COLLECTIVE SOUL SEARCH

It's been too long.

Now that the dust has begun to clear, let's explore a few of the reasons why having won all three debates, and even with record deficits and a controversial Republican owned war, the Democrats had their asses handed to them in this election.

The Democrats have lost touch with America, but not for the reasons the conservative sheep bleat, e.g. "they've moved too far to the left", "they have no morals", "they want socialism", that drivel is ultrasimplistic stupidity.


1) the Democrats have too long labored under the misapprehension that the "game" is played a certain way. They've continued to do things in the way they've been done since WWII. While they've been doing that the GOP have redefined the game. There is no longer any honor among thieves (politicians) and the Dems need to dump the altruism and go for the juggular like the Rove Spin Machine. Bye Terry McCauliffe, bye Tom Daschle.

2) The Dems need to start calling both the Press and the GOP on their BS.

The press has fallen so far into the morass in the last four years that they just let people on both sides spout their opinions under the guise of "equal time". That is not the job of journalists, their job is to *challenge* both sides not to give them a soapbox. There used to be a rule that you wouldn't publish (air) a story unless you had reliable confirmation by two sources. Now you don't even need one -so long as you give the other side a chance to rebut. Horsesh*t.

Take the Smearboat Vets as an example: They were allowed to say whatever they wanted in most mainstream media outlets, and despite the fact that their stories had more holes than swiss cheese the "press" rather than challenge the SBV themselves ("oh my, we might lose our cushy jobs!") would defer to the other side to say "how do you answer that?" Pussies.

A more recent example: On NPR this morning John Thune was asked why he thought the voters of SD voted for him rather than for Daschle. He replied that he thought they wanted a Senator who would not be responsible to the national party, and then went on to tick off all of the GOP talking points -complete with telltale catch-phrases like "grow the economy", and the best the interviewer could say was "thank you". NPR has corporate sponsors now too.

The Democrats need to start pointing out things like these out to both the press and the GOP everytime they happen, again and again and never tire. Stop hoping for them to do the right thing. Here's someone who has been doing this for a while already -maybe they can follow his example.

3) The Democrats have let the GOP define what morality is. To combat this they need to take morals back from the right to the center. They can begin by reviewing the impetus for the successful programs of FDR and the Great Society. That impetus came from the Judeo-Christian values not of "personal responsibility" (i.e. you're on your own and if you have problems, tough. It's probably your own fault anyway) but of responsibility to our neighbors, local, national and global, as beautifully expressed in Matthew 25:35-40.

Finally, the Democrats have fallen pray to their own myopic memory. The current conservative utopia didn't just happen, it began after Watergate, when the GOP, having plunged as low as it could go, vowed never to be caught with its pants down again. This has been planned for years folks. It has taken a generation (and they had a few lucky breaks along the way -Reagan for example) but they're the same people.

Democrats will need to be patient. To paraphrase -Rome neither rose nor fell in a single election cycle. They should be vigilant scribes of every word from the GOP, so that when the soldiers finally begin coming home from Iraq, they and we can be reminded of what the GOP said when the soldiers were sent abroad.

Hey, maybe it'll be consistent. Then again, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you for cheap.

QUESTIONS FOR THE DEBATES

Now that both the conventions are over, the next "big" events in this election are likely to be the debates (assuming there are any -Bush is already waffling about one). Here are some questions I would love for Senator Kerry to ask Bush:

1. Your vice president has stated that if we don't make the "right" choice in November that we are running the risk of "being hit again" - Does your administration know something the American People have the right to know to protect themselves, and are you willing to guarantee our safety if you win in November?

2. You have repeatedly made the claim that I voted against funding the troops in Iraq -are you willing to admit that you threatened to veto the bill we originally sent to you if Congress converted any of Iraqi rebuilding money into loans, and if we included health care for veterans in the bill?

UPDATE/ NEW KERRY AD

So apparently Aahhnold said he was watching the Nixon-Humphrey "race" not the Nixon-Humphrey "debate" as I stated in my last post. Mea culpa. Here's the transcript:

"I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.

The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left."

Well gosh, that's not what he said during the CA recall election, according to the Christian Science Monitor on 9/15/03. Moreover, according to the LA Times in RECALL NOTEBOOK / THE RECALL CAMPAIGN; The Curious Nixon-Humphrey Debate: Los Angeles Times, Aug 20, 2003. pg. A.18 (which I do not have permission to reprint so you're on your own) Arnold told Bill O'Lielly he was watching the Nixon-Humphrey "debate" in May of 2001. He said the same thing to Newsweek in 2003, and to the Republican National Convention in 2000.

But after he was called on it he started telling people he merely heard Nixon and Humphrey talking on TV. Aah yes the learning curve. Now he just says "race".

Apparently he even snowed CNN and conservatives at MSNBC who both mistakenly thought he'd said "debate". Guess it's just a knee-jerk reaction after having heard him say "debate" so often before.

***

After watching Zealot Miller last night I have an idea for a new Kerry campaign ad:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCER: The republicans and their friends are for a lot of things:

ZELL MILLER (edited): "The B-1 bomber!, The B-2 bomber! The F-14A Tomcats! The Apache helicopter! The Patriot Missile! The Aegis air-defense cruiser! The Strategic Defense Initiative! The Trident missile! I could go on and on!

ANNOUNCER: They're also against a few things:

MILLER AND CROWD: "Against! Against! Against! Against!"

ANNOUNCER: Against things like a balanced budget, restrained spending, creating new jobs, making a plan before making war, protecting the environment, and civil rights for all.

