RING A BELL?

This cracked me up. Watch out Repubs!!

Hundreds of Turkish sheep follow leader off cliff:

"ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Hundreds of sheep followed their leader off a
cliff in eastern Turkey, plunging to their deaths this week while shepherds
looked on in dismay.

Four hundred sheep fell 15 meters (yards) to their
deaths in a ravine in Van province near Iran but broke the fall of another 1,100
animals who survived,
newspaper reports said on Friday.
Shepherds from
Ikizler village neglected the flock while eating breakfast, leaving the sheep to
roam free, the Radikal daily said.

The loss to local farmers was estimated at 100,000 new lira
($74,000).
($1=1.3440 new lira) "

So far the loss from our sheep is far greater: 87 billion and growing, 1700+ lives. Untold damage to the economy, civil rights, and the environment.

*sigh*

A NEW JUSTICE

Debate has begun in earnest about who will replace the woman who was arguably the most powerful person in the world. Think that's exaggerating? Think about it -she was the "swing-vote" on the highest court of the most powerful nation in the world. Her one vote could decide whether a case was won or lost or whether a piece of legislation or a lower court holding would stand as constitutional or fail as not. Scared yet?

Personally, I have two requirements for a Supreme Court Justice:

1. That they rule in accordance with stare decisis (settled law)
2. Unless they are breaking from precedent to protect the individual rights granted in the Bill of Rights, or to overturn existing law in order to grant greater individual rights under the Bill of Rights.

Pretty simple, eh?

Using that test none of the ten controversial judges who were catalysts for talk about the "Nuclear Option" would stand a chance as they all had records of ruling contrary to binding precedent and not to prop-up or expand individual rights, but to favor corporate or governmental rights. See my post "THE FILIBUSTERED TEN" for details.

Does Alberto Gonzalez withstand the test? Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with his record as a Texas Judge to know. I am however predictably suspicious that he fails, because his recent exploits as a Bush toadie, weaseling past and disparaging the Geneva Convention rules, do not give one reason for optimism. I'm sure that we'll find out in the days ahead.

Start the pop-corn popping -this should be fun.

POLITICIZING THE BRITISH BOMBINGS

Sympathies and condolences to the families of the dead and wounded from the bombings in London.

The messages from the right are typically appalling: a panel of dopes on Fox "News" gleefully recounted how the bombings bitchslapped the leaders at the G8 summit into dropping the AIDS, poverty in Africa, and Global Warming issues and bringing terrorism back to the fore. Others are using it to whip up more frenzied fear in the American electorate as a means of distracting from both the titanic failures and outright criminal and ethical violations of the Bush Administration and their supporters in the GOP.

Yes sh*theads -we know terrorism is still a threat. Duh.

If the British want to follow our playbook they should deploy to Northern Pakistan but leave before they get Bin Laden and withdraw to attack and (re)occupy India.

If anything this attack should prove just how little anything we've done has curbed that threat. By the way what have "we" done to "curb the threat"?

1. Hunted down those who orchestrated the attack on us on 9/11 and then abandoned the hunt before they were captured.
2. Waged an illegal war of agression with an enemy who had nothing to do with the attack on us and began an occupation of that nation for the forseeable future.
3. Employed a vast army of "civilian" contractors who are subject to no laws on the planet to "support" that war effort.
4. Created yet another bloated government bureaucracy -the DHS.
5. Authored a statutory scheme that supresses the rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.
6. Detained hundreds of people with no charges against them, and no access to courts of justice to determine their fate.
7. Begun a policy of torture for those we've detained.
8. There's more but do you really need it?

Has any of it made it one iota less likely that we'll have another terrorist attack?

Here's a scary anecdote: my neighborhood was lit up like the Tet Offensive with illegal fireworks this 4th of July. Illegal fireworks. That means that they had to come over the border from Mexico because those fireworks aren't made here. The LAFD complained that the amount of illegal fireworks this year was greater than at any year in the past.

