Friday, October 29, 2004


You Can Smell The Desperation!

And quite frankly, it reeks. Since they can't seem to shake the story of the missing Iraqi explosives, the Bush administration trotted out some poor lacky to claim that he had destroyed 250 tons of munitions. Problem is, he didn't destroy any of the explosives that are currently missing, didn't see any IAEA seals that are clearly shown in the video from channel KSTP out of Minneapolis, and all of this took place five days before the KSTP video was shot clearly showing the explosives still in their bunkers. So what the hell was the point of throwing this guy to the wolves? He didn't have anything significant to offer us and the press tore him apart. The whole while, Larry DiRita, Rumsfeld's assisstant, won't let the poor guy answer a question and keeps saying this proves that nobody really knows what happened to those explosives. No Larry, you and your dumb-ass friends are the only ones that don't know; the rest of us all know exactly what happened: Bush fucked up! Plain and simple.

So after this train wreck of a press conference, as it's clear that the missing explosives story is going to carry on into the weekend, what do we get? A new Osama bin Laden video. This might seem a little far-fetched to think that it was planned, but ask yourself this, how was the United States able to verify that it was indeed bin Laden before it was actually aired on al Jazeera television? Still don't believe me? Think about this: Nothing in the video indicated that it was recorded within the last few days. In fact it could have been recorded anytime after John Kerry became the clear Democratic nominee. And one more thing: Anybody remember Karl Rove promising an "October Surprise?" Let's face it, things couldn't be going any worse for Bushco right now. Everyday seems to bring fresh evidence of the administration's incompetence and momentum appears to be shifting in Kerry's favor. So why wouldn't Rove and Co. roll out a new video that they've been saving for just the right occassion? They've used old evidence as the basis for raising the terror alert level, right?

So far, it seems to be working in their favor. As I watched the evening news, the first eleven minutes of the broadcast were devoted to the Osama video while only two minutes towards the end of the broadcast were devoted to the missing explosives and then there was no mention of the clearly staged and diversionary press conference. Then on CNN's Newsnight With Aaron Brown, he ran through tomorrow's headlines as always and every paper led with the bin Laden video above the fold. I assure you that Timmy and the rest of the bobbleheads on Sunday will be talking about this video and completely ignoring the explosives story.

But John Kerry can take the focus back with one simple statement: "Our President promised to get bin Laden 'Dead or Alive.' As this video proves, he's obviously failed to do so. If I am elected President, I promise to do everything in my power to make sure that the next video the American people see of bin Laden will be the one showing him in chains or dead."

As David Kay would say: "Game, set, match."

And as if I needed any more proof that the Republicans are deperate, my sister, who lives in the swing state of Iowa, received this letter in the mail this past week.

The text reads:

Can you spell voter intimidation? How about scare tactics? Of course this arrived with no return address. I can assure you this didn't come from my grandma, she's a faithful Democrat. But really, does anybody really believe that this was written by anyone other than the Republican party? They are desperate. They feel the momentum changing and they can smell defeat.

I can't wait until we are able to say John Kerry, the 44th President of the United States. Only a few days left!

One last thing. I finally carved my Halloween pumpkin. Whaddya' think?

See ya' Monday!

Thursday, October 28, 2004


The Straw That Broke The President's Back

If anyone is still undecided about next Tuesday's Presidential election, today provided all the information thay should need to make up their minds. For days now, the top story has been the missing explosives in Iraq. John Kerry has run with the story to bolster his claim that President Bush has mishandled the war but the President has been claiming that the explosives may have been moved prior to the US invasion. President Bush has even gone so far as to say Senator Kerry is jumping to conclusions without the facts. But today, all the evidence needed has come to the surface.

It turns out that ABC affiliate 5 Eyewitness News from Minneapolis/St. Paul had a crew embedded in Iraq that filmed some video at the al QaQaa weapons facility after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, clearly showing the IAEA seals on the door. Soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division cut the chains to the bunkers allowing the reporters in where they were able to film the explosives still inside. (You can read the story here, here, and here.) On this evening's Newsnight With Aron Brown on CNN, former weapons inspector David Kay confirmed that the items in the video were indeed the explosives in question.

