's that simple. A practice that is in abundant use with our mainstream media. They are the Photoshop artists with the facts and public opinion. In my book that's abuse of the information age. It's the Photoshop Age.
Someone or something needs to instigate a groundswell change in our media. Thankfully, the efforts of the FCC are being challenged as they strive to perpetuate the death of media responsibility. Media ownership is a very important issue, and looking at the new power of the media, vital to our national preservation.
Where are you Howard Beale? Thanks for the photo, Digby

WMD in IRAQ????

You see? This is what I'm talking about!

If the Bush Administration was led down the wrong path by the CIA, why did they allow the looting? If Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, the lack of Pentagon and Bush Administration leadership on the ground situation in Iraq might have been the match that lit the fuse of our destruction.

The Pentagon's incompetence put our country in very grave danger.

To me this blows away the protection afforded the Bush Administration by the upcoming criticism of the CIA's WMD intelligence. Regardless if the CIA fed Bush good or bad information, the fact that the Bush Administration "stood by" (and Rummy dismissed the looting as "natural after the fall of a repressive regime", or words to that effect) while all of this was going on is reason enough to cry "foul" on the execution of his "war on terror".

Furious? I sure am.

Nucular Weppins

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Nucular Weppins, Nucular Presdint
John Edwards is too inexperienced to be Presdint. So says George Bush. Bush was too stupid to be Presdint. So will say history, when all of this b---sh-t is over.

One would hope the media would latch on to the irony, the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black." But they won't. They're shacking up with this administration.

Two Johns

link here

So John Kerry chose John Edwards. I think Edwards will be a great asset in getting John Kerry's message out, but he'll also be a slight liability for the Kerry ticket. John Edwards' litigation record really isn't one to be ashamed of. It's pretty admirable. But...John Edwards was a trial lawyer after all, and the GOP have made a lot of fuss about the Democrats' support of trial lawyers and non-support of Tort reform. This is going to be a little interesting. Hopefully John Edwards' record and fresh optimism will far outweigh the naive optimism and misleading attacks of our fearless and clueless leader.

The case for Michael Moore - more persuasive than WMD

Richard Reeves -- Hindsight????

"But Wolfowitz does have a point about press cowardice. Most of us were afraid of showing and shouting that the Bush administration was misleading Americans into a war of choice. Now we know. This week alone, three great journalists or gentlemen, scholars and patriots have conceded that they were misled or deliberately deceived in the crazed run up to unnecessary invasion."

Blame where blame isn't due.

Give it a rest, will all of you? There is so much fiction behind the Sudanese connection, but it is their only defense of the absolute bungling of this "War on Terror" that our fearless leader likes to speak of. So Clinton turned his back on Mansoor Ijaz, an opportunist, putting "noble and altruistic" objectives far in front of any business objectives, and thereby gave up a chance to capture Usama Bin Laden. Republican conspiracy enthusiasts throw this up every chance they get.

A couple of things to say about that: The world was different then, (pre 9/11), and diplomacy was the standard. Don't blame Clinton for behaving like a leader of the free world. Secondly, post 9/11, George W. Bush had the entire world behind him, NATO BEGGING to assist us in against the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Of course, Cowboy George said, 'No thanks') Diplomacy took a back seat, and at that time, the rest of the world approved. What happened to Usama Bin Laden? With all of our resources and international support,where the f--- did he go?

Don't talk about Clinton's dereliction of duty. The greater dereliction is this foolish and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE war in Iraq, distracting us while UBL has been allowed to re-organize in the anarchic hills of Afghanistan.

Give me a damn break!

A Personal note

Godspeed, Frank.
Frank Carbaugh has given a grand fight. Having been a pugilist, football coach, and mentor to troubled kids, he knew where to summon the fight. He has fought against a very tough cancer, one without any mercy. He gave it his all. Alas, Frank's body has gone its own way, against the wishes of its temporary owner. Frank is being called home too soon.

May these last days be swift and free of care and pain. So much left undone, and yet, Love transcends any task list. May all of those whose lives you touched elevate you with their prayers and thoughts, so that you may gaze into the bright, loving face of the Creator.

We're all going to miss you terribly. With love, prayers and much sadness... so long, dear friend.

Cheney Lies...You buy....Got it?

