"'We have failed to listen and we have failed to persuade. We have not taken the time to understand our audience and we have not bothered to help them understand us. We cannot afford such shortcomings.' "— White House Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim WorldFace it, folks. The Bushies don't do hearts and minds, except with bombs and bullets. It's dangerous, stupid, arrogant, and inept. And we must stop it. Now. The only thing scarier than Lame Duck Bush is four more years of him.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Former GOP Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire endorsed Kerry todayIn his letter to Kerry, he said he and his wife and kids were all voting for Kerry in Florida, as if that will count. KOS posted the letter this morning, but left out the environmental paragraph.
As an environmentalist who served as Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, I know that this Administration has turned environmental policy over to lobbyists for the oil, gas, and mining interests. On the other hand, I know first-hand of your commitment to a more balanced approach to environmental policy--one where we can have both jobs and profit for industry as well as clean air and water. There is no stronger evidence of this than your outstanding leadership and support in the restoration fo the Florida Everglades.Senator Smith was a rabid right wing Republican who actually quit the Republican party once because they were too moderate. Smith is very anti-choice. And yet he's voting for Kerry. This is proof that even right wing nuts can think themselves out of the hole that Bush has dug them into.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Check out this graphic about recent environmental trends. There is no doubt about it. The environment is in danger under Bush and John Kerry is the opposite of Bush on this issue.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Guest Writer Today!
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."—Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back
Bush Friendly Fire At America’s SeniorsThe Bush Prescription Drug Plan is a major economic blow for the seniors in America. George Bush doesn't allow American seniors to get drugs in Canada that are up to 80% cheaper.
His stem cell research decision has back fired, missing its intended target and is nothing else but friendly fire. What happens is this; without trading drugs internationally (which in itself is against what the American flag stands for with free trade) and without stem cell research, America’s future is going to be like the many American mothers who hang yellow ribbons as they wait in vain for their brave sons and daughters to come home but never does. America’s future is going to be lonelier, more expensive, colder and so much more insecure for the seniors if Bush wins this election. In the end, with no imports or domestic research, Bush is raining down friendly fire aimed at America’s seniors. John Kerry has the right weapon and knows how to use it correctly.
Kerry will take the responsibility and carry the heavy burden for America’s elderly, protect them from distraction, and appeal to the best in every elderly citizen in the United States of America. He will be truly visible to the American troops and will fight the war to cut the costs of prescription drugs that have been rising 17% a year. Kerry will carry on fighting for those who need it most, because he is a brave American little soldier that is bold and strong and must carry on. His aim is strait and clear and he has claimed this battlefield.
Sent in by Markus Fors, Sweden, Europe, Earth
Friday, October 22, 2004
"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq."—Steven Kull, Director, PIPAMany of my friends and loved ones try to convince me that most of these people are just misinformed. I contend that they are misinformed because they want to be. They are ignorant of the facts because they have come to a conclusion about Bush they like, and they don't need anything like facts to alter that view. They wanted a tough, decisive leader, and they've convinced themselves that's Bush, even though the facts say the opposite. It's easier for them to believe the myth they've created than to deal with uncomfortable truths. It would just be too painful to them to actually find out that Bush is killing all these people in Iraq based on some sort of warped, neo-con, imperialist vision that has nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaida.
I urge everyone to send copies of this story to swing states. Get your firends in swing states to post this story everywhere they can. Put it under windshield wipers. Casually leave it behind in the post office. Put it on tables where political bumper stickers are offered. Send letters to the editors of local papers quoting the story, or the study: The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters. Post it on bulletin boards. Nothing will sway undecided voters more than the truth.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
In response to a Kerry Flip-Flop commercial, Kerry's Own Words, sent to me by a friend of mine....Most of these flip-flop charges from the right prove that Kerry changed his position based on the mess Bush created. For instance, on increasing funding for Iraq, Kerry has consistently maintained that we are spending too much because Bush fucked up and didn't get enough help first (because not everyone was convinced about his lies), but that now that we are there, we need to spend what it takes to fix it.
