Election 2004
For the older messages, look here.
This page contains comments related to the upcoming 2004 elections. To add your own comments, write to webpage@norfolknet.com.
``As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.''- TEM- H. L. Mencken (1920)
[The original Washington Post two-part series: Part 1, Part 2 - Wm.]
[Update 12/7 8:46pm: it's a two-part series, not three- Wm.]
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley on Friday published a statistical analysis of irregularities in Florida voter behavior that contends that the voting patterns favored President Bush to the tune of 130,000 to 260,000 votes.- AR"Without a paper trail, statistical comparisons of jurisdictions that used e-voting are the only tool available to diagnose problems with the new technology," the researchers stated in the report.
"Their analysis indicates that even when all these variables are accounted for, a significant difference remains between counties that used electronic voting and counties that used optical scanning or paper ballots," [Samuel Wang, an assistant professor at Princeton] said.
Wang's own analysis, using different methods, estimated that e-voting machines inexplicitly favored Bush by 270,000 votes, he said.
I will say congratulations to the Kerry supporters for waging a great
campaign. I believe that if Kerry had acted more like he did during his
concession speech, while he was out campaigning, things might be very
different now. His speech was very gracious, honest, and personal.
[Sorry, no, I did not mean that as a blanket statement - my apologies. The level of discourse was spiraling down to a juvenile level, to little more than school-yard heckling, and I was suddenly struck by the realization that they were also my fellow voters, just as responsible for our joint future as I am. - Wm.]
[So noted. But it's providing a fascinating insight into the mind of the electorate, and besides, they're having so much fun... :-) - Wm.]
As for MJD's sign, please call the local Knights of Columbus chapter and
they will be able to provide you a few. They may be a little soiled but
they are ok. Ask for Jeff.
MJD, you are to be commended for standing up to DTM. Where would we be
without Barney Frank?? Let's not make Norfolk another Johanesburg!!!
In addition, exactly what did I say that made you uncomfortable?
Because I implied Barny Frank is a Homosexual? Or is it because I
suggested he may be physically attracted to John Kerry? One
statement is a fact and the other could certainly be true. My gay
boss has told me that John Kerry is a very attractive man. He
certainly has great hair.
Here's some history on our beloved Mr. Frank:
Barney Frank and the Male Prostitute - 1989I know my comments about Jesse and Al could not have offended because they are also based on fact and history. (By the way nothing I said about these 2 racketeers involved race.)In a third blockbuster scandal, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment.
In 2000, in heavily Democratic St. Louis, at 6:30 p.m., a judge, responding to a Democratic complaint filed in the name of a man the judge did not actually hear from (the man was dead), ordered polls to remain open until 10 p.m., three hours longer than the law allows, and ordered one voting place downtown to be open until midnight.Let's not forget Tawana Brawley:Before 7 p.m., all over the city, persons were receiving automated, prerecorded phone messages from Jesse Jackson saying, ``Tonight the polls in St. Louis are staying open late until 10 p.m. in your neighborhood and until midnight downtown.'' Between 7 and 7:30 p.m., Al Gore was calling radio stations to announce the later voting hours. Apparently the entire episode was orchestrated by the Democrats well in advance.
George Will, 10/24/04
In 1987, a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley went missing and was found four days later covered in dog feces and with racial slurs written on her body. She claimed that at least two and possibly six white men, one of them carrying a badge, had repeatedly raped her in the woods in upstate New York. Sharpton took up Brawley's cause and defended her refusal to cooperate with prosecutors, saying that asking her to meet with New York's attorney general (who had been asked by Gov. Mario Cuomo to supervise the investigation) would be like "asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler." According to the Associated Press, Sharpton and Brawley's lawyers asserted "on 33 separate occasions" that a local prosecutor named Steven Pagones "had kidnapped, abused and raped" Brawley. There was no evidence, and Pagones was soon cleared. Sharpton then accused a local police cult with ties to the Irish Republican Army of perpetrating the alleged assault. The case fizzled when a security guard for Brawley's lawyers testified that the lawyers and Sharpton knew Brawley was lying. A grand jury investigation concluded in late 1988 that Brawley "was not the victim of forcible sexual assault" and that the whole thing was a hoax. The report specifically exonerated Pagones, and in 1998 Pagones won a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton, Brawley, and Brawley's lawyers. Sharpton was ordered to pay Pagones $65,000. Johnnie Cochran and other Sharpton benefactors subsidized the payment.Lastly, I hope my above comment to, "Lighten up" did not offend any fat people; I mean overweight people, no...the obese or is it calorically challenged?
Anyway... Thanks Wm. this has been a great way for a bunch of really
bright people (on both sides) to exchange thoughts, ideas and opinions
about the election, thanks to all, I learned alot. Maybe we can do it
again in four!
DAF: Hmm... Progressivia... Looks freakin' cold, except for the part
which is too crowded and filled with weirdos (California). Although I
do like their Governor, particularly the smoking tent he has erected
just outside his office. When you get this Progressivia thing going
perhaps you could set aside Norfolk as a "re-education camp" for us
Red Staters, where we'd be subjected to Air America broadcasts 24
hours per day and allowed only to read the Boston Globe and New York
Times. Hey, you could hire Angus as the lovable and incompetent camp
commander, a la Colonel Klink.
TEM: Counting on the youth vote to pull you through: suckers. They
never vote (well, the College Republicans vote). A certain familial
relationship of my own, who is now threatening to move to foreign
lands to escape the coming Bushitler holocaust, has never even
bothered to vote once in this 29 years. Of course, considering who
he'd have voted for, that's not a bad thing.
MJD: perhaps your sign stealer was a) a distraught Kerry/Edwards
supporter who wanted a memorial of the campaign, or b) the same person
who sliced all the Richard Ross signs on Main Street in half on
Saturday night. Don't blame the local chapter of the Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy, we're religious about sign laws. (See, we are religious
fanatics...)
In all seriousness, there are a lot of us Republicans who believe that
now with the electoral pressure off Bush will tack back to the center
and return to the moderate/tolerant we saw on social issues back in
2000 and before. His support for state civil union laws
[NY Times article]
this past week is one hint that that may occur. And as to the Supreme
Court, he won't necessarily have four seats to fill, and the first
seat that looks like it will come up (Rehnquist) is filled with a
conservative anyway.
Look at it this way. Winning elections is like selling a product.
Would you try to sell a product in 2008 which automatically is not
appealing to 45-50% of the electorate? A good deal of America - Blue
AND Red - would recoil in horror from a Republican party which turns
from rhetoric on abortion, to action on abortion. It's not even on
the table, except in the fervent dreams of some congressmen from
southern states. That may work for them, but it doesn't work for a
party with national aspirations.
And I want to give a sincere note of thanks to Senator Kerry for his
very gracious speech yesterday. He showed a good deal of class and we
should be proud of the showing he made.
So, friends, have fun with the hysterical prophecies of rounding up
folks on enemies lists and burning books; my prediction is life will
go on much as it has these past many years. Watch the cabinet
jockeying the next couple of months: my secret hope is that there are
a couple of major changes which could not have been done on the heat
of election, but may now be done in the cool of a post-election
winter.
Of course, this requires that many of our townsfolk will have join their
brethren in beautiful Mississippi and South Carolina.
They just couldn't restrain themselves. Today's Washington Times reports
that Democrats, along with a myriad of left-wing groups, have already filed
nine lawsuits in the state of Florida charging that the state "refused to
count provisional ballots, improperly disqualified incomplete voter
registrations, established overly restrictive rules to disproportionately
hurt minority voters and actively sought to disenfranchise blacks." But a
spokesman for the Florida Secretary of State nailed it when he said that
the lawsuits were politically motivated and were intended to cast doubt on
the elections by challenging "every single law we are following."