The media watchdogs are seeing it. Bloggers are seeing it, but the rest of sleepy America hears GWB and RBC frying eggs in the kitchen and closes their eyes, while the soothing tunes from the big media radio soften the rough edges, fogging their awareness in a pre-November reverie, confident that the bacon is going to be saved.

Ray Charles has left us.

Ray Charles has left us at 73. Too soon for our aching soul, but after several lifetimes of contribution to the American fabric.

Ray Charles discovered America. Everyone knows that. You didn't have to try hard to love that voice. Rich, soulful, pure. The man created that. No Godfather, King, Prince, or nom de guerre. His name. Ray Charles was the original.

Way too many of the young soul-singers and teen band wailers over-use the Ray Charles fluorish, and they squeeze every last drop of soul out of it till it becomes a sickly-sweet, hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck cringe line. They do the man a disservice. And sadly enough, they'll be the ones honoring him during some tribute.

God bless you, Ray. Sing it sweet. Sing it pure.

There are a few things to admire about Ronald Reagan...his presidency isn't one of them.

Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, the winner of the Cold War, the -- okay enough, already.

Things to admire about Ronald Reagan?

1) Some of his films weren't all that bad. He was actually, a decent actor, but if his agent had really been looking out for him, why the hell couldn't he have gotten "The Rear Window", or "The Man who Knew Too Much", or something else besides "Bedtime for Bonzo" or "She's Working Her Way Through College"?

2) His relationship with Nancy Davis was quite public by most standards. Two romantics who became the most powerful family in the country for awhile. Their relationship could be on a poster for the institution of marriage, if it weren't practically the only damn good public example out there.

3) Self-deprecation with an edge. Reagan raised it to an art. He wasn't arrogant. Ignorant, yes, arrogant, no. Reagan personified the paternal president.

4) Nope. Not gonna mention the Cold War. That honor goes to Gorbachev. Did Reagan help? Sure, but someone better duct tape your local Republican's mouth here. Reagan responsible? Bah! Funny how they'll latch on to any big idea and call it their own.
Actually, Reagan probably facilitated the end of the cold war by not dealing with Gorbachev like a stereotypical conservative Republican. Yeah, we all thought he was crazy enough to push that button, but in the end, he saw through the propoganda, and let Gorbachev rise to his own historical relevance.

Things that Reagan disappointed us with:

Uh, too many to name. Swelling the ranks of Homelessness, Iran-Contra, abandonement of the Mentally Ill, Poverty, race relations, giant deficits, tax cuts and tax hikes, being a figurehead for petty-minded, selfish, money-hoarding "conservatives", PATCO, etc., etc.

Gallant man, decent actor, warm-fuzzy American Grandpa. Lasting legacy? For Americans of all races and status, let's hope not!

Okay, I'll admit it...There is a part of me that is worried that Iraq could become a success story before November.

//link What has really become annoying is that the Iraq war is going to be the central issue in the reelection of the Incompetent Bush. There are so many other important issues that most of us rarely think about. The deficit, the environment, civil rights, foreign relations, the economy and the middle class, and of course, our war on terror. Each of these areas hold numerous reasons to vote Bush out of office in November, but because the electorate is a one-issue monster, the most visible reason may in fact be the deciding factor -- the war in Iraq.

Never mind that thousands of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of coalition troops have died needlessly (I say needlessly, not in the sense that the war shouldn't have been fought (it shouldn't), but in the sense that the transition from Saddam's rule to the American occupation was SO mismanaged,that needless suffering and death were allowed to set up camp). Had the coalition authority listened to ordinary Iraqi outrage at the looting and anarchy at the fall of Saddam, and had sent in enough troops to establish martial law initially, there wouldn't have been the resentment or the despondency of Iraqi citizens we've seen in places like Fallujah, or Najaf, or Kosul. The world's greatest military under our illustrious Pentagon management became the world's most shamed military.

What really irks me, is that if things turn out well in Iraq (and I actually hope they do) with the new appointment of Allawi as the new [interim?] Iraqi Prime Minister, then all of the Pentagon and Bush's efforts will be seen in a very positive light. And this issue alone could be the one that pushes public opinion into approving the record of the incumbent. Now we're starting to see the makings of a government that can assume some sovereignty. Now, the truth is, as promising as this appointment is, there is still going to be a long difficult road ahead. This is by no means over.