It's your choice America:

More expensive wars,

or a better America.

John Kerry believes America can do better.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair? Who gives a rat's ass? Think the GOP have been "fair" so far?

Ponder this:

Why was the most ostensibly hawkish person to speak at the RNC convention a "democrat"?

Because these guys know exactly who they are, and they're deathly afraid that the voters will find out too.

AND THE TONY GOES TO…

Well the 2004 kinder-gentler-compassionate-moderate convention got underway this week.

It amazes me how the press doesn't nail these liars more on this kind of crap. First we have the suspicious timing of Cheney's announcement the week before the convention that he disagrees with the president on amending the constitution to ban gay marriages -yeah Dick, how come you waited until a week before the party makeover to unleash this bombshell? Hmmm.

Then we have the parade of the moderates: Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, McCain, - hasn't anyone told these guys they're out of lockstep with the rest of the Born-agains?

McCain really disgusts me. There was a time (oh, say 4 years ago) when I said "well, I wouldn't vote for McCain but at least if he was president I could sleep at night". No more. McCain has shown that he's as spineless as the rest of the GOP. It takes a special kind of person to be able to campaign for someone who, when he opposed you 4 years prior, had the unmitigated gall to send people to call voters and insinuate that your adopted Bangladeshi-born child was actually the product of an illicit extramarital affair with an African-American woman. It takes a special kind of person to campaign for someone who never served in Vietnam himself, but 4 years ago at a fundraiser stood next to a man who accused you of selling out your fellow Vietnam Vets. It takes a special kind of person to campaign for a person whose minions insinuated that your wife had a drug problem. There are three words that best describe such a special person: Gutless, Soul-less, Sellout. But then again that's par for the course with these weasels.

Then we had Rudy-boy. Never mind the fact that no republicans would ever vote him into any place of respectability because he has a (to put it mildly) chequered past. This guy had the temerity to assert that he actually saw the jumpers from the towers and remarked "thank God George W Bush is president". This is the guy who brought his mistress to Gracie Mansion to shtup while he was having a nasty public separation with his wife. This is the guy under whose watch Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times because he was black and had a wallet. This is the guy whose police sodomized Abner Louima with a plunger handle. But no, he's trotted out as the Mayor of America to parrot all the GOP lies about John Kerry's senate record yet another time. You know them by now - the I voted for it before I voted against it crap. Anyone who's been paying attention (and, lucky for you, your own OP is obsessed with this stuff) can tell you that every republican on the hill voted against it before they voted for it -and ONLY voted for it when it would be paid for by loans. But will anyone in the "liberal media" call Rudy on it? Of course not. They know on which side the bread is buttered.

Speaking of calling people on things: I have a story for you. It's called "True Lies". On Tuesday the governator told the charming story of how he chose to be a republican because shortly after he arrived in America, he had a friend translate as they watched the Nixon-Humphrey presidential debates in 1968. According to Aaahhnold, Humphrey was espousing socialism (lie) -which he said he had escaped (in Austria?), and Nixon was for free trade etc. Arnold related that he said "If he's a republican, then I'm a republican". One small problem. NIXON AND HUMPHREY NEVER DEBATED. In fact Nixon had had his ass whooped so badly by JFK in 1960 that he never debated again! So will the liar-nator be called on it by the "press"? Don't count on it.

So now tonight Zell(out) Miller a "democrat" from GA will address the faithful congregation. Ever get the feeling that the GOP are afraid to say what they really think? Where's Trent Lott? Where's Bill Frist? Where's Tom "The Hammer" Delay? Where's gay-bashing Rick Santorum? Anyone read the party platform? Think it's consistent with the beliefs of the speakers so far?

So now you know why Cheney had to come out as a (not so) closet gay parent. Fits the theme.

I heard next week they're taking the show down the block to Broadway.

BTW don't forget about the "Great American Shout-Out" on Thursday as Bush takes the stage.

BUSH AND KERRY ON THE ISSUES

If there's one thing that pisses me off when discussing politics it's when someone makes the claim that George W. Bush and John Kerry are identical. Usually this comes from people who have become jaded and alienated from the political process, and have either stopped voting (AARRGH) or defected to some third party. Ralph Nader for example, in his disingenuous campaign, often makes the claim that voting for Bush or Kerry is voting for the same policy (I've never forgiven the Nader voters for screwing the election in 2000, but that's another column)

In an effort to add the slightest bit of clarity, and to prove once and for all that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, I humbly offer the following, which is by no means exhaustive and in fact was compiled with a minimum of research.

The Issues:

1. JOBS & OUTSOURCING

Bush thinks "economic isolationism" is bad and that therefore outsourcing labor to foreign markets will encourage foreign firms to build plants here creating more American jobs.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Brief.aspx

Kerry wants to create incentives (cut taxes) for American companies to hire American workers. He also wants to cut taxes for middle class families to increase middle class income.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

2. DEFICIT

Kerry plans to cut the deficit in half by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (those making over 200k/yr). He also wants to form the McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission to reduce unnecessary corporate subsidies.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf

Bush agrees with Alan Greenspan: "'I prefer lower taxes ... for economic reasons,' Mr. Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) pressed the Fed chairman: 'Even if it makes the deficit worse and has this long-term negative effect on the national savings rate?' 'I am for lower taxes and lower spending and lower deficits,' Mr. Greenspan replied." I.E. he thinks that reducing the deficit will not strengthen the economy. He thinks that "Good luck" was responsible for the economic prosperity of the 90's not deficit reduction.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=3029 http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=3225