Let me give you one example: One of the lawsuits, if successful, would
permit non-citizens to vote! The Secretary of State ordered voter
registration forms to be disqualified if the applicants failed to check a
box on the form confirming they were in fact U.S. citizens. Since voting,
by law, is a right reserved to U.S. citizens, I would say that the
Secretary of State did the right thing. But the Democrats and their
liberal allies evidently disagree.
Why would the Democrats want illegal aliens to vote? What you're
seeing is an attempt, through lawsuits and through intimidation, by
Democrats to convert their allies' registration fraud into voter fraud on
Election Day. There is no other reasonable explanation for a lawsuit that
seeks to strike down the requirement that voters affirm they are citizens.
Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing
he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr.
President, I agree with you."
"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he
said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass
destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George
Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive
our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he
was given."
"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election there
will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too
serious, and the stakes are too high.
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that
will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads,
more than an election hangs in the balance.
Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the
other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting
obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will
echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of
frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message
to the world and ourselves will be twofold.
[more... Article continued here]
A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam
Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent
believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US
invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think
international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent
believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight
terrorism." [...]
Kull said it is common for voters to tailor their views on particular
issues to those of the candidate they favor overall, but the extent to
which Bush supporters are filtering out news from Iraq that might
reflect poorly on the president is unprecedented.
According to the survey, the difference doesn't reflect lack of access
to information about Iraq.
The poll found that perceptions did not vary significantly by level of
education among those who plan to vote for Bush.
And many of the Bush voters surveyed knew that the Duelfer report said
Hussein had no WMDs, but continue to believe that he did regardless.
The Kerry/Edwards ticket is reaching new levels of political demagoguery.
Both men were campaigning non-stop over the weekend telling the elderly that
President Bush plans a January surprise of privatizing Social Security and
that the result would be a 45% cut in benefits.
Whatever one thinks of Social Security reform, no elected official of either
party in Washington, D.C. would ever commit political suicide by cutting the
benefits of current Social Security recipients or those nearing retirement
by even 5%, let alone 45%! Kerry and Edwards both know that by promoting
this deception they are frightening elderly voters.
But this is the same team that also spent the weekend telling young voters
and their worried parents that President Bush also has a secret plan to
reinstate a draft, even though all 16 co-sponsors of the draft bills in
Congress are Democrats! Now we are hearing reports that recorded phone
messages are going out blaming the president for the lack of flu vaccines,
as if he is personally responsible for those who die from the flu this
winter!
Political campaigns are not for the squeamish and it isn't unusual for the
truth to take a beating. But the sheer volume and extent of lying currently
underway by the Kerry/Edwards ticket is in a league all by itself. Even the
pro-Kerry Washington Post was forced to conclude today that TV ads Kerry is
running on the Social Security issue are "misleading"
and "The Kerry ad, however, is attacking a plan that doesn't yet exist."
The worst part is that this kind of demagoguery works. I am hearing from
elderly voters scared out of their minds about "Bush's plan" to cut their
benefits.
This is the type of campaigning Kerry and Edwards are doing people. Where
is the outrage against this?
Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event
in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to
surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines,
after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site
MediaChannel.org,
and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush
rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others
picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican Convention on
the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask
about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't
doing that at their convention."
As for whether we really do have a Milli Vanilli president, the answer at
this point has to be, God only knows.
President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a
careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to
suppress all dissent.
President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very
little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group
within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that
was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave
them their chance.
There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The
opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he
was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq.
And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives
against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious
circle I am talking about.
The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush
administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused
of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it.
First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for
help. [...]
First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on
the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through,
again over his objections. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.
I'm hoping for the best, and rooting that traditional Republican values
might yet emerge - small government, balanced budgets, market economies,
non-interventionism, federalism, respect for the Constitution.
Of course, given the past four years, I'm not holding my breath.
And I never said I wouldn't want every vote counted. All votes by
folks who actually are who they say and live where they say should be
counted. Forgive my cynicism, I have relatives with some degree of
experience in Boston politics.
And let's not get hysterical: "One can only imagine what the people of
Iraq are thinking about the example we are setting for their fledgling
democracy", of what are you speaking? Everything seems reasonable so
far.
I note I called us one of the "ten best Bush states in the state" --
interesting Freudian slip. Perhaps we should secede from
Massachusetts: we'd get our own three electorals, I think we'd put
them to better use than a lot of other states...
All of that said, it doesn't look good for Kerry. The country looks a
lot like it did it 1860. Sad to see so many of my neighbors on the wrong
side of history. Your grandchildren will be ashamed. In local news, I'm
disappointed to see that my prediction for Jack's race was wrong.
Congratulations to the Ross campaign and his supporters here in Norfolk.
Who cares if Kerry, and his minions in fantasy land, refuse to
concede. Bush's lead in Ohio is at 140,000+ votes, and there are
those 175,000 provisional votes. My own limited experience with
elections (monitored three or four, been active in them at various
levels since 1990) indicates that provisional ballots are usually
provisional for good reason, and a great majority of those votes will
not be valid. Which will lead to a great deal of whining, no doubt.
But my sympathy is limited: people should pay attention to their voter
registration and get with the program.
Kerry would also have to win 155,000+ of those 175,000 votes to
reclaim Ohio. Now, if all those provisions were Demmies that could
happen. But you have to ask yourself why Democratic voters have such
a hard time at such a relatively simple task. Would you really want
these people running the country? (heh heh)
Some thoughts and observations:
Congratulations to the local winners, and condolences to Selectman
McFeeley, who ran a very decent and above-board race - but in a
district which votes more like Utah than Vermont.
The great turnout was good to see, and Clerk Chiofolo ran a tight
ship, she and her crew deserve a hand for their unflappability.
Norfolk again came through big-time for Senator Brown, giving him his
third biggest margin. Scott actually out-polled Kelly Timilty, the
Governor's councillor who was unopposed, and Barney Frank, who had a
unsuccsessful opponent.
Hopefully Bush's four million vote (at last count) majority will end
all this "selected, not elected", crap. So, let's start the
post-election internacine Democratic party bickering: would Howard
Dean (a real anti-war candidate) done better than Kerry? Would John
Edwards (a charismatic candidate with lots of curb appeal - but maybe
a bit of shallowness) have done better? Let the fun begin.
Norfolk is being counted in the Globe as one of the ten best Bush
states in the state. Imagine what we could've done if we tried (the
Bush campaign rather ignored Massachusetts, to the point we didn't
have any signs for our election day standouts)
Ready to do it all again in two years?
Speaking of abortion, I think that even if the legislative agenda is all
gummed up, Kerry will almost certainly get the opportunity to appoint
between one and four Supreme Court justices in his first term. This is
huge and means that your fear that his administration will be as
insignificant as you view Carter's to be is misplaced. Carter never had
the opportunity to appoint to the court.
I do agree that many of us are supporting Kerry over Bush, but would
certainly support someone else over Kerry if we'd had the chance. The
same goes for many Bush supporters who would rather see McCain or Pat
Buchanan. That does not, however, mean we are supporting our candidate
just because he isn't the other guy. I think the differences
between the two major-party candidates are more clear in this election
than in any other since 1968. On Foreign Policy: Bush prefers to go it
alone, but will work with the rest of the world when it is necessary.
Kerry prefers to work with the rest of the world, but will go it alone
when it is necessary. That's big. Environment: In the balance between
the desire of individuals and companies to increase profits and the
rights of citizens to have clean air and water, Bush focuses on profits
first and the environment second. Kerry's position is the reverse.
Oh no, I did it again! (Just kidding, really).
As for predictions? I have no idea. I know Congressman Frank will be
reelected (although I don't think he would win a special for Kerry's
seat: I would put my money on Stephen Lynch in a field where the
several liberal to moderate candidates splinter the vote and Lynch's
union crediability and old-school conservative democrat outlook pulls
enough to win a plurality -- just like he won the House seat).