So, this is just typical shit from some very scared assholes who know damn well that Bush lied to go to a war we didn't need to fight, especially since we never finished the one in Afghanistan. They know damn well that Kerry voted for that resolution because he, like almost everyone else (except those of us who read former Republican Marine and Chief Iraq Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's book, Frontier Justice), Kerry believed the Bush Bull.
Kerry said, "It was a huge mistake to go to war THE WAY HE DID." These right-wing-nuts usually don't play that last part, because that's the key to Kerry's argument. Maybe, given the same bad info, Kerry would have made the same bad decision to go to war. That's one of the reasons he voted for the resolution. But I guarantee you one thing: only a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks would make the kind of mistakes the Bushies have made in fighting it. A guy that's actually been shot at would not, as president, have to go back and ask for $87 billion later to get the kind of ammo and armor that wasn't sent in the first place. A guy that actually volunteered to fight in a war would never try to cut combat pay, or put young heritage foundation ideologues in charge of reconstruction, or kick vets off health care, or send too few troops to do the job (throwing the Powell doctrine out the window). A guy who actually killed someone in battle would never stretch a National Guard we need at home so thin, or hire neo-con freaks who predict flower-paved paths to glory.
On the WMD, he trusted what the President's people told him before the war, and was shocked to find out later that he had been lied to. Wow. And they're trying to use that against Kerry? Don't they realize that even Republican Senators are pissed about the bad intel the Bush people sent up the hill?
Again with the $87 billion. Let's see... The Republicans who voted for it, actually voted against it first. Doesn't that make them flip-floppers? Actually, if the idiots who sent you this would THINK for a second, they'd find out that Kerry wanted a version that would be paid for by taxes on the Americans who most benefit from America, the rich. When he voted against it, he knew it would pass, and cast a protest vote, something Dick Cheney, who voted against a resolution to condemn South Africa for not letting Mandella out of prison, could tell them all about. The final bill just put the $87 billion on the National Credit Card that our grandkids will still be paying interest on. What's conservative about that?
Besides, why didn't the troops have everything they needed in the first place? Where does the $400 billion a year we give to the Pentagon go anyway, if it's not for the shit we need to fight wars? Please, excuse my language. It's mild compared to my disgust for this junta.
On unilateral action: just because the President reserves the right to act unilaterally, that doesn't mean it's always a good thing. And it certainly doesn't mean it's a good thing in Iraq. It seems the zealots who sent you this have thrown basic rules of Logic out the window....
Why don't you ask the Armageddon wishers who sent you this to tell you where the weapons are? Why don't you ask them why they spend so much time attacking their opponent with all this illogical bullshit instead of defending Bush's lies, or Halliburton's contracts, or the secrecy that John Dean called worse than Watergate? Why don't they try to defend the worst environmental record in history? Or the most job losses since Hoover? Or the 5 million people who have fallen into poverty (Christian indeed), or the huge increases in uninsured and health care costs? How about a Medicare bill that they lied about the cost of to get it passed, which includes a $150 billion giveaway to drug companies by MAKING IT ILLEGAL for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices?
Why is it that the Bush people just keep attacking Kerry? Because they know Goddamn well that if Bush tried to run a positive campaign, he'd lose. Yesterday, Bush said he thought people would reject a "campaign of fear" and vote for him. At the same time, Dick Cheney was saying out biggest threat are terrorists attacking an American city with nuclear weapons. Why don't you ask the assholes who sent you this what George Bush has done to round up loose nukes, or to stop Iran or North Korea from getting nukes? Who is really running a campaign of fear when Cheney says if Kerry gets elected, we'll be attacked (does that mean if Bush is reelected, we won't be)?
As for real plans for the future, go to JohnKerry.com. He actually has some very Clintonian, centrists positions on a variety of things, including the deficit, on which Kerry is actually more to the right than the biggest spender in American history: George Bush. Listen to George Bush's plans for the future and you will find some shit that makes Wall Street happy as hell, like billions in fees and charges from personal savings accounts for health care, and privatized social security accounts.
And if you really want to hear some objective, moderate opinions on this election, check out this list of articles:
John Eisenhower: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
(Scroll down a little to see this one)
Why conservatives must not vote for Bush
A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.
LOCAL VIEW: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake
BY REP. DOUG BEREUTER (Rep., Neb.)