What that means is that large numbers of illegal explosives are coming into the country over the border undetected, by customs, border patrol or stupid f*cking "Minute Men". The fact that they're for recreational or pyrotechnic use is irrelevant -they're expolsives, they're illegal and they're coming across undetected.

Feel safer?

SO ROVE'S THE RAT?

Apparently Bush puppetmaster Karl Rove has been fingered as the source of the leak in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

If this is true Rove could be indicted and tried under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Without going into too much depth (you can follow the link and read it for yourself) the act makes it a crime punishable by anywhere from 3 to 10 years in prison or up to $50,000 dollars or both to disclose the identity of a covert intelligence operative when:

1. the person has or had authorized access to classified information
2. the person, through or because of that access learned the identity of said operative, AND (and this is a big and)
3. the person intentionally disclosed the identity to someone else not authorized to know that the identified was a covert operative.

It's a pretty narrow test and difficult to prove the intent prong (as this article in Slate details in regard to Robert Novak -the original publisher of Plame's name. )

It's tempting to envision Rove doing the "perp-walk" in orange jumpsuit for the cameras but it's unlikely even if he's indicted.

Hope he gets the Susan McDougal treatment. I was watching "The Hunting of the President" last week, and the most poignant moment of the film was when Susan McDougal (who was dragged through the mud and worse in the right-wing hit campaign dubbed "Whitewater") recounted her treatment in prison after she was sent there because she refused to lie about the Clintons.

She was dressed in red prison scrubs and housed in the wing reserved for women who have killed their children. She said that every time she went past other parts of the prison the other prisoners threatened derided and threw things at her because they thought that she was a child killer because of the color of her scrubs. She was given death threats and needed additional security while she was there. Moreover, every time she appeared in court she was forbidden from wearing civilian clothes and was led in manacles back and forth from court.

If Rove is convicted (and I say "if" because I'm a liberal and so I still believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, even for those I detest like Rove) I have a twisted fantasy of him being housed in the pedophile wing and dressed accordingly. (*sigh*)

Not that I'm vindictive or anything. ;-)

Actually my favorite part of the DVD was the "special feature" of Clinton's videotaped speech after the Sundance premiere of the film. Damn I miss him! He's just so exponentially more intelligent than anyone in the Bush cabal.

Anyway, he made what I think is a crucial point: we (democrats) cannot fight back by becoming them( the GOP) -i.e. by using their tactics. We have to 1. not back down (listen up Harry Reid) 2. continue to point out why their wrong using the truth and facts, and 3. (and this IMHO is the BIG POINT) say how we'd do it differently.

It was nice to have some validation for what your own OP has been saying for sometime now. And from none other than the man himself.

UPDATE: THE AUTOPSY IS IN

The results of the Terri Schiavo autopsy are in, and to what should be no one's surprise:

1. Her brain had atrophied to half the weight of a normal human brain (so she was in fact in a Persistent Vegitative State)
2. She was blind because the vision centers in her brain were dead (in other words -the video that apparently showed her visually tracking an object was misleading).
3. She was incapable of ingesting food by mouth as her parents insisted.
4. She died of dehydration not starvation.
5. There was no evidence of her ever having been abused.

So just as her husband and over 40 judges having relied on numerous medical examinations had said, she was no longer conscious. Therefore the majority of the drama was the result of the shameful manipulation of the natural emotions of her grieving parents by vultures who had no other motive but political or financial gain.

Meanwhile her husband was subjected to unbelievable and unconscionable slander.

Will there be any apologies from Congress or the other slimebags who shot their mouths off?

Don't hold your breath.

THE BEST JUSTICE MONEY CAN BUY

Well -yet another major celebrity has slipped through the long arms of the law. Micheal Jackson was found "weird but not sick" by a jury of his non-peers.