I suspect all of the other races will be tight. Or not. Hard to tell
and elections have a way of sometimes being completely unreadable
until after the fact.
I do think you Kerry voters will be disappointed should the Senator
pull this out. Fact of the matter is I don't think he can do anything
in Iraq except commit more troops, and perhaps hope to buy off the
French with promises of oil contracts (the real reason the French were
so opposed to US involvement -- as a digression, I believe the Germans
had true ideological basis for their absolute abhorrance of the
American position on Iraq; I can give the French no such credit
looking at the balance of thier foreign policy). Kerry can't get us
out of Iraq any sooner than Bush, becuase he knows that a US pullout,
followed by the toppling of the fledgling democracy and installation
of an Islamo-fascist theocracy, equals no reelection.
Plus, by most counts you'll have an increasingly Republican House and
Senate which will give a President Kerry absolutely zippo in terms of
a comprehensive energy bill, or health care reform, etc etc. Name for
me the defining legislative accomplishment of the Clinton years.
Anything? Not that I can think of, but I could be wrong. And, you
know, as a Republican with libertarian tendencies, a little gridlock
now and again suits me just fine.
Another reason I worry about the efficacy of a Kerry presidency (and,
should he get elected, he'll be my President too so I'll be rooting
for him) is that from what I've observed the driving force behind the
Kerry campaign is that fact that he's not Bush. That's not a recipe
for an effective term in office, ask Carter. I fear we will remain a
deeply divided country completely unwilling or unable to recognize
that the other side may have some merit to their argument.
So, go out and vote. And when the dust settles maybe you should,
regardless of party and preference, thank the loser for participating
and help the winner do the best job possible representing us. (Well,
at least until the next campaign season starts up...)
It would have prudent for the government to be taking in a healthy surplus
for a decade or two. A surplus was intentionally built into the federal
budget a couple of times in the past, trying to head off a Social Security
funding crisis when the baby boomers all retire. Spending, however,
increased to consume the additional revenues. A small surplus over the years
would be much preferable to crisis tax increases and benefit cuts three
decades out.
Side-by-side comparisons with 1999 show me making substantially less than
then; my stagnant wages and retirement funds have in no way been offset by the
small check that arrived in the mail.
Oddly enough, I see little difference between Kerry and Bush regarding their
prosecution of "Islamo-fascists." Aside from the fact that Iraq under Hussein
had no international terrorists whatsoever, both candidates are now committed
to continuing the war. It would have been nice had Afghanistan received more
attention; conquering then abandoning it in favor of a more exciting undertaking
it does not comfort and reassure the population of either country.
I agree that the voters "want only the best for their country." Sadly, judging
by their "corporate interests uber alles" policies, I now doubt that the real
power behind the President, Karl Rove and the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz/
Feith gang are similarly large-minded. They're team players, they want their
team to win. Unfortunately, their team excludes most of us voters. I
wish I could vote my preferences like I used to, but I find myself having to
vote my self-preservation instead.
As to "having to go to work, a situation endemic to the average Bush
supporter" - funny you should mention that. Some of us voters are still
facing a potential decision to outsource our jobs to India. A new world order
indeed.
[Fair enough; good point. I myself was wondering whether I was opening
a door that I, too, would rather see remain closed. Thanks for the
deciding vote.
Ok, back it all goes; all election commentary is staying on the
Election 2004 page. - Wm.]
[The above was copied from the main page - Wm.]
[The above was copied from the main page - Wm.]
How about some predictions? Here are my predictions on the winners of
contested seats:
What do you think, folks? Hey, Wm, how about front-page posting these as
the campaign winds down?
[Umm... let me think about that a bit. I can caution about the somewhat
stricter "rules of conduct" on the main page, but any suggestions on how
to handle back-references to posts only on this page? (like your praise of
RG's post, which was very nicely done, and I myself liked) - Wm.]
The "five trillion dollar surplus". The United States has never had a
five trillion dollar surplus. It, thanks to the inflated dot.com
bubble and the associated capital gains tax windfall, had a 200-300
billion dollar surplus for a couple of years in the late nineties. If
you were to assume that economic conditions would never change
(because everything always stays exactly the same, right?), that would
add up to a five trillion dollar surplus over 25 years. But that's not
a real, or GAAP surplus, because it doesn't count the horrific mess
social security will become quite shortly.
Here's the thing: some people believe, like me, for instance, that if
the government is taking in 200-300 billion (with a b) more per year
than it spends, it's taking too much money from me and, presumably,
you. Both candidates in 2000 squawked endlessly about tax cuts. And
I don't know about you, but I got a couple of nice little checks in
the mail, and I've done a side-by-side comparison of my paychecks from
1999, and I'm making more money and paying less in taxes. So, more
money for the kids clothes and MBTA passes. Do rich people get a lot
of tax relief? Sure -- but they make more money than I do.
Is the current tax system fair? Probably not, but that's been the
case since time immemorial. Is it fair the deals some CEOs get, like
Warren Buffet, whose sole compensation is in the form of stock
dividends and is thus the beneficiary of disproportional tax relief?
No. But can we figure out a system to fairly tax everybody while
retaining the incentives necessary to motivate people to want to
become rich? Hope so, but we haven't yet.
Do I agree with the orgy of federal spending? No. Is this a symptom
of two branches of the government under the same management, if you
will, and trying to outbid each other? Perhaps. Should Senator Kerry
win the one brightspot would be the paralysis on the Potomac which
would freeze the growth of the federal budget for a while.
But... is that worth the change in the prosecution of Islamo-fascists?
Don't know. Don't think so. We'll see.
Everybody: get out and vote tomorrow. And, red or blue, Republican or
Democrat, you're all Americans. And both sides sincerely want only
the best for their country. So stop disparaging either sides' motives
and simply vote your preference.
It seems that the "conservative" (pro-Bush) arguments one reads are based on
flag-waving, Bible-thumping emotionally charged invective (wa-hoo!), while the
"liberal" (anti-Bush) arguments are based on technical analysis, copious
documentation, and point-by-point recitation of facts (bo-ring).
Well, here's a flag-waving, Bible-thumping emotionally charged argument
against Bush: the man is incompetent, lacks good judgement, and encourages
evil to thrive both at home and abroad! He may have been born again, but he
hasn't yet changed his stripes. This spoiled, irresponsible playboy has had
long enough to play President -- time for him to move along. We shall not
abide evil, we will cast it from our midst, and we shall return our nation
to the path of righteousness!
For those more into point-by-point recitations, here's a
list of issues that concern me about this administration:
Unfortunately, few of the above points were raised during the election
campaign. The issues seemed to be security, steadfastness, outsourcing,
health care, tax cuts for the rich. So I suppose one can argue that I
won't be voting on the issues - I guess I'm voting my principles, my values.
I'm voting for the future that I would like my children to inherit.
Here Come The Lawyers
So we get poll results the other day (10/22 11:23 PM) that are in essence
questioning the intelligence of Republicans and their support for Bush, but
yet the Democrats want to change the laws that require people to either be
competent enough to fill out a form or be a legal U.S. citizen. Go
figure...
[So if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, only those non-citizens who check the
box can vote? - Wm.]
Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political
candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a
person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of
a candidate who will say anything to get elected."
Though the repartee is two days old, it's only now starting to hit the press,
and many articles apparently mangled the come-back following the "agreement."
Standing by our values in the face of adversity is a mark of strength.
Firing Bush will tell the world that we will use our military prudently,
not to further the private goals of fringe groups. That we recognize
when we've rushed into a grave mistake, and are capable of changing course.
That we will not let special interests hijack the government for their
own agenda. That the public good is not up for auction to the highest
bidder. That rights granted by the Constitution are still relevant.
The author is quite right, America is at a crossroads. Not of being
soft, that's silly -- but of losing our soul.
``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty or safety.'' -- Benjamin Franklin
Judging by his essay, Mr. Manweller is a professor by training,
but a faithful Party member by calling.