Truth of the matter is, we actually knew they were there. On April 5, 2003, the Washington Post ran an article which included the following passage:

The same day, the Associated Press ran their own article stating this:

Both articles clearly show the existence of the explosives at the al QaQaa site on April 4, 2003, well after the invasion had begun. So all that talk about the weapons being moved prior to the invasion, and all that talk by Drudge and the Washington Times about the Russians being involved is bullshit! Complete and total bullshit!

As many of us have known for a long time now, the President has been lying to the American people. The simple truth is, our current administration has FUCKED UP! But they still can't admit it. Kerry has been right all along: The President has made us less safe.

Anyone who is still undecided after today's revelations is clearly not paying attention.

Kerry is going to win in a landslide!

Wednesday, October 27, 2004


Christianity In Politics

Living in rural Illinois, I sometimes feel as if I'm in the heart of Christian Country. The popular opinion around here is that our President is a good man because he has "good Christian values." (I know, the irony is stunning. I didn't realize starting a war of choice was sanctioned by the Bible, but I have to admit I'm a little rusty on my Bible history.) So anyway, I decided to write a letter to the editor of my local paper (republican rag). And what do you know, it was actually published. Here's what it had to say:

Unfortunately, the paper has a 500 word limit on all letters to the editor, so I was unable to really expand on much. However, there is no limit on this blog post, so here we go.

Since when did our political process become a contest to see which candidate can out-God the other? Each candidate has done his best to try and show that he is a God-fearing man. I want to know, why does this matter? Oh, the Bible-thumpers will tell you that this country was founded on "Christian principles" and is therefore a Christian nation by heart. But c'mon, people, let's look at these "Christian principles." Explain to me how these principles differ from that of Judaism. Or Buddhism. Or (non-radical) Islam. The answer is, they don't. Freedom and equality are not Christian principles. As I recall, women were to be servants to their husbands if we go by the Bible's law. I don't see many women rushing to go back to that day and age. So the argument is null. The truth is, this country was founded and settled by Christians who were unhappy with their homeland for one reason or another. In fact, many of them were dissatisfied with the religious confinement of their mother country. I would think that we could understand the concept of religious confinement and would try to do something the avoid that. But no, here we are trying to make sure that the person we elect is the most Christian man available and all other eligions be damned because how could we consider ourselves good Christians if we didn't.

As I said in my letter, this is selfish. We couldn't be any more selfish. This is the equivalent of voting for the man that will give me the biggest tax cut despite the fact that he can't pay for it. Oh, wait, that's already happening. Have we, as a nation, become so selfish that we are willing to disregard the well being of our country? Have we become so selfish that we are only interested in getting everything we can for ourselves and screw the rest of you? Are we really willing to say "Fuck 'em all, I want it my way," when in reality we know that it is hurting future generations? The sad answer is yes.

Over the summer I spent a considerable amount of time debating with a conservative relative of mine. Through a number of e-mails, we debated the virtues of the liberal and conservative viewpoints. I can't say that I converted him anymore than he converted me, but I did learn a lot about the other side. Their view is that if you've got it (money, success, opportunity, etc.) good for you, you should be able to keep it; but if you don't have it (money, success, opportunity, etc.) screw you, you're on your own. In other words, get your filthy fucking hands off of mine.

We have become a nation of greed and excess. A nation concerned about getting more and sharing less. If it's yours it should be mine, but if it's mine, you're shit-out-of-luck. This is the nation we have become under George W. Bush. Now I admit, it's not all his fault. This attitude has been growing for years, but Bush has done nothing to stem the tide. Look at our holier-than-thou attitude towards foriegn policy. It's alright for us to possess nuclear weapons, but not for others. It's perfectly acceptable for us to defy the will of the United Nations, but when a country like Iraq does it, watch out. It's completely understandable for us to use our veto power over the United Nations Security Council (which we do more than any other country) but if France or Germany or Russia even hint at it, they're siding with the enemy. It's no wonder our country is regarded as arrogant. It's no wonder we are viewed as bullies and the biggest threat to world security. We have become exactly what our founding fathers were fighting so hard to be free of.