Does it make sense for Kerry to start talking about bringing the troops home? It isn't an option I've been in favor of ever since we made the plunge, but perhaps some intimations towards that point might be Kerry's piper. It would certainly diffuse some of Nader's support. If the new Iraqi government truly begins to take shape, this issue might not seem too drastic.

The bottom line is, Bush really needs to go. And I'm not a Bush-hater. I think the man's unfaltering sense of purpose has its place in the American psyche. And Bush is very, very good at it. Unfortunately, his supporters and close aides, see so much opportunity to push their anti-America value agenda under the shield of Bush's appearance of strength and determination, that we're truly headed for a disaster. I'm not talking about terrorism, or another war (though both are extremely high in the list of probables), but about implosion of the American social-political state. We're losing the middle class, the consumers. We're losing earnings. Yes, the economy is rebounding at a great rate, but it will be short lived as consumers and the country itself, receive the credit card payment due notice. Says Cheney, "...deficits don't matter...", and an entire body of political minds are with him on that. And that's indicative of a whole slew of issues that this Administration embraces.

Please, let Bush lose public referendum, despite a victory in Iraq. America needs to be rescued from occupation, too.

Trajectory Of Cause

link

After murdering Nicholas Berg, there is a good chance that Al Qaeda will win this next battle, too.
Since September 11, America appears to be motivated solely by revenge. The problem is that this revenge in many cases is both racist and without a particular object. Americans want someone to pay for the suffering or murder of innocents. If the recipient of our revenge is also innocent, the usual justification one hears is along the lines of "Look what they did to us on September 11!" To many Americans, the attacks of September 11 weren't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, instead, they were perpetrated by Arabs or more specifically Muslims.

The calls to revenge are stirring again. And this time, they are reaching deeper and are about to create a very dangerous tip in national identity and awareness. Already we can hear the outrage by some Americans about how the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq do not compare to the brutality of Nick Berg's horrific murder. And they are beginning to lash out at those who feel shamed by the prison abuses and who feel that the American military owes the Iraqis contrition.

Nick Berg's murderers did not need any images of abuse by American MP's to justify their barbaric act. It was simply an excuse to inflame and taunt the American Occupation and American people. Mr. Berg's murderers are not innocent Iraqi citizens. They are terrorists. Not insurgents, not Iraqis but true terrorists.

The danger here is that the real victims will be innocent Iraqi citizens if American anger is permitted to take over the objectives of our occupation in Iraq.

America does owe the Iraqi citizens an apology. There is absolutely no comparison here. Nick Berg's beheading and the Abu Ghraib abuses are not related. Mr. Berg was murdered by lawless terrorists in a most cowardly display of brutality. Iraqis were humiliated and tortured by figures of authority in an American military-run prison. The authority-subject models are so disparate in these two situations that they defy comparison.

What is really telling here is the outrage being expressed by Iraqis and many Muslims throughout the world by this savage and brutal killing. Even Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah has denounced this act. While they may not agree with America's objectives, they have decried this execution as being aberrant to the laws of Islam. These are truer followers of Islam.

What Al Qaeda has been able to bank on is the fury with which we Americans react to any violence against us. They know by now that America overreacts, hurling back the ball of engagement with more enthusiasm and anger after each incident. Al Qaeda's grand objective is to keep feeding the perceived American-Arab rift and bring the great uprising closer and closer. Each time we act in revenge, we begin to alienate even more Arabs or Muslim people who have otherwise envied us, but wished us no harm.

If we try to compare the humiliation of the Iraqi citizens with the brutality and inhumanity of Al Qaeda, we are feeding the flames of Al Qaeda's objective. Al Qaeda does not speak for the citizens of Iraq. Not yet. Apologize for the abuses of Abu Ghraib and commit enough military manpower and planning to end the lawlessness in Iraq that has taken over ever since the U.S. created the power vacuum a little over a year ago. Only a comprehensive strategy can provide the stability needed to separate the citizens from the true enemies of all.

John Kerry is the right choice for Democrats. There is a considerable amount of hand-wringing by Democrats concerning a perception of John Kerry's campaign being lackluster. I think that this concern is misguided. This election cycle is unlike any other. There is an entirely new perspective on the country's political future, now.

What in the world has happened to Joe Lieberman? It's plain to see at the Rumsfeld hearing today that Senator Lieberman's Mr. Hyde is beginning to take over. Would Al Gore even recognize his ol' running mate anymore?