3. IRAQ

The Bush position is clear, so I won't put too much here other than to say that Kerry wants to stabilize Iraq, train more Iraqi forces, and encourage the other UN security council and NATO nations to take a larger role http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/compare.html

4. SOCIAL SECURITY

Bush wants to privatize retirement saving.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3218

Kerry wants to strengthen the current plan and not use the SS trust fund to balance the budget. He also wants to expand healthcare so that seniors won't be forced to use most of their SS payments to cover medical costs.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/seniors.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/medicare.html

5. EDUCATION

Kerry wants to establish an Education trust fund to ensure that No Child Left Behind actually works (i.e. that it's not just an unfunded mandate)He also wants to reward teachers that meet the higher standards and schools that turn around, increase after-school programs, and give a tax credit for college tuition.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

Bush Supports "school choice", wants to increase spending for job training, and private tutoring, and wants to measure results by testing.
http://www.georgewbush.com/Education/Brief.aspx

6. WAR ON TERROR

Bush created the Homeland Security Department, has recently created an "Intelligence Czar" and supported the Patriot Act. And of course there are the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also wants to increase Defense spending particularly on Missile Defense and things like UAV's
http://www.georgewbush.com/NationalSecurity/Brief.aspx

Kerry wants to increase international alliances, modernize the military (not sure what that means) , and decrease dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

7. STEM CELL RESEARCH

Kerry supports it
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/stemcell.html

Bush "Supports Exploring the Promise of Stem Cell Research" but wants to "do so in a way that doesn't cross a clear moral threshold" apparently that means increasing funding for non-embryonic SCR and limiting funds for embryonic SCR. Bush however also notes that is the first president to fund embryonic SCR ( duh, I'm guessing neither Washington nor Lincoln funded it either) He also wants to encourage more private funding for embryonic SCR.

http://www.georgewbush.com/healthcare/Read.aspx?ID=3226 http://www.georgewbush.com/healthcare/Read.aspx?ID=3226

How's that for a brochure? ;-)

I won't pretend that I've presented the positions entirely fairly to both sides but I've given enough info to dispel any notion that they candidates hold the same positions. People may disagree as to how effective either candidate's policies (or proposed policies) are or will be, and one can still decide that they're voting for the "lesser of two evils", however as of now it is clear: there IS a choice to be made.

Finally, it took me less than an hour to find the above information, so anyone who is still trying to say that they're the same, or that Kerry has not defined his position on the issues, is either advancing an agenda, or not paying enough attention.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Oh Boy so much has happened and I haven't had the chance to post. Well, lets get right to the meat.

The Republicans in the US senate this week brought the Anti Gay marriage amendment to be debated for cloture and promptly lost.

Why were they seeking to amend the Constitution rather than pass a bill to "define" marriage? Because an amendment would become part of the Constitution and could not therefore be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Bills must be passed by both houses and signed by the president. If they infringe on people's civil rights they need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if they meet constitutional scrutiny. If they are inconsistent with the Constitution they are stricken down per Marbury v. Madison.

I've seen several arguments against SSM

1. That it sanctions immoral behavior.

This is a falsehood, in that SSM does not sanction the sexual behavior that may or may not be a part of the relationship, it merely recognizes that certain people may choose to be in a committed relationship with each other and enforce the rights which that relationship carries. For example, celibate people may still identify themselves as gay (I know at least one celibate gay couple who have been together for 30 years), so the sex is irrelevant.

2. That SSM will somehow weaken the institution of marriage.

In order to believe that you have to believe that it either will reduce the incidence of marriage or that marriage is meant to between men and women only. There is no credible evidence of the first, and as to the second, "meant" implies that there is someone doing the "meaning". Whether you identify it or not, most people identify that "someone" as God. To advance, as some have, that that "someone" is society is both unproven and allows for the tyranny of the majority our founding fathers expressly precluded.

3. Sometimes human rights must take a back seat to the will of the majority.

This was the reason the Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights, not to insure the rights of the majority -their rights are not generally in need of protection because (duh) they're the majority. I.e. if a majority of people are in agreement they have the power to effect their will, and as such their rights need no protection. The Founding Fathers recognized that this power left unchecked can lead to injustice.

4. That it would open the flood gates to such things as government sanctioned polygamy, incest, and even bestiality.

All of these things have compelling interests to prevent their being constitutionally recognized other than religious ones. The religious interests in banning them co-exist with those compelling interests. The compelling interests include public health, protecting children from abuse, and in the case of polygamy reducing the volume of litigation in the legal system. (polygamous divorce would be a nightmare in the current system. E.g. if a man divorces one wife and pays Community Property/alimony to her it denies support to the other wife who may not have legally divorced the first one, would all parties in a polygamous marriage have to divorce the one leaving, who is legally obligated to whom, etc. The conceivable backlog would grind the family law system to a halt.)

Marriage in this society, from the prospective of the government, is a bundle of rights. (Why else would the government be involved in marriage). Power of attorney, Medical power of attorney, succession, and child custody are just some of the bundle of rights marriage in this country guarantees to married couples. Denial of those rights to people based on their sexual orientation, without a compelling interest is invidious discrimination and should fail.

REAGAN IS GONE

"The Gipper" is dead. You'll be overwhelmed with the tide of tributes to the uber-con, so let's review the legacy they wont tell you about.