How did I get to this point in my rant from Christianity in politics? I got here because it all falls under the same heading: Selfishness. As Christians or as Americans we do not embrace the diversity that we claim to endorse. Who is responsible? A lot of people. But as they say, a fish rots from the head down. Right now, we need a new head because ours is rotten. We need a new direction. We need a fresh start. John Kerry is the right man to do this. He has promised to make America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He deserves that chance. America deserves that chance. On November 2 we have the opportunity to put America back on the right track. We can't let that chance pass us by.

Vote on November 2 and cast your vote for America. There are plenty of things we can be selfish about, but our country's future isn't one of them.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


"Et Tu Brute?"

Even our hand-picked allies are now blaming us for the failures in Iraq.

I can't understand this. How can anybody look at what has happened in Iraq and still think that our President is worth re-election? It's only Tuesday, and already this week we have the situation with the 380 tons (yes tons) of missing explosives, the masacre of almost 50 Iraqi forces for which we are being blamed for our negligence, and today it's revealed that the Bush administration plans to ask for yet another $70 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq raising the total to almost $225 billion (yes billion). Yet the polls are still within the margin of error.

Why is this race even close? All of the polls should look like this:

This President continues to prove his ineptness when it comes to dealing with Iraq; which, by the way, is a war he chose to get us into. This is a war he said would be easy. This is a war in which the Vice President said we would be greeted as liberators with flowers. None of which has happened.

The fact that we still have a Presidential race worth polling is pathetic. How can anyone be so blind as to trust this administration any longer? I'm speechless.

Monday, October 25, 2004


Where's the Outrage?

Today the New York Times prints what is possibly the starkest example of the Bush administration's incompetence in their handling of the war in Iraq and it gets only a passing mention in the evening news. According to the Times, almost 380 tons (yes tons) of explosives are now missing from an Iraqi weapons cache.

The NBC Nightly News spent a whole two minutes on this subject at the begining of their broadcast. Instead of focusing on the fact that our President, who claims he can keep us safe from terrorists, and his staff were unable or unwilling to guard 380 tons of explosives, they spent a good five minutes discussing how good President Clinton looked when he appeared with John Kerry in Philadelphia today. I admit that I was glad to see Clinton back up and around, but the shallowness of their coverage while ignoring the severity of the missing explosives was all too typical of today's misguided media.

In plain and simple terms, the Bush administration fucked up. In May of this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a memo to the White House warning that terrorists might be helping themselves to "the greatest explosives bonanza in history," yet the Bush team did nothing. They continued to ignore the problem allowing these explosives to be looted and spread throughout the country and possibly the entire Middle East. These are not mere grenades or landmines, this is HMX, which stands for "high melting point explosive," and RDX, which stands for "rapid detonation explosive." These explosives are some of the most devestating available. It took less than a pound of of this type of material to bring down Pan Am Flight 103. According to Atrios, the amount of missing explosives is about 4,000 (yes 4,000) times as dangerous as the explosion that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

So I'll ask it again: Where's the outrage?

Why isn't this all over the news? Why isn't someone demanding that the Bush administration explain this? When the subject was broached today with Scott McLellan, he responded this way:

[Did I miss it, or did he not answer the question?]

[Actually Scott, that puts nothing in context. They're still missing and you still haven't explained why or how that happened.]

[Once again Scott, you're not answering the question. You're being asked who's fault it is and instead of saying that we fucked up you're giving us bullshit rhetoric.]

[So in other words, we were more worried about securing the oil fields than keeping our soldiers and the rest of the Middle East safe. That's about right.]

[In other words, it's not our fault. It's the fault of the Iraqis because we don't make mistakes.]

Thanks Scott, that sure cleared things up. My understanding of what he just said is "It's not our fault." But in fact, these weapons were being guarded by the IAEA themselves before we invaded. So yes Scott, it most certainly is our fault.

