The Best of What's Left

President Bush is the Lone Ranger

2006-12-11T19:50:00.000-08:00

I'm thrilled that checks and balances have been restored to the White House. George W. Bush ought to be thankful, too. Finally, he has an opportunity to work with qualified political professionals, and not the right-wing goon squad that has been rubber-stamping his deluded and destructive policies.

Bush reminds me of the old joke in which the Lone Ranger, surrounded by hostile Indians, turns to Tonto and says, "What are we going to do now?" Tonto emits an Indian war whoop and says, "What you mean we?"

The right wing has been kept afloat by cruelty, bully and bombast. Watch now for a rise in old-school Republicanism and a new, centered and sensible, Democratic party.

And Dick Cheney will resign to become a full-time babysitter (as opposed to remaining in office and finishing out two more years as a full-time babysitter.)

Impeachment is a Move Backwards

2006-11-12T11:24:00.000-08:00

Part of me would relish impeaching President Bush. But really, it would just be another volley in the wasteful, trivial game of ping pong the left and right have been playing since the Reagan era.

Bush deserves impeachment, of course. Few if any administrations have abused the power as much. But in creating a balance of power we have established the corrective measure needed so that government can be conducted sensibly. If Rush Limbaugh can say he is now "liberated" from now being the mouthpiece for the ruling right wing, then W. ought to thank God he has now one last shot at redemption. Yes, if he listens to his Daddy (not the one in heaven, but in Kennebunkport,) he may be known for an act or two of decency in his homestretch. A Democratic victory will turn out to be his saving grace. Because the Cheney-Rumsfeld presidency is effectively over, the Vice President might resign and Bush will bring back home Condi to serve and he will for the first time revert back to the persona he had as the hail-fellow-well-met governor of Texas.

Clinton's impeachment was spearheaded by the very same vicious, mean-spirited assassins who have just been shown the door by voters. In 1998, we were not in the muck of war. Impeachment would be a sweet dessert if we had time to kill, but we have no time. This is not just a new Congress. This is a PARAMEDIC Congress that has too much emergency surgery to perform right away than to diddle around with impeaching George H.W. Bush's errant little boy. In fact, if the boy has any of the Christian heart he claims to have, he can probably be of use in helping mop up some of the mess he's created, and that his bosses (us!) have hired a new crew to correct.

I Don't Think America Can Take This Much Childishness

2006-10-31T17:48:00.000-08:00

John Kerry is absolutely right. If you don't get an education, you can very well get "stuck in Iraq." The Rumsfeld-Cheney cabal are willfully ignorant of the repercussions of their actions. Those with knowledge of the region predicted this violent stagnation. While Rumsfeld and Cheney ignored, Bush fiddled. They are being held accountable for their stupidity, for thinking this Iraq folly would be a cakewalk. Shame on John Kerry for not lashing back at these spineless, billionaire bullies two years ago. Shame on all the rest of us if we back down now and do the next best thing to throwing them out of office -- and that is to neutralize their unchecked power with oversight by electing Democrats to the Congress and Senate.

Unfit to Command or Thank You Sir May I Have Another?

2006-10-29T04:36:00.000-08:00

At an Indiana campaign rally, President Bush continues screeching that the actual Democratic plan on Iraq is to "leave before the job is done." He also said Democrats don't want the government listening in on terrorists.

Anyone with half a brain, including the President, knows these are lies and it isn't necessary for me to explain that Democrats seek effective leadership in Iraq and insist on constitutional oversight, not to prohibit, when the administration wants to tap anybody's phone. But Bush has to lie about his opponents to appear better than them.

He reminds me of the character Mike, played by Dennis Quaid in the 1979 film "Breaking Away," the hometown quarterback whose stardom disappears after high school and who sizzles in resentment at those who move on to college sports and adult lives. Like Mike, Bush had his moment in the sun when he stood atop the rubble with a bullhorn. Personally, I wasn't very impressed by that moment. It was a very human moment, but it wasn't great. It wasn't the pinnacle of leadership so many claim it to be, just as Ronald Reagan saying "there you go again" in a televised debate wasn't anything more than momentarily clever retort, and not a dazzling presentation of idea. I was shocked when, at Reagan's death, they kept playing that clip over and over, as if the man had contributed nothing more to our lives than a snooty, dismissive response. And now, it's repeated by a president with lesser, crueler talents that are maybe befitting a lesser, crueler age. Bush's willingness to be dismissive of his opponents now means that he is dismissive of not only Democrats, but high-ranking Republicans, a growing legion of career generals, former staff members, and more than 60% of the public he governs.

If the best he can do to keep a grip on his cozy leadership is to sneer at us and call us stupid and cowardly, then he's not up to the job.

What next week's election will reveal is how many voters are sold by this rhetoric. How many Americans truly need to despise other Americans in order to feel good about themselves? That's what the mid-term elections will tell us. And that psychological study on our national character will be the most interesting indicator on whether we as a nation have learned our lesson from the Bush administration, or whether we are willing to bend over in front of the paddle and say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."

America Leans Toward Democrats Now Because They Are Wise to Being Manipulated by Hatemongers

2006-10-28T05:56:00.001-07:00

Why is American leaning toward Democrats now?

To understand, consider the family led by parents who fight because of their children's discipline problems. If they have a kid who is manipulative, disruptive, who plays them against each other, then they will fight.

That is America of the Bush administration, pushed and taunted to distrust and dislike each other. America has wised up to the scare tactics of the cowardly hard core right wing. We citizens long for a culture where we can like and trust each other. We're rejecting the fear baiting that wants us to hate each other.

The hard core right wing can survive only as long as Americans despise each other. And we have taken their bait, and they have been in charge for six years, and the only way they know to stay in charge is to remind us how much we hate each other.

The only problem is we are tired of hating each other. It's a terrible feeling. It's bad citizenship and malicous community. And we are suddenly wise to how we got to this point. We have been manipulated by shameless powermongers of the right wing who have used religion and patriotism as a smokesreen to achieve power.

Scars of History

2006-10-24T19:51:00.000-07:00

"Come out, come out, wherever you are..."

The Good Witch sang and the frightened Munchkins emerged.

So, too, emerge Americans from the darkness. It is as if so many Americans have wakened to the cowing and the browbeating and the bullying from the far, hard right wing that they've reached a tipping point.

I'm thrilled with the sea change in America. Sure, not one vote has been cast yet, but I can feel a change in the air. It is the smell of accountability, and those who have been in charge for years will soon be accountable for their actions. If the vote goes our way on November 7, then the smell of accountability will turn into a sweetness we can all taste.

But what has America waken up to?

It is the realization that what we call Conservatism has not really been Traditionalism. Today hard right wing are not conservative or traditional. They've revealed themselves to be, in fact, self-serving and hateful. For all their talk of religion, they are aroused by condemnation. For all their talk of community, they eschew the poor and cut taxes at the expense of libraries, schools and basic nutrition for the poor.

It is a linguistic justice that the word "conservative" is now as tainted as "liberal" and so now maybe we can shove both words into an archive next to Whig and move on.

What will have to change is how they made "taxes" synonymous to "evil." This is a watershed year for hearing my Republican friends express astonishment at how cheap and selfish their party has become. Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes is not merely their mantra, it is their compulsion, like the robber baron industrialists who strip-mined entire forests. Just as you can still see from the sky over Georgia the new trees that replaced those burned by Sherman on his war of attrition march to the sea, you'll be able to look back at the legislation of the Bush administration as a charred mark on our history.

But just as after a blaze there emerges new life to repopulate, I am hopeful that after the cheap, selfish, my-way-or-the-highway brutes are booted from power, America will be stronger and prouder, with the wounds of abuse to show its ability to survive through harsh, foolish times, and be ever wiser.

Why Obama Could be the Best Democratic Hope for 2008

2006-10-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

Baby boomer politicians have been at each other since the 60s. Barack Obama is 45. During the Montgomery bus boycott, the community of black ministers, all of whom had been part of the community for years, couldn't decide who would be their voice during this time. They decided that the young minister, Martin Luther King, Jr., had little baggage and his very freshness, his sense of a clean slate, is what made him best suited to be the voice for their progressive cause.

The same goes for Senator Obama.

All We Can Count On Is That America Starts Ignoring Lies

2006-10-08T06:32:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of people called the Bush administration's policies a crime and held up yellow police tape in front of the White House on Thursday amid a nationwide day of protest against the president.
-Associated Press

Of course, Dick Cheney went right on the attack to deem any protesters as allies to terrorism, which is the equivalent of a child who gets caught stealing cookies lashing out at his parents, "You hate me!" The dumb parent stops to explain, "No, honey, I don't hate you" and loses the battle immediately. The smart parent sees through the tactic and stays on the subject of the kid's dishonesty.

American citizens are parents to the Bush administration. We have failed to hold them accountable for their abuses of power that have been committed in the name of "protecting" America from terrorism.

Even the president has stooped to Cheneyesque distortions. Last week at a California fundraiser, Mr. Bush said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we’re attacked again before we respond."

His second sentence is a lie. He has to know it's a lie, too. And if he doesn't, he's too dim to hold the office. Proactive investigative anti-terrorist detective work is exactly what thwarts plans.

My only hope is that citizens are smart enough to "not be fooled again" by this, as Hunter Thompson called him, child-president's buck-passing rants. My last hope is that America has been burned and America has learned a lesson that will leave us with scars for years to come, but will hopefully be rememied in November by electing officials that will not enable the Bush administration to continue it's unopposed trample over the nation's laws and destiny. We'll suffer a long time for the presidency of George W. Bush, but we can begin to fix it this November by electing officials who will stop the administration in it's tracks from doing any more harm.

We're stuck with them for two more years. Let's at least contain them so they can't damage the world any more than they have. Vote for Democrats this fall to contain the administration of President Bush until we can elect a president who has the intellect, honesty and sophistication to deal with the world as it is.

Protesters holding up yellow tape are concerned about their neighbhorhood being destroyed by thugs. Their neighborhood is America.

Our Strained Psyche

2006-08-21T14:57:00.001-07:00

President Bush says, "I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done," he said, but "if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

Leaving Iraq now would be disastrous, he says. But that's just typical CYA. Entering Iraq was the real disastrous move, but that's old news. Good soldiers are obeying bad orders, and now we're asking them to continue obeying bad orders to save the President's face.

He still believes that our malaisse has something to do with being weak in the knees. If we have lost our soul as a nation, it is because we entrusted the wrong presdient to lead us, and he has led us astray. Bush broke Iraq, so he bought it, and it just so happens that we're responsible for two more years for what this renegade breaks.

The Brat Right

2006-07-12T03:56:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I saw headlines that made big news about President Bush answering "unscripted" questions. It became big news that Bush took questions from citizens and reporters, something that public officials do every day, all the time, since time began and forevermore.

So now we heap praise upon the president for this?

Why stop there?

Why not splash on the front page the following headlines:

"Garbage man lifts lid from trash can and tosses rubbish into truck!"

"Barber snips hair!"

"Waiter brings water to table!"

The genius of Karl Rove in shaping George W. Bush as the face of neoconservative policy is this: Shamelessness. That crew is without shame in lowering the public's expectation of the candidate (and now, the president) so that when he makes a complete subject-verb agreement, we throw a parade.

They are also shameless in sliming their opponents (if only to change the subject and deflect responsbility.)

The Left can fight fire with fire, but they'll lose, since they aren't anywhere near that unscrupulous. The Left can't wait for the public to cry out and be disgusted by the shamelessness either. If that hasn't happened by now (or during the Swift Boat ads,) then it never will. And if that great chunk of the ill-read public can be that easily swayed...well, that's an entire other problem that the Left cannot tackle, at least not as a campaign tactic.

The Left must stop taking the bait of the Brat Right. The Brat Right is the bullying, poking-you-under-the-chin, incessant, taunting element. Those pious hypocrites who, like Eichman, have a list of who-to-hate-next, should NOT be IGNORED because their taunts won't go away. The Left must parry and thrust the Brat Right by being aggressive and not taking the bait.

Only then will voters recognize that it's NOT okay for a U.S. President to make headlines for daring to taking unscripted questions from an audience. For as long as our leadership is permitted to be so doltish, so too will the rest of our national discourse, and so too will our civic progress.

The Administration as Child

2006-07-05T06:22:00.000-07:00

Blaming the New York Times for making public a story about the administration's clandestine abuse of our right to privacy is like blaming the conscientious teacher for catching a student cheating on a test. Of course the conniving student is angry. Of course the student will react with accusation. Of course the student will try to re-frame the story. Bottom line: the student, and the Bush administration, lash out in defense because they got caught. Anyone with children will recognize that this administration has the personality of a spoiled, insolent child who is unaccostomed to a life of discipline and respect for others.

The Worst Nightmare for Advocates of Illegal Immigrant Migrant Workers

2006-04-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

Since it is alleged they do all the work no Americans want to do, if we give them legal status, will they wake up the following Monday and say, "I'm not going to do that crap work anymore. I'm an American citizen!"

Even if President Bush's Approval Ratings Were 1%

2006-04-04T17:56:00.000-07:00

I'd still be depressed that nearly 3 million -- 3 million! -- think this guy's doing a good job.

Wiretapping for the Troops

2006-02-23T18:39:00.000-08:00

President Bush should be allowed to tap phones without a warrant. If they don't catch terrorists, they will nab a lot of men cheating on their wives. They can blackmail these guys, and use the money to buy body armor for the troops.

George W. Bush, Christian

2006-02-09T19:25:00.000-08:00

Saint Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." So if we let our actions do our preaching, let us look at the actions of President Bush, who insists on renewing billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest, while cutting 141 programs. My favorite on this list is watershed protection and flood prevention operations ($75 million.) Katrina? What's Katrina? What's yours?

The President as Ralph Kramden

2006-02-04T05:04:00.001-08:00

What do you think of somebody who tries to make you feel afraid all the time? Such a person tries to become appealing to you by making you think, "I'm so afraid, I am so in danger, without you, I am a goner.

That is the message sent by the Bush administration to America. "You're in danger, GRAVE danger, unless you trust us to protect you."

A Republican friend of mine lamented that she had little of traditional Republicanism to like in the current administration, that it talks to America like we're children.

Let's say the Bush administration is a guy named Buddy.

Buddy talks a big game. Buddy isn't much of a listener or reader. Buddy is a know-it-all who understands how the world works, and says he goes to great lengths to protect the rest of us. He is happy to do that for we are helpless and delicate. He loves to see us tremble like baby does. This gives him self-esteem. This makes him feel worthy. This gives him power.

Without our weakness and blind-faith compliance, Buddy has no power. Buddy is the old-school husband whose wife won't say a peep, but when she does, Buddy's world flips upside down.