1. After 200 marines were blown up by an Iranian suicide bomber, sold arms to Iran in contravention of US law, and then diverted the profits to fund fascist dictators in Central America who were supposed to be fighting the democratically-elected communist govts. there, but were really running brutal cartels that were producing more cocaine than at any time in history which ended up in the US. (I know this is a run-on sentence but I needed to get everything in there!)
2. Cut funding and flung open the doors of the govt. mental institutions.
3. When that resulted in an upswing in homelessness because people could no longer get their meds -said they were homeless "by choice".
4. Gave a massive Tax cut to the rich in 1981 and then increased taxes on the middle class every year of his presidency after 1981, to make up for the shortfall in revenue that he needed to fund his astronomical increase military spending.
5. Gave Saddam battle planning assistance at a time when they knew full well he was going to use chemical weapons.
6. Here's a window into his character: "In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps."
7. Got his political career start as a rat for the HUAC naming names for the blacklist.

Americans -particularly republicans- were demoralized after Watergate and Reagan was right there with a gleam in his eye, and an optimism that America craved. He could piss on them and tell them it was raining, and people still buy it even in the face of historical facts proving what a jerk he was.

I've heard people who swore he was the devil during the 80's call for "respect" for him in death. Bullshit. Anyone who disagreed with his policies as much as I did when he was president, but who spews this "don't speak badly of the dead" crap is a hypocrite. I hated him then and I refuse to venerate him now simply because he's 'shuffled off this mortal coil"

...but you have to admit, he sure knew how to give a speech, and he seemed sincere. Here's why:

Reagan was the Great Communicator because he was the first president to truly take full advantage of the teleprompter. I once spoke to his teleprompter operator and he said that Reagan was a "natural". He could follow the words as they scrolled across the screen and still make them sound as though they were his own. This, as I later found as a broadcaster, is more difficult than it seems because you're continually drawn to look the screen to get your words -it's like a security blanket. This is what creates the "zombie stare" that many news casters get -sometimes they don't even blink!

It wasn't enough for him to be able to read from the teleprompter though. He wanted to be able to look at the crowd more, so a new version of the teleprompter was developed especially for him. If you watch political speeches now, sometimes you'll see these weird panes of clear plastic on sticks at the left, center, and right of the podium. I used to think they were high-tech microphones, but they are actually teleprompter reflectors. They allow the speaker to look directly at the audience and still be reading the speech.

This is amazingly effective at amplifying the point for a couple of reasons. First, since the speaker does not appear to be reading the speech, the speech appears more to come from his or her own belief or "from the heart" or whatever. Secondly, looking directly at the audience is an effective way to convey sincerity -try this sometime: when you're speaking to someone and you want to leave an impression, wait until the main point you wish to make and when you get to it look the person you're talking to directly in the eye. You'll floor them, and they'll never know why. This is exactly what the screens enabled Reagan to do. It's an old actor's trick that was retooled and used to great success by an old actor. People still think he sincerely believed the crap he unloaded on the nation.

One of the reasons Bush II is so lame -and probably the reason that will lead to his political demise- is that he can barely string two words together, much less approach even an iota of the salesmanship Reagan had. It's one thing to have hateful policies, it's another thing to be able to get people to go along for the ride. Reagan could even get some Democrats to buy his line. Conversely, Bush II is alienating even some Republicans.

SAME PLAN, DIFFERENT "ISM" / BACK OFF BUCKLEY

The Neocons are directly responsible for the terrorist threat now posed by militant Muslims to the US.

Beginning with Nixon they have followed a plan again and again with disastrous results but to the relative ignorance of the American electorate who are mostly concerned with taxes.

That plan goes like this: Communism is the great evil, so it must be fought at all costs. Fund, support and guide anyone who is vehemently opposed to communism. When the people funded turn out to be whackos or are no longer useful, invent a reason to take them out.

They did it in Afghanistan. They Funded the Mujahadeen because they were in a war with the USSR. The CIA even recruited militant Muslims from around the world to fight alongside them. One of the Muslims who came to fight was a man who'd been kicked out of his homeland Saudi Arabia for being too extreme (!). His initials were OBL. When the Mujahadeen and the militant Muslims later merged into the Taliban the Neocons turned the other way and pretended they'd had nothing to do with it. Only after the militants created the greatest tragedy in American history did they proceed to take them out.

They did it again in the 1980's. Iran and it's neighbor Iraq were in a bitter war. Iran was funded and armed by the Soviets, so guess who the Neocons supported? They even gave chemical and biological weapons to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to use against Iran, and when he later used them against the Kurdish population in his own country -whom GHW Bush had promised to support if they took up arms against Saddam, but when they did left them to twist in the wind- the Neocons again ignored their complicity and filed the event away for later use.

The Soviet Union eventually buckled under its own weight, and the Neocons having no more Red Menace to fight were at a loss as to how to keep the war money flowing, so they changed the "ism" to Terrorism. Now they could both disguise their having created the problem in the first place and wage preemptive wars to counter the real threat they'd created -thus "having their cake and eating it too".

The cast is largely the same -Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice (an expert on Cold War intel), Wolfowitz, the Bush family, and Powell. The list of operatives has also been strangely familiar -Pinochet, Noriega, the Contras, The Mujahadeen, OBL, Saddam Hussein. Who's next? You figure it out.

The true terrorists are in Washington. Lets get rid of them before it's too late.

Coincidentally (?):

This week several sources from the right lambasted the supposed new theme for John Kerry's campaign: "Let America Be America Again". The phrase is from a poem by Langston Hughes. William F Buckley, in his typically glib fashion says in his column "A Campaign Slogan For Kerry" that because the line was from a poem by Hughes, and because Hughes wrote another poem "Goodbye Christ", which contained the lines

Goodbye,
Christ Jesus Lord God Jehova,
Beat it on away from here now.
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all—
A real guy named
Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin Worker ME—

that Kerry's use of the slogan "Let America Be America Again" was somehow a horrible gaff of scandalous proportions, and that Kerry's staff should have done more research before "introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004."