According to the administration's spin, it's not that big of a deal, because these are just explosives not nuclear weapons. Maybe President Bush could explain how insignificant these explosives are to the families of those servicemen and women who have lost their lives in explosions while serving in Iraq. Since June, one month after the IAEA sent the memo warning the White House of the possibility of these explosives falling into the wrong hands, at least 90 American soldiers have lost their lives due to an IED or a car bombing. Many of which may have contained the exact material our government failed to secure. Those 90 deaths account for almost one-third of all American casualties during that time.

So I'll ask it one more time: Where's the outrage?

This is irrefutable evidence that our government's inneptitude has actually left us less safe than we were before we invaded Iraq. In their own words, we were more interested in Iraq's oil than we were in safeguarding the weapons and keeping our soldiers safe.

I, for one, am pissed! I can hardly wait the eight days to cast my vote to remove this incapable prick from office.

Saturday, October 23, 2004


Catching Up

I want to apologize for the sporadic and often-times brief posts this past week. I have been extremly busy with school activities and some volunteer work. I am currently volunteering my time to assist a philanthropic organization that has donated significant sums of money to my school's fine arts programs. After this weekend, I should be free to return to my blogging responsibilities on a more regular basis.

That being said, there are a few things that I need to catch up on.

Between Windsurfing and Goose Hunting

Back in August, the Bush/Cheney campaign pounced on photographs of John Kerry windsurfing saying that it was proof that he was out-of-touch with the average American. According to them, windsurfing is a rich-kid recreation that most people can not relate to. This week, the Bush/Cheney campaign wasted no time in ridiculing Kerry about his recent hunting trip, claiming it was nothing more than a photo-op. (I know, the irony behind B/C ridiculing someone for a photo-op is staggering, but that could be a whole other post by itself.) So apparently, the message here is that Kerry is out-of-touch when he windsurfs but not genuine enough when he hunts.

I think it's time the Kerry/Edwards campaign shot back. The ad could go something like this:

I know, it's a little juvenile but come on, look at who we're up against here. I think it would be hysterical to listen to Hannity and his band of Dick (Cheney) sucking buddies lose their minds over this one.

The Politics of Fear

According to the Bush/Cheneyites, John Kerry has been running a campaign of fear. Silly me, I thought that telling the truth about a worsening outlook for the economy, the war in Iraq, healthcare, and deficits would be considered honest. Apparently, I'm going to have to consult my dictionary to see what fear means.

In an attempt to clear up the confusion about who is really running a campaign of fear, I would like to offer the following examples:

I think it's perfectly clear which campaign is indeed engaging in the politics of fear.

And finally....

What's the Difference?

I know this is kind of old news, but can someone please explain to me the difference between the following two photographs.

With the exception of the actual person in the photo, all I see is two politicians trying to whore out the military for a photo-op.

Only ten more days!

Thursday, October 21, 2004


Meanwhile, Back In the Reality-Based World...

For a while now, John Kerry has been knocking the President, saying that he's living in a "fantasy world." With the above quote in mind, this New York Times article, proves that Kerry is exactly right.

20,000 is a handful? That's more than all the non-U.S. "coalition" troops combined. Once again, this just proves how poorly the Bush administration planned for a post-war Iraq. It has been one failure after another.

The only word to describe this is incompetence. However, Bush will tell you that we can trust them to protect us. Protect us from what? How reliable is their information? They have continuously underestimated the situation in Iraq. Who is to say that they aren't underestimating the threat to our safety? Based on past experience, I would say there's a pretty good chance that they could be wrong. After all, look how worried they were about a terrorist attack on September 10, 2001. As I recall, the topic of the day was missile defense. Sure, they'll fall all over themselves trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton saying that he didn't do enough to combat terrorism and therefore he emboldened the enemy; but what they fail to mention is that when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beruit in the early eighties, Reagan failed to respond at all. Clinton pursued the terrorists and brought some of them to justice, while Reagan rolled over and let them get away with it. This problem was not started by Clinton, but it was definitely ignored by Bush.