Article in the Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington newspaper) on Wed.
Oct. 6, 2004, [Oct. 26? - Wm.] written by Matthew Manweller who is a Central Washington
University political science professor.
"Election determines fate of nation."
- PFD
``Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off
as if nothing happened.'' Winston Churchill
- TEM
Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the
president's foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken
about factual issues in world affairs[.]
So it's not lack of information, and it's not an inability to comprehend
- it's a willing suspension of disbelief. Though, given the alternative in
this case, a preference for fantasy over reality is understandable...
Campaigning On Fear
- PFD
If we have to have a President who is unqualified by intellect and
temperament to pay attention to economics, domestic policy, trade, or
health care (that's why God created wealthy industrialists, to help out
with suggestions), at least he's good at getting the country into
sticky messes that make the situation much worse than before. Very, very
good at that. Oh well, it's good to have a talent, I suppose...
Of course the collapse and dissolution into chaos of a strictly ordered
society opened up the floodgates of terrorism! For both
recruiting and opportunity - every time someone is shot or bombed
in Iraq, two brothers and an uncle take up weapons to try and make
us leave the country. Yankee, go home, all over again.
Worse yet, the half-hearted and haphazard approach taken by the
administration to pursuing Al Qaeda has just made it easy for them to
learn to operate on the run, decentralized, and franchised.
(See this
[AP news] article, for example.)
Like a child in a toy store, Bush et. al. went rushing in open-mouth
wonder from one adventure into another, getting distracted from the
core objectives that were necessary to keep up the pressure.
Al Qaeda as we knew it does not exist any more; there are dozens of Al
Qaedas by a dozen new names.
Just as applying antibiotics for too short a time make the bacteria
resistant, the anti-western fervor has been left to seep into the
countryside, into the
populations of dozens of countries, to watch us with dozens of faces,
unnoticed and unremarked, waiting for the next opportunity.
It truly is a new world order out there.
How to change it? What would it take to right the perceived wrongs
perpetrated on tens of millions in the third world? To make them
feel safe from a foreign value system being foisted on them in order to
make them into better consumers? To return their wealth, their lives, and
their fate into their own hands? That's a good one.
Foremost, someone willing to even entertain that very question.
Not very likely, given that the payoff is not in the empowerment, but the
exploitation (recall that Iraq's national assests were immediately slated for
privatization).
So more realistically, get used to ongoing wars, and learn to enjoy them!
Buy stock in the military-industrial sector!
Like they used to chant at the SCA meetings in college (Society for
Creative Anachronism, where they dress up in medieval costumes and
suits of armor and hack at each other with wooden swords),
"Blood makes the grass grow! Kill! Kill! Kill!"
[Update 10/17 3:29pm: Fixed the broken link that corrupted the post - Wm.]
Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate
with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet,
unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television
camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object
between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces
moderator Jim Lehrer.
(Sorry, one has to subscribe to Salon to get most of the article at the URL,
but it is verbatim
[here])
DAF mentioned polling a couple of days ago, the context being Kerry
was up in such and such a poll. Well, as we all know from 2000,
nationwide polls are more or less meaningless: it's the state-by-state
electoral action that's important.
Check out this site,
www.electoral-vote.com,
which takes state polling
data and projects electoral counts. For a about a week after the
debate it had Bush at 290 electorals (270 needed to win the big
banana), but over the past two days Pennsylvania and somewhere else
flipped, and it now stands Bush 264 - Kerry 253. Michigan and New
Hampshire being too close to call (Michigan 17 electorals, NH 4).
The site is a real gold mine for political geeks like us folks, and,
it should make the members of our "Blue-Brigade" (for the Red State /
Blue State designation) happy to know it's run by a Kerry supporter.
(I think it important to note that saying it's run by a Kerry
supporter will make folks like DAF think it's fair and open-minded,
while if it were being run by a Bush supporter we'd all think it's
some part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy.)
Having spent a lot of time on Iraq and so forth I'm going to leave the
Presidential election alone: I think at this point the vast majority
of people are pretty locked in to where their going, and it just seems
to me that anyone who's undecided at this point isn't the type of
person to be reading the political discussion thread at Norfolknet.
I'd say you're all a little more savvy than that.
Enjoy the last three or so weeks of the silly season!
And, by the way: GO SOX!
[Gee, I thought spending time on Iraq was spending time on the
Presidential election! Am I going about it all wrong? :-) - Wm.]
Mr. Soros is very convinced that re-electing Bush would be
seriously wrong. He has some juicy quotes in the on-line transcript of
his
speech [here]:
September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential
to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President
Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic.
None of this is new information, of course; it was diligently reported on
by the media that still believe an educated electorate is the key to
democracy.
Nonetheless, an entertaining find.
Thank you, Mr. Cheney!
[Update 10/6 5:28pm: Irony explained - factcheck.com was redirected to
georgesoros.com only after the site was mentioned by Cheney. This caused it
to get flooded by a hundred hits per second, so the site administrator
tongue-in-cheek decided to send visitors to a more ``relevant'' page. - AR]
People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a
disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,"
said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA
officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for
is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession
of weak governments."
The CIA staff's perspective: a disaster.
Though on second thought, it's more like the Cheney / Rumsfeld adventure.
Bush is not knowledgeable enough to have personally evaluated the available
options or to have been able to reason his way through the consequences.
He's publicly admitted that his decision making relies heavily on gut
feelings - and his gut is apparently telling him to trust bad people.
Telling me to vote Republican or anything else will never sway me or
other Independents who study the facts and vote intelligently and
independently after doing a lot of reading and fact finding. My mind is
never made up and locked. For information, I voted for Scott at the last
election after reading his opponent's disparaging remarks quoted in the
Gazette. I called his opponent's home and asked if the quote was true. I
told his opponent's campaign manager that I could never vote for someone
who used that language against anyone. I was amazed that there was no
explanation and no apology from that campaign manager, so I took the
logical action and voted for Scott, who had done a good job pushing for
the King Philip High School renovation vote while the State funding was
still available.
I will vote for Jack McFeeley, rather than Richard Ross, because I've
known Jack since our kids were toddlers. I have no doubt that Richard is
a good man, but Jack has a demonstrated record of accomplishment. Jack
has given a lot of time and attention to Norfolk affairs, serving on the
Board of Selectmen, on the Advisory Board, as a Registrar of Voters, on
the Capital Outlay Committee, on the Norfolk Elementary School Building
Committee, on the Norfolk Cable (Television) Corporation (NCTV), on the
Norfolk Cable Advisory Committee, on the Norfolk County Advisory Board,
in the Norfolk County Selectman's Association, and in the Norfolk Lions
Club, the Norfolk Lions Youth Soccer League, the Democratic Town
Committee and as a Delegate to the Massachusetts Democratic Party State
Convention.
Jack will probably be the only State Representative in Massachusetts
with a PhD in Chemical Engineering. Jack is a retired Senior Engineering
Manager at Polaroid Corporation. In Engineering colleges we learn the
scientific method and how to think logically. Jack has applied that
lesson in town boards and committees for years, and the Town is much
better off for all of his efforts. Jack's mottos are: "A voice for the
people, not a spokesperson for the Governor; A full time legislator;
and: A committed, dedicated representative of all the towns in the
district."
By the way, I voted for Governor Romney, but I am appalled at his
obsequious remarks regarding Bush and company. Clearly Romney has higher
positions in mind, not just the Governor's job, but fawning
attentiveness to Bush and Bush's handlers is not, in my opinion, a
respectable way for our Governor to attain more national recognition.
No, voting is one subject in which I will not accept advice or
direction.
TC, you think it is troubling for your five-year old to be "footing the
costs of his tax cuts"? I think it is troubling that my 4 1/2 and 2 1/2
year old children will be paying for tax and spend liberals for the rest of
their life. If Kerry gets in, the first thing it means to me is a tax
increase. Well, you know what, I pay enough in taxes. Minimize the dangers
long-term? You think Kerry is going to minimize the dangers long-term?