That's why the Bush administration thrives among the segment of religious people who surrender everything blindly to some entity that will take care of things. It used to be called God. But instead of this being faith-based diety worshop, this is faith-based political worship, which undermines democracy and smacks of monarchy.

Buddy is "king of the house." Like Ralph Kramden...only not funny.

I never before thought America would have to look to the deadpan face of Alice Kramden for inspiration, but it's time we looked this administration right in the eye and said, "Ahhh...shaddup."

Prepare Now to Fight Back Against Right Winger Smears Against Iraq Veterans Running for Congress

2006-02-03T16:56:00.000-08:00

At least 10 veterans of the Iraq war are running for Congress, all but one as Democrats, in what amounts to an open challenge to both President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq and the traditional Republican advantage on national security issues.
-Reuters

Democrats, prepare now to battle, your truth and dignity to their viciousness and cowardice, the disciples of Karl Rove who are even now loading their silver bullets to assassinate the characters of the veterans who run as Democrats for Congress.

They will do at least one of three things to each Democratic veteran:

1. Dig like a colonoscopy into their past to find something that they can exaggerate into character flaws to frighten the electorate.

2. Turn the veteran/candidate into a mindless dupe of the socialist leftist elites. That's what they did to Cindy Sheehan. Is it true? Just listen to Cindy Sheehan. She's suffered. She's smart. She speaks for herself. So do these candidates.

3. Lie, lie, lie. The right wing smear machines calls Rove a genius because they recognize lies work on people who don't read and stay on top of current events.

Prepare now to dig in, fight back, and don't let their shit-slinging stick. Not only for these candidates, but in honor of all those candidates smeared by these cowardly right-wing hooligans, and for the future candidates who need us to set a new precedent of decency.

Politics is hardball. That's always been true. But right-wingers play bean ball.

Democrats: Watch out! McCain Is Usurping You as the Loyal Opposition!

2006-02-02T19:26:00.000-08:00

Watch John McCain in his speeches. More and more he is distancing himself from neo-con Republicans. He speaks against the glut of deficit spending. At a Spartanburg County, S.C., Republican Party's fundraising dinner in late January he told the crowd that he, Lindsay Graham, and others meet weekly to spearhead a return to fiscal conservatism. Their "fiscal watchdog group will figure out how to put the brakes on excessive spending." McCain added, "I promise this group will grow larger and larger, we're going to stop excessive spending, clean up our act, and restore the principles that motivated our takeover of Congress in 1994."

McCain is running against Bush and the crazy, kudzu-growth of neo-con Republican spending.

McCain has become the loyal opposition to the sitting president and whoever -- if anybody -- will be the Bush heir apparent.

McCain has beat all potential 2008 candidates to the punch.

Democrats, don't lag. Don't navel gaze. Don't miss the train.

The Marlboro Man May Become Invisible. If They Can Smear Murtha, They Can Dispose of Farmers, Too.

2006-02-02T17:14:00.000-08:00

You've read the story of the Marlboro Man, the American GI whose photo represented the tough, gritty American stance in Iraq. It was all John Wayne...till he got home.

Now watch what happens.

Now he's home. Like many who have served, who now have a little perspective, he questions the wisdom of the leaders who sent him to harm's way.

Cindy Sheehan was once welcome to the White House. When she started to protest the policies that sent her son to his death, she was invisible. Watch over the next three years as more and more soldiers return home to question the sanity of their president's war policies. Watch them because invisible to the White House, who is led by a most vain, unsophisticated Narsiccist who cannot bear the bad news of all he has wrought.

Lefties: Always, always, always remember how this administration treats people: With disposability or as targets of character assassination. Drive that home and eventually the tide will turn on the appeal of this cravenous right wing.

If they can smear McCain, Kerry and Murtha, they'll have no trouble tossing overboard the farmers and other midwesterners who've turned their fair states red in recent years.

The Army Is Thinning, (Hopefully Like America's Patience with Incompetence)

2006-01-31T12:11:00.000-08:00

TROOP NUMBERS THIN, PENTAGON STUDY SAYS (January, 2006)

I wish this were a report showcasing the results of the Bush administration's new "healthy diet" for the troops.

It's not.

It's all about how the frequent troop rotations to Iraqq and Afghanistan have stretched the limits of the armed forces.

The report, authored by retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich, asserts that U.S. armed forces have been overused and underreplenished under this administration.

The key words are "overused" "underreplenished" and "retired."

You can't be active duty and talk this way or the Bush administration will put you out to pasture. To serve this president you have to be retired. President Bush has proven himself to be tough and unbudging -- not in his fight against Islamic terrorism -- but in his intolerance of truth-telling in his administration.

It's funny that you can't tell the truth to a born-again Christian president.

The author suggested that the Pentagon's decision to reduce troop levels was driven in part because they are overextended.

Tonight is the President's State of the Union address. One would think he'd use it as a rallying cry to recruit more troops to his cause. The only recruitment he's ever done was for Al Quaeda.

Don't hold your breath.

In fact, I'd recommend "don't hold your breath" with anything he says or has ever said, but that's mainly because, with the house and Supreme Court and White House firmly in the hands of right-wing Republicans, about the only thing common-sense Americans can do is sigh.

So take a deep breath. Again and again. That's the only way to tolerate children.

Their Goal is Really To Make Us Hate Christmas

2005-12-18T07:44:00.000-08:00

Religious conservatives are threatening lawsuits and boycotts to insist that store clerks and advertisements say "Merry Christmas." Countering are those who argue they are being inclusive and inoffensive with the secular "Happy Holidays."
-Reuters, 12/18/05

I feel like a fool even responding to their bait. But I've learned a lesson from the time Senator Kerry did not respond to the unethical attacks on his character by swift boat veterans (none of whom actually served with him on a swift boat.) There was a time in American culture when one didn't dignify an insult by responding to it. Not anymore. Right wing attacks have taken on the strategy of obnoxious kids who keep banging pots, screaming and kicking till they get somebody's attention.

I don't quite understand yet, although I'm trying very hard, to understand the sick egotism of the Christian right. They love to be persecuted, or to think they are being persecuted, (they think it's their road to heaven, and so they're paving it!)at the same time they love to think they are in charge. It's a strange psychological condition. It has zero to do with living out the principles of Christ's teaching, that's obvious. They probably don't even realize it, but their mission to force us all to say "Merry Christmas" is weirdly control-freakish. They also don't realize that it makes the rest of us loathe them and disrespect them even more, which feeds into their persecution complex. That persecution complex has been growing steadily among the ranks of conservatives, then mainstream Republicans, for decades now. In recent years, especially when one of their -- Bush -- took the White House -- it has become their "onward Christian soldier" mantra...that they are under attack by the rulers, even after they have become the rulers. President Bush himself exhibits the characteristics of someone who is being "picked on" every time he deigns to answer a reporter's question. That, magnified, is the faux Christians, whom I like to call the hypoChristians whole take on their faith.

It's no wonder an evangelical U.S. President says, "You're either for us or against us" when so many evangelicals say, "You're either saved or not saved." Lines are drawn. You're either good or evil. And now that they've got a whiff of their own power, they're forcing down our throats what to say and do.

It's not all about Christmas. It's about their endless hunger to boss everyone else around and call it Christianity. It's the crusades, not Francis of Assisi. It's the Ten Commandments, not the Beatitudes. And it's pure Philistinism, chest thumping braggarts so pissy and self-satisfied that they've got, not a log, but a whole forest of lumber in each eye.

"Merry Christmas" doesn't appear in any sacred book either.

A Parallel with Nazi Germany

2005-12-11T16:05:00.000-08:00

I see a parallel with the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. It's not the type of comparison that will quicken the pulse of left wingers, although I do see similarities in both regime's desire for world conquest.

In 1940, Germany commenced to whip France, then begin pounding England. This is the equivalent of the American war on Islamic terrorist groups like Al Quaeda, and in how America went to war in Iraq, who harbored these groups and provided safe haven for trading.

Surprisingly, Germany attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler had no doubts that Russia would be totally surprised and quickly vanquished. President Bush attacked Iraq, with no doubts that it would fall like a house of cards and welcome American liberation. (Talk about a Messiah complex!)

Hitler got bogged down in Russia and precious German resources and soldiers were siphoned and exhausted in that front. Bush's shock and awe invasion and liberation, a slam-dunk in the win column he was told by advisors, is now a great national headache.

Democrats have to shake the chicken-skin notion that opposing stupid policy will be equated with treason or weakness. America is beyond that. I just hope most Democrats who, in their gut, feel this is stupid Bush policy, to be please be vocal about it. Or get out of the way. We all gave Bush a chance and he burned us and abused our trust. He demonstrated an inability to think and plan intelligently. He revealed a complete misunderstanding of the world and culture he intended to conquer. Now the times have changed, and I paraphrase Bob Dylan in telling Democrats in Congress, get out of the way if you can't lend a hand...

Thanksgiving, Crawford 2005

2005-11-26T06:19:00.000-08:00

CRAWFORD, Texas A free-range turkey will grace the Thanksgiving table at the Bush ranch tomorrow.The entire Bush family, including former president and Barbara Bush and the current first lady's mother, will gather for a traditional spread. Air Force One flew down last night.
-News Item

And will the conversation at the table be free-range? I imagined what it might be like to the twins, who turn 24 this weekend, listening to conversations around the table. Most of us can take a breather from political issues of the day by simply talking about what's going on at work.

Not in Crawford.

There are plenty of holiday dinner tables where family businesses are discussed. How many tables though might be there a father and son discussing their differences about how each executed a war with Iraq?

George H.W.: Now, son, when I engaged in warfare with Saddam, we didn't just go off all half-cocked, without any plans. We sat down and mapped it out.

(George W. rolls his eyes.)

George H.W.: And we took the time to make friends and go in as a group where we could have the power in numbers.

George W: Well, we have numbers. What about Mongolia!

George H.W.: In my day, when we went to war with Iraq in my day, we...

(George W. sticks fingers in ears and hums loudly.)

And so it goes, and having worked in advertising for years with clients who are 2nd and 3rd generation family businesses, I see similarities in the Bush family business and any other one. Quite often when the son takes over, he either takes it to a grand new enlightened level, or botches it completely while overcompensating from the pressure caused by following in his father's footsteps.

How many times have you heard that W's policy book is pretty much this: Take what H.W. did and do the opposite. That's pretty typical behavior of the renegade son. Too bad we're along for the ride.

I've seen Mr. Bush on plenty of speeches and I think he'd be a wonderful president of the Rotary. If he only operated a distributorship or tire business, he'd be a fine hail-fellow-well-met, and his Christmas turkeys would be plump, and the fields trips that local schools conducted through his warehouse with the big trucks would be fun.

If only.

America ought to look at this Bush dynasty thing with reflection and stop indulging our Old Europe fantasies of a royal family. The Kennedys are withering on the vine and we oughtn't replace them with the Bushes. The nation is too chock full of talent, people who have earned their keep and risen from the muck, to keep handing the rudder to legacies. I go back to the topic of the family business. If you've ever worked in one, (and are not a member of the family) you realize that the deck is stacked against you. You'll never rise above the kid whose dad or uncle is in charge. That warps the sense of accomplishment, and rewards the mediocre or even the talentless. Criticicize corporations all you want, but at least merit is based on talent and genuine political skills.

The most successful presidential contenders in 2008 will be common-sense adults who will leave behind the shrillness of Karl Rove and be a relief to us all. By contrast, Mr. Bush's stammering simplicity will be shocking, not to just 50% of us, but to all of us -- on the right and left -- who have seen firsthand in two terms what unchecked radicalism can do to America in just a few short years. We will look back to 2001-2006 -- I'm hopeful that our national enlightenment occurs much faster than 2008 -- as our modern dark ages, when a lethargic America allowed intruders into its most precious institutions. In Thanksgivings hence, we shall look back and be thankful for waking up before it's too late.

A Nation Mad with Regret

2005-11-23T19:35:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and military leaders are sounding optimistic notes about scaling back U.S. troops in Iraq next year, as public opposition to the war and congressional demands for withdrawal get louder.

Contingency plans for a phased withdrawal include proposals to further postpone or cancel the deployment of a Fort Riley, Kan., brigade and an option to put a combat brigade in nearby Kuwait in case it is needed, said a senior
Pentagon official.
-Associated Press

Without Congressman Murtha's sensible, brave assertion, you would not have read the above news article two weeks ago. If any lives are saved because of this withdrawal, we have Murtha to thank for getting the ball rolling.

The Republicans who insulted him are not fit to govern or to hold positions of responsibility. Democrats and Republicans who campaign to promise true consensus will be the ones who win. America is tired of being left behind in the battle wrought by right wing extremists. The sudden tipping point against President is the result of a tested, tired America saying "Enough!" and slapping down the spoiled, indulgent bully administration.

Watch 2006: It will the year adults -- not the likes of the vicious Swift-Boat, assassini, Rovian Republicans -- but adults who know how to communicate with other adults (and not talk like sugar-fed 2nd graders who say "Bring 'em on!"). It will be the year that adults come in and clean up the mess that these Mad Dog Neo-cons made to this beautiful nation who is going mad with regret.

Three Words Revealed W's Inability to Lead

2005-11-18T15:27:00.000-08:00

This will be remembered as the week when President Bush lost control over the Iraq war debate.
-E.J. Dionne

Finally.

He should never have had control over the war debate anyway. Have you ever worked or dealt with someone who tried to rush things through so fast that you became discombobulated and confused -- and it worked to their advantage?

I have, and it's a form of rope-a-dope that is very clearly a strategy. Fast talkers are often swindlers. In this case, the Bush administration urged urgency ("we don't have time to talk about it!") and got their way.

What Dionne suggests is something very healthy. Mr. Bush should NEVER have had control over the war debate, for the very nature of war in a democracy requires vigorous debate, not lapdog acquiesence.

We're three years and 2,000+ deaths too late, but finally, the best American ideal is emerging. We are keeping in check a rabid White House administration with the checks and balances that have been abused and neglected for those years, but thankfully, have survived.

Now it will be a real debate, abeit a retroactive one, an attempt to fix past wrongs by a radical regime, but it is a healthy sign that a renegade administration is getting some oversight and has had its free rein snatched from it.

Too bad it took too long.

For me, I knew that George W. Bush was not equipped with the gravitas and maturity to lead a nation at war when he said, "Bring 'em on!" Those three words revealed a terrific insecurity and carelessness that puts the lives of his countrymen in danger. Since then, millions of others have caught on, and we see ... finally... belatedly, democracy at work.

Thankgiving 2005: Grateful for the President's Sinking Approval

2005-11-17T04:37:00.000-08:00

It is Thanksgiving and we should be grateful that more and more Americans disapprove of President Bush's job performance.