Mr. Lieberman, we are Americans, not terrorists. We respect personal liberty and dignity (usually). For you to compare our obligation of contrition for the abuse of prisoners in Abu Gihraib prison to that of the September 11 perpetrators and planners is to negate our stature in the global community. It is almost akin to saying that the United States adopts a much milder variation of Sharia law. Eye for an eye, apology for apology.

True war is hell, and all is fair, etc. But when fighting a war of the hearts and minds, you don't gleefully display a lack of concern for your objective. The U.S. Armed forces aren't part of a repressive regime. They're supposed to be liberators, right? The images and nuance of the abuse these Iraqi citizens endured under control of the American liberators is not only troubling because of the sexual and humiliating type of abuse, but because it illustrates the systemic lack of structure in the operation over there. To say that these were an aberrant few is to elevate naivete almost to the level of that our President possesses. Anyone who has studied the Stanford prison experiment understands that this dynamic between prisoners and guards isn't unusual.

Some of our right-wing fanatics have likened the scenes depicted in the images to secret society or sports hazing incidents. At first mention, one might be extremely offended by the comparison, viewing it as an excuse, but if you think a little more about it, it isn't that far off. After all, we've taken college-age young men and women, placed them in an unsupervised situation where they have absolute power over their subjects. These were obviously considered no more than pranks by the perpetrators. Given time and leeway, just what would you expect? Now I'm not saying that college-age men and women are prone to such behavior, but I do think that differences in maturity are still evident from that age to the next. There should have been more adult supervision.

What is deeply troubling here is that Senator Lieberman is towing the "war is hell" line, and allowing those in charge to do the next stanza of the Unaccountability Rag. What happened in Abu Gihraib happened because there was no supervision. There was no supervision because there is no comprehensive management plan. There is no management plan because that structure is lacking. Structure is lacking because the Bush Administration operates on emotion only. "This is a moral war, the world will be better off, Iraqis will welcome us with open arms", so to hell with planning for any other contingencies.

Senator Lieberman is a bright man, but he too has let emotion push out the intellect. It was positively imbecilic for him to mention that we never received an apology from the September 11 planners in context with the discussion of these abuses.

Maybe Senator Lieberman is seeking an opening in Rush's EIB network lineup for his retirement years.

As the Democratic Presidential nomination process nears its conclusion, I found to my surprise, feelings of wistfulness about Howard Dean that I'd not anticipated. I have been a strong supporter of John Kerry ever since he announced his intention to run. Like many others, I thought that he was the crown prince of Democratic contenders, a tailor-made opponent for the incumbent President. I did give Dean credit: for creating a movement and motivating people; and giving voice to the anger that many of us felt towards the war, the Patriot Act, and the apparent abandoning of middle class concerns by the ruling class. But I supported Kerry because I thought, like many, that Dean was not elect-able.

Surprisingly, as I have learned more about both John Kerry and Howard Dean, I have developed an intellectual leaning towards Howard Dean. While both men have ideals that appeal to non-conservatives and centrists, Dean seems to have more conviction, personal and political. Looking back on the mid-term elections, it was disappointing and unsettling to see the losses of so many Democratic seats -- especially since national politics were already spiraling in a disturbing direction. It made many of us wonder why the Democrats lacked a message if not just a messenger. If only someone had had the courage to speak out and deliver a message.

Someone did, but they weren't considered a voice for the Democrats at the time - Howard Dean. Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were the bright beacons of dissent when Bush and Co. were dragging America into the murky fog of war. Howard Dean still has that message.

Now, gauging Kerry's politics by his voting record is very confusing at best. He appears neither consistent nor principled when compared with Howard Dean's political past. His votes seem more motivated by convenience. Dean is far less liberal than the media paints him, but has a freshness about him that contrasts with the Washington “insider” profile. I no longer think that he’s un-elect-able. Actually, to the contrary, perhaps now, more than ever, Howard Dean is the voice the Democrats need when facing the dangerous juggernaut of political inertia in November.