Good luck with that one. I dread the day someone like Kerry gets into
office and "strengthens" America. I will be building my shelter soon after
that. He has a master plan to get the troops out of Iraq and "if it works"
(his own words during the debate) the troops can start coming home in 6
months. Well, guess what, he does not control that plan. What
uni-lateral/bi-lateral/multi-lateral talks is he going to put together to
minimize the danger? I do not want to wait for that. In this case, and
until proven otherwise, I do believe in shooting first and asking questions
later. As much as you and AR and Ted Kennedy want to forget 9/11 happened,
it did. I personally do not want to see it again and I do not think the UN
or any other nation is going to make sure that does not happen again, so I
put my faith in President Bush to make sure it does not. Could it happen on
his watch again, surely, but I think the chances are less than if Kerry gets
in the White House. By the way, I will give you the fact that Fox News and
others chose Kerry as the winner of the debate, but what did the same polls
say about those voters? The majority were still voting for Bush. Why?
Because they understand what candidate is going to be the better President
because of their beliefs and values, not because of how well they speak.
How is that going to work out for your hero, John F. Kerry?
TEM, I can tell you right here and now that I am going to vote
conservative/Republican four years from now. I have a core set of beliefs
that will never be understood by the liberal side of the aisle so I pretty
much know until the parties change, I am voting Republican. Do I agree with
everything that President Bush or the Republican party does? No. I agree
with John Kerry that tax breaks should not be given to anyone that is
sending jobs off-shore and giving tax credits for companies that keep jobs
here. Does that mean I am going to vote for him? No. Do I think there is
going to be a candidate in four years that has 100% of the qualities and
convictions that I want? No. But I can pretty much tell you right now
there is not one liberal out there that will get my vote. I am a
conservative Republican and I am proud of it. Do I think telling people to
vote Republican in four years (or for President Bush, Scott Brown and
Richard Ross this election) is going to sway someone such as yourself, TC,
AR, AL, RH, etc? Do I need to even answer that one?
Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges[.]Irrefutable evidence, my foot. You've made fools of us, President Bush. But fool me once, shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me.[N]ational security adviser Condoleezza Rice in September 2002 ... said the [aluminum] tubes, a shipment of which were intercepted in Jordan in June 2001, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
[B]efore she made the remarks, "she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all."
[The administration] minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.
"The result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the paper said.
[NY Times via Reuters]
[the original NY Times in-depth investigative article]
``Sal DiMasi is one charming rascal. So charming that he seems to be possessed of the talent that made The Shadow such a wily adversary: The ability to cloud men's minds. How else to explain the way DiMasi has gulled the State House reformers into believing that he will, at 59, morph into a speaker committed to an open, inclusive legislative process?''Similar words could be said of President Bush:
George W. Bush is one charming rascal. So charming that he seems to be possessed of the talent that made The Shadow such a wily adversary: The ability to cloud men's (and women's ) minds. How else to explain the way Bush has gulled some US voters into believing that
- The Iraq war is directly related to the El Qaeda attack on the World Trade Towers, September 11, 2001."
The pre-emptive attack upon the sovereign country of Iraq by the United States was authorized by the United Nations.
"The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" exist and simply haven't been found yet.
"Stay the course" is a good and proper response of the US Commander in Chief to the citizens of the United States who see the Iraq situation becoming a quagmire that is demoralizing the United States and the world.
Anyone who questions Bush's Iraq foreign policy is unpatriotic and is possibly bordering on traitorous behavior.
The United States is respected and admired by countries around the world.
For the sake of my children and children everywhere, I am praying that we do
have another four more years of Bush.
P.S. Don't forget to cast your vote for Scott Brown and Richard Ross next
month too...
We have lost 1051 people in this unnecessary war-of-choice as of
September 25, 2004.
So why does Bush sound stupid? One doctor thinks he shows signs of "presenile dementia," or an early onset of Alzheimer's disease.- GSThis summer, Joseph Price, a self-described "country doctor" in Carsonville, Mich., was reading a long article in The Atlantic about Bush's speaking style. Author James Fallows alluded to Bush's malapropisms and to speculation that Bush had a learning disorder or dyslexia. But those conditions generally manifest themselves in childhood. Furthermore, Fallows wrote, "through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate."
Dr. Price's children happened to have given him a daily tear-off calendar of "Bushisms" for Christmas. "They are horrible, but they are also diagnostic," Price says. When he read that Bush had spoken clearly and performed well while debating Texas politician Ann Richards in 1994, Price thought: "My God, the only way you can explain that is by being Alzheimer's."
In a letter to be published in The Atlantic's October issue, Price calls presenile dementia "a fairly typical Alzheimer's situation that develops significantly earlier in life. . . . President Bush's `mangled' words are a demonstration of what physicians call `confabulation' and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia." He adds that Bush should be "started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease."
Yes, I asked for a second opinion. University of Massachusetts neurology professor Dr. Daniel Pollen thinks it is bootless to speculate about Bush's condition without a formal neuropsychological assessment. "I think it's unfair to say somebody has or does not have a dementia as an analysis based on his public utterances," says Pollen, who is not a Bush supporter. Noting that Bush spoke well in his debates with both Richards and Al Gore, Pollen adds that Bush's "peak performances are not in the range I would consider for anybody to have Alzheimer's disease in the near future."
[No, no - Bush is ignorant; Kerry is indecisive! Let's keep our name-calling straight, otherwise I'm going to get completely confused! :-) - Wm.]
A week later, in the September 5, 2000 Sunday Globe, there is a better
assessment of Bush's leadership by a D-Day Veteran; letters, D-10: "None
of the risks George W. Bush took were life-threatening, unless we
consider driving under the influence life-threatening, and even then he
was also threatening the lives of others".
On page D-9, "Assessing an 'arrogant' presidency" is a review of a book
by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and another
by Senator Robert Byrd.
Both books sound like they are good reading. An interesting quote by
Byrd from Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" is this, where Bush says: " I'm
the commander - see, I don't need to explain why I say things. That's
the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to
explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe
anybody an explanation."
Meanwhile, US fatalities in Iraq are up to 979 as of Sept 3, 2004, with
7 more this weekend, and injuries in the thousands, all for naught.
We must vote the arrogant, ignorant cowboy Bush out of office!
[I would have thought that to merit a badge of "conservative" or "liberal" one would need independent opinions... Bill Cosby is cool, it would be interesting to know whom he backs this election :-) - Wm.]
PC - I will always have respect for the office if not the person who holds it. George W. Bush is MY president but not because I chose him, and I will not choose him again; let's hope the rest of the country feels as I do. Funny, the Republicans refer to the Democrats as divisive - what's this MY and YOUR stuff; aren't we all Americans whether or not we agree with the direction proposed by the current administration? It seems to me that you are showing your "contept and disdain" pretty clearly, please have a safe and relaxing Labor Day weekend.
[Update 9/3 10:16pm: Restored inadvertently dropped first line - Wm.]
[It's funny, I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't see Clarence Thomas exhibit any signs of independent judicial judgement - on the contrary, he diligently follows the direction set by his patrons. So the signs are certainly there... - Wm.]
The Albuquerque Bush-Cheney Victory office in charge of doling out the tickets to Saturday's event was requiring the endorsement forms from people it could not verify as supporters.And here I naively thought the ``four more years'' chant was something they actually believed in... it was just the price of admission!An endorsement form provided to the Journal by Random says: "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."
TEM, you and the rest of the world know exactly what GWB was saying, but
because he is not a great orator like the illustrious leader that preceded
him, let's run with this until the end of time. At least he cares enough
about our security to do something about it. What side of this issue is
Kerry on again? I guess it depends on what your definition of is, is?