This prosecutor apparently had his legs cut out from under him when the 1993 case against Jackson was settled. That, from all accounts was the case that "had legs". He reportedly obsessed about that case afterward, and went on a worldwide search for other cases against Jackson -even traveling to Australia (a *local* prosecutor!) to chase down rumors of other victims.

From listening to the jurors, they simply didn't have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. They also made it clear what a huge gaff it was to put the mother on the stand.

What surprised me was that they didn't even convict him of *attempted* lewd acts with a minor. Attempt requires planning plus a substantial step toward completion of the act, and a defendant does not have to be guilty of the completed act to be guilty of attempt.

I guess they didn't find the porno mags enough for "planning" (or didn't believe the testimony about the mags) and since they didn't find him guilty of giving the kids wine -that couldn't count for planning either.

On the other hand the not guilty for the conspiracy charges was no surprise: conspiracy requires 2 or more parties and from what (little) I heard there was no one who could be considered co-conspirator.

Have to say though -it sure seems like you can buy your freedom down here. OJ, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Jackson -sing it with me:

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same..."

(hey what do you want -I have two kids under 3)

UPDATE: THE OTHER MEMOS

(NOTE: I've been trying to make this blog a series of "columns" -that takes way too much time and results in my only posting every several weeks or so -in the meantime I miss out on events because I don't have time to write a "column" for each one.

Therefore I've decided to try to write more "blog style" so that I can post more and keep current.

-OP )

***

More memos have been published in the Times UK which 1) predate the Downing Street Memo and 2) further substantiate the idea that the Bush cabal were looking for an excuse to go to a predetermined war and not as Bush has claimed as a last result.

Of course the mainstream press have regretted the error of their ways and have pursued this with the vigor better suiting an independent press...Oh they haven't? Crap.

Actually - some news orgs are starting both notice and discuss the appalling lack of attention paid to this bombshell -is the worm turning? Don't bet on it. The AP itself didn't report this, it just admitted it when questioned.

Representative John Conyers has created a website with a letter that can be signed by folks that will be presented to Bush on Thursday 6/16/05.

SMOKING GUN? / THE OTHER (BETTER) GEORGE

So here it finally is -confirmation that what those of us on the left have been complaining about, and what was supported by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former NSC guy Richard Clarke (who were dismissed as kooks by the Bushies) is absolutely true.

The "Downing Street Memo" should be the smoking gun that brings down the White House -like the Nixon Tapes. It will however be relegated to the dustbin of history as the ultimate proof that Americans have completely lost touch with the activities of their elected officials.

The memo proves that

1. the Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq at least as as early as July of 2002 -Long before Colon Powell's grand opera before the UN.
2. They were "fitting the facts and intel to the war"
3. The US had no plan for after the war.

Now 89 members of Congress have asked Bush to explain the memo -but raise your hand if you honestly think it will change one thing...anyone? Anyone? Ok you over there with the Dave Matthews T-shirt put your hand down.

Apparently the Brits would be on board -but they understood that the legal ways to go to war were either direct threat, ultimatum, or UN sanction, and since there was no perceivable direct threat, and since neither Iraq nor the US had issued an ultimatum, they insisted that we go the UN route. They also insisted that the USA provide a fuller picture of their planning ---

HHEEEEHHHHEEEHHHAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*ahem* *cough*

Sorry -uncontrollable laugh break

A fuller picture *snicker* of their pla- *snort* Ok (control yourself OP!)

Pla-nnning, *HEHE* before they committed troops.

So just as I and every other liberal have said since the words "Saddam" and "Iraq" were first confoundingly muttered by W and his handlers when we were retaliating at Al Q'aeda in Afghanistan, this war was manufactured out of whole cloth to line the pockets of the PNAC profiteers.

Of course once again the "liberal media" are all over this one and are shaking it by the neck like the watch dogs they ar-- oh, rats.

Well ok, at least Americans are informing themselves using the publicly available materials on this story and using their outrage at the deceit to...to...oh, hell.

Ever wonder when we'll be able to live in America again?