I’m getting very concerned about how polled Americans regard our country’s actions and relationship to the global community. I’m also extremely concerned about our country and its future security. I’m wondering if you’ve thought about this, too…

On Friday, I happened to stop the channel on the Fox News network briefly, to hear host John Gibson asking a new liberal talk radio host that if he opposed the war, would he prefer that Saddam Hussein were still in power. His guest replied that it was a wrong-spirited question. Gibson repeated the same question to provoke a response. At that point, I could stand it no longer and switched the television off. Is that going to be the new right-wing mantra, in response to the question about the need for war? “Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power?”

Well, I thought of a question for all of those who ask that. “In light of all we’ve discovered concerning the imminent danger from the failed [and toothless] regime in Iraq, are you pleased that not only over 500 of our best and brightest young generation have been taken from their wives, husbands, children and parents, but America has ushered in a new global political era of fear and resentment?”

Think about it. Five hundred (and counting) men and women, ten thousand civilians later, we have left a country in shambles, destabilized, and sparked a world filled with growing resentment of American principles and arrogance. And for what, exactly? Regime change? You see, I think many who opposed the war were surprised (and very pleased back in February of 2003) to see Saddam begin a new era of cooperation with the weapons inspectors prior to our invasion. Sure, he was initially hesitant and secretive, but he was already showing blatant signs of acquiescing. Progress was being made. But because our current administration had this invasion in their sights for their own misguided and very “un-American” principles, (we didn’t need Paul O’Neill to tell us that – many of us knew it from the very beginning) Saddam could not have avoided it in any way.

The big problem is that the administration set the tone for future dealings with our country and a dangerous precedent. If George Bush is elected President and remains in office for another four years, I’m afraid it’s going to look pretty bad for us, folks. He has created a Machiavellian machine in this current administration that does whatever it deems necessary, without any consideration whatsoever to the opinion of the rest of the civilized world. Instead of being a participant in the global political community, it reaches out slapping the hands of the entire world, like an aggressive bully. If we as Americans elect him into office for the next four years, we’ll be telling our enemies (and friends alike) that we like and approve of the maverick tactics taken by the Texas cowboy and a small group in the political boardroom. We’ll be telling the rest of the world, “Americans have had it. We’re no longer going to be the country for you to admire or aspire to emulate. We’re going to be the country to fear, so you’d better get in line, or you’re next.”

What’s really upsetting is not that 15% of us believe that what the President has done is proper and exactly what he should have done, whether Iraq was a sovereign nation or not. They’re the right-wing neo-conservatives. No, what’s really upsetting is that another 40% of us think to ourselves, “Yeah, okay. Whatever…that sounds good to me, I guess,” and support it because it’s easier than getting riled or involved. That creates a majority of Americans who aren’t truly thinking at all about our future. And that is incredibly upsetting!

Why should we be concerned? Here’s why: we’re dooming ourselves to having to elect new leaders that will carry on in the tradition of George Bush – changing the very definition of what it means to be America. Do you think that after four more years of Bush and Co. we’ll be able to elect someone in office who exhibits compassion and concern for our country and who desires the spirit of cooperation with the rest of the world? – Not very likely, at least for the foreseeable future. If George Bush continues to strong-arm the rest of the world for another four years on our behalf, the resulting backlash from Europe, Muslim countries, and Asia once he leaves office is going to be so severe, and with an economic cost that will not be supportable – especially after the fiscal mess this administration is creating and perpetuating, that we’ll have no choice but to continue to elect George Bushes and Dick Cheneys for posterity.

Lastly, do you honestly think having Bush in office for another term will have kept us safe from terrorism? His administration incites and angers people all over the world. All he’s really done is temporarily contain them by latching the lid on the pressure cooker. But he’s also plugged it in. Four more years of cooking that anger, we’re going to be dangerously vulnerable. But unlike Bush, the rest of us won’t have a Secret Service entourage or an underground tunneling network to protect us.

Folks, whether you like Bush or not, it’s time to take a serious look at the course this administration has set for us on all fronts: Global, Economic, Political, Environmental and our American way of life. There really isn’t all that much to cheer or feel reassured about. Sure, our economy appears to be rebounding right now, but at what long-term cost? A deficit that is going to drag down a future of prosperity for our children? Who knows? You may really enjoy seeing Liberals, Environmentalists, Unions, the Press and the rest of the world take a beating from this administration. And as much fun as that is, this you must never forget: all of those groups are desperate to see a livable long-term future awaiting all of us. Not so with our current leader. For our safety, for our children, and the security of our future as Americans, it's time to accept that he really must go.