AR, Kerry opened himself up to criticism of his medals and his service as soon
as he started making that the focal point of his campaign.
I hear you on the Duke. He's a mensch. But not having him in the biopic
and locking him in a steamer trunk during the convention makes sense.
This is the same reason you will not see any mention of W's close
relationship with Saudi royals or a his
connection
with Texas oil company Harken Energy. He was involved with Harken
much longer than Kerry was Lt. Gov..
I wasn't being disingenuous -- I think you have a good sense of humor
and are often willing to listen to opposing views and even acknowledge
weaknesses in your arguments. That's honest, that's mindful, and that's
something I wish we saw more of on all sides. As a present, here's a
brain-teaser for you that I've been puzzling over for weeks. The Bush
campaign talking points, as repeated by his proxies and members of the
co-called liberal media (Hannity, Limbaugh, Severin, Hume, et al.), say
the following:
- Kerry is a flip-flopper; he's been on both sides of every issue that has come up in US Senate over the past 20 years. Flippity-flop, flip, flip, flop.
- Kerry is a left-winger; he's the most liberal liberal the liberal Democrats have ever put forward as their liberal nominee for liberal President. Golly, even the non-partisan (liberal) National Journal ranked Kerry The Most Liberal Senator in the Senate Since the Word Liberal Was Invented by Senator Caleb Strong. "For the rest of your life you must run, Your day in the sun is done, He's a LIBERAL... Run, liberal, run."
So, any thoughts on the non-existant Kerry convention bounce? Gallup
puts the average convention bounce at 6 points, with the largest being
Clinton in '92 - 16 points. Depending on your poll (go to
www.kausfiles.com
for a non-partisan roundup of polls and their impact
[scroll down to the Tuesday postings] -- even though you may not think
so from his posts, Kaus is supporting Kerry) Kerry got little to no
bounce out of the convention.
I think you've got 90% of the "likely" voters tied up by now, they all
know where they're going, and there's a tiny bit "undecided", and the
complete unknown factor of all those voters who rarely vote (college
kids, younger people) but may get motivated to come out. That doesn't
appear to be a recipe for a reasoned discussion of the issues come this
fall.
Something a (good Democrat) friend of mine mentioned which I didn't
even notice (because, frankly, I fell asleep Thursday night and missed
the Kerry speech, except for the goofy "Reporting for Duty!" salute):
Kerry's bio-pic sort of skipped anything between running for congress
and losing in '72 or '74, an becoming US Senator in '84. (Correct me if
I'm wrong, I am getting this second hand.) Obviously the Demmie brain
trust didn't want to remind people that JFKerry was Mike Dukakis' Lt.
Governor. Now, say what you will about Mike Dukakis (and I'm going to
get myself in trouble with my Republican buddies for this), but he's a
dedicated public servant who believes government is a noble calling and
is not just in the game for self-aggrandizement or personal gain. I
would think those are qualities our senior senator would want to
highlight, and I would have been impressed with an acknowledgement of
that.
I had the Duke as a professor his first year back from (exile) Florida.
Being a callow youth (as opposed to the callow adult I've become?) I was
surprised by his ease with a group and his very impressive retail
political skills. He was the kind of professor who really liked
give-and-take with his students, and he respected your opinions -- so
long as they were informed and productive. (Of course, his opinions
were all wrong, but then, he's a commie Democrat: chuckle chuckle.)
So, DAF, I certainly hope you weren't being sarcastic and I am growing
on you. It's all a part of the sinister right-wing conspiracy. First
we get you liberals to like us on a personal basis, then you invite us
over for a barbeque -- perhaps tofu and chablis -- and eventually we
brainwash you into supporting tax cuts and foreign campaigns of
occupation. Bwa ha ha.
Okay, here goes: the people of Iraq will be better off in five years than
they were in 2002. There is no such thing as a good war. The war was
fought for a number of reasons; some good, others not so. Thousands have
died, both military and civilian, and each of these deaths is a human
tragedy.
But if the good people of Iraq can seize this opportunity to forge a new
government based on constitutional principles and protections of basic
rights then this will have been worth it. And two really good things will
come out of this: 1) a functioning democracy is no threat to its neighbors
militarily, and 2) a functioning democracy is a very big threat to it
neighbors in terms of the lessons it will imparts to the millions laboring
under medieval governments.
As for Farenheit 9-11, I'll rent it. Probably when it gets to rent-one,
get-one-free racks at Massive video. If I'm paying $9 it won't be for
something I could see or hear for free during the DNC.
Our "surgical strikes" had a lot of collateral damage. Thousands of
people will suffer for Bush's war for generations. A terrible mistake.
Indeed.
- DAF
Reagan was the first president I got to really "know". I remember some of
the Carter years; I remember my Dad getting laid off, and the Soviets
invading Afganistan, and the Olympics being, for all intents and purposes,
canceled.
And then he came on the scene. And he articulated a vision of what America
was, of our ideals, and who were were as a people, that contrasted so
sharply with that purveyor of doom and gloom who had been in the White
House.
Because of Reagan, Republicanism came to mean to me a belief in the
individual over the collective, a belief that tomorrow will be better than
today, and a belief that the ideals of this nation -- and the balance of
personal rights and our responsibilities -- needed to be fought for.
Lou Cannon, who covered Reagan for years, both in California and in
Washington, wrote an excellent obituary for the Wastington Post,
online here
(requires registration, which is free).
Go read it. And go read National Review's
The Corner, which has an
excellent round-up of people's reactions to Reagan's passing.
Information on the President's Funeral Arangements will be found at the
Military District of Washington website,
mdw.army.mil.
From his goodbye address to the nation in 1989:
``I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience, our wisdom and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.''Good bye, President Reagan.
Of course, you must know that all changed in the 1960's. You seem to me
to wish the Republican party were more like it had been before Goldwater
and then Nixon wrecked it with the Southern Strategy (in an attempt to
win power, the Republicans appealed to racist Southerners by opposing
Civil Rights). The party of Lincoln became the party of the
Segregationists and then, when racism became more of a hindrance than a
help to them, the Party of Religion and Traditional Values.
It seems to me that you are supporting the wrong guy, RG. What keeps you
in Bush's corner? Is it taxes?
I prefer Progressive Republican. Or a Coolidge Republican. Look him
up; actually quite progressive - favored direct election of Senators,
universal suffrage, workman's comp insurance, etc etc. One of his
better known speeches, given upon his selection as President of the
Mass. State Senate (he was a Massachusetts State Senator, Lt. Governor,
and Governor), titled "Have Faith in Massachusetts" charges his fellow
Senators with never being afraid to legislate, but allow administration
to catch up to legislation. Wise advice, that. It's interesting to
think that Coolidge -- roundly thought of as a reactionary
anti-progressive luddite, was actually on the cutting edge of so many
progressive improvements.
Perhaps you're right; no such thing as an Ashamed Republican. How could
there be, with so much to be proud of?!? Lincoln waging the civil war,
keeping the union together and deciding the question of slavery,
Roosevelt (the good one), father of the National Park system; Taft and
Roosevelt, the Trust Busters, Eisenhower and the National Highway System
making the country smaller and more accessiable, Reagan's unfailing
optimism and profound believe in the invigorating power of liberty. The
list goes on and on!
Now, about the prisoner abuse: unacceptable. Outrageous. Court-martial
with extreme prejudice. Get them out of the uniform of a liberating
army and into something else; do they wear stripes in Levanworth? As I
said, this completely undermines what we're about there. There is no
defense, other than to say, yes, the United States has bad folk too --
hey, if we didn't we wouldn't need those four prisons in Norfolk, now
would we? Our army, particularly the army fighting in Iraq, which has a
good deal of reservists in rear echelon jobs, is a cross section of our
society, reflecting the good and the bad. I didn't jump on the New
Yorker piece, so I can't comment on that, but certainly hope that this
is a limited thing. I am encouraged by the fact the the Army had
relieved the General and was pursuing Court Martials months before the
New Yorker piece. I think the court martials will be a teachable moment
for the Iraqi people, there were certainly no court martials for the
folks who came up with the putting prisoners through shredders procedure
under Hussein.