How can we know that they are not currently ignoring pertinent information? They ignored the August 6th PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States." They ignored the warnings of Richard Clark. They ignored the advice of military leaders like Gen. Zinni and others who said we would need more troops. They ignored the advice of the U.N. and other allies who urged us not to invade Iraq. It appears to me that this administration will ignore anything they choose if it is adverse to their plans. Why should they behave any differently now?

This administrtion is incompetent. It is evidenced in their handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It is evidenced in their inability to secure the country of Iraq. It is evidenced in their inability to recognize the threat posed by Iran and North Korea. It is evidenced in their inability to maintain and stabilize our national economy. It is evidenced... Well, you get the picture.

George Bush has had his chance to prove that he is the right man for the job. For the last two years, the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and over that time they have accomplished nothing. When you can't get things done while you control all the parts, it can only be because of incompetence.

The White House keeps claiming that Democrat obstructionists are preventing them from accomplishing their goals, but we all know the truth. George W. Bush is simply incapable of doing the job.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004


The Next Vice President

I attended a rally with John Edwards this evening. He's a great speaker. He spoke with no podium and no notes. Unlike someone else we know. Here's some pictures.

Go see him if you can, he's refreshing after watching Snarlin' Dick for the last four years.

Back with a new post tomorrow. Only twelve more days!

Tuesday, October 19, 2004


Caption Contest

AHHHH! He's hot!

Monday, October 18, 2004


The Bubble Boy Who Cried Wolf

For the second time in the last two weeks, the Bush/Cheney campaign has conned the media into broadcasting one of their stump speeches by announcing that the President will be making a policy speech. Again today, the television viewer got to watch Bush stumble through his reality-challenged, fact-free campaign speech. How many times is the media going to be duped before they decide to ignore him altogether. It may have already started as CNN and Fox cut away once it was obvious that there was nothing new in today's speech. However, MSNBC broadcast it in its entirety.

Aside from the dishonesty about the premise of the speech, I think the thing that was most alarming about today's fraud was the content of the speech itself. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I have been critical of Bush's speeches in the past. They are nothing but a hodge-podge of twisted quotes, empty statements, and fear. To illustrate this point, I decided to go through today's speech and color-code it to indicate the different techniques used. I have not altered the speech in any way other than to remove the parts from the transcript that indicate audience reaction. If you would like to read the entire speech with the audience reaction intact, be my guest, but I should warn you that it's pretty dry reading.

Here's how it works:

The President is fond of fear. He uses it often in his speeches by mentioning the events of and surrounding September 11, 2001. He often makes references to war, terror, terrorists, and attacks. For each of these instances where the President uses fear, I have color-coded that part of the the speech in red.

The President has made a habit of twisting the words of his opponent. He often misquotes, misleads, or takes quotes out of context and applies them to unrelated situations. For each of these instances, I have color-coded that part of the speech in blue.

Finally, the President is extemely fond of what I like to call empty language. These are statements that sound strong and decisive but really mean nothing. They are often opinions or simply statements that can't be refuted because they have no basis in fact. For each of these instances, I have color-coded that part of the speech in green.

So here it is folks. The President in all his glorious color.

Consider the parts of the speech that are uncolored to be either unnecessary bullshit, recycled stories, or based upon questionable facts.

Quite a President we got here. I can't wait to hear his concession speech.

Sunday, October 17, 2004


Why Hasn't This Been Asked?

Like a lot of people, I've been following the story of those soldiers in Iraq that refused to carry out an ordered supply mission. Eighteen soldiers from the 13th Coscom's 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to drive a dangerous delivery route outside of their normal delivery area because their trucks were still not armored. While reading this article, I was struck by one statement in particular:

All of this begs the question, why weren't they armored when they arrived? Instead of simply repeating the Bush meme of "John Kerry voted against the $87 billion to provide necessary armor and equipment for the troops," maybe someone in the media could ask President Bush why they were sent there without the armor in the first place. If it was so damn necessary that the Senate approve the money, why didn't we wait until the money was approved before we invaded? If the armor was so necessary, why wasn't it avilable before the invasion?

If this question has already been asked, please point me to the answer. If it hasn't, what the hell are we waiting for?