George W. Bush once said that he doesn't read books -- he reads people. He trusts his gut in assessing character. Likewise, many Americans who once gave him the benefit of the doubt are now trusting the instinct that tells them that the president and his cronies have leaned hard on intelligent sources to provide them with information that would justify what the administration had already decided to do: Invade Iraq.

Americans are growing wiser to Bush and company and I'm grateful for that growing insight. If it should continue, then perhaps Congress will speak up more and put hurdles and impediments in front of Bush initiatives. If he cannot be impeached, then he can at least be neutralized -- grounded, if you will -- sent to his room so he can do no more damage.

I am grateful that a growing number of Americans see the Bush team as the Boy-who-cried-wolf. In this case, "wolf" means "You're evil if you disagree with us."

Thankfully, America isn't so easily swindled this time around.

We bought the Bush deceit at first. Hungrily, perhaps, in our desire for leadership in times of trial after the terrorist attacks.

But it is like we as a nation had become someone who was robbed and violated, then robbed and violated again by the very person we turned to for help.

So it seems we are still a trusting nation, albeit an easily misled population. Well shame on us, including Congress, for going along so easily with the White House whose disrespect for us meant they felt obliged to say only "trust us" when it came to decisions that affect us all.

I am grateful that many Americans have discovered, or rediscovered after their groggy nap, our obligations to be informed citizens, to hold our leaders in check, to expect our leaders to oversee each other, and to demand dialogue when important matters are about to take place.

Americans are wiser at a great cost for having permitted a machinery to take hold that puts into place a sputtering leadership that would brook no dissent, explain no motives, and assassinate the characters of those who dast speak up against them.

The next three years will be nauseating. The lesson we learn from this eight year fiasco will be enlightening beyond description.

Pro War. Anti Troops.

2005-11-12T05:49:00.000-08:00

This morning I heard on Cspan two back to back calls, one from an old guy who said, "I'd NEVER let my kid serve for these thugs in the White House" and another who was more John Wayne in his "I'm proud to have served."

Both calls are two sides of one coin.

More and more I'm hearing more and more people say "I love this country, and I'm against Bush."

For three years critics have said, "I support the troops but do not like the White House policies."

Let's put the white light on the scurrilous wags who have created the policy. They have achieved the improbable: They are pro-war and anti-troop for they have taken the vehicle of the U.S. military and ground its gears and empties its tank and worn its tires bald, and are about to leave it by the roadside.

If you get stewardship of the family car, you have to take care of it.

What they've done, these gluttons for power and violence, is tainted the family heirloom -- liberty and service -- and the most we can hope for is that this administration becomes impotent for three years so that they can not do any more harm.

Congressional Critics Aren't Hypocrites. They Are (Reformed) Cowards.

2005-11-12T05:36:00.000-08:00

From the 11/11/05 Washington Post: The White House went on the offensive in the debate over the Iraq war yesterday, insisting that U.S. intelligence had compiled a "very strong case" that Saddam Hussein harbored banned weapons and accusing congressional critics of hypocrisy because many of them voted for force three years ago.

The White House is wrong. These congressional critics aren't hypocrites. They are cowards.

There was enough evidence three years ago to question President Bush's veracity. There were enough credible voices raising doubts about the authenticity of Mr. Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Even so, many in Congress who should have known better buckled under pressure from the White House, abandoned their conscience, and voted to give Bush the power to invade.

That was cowardice. It reveals to us that even men and women who come to positions of great power still engage in playground games where one or two bullies can hold sway over a crowd of twenty milquetoasts. That is our national lesson: America's dearth of congressional leadership, accountability and oversight paved the way for right wing hooligans to take the wheel, and drunk with power, they have been so inebriated in the driver's seat that now the nation has crashed.

While the drunks behind the wheel -- the right wing thugs and the lawless administration -- are blaming everybody but themselves, the rest of us who happily gave them the car keys and closed our eyes are also to blame.

Veteran's Day 2005, George W. Bush Style

2005-11-12T05:18:00.000-08:00

President Bush took the occasion of Veterans Day to issue a withering response to critics of his foreign policy that led to American commitment to war in Iraq. Once again, he played the now well-worn card that those who disagree with him are "deeply irresponsible" because it demoralizes American troops and encourages America's enemies.

To sum it up, Mr. Bush turned this day dedicated to military men and women into a day about him. As he typically does, he used the military and their families as a physical backdrop to his speech. But even more conceptually, he used their "day" as something to prop up his own sagging reputation. As he did in his post-college days during the height of the Vietnam conflict, Bush used the sacrifice of others to attempt to protect his own hide.

If Bush were as noble and mature as his most ardent supporters say, he would have used Veterans Day to announce new programs that veterans and their families. What a grand opportunity it would have been for Bush to reassure America that under his stewardship, the government will institute new benefits and policies that will express thanks for their service and attend their future well-being.

Noble and mature? Not in this president. The nobility and maturity must come from the loyal opposition, who have been quiet for far too long...from Republicans who have been toadies to the administration since the 2001 inauguration...and most of all from the public who now must keep our heads and patience for three years while riding out the interminable remainder of the second term of this pretender to the throne.

The Worst Week of the Bush Presidency

2005-10-31T16:43:00.000-08:00

Many reports call last week the worst week of the Bush Presidency. That's a bold statement, given that even the most run-of-the-mill weeks in the Bush presidency is an affront to any well-informed citizen who values democracy, privacy and honesty.

I think it's an overreaction. A headline. Harriet Miers' withdrawal from the Supreme Court justice nomination job will, at her expense, provide Bush with a new humililty that will mend him fences with his right wing base. He has been chastised, but Harriet is the one who gets the sound whipping.

Operating the United States of America is just another business that he was set up to operate, like the oil businesses W. ran (into the ground) in the past, he's the manager of this country.

Since before his 2001 appointment to the Oval Office, I have known that his credentials are light, and by 2004 everyone else should have known, too.

Thus, his 2004 re-election reveals more about the shallowness of this nations "board of directors" -- the electorate -- who rehired the inept CEO.

That the CEO, known for his firebrand and passion and stubbornness, recoiled so quickly in permitting the withdrawal of Harriet Miers reveals that the real "board of directors" who pull the strings are the hard, clenched fist right wing.

My question, Darla, is it worth the cost of a briefly humiliated Bush to have such right wing radicals in charge of the Supreme Court?

We Are Not Losing Our Nerve. We Are Opening Our Eyes.

2005-08-23T17:24:00.000-07:00

On August 22, before thousands at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Salt Lake City, President Bush said, "The American people have been steadfast and determined not to lose our nerve. And once again we have had confidence in our cause."

I believe that he believes in what he is saying. But that is not because his sincerity is a virtue. It is because he is a simpleton.

He believes that mouthing vague maxims is the same as articulating policy.

He believes that just because he encourages his sheep, his citizens, to "not lose our nerve," that losing our nerve was actually the subject to begin with.

It is not our nerve we are losing. It is our trust in a bumbling, incompetent administration. Because Bush wears blinders, he doesn't see that half of the country was on to his lies before the election, and now finally, even more are wising up to -- and judging him for -- his idiotic decision making (to go to war) and criminal strongarming (to fudge evidence to justify going to war.)

I wonder what is it in the personal psychology of George W. Bush that so lusts for war? Could it be that the former drunk turned Christian never really did give up the drink? He may not have sipped the brew, but he seeks to be drunk on power? Could it be that in his addict's zeal to replace the booze he has become so consumed by Bible stories that he has completely missed the point of Christ-like living and instead is, like a child hearing stories about Arabian Knights, becomes allured by the sense of death, victory and destiny. Don Quixote with the nuclear football.

So I believe fully that the emporor in his bubble truly does believe that his minions are getting a little soft in the knee. It wouldn't occur to him that we are simply on to him. Many of us have known from the start that he is in over his head. Sadly, this isn't a case of an everyday Joe maxing out his credit cards. Instead, this idiocy is paid for with the blood of the innocent.

We are not losing our nerve. We have always had it. What the majority did not have before was the basic insight to see that George W. Bush war was dumb from the start. His presidency was nothing until he found a reason to indulge his obsession with having a war to define his time in office.

Now is the time for creative Democrats and Republicans to stand forth and demonstrate to America that fortitude means more than blowing up countries they know nothing about.

Now is the time for creative citizens to stand up and demand more imagination and progress and not let our culture be hijacked by closed minded zealots whose superstitions are rooted in the middle ages.

Now is the perfect moment for people to stand up to the Karl Rove assassination machine and the smearers of character who have, while we were napping, taken over our government and mass media, and appeal to our bleaker angels.

The time is absolutely ripe for Americans to take back their country from the graffiti artists and muggers and Philistines who disguise themselves as conservatives, and boot them from the public arena where they don't know how to behave, and where they waste our public money, and where they burn bridges to diplomacy, and where they forfeit opportunities for our futures.

True to the bully boy form of this White House crowd, Bush has to characterize his opponents as weaklings.

But we are not losing our nerve. We are opening our eyes.

What His Kind Do To Crosses . . . Then & Now

2005-08-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

A Bush supporter in a pick-up truck mowed over the 150 or so crosses erected at the anti-war protest led by Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas.

Used to be they just burned them.

"Mom" = "Bring 'Em On"

2005-08-13T04:35:00.000-07:00

Cindy Sheehan, who has attracted attention by camping out not far from President Bush's summer home to air her disagreement over his policies, says when she met George W. Bush he was disrespectful.

It was shortly after her son died in Iraq when she and other mothers of fallen soldiers met the president in June, 2004. She said that he called her "Mom" repeatedly throughout the brief meeting.

The president is nearly a decade older than Sheehan. He called her "mom" because he makes up nicknames for people. It is easier that way. He accomplishes at least two things: A playful familiarity, and it makes unnecessary his actually having to be attentive to detail.

That's how George W. Bush is with everyone, you might say. That proves my point. He is uninterested in details, be they other human beings' names, or thinking through what might happen if he commits billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of military personnel to an invasion that might, just might, not be a cakewalk to victory.

Democratic leadership from the moment Bush took office has been cowed by his bully-boy approach, reacting to him like caterers at a country club where he is guesting. That is beginning to change. But in the meantime, too many people are now dead either in body or in character at the hands of destructive Bush policies or smear politics.

Watch the Democratic leadership who can look their fellow citizens in the eye and not make up some pandering nickname like "mom." Look for the Democratic leadership who can address the likes of Mrs. Sheehan not by the simplistic, "I hear her, I sympathize with her, and she has every right to say what she wants because this is America," and actually engage her and the nation in adult discourse about what's going on in this country.

Calling Sheehan "Mom" is like telling us that "terrorists hate us because we're free." It's condescending, simplistic, patronizing and wrong -- and it gets us not an inch closer to understanding the dynamics of this world problem so that we can solve it. When Bush stripped away the dignity of the moment by calling her "Mom" he was reducing the moment to a caricature that his lazy intellect could grasp, like when he said "bring 'em on."

Cindy Sheehan Protests Because She Has Something At Stake

2005-08-12T16:59:00.000-07:00

Have you seen all the spewing hatred aimed at Cindy Sheehan? Go look at thirty-seven year old news footage and you'll see the same bitter and vile criticism leveled at the young, often scraggly-haired anti-Vietnam War protesters.

The reason why there were so many young protesters in the 1960s is because they were the ones plucked from their lives to go die in Vietnam.

They had something at stake.

Without a draft, today's young people have less at stake, less a sense of urgency to protest.

Who does? Who's got some "skin in the game?" as Cindy Sheehan said?

Mothers.

She is the 48-year-old California mother whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year.

And so it stands to reason that it is Cindy Sheehan and other mothers who not only speak the most forcefully against the Bush administration's senseless, wasteful policies, but that they are the ones targeted by the insecure right wing whose rise to power has been fueled by character assasination and who are willing to abide the real assassinations of soldiers and their families whose trust was betrayed by a president who doesn't think things through and refuses to acknowledges the consequences of his policies.

Toward the latter part of the Vietnam war, older people wised up and joined the youth to protest the stupid policymaking that led to useless death.

The same thing is happening now, but the little children are listening to their mothers.

Graverobber

2005-06-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

I don't think I've ever been more sickened by a leader than watching George W. Bush obstinately continue to tie together his folly of a war in Iraq with "the lessons of September 11th."

There was almost a justification for his doing it during the election. After all, the Bush campaigns are always marked by hardcore smears and dirty campaigning.

But the campaign is over.

And now he robs the graves of the thousands who died in Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and New York City, by milking their memories to bolster flagging support for his corrupt foreign policy.

Republicans and Democrats should join together to insist on accountability from the Bush administration, and do everything to neutralize the White House's power to engage in more fatal, distastrous decisions.

Yes, he'll be around till 2008.

But let's do all we can to contain his deranged policies.

Dean's Big Mouth

2005-06-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Don't worry about Dean's big mouth.

That he called Republicans a "white, Christian party" is nothing more than the mirror image of the snide, coarse stuff that comes from the mouths of Republican pit bulls.

Too many Democrats are too enlightened to really like what Dean does, but think about it: when right-winger musclemen get bellicose, it energizes the base.

Dean's point -- and everybody knows this -- is that "Christian" doesn't really mean "follower of Christ" anymore. It has an entire political and cultural, even literary identity, and the quicksilver truth of Christ's benevolent lessons are buried deep, deep in the muck of their anger and accusations.

This type of so-called Christian is the one who can wrap their anxieties into a identity that serves them almost as an ethnic group. "Christian bashing is the last form of accepted bigotry" read one bumper sticker that I saw. What kind of self-absorbed boob would trumpet such a message on their vehicle but someone who actually LOVES the persecution, who LOVES self-pity, and -- as it turns out -- is smug about being "saved."

Give me the Christianity that lives in the words of Saint Francis of Assisi, who said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

Live THAT, and Howard Dean ain't talkin' about YOU.

Bush Trying to Boost Sales

2005-06-25T07:46:00.000-07:00

June 25, 2005 WASHINGTON - As public support for his Iraq policy declines, President Bush is working to convince wary Americans he has a military and political strategy for success in the war in which 1,730 U.S. troops have been killed.

Also in the news today was a story about how Nicole Kidman studied Elizabeth Montgomery in order to replicate the role of Samantha Steven in the movie version of "Bewitched" which starred Montgomery in the 1960s.

My guess is that Kidman put more thought into her role than did the Bush administration in there foreign policy decision to make war in Iraq.