But, on too lighter stuff. As a Progressive Repubican: a big shout out
to the Norfolk Republican Town Committee for giving a couple of hours on
Sunday to clean up parts of Union and Park Street. Think globally, act
locally! There's some environmentalism in action: actually crawling
around in the muck on a drizzly Sunday afternoon picking up your
neighbor's nip bottles, cigarette butts, and Skoal canasters (Slim
Picken's Voice: "jeez, a fella could have a good weekend in Vegas with
this stuff..."). Now, if Norfolk would only adopt an anti-SUV and
Monster Truck (you know who you are: all you concrete cowboys and Home
Depot weekend warriors driving around four ton vehicles and taking up a
parking space and a half at the recreational fields) statute...
[From the article, citing General Taguba's internal report on conditions at the Abu Ghraib prison camp: ``Tagubas report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees [who are not subject to codes of conduct - wm]. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.'' - Wm.]
On the subject of the Iraqi prisoner treatment, let me just say I am
appalled, but perhaps not surprised. I think it was horrific on so many
levels - because it undercuts what the optimistic among us hope is
happening (the liberation of a subjugated and abused peoples), because
it will embolden and encourage those in Iraq who see us as godless
imperialistic ruffians, because I would not want to be treated like that
myself were the conditions reversed.
That being said, I think it was (hopefully) an isolated incident by a
group of serious bozos -- with perhaps a bit too much time on their
hands and a bit too little supervision. I hope some serious heads will
roll -- relieving the general in charge was a positive action.
On a more troubling and un-accidental issue, the Supreme Court heard
testimony in two cases this week concerning the Government's ability to
hold American citizens without benefit of trial. This is a very
interesting case that people should pay a lot of attention to, as it has
some very significant potential consequences. There are two plantiffs,
one captured on US territory who was actively planning something bad,
and one US citizen caught in Afganistan with the Taliban. From my
non-lawyer, but Bill-of-Rights loving perch, I am concerned that one of
the foundations of rule of law: the restriction on the government to
"show the body" - habeas corpus, trial by peers, right to give testimony
in your defense.
Every high schooler can tell you that habeas is all too often a casualty
of war -- Lincoln suspended it, thousands of Americans of Japanese
descent were appallingly rounded up and detained in concentration camps in
WW2 -- but this war we're in has no battle lines, no clear end date.
Fiddling with basic constitutional protections in such circumstances
leaves me, a supporter of the President and a proud Republican, very
uncomfortable.
The media, liberal and conservative alike, have let him get away with this
too long, and he has succeeded in silencing what should be a healthy airing
of very important issues. That Howard Stern has been suddenly thrown off
the air (before I ruffle any feathers, I personally DESPISE Howard Stern but
am fond of the First Amendment), and the fact that Sinclair Broadcasting Co.
has forbidden its stations from airing tonight's Nightline tribute to fallen
soldiers in Iraq is downright frightening. (Four of Sinclair's top
executives are Bush/Cheney Re-election Campaign donors; coincidence, I am
sure.) If we are not occasionally offended by the comments and opinions of
others, we do not live in a free society. The idea that we are in Iraq
fighting to protect and promote free society, yet "corporate speak" now
dictates what Americans can see on TV and read in the papers is alarming.
Worse yet, people inclined to support Bush will think no further and accept
all this posturing at face value; "He met with the commission and it was
marvelous." Hello? He fought the creation of the commission, initially
refused to let any senior administration officials testify, then slowly
acquiesced when his poll numbers began to slip.
As for the good things that Bush has done, KS is right, we should try to
focus some on the positive. I will keep trying to think of one....
You ask how "constantly bashing the President of the United States is
conducive to 'encouraging a spirit of community'". You misunderstood me.
I was talking about the Norfolknet enterprise, not my own ramblings. Our
neighbors who volunteer their precious time to operate of this site and
its discussions are "encouraging a spirit of community." And by that I
just mean human-scale, local.
Incidentally, you may see me as delusional, but I do not see my comments
as "Bush bashing." The majority of my posts have been about the present
administration's policies, which are formulated not by Bush alone, but
by a large number of people. I'm not sure what you want. Should I
somehow balance my complaints with some sort of positive non sequitir?
How about this:
Yesterday, Mr. Bush chuckled at the suggestion that he and Mr. Cheney
had chosen to be interviewed together so they could "get their story
straight." "If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them
in the first place," he said. But, Bush did refuse to meet with the
commission at first, then he refused to meet for more than one hour and,
finally, after public pressure, he agreed to let answer questions, but
only on the condition that Cheney be at his side and that no recording
or written transcript of the meeting be created. That said, in January
2002, President Bush signed into law the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments that extended the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
(PSSF) program through 2006. Bush has increased our government's support
for adoption and post-adoptive services -- helping to place children
with loving families.
[Yes, the article mentions that that's Severin's public explanation. But the story also points out that ``as listening to the recording makes clear, the truth is exactly the opposite: Before he made his remark, Severin was talking precisely about Muslims living in this country. Indeed, he had made several references to 'the majority of Muslims' in the United States, who, he said, are loyal not to the United States but to their religion and who are ready, when the time comes, to take over the country.''
So what exactly makes this a "liberal" article --
criticizing a popular talk show host? Replublishing his foul, mindless
drivel to a non-appreciative audience? Because instead of leaving
it be, it questions the whitewash? Because blaming the media is a handy
distraction, and might make Severin's offense less objectionable?
- Wm.]
``I have an alternative viewpoint. It's slightly different than yours. You think we should befriend them. I think we should kill them.''And the context was not ``all Muslims,'' just Muslims living in this country.
- I was clearly NOT comparing the actions of the student and the jockey. Where do you get that from what I wrote? It was DAF who did so. (Please read former postings)
- I did NOT say the student was representative of ALL liberals. Where did you get that from what I wrote?
- Tillman was fighting for our country in Afghanistan, not Iraq. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
- I began liberal bashing on this site simply as a response, because I see so much Bush bashing coming from you, DAF, the moderator, and several others. No one is asking you to "blindly" support the President, but give him some credit once in a while too.
- We should not hold the same standards for a radio jockey than a student? I thought all people were treated equal in this country. Why different standards?
- As a matter of fact, I DID support Clinton when it came to his Marriage of Defense Act, his initiatives to protect the environment, and his peace policy for Israel/Middle East. The BIG DIFFERENCE is I have not read even one single positive from the left on this site regarding Bush.
- I can understand your frustration - I would be too if I had no choice but to support Kerry. It seems like Dean or Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate.
Please people, let's try to put the spin-doctoring to a minimum.
As if to somehow justify what that "educated" idiot from UMASS wrote in
a higher education newspaper.
[I don't know the man, I don't know what he thinks, only what he said. And what he said was pretty horrible. - Wm.]
As for this radio talk show host you mention, please enlighten us as to
who you are talking about.
[A quick Google search came up with this - Wm.]
MA, you might be interested to know that I do share my meager
talents in larger venues. Although the readership of Norfolknet is
considerably smaller than these other outlets, I think this site is just
as important. This meeting-place preserves a human scale and encourages
a spirit of community that we are all learning is essential in this
increasingly complex global society. I think I'll stick around, thanks.
An example of leftists taking something way too far. It is a very
disturbing article, even for a liberal media. Hard to beleive people
like this are considered "educated".
[No amount of wit is an excuse for rudeness. Please, let's refrain from such "cleverness." - Wm.]
[I don't know, but that doesn't seem outrageous to me - I don't own any earrings, but you'll certainly find lots of them in my house! :-) - Wm.]
