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.