I'm not saying this merely to be snide (although any recognition of my snideness is appreciated.) What I see in today's news bulletin is, blown up on a grand scale, the boy who cried wolf. If the five year history of the Bush administration is any indication of how he will proceed to "convince" America that we should trust his decision making, then we are in store for the following:

A return to color-coded terrorist alerts, which will illustrate to us how we are in danger, how we should be afraid, and how we should put on the back burner any critical judgment of the Bush administration, ie, not worry our pretty little heads about our safety and put that safety into the hands of our benevolent, paternalistic leaders, Bush and Cheney.
An increased hostility, tainting and sneering, as well as smear campaigns, against anyone who raises questions about the wisdom of the decisions of the Bush administration. I predict that before the summer is out, Dick Cheney or another high level Republican figure will be caught "off the record" calling Democrats something as coarse -- and as appealing to their base -- as "big pussies."
A mantra, even among those who supported the ill-conceived Iraq campaign, that "we're in Iraq now, and now we have to make good of it." (To this I respond, "Of course we are deeply enmeshed in Iraq -- that is a fact -- but shall we continue to throw our money into the bad investment of Misguided Leadership from the Bush Administration? Our way to solve the Iraq mess isn't to keep on board the CEO who made the horrible investment INTO Iraq in the first place. That leaves impeachment -- which won't happen, even though impeachable offenses can be counted on two hands -- but instead, more strident opposition to what, hitherto, has been carte blanche approval of the Bush Administration's maniacal policies.)

America is learning a tough lesson right now. We have an undisciplined, careless, reckless leadership who has been extremely lucky in being backed by Congressional numbers that have given the administration and their all-but-brown-shirted base nearly dictatorial control over the nation. Their wildness of policies, akin to an out-of-control teenager ruffian, has finally pushed us against the wall, forcing us to take stock, and exhausted, draw the line and put an end to it.

They will not be tamed without shrill, violent thrashings. The violence will come in their smear campaigns, their continual lies (just check out much of what comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth on any given day,) and their cloaking themselves in the flag and declaring themselves God's chosen messengers. That latter point, that they are privy to God's will, and will carry it out, is the most enlightening, for they give us a crystal-clear illustration who are today's New Testament Pharisees.

Just watch President Bush pitch this inane campaign to his fellow citizens. Watch what dime-a-dozen saleman's techniques he tries putting past us. Watch his baits-and-switches, his non-sequiters, his inability and unwillingness to be forthright about mature discussions of how we should proceed with this policy to fix the mess we made in Iraq, and proceed with the long-term neutralization of the terrorist threat that springs from the radicals who bastardize Islam.

And once you watch the President be less than candid, and shirk responsibility, and feign blamelessness, and oversimplify, and condescend to us as if we are five-year-olds, remember that he is just the hand-picked figurehead of a larger movement that has seized it's oversized piece of the pie by being organized, committed, loud -- not to mention vicious, cunning, and dishonest.

If they can do it, intelligent liberals who can bring to bloom the potential of the U.S. Constitution as it was meant to be, not as it has been warped by angry, unhappy, frightened and vindictive conservatives.

He'll be out doing sales calls, this president of ours, who had he been born with a different name might have been the assistant sales director of some fledgling manufacturing firm where back-slapping and mano-a-mano winks gets you halfway to closing the deal.

Conservative Baby Boom Generation In the White House

2005-06-09T18:36:00.000-07:00

Over the past three decades, you got the impression that if the Baby Boom Generation botched things when they took over for the GI Generation, it would be the result of liberal excess.

It turns out that the any states of ruination going on now are the result of an administration borne from the conservative wing of the Baby Boom Generation.

Just to show you that liberal and conservative are meaningless words, look back to the Clinton administration to see fiscal responsibility and mature diplomacy. We see in the Bush administration reckless spending, reckless diplomacy, and exorbitant self-indulgence when it comes to letting friends feed from the public trough.

So while they continue to call themselves conservatives, we can either argue the semantic point, or change the definition of conservative.

Or, instead of playing into the cynical game of name-calling, (or redefining a word), how about if Democrats simply start touting leaders who can speak naturally to what common sense Americans desire: Technology-friendly business communities; health care planning; and a reconstruction of the international ties severed by the solipsistic runamok Bush administration, who came to power by scaring America witless with phony color-coded terrorist warnings, Bible-waving, and enlisting the muscle of lying swift boat goons. They can be beat if Democrats stop tolerating their nonsense and fight like men. I say fight like men because the right are little children. Witness their trantrums when they don't get everything their way.

Brats!

They can be beat. Sadly, it will take the self-evident destruction of their eight crash-and-burn years for it to become glaringly obvious to what has become a numbed majority electorate.

But it can be done.

The Battle over Social Security Will Be a Test of Whether Bush Can Be Kept In Check

2005-03-05T14:13:00.000-08:00

Today's headline reads: Bush White Opens a "Social Security" War Room.

Guess what's going to happen. Democrats will dig in mightily, partly in response to Bush's ludicrous first steps in dismantling Social Security, and also partly to compensate for not digging in, and in fact, rolling over spinelessly to allow Bush to have his war in Iraq without any serious debate.

The battle over Social Security is going to be a huge test over the Democrats ability as a minority party to keep in check the steamrolling power of the White House and Republican Party.

Watch it closely.

Hollywood is a Corporate Product

2005-02-27T05:52:00.000-08:00

From left to right are pictures of a Fear Factor contestant covered in slime, Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton from The Simple Life part 3, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake at the Super Bowl, and an NBA brawl.

This is the cover of the 2/27/05 Parade magazine.

The headline reads: Maybe...We Should Feel Shame.

Three of the four images serve as illustrations to our shattered moral standards. They are posters for those conservatives who point to liberal Hollywood as the source for our diminished morality.

The problem is Hollywood is pure corporate capitalism, the very thing that propels and benefits by the Bush administration.

If Democrats were smart, they'd wage a PR campaign pointing out that so many of the pop culture things hated by conservatives -- music, TV, films -- are the products of those bottom line corporations whose best interests are served by the current administration. These corporations are not churning out the arts any more than fast food chains and manufacturers of candies and sugary cereals are producing nutrition.

Democrats must reach the so-called middle American conservatives and make them realize that they are being led by the nose by right wing distractions (like the culture wars and the silly preoccupation with gay unions). Farhad Majoo writes in Salon that after once the president's Social Security plans are scrutinized, "social conservatives, people who've been duped into voting for the GOP on the assumption that it was the party of morals (rather than of money), might finally see the truth."

But we have to shine a light on that truth, which the sinister Bush administration keeps in the closet, and make them see more clearly how they are dismantling the social programs that have put into practice in this country the benevolence that is basis of the teachings of most faiths.

Gridlock Will Be Progress

2005-02-26T07:46:00.000-08:00

Bush Urges Haste on Social Security Reform
-Associated Press

I read a biography of Bush that describes how, one day, he decided to quit smoking. He did so, digging in with resolution, and never smoked cigarettes again.

It was an impulsive decision to stop smoking.

This gut-instinct, impulsive nature to Bush's decision making process might be good for something like that -- giving up nicotine or fatty foods or whatever -- but it is a severe flaw in the way a leader makes a decision.

So, how old is Social Security? Seventy-ish? And because Bush has a bee in his bonnett to change it, it must change now?

Without debate?

Without weighing and measuring options?

That's the gift of George W. Bush. He presents everything as if it is urgent and must be rammed through because waiting and contemplating endangers the situation, puts us in the crosshairs of further problems.

This is the evidence that the man not only cannot abide contemplation, he deeply resents the troublesome task of thinking things through.

His debacle in Iraq, a completely senseless and fraudelent and fatal policy, should convince us all that This Boy Has Cried Wolf, and whatever he says about anything now is to be doubted. He is part of a machinery that does not debate issues, but smears debating opponents with savage personal insults that appeal to the uninformed citizen's proclivities to hate.

So if George W. Bush says radical change in Social Security is urgently needed, smart citizens should look at his record of "warning us of danger" and immediately be doubtful that he is leading us in the right direction. To sum it up: If Bush says "night", we owe it to ourselves to think "day" because that is his track record. When Bush says "hurry up" we are obliged to say, "whoa, slow down" because there is something in the Bush administration's need to rush things through that indicates they are afraid of putting their proposals under a microscope.

President Bush is in a hurry to radically change Social Security. There's a reason for this. The more time anyone spends looking at his proposed changes, the more risky they seem. The loyal opposition, the Democrats, should have one thing in mind for the next four years. Be contrary to Bush. Because if the first four destructive years of the Bush administration are any indication of what that crew can do, then gridlock will be progress.

Dean? Good!

2005-02-12T08:52:00.000-08:00

I am pleased with the election of Howard Dean to chair the Democratic Party. He is learned, direct, interesting -- even captivating -- and appeals to young people's desire for no bullshit leadership. His gaffes are nothing compared to the idiotic malaprops and illogical statements of our sitting U.S. president, so don't even try to replay his "scream," a media moment that played itself out a week after it actually happened.

I am pleased that Howard Dean's contribution to the growth of post cold war liberalism will be more than just a sugar burst to the 2004 campaign. He is pugnacious, driven and conscientious. He wakened Democrats two years ago and he will do so again.

Passion of the Bloodlust

2005-02-10T07:01:00.000-08:00

Lent has begun.

A year ago, Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" emerged as must see (and cringe) pop culture. I just saw it recently, and I understand why it appeals to so many conservative Christians (Catholic and Protestant.)

The film draws from the gut. One learns nothing of Christianity from it, the rock principles upon which Peter built the church. Gibson was determination to create a two-hour universe steeped in hardcore reality, so that the phrase we hear each week (in the Catholic church, at least,) "He suffered, died and was buried" will have some meaning and be more than just a rote utterance.

And boy, did Christ suffer!

In fact, a man who suffers as much as Christ does in this movie could never carry a wooden cross let alone be nailed to it without going into cardiac failure. The prolonged butchery is as unrealistic as the adverturous escapes of James Bond or Indiana Jones. The only thing missing is the director's cut scene in which, at the last minute, Christ whirls the cross around, caving in the skulls of the centurions, hopping on a steed, socking Pilate in the puss, and nodding at the guards to "book 'em."

Gibson goes overboard -- lustfully, cinematically -- so much so that it undermines his own mission to depict a realistic crucifixion. There is an S&M glee to the filmmaking: the lurid monster movie ghouls; the giddy delight from the salivating, rotten-tooth Roman torturers make them seem like porn-flicker bikers; the Jews who egg on the torturers like sicko Norman Bateses than the bewildered, cowardice lynch mob that they probably were. Gibson took too much delight in depicting the torturers' joy in flogging, rather than their derangement. That is, rather than depict some sicko floggers ardently at work, he gave us the close-up shots that make the centurions the objects of our passions. We become more amazed at their sadistic glee, that they could scourge a fellow human being, panting and laughing, and that turns the movie into a snuff film rather than an illumination of Christ's suffering.

I understand how it might appeal to that part of the religious right, who thrive (both spiritually and financially) on accusation and condemnation, who don't give a rat's ass about the destruction they cause today because to them it's always about the melodramatic fulfillment of prophecy and revelations in global holy wars, not to mention keeping tax-paying homos from paying even more taxes if they ever got the right to file jointly.

If it's religion they want, give them instead Mahalia Jackson, performing with the Duke Ellington Orchestra in the Duke's original suite "Black, Beige and Brown", a concert at Carnegie Hall in 1943 to uplift and benefit the Russian War relief fund, to help in the fight against the crushing invasion by Nazi Germany. Imagine, in an era of segregation, a negro orchestra encouraging a godless country to keep up the fight against Hitler, with Mahalia Jackson's spirited, woeful voice singing about slaves who seek strength, and who cherish their Sunday day of rest so that they can replenish their spirit to keep on:

Lord dear Lord of love, God almighty, God up above,

Please look down and see my people through.

He'll give peace and comfort

To every troubled mind.

Come Sunday home

Come Sunday. That's the day.

Often we'll feel weary, but He knows our every care.

Go to Him in secret he will heed your every prayer.

I'm intrigued by the lyric "go to him in secret." That is humility and privacy and not the showbiz sadomachism that pumps people up and flames their base enthusiasm for warfare rather than a truly complicated mission of behaving benevolently.

I've also felt that the truly religious are the ones who focus on the sins of omission -- the things we don't do that we should. This requires a life that includes that Sunday day of rest, to contemplate, and to make the number one priority the plank in our own eyes rather than the speck of cinder in our neighbor's.

We Need Donnie Brasco

2005-02-10T06:34:00.000-08:00

News Item:
NEW YORK - Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) officials received 52 warnings prior to Sept. 11, 2001, from their own security experts about potential al-Qaida attacks, including some that mentioned airline hijackings or suicide attacks, The New York Times reported.

I've always believed that the Bush administration response to the September 11, 2001 sabatoge attacks by Al Quaeda terrorists was manipulated -- just as someone would make a fraudulent damage claim on an insurance policy by stating that damage done prior to a hurricane was actually caused by the hurricane.

By that I mean, the Bush administration took advantage of America's overreaction to the Al Quaeda terrorist actions and, like the Congress that staples pork onto a bill, lumped their own long-simmering lust to attack Iraq onto the "terrorism agenda."

America would be in better hands with a Democratic president -- Al Gore or John Kerry would do just fine -- had they been in command to address the breach of security by Al Quaeda members and the infiltration of their nests into America. What occurred was not an act of war between nations. It was a most horrid act of sublime, evil vandalism. John Kerry was right when he said the proper way to weaken the Al Quaeda terrorism network was through criminal investigation. That, of course, did not sit well with the population that loves things to blow up. Not long after American troops really began getting bogged down in Iraq, I overheard a guy at a department store say, "We should just nuke 'em and pull out." I wanted to correct him and say, "We'd better pull out first, then nuke 'em." Anyway, the idea that we can go in anywhere and achieve a victory, whatever that means, and get out, reveals a characteristic of the American culture, the idea that we can use our brute force to coerce a victory, leave, and everything will be fine. Ann Coulter, in a rage after the 9/11 attacks -- but then again, when isn't she in a rage?-- spat out this lovely foreign policy: We should invade [someone], convert them to Christianity, and get out.

What Kerry, most Democrats, and truth be told, behind closed doors, most Republicans in Congress know is that this isn't a "war" on terrorism. So many people have written that "terrorism" is a methodology, not an ideology, and that declaring a war on "terrorism" is akin to declaring a war on switchblades or a war on suckerpunches or a war on date rape or a war on kicking below the belt. But it is quite handy for the Bush administration to use that "war on terror" because nobody knows what it is. He lumps everything into that word, terror, like insurgency and tyranny, and they are not the same. But it serves the purpose to keep perpetually dizzy a poorly-informed population. Had George W. Bush announced a War to Destroy Al Quaeda, he'd have passed my English class for having a more precise and provable thesis statement.