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

In the same vein:

GOD BLESS GEORGE GALLOWAY!!!!

In case you haven't yet heard -George Galloway is a British politician who was called to testify before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security by Senator Norm Coleman (R- MN). Coleman apparently was psyched to be in the spotlight and was hoping to make a name for himself as the guy who finally gave it to the Oil For Food scandal people.

Coleman was all set to lambaste Galloway -but Galloway handed him his ass!! Truth can be such an aphrodisiac -I'm not gay but even I have to admit I got a little hot listening to that Scottish brogue nail the truth to Coleman's forehead!!

And predictably the only news source carrying a complete transcript of his testimony was the London Times -US sources have tightly edited versions interspersed with Coleman's afterward whining that Galloway's testimony isn't credible. Read it and judge for yourself. Or better yet -watch or listen! Of course the wingnuts are going to spin the bejesus out of this one and hope it dies a quiet death, which the "liberal media" will ensure it will.

WARMING-OVER THE COLD WAR

Bush's trip to the former Soviet Block as well as his caustic comments toward Russia would at first seem puzzling -after all haven't we become allies with Russia, with Bush playfully referring to the Russian President as "pooty-poot"? Haven't many of the former Soviet satellites become democratic nations? Haven't we both joined forces to combat the "greater threat" of the Big T?

Perhaps, but let's review:

The worst thing to ever happen to the (to borrow an old phrase) Military Industrial Complex was the end of the cold war. They'd staked their financial futures on being able to keep stockpiling weapons to subdue the 'threat' of the 'evil empire', and when the Iron Curtain came down and revealed not a giant grizzly but an old and shaky Russian circus bear - they went into freefall.

They tried to use the (to them) great stroke of luck that 9/11 provided to change the evil 'ism' from commun-ism to terror-ism, but that has failed in majority public opinion because of the administration's bumbling tactics and neck breaking switch of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. It also hasn't provided the same economic opportunities that developing new and bigger weapons did because the warfare style doesn't require them.

With the 20th anniversary of the end of the cold war mere years away, and with the increasing memory-loss of the American electorate in their back pockets -why not try to resurrect hostilities with our old nemesis now? After all the Secretary of State is a former cold war specialist, and the VP a former defense contractor -the time is ripe! We know for a fact they have nuclear weapons -so we wouldn't have to sell the threat so hard this time. We also know they've been in league with Iran, Cuba and other numbers of our enemies. It's ready-made resuscitation for the sagging weapons industry!

Now if we can only somehow tie them to 9/11...

THE FILIBUSTERED TEN

By now the statistic that the Senate has confirmed over 200 of the judicial appointees Bush has nominated, and that 10 of those have been disputed (less than 5%) is everywhere. What are less bandied-about are the reasons the disputed nominees have been opposed.

Let's review their individual records shall we (thanks to People for the American Way) :


Terrence Boyle

• Worst reversal record of all district court judges nominated by Bush (and some of the reversals were for errors that were already appealed reversed and sent back to him where he ruled the same way AGAIN)
• Tried to exempt state agencies from federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Said that state discrimination is explained by its "culture".

Janice Rogers Brown:

• Disregarded precedent -especially in regard to civil and constitutional rights.
• Favors property rights over constitutional liberties provided in the Bill of Rights.
• opined that govt employees could wave their constitutional rights by virtue of their employment.
• opposed by the ABA.
• Compared Social Security and Medicare to "being on the government dole"

Richard Griffin:

• Ruled that prisoners are exempt from federal and state disability laws.
• Was reversed by the state Supreme Court for ruling that striking workers who were replaced by permanent replacements were not entitled to unemployment benefits, which contradicted his state's law.

Thomas Griffith:

• Opposes Title IX, and has ruled in contradiction of it. (who is "legislating from the bench" then? )
• Practiced law in Utah w/o a state license as required by that state.

