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.