"Langston Hughes was asking America to "be America again," meaning, not an America that history had known and chronicled, but an America realizable in a new and different vision. The land of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Mr. Kerry's campaign team is going to have serious homework to do before introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004."

This is what is known in more intellectual circles as "bullshit".

Buckley's statement that Hughes desired for America to become like the land of Stalin and Lennin is preposterous. Research into Hughes' life and works reveals that he wrote "Goodbye Christ" during a trip to the Soviet Union in the 30's that was spurred by his dissilusionment over his break up with Charlotte Mason.

En epiphany he had on the trip was that in the USSR Jews, Blacks, whites, poor are all treated equally -equally downtrodden. Moreover the poem is a rant against the more sanctimonious elements of Christianity -Pope Pius and Aimee McPherson among them, and also musing on how the Soviets had banished religion.

Hughes later broke any leftist ties and vehemently denied any ties with communists, as he referred to the poem as "ill advised".

So for Buckley to a) use it to frame "Let America be America Again", and b) use it as the sole criterion to judge Hughes' life and works is intellectually dishonest at best, and pseudo-intellectual "red-baiting" at the worst.

In the end Buckley's screed is just another attempt by the far right to slander Kerry by slandering Hughes (Again -he was humiliated by the HUAC in the McCarthy era) and by twisting a possible campaign theme into being a nod to communism. This "liberals are communists" crap is getting old.

The Soviets are gone -can't we finally let go of the Cold War please?

GOP LESSONS LEARNED

Carl Bernstein, who along with Bob Woodward broke the Watergate story in the Washington Post) has written an op/ed piece in USA TODAY that compares the Nixon administration during Watergate with the current G.W. Bush administration. Bernstein's editorial is a sharp analysis but leaves out the emotional undertone that has permeated GOP politics since Watergate.

The GOP have never forgiven their own or the Democrats who brought the Watergate scandal to light. They were completely demoralized when their leader was caught so dead to rights that he would've actually faced jail time had he not resigned. Like the south after the civil war they stewed and festered and vowed that they would rise again.

While the public analysis in the aftermath of Watergate came largely from the left -in private the GOP turned over every stone and looked in every crevice to find out what went wrong.

The Iran-Contra scandal illustrated this perfectly: while the OIC report found that knowledge of the operation went all the way up the chain of command, neither Regan nor Bush I could be pinned as having authorized the conduct of the sponge Oliver North. The creation of the Fall-guy, and the cutting off of the paper trail below Regan and Bush were lessons learned from Watergate.

Another lesson learned was the pre-trial pardoning of Caspar Weinberger after he was indicted for selling missiles to Iran. Ford had pardoned Nixon one month after he had announced his resignation, preventing any criminal or civil justice for his crimes, and Bush senior (probably to prevent info coming out that could lead to his own impeachment) pardoned Weinberger just before he left office in 1993.

The coverup of Iran Contra however only inflamed the GOP more - why didn't the Democrats have any scandal on their resume? Why should republicans be the only ones called to account for their criminal conspiracies? They stewed and festered more, and finally came up with a plan - crucify the next Democratic president no matter what the cost.

They were obliged by a president who was charismatic and who had had marital troubles in his past because he'd demonstrated a proclivity toward extra marital affairs. From the moment CLinton announced his candidacy they came out of the box with the Gennifer Flowers revelations, which were diffused when Clinton admitted on 60 minutes that any extramarital activities had been dealt within the privacy of his marriage.

This stymied the republican smear machine but did not dampen its spirit, and they came right back with the "draft dodger scandal" alleging that he'd manipulated the system to avoid Viet Nam service.

That failed so they instituted Whitewater against the first lady. That investigation gained them the majority in congress which led to the "Contract (on) America", but eventually failed to "get" the Clintons as well.

There were several other attempts at scandal making "Travel Gate", "Vince Foster's suicide was really a murder", "China-gate", but all of these fell flat so they went back into sex scandal mode with the Paula Jones debacle. This eventually failed as well.

Eventually they seized upon the Lewinsky affair and tried to twist it into Watergate-like proportions even impeaching Clinton in the house. This however finally failed as Clinton was not convicted in the Senate.

Even as Clinton left office they attacked with "pardon gate" a last pathetic attempt to create a scandal.

None of the "scandals" amounted to more than posturing from the GOP - but they succeeded in the short run because they'd soured the country so much that it stupidly elected another Republican president, even though Clinton had presided over the most robust peacetime economy in American history.

So what have the Republicans learned?

1. Deny everything.
2. Never leave a paper trail.
3. Cushion the president from the fallout.
4. Pardon anyone who can hurt you.
5. If you make enough noise eventually someone will listen to your lies.
6. Get in, make as much money as you can for yourself and your cronies, and get out.

What will they NEVER learn?
1. sex scandals don't work because every one has one- This was proven by the Henry Hyde, Newt, Bob Livingston triad of "scandals" in the House. Even the GOP had to back off of the sex scandals when some of their own were thrust into the light.

2. Revenge is for punks. They'll never "balance the scales" of scandal because they have to create more scandal to do it. Scandals are ugly for everyone and often blow up in their creator's face.

3. You can do your dirty deeds (or rather have someone do them for you) in secret, but eventually the truth will out -particularly in the "information age".