On September 11, 2001 by Saudi Arabians who skirted sloppy airport security and put into action the long-planned, diabolical scheme to hijack planes and ram them into choice landmark buildings. They did this by going to flight school and using box cutters to frighten airplane passengers. (By the way, do you think ever again passengers in flight will ever be so calm if someone takes over a plane. Other than the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania, passengers in the other three planes assumed this would be a hijacking and a hostage taking. Never again will anyone ever assume that.) The Al Quaeda operatives on this day did not invade America. They hustled past security. Our goal on that day should have been to create our own long-planned, diabolical scheme to infiltrate them and destroy them from within so that the destruction would be permanent. Afghanistan's stupidity in openly hosting Al Quaeda camps made it easy to target those terrorist farms. But it also misled many Americans into thinking that Afghanistan was the nation that attacked us. They harbored the criminals but didn't do the deed. It also led us into thinking that large scale military operations is the answer to the challenge -- that challenge again being to weaken or dismantle Al Qaeda and it's ilk. Big D-Day and Iwo Jima types of invasions are in our national vocabulary and that's the show biz preferred by the simpleton Bush administration.

What we really needed was sophisticated espionage and tough infiltration, which I'm sure would have been implemented by a Democratic president who had no personal agenda to bait and switch, turning the enemy into a toothless dictator named Saddam Hussein whose most horrible crimes were 15 years in the past and posed no threat to us. While we needed Donnie Brasco, George W. Bush was impersonating the bowlegged John Wayne, whose clinking holsters down the middle of Dodge City is now easy pickings for the snipers who don't mind playing dirty from the bell towers.

The Democratic Nomination as Entitlement

2005-02-08T19:53:00.000-08:00

As Howard Dean mounts another unstoppable campaign to become some kind of leader of the Democratic Party, I've been thinking about how he was last toppled.

In a weird mixture of brazen hunger for victory and utter chickenshit fear, voters decided after all that John Kerry was the electable -- whatever that means -- candidate. Dennis Kucinich has a simple, funny answer to the critique that he was unelectable. "Vote for me," he said, "And I'll be electable."

Just the word electable sounds like so much navel-gazing. It's a psychobabble word on the periphery of political science. It's so much snootiness about how to pick a candidate that is safe enough to get the party's middle votes as well as tough enough to bring the victory home.

Kerry, after a stumblebum pre-Iowa campaign season, was instantly crowned the nominee before the last New Hampshire voters punched their chads and capped the cold day with chowdah.

So intense was the electorate's hatred of Bush that they wanted a sure thing in a candidate. Kerry was their man.

In a way, I think Kerry was selected in the same way Bob Dole got the nominee in 1996. He earned it and deserved, so went the logic. It was his time, Dole's and Kerry's. They'd been around and -- Dole, even more so, being a septagenarian -- had these laurels coming to them.

I will stop here to assert that John Kerry was a sterling candidate, a formidable foe, and more-than-qualified to lead the nation and the world out of the gooey morass that Bush and company have put us in.

But I don't think Kerry got the nod because of that. I think he won the votes early because Democrats were desperate, angry and frightened. Howard Dean's clear-cut passion was exciting, then frightening. His authenticity -- he is a counterpart, or should I say counterpunch, to Bush's direct and plain-spokenness. (I take issue with the notion that Bush is plain-spoken. He speaks well when reading simple, declarative sentences. Had one of his doomed businesses flourished, he'd have been a great Texas TV commercial pitchman. But for the sake of argument, I'll just go along with the myth that he is a direct, plain spoken fellow.) Now, Republicans embraced Bush. Democrats embraced Dean, then eschewed him, just like they eat up and spit out their past party leaders like Dukakis and McGovern.

I'm not trying to relive the election with a what-if-Dean-ran revision. What I'm trying to figure out is why Kerry won so quickly and so soon in the primaries, and what does it say about Democrats that they wanted someone "electable" when the very examination of "electability" is a fool's errand that exposes Democrats for our weaknesses rather than our fortitude and loyalty. It sounds like marketing chicanery, trying to find the right smile for the right product. We'd do best not to do so much analyzing next time, and find the candidate who supports our platform but appeals to America in the heart and gut. This means the next candidate must be a fighter, a natural and not one given the nomination as an entitlement.

Rumsfeld Offered Twice to Resign

2005-02-05T10:38:00.000-08:00

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he offered twice to resign in the wake of the prison scandals, but President Bush refused.

Bush is smart. He knows that firing Rumsfeld would have pleased mostly the people who weren't going to vote for him anyway.

But by sticking with him, he was demonstrating a characteristic -- LOYALTY -- that plays big with the ones who would likely vote for him. It bolstered his base, many of whom look to gut-feeling intangibles to justify their vote. Policy matters little to people who base their approval of others on things like: Does he pray? Does he stick with his friends? Does he visit his mother? Does he look French?

Invading Iran Not on the Agenda

2005-02-05T10:18:00.000-08:00

Condaleeza Rice had to announce the fact that invading Iran is not part of the administration's agenda. She added, "However, maybe if we move a few things around we could squeeze it in."

What's a hoot about this?

Soon we will have a generation of citizens who ask presidential candidates, "If elected, who would you invade and why?"

What Rice didn't address of course is that America's ability to invade anybody is practically nil right now. Bush's ridiculous invasion of Iraq under false pretenses (that Iraq is an imminent threat) has now hog-tied America's ability to seriously maneuver anywhere else. Al Quaeda couldn't found a dumber bait-and-switch victim than the Bush White House, and the toady yes-men who cowtow to the president who doesn't think things through. Oh, but look at me, dredging up the past. In his 1960 book Mr. Citizen, Harry Truman writes,

"I am not one who believes it does any good to cry over past mistakes." [unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Truman evidently can recognize making past mistakes.] "You have got to keep looking ahead and going stragith ahead all the time, making decisions and coreecting the situation as you go along. This calls for fundamental policy, a basic outlook, for the making of major foreign and domestic decisions. Otherwise the operations of the government would be reduced to improvisation -- and inevitable trouble."

The last sentence is key because I think Bush policy, while rooted in a fundamental outlook created by others that George W. Bush has happily signed on to, has been administered by improvisation.

"A President who hesitates or temporizes usually is not certain of what he wants, and he is greatly handicapped when he has to act without a clear-cut policy."

The Bush administration's inability to look at the world as it really is and build upon that backdrop a blueprint -- ie, a clear-cut, well-thought policy -- that will tangibily build their neoconservative world alos illustrates Truman's point, even though most people think President Bush is a man who doesn't hesitate or temporize. Truth is, the Bush team does a version of hesitation. That is, they flip-flop. They create crises, then make up reactions to crises so they can eliminate resistance to their hastily-assembled policies, then they continually evolve and make up new justifications for their policies when the old ones get run up the flagpole and nobody salutes. Likewise, during the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry did hesitate and temporize to the point where people felt like he was too cautious. James Carville and I have something in common. We were so frustrated with Kerry (for not blasting back at those swift boat goons for their character assassination of Kerry) that we wept. So hungry were we to see the Democratic candidate tear limb-from-limb the tacts of the cowards and bullies in and around the Bush administration.

Liberal

2005-02-05T09:55:00.000-08:00

In 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush, running for president, called his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis "a liberal."

It was a slam.

Dukakis didn't respond at first. Finally, he trotted out a tired Democratic retort. He said, "Yes, I am a liberal . . . in the tradition of FDR, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy."

Like a fool who hands a burglar his house keys, Dukakis was complicit that is in helping right wing propagandists cheapen the battle of ideas by smearing and tainting words so that they don't have to discuss actual ideas.

Dukakis was afraid of admitting he is a liberal because that word has been hijacked by the right wing and redefined. It's not wrong to be angry at the left wing for allowing it to happen because they just handed over the keys.

Comedian Bill Maher said, "One thing I've got against Democrats is that they never defend the word liberal. They let the Republicans demonize it. No one from the Democratic party ever stood up and said, 'Look up liberal in the dictionary. It means 'open minded' and 'forward thinking.' These are not bad things. These are thing I would want to teach my children."

When Clinton was running for president, he was also called a liberal. Clinton tried mocking the mockers by saying, when Republicans don't want to talk about issues, all they say is 'liberal, liberal, liberal' like a broken record. But he didn't sing the praises of liberalism. He also avoided it. He, too, handed over the keys.

Interviewing John Edwards late in the 2004 campaign, Ted Koppel "Are you a liberal?"

"No," Edwards leapt, leaning forward as if diving for a foul ball -- because that's how Democrats think of the word. It's a foul ball.

Conservatives aren't afraid of admitting it. They're proud of it. When Democrats get mealy-mouthed about reclaiming the word, it shows they are cautious and afraid and out-of-touch with just how strong, progressive and ambitiously open-minded many citizens are. They can be awakened if they have leaders strong enough to be the mirrors of progressive thinking that so many American have become.

"I have been fiercely partisan in politics and always militantly liberal," said Harry Truman. "I will be that way as long as I live."

When Democrats are too meek to declare the wonderful positions they take on serious issues -- and to proudly describe that position as liberal -- then they come across as mealy-mouthed and evasive. That's no way to round up the troops.

Theology. Democracy.

2005-01-20T13:34:00.000-08:00

The rise of evangelicals -- and their growing involvement in the political process -- mirrors the rise of Islamic fundamentalism that began in the past forty to fifty years in the middle east, coming to one of its heads when the Ayatullah Khomeini and his ilk took over Iran at the outset of the 1980s.

America has followed suit, slowly but surely.

We now are divided. We are not divided into religious and secular so much as we, as a nation whose culture is spiritual, are now "religious" and "fanatic." Half of us look to the Bible and see a God of vengeance and justice. Half of us look to the Bible and see a God of charity. You would think that the touchy-feely God -- the one whom the evangelicals stake claim to as a "personal savior" -- would be the charitable God. In my observation, that is not so. Right-wing evangelicals embrace God as their personal savior -- and in fact, declare themselves "saved!" -- and heave a sigh of relief that they are safe while the hedonists will be out on the receiving end of God's lashes (the lashes that they were spared . . . lucky them.)

Their God makes them "feel good." The God of charity is one who inspires His followers to "do good." Isn't it peculiar that the conservatives who decry a "feel good" society use that very sentiment to define their faith. Feeling good -- being saved -- stops at YOU. Doing good -- enacting the will of the charitable God -- is evident in the end result of our charitable, not judgmental, acts.

Republicans are the 10 Commandments. Democrats are the Beatitudes.

2004-12-18T20:05:00.001-08:00

It just hit me.

Republicans are the 10 Commandments. They love to tell others what they shalt not do. They thrive on pointing fingers and condemning what is off limits to others. The Beatitudes do not tell us what to do but how to treat others. There lies the difference between the right and left. Right wingers love to preach, not practrice. The Beatitudes teach us to love thy neighbor, and the left puts that into policy.

By the way, if Republicans are interested in implementing the 10 Commandments, but are also driven to reduce government, then they should adopt George Carlin's take on the 10 commandments. He reduces them to two.

My Daughter Is Astounded That Her Classmates Like Bush

2004-12-07T18:19:00.000-08:00

We talked openly throughout the entire campaign. I made it clear to her why I supported Kerry and she chose to join me in that support.

In fact, she and her younger sister posed for a photo with John Kerry's daughter, Alexandra, during a local campaign stop. They were proud to be part of the process.

What my 6th grade daughter shares with me is her astonishment that her classmates are not concerned about health care and an unnecessary war.

She says, "I have no clue why anybody would take the chance to vote for Bush when he has no possible idea what he's going to do with our country."

She's right: Bush has no real plan to solve health care problems. She says he has a chip on his shoulder (in both ways! she watched the debate!) in that he overcompensates for a long life of mediocrity.

She is a living example of what I have thought all along during this campaign. That the 2004 Kerry-Bush matchup was about more than the candidates. It was the baptism for future activitist.

"Bush supporters aren't informed or they just don't care what's going to happen to their country because in about four or five years I bet some of my classmates will have to go to war," she laments. "Then they will believe in our cause and switch to become donkeys."

What Might Have Been

2004-12-04T18:19:00.000-08:00

I watched again footage of 1971 John Kerry's testimony to Senators as the spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

What a sterling young leader.

And now I think: What might have been.

What might have happened to the U.S. with a mature, knowledgable leader.

It is almost the same gut feeling of "what might have been" one gets when seeing Robert F. Kennedy speak.

But Kennedy was cut down by an assassin.

In a way, Kerry, too, was such a victim.

Of character assassination.

2004: The Real Winner Is the Progressive Movement

2004-11-30T18:25:00.000-08:00

Most of my Democratic friends have been lying low. We were so drenched in news that many of us are taking an information vacation.

But that is all. It's a respite.

A few days after the election, Akron area grassroot Democrats met. It was a hoot -- albeit a sad one. It was a venting session.

But it didn't smell of defeat. The anger seethed, the enthusiasm caught its breath.

I think of it this way. Bush's somewhat narrow win shows that the Democratic grassroots effort was powerful and phenomenal. Bush's successor cannot count on the next Democratic nominee to put up with as many lies as, inconceivably, the Kerry campaign did.

I was completely pleased with John Kerry as a candidate. He should've fought back at the lies, yes, but shame on dumbkopft Amerika for not crucifying Bush for lying so in the first place.

The real hero will be the grassroots energy, whipped into a frenzy by ACT and MoveOn, frothed by Howard Dean, served up by Kerry. The grassroots cannot be equated with one face, one flawed candidate, but millions of faces who thirst for progressive justice.

Goldwater's defeat in 1964 bore the first powerful shoots from the fertile ground of modern conservatism. It peaked with Reagan and is on the wane with Bush. The next Republican candidate will, to avoid a gargantuan ass-kicking, adopt much of the Democrat platform. The Swift Boat goons who lied about John Kerry can't come back to stir the pot of fear and loathing. Stick a fork in the postwar conservative movement. It's done.

Kerry's 2004 defeat produced the first harvest of the grapes that require a few seasons but will, in the long run, prove to be a formidable, sweet and powerful vintage for new millenium liberalism.

A Mission to Perpetuate Democratic Ideals, Or, How to Combat the Babel of the Cynical Religious Right

2004-11-04T06:47:00.001-08:00

In today's (Thursday, 11/04) Cleveland Plain Dealer, Elizabeth Sullivan writes: "The rural poor who put Bush over the top in Ohio on Turesday often voted against their own intersts to elect a man who speaks for them on gays and godly living."

We can either sneer and simmer -- or combat this. I don't think Democrats can out-faith the Right. That's their turf (even though it is true that there are more liberal Christians than conservative, the liberals see their benevolence in acts of kindness rather than condemnation, and the acts of kindness require sacrifice rather than self-righteous judgment. That's not as easy of a compact sell.)

But we can begin now by studying our precincts and seeing who the leaders are and what groups exist.