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
A Questionable Kind Of Conservatism
By George F. Will
WHY I CAN'T VOTE FOR BUSH.
by Robert A. George
Burning Bush: The Issue
A year in Dubya-dumping by his conservative critics . . . and Howard Stern
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH
By William Bryk
Righteous Anger: The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
by Doug Bandow
Conversations with Conservatives
Mother Jones Magazine
There are many more, but in this election, I wonder if you'll change anyone's mind. The best you can hope for is to help one of the six undecided people in Ohio and the twelve in Florida vote for Kerry, since, because of the electoral college, votes in red-neck states count more than votes in other, more reasonable ones.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
BCCI) way back when terrorism was just something that happened to Jews, and GW Bush was still drunk and snorting cocaine... Amazing...
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Bush Lies about his Tax Cuts Again
"Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans."—George W Bush, 10-13-04According to Citizens for Tax Justice, two-thirds of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. They get this from Bush Treasury Department Data. And yet, the major news organizations (which Bush tried to denegrate last night when Kerry pointed out that two major news organizations pointed out Bush was lying about Kerry's health plan) want to focus on Kerry saying Bush hadn't met with the Black Caucus.
That's a funny story too. Seems when Bush did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus this past February, it's because the Caucus showed up at the White House and wouldn't leave. They wanted to talk about Haiti. In fact, they were met by Powell and Rice, who said Bush wasn't there. When the Caucus refused to leave, Bush magically appeared and met with them. Bush really did refuse to meet with the NAACP. Nobody wants to talk about that one, either.
So, the one thing Kerry supposedly got wrong, that the media jumped on, he actually got right if you look at the SUBSTANCE of the the subject. If you look at the facts, seems Kerry was right on, and Bush was, well, Bush.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
I've really gotten to the point where I can't be civil to right wingers anymore. I hear from so many people that I need to try to convince these misguided people that they're wrong. That we should respect their views. We've been trying that for years. They don't respect our views, and they win. They misguide themselves willfully because of their hate and bias, and they win. Since vitrol and visciousness has worked for them, so why don't we try it?
Ride the Bush hatred to the largest turnout in election history. Republicans hate large turnouts. They know we'll cream them. They make fun of us for hating Bush, but these are the same people who spewed hate IN THEIR CHURCHES about Bill Clinton. These are the same hypocrites who said draft dodging was a bad thing, but they embrace draft dodgers now.
But when it comes to lumps of cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, they have really crossed the line. They are taking away the hope of millions for the extreme right wing view that they'd be destroying life for some utilitarian philosophy. But they never answer questions about how those lumps of cells they call a "life" are going to be destroyed anyway, and yet they're not against in-vitro fertilization. They never explain how it's wrong to try to harvest life saving cells from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway.
This is the sleeper issue of this election. Go out and argue this with people as if actual living breathing lives, not the potential for that, depended on it. Get mad. Get in their faces. They're not used to it. I've been doing it a lot, and they blow up. Be ready to take a punch. I've taken one. But it's worth it to expose the true violent hatred for life these pro-lifers actually harbor.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Cheney's Blatant LiesYesterday, Al Franken got so angry about American troops dying over Cheney's lies, that he started to cry. That got me choked up, and I don't get choked up much. But I do get angry. That's one of my problems. So today, I'm going to try to focus my anger.
After 9-11 only 1 or 2 percent of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. By the time we went to war in Iraq, 69% of Americans believed it. To this day, as Al pointed out this morning, 62% of Republicans believe it. Why? Bush has said Saddam had nothing to do with it. Powell has said it. Rice has said it. Even Rumsfeld has said it. So why do Republicans believe this? Are 62% of them just plain stupid?
Cheney said in the debate with Edwards: "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..." In September 2003 Cheney said "[Iraq is] the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11." But that's not all. Cheney spent months spreading that lie. In fact he said it was "pretty much confirmed" that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence people in Prague. This has be debunked so many ways it's not funny, but Cheney kept saying it. Then, he denied that he said it, even though there is tape of him actually saying it. So, he even lies about his lies, and no one seems to catch him on it except Jon Stewart, Keith Oberman, and Al Franken.