Now the Abu Ghraib scandal is festering into a cancer on both the military and govt. The Bush administration has known about it at the very least since January, but covered it up until the pictures came out. They're trying to blame it on the low level enlisted soldiers and bring it to a swift conclusion, but the situation is unraveling to reveal a systemic policy endorsed all the way up the chain. When the real story comes out look for Rumsfeld to take the fall for Bush, but be pardoned after Bush loses the election.

UPDATE: SHARON'S GAZA WITHDRAWAL PLAN REJECTED/ PUHLEESE SENATOR INHOFE

So apparently Sharon went before the world (side by side with the POTUS) with his plan before he'd gotten approval for it from his own (Likud) party.

So Bush stuck his (our) neck out for nothing!?!?! He pissed off the Arab world by siding with Israel defying 50 years of US policy for nothing?!?!

AAAARRRRGGH!

Meanwhile...

The pictures of the Iraqi detainees that came out last week have destroyed any remaining shred of credibility that we might have had with the Arab world.

Face it folks - the party's over. It probably was before this, but this was the final nail in the coffin.

Watched the testimony on CSPAN, and a few things struck me:

Rumsfeld went on and on about how he hadn't seen the photo's until yesterday [5/6/04](!), but said that "it was on January 13th, 2004, that the allegations first came to light, when reported up the chain of command in Iraq". Are you telling me that it took 3 1/2 months for explosive allegations like these to get far enough up the chain of command for him to have seen the pictures? I think that says more about the chain of command's views on the nature of the actions of their troops than anything else.

A few days later Senator James Inhofe during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings made his unbelievably stupid
"outrage at the outrage" diatribe:

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying"

Humanitarian do-gooders crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations?

Gee they didn't have to look very hard, did they Senator?

I mean God forbid those damn "do-gooders" should be concerned with anything as trivial as human rights - I mean it's not like we're Americans or anything -oh, wait we are. But they're not, so who gives a sh*t? Is that it?

What was the reason we went there again? WMDS? No wait, that didn't work. To topple a brutal regime and liberate people who have been denied human rights? Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket. Wait -doesn't that make us humanitarian do-gooders though? No?

Wait -I think I get it now: you're only a "humanitarian do-gooder" if you criticize those who humiliate, torture, or murder in the name of "liberation"? No? Oh, I see because then you couldn't condemn the murder of Nick Berg. SO what is it?

GOT IT! You're only a "humanitarian do-gooder" if you criticize when WE torture and you're not a Republican. Right?

Moral relativism is the refuge of the ethically challenged.

In that vein:

I'm getting really tired of those in the right using the murder of Nick Berg as justification for the torture of prisoners in Iraq. I stupidly watched the unedited video of the killing after following a link that was posted on a Yahoo message board.

I can't begin to tell you how sick it left me. You hear of the crime on the news and hear the word "beheading" and conjure pictures of the guillotine or some "clean" act where a person's head is swiftly cut off with a scimitar or something. (forgive this detail - I feel it's important to impart the true nature of the act) This was a slow and difficult sawing off with a large kitchen-sized knife. I still feel dirty for having witnessed it. I wont link to it - if you really want to you can find it. But be forewarned, you can't see something like this and remain the same person.

That being said it is degenerate and contemptible for anyone to claim as those on the right have that this justifies our torture of the Abu Grahib prisoners. Never mind that this employs twisted logic - we tortured the prisoners first then they murdered Nick Berg which then makes our having tortured OK? Violence and brutality are just that, and violent acts never justify one another, they just create more.

Fortunately, this idea is not a new one:

Matthew 5:38-48

Unfortunately it is one that has yet to flourish.

BUSH DEFENDS SHARON'S WITHDRAWAL PLAN/TERRORISM

(The following is meant as political satire only. It does not reflect the intent of anyone anywhere.)

Dear President Bush,

Thank you so much for increasing the risk to your troops by backing Mr. Sharon and therefore adding Hamas and the PLO to the list of people determined to see your satanist state go down in flames. We were really convinced what with the recent "cease-fire in Falluja" lie told by your media that we and our Iraqi brothers were losing steam. Thanks to your bold and reckless move, Hamas and the PLO are giving us all the money, expertise and manpower we need to "stay the course". When the suicide bombs go off in the malls of America you'll have our sincerest thanks.

Regards,

Osama Bin-Laden.


"But OP" you ask -"Doesn't Senator Kerry also support Isreal's plan?"

That's beside the point: It was a matter of timing - now is not the time.

Isreal was going to go ahead with its plan regardless whether the US supported it or not. Why not privately support Isreal but keep a lower public profile rather than announce to the entire Arab world that you support their worst enemy?

I mean honestly -do you really think that this announcement did anything more than piss off the average Mohammed in the Arab street and harden the resolve of the fanatical elements in the Middle East, in particular the Iraqi insurgents?

The JIC (Jackass In Chief) wouldn't know diplomacy if were read to him by Condi Rice.


In other news:

Been thinking a lot about terrorism lately.

Now before a squad of Ashcroftian goons from the DHS break down my door, I should clarify: I was listening to the testimony from the 9/11 hearings and was particularly struck by Jamie Gorelick's comment – “terrorism is a tool. It is not an enemy in itself; it's a tool.”

What is terrorism? I find that often the best place to start with such questions is the good old dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as: “the systematic use of violence, terror or abuse to achieve an end.”