William Haynes:

• Played a central role in formulating policies that led to abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and elsewhere.
• Policies he created were opposed by military defense attorneys, the ABA, the committee for Human Rights, and even two of Bush's appellate appointees in the 2nd circuit.
  Brett M. Kavanaugh
• Has the second least amount of experience for his nominated position -2nd only to Ken Starr his mentor.
• As part of Starr's team worked tirelessly to destroy executive privilege -yet has worked as tirelessly to protect it for Bush.
• As associate counsel to the president under Alberto Gonzalez coordinated the administration's nominations of the most controversial and divisive judges.
  

David McKeague:

• Ruled against environmental polices required by statute. (reversed)
• Ruled that a hospital could fire an HIV positive employee rather than accommodate his condition as required by the ADA. (reversed)
• Ruled that a police department could monitor messages sent to an officer's private pager -contradicting federal law. (reversed)

William G. Myers III:

• Filed an amicus brief stating that the property rights of cattle ranchers are as fundamental as Bill Of Rights rights, and that therefore the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional. He was reversed by the SCOTUS and not one justice -not even Rehnquist or Scalia- bought his constitutional argument.
• Tried to twist a land management statute to prohibit an Native American tribe's ability to practice their religion.

Priscilla Owen:

• Rulings opposed even by AG Gonzalez
• Repeatedly ignores statute in favor of a conservative agenda, and this has been a complaint of conservatives as well as progressives.

William Pryor:

• Supporters have labeled his penning of majority opinions re civil rights "defending liberties" when they were all cases where the law provided no "wiggle-room" and the court could rule no other way. (at least he follows the law -unlike the others)
• Claims he wants to "end the politicization of the legal system" yet somehow always seems to rule on the predictable conservative side of the issues w/r in the majority, minority, or plurality.

Henry Saad:

• Reversed by his state's supreme court for overturning a jury verdict and requiring a new trial when the verdict and award could have been "harmonized".
• Reversed a trial court's decision that an insurance company was liable to a plaintiff because the insurance company's claim that the defendant hadn't notified them of the suit barred liability was contrary to state law. Was in turn reversed unanimously by the state Supreme Court.

So what's the throughline in all of these nominees, other than that they're all neocon lap-dogs? That they all (Pryor perhaps being the lone exception) show a propensity to rule in contradiction of state and federal law and settled judicial precedent. And what is the Bush administration's response to their being filibustered down -even though over 95% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed? TO RE-NOMINATE THEM!!! That says more about the Bush administration's view of our country's laws than any opposing view could ever manage to do.

Moreover it proves that any Bush supporter who decries "legislation from the bench" or "judicial activism" is a raving partisan hypocrite. But then, after four+ years of them what do you expect?

KICKING THE HABIT

The LA Times had an article today about how the "culture of life" is splitting the GOP. But all I can see is how the Democrats screwed up yet again.

"Democrats never developed a clear message on the Schiavo case, with the party's House leaders dividing in their votes and few party leaders making strong statements. But many Democratic strategists believe the party could benefit among moderate swing voters who believe Republicans overreached in the matter. Some Democrats noted that in several surveys last week, Bush's approval rating slipped to 45% or below -among his worst- while the marks for Congress skidded under 40%.

'The Republican Party traditionally has been the party opposed to the expansion of the federal government,' said Mellman, the pollster for Kerry. 'Now, across a whole range of issues, they have shown a commitment to expanding the reach of the federal government into personal life beyond which anybody has contemplated before.' "

This should have been the iceberg that sunk the Titanic because the right are indeed fractured and licking their wounds from this case after wildly misjudging the opinion of the country on this issue, but already the GOP are starting to spin this colossal misstep in their favor:

"When you take [Democratic] opposition to partial-birth abortion at the beginning of life, and [acceptance of] pulling plugs at the end of life, you begin to get in a danger zone," said one GOP strategist close to the White House. "It could be that this case reinforces a larger impression ...of the Democratic Party."

and predictably, the Democrats are letting the "iron" cool.