Saturday, October 16, 2004


Mary Cheney: Political Football

The feigned outrage of the Republican party over John Kerry's remarks about Vice President Cheney's daughter during the third and final debate is laughable at best. To be clear, this is the exchange in question:

I fail to see anything that should cause offense in this statement. Had the question been about education, would we be seeing the same outrage if John Kerry had used Jenna Bush as an example? After all, she's planning to be a teacher. The answer is, no we wouldn't. The crux of the issue here is that John Kerry pointed out that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, something Cheney himself has done many times on the campaign trail, and the Republicans don't want their religio-crazy base to be reminded of that. Had Kerry done something truly offensive like call her a dyke during the debate, I could understand the anger, but he didn't do that. He called her what she is, a lesbian.

A little over six weeks ago, Illinois Senate Candidate Alan Keyes made some truly troubling comments concerning the Vice President's daughter when he said that she was a sinner practicing "selfish hedonism."

Certainly the Vice President and his family were upset about these comments, but I don't recall hearing about it on the nightly news three days later. Where was all of the outrage then? Where was Lynne Cheney saying that Alan Keyes was "not a good man?" Where was snarling Dick saying that he was an "angry father?" The fact of the matter is, being upset at Keyes for some truly disparraging remarks didn't have the same political value as being upset at Kerry for some open and honest comments. When it can benefit them politically, anything is fair game to the Republicans including the sexual preference and reputation of a family member.

Last night on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, Rep. Jim Rogan (R-CA) claimed that the Kerry campaign was using Mary Cheney as a political football. He qualified this remark by saying that John Edwards had brought up her up in the VP debate and now Kerry in the last Presidential debate. As I recall, Dick Cheney said thank you to John Edwards for his statement about Mary Cheney, so I don't see an issue there; and John Kerry was citing her as a person the President is familiar with who disagrees with his point of view. Once again, I don't see where the outrage is coming from.

Obviously, this is a diversion. The Bush campaign is hoping to divert attention from the President's poor performance in the debates. They are trying to create a stir about Kerry's comments so the media won't report that Kerry swept all three debates, Iraq is falling into chaos, allies are leaving the coalition, the economy and the job market are going in the tank, the deficit is growing, and the President has absolutely no plan to fix any of this. If anyone is using Mary Cheney as a political football, it's the Bush/Cheney campaign. Cheney can use her to say that he has a gay daughter and therefore he doesn't support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, while the President continues to come out in support of it to keep the evangelicals content and on his side. They're using her to play both sides of the issue. I hope they look back on this and are ashamed of the way they've used her private life for their own political gain.

Funniest part of this whole story is that I haven't heard a single word from Mary Cheney. Apparently she's too distraught over being a political football.

Thursday, October 14, 2004


So Many Things, So Little Time

I've got a lot of shit happening right now and I am therefore forced to take a couple of days off. So, no post today or tomorrow, but I hope to be back on Saturday night to get caught up. Have a good weekend and I'll see you Saturday.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004


"Lucky Me. I Hit the Trifecta."

Unfortunately, that statement was made by our President in reference to fiscal irresponsibility, saying he would only break his promise of budgetary balance in the case of war, recession, or emergency. But I think it applies aptly to John Kerry this evening. As I sit here after the third and final debate, I can't help but feel satisfied that John Kerry has won all three. He was more articulate, better informed, more emotionally composed, and more straight forward than President Bush. It has become clear over the last three weeks that George W. Bush is the intellectual equivalent of a Kleenex in a flood: completely overmatched.

I'm always amused by the spin afterwards. Joe Scarborough said that John Kerry may have won in the eyes of the Yale debate coaches but George Bush spoke to the American people. Apparently the American people speak a different language than I do. I found Bush's answers to be rambling at times, erratic at best, and incoherent at worst. If he was in a position where he wasn't able to talk his way out of something he returned to education. Time and time again he returned to education as the fix for everything. As a teacher, I believe that education is one of the most important things in a person's life, but it doesn't answer the question "what would you say to a worker who has lost his job overseas." Education was Bush'a safety-net tonight. He spent a lot of time falling back into that net.