Do all Presidents spin facts in order to convince people that their
programs are correct? Sure. Do all presidents occasionally slip up and
use the wrong statistic or misstate the facts? Sure. But Bush and his
administration will lie, have the truth pointed out to them, then
persist in lying. A good example: the Bush folks say that nobody ever
said that Iraq was an imminent threat. People quote back to them
statements they made that show beyond any doubt that they said just
that, and they go on lying about it. Check out
www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo
They lie, people die.
Last month, his Administration nixed a deal agreed to by 143 WTO members
to allow developing countries without the ability to produce cheaper
generic drugs for HIV/AIDS and other diseases to import generic drugs at
lower prices from countries such as India, rather than the more
expensive patented drugs from the US and Europe. Why? Well, Bush placed
Randall Tobias, ex-Ely Lilly CEO and a member of the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America to head the Bush administration's
Emergency Plan for AIDS.
Hopefully, the work announced this month by the William J. Clinton
Foundation will shame Bush into doing the right thing --
Partners against AIDS.
My point, and the point of others fed up with Bush, is that rather than
help solve the problems we face, he and his associates have made most
problems far, far worse. In just three years, Bush's decisions have made
our air dirtier, our water more polluted, and our forests thinner. Our
economy is in a shambles -- with fewer full-time jobs, less stability,
lower pay, and a ballooning national deficit. Education is more
expensive and teachers are being laid off across the nation. Our young
men and women are dying by the hundreds in Iraq (along with thousands
and thousands of civilians) and global terrorism, rather than receding,
is gaining more strength and a wider reach. Rather than building on the
work done over decades to improve our nation and world, Bush has sought
to undo much of it. The man has fought fire with gasoline.
[Yes, I was making an observation about excessive spending for questionable causes - Wm.]
At least I can see a positive in former President Clinton. Umm, Let's
see - He had a sense of adventure?
More proof: how would Bush have "moved mountains" if he had known that
Bin
Laden determined to strike in United States? We all know that the
aliens created the mountains millions of years ago and clearly Bush
thought he could call upon his space allies to move them. And why are
there so many flies on his ranch? He has spent more time on vacation
than any other president in modern history, and yet he says that before
9-11, while he burned brush on his ranch (signals?), he was "tired of
swatting flies." With all of the smoke, why would there be a fly
problem? Flies hate smoke. His story is starting to fall apart.
[$$$, yes, or McQ could have borrowed one from the administration -- spend now, make others pay later. Odd, but when I was a wee lad, it used to be liberals who were known as big spenders... how the world changes. - Wm.]
I however believe the Borelli property and the other folly are the
result of alien interdiction, not human! For instance, the submersion of
the wires in town center, for which we pay monthly charges on our
utility bills, all to sink the wires in a small portion of downtown, is
simply too goofy to be the work of mere humans. My thought: alien life
forms, using the Borelli moonscape (the topography makes them feel more
at home), need to remove the wires as they are an impediment to landing
their flying saucers.
You might be on to something with the comments about president Bush.
Perhaps it's not just a vast right wing conspiracy, but a vast right
wing/alien replicant conspiracy. Consider this: when Clinton was
elected he tasked Webb Hubbell with finding out a) who killed JFK, and
b) what the real story was with UFOs (see here:
[this link])
Who was one of the only
Clinton people to actually get jail time in the whole whitewater affair?
Webb Hubbell! I posit he found out the truth and the right wing/alien
replicants and their stooges in congress had him silenced!
Resistance, as they say, is futile.
For years , these creatures from deep space have been removing our
neighbors, probing them, surgically removing the brain regions that
support logical thinking, and replacing them in our midst. How else
would you explain this town's vote in the special election held on March
2? How else do you explain so many neighbors' blind support for George
Bush. Incidentally, Bush taunts those of us onto his devilish scheme
from time to time by making prounoucements about "space aliens" himself
(for example in his recent b
udget documents. Ironically, his friends in space believe that
another four years of Bush will not even be in their best interest --
they fear that once he has ruined Erath he will ruin the entire Milky
Way Galaxy (see this fair and balanced news source.
[Reality by consensus - I like it! - Wm.]
The reality is that CBS News' biases -- like most mainstream news media
-- are in favor of novelty, conflict, simplicity, and entertainment.
Schieffer knew the war was about to begin and wanted to spend the time
talking to Cheney about that because it was the most novel issue on the
table, it was about the most severe kind of conflict (killing people),
it could be handled with simplicity (Iraq bad, America good), and was
sure to be entertaining to viewers (what will Cheney say? Are we really
going to invade?). Delving into a complicated issue about government
provisioning contracts and standard employment dissolution agreements
was not going to happen.
Dan Rather interviewed Saddam because he could -- it was novel (nobody
else got to interview him), it was all about conflict, and it could be
handled with simplicity and a modicum of entertainment value (what will
Saddam say? Is he really crazy?)
DAF: So Schieffer should have asked the hard-hitting questions like Rather
did on his boondoggle to Baghdad right? Just so it is known, I think the
whole Halliburton thing is a joke and was/is wrong.
TEM: Non-verbal communication was not my point, it was in addition to my
point. Twist as you will...
On March 16, 2003 Dick Cheney appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows
to discuss the then-impending invasion of Iraq. At the time, Halliburton
was big news among the anti-war crowd (Moveon.org, The Nation, and so
on). The VP was (still is) receiving payments from Halliburton and the
week before Cheney's interviews, it had been given privileged status in
bidding for contracts to rehabilitate Iraq's
oilfields under a postwar American administration. Halliburton already
had received a US government contract to put out potential oil-field
fires in Iraq.
Cheney wasn't asked about any of this in the hour and half these shows
had him on. I wrote emails to both Face the Nation (CBS) and Meet the
Press (NBC) to protest. I received no response from NBC, but I was
surprised to receive a response the next day from Bob Schieffer, host of
the CBS program. It read simply:
"We are about to go to war. I hardly think it was the time to get into
That sort of thing. Bob Schieffer"
What bias would you detect in this exchange?
And for the record, before I get discounted as a "short attention-spanned
"listeners" or "viewers"", or "dumbest common denominator", I do not watch
Fox News (even though I did last year during the start of the Iraq invasion)
and I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, Severin or any of the other
Conservative shows available.
Can't wait until Air America comes on and is the savior of our Nation.
and
and
[Click on each strip for the readable version - Wm.]
"Clinton and Foreign Policy: Some Legacies for a New Century," James
McCormick concludes this section with a thought provoking analysis of
Clinton's foreign policy legacies. According to McCormick, the most
significant legacy concerns the president's ability to retain America's
commitment to globalism in the face of postwar neo-isolationism. Equally
enterprising, President Clinton elevated foreign economic policy to its
rightful place in an era of increasing globalization. Several long-term
negative legacies developed because of Clinton's inability to redefine U.S.
national security policy in a period where the international threat
environment increased considerably. Consistent with this problem, Clinton
bequeaths a series of unfinished business to his successor: formation of a
coherent foreign policy strategy, defining a Balkan strategy, the continued
search for peace in the Middle East, decision on a National Missile Defense
(NMD) system, and creation of a postwar "polestar" to supplant the
antiquated containment doctrine, to name a few.
In response the Bush White House is not the first White House to control the
message to the public and set policy based on corporate style PR techniques.
(The President and the Public), the postmodernics reign supreme. by John F.
Harris describes how Clinton administration also manipulated the public.
(The President and the Public), the postmodernics reign supreme. John F.
Harris examines the relationship between Clinton, polls and the politics of
survival. The thesis of this chapter is perfunctory: President Clinton
employed postmodern mechanizations as a device to shape policy, as a force
to defeat controversy from internal and external forces and Harris posits
that the president manipulated public opinion and understood, unlike his
predecessors "that the battle for public opinion is a full-time job."
[4/4 8:59am EDT Corrected third paragraph - Wm.]
For the older messages, look here.