Once again the Democrats have dropped the ball in coordinating an effort to get a defining and unifying message out, just as they have with Social Security, and have let the GOP define the issue.

The way they do this is by attacking the GOP for their idiotic actions without saying what they'd do differently. It's going to take regimented training, but here's how they can improve (and this is not my idea, but my adaptation of a concept that James Carville and Stanley Greenberg originated in their Democracy Corps memo "Re Social Security -A time for purpose and renewal" ):

From now on every speech from a democrat should begin with 'This is not about (X), it's about (Y)' and should not end without the phrase 'we believe' being used at least twice. Simplistic I know, but how else can you break bad habits?

Mellman's comment above illustrates just how pervasive insidious, and ingrained the current attack-paradigm is, and how important it is to tear ourselves away from it.

Break down what he says and it comes out as 'they have always said ___, now they're trying to do the opposite to an exponential degree' How does that tell the world what we believe? Why should they trust us?

Here's how it should have been said:

'This is not about w/r Terri Schiavo lives or dies -that's up to God and her family. This is about w/r the government should step in between a family and its personal medical decisions. We believe in families, and we believe that they have a right to make the difficult medical decisions that they face free from political intervention.'

It's hard not to point out how stupidly the GOP act -particularly when, as here, their hypocrisy is so flagrantly on display, but it's easy and lazy to stop after attacking their actions without promoting our alternative point of view, and we must break that habit. We should take support from the fact that the majority of the country agrees with us on this issue, but take care not to let it lull us into inaction.

MORE RE TERRI SCHIAVO

Why is it that the same cons who spew

1. sanctity of marriage

2. state's rights

3. anti 'judicial activism'

crap have completely abandoned those positions and are now advocating

1. Parental rights trumping marital rights.

2. Federal government involvement in issues that have been decided by state appellate courts and rejected by the SCOTUS.

3. Judicial overruling of established statutes and precedent

for ONE SINGLE CASE?

Flippety floppety.

Those advocating continued treatment here are advocating an end run around the statutory scheme of a state AND the judicial decisions of nearly 20 judges over 15 years for political points.

And let's be clear -if 'feeding' must be accomplished by surgical means it falls under the category of medical treatment not merely food. As someone else said - feeding her would be giving her a sandwich and a glass of water, this is medicine.

This woman was a bulimic who vomited so much that her low potassium levels caused heart failure. She was given heroic measures that failed and her brain was severely damaged. She has since deteriorated to the point where she has no cerebral cortex, only spinal fluid in its place. She is incapable of higher brain function, and not even the most promising stem cell treatments can change that. Let her soul be free.

What do you think they'd say if she was an 80-year-old black woman? What if Theresa were Terrence and his family was arguing for discontinued treatment while his partner was fighting to keep him alive, and they'd been married in Massachusetts?

Gee, what do you think would happen to the "Culture of Life" then?

MORE DAMAGE DONE TO MARRIAGE BY CONGRESS

...yesterday, than any court could ever manage.

At the core all marriages as far as the govt. is concerned are
nothing more than a proffer of a bundle of legal rights, given for
agreeing to enter into a committed relationship.

That's the only reason the govt. is EVER involved in marriage (or
anything else for that matter) -to grant and protect legal rights.

Among the rights granted by marital status are medical power of
attorney.

Now the Republican majority Congress has met *on a Sunday* to state
categorically that parental rights trump one heterosexual married
couple's medical power of attorney rights.

Where's the "sanctity of marriage" here? Is this a clever attempt by
the republican Congress to to destroy all marriage so that gays and
lesbians can't have it either?

The fanatics attack Michael
Sciavo for having another relationship 5 years after his wife's
injury -but understand, that's completely irrelevant to the fact that
legally he has medical power of attorney. Even if he were the biggest
A-hole on the planet to her having 7 mistresses while she was still
ablebodied it wouldn't matter -he'd still have medical power of
attorney as long as they were legally married.