Along the lines of spin, Rudy Giulliani said that George Bush won over a lot of undecideds with tonight's performance. WTF? Apparently Rudy's line of thought is that undecided voters are going to say "well, I don't have a clue who I'm going to vote for and the President doesn't have a clue of what he's going to do, so I'm voting for him because together we are both clueless." WTF? What is it about the President's performance that would sway an undecided? He was only appealing to his base. Bush spouted conservative talking points all night long. It's the same thing we've been hearing and seeing for four years. If you're not convinced by the last four years, what are you waiting for? It's not going to get any better. It won't be any different in a second term. Bush had his chance, failed to deliver, ran our country's economy and reputation into the ground, and now he wants to be re-hired. He has failed and does not deserve a second chance.

One of my favorite moments of the night came when the debate turned to Pell Grants. Bush claimed that his administration had increased Pell Grants by a million students. Kerry responded beautifully by saying:

What a great response. And how did Bush respond? By changing the subject to tax cuts. In other words: I can't refute what he's saying so hey everybody, look over here. Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain.

And what about homosexuality being a choice issue? The President doesn't know? The MSNBC panel said that Kerry's response invoking Dick Cheney's daughter was a low blow. I, however, think it was perfectly within bounds. Cheney's daughter is a homosexual that Bush is presumably acquaited with. Does he think that she made a choice to be a lesbian? This isn't a porn movie where women choose to do bi because it pays the bills, this is real life. Homosexuals don't choose their sexual preference. It's a scientific fact, George. You might want to look into it.

Tomorrow morning I expect that we will see the video clip of Bush saying "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations," (deliberately stretch out and enunciate the word exaggeration) followed immediately by a video clip of the President saying just that. Just like it did with Cheney saying he had never met John Edwards, the video will prove that George W. Bush is a liar. But we've all known that for quite some time.

What it comes down to here folks is that John Kerry has embarassed our President. He has made him look confused, frustrated, furious, and out of touch. George Bush has no explanations for his failed past and no plan for the country's future. Four more years under his leadership would be a disaster. John Kerry is clearly the better choice to lead our country into the future. On November 2, John Kerry is clearly the right choice for our next President.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


Thanks George

Last Monday Paul Bremer, the former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, stated that the troop levels in Iraq were insufficient to do the job.

Of course the White House disagreed and Bremer immediately tried to take back his statement. However, today we found out that Bremer was exactly right.

George Bush continues to claim that he is the candidate to keep us safe. Yet it was his administration that ignored the advice of former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki who said that "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to secure a post-war Iraq. An increased troop level may have possibly prevented the widespread looting that led to the disappearance of the nuclear equipment. It was also Bush's administration that ignored the advice of former military leaders like General Anthony Zinni, former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, and former NATO Commander Wesley Clark; all of whom expressed doubts about the invasion. At almost every turn, the Bush administration ignored the advice of qualified military personel and rushed unprepared into an unnecessary war.

During the 2000 campaign there was a lot of talk about George W. Bush's intelligence (or lack of). However, we were told that we shouldn't worry because he would surround himself with "good people." Well it's these "good people" that have put us into this mess. People like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and others have incompetently led us into a war of choice that is spinning out of control. If these are Bush's "good people," I'd sure hate to see the list of people he rejected for his cabinet.

National Security is one of the prominent issues in this year's election. How can we be expected to trust a person who isn't smart enough to guard the facilities that were supposed to be the main reason for our invasion. If we are really trying to prevent the spread of WMD, I would think that the first thing we would do upon toppling the regime would be to secure the material we don't want the terrorists to obtain. The only way to describe this administration's handling of the situation is Iraq is to call it incompetent. Had any other country perpetrated such an inept invasion of Iraq, they would be the laughing stock of the world. Fortunately for us, our president and our media are too stupid to realize that and have in turn saved us the shame of knowing how the rest of the world is mocking us.

I guess we can thank George for that.