Here's a great chart of all the Cheney lies in the debate from The Washington Monthly. Of course one of the biggest problems is that Republicans won't read it. Perhaps that's why 62% of them still believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11. Maybe that's why another despicable chicken hawk, Tom DeLay, is considered an ethical guy by most Republicans. I think what my anger has led me to is the realization that Republicans like to hide their heads in the sand. They think they've got it all figured out idealogically, and they really don't give a shit about the day to day reality that gets in the way of it.
Tax cuts create deficits? No, government programs to feed the children of lazy welfare queens do. No WMD in Iraq? Well, they must have moved them to Syria, let's go there next! Bush giveaways to drug companies running up the cost of the Medicare bill? No, it's all the sick people who are too lazy to get rich and pay for their drugs themselves. Too much mercury in the water to eat the fish is Bush's fault for letting the coal powered polluters pollute more? No, it's the people who eat fishes fault. Just stop eating fish!
One of the debates on the liberal side is whether we should demonize the people who believe all this shit. Or, should we demonize the people who perpetuate the lies that make them believe it. Or, maybe we shouldn't demonize anyone. Well, I think the question is, do we want to win an election or not? Who's been winning elections? C'mon, liberals are generally nice people, and by nature don't want to demonize people. So, let's talk issues. If, in the process of talking issues, we point out facts like how many more people will get asthma and cancer and other great, deadly diseases because of increases in pollution directly attributable to Bush policies, then those FACTS do the demonizing for us. We don't have to demonize Bush like he demonizes Kerry. We don't have to lie about republican policies. We have the facts on our side. We just have to make sure that these facts, these ISSUE arguments get out there. We have to be ready to spin hard and fast with the truth the way Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Marly Matlin do with lies.
This means doing something that many liberals find distasteful. We have to confront Republicans. We have to be willing to argue issues with them to the point that they realize they can't win so they start screaming FUCK YOU right in your face.
Or, if you're not the confrontational type, then be the subversive. Find a breakdown of Republican lies, like the one about Cheney's, print a bunch of them, go shop in a Republican neighborhood, and leave a bunch of them behind the soup cans in the grocery store. I've hidden small pieces of paper with facts on them all over grocery stores, the post office, and just about anywhere else I can. Get out there and make a difference. Please. My son and I have asthma. Over a thousand troops have died while Osama's been forgotten. Millions of Americans have moved into poverty and lost health insurance during Bush's term. The air and water are more polluted than they were three years ago and the framework for making it worse is still being drawn up in secret Cheney energy meetings. How much worse will it be four years from now, when Jeb runs?
And besides, Al Franken has done USO tours, and is very close to the troops. I can't stand to hear him cry. But most of all, if I could make Republicans listen to one group, it would be Military Families Speak Out. Ask them how they feel about Bush goading the enemy with his "Bring it on" comment.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Edwards truth-shading was nothing compared to Dick'sThe LA Times accuses both Cheney and Edwards of stretching the truth. But read the story. See what Cheney lied about. Compare that to Edwards. Edwards didn't cause thousands of deaths. The scope of truth-shading by Edwards is nothing compared to the whoppers that Cheney keeps telling.
Rivals' Bold Assertions Are Debatable: "One of Cheney's boldest assertions during the debate was to insist, 'I have not suggested there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.'
It is true that Cheney has never flatly asserted that Iraq was complicit in the Sept. 11 plot, but on many occasions, he has made remarks leaving the impression that Iraq may have been aware or involved.
In an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' in September 2003, Cheney described Iraq as the 'geographic base' for those behind the Sept. 11 attacks. 'If we're successful in Iraq,' he said, 'then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'"
So, yeah. all you right wingers keep pointing out the little white ones Edwards told. But while you're at it, why don't you ask the mother's of the over 1000 dead service men and women what they think about Cheney lying about Al Qaeda and Iraq. Tell me the lies about Halliburton aren't as bad as Edward's taking Lugar's comment about incompetence out of context.
Then I'd like all you right wing freaks to read that story twice before you send me any cut and paste letters about shitting down my neck (pitiful freaks can't even think of your own original death threats). To paraphrase your assholes, if you want a government that lies to you and keeps everything secret, move to North Korea.