Voters overlooked jobs, healthcare, a moronic war and voted "moral values." Why? Because one doesn't have to read and analyze anything to base a vote on gay marriage initiatives.

It is, on such a voter's part, an irresponsibile abdication of citizenship.

But it's what we've got.

Starting now, we can imaginatively look at our precincts and see which groups can work in conjunction with the party to bring in only party-partisan experts to inform people about health care and job loss and unfair tax codes. In that way, people will be fortified with substantive criteria upon which to base their vote -- and not irrelevant but enticing faith-based gestures like gay marriage initiatives.

Be educators so that voters will be armed with logic, rather than fear.

Kerry's Message: We're 55 Million and We Approve

2004-11-04T04:30:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Senator Kerry conceded the race.

Two days ago, many Americans told exit pollers that one of the guiding issues in their decision to vote for President Bush is "moral values."

Some say that is code for abortion and gay rights.

I see it as code for something else: The stunning ability for the Bush team and its peripheral evangelical and right wing groups to distract people.

This may sound like sour grapes. While I am seriously disappointed that the Democratic ticket lost, I pay my compliments to the forces that re-elected Bush. I salute their skills, like I would salute a womanizer, who was able to rope-a-dope women into going with him. Bush didn't campaign on his accomplishments, for he has created more havoc than solutions. His minions, like the Swift Boat troublemakers, lied not only about Kerry's record, but sinfully destroyed his character. Additionally, conservative operative skillfully but cynically made sure inconsequential anti-gay marriage initiatives were on the ballots in eleven key states. My conclusion is that so long as people can base their vote upon the hatred of someone else's character or lifestyle, then they feel absolved from having to base their vote upon critical analysis of issues and platforms. One can base a vote for Bush on one's own disgust with homosexuals (and one's valid opposition to abortion) and never have to think twice about the best long-term strategy for Iraq or fiscal responsibility.

Still -- Bush wins.

And pundits wonder what Kerry and the Democrats may have done differently. They say we must talk about faith. Reach out to the middle. Become once again a national party. But I think that will be difficult. The issues important to the Democratic Party require something more than geography. Our stances are adopted by better-informed voters. "Moral issues" becomes code for "I can't base my vote on anything else because I haven't made the effort to read up on it." So "moral issues" voters get taken by the womanizer who makes them think about all the things they despise. The Ku Klux Klan had the same appeal. It attracted poor, frustrated whites who had nobody else but Negroes to kick and feel better than. I have seen it in the faces of people at the polls -- I was a poll checker two days ago -- at their satisfaction in knowing they would be stamping out even the prospect of legal homosexual union.

I will support the Democratic candidates in the next cycle of elections. And I have concluded that an equally important mission is to encourage people to improve their literacy and language skills. Those who were better informed and better educated overwhelmingly viewed Senator Kerry as a more capable world leader who understood that America's sense of mission could not be a square peg in the world's round hole.

In the cacophony of campaign ads funded by a bottomless pit of cash (including my own $25 smackers for Kerry), many voters took the bait that this election is all about:

believing embittered Navy veterans who are still pissed off that Kerry protested Vietnam
reproductive rights (you don't have them)
gay marriage (it threatens your own family stability) (and frankly, I think this issue is all about people's discomfort in having to explain the idea to their children.)
the treasonousness of disagreeing with a narcissict President who, biography tells us, has never much been accountability his entire life.

None of these much matter, policywise. That was Bush, Rove & Company's plan. Threw some red meat to the junkyard dog electorate so they could through the fence and continue constructing their master plan.

I am proud of my small, small part in trying to get Senator Kerry elected. I met hundreds of fellow volunteers and driven staffers here in Ohio that is great consolation to Kerry's defeat. We know each other and will work together again. In our defeat, we feel less alone. In our confusion over how distractions and lies can lay the foundation for victory (not ours), we feel alone in that frustration. We are among the 55 million who passionately approved of Kerry's message.

Bush's Hard-On

2004-11-01T16:44:00.000-08:00

George Carlin was on the radio today. He said he doesn't vote because there's an ownership class in America and nothing really changes.

He's right -- domestically. To a point.

But Bush, like Clinton, came into office with a hard-on.

Clinton put his to use the way God intended.

Bush's hard-on was for aggression. As governor, he presided over an extraordinary number of executions. As president, he has done the same thing. Dozens of thousands of innocents are dead because of his policies.

Because of his hard-on.

Bush Lies And Twists Logic: That is Bad for America

2004-10-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

Tons of explosives have gone missing in Iraq under George Bush's watch.

One Bush apologist, a radio talk show host I saw on C-Span, says, "These very same people complaining about missing weapons are the ones who think we shouldn't be there in the first place!"

That's typical Bushian, childish doubletalk. Never have I seen a collective group of wimps and buck-passers than the rightwing zealots now in charge. Needless to say, if a Democratic president were in charge of this mess, he'd be impeached by now. I think Bush and company have committed crimes worthy of impeachment -- abuses of power, lying, deceit and fraud -- but I'll give the election process a chance to oust him.

Bush says that Kerry will make us unsafe when in fact it is the Bush administration's childish, poorly-plotted international savagery that has toppled the middle east into a brush fire. I get the impression that Bush, in his right wing religious extremism, is aroused by his power to instigate the armageddon of the Book of Revelations.

Bush's rhetoric is so unhealthy for our country. He lies about his opponent -- saying that Kerry wants to expand government (health care coverage) and run away from Iraq. They are lies but Bush persists in telling them. I'm so outraged at this president's abuse of power, abuse of truth and his abuse of ordinary syntax. Together, they muddy up our future by muddying the power of language which results in the misuse of power -- and the deaths of many innocents. I only wish come Catholic Church would erect a potter's field with white crosses for all the innocent dead from the war started by the Bush administration's lust for power. The blood is on the hands of George W. Bush.

Today's Headlines: 50 Iraqi Soldiers Dead

2004-10-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

This convinces me that the Bush-led war in Iraq will not be as effective as a Kerry-led war. All that I have observed up to this point indicates that the Bushian premise of this war will doom it to failure unless we change leadership. Bush-Cheney believed that something like a militaristic swat team could swoop into Iraq and stake claim to the nation. They totally misunderstand the mentality of insurgency. They've shown no signs of understanding it yet. They are not capable of solving the mess they started.

It is widely reported that President Bush's seclusion in the White House has left him without much confrontation of his policies. This has, consequently, rendered him ineffectual in understanding the reality of the enemies we have (and the enemies that he has by choice manufactured for us.)

Bush Couldn't Make the Sale to Allies -- He Certainly Can't Neutralize Al Quaeda

2004-10-24T06:27:00.000-07:00

I wish Bush would knock it off with his outrage over his critics not recognizing his so-called coalition as formidable. Our coalition is the equivalent of one boss with a six others whose job it is to go fetch coffee.

Bush should be fired because he couldn't make the sale to the world. He was incapable of convincing the world of his plan. That's because the world knew how messy it would be without planning, and it became very clear to all that Bush wouldn't plan because he lives in a delusional world in which gut-instinct override analysis. For whatever reason, Bush couldn't make the sale.

That doesn't mean alliances can't be made. It just means Bush can't do it.

However, alliances are an essential tool in the challenge we face to dismantle the likes of Al Qaeda.

If Bush cannot construct the proper strategic tools to fight terrorism, he should be canned.

Kerry indicates that he has the mental breadth, diplomatic skills and can engender the confidence of international leaders to begin the painstaking, longterm campaign to neutralize Islamic terrorism.

Bush, with a childlike insistence, thinks explosives will show them. That's tragically laughable. Explosives are what they strap to their chests. They are not afraid of explosives.

Bush's inability to create the global team necessary to infiltrate and neuter this threat has made our problems worse, not better. Those who don't see that don't understand how the world works. And if their voice wins in this election, then we'll have to wait another four years for someone to bail us out of the mess Bush causes, and that mess will be exponentially worse.

Elect Kerry and Bullies Will Steal Your Kid's Lunch Money!!!

2004-10-23T05:42:00.000-07:00

As we go down the homestretch of this election, I hear every day how Bush/Cheney warn America that if they select Senator Kerry, the United States will be in danger. Every day Bush screeches that we mustn't make the mistake of turning America's security over to some mealy-mouthed, noodle-spined liberal.

He sounds like a boy so desperate to lose his girlfriend that he must convince her that every other man in the world is a rapist. He cannot list in any satisfactory detail any good reasons to stick with him.

Others have perfectly compared Bush to the boy who, unprepared for his book report, has to stammer and bluff and smokescreen his way through it.

You have worked with such people. They are the co-workers who, through connections, got the job they weren't really qualified for. They blow steam, spin webs of puffery, but in short time you see that they are do-nothings, and then they move on to the next job. (You know these type of people especially if you've worked in marketing.)

But back to the election: Beware of Bush's fear-tactics. It was unAmerican for Zell Miller to suggest that it is wrong to criticize the commander-in-chief. It is equally against democratic principles for Bush to ask Americans to base their vote choice on his unfounded, evil assertions that Kerry will make the country less safe. It is George W. Bush who has made this country not only a more dangerous place, but whose policies have unnecessarily killed or maimed seven or eight thousand Americans and many more thousands of innocent Iraqis.

President Bush has nothing to offer America. He does not inspire courage. He encourages fear. That is not only unhealthy. That is a waste of our collective spirit and -- unless we stop him now -- will implant a cancer on the American soul for generations to come.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself," said Franklin Delano Roosevelt, encouraging us to trudge bravely through tough times. Bush is the opposite. He is powerless unless we are all afraid, irrationally afraid, and turn to him as our savior.

I say no thanks. I've already got one.

The Only Way Bush Can Appeal Is Through Hatred of Kerry. That is an Ugly Appeal.

2004-10-21T10:43:00.000-07:00

"John Kerry doesn't understand the war on terror," says President Bush in his desperate, last-ditch effort to smear his opponent.

What a laugh.

While Bush was nursing hangovers, John Kerry had already spent twenty years serving and studying national and foreign affairs before he won a Senate seat.

Since then, it is Senator Kerry who has the experience to better understand the playing field. The sad part is that the first big challenge of Kerry's administration will be to stop the hemorraghing caused by the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz pipe dream foreign policy.

I will trust 100% the judgment of a President Kerry, who has the experience and character to carry the United States through the long-term mission of dismantling Al Quaeda through smart military and diplomatic policies.

Bush Could Please Troops By Making 2nd Big Dumb Decision

2004-10-21T10:30:00.000-07:00

The headline in today's paper is this:

For troops at the front, pullout is election issue

But U.S soldiers in Iraq mostly support Bush

This is understandable.

They don't want to be there. They want to go home.

But, as well all know, Iraq grows messier and more anarchic every day. It would be irresponsible for the United States to pull its troops out now.

On the other hand, it was irresponsible to invade Iraq in the first place.

Since Bush made the first irresponsible decision -- he seems like the most likely canidate to make an equally irresponsible decision to pull out.

Maybe that is why more troops support Bush.

President Bush Is A Weakling, A Puppet for Corporations

2004-10-20T13:52:00.000-07:00

After the debates, President Bush has barnstormed the country saying that Senator Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class.

Bush acknowledges that Kerry says he'll only tax the rich, but then Bush adds: That's why the rich have all those lawyers and accountants. So that you -- the middle class -- will be taxed.

Does President Bush suggest that the rich can buy their way out of higher taxation and there's nothing we can do about it?

What a weakling. For all his tough talk about being resilient, his backbone to fight for the people is no stronger than dry ice. What a puppet for corporations.

"I Know Osama Bin Laden Attacked Us!" Said Bush -- Demanding That He Get That Quiz Point Counted Right

2004-10-18T19:26:00.000-07:00

In their first debate, George W. Bush stepped like a fly into a spider's web when he said he initiated the war with Iraq "because we were attacked." Senator Kerry paused and said, "How revealing," and added that it was Al Quaeda who attacked the U.S.

George W. Bush snapped, "I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us. I know that" in such a tone that I was embarrassed for the entire country. Without notecards to read from and a worshipping audience, the U.S. President became a prep-school brat who got caught in his simplistic lies and logic.

Bush reminds me of those rope-a-dopers -- people who consider themselves masterful debaters when in fact they simply change twist the logic till the audience is discombobulated.

When I first saw Bush in the 2000 election primaries, I thought of him as childish and simplistic, but since then I've read too much about his cunning to believe it. Some critic along the way called him "willfilly ignorant" which is different than dumb. It makes sense. He chooses not to make "knowledge" the base of his expertise because that's a lot of work. Instinct -- or gut feelings -- works better because there's no homework. But now that he has had smoke blown up his ass for four years by worshipful right-wing zealots in the cabinet and an adoring population, I am convinced again that he is childish and simplistic. More dangerously, he is the ascendent prince who believes his royalty literally comes from the anointment of God. The best thing that could ever have happened to such a simpleton were those terrorist attacks, for he used them as the leverage to do what he wanted. Governing in peactime was a bore, but this, with guns and crusades and the vague poetry of patriotism and divine mission, is within his grasp as the performer for Wolfowitz and the other handful of architects who are the Islamic terrorists' counterparts in darkening the world.

The U.S. President, who touts his maturity and steadiness, proved to us all that he's nothing of the kind when he was so easily reduced to sputtering "I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us!" like he just muffed an easy quiz question.

It's no wonder he can't make alliances. He can't even engage in conversations with his own countrymen.

Weeks Away from Darkness...or Enlightenment

2004-10-10T08:46:00.000-07:00

Anyone who is even mildly-well-read about the world knows that Bush is seen as a childish myopic cowboy by the rest of the world. Those Americans who don't make the effort (a basic requirement of good citizenship) to be decently-informed almost take pride in not giving a rat's ass about world affairs or world opinion. They like that Bush is decisive -- even though his decisions are reckless. You know why? It is easier to like a characteristic rather than examine someone's judgment. We do it all the time with arrogant people. We write off their rudeness with, "That's just her way," and then -- we don't have to deal with the repercussions of "her way."

Americans got a pass for the first term. Bush came to power as an innocent, a dolt, but after he used Al Quaeda attacks to ram through everything his religious and diplomatic extremist administration wanted, the election then becomes a referendum not only on him, but on our collective American judgment.

I'm truly flummoxed by his popularity. Watching him in debate one, he is a monkeyfaced know-nothing, out of gas after six or seven one-liners. Watching him in debate two, he is bizarre: While I have heard some think him confident and tough, I saw only an odd, nervous head nod, a facial nod that punctuated his weak, oft-repeated, illogical maxims, and genuinely weird conclusions to his points, like "God bless you" or "Really respect the question" like he didn't know how to close his statements. Yet, people see the same thing I do and find nobility and strength.