Monday, October 11, 2004


The So-Called Liberal Media

For years we have heard about the "liberal bias" in the media. The premise is that broadcasters and journalists are slanted toward the left and are therefore more inclined to report on an issue if it makes the left look better or the right look worse. Those that ascribe to Rush Limbaugh and the like are convinced that the media is part of some "left-wing conspiracy" to denigrate the conservatives, destroy America, and abolish organized religion. What I find to be the most interesting part of their argument is that the media outlets they have labeled as "liberal" are commonly labeled by those of us on the left as being too "conservative." For instance, both sides are convinced of the opposing skew of the New York Times, The Washington Post, and even CNN. As a liberal, I see all three of these outlets leaning to the right, while the conservatives are complaining of their slant to the left.

Over the weekend, it has become more apparent to me that there really is no "liberal bias," but a strong anti-liberal bias. With the constant accusations from the right, I believe that the media has tried too hard to appease their critics, thus overcompensating on the side of conservatism. Take for instance the MSNBC coverage of last weeks two debates. After the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday, the panel on Hardball practically fell all over themselves to call the debate for Dick Cheney despite opinion polls showing differently. After Hours host Joe Scarborough even went so far as to crumple a piece of paper containing the results from a CBS poll that showed John Edwards as the winner refusing to acknowledge its findings. Then on Friday, the Hardball panel consisted of Andrea Mitchell (supposed to be impartial despite being married to Alan Greenspan who thinks Bush's tax cuts are working), Ron Reagan (an Independent), Ben Ginsberg (Republican Election Lawyer), and Patrick Buchanan (conservative extraordinaire). This is a panel? This isn't a panel, this is Conservative convention.

Furthermore, I have to criticize MSNBC and for their so-called fact-checking. After Friday night's debate, Brian Williams claimed that John Kerry was incorrect when he claimed that George Bush had under-funded the No Child Left Behind Act. Williams claimed that although it had not been funded to the maximum level as approved by congress, that it was incorrect to claim that the underfunding was detrimental to the law. made the following claim:

As an educator, I take issue with this claim. The No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded to such a degree that individual states are now forced to make cuts in their education budgets in order to allocate more funds to keep themselves in compliance with the NCLB standards. Were the act funded at the higher level, the states wouldn't have to use their own money and could then avoid making cuts. This may seem a little nitpicky, but John Kerry is absolutely correct when he says that the NCLB Act has been underfunded. This lack of sufficient funding has pushed the burden onto the states and has had an inverse effect on the educational progress of many states and schools. This inaccurate claim by MSNBC and makes it appear as if John Kerry's fudging the truth when in fact he is not.

Finally, on to the big story of the weekend. The Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television outlets in the country, plans to run an anti-Kerry "documentary" called Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal that accuses John Kerry of betraying Vietnam Veterans and POWs with his 1971 testimony to congress. The broadcasting giant has sent a memo to its sixty-two stations ordering them to air the program without commercials during the prime-time viewing hours next week. This is the same broadcasting company that forbade its ABC affiliates from broadcasting the edition of Nightline during which the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq would be read upon the air. Thankfully, the DNC has filed a claim with the FEC trying to block the airing of the program. (If this doesn't convince naysayers of an "anti-liberal bias," maybe the fact that executives from Sinclair have given over $65,000 to Republican groups will.)

As an American citizen, I find it abhorant that a media outlet would do something like this. Seeing as how many of the Sinclair affiliates are in so-called swing states, this is an obvious attempt to influence voter opinion of a candidate. Therefore I urge everyone to contact the Sinclair Group and demand that they either refrain from showing the "documentary" or they allow for equal time and show Fahrenheit 9/11 the following evening during their prime time hours. You can see if your local affiliate is a member of the Sinclair Group here. If they are, send them a letter or e-mail as well demanding equal time.

You may send an e-mail to Sinclair Broadcasting here.

Or, if you're more ambitious, you can send an e-mail to all of their executives by clicking here. Please remember to be polite.

I would also like to encourage you to write to your local newspapers and call into your local radio stations as well. The more people hear about this, the more likely we are to make a difference. We can not let the anti-liberal media control the opinions of our country and its constituents. If that were to happen, then all that this country stands for is lost.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by