It’s that last part “to achieve an end” that Gorelick was talking about, and which the Bushies seem to forget. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have the idea that terrorism is the result of the proliferation of terrorists. You can hear it in their rhetoric: “We need to take the fight to the terrorists,” "freedom and democracy are under attack", "This broad-based and sustained effort will continue until terrorism is rooted out". Listening to a Bush terrorism speech gives the uneasy feeling that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Did you ever try to turn in a High School English paper after having only skimmed the book it was supposed to be about? Confession: I did, and while I was able to pull the wool over 1 or 2 teacher’s eyes with an excess of rhetoric (or more likely the teachers gave me a pass because the rhetoric demonstrated enough proficiency that they wouldn’t feel guilty giving me a “C” and moving on to better or worse papers), I ended up repeating myself over and over, and wandering in logistical circles. Bush’s terrorist logic is creepily similar –“they hate us because we’re free, and therefore they are the enemies of freedom. Freedom is God’s gift to mankind, every human soul yearns to be free” etc. etc. as though he’d read the introduction to the anti terrorist handbook and then played hooky in Crawford for the rest of the time.

We’re always so eager in this country to declare “war” on something, because it makes us sound more serious. Wars need to be fought against an enemy however, and terrorism itself is a poor one, because we can’t just go out and attack it. Oh, to be sure we can attack states that sponsor terrorism, but this (contrary to the assertions of the Bushies) is rare, because it is more common that states are struggling against terrorist groups within their borders than that they are exporting it. We can also attack groups or individuals who are responsible for terrorist attacks, but this won’t end terrorism because the groups will keep organizing and killing one will only breed more.

As a corollary, the war on drugs has proven to be a miserable failure because many administrations (including, sadly, the Clinton administration) have labored under the misapprehension that the drug problem was caused by there being too many drug users. This resulted in an imbalance of priorities where enforcement was paramount and where other methods of dealing with the problem like treatment and prevention were cut or severely disabled. This did nothing but fill the jails with drug users which was good for the prison guard unions and the construction industry, but did little to solve the problem. Even more than that, nothing was done to looking into the root causes of the problem i.e. what makes people turn to drugs.

This approach is the same one the Bushies are taking to terrorism. It’s like telling an alcoholic “your problem is that you take too many drinks. Reduce the amount of drinks you take and you’ll be all right.” Where the “drug warriors” wrongly thought that putting drug users in jail would curtail the drug problem, the Bushies are convinced that if they kill enough “bad guys” the problem will be solved. In fact this will only pour gasoline on the fire. The groups that perpetrate the terrorist acts will only match violence with violence. All throughout the Middle East hunger and poverty continue to breed terrorism, and until the international community addresses these issues there can be no hope of ending it. Moreover, it is naïve to think that the same conditions aren’t breeding “terrorism” here at home. The same frustration is leading to poor neighborhoods being “terrorized” by street gangs who have organized and acted out as a reaction to their situation and to the seeming indifference of the rest of Americans.

Conversely, where education and economic stimulus have insinuated themselves, there is a gradual relaxing of dogma. To illustrate: Iran is slowly coming out of their fundamentalist haze because the younger people there have become more educated, and that education has bred more understanding and tolerance of the west. This in turn has created a desire to relax the restrictions that the Shiite fundamentalists clung to. This happened without anyone declaring a war on them and despite being named as part of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”. China is in the midst of a capitalistic boom and is becoming more and more a “communist” nation in name only.

This is not to say that criminal acts should go unpunished, but that the international discourse should be weary of tarring with too thick a brush and more attention should be paid to education and economic conditions. If terrorism is a “tool”, then the only way to end it is to achieve the end some other way –why use a screwdriver when you have a Makita?

POP QUIZ

QUESTION: You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it... John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet
I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

text of press conference

Here's the leader of the free world. He's had nearly 3 years since the worst tragedy on American soil in 50 years, and he can't even say what he's learned? Not even canned BS?

No "Intelligence failures must be corrected"
No "there is a systemic problem in the separation between the FBI and CIA" ala Condi last week.
No bullshit reference to how "they'll stop at nothing because they hate us?"
Not even a token "9/11 changed everything"?

Nothing! Not one fucking thing!

Wouldn't you have obsessed about it for the last 2 1/2 years? Wouldn't you think that you never want anything like that to happen again? WOULDN'T YOU HAVE AT LEAST HAVE COME UP WITH AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED"?

God help us all.

I WANT CONDI/ AIR AMERICA

Can't wait for Condi Rice to testify on Thursday! I'm sure she'll keep spinning the same crap she's been spinning since 9/12/01, but maybe Bob Kerrey'll catch her in a contradiction!

Here's how he might do it:

- On 9/11/01 she was all set to give a speech about national defense policy that contained no mention of Al Qaeda, and was to promote the conservative wet dream - missile defense.

-She claimed that no one could have foreseen that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a missile , but this is in contradiction of all sorts of evidence

Anyway I'll be watching/listening!

In other news:

Air America Radio made its debut last Wednesday. I was listening when they first came on here in LA. The station was a Spanish station and you could hear the announcers holding some sort of farewell and thanking everyone (all in Spanish of course) for all their years of service/listening etc. Then there was dead air for about 2 minutes, then the station cut into the middle of "I want to hold your hand" by the Beatles which then transitioned to "Cant by me love", which cut out in the middle to more dead air. Finally, the station cut into the middle of some public service announcements and commercials, and at last (about 15 minutes late) -Al Franken's show "the O'Franken factor" (a dig at Bill 'O'Lielly') came on, but the station reversed the order of the hours, so it was hard to tell what the heck was going on. Ah the trials and tribulations of creating a new radio network.