Congress' taking that away from him weakens marriage and the rights
it grants more than any expansion of the "definition" of it ever could.

Here's a relatively unbiased blog recounting the story so far...

WTF IS GOING ON IN THAT WHITE HOUSE?

The saga of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert is just plain wierd. He reminds me of the character Joe Pesci played in JFK.

As it turns out, James Guckert is the real name of Jeff Gannon. Reporters use ficticious names all the time -"nom de plume" is commonplace. So that's not too wierd.

It gets wierd when the guy is given regular "daily passes" to the White House press briefings for 2 years. The "hard-pass" or Congressional pass is apparently hard to come by and requires a serious background check. Maureen Dowd, the New York Times Columnist who has been reporting on the White House for over 20 years, had her pass taken back pending a new background check and, well, gee, it's taking a while for her to get it back. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she's criticized the Bush Administration would it? The Daily pass apparently doesn't have as strenuous a background check, but then how can one person continually get Day-passes for 2 years? After 9/11???

What's more, if the Secret Service/DOJ/FBI/DHS (or whoever is doing the background checks now) had done even the most cursory check perhaps they would have discovered -as the folks at americablog.com did, that this guy was a gay prostitute. I'll type that again: this guy was a gay prostitute. OK *that's* wierd.

The fact that there was no background check is the key here. I mean "9/11 changed everything"- right?

I want to be careful here. The issue is NOT that Gannon/Guckert is gay -that's just a little wierd given the "organization" he came from. The cons would have you believe that the fact that folks on the left are discussing the fact that Gannon/Guckert is gay is somehow discriminating against him, or hypocritical. Horsesh*t -it wouldn't matter at all -except that the folks he was shilling for are so hell-bent on persuing their ANTI-gay agenda. As such it's hypocracy of the highest order on their part.

Additionally, it would be one thing if he were merely gay (still hypocritical but Ok whatever), or even if he were the lover of someone in the White House -sexual nepotism is nothing new, but this guy was a prostitute, - and while that fact slipped by the FBI/DOJ/DHS or whoever it WAS was uncovered by *bloggers* fer chrissakes!!!! How the hell does a guy like that get to ask the president anything?

WTF is going on in that White House?

And that's not even to mention that he was attending White House briefings a mere month after the phony news organization he works for came into existence!!

Of course the "liberal media" are all over this story and are...Oh...wait...where are they?

I repeat: WTF?

That old song by The Crass ("WTF")keeps going through my mind.

Read More:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/191334/0754

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gannon.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/281982p-241637c.html

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=Jeff%20Gannon

WHAT IF BUSH IS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ?

Mark Brown, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times has a problem. The problem is that he's seen the TV coverage of elections in Iraq and is now questioning his resolve against the war. In his latest column "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" he wrings his hands, and gives an Oscar caliber performance as what the cons call "the whining liberal".

"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?"

Well it would be Mark, except that to believe Bush is "right" about Iraq, you have to have at least a passing memory of the several versions of the facts he and his minions have presented the American People and then allow that it is true.

Here are just a few:

1. Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes using unmanned drones to attack US shores.

2. Iraq had recently purchased yellow-cake uranium from Niger that could be used to build a nuclear centrifuge.

3. Iraq was in violation of the UN security council's resolution 1441 which needed to be enforced even if that same body was an inconsequential bunch of liars and cheaters.

4. The people of Iraq were simply begging us to go there and liberate them, and would welcome us with flowers.

5. Ahmed Chalabi (remember him?) had given us credible intelligence and therefore should serve as the interim Priminister.

6. Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the whole operation.

7. Saddam and Al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11.

8. The armed forces are prepared to fight this conflict -and even if they aren't "you go to war with the army you have".

Don't at least several of the above reasons need to be true for Bush to be "right all along" about Iraq?

Or does it only take one weasely "liberal"'s second guessing himself for neocons to be "right"?

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.