What a weird state this country is in. When it's over, when somebody wins, and they start to say "Now's the time to heal," you will hear echoing from the hill and dale the cry, "Fuck the healing, the battle has just begun." The Republicans' destruction of Bill Clinton from the moment he won the election will be nothing compared to the culture wars against Kerry if Kerry takes the election. And if Bush is reelected, I predict that the Left will emerge with a fury unseen in nearly forty years, and Bush/Cheney will take advantage by administering -- though not calling it -- martial law of sorts. If Bush wins, we will see the emergence of Howard Dean in some form. And if you thought the president was confident before in his belief that God led him from the darkness of drink to the bright light of Christian crusade, then hold on to your hat.

I'm deep in thought about this election -- in part because I can be (I and seven others got canned in late July and I'm still out trying to correct my constant professional misfortunes) -- and in part because of the gravity of the election. I believe it is nothing short of this: We are weeks away from the beginning of a dark, smoldering extremist era in American history . . . or an era of enlightenment guided by knowledge, intelligence and idealism based upon service rather than utopian grandeur.

Bring ' Em On. Vote 'Im Out.

2004-09-30T10:15:00.001-07:00

Three words disqualify George W. Bush for the presidency -- “bring ‘em on.” In an unguarded moment, President Bush revealed that he lacks the discipline, intelligence and foresight to create a truly effective long-term plan to combat Islamic extremists. He talks like a punk, not a president.

A real man would not taunt enemies that others will have to fight. The presidency in these troubled times requires more depth than this man can deliver.

What Do You Expectate from the Debates?

2004-09-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

Campaign teams do not merely prepare their candidates for debates. They prepare the audience.

They commonly downplay their own candidate. This lets candidates “defy expectations” even though their debate performances are average.

Campaigns also overpraise the opposing candidate. This tactic gives the illusion of a “disappointing performance” after you’ve built up the opposing candidate as the second coming of Christ.

(Personally, I’d love to see the second coming of Christ coincide with the Bush administration. “Turn the other cheek” would come off as weak on security. “How else can he pay for all those loaves fishes without raising taxes!” George W. Bush would say.)

An example of the above strategies came from one Bush campaign staffer, who calls John Kerry “the greatest orator since Cicero.”

It doesn’t stop there.

Another Bush source says, “President Bush is not a good debater at all. In fact, he usually can’t get through a debate without mangling a few key phrases.”

He adds, “The president will probably also break down in tears by the end of the first hour. That’s how tough Senator Kerry is.”

Several other Bush campaign strategists agree. “Kerry’s a genius. In his spare time he translates episodes of Seinfeld into Latin.”

“His persuasive speaking are so powerful that Laura Bush plans to vote for him,” said another.
“President Bush actually asked Senator Kerry to Afghanistan with a bullhorn to talk Osama Bin Laden out of his cave,” said White House advisor Condaleeza Rice. “The Senator, of course, would not use his supreme gifts to help capture the evildoer.”

Kerry’s camp is equally in awe of the president’s prowess. “Mr. Bush could talk a nunnery into a wet t-shirt contest,” said a senior strategist. “Now that would be some coalition of the willing.”

A handful of the president’s Yale fraternity brothers (known to the Bush campaign as the “Swift Boat Veterans for Keggers”) say that young George W. Bush not only talked his way out of dozens of speeding tickets, he organized countless roadside bong parties with Connecticut state highway patrolmen.

“His skills at persuasion are colossal,” admits Senator John Kerry. “And mine, well, I couldn’t talk a dyke out of a Chippendales dressing room.”

His running mate agrees. “To call John Kerry dyslexic would be a compliment,” says Senator John Edwards. “Give him two, three years of Hooked on Phonics and he’d still need two days to get through an Archie comic. He’s just a big dumb cluck.”

This sentiment is echoed by a Kerry staffer: “Don’t expect much from the senator. Half of the time he just wanders around the bus repeating the names of McDonald’s chicken nugget sauces. Once he stuffed a handful of Cracker Jacks in his ear.”

That’s not how George W. Bush sees his opponent. “Senator Kerry is such a brilliant debater that he actually listened to tapes of dolphins, learned the language, went to Sea World, and convinced the dolphins to return the smelts.”

“That’s nonsense,” says Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry campaign manager. “But what do you expect from George W. Bush, a man who convinced salmon not to swim upstream, which threatens the economies of fishing communities on both coasts!”

“More lies from the Kerry campaign,” contends Vice President Dick Cheney. “Kerry’s the one with real m. The liberal media won’t report this, but on a fact-finding mission to Egypt, the Senator ordered a cup of tea at a cafe near the Red Sea. The command in Senator Kerry’s voice as he asked for sugar was such that the sea parted. Sadly, this allowed terrorists to enter Egypt.”

“I’m not that good,” the president chuckled. “After all, only about 40% of the people believe that Saddam was behind 9/11!”

Republicans Rely Less on Faith Than New Age Feel Good Fantasies

2004-09-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney speaks softly, calmly. I read that the vice president commands the table this way. People shut up and lean closer to drink in what he is saying.

Here he was sharing a stage with his wife in an intimate townhall meeting broadcast on C-Span.

One man in the audience stood up to ask a question. He was in his mid-thirties, dressed comfortably but casually, like it was Friday in accounting firm. Senator John Kerry continually talks about how the economy is in bad shape. And yet -- the young man said -- when I step outside of my front door and look up and down the street, I see about twelve brand new cars in the driveway.

So, the man wanted to know, is Senator Kerry wrong when he describes the economy in gloomy terms?

Senator Kerry, said Dick Cheney with his trademark dismissive sneer, has “spent a little too much time wind-surfing.”

How far have we come from the Kennedyesque world of athleticism and vigor that the supposed tough guy in this scenario is the grizzled old CEO with four heart attacks and the nail-biting sob sister is the 60-year-old Democrat who hunts, wind surfs and climbs mountains and -- oh yes -- fought in a war.

Okay, but everyone chuckled. Nothing wrong with that. Politics is always about being a little over-the-top. Funny. Colorful. Cheney is, after all, the one who mangled out of context Senator Kerry’s use of the word “sensitive“ in a speech on how a Kerry administration would dismantle the threat of Al Quaeda. And Kerry is right. It will require a sensitivity to international affairs to truly infiltrate Al Quaeda’s global network.

But Dick Cheney is in “smoke ‘em out” mode. Not Al Quaeda, but the opposition to his reelection.

What gets me is how this guy at the town hall meeting, a seemingly intelligent middle-aged fellow, can come to the conclusion that all of the news reports he hears about an economy in peril must be bogus because of what he sees on his street.

At a glance, this man didn’t seem sheltered. He looked and spoke like the kind of guy whose job might require traveling, whose business associates are well-educated, and -- apparently -- whose neighborhood is somewhat well-heeled. Certainly it requires some savvy to get to such a place, and savvy requires an awareness of what’s going on.

So what happened?

He got a Republican labotomy.

In this election many Republicans feel such a primal need to feel good about themselves by inventing good news, or wallowing in the bad news so much that the President becomes their sugar daddy/knight in shining armor protector.

They fancy themselves “Onward Christian Soldiers” crusaders. In fact, they are quintessential New Agers, inventing their own “Morning in America” TV commercials as they go along. Every morning, a glance up and down his comfortable street at the new cars . . . and it feels good. Seeing George W. Bush with a megaphone, dangling his arm over the rescue worker . . . it feels good. There’s Bush again, tossing out the first ball at Yankee Stadium ... it ain’t policy, but man, does it feel good.

For all their admiration of toughness, the truth is they are big fans of “tough guy” not “tough behavior.” These guys are pretty much softies and have been all of their lives. They count on tough-talking fellow softies whose bellicosity compensates for a lifetime of privilege, of not being accountable, and of passing the buck.

They equate fast decision making with sound judgment.

Popping his head out the front door to see all the new cars on the block is like the ground hog looking up to see winter and declaring "The entire world is an iceberg!"

WMDs Found!

2004-09-19T20:30:00.000-07:00

Countless WMDs have been found -- in transcripts of President Bushes addresses. They are "W's Moronic Deceptions."

The Childishness of the Bush Administration

2004-09-19T20:27:00.000-07:00

John Edwards said. "When John Kerry is president of the United States, we will find Al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people."

That's what Bush says, too. But the Bush administration had its chance. It just got bored and like babies beneath a mobile reached for the more obvious Iraq.

The Bush administration is characterized by childishness. They are stubborn, lie constantly, will never admit mistakes, and get bored easily.

Not so Kerry-Edwards. They are accomplished men whose platform indicates long-term planning and no "rush" to idiotic, ill-conceived wars.

"Are You Saved?" versus "Are You Hungry?"

2004-09-19T20:21:00.000-07:00

The Religious Right, with all their Philistine posturing over which candidate is holier than the other, permit their conservatism to permeate the very marrow of their faith. That is, they are more concerned about being "saved" -- signing that policy on the dotted line -- than they are in the hard, confounding, not-always-feel-good challenge of actually putting into practice their benevolent Christian behavior. Forget asking, "Are you saved?" Try, instead, "Are you hungry?" That's Christianity!

The Candidates At Age 40

2004-09-19T20:04:00.000-07:00

Okay, now that the Swift Boat veterans against Kerry have spoken -- their voices muted because their heads are so far up Karl Rove's ass -- let's move on. Not to the issues. But to comparing the candidates at age 40. Yes, rather than compare Kerry and Bush when they were in their mid-twenties, let's compare them at a time when it will be a more fair assessment of their character.

At forty, John Kerry had graduated from college, served in Vietnam, returned to protest the war, ran for Congress and lost, graduated from law school, served as an ardent prosecutor, was elected lieutenant governor, and was poised to win a senate seat.

At forty, George W. Bush had graduated from college, where he disagreed with campus peaceniks and to show his support for the Vietnam War, enlisted in the Texas national guard, where he reported for duty . . . for awhile . . . he ran for Congress and lost . . . operated a failed oil business . . . drank a lot . . . drank a lot more . . .

The Book of Amos Speaks Out Against Corporate Greed -- If the Right Wingers Would Only Just Read It

2004-09-19T19:39:00.000-07:00

I wonder if the right wing evangelicals who support the Republican platform of corporate power and greed ever look closely at the Book of Amos, Chapter 8: "Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, saying, 'When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?'- skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales, buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: 'I will never forget anything they have done.'"

On the other hand, it's a helluva lot easier to just say, "No gay marriages."

Bush Uses The Dead of 9/11 As Involuntary Campaign Workers

2004-09-09T19:05:00.000-07:00

While watching the Republican convention, I was genuinely startled to see how frightened they are. With most of a 4-year term behind them, they spent an extraordinary amount of valuable time desperately trying to scare the electorate into thinking that their opponent is weak. Zell Miller became a joke when he said that John Kerry will take foreign policy advice from Paris. How did THAT every get past the Bush administration. If they want us to take them seriously they had better get their facts straight. What was even more troubling was their capitalizing on the 2001 terrorist attacks to, once again, try to galvanize support for the Bush administration. Back then, they had that support -- and squandered it -- and their ensuing war on terror has been botched by lack of planning, horrendous international diplomacy. You can’t go home again, they say, and they should leave the 9/11 dead to rest in peace and not become ghostly campaign workers for Bush.

Restore Dignity to the White House: Vote Kerry

2004-09-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

It is clear that Republicans will stop at nothing to undermine constitutional process. From the moment Clinton took office, Republicans have been diligent in trying to destroy him. The fact that Republican power mongers cannot abide challengers and must dehumanize them is a detriment to the republic. To allow the far right, a savvy minority, to dig its claws any deeper into the control of a much more diverse America reminds me of the stranglehold that another minority had upon apartheid South Africa. My vote for John Kerry will be a vote to restore honor, integrity and maturity to the White House. Such leadership will be essential to stop blind, manic swashbuckling of the Bush administration.

An Insecure Buck Passer

2004-09-09T19:01:00.000-07:00

Why would anyone be surprised that President Bush steps aside and lets the disingenuous swift boat veterans do his dirty work for him? He had no qualms about letting them do it back in 1968, nor did he have any qualms about hiding behind his chaperone, Dick Cheney, at the hearings conducted by the 9/11 committee. Set aside partisanship, and imagine the 27-year-old George W. Bush bravely speaking to a Senate panel about his firsthand experiences in war. Set aside partisanship and imagine a 40-year-old George W. Bush working side-by-side with fellow members of Congress where consensus and cooperation are required.

The U.S. Presidency is too important of a job for someone who passes the buck or needs chaperoned and is so out of his depth that he relies on trigger-happy cowboy B-movie dialogue to establish the national discourse. Nor is it a position for anybody who lets other people do his work for him.

Yes, The Bush Administration DID Have A Post Invasion Plan for Iraq

2004-09-09T18:59:00.000-07:00

Shame on those who claim the Bush administration had no plans in place for after they invaded Iraq. That is hardly true. Companies like Halliburton have likely known for a long time that they would get first dibs on contracts to rebuild the ravaged nation. If that isn’t a plan, what is?

Conservatives Like to "Feel Good." Liberals Like to "Do Good."

2004-09-09T18:03:00.000-07:00

When Reagan was challenging Carter in 1980, a friend said, “Ronald Reagan makes me feel good.” I’ve never forgotten this because I hear it so much now among Bush supporters who say their candidate makes them feel good. That, I believe, is the difference between the left and the right. The right seeks out images and platitudes that make them “feel good.” The left seeks out ideas and dialogue that inspire them to “do good.” For instance, the self-congratulatory “No Child Left Behind” was begun -- but underfunded by $27 billion (according to the Ohio Department of Education) -- by the conservative Bush Administration. The Democratic challenger, Senator Kerry, proposes a Medicaid plan that will give more children eligible for health care. The policies proposed and established by Democrats over the years actually put into practice the adage “love they neighbor.” If the recent Republican convention is any indication, then the political right is more interested in the puffery of turning George W. Bush into a demi-god just because he hollered into a bullhorn and threw out a baseball at Yankee stadium, which is the political equivalent of ribbon-cutting at a new building. It is self-congratulatory imagery that feeds the egotism of the insecure.

Bush's "Cute" But Aggravating Word Games Lie About Kerry's Record

2004-09-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

It’s cute how President Bush loves to repeat how Senator Kerry voted for -- then against -- the spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a popular stump speech item for him. But I think a closer look at Senator Kerry’s decision will remove the sneers from many people’s faces.

It will interest many to know that this bill included a provision to permit companies such as Halliburton to win no-bid contracts. It is the height of cynicism on the part of the White House and the Republican Congress to lace this important funding with pork for their pals in big business. Let us applaud Senator Kerry for his support of fair capitalism and his vote against cronyism.