Anyway, they since have worked out the kinks and here is your OP review.

Al Franken's show is the flagship show and is the best of the bunch. The guests so far have been fabulous - Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Al Gore, Michael Moore (who apologized to Al Gore for supporting Ralph Nader in 2000!), Paul Krugman (author of "the tax cut con" a NY Times article debunking the Bushies tax cut mania, and many others. Al is balanced by Katherine Lanpher a Minnesota Public Radio host who is more radio savvy than Franken. She's constantly verbally rolling her eyes at Al's antics which gets annoying (lighten up Katherine!), but she is great at getting down to business and keeping the show on track (Franken has a tendency to meander). Great show! Problem is they need more like it. The other shows are made up of small groups of people complaining about the Bushies which, although I agree politically, can become numbing.

Probably the most aggressive show is Randi Rhodes' afternoon solo pit bull rant. She is the typical ballsy New Yorker and her voice gets shrill and annoying fast. However, to her credit, she had a fantastic segment last week where she dressed down Ralph Nader. She said that the country "can't afford" Nader because although he has some sympathetic ideas, he takes votes away from defeating Bush in November. Nader was truly flummoxed and kept babbling the same old lines about how Dems and Reps are the same and equally corrupt, and why didn't a liberal like her support him etc. Eventually he hung up on her. Great radio, but the show had yet to get back to that peak by the end of the week.

So here's my advice: If you hate right wing talk radio because of the talk radio format, you won't find this any more appealing because it's the same with different rants. If you hate right wing talk radio because of the right wing bias -give it a try. It's not going to convert any republicans, but has a slight chance of converting the undecided, and after all it's nice to hear a truly unabashed and unappologetic liberal viewpoint for a change.

I heard today that they got their first really major sponsor - McDonalds(!), so I guess it's catching on!

Click here to listen to Air America live!

FALLUJA MASSACRE/ LACY AND CONNER'S (F)LAW

Well here we are the day after.

The day after bodies of "civilian contractors" were beaten, dragged and burnt in Falluja. Just what are "civilian contractors"? Mercenaries. Ex Special Forces operating as paid security. I heard a guy on the news saying that these guys go in and do the stuff that's too dangerous for soldiers. Whatever that means. More likely they do the stuff that the US military can't get away with because of the Code of Military Justice, and international law. Deflects the blame because these guys, although trained by the military, are civilians and want to be there, so if they're killed it's not technically a casualty of the War in Iraq. Moreover, any misdeeds they do cannot be blamed on the US military. The party line seems to be that they were assisting in some humanitarian aid like a food drop or something. Not to sound too conspiracist (is that a word? Oh well, it is now!) but yeah, sure. Why do you need Green Berets or Navy Seals for a food drop? The NY Times has a creepy slideshow (Not for the squeamish. Also, you have to register, but it's free.)

Meanwhile back in the States:

This is also the day after Dubya signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law. Anyone who thinks that the sole purpose of this law was anything other than to weaken Roe v. Wade, stand up. Ok now both of you idiots shut up and sit down so I can tell you why you're wrong.

1. Current abortion law

Abortion law currently is (in an extremely abbreviated version) is governed by Roe v. Wade as interpreted by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal and said that prior to the second trimester the state cannot regulate it. Casey said that the state cannot place an undue burden (also defined as a "substantial obstacle") on a woman's right to abortion, but scrapped the trimester framework.

2. The UVVA

The UVVA creates a new crime in federal jurisdictions for those who in the course of committing another crime (e.g assault or battery) harm a woman's "unborn child"

The law scraps the term fetus and substitutes it with "unborn child" - tell me this was not a political move, I dare you. Here's the scary part though: the law defines "unborn child" as:

"a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT!?

So...an "unborn child" is anything after sperm meets egg? Yikes! Wait - it gets worse. Get a load of this:

"An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child."

Oh, so the person charged doesn't even have to have any knowledge or intent to have committed the crime. So in other words:

One day at the Cowabunga Indian Casino A is wrongfully informed that her co-worker B is sleeping with her husband. A finds B, walks up to her and slaps her. B reacts by shoving A to the ground. A falls on her butt and begins vaginally bleeding because unbeknownst to her she was pregnant, and the fall has terminated the pregnancy.

So B can now be charged with murdering the "child" even though she had no intent to, and even though A had no idea that she was pregnant.

"But OP", you may say, "what's the big deal, I mean how many federal crimes are going to result in the termination of a pregnancy?"

Exactly - this law doesn't do anything but posture. 29 of the States already have laws protecting the "unborn" and more are coming. The only thing this law does is chip away at Roe v. Wade by expanding the definition of unborn child. It's a big valentine to the religious right.

"But OP, the law specifically exempts abortions". So what? The damage is done. That was just a way to pretend they weren't trying to weaken Roe v. Wade.

The only thing prochoicers can hope is that the law will be overturned by the Supreme Court. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, sure -like the majority 5 jackbooted thugs there will let that happen. Dream on. This is the beginning of the end. Soon only the rich will be able to get abortions by flying overseas.

Here's the kicker: The law is nicknamed Lacey and Conner's Law after Lacey Peterson and her unborn child. BUT THIS LAW WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE USED AGAINST HER MURDERER. That crime was not a federal crime nor perpetrated on federal land. Talk about milking a tragedy for a political agenda.

Contact the Obsessive Progressive at: defeatthegop@sbcglobal.net

DEBUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Online at 11:03am on Friday April 2nd, 2004!