Goodbye, Tom Morgan.

I just found out that almost a month ago, an old friend, Tom Morgan of the Bay area band Transcender passed away in his home from carbon monoxide poisoning. I don't know if it was at his hand or if it was accidental.

I had lost touch with Tom, but had some difficulty when trying to locate him a few times in the past years.

After his passing, I was able to understand why. For someone so on top of the pulse of artistic creation, Tom was resistant to joining the online community. He earned the nickname "Analog Tom" because he was so late in getting an e-mail address. I would have guessed the Tom would have been one of the first.

I was in a high school rock and roll band with Tom, Stefan, Jim and Joel called The Spies. Tom, Stefan and Joel brought most of the talent at first, and made us somewhat popular in the suburbs of Maryland where we all grew up.

Tom went on to write his own music and create his own artistic persona through bands in Baltimore and in the San Francisco / Oakland area. He even played a couple of gigs with Alex Chilton of Boxtops fame.

As the years went by, Tom would pop in and out of my life, and on the rare occasion that we were both back in Maryland, visiting our respective families, we'd get together. Stefan and Tom shared a bit of musical history at the University of Michigan as well.

I had sort of come to regard him as my untapped connection into the world of the arts. Deep down I knew, as probably many did, that Tom was going to make a name for himself one way or another. I had always imagined hearing news of a new breakout band with Tom at the helm. Well, it sounds like it was almost to be. His band's "Self-Titled Debut Album" seemed to be earning a few accolades from the indie music world. But sadly, Tom won't pilot this rocket.

He was a fantastic musician, songwriter, artist, photographer, and an all-around interesting fellow. If I had to describe my sense of Tom it would be that he was "un-anchored" by the constraints of conventionalism. I'm quite heartbroken to hear of his passing. So long, Tom. I'll miss you.

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!