Another thing that Bush-Cheney accuse Senator Kerry is flip-flopping on his support of the war. Barely a week after the 9/11/01 attacks, Senator Kerry told interviewers that we should not use this as an excuse to attack Iraq if Iraq was not involved. He has been resolute from the start about why -- and why not -- Iraq should be attacked. Like a child who betrays his parents’ trust, George W. Bush is to blame for betraying the confidence of every representative in Congress who gave him the authorization to wage war in Iraq

Nothing Will Stop Us, Says Bush. (Not Even Ethics.)

2004-09-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

“Nothing will stop us,” President Bush said over and over in his convention speech. This pretty much sums up his administration’s greatest flaw. It requires international cooperation to probe deeply into the caves and crannies of the world where Al Quaeda operatives patiently plan their havoc.

A bullheaded, unilateral approach to dismantling Al Quaeda requires a process a little more savvy and sophisticated than “full speed ahead -- and we’ll think about the aftermath later.” The Bush administration has shown us clearly that nothing will stop them -- even facts that prove false their rationale for war.

Nothing will stop them from dehumanizing their perceived enemies abroad and at home, like when they endorse the dehumanizing of John Kerry and the fearsome tactics of chilling American citizens to the bone with their promise that, under Kerry, we will be more prone to attack.

Nothing will stop them -- and we’ve seen that in action when the Republican party imported thugs to Florida to bang on doors and shout in protest with such intimidation that the recount workers could not finish their vote-counting and Bush toadie Katherine Harris, with her Wicked Witch egg timer run out of sand, would not permit the recounting to continue.
“Nothing will stop us,” he said. And that is chilling -- not to America’s enemies -- but to its own citizens.

Garrison Keillor and the Mayor of Akron, Ohio

2004-09-09T17:51:00.000-07:00

I just picked up the book "Homegrown Democrat" by Garrison Keillor at the public library (another institution that Republicans would love to get rid of!) and on page 20 he echoes what why so many people who don't bother to stay well-informed can still claim the mantle of Republicanism. Keillor writes, "I am a liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness. Liberals stand for tolerance, magnaminimity, community spirit, the defense of the weak agasinst the powerful, love of learning, freedom of belief, art and poetry, city life, the very things that make America worth dying for. The people who call themselves conservatives stand for tax cuts, and further tax cuts, annual tax cuts, the only policy they know."

Akron mayor Don Plusquellic said in a recent speech: "No tax cut ever rebuilt an old bridge." See what I mean: Tax cuts = selfish, because tax cuts lead to funding cuts, funding cuts lead to elimination of safety and educational programs, which then cause parents like you and me to have to pony up extra so our kids can be in music and sports programs. And guess what, we end up paying in fees, inconveniences and new levies more than what we gained in any friggin' tax cuts.

Bush is a Coward For Not Denouncing, Specifically, the Cretinonous Swift Boaters

2004-08-30T12:16:00.000-07:00

When given a chance to denounce the lies of his supporters, George W. Bush would not specifically say the Swift Boat ads were wrong. Instead, he lumped those ads in with all ads produced by 527 groups.

George W. Bush is a coward.

There are plenty of groups who create ads that are not vicious, malicious lies. They should not be equated with the cretins who create the Swift Boat ads.

It's Only Appropriate Now to Use the F-Word to Describe Dick Cheney

2004-08-15T19:41:00.000-07:00

Addressing an audience of veterans in Dayton on the War on Terror, Vice President Cheney said, “This is not an enemy we can reason with or negotiate with.”

The next day, the Cleveland Plain Dealer headline read that “U.S. suspends Najaaf attack” to begin talks with the rebels.

Now I have known all along that the Iraqis are not terrorist, but from the very start the Bush administration has lumped Iraq in with Al Quaeda and have misused the word “terrorist” to include Iraqi nationals and anybody else in Iraq who is shooting back. Cynically, the Bush administration has taken to calling anybody who shoots back a “terrorist” because they know how Americans want so very much for the war on terrorism to succeed.

Now that the U.S. is negotiating with those -- the Bush administration’s word here: “terrorists” -- then I think it is fair to use the F-word to describe Dick Cheney -- flip-flopper.

Kerry's Energy Independence Plan Is Smart Economics and Good Wartime Strategy

2004-08-15T19:34:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press reports that the U.S. trade deficit hit a record $55.82 billion in June and the country’s foreign oil bill reached an all time high. Senator John Kerry’s plan to liberate America from reliance on Middle Eastern oil is not only financially smart, but it also gives the U.S. a leg up on the war against Islamic terrorist groups. I urge my fellow citizens to see the big picture and recognize that Senator Kerry’s plan differs greatly from the Bush administration, whose task force met with oil executives in secret behind closed doors.

The Kerry plan includes goals to make a full 20% of our fuels renewable by 2020; to give billions in tax credits to automakers to improve fuel efficiency; and to exceed the Bush administrations efforts to propel the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (as well as to invest more in clean coal power.)

The Kerry plan for energy independence is a smart, long-term move toward victory over reliance on fuel sources that come from nations that nurture Islamic terrorism. The Kerry Plan is a patriotic alternative to creating wealth that subsidizes terrorism.

Bush Administration Sneers at -- While Creating -- Veterans' Sacrifices

2004-08-14T11:27:00.000-07:00

It amazes me that the Bush administration and its supporters will go to such great lengths to discredit the military accomplishments of John Kerry. This, from an administration and a movement, that is going to such great lengths to create future veterans.

One wonders whether, a generation or two hence, there will be a future U.S. president who sat out this war who will follow President Bush's lead in sneering at the wounds and sacrifices of the Iraq War veteran who dares to challenge him in an election.

Kerry on September 14, 2001

2004-07-20T19:34:00.000-07:00

Republicans protesters who show up with flip-flops, disrupting Kerry campaigns, should well remember what Senator Kerry told a radio interview in an interview on September 14, 2001 that President Bush should not take this moment in history to use "this as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with the events of September 11th. A very clear example: For instance, if Iraq had nothing to do with what happened, you can't use this as a pretext to suddenly attack, as much as you don't like Saddam Hussein."

Kerry's vote later on to support the President was contigent upon Bush using wisdom and true leadership, not belligerent swagger.

Another Great Pro-Bush Argument

2004-07-12T19:34:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush can level this accusation at his opponent: "If the Senator from Massachussets is so smart, then how come he didn't use all the resources at his disposal to keep himself out of harm's way during Vietnam. Most people my age -- including myself -- used every possible resource to avoid the bloodshed. That required cunning and imagination. My opponent not only squandered the opportunities that were right under his nose, he actually went out of his way to find the trouble. What can you say about a man who squanders the natural resources he is given and instead insists on doing things the hard way?

Then he has the temerity to come back to the U.S. and complain. Well what in the world was he thinking? Did he think it was going to be a rose garden? Did he think that everyone was just nuts for not wanting to go fight? He's a slow learner, that opponent of mine, and he learns things the hard way. I don't know if that's what you want in a president, but if it is -- if you want someone who won't seize opportunity and who wastes the privileges that y'all would've loved having -- then he's your man.

But if you want someone who saw opportunities for a better life -- especially for himself -- and took advantage of those circumstances because that's what America is all about -- and that's what I did -- then I'd appreciate your vote.

Don't Look Back. Don't Admit Mistakes. Don't Learn.

2004-07-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

The 911 commission reveals that FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota were suspicious of Arab flight students, but their superiors ignored the warnings. Okay, what’s done is done. But this information is valuable in helping to build an intelligence system for the new millenium. I don’t entrust that to an administration that refuses to admit its shortcomings and mistakes. The Bush administration’s never-look-back approach to decision making is not in the best interests of the U.S. We need an administration that will use intellect and cunning, as well as brute force, to create an intelligence infrastructure that will proceed with the long job of dismantling terrorism. Senator Kerry, with his long history of working in Congress, that relies on consensus and team building, is better suited to tackle this new challenge.

What Did You Expect...That They WOULDN'T Bring It On?

2004-07-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

Another hostage has been brutally beheaded, and I can’t help but think that George W. Bush’s “bring ‘em on” is partially responsible. This president, who so struggles to use words to express himself, didn’t take seriously his own flippant taunt.

The cost of this war-of-choice is being counted not only in billions of dollars, but in the currency of the 4,000 maimed and killed American military and service personnel. And “bring ‘em on” more and more sounds like the words of a comic book king, not a real leader who knows what battle is like and whose words are carefully measured.

Invading a Toothless Old Tyrant Is NOT the Same as Fighting Terrorists

2004-07-12T19:25:00.000-07:00

Saddam Hussein’s performance in court further signifies how cartoonish and demented he is. For all his domestic crimes -- he wasn’t a threat to the U.S. -- at least not one that should have diluted our mission to dismantle Al Quaeda. The Bush administration’s almost childlike attention span ought to inform us that they lack the focus and sophistication to plan and implement a plan that will be durable enough to successfully cripple the enemies who attacked us in 2001. John Kerry, who grew up the son of a diplomat and who understands firsthand the devastation of war, is often criticized as people “too serious.” I am thankful for that. I will support U.S. troops by casting my vote for John Kerry, who has shown every indication of being a commander in chief who is not so flippant with their lives, or the country’s destiny.

George W. Bush -- Recycler

2004-07-12T19:21:00.001-07:00

He lied about Iraq's weapons threats. He lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. He was insincere about building a real coalition in Iraq. He lost interest in combating the powers that attacked the U.S. in 2001. He recklessly squandered revenues in tax cuts that will lead to impoverished state and local budgets. In 2000 he ran for President with the promise to “restore honor to the White House.” The good news for George W. Bush is that, since he never did so, he can still use it as his 2004 campaign theme!

The Bush Administration Plays Rope-A-Dope With the American Public

2004-07-12T19:21:00.000-07:00

The LA Times poll published 6/20 provided a bizarre mixture of numbers. 53% said the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over; 61% said we’re getting bogged down; Yet 52% think the U.S. is winning the war; Furthermore, only 21% believe that the Iraq war is giving the U.S. a positive reputation worldwide.

This confusing mixture of statistics -- the belief that we are winning it AND bogged down in it -- indicate that most people don’t really know why we are there. That is a testament to two things: The administration’s inability to think this thing through, and their skill at so confusing much of the electorate that they can’t even tell whether we are winning or losing.

Kerry's Policies Will Result in Better Housing, Schools and Infrastructure

2004-07-12T19:19:00.000-07:00

After three years of gargantuan tax cuts for the wealthy, it is good to hear that John Kerry’s plans will look at the other end of the economic spectrum.

For instance, his plan to raise the minimum wage 36% over the course of three years. He also plans to double spending on afterschool programs and increase chidl-care tax credits. This is in contrast to President Bush’s policies of spending billions on war, which will not have any positive offset in better housing, schools and infrastructure.

I’m afraid that if he is elected, and without reelection concerns, the President will continue to recklessly wage war and increase deficits in ways that will damage our country worse than any outside threats.

Iran is Becoming Nuclear --- Watch Out Greece!

2004-07-12T19:18:00.000-07:00

Iran announces it will resume some nuclear activies and is considering restaring uranium enrichment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bush administration responds to this threat from Iran by launching an invasion of Greece.

If Whiny Republicans Can't Take Michael Moore Then They Sure Can't Beat Terrorism

2004-07-12T19:15:00.000-07:00

Republicans who whine about Michael Moore’s movie should remember that Kenneth Starr spent millions digging up anything he could find to ouster Clinton. They should remember how they laughed when Limbaugh played song parodies ridiculing the homeless and women’s rights. Believe a half -- a fourth of what you see in Moore’s flick -- and it’s still obvious that President Bush hasn’t the context or the right staff to effectively address the serious, complicated problems we face. It’s not too late to stop the diplomatic hemorraghing, but only if we sensibly change course this November.

Say what you want about Moore's flick, but never forget this: The Bush administration reacted to September 11, 2001 by invading Afghanistan and dismantling Al Quaeda camps. They must have had a change of heart when they decided to open up the world’s biggest Al Quaeda recuitment center...in Iraq.

The Bishops Themselves Are Cafeteria Catholics: Let's Turn the Far Right Left

2004-07-12T19:12:00.000-07:00

In her 6/27 Plain Dealer column "Withholding Jesus a tricky business," Regina Brett exposes an important point. If those Catholic bishops who want to refuse Holy Communion to Pro-Choice candidates -- but not to Pro-Life candidates who support the death penalty or policies that further hurt the poor -- then the bishops themselves have become “cafeteria Catholics” themselves, selectively choosing who should receive sacraments. I don't like this trend but it can be addressed in a simple way: A vote for John Kerry, who unlike President Bush actually attends church but doesn't wear it on his sleeve, is the best way to begin the trend of taking religion out of the hands of the far right, these modern day Philistines who politicize the intensely private act of worship.

Foolish Spies Just Trying to Please The Boss

2004-07-12T19:11:00.000-07:00

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report blaming the country’s intelligence agencies for being wrong about Iraq’s weapons’ capabilities.

This criticism falls short.

It should also lambaste the White House. The Bush administration cajoled and twisted and bullied their spies to provide them with data that would indict Iraq so they could get the war they’ve been dreaming about. While the spies exercised poor and unprofessional intelligence decisions, these agencies were basically just trying to keep the boss happy. What we ought to be more gravely concerned about is the Bush administration’s desire to manipulate this data so they could commence with their conquest of Iraq when their true responsibility -- which they childishly abandoned -- was to root out and dismantle Al Quaeda. They proved themselves not worthy of the mission. Let’s give John Kerry -- a veteran and the son of a diplomat -- the chance to put his intelligence and resolve to work for a better America that uses its force and alliances wisely.

Bush's TV Spot -- "Optimists"

2004-07-12T19:07:00.000-07:00

I got a big kick out of the Bush reelection TV ad called “Optimists,“ which says (about John Kerry): “Pessimism never created a job.”

Then again, neither has Bush!

Conservatives Aren't Tough Enough to Govern

2004-07-12T18:57:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are complaining that it is illegal according to FEC laws to have the likes of Financier George Soros and filmmaker Michael Moore putting their wealth and mouthpiece to the task of moving President Bush out of office.

Where were these “equal time” advocates when Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh, a Republican Congress spent two terms not only ridiculing Bill Clinton, but trying to oust him from the White Office?

These conservatives sound like a pretty thin-skinned lot to me. You got to be tougher than that to be in the White House!

"Bird thought to be extinct seen again" --- Associated Press

2004-07-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

That's what the headline in the paper said: "Bird thought to be extinct seen again." While it turned out to be about the Cozumel thrasher discovered off of the coast of Mexico, I thought for sure it was going to be about Dick Cheney coming out of the woodwork to once again trying tying Saddam and Al Quaeda together.