Cheney

Nice one from Oliver Willis

Bush/Cheney: 7/7/04: 0-2

Batting a perfect .000, the Bush/Cheney team labels Edwards as "inexperienced." Let's consider that in light of the 2000 campaign:

When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards's lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999. "You've been a great governor," Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. "My only problem with you, governor, is that you've only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship ... Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That's why I'm thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate." Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday

Perfect.

Bush/Cheney 7/7/04: 0-1.

Was John Edwards Kerry's "second choice", as Bush/Cheney '04 would have you believe? Maybe, maybe not. It does, however, raise an interesting issue about the presumptive "first choice", John McCain. You see, the internet renders Bush/Cheney's idiocy even more idiotic. As John McCain himself pointed out in March, he was Bush's "first choice" back in 2000. McCain didn't want to be Bush's VP in 2000. So, Bush went with his "second choice", Dick "go &*#% yourself" Cheney.

Kerry - Edwards

John Kerry selected John Edwards to be his running mate. I think this is an exceedingly good thing, and I have great respect for Senator Edwards.

Ann Coulter: sloppy demagogue

Ann Coulter isn't so much a conservative as she is a neo-McCarthyite. In Ann's worldview, Tailgunner Joe was a swell guy who was misunderstood. I wonder if she approves of Roy Cohn's ... preferences. Anyway... Ann, she of "Slander" and "Treason" fame, has taken to slandering George Soros, a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Nazis and Communists, as well as Michael Moore, whose only treachery is having made an opinionated movie, which no one is forced to see. To underscore the inanity and sloppiness of her latest screed: "Saddam In Custody -- Moore, Soros, Dean Still At Large" (which obviously equates - morally and criminally - Michael Moore, George Soros, and Howard Dean (!?) with Saddam Hussein), note this passage: "Soros later denied comparing Bush to the Nazis, saying he had merely said Bush reminded him of "the Germans." Hmmm, which Germans was Soros referring to -- the Von Trapp Family?" The Sound of Music was released in 1965. Any idiot who can sit through and comprehend the first 30 minutes of the film quickly learns that the von Trapps are Austrian. Only Hitler considered the Austrians to be German. What does that tell you?

Krugman

is an absolute must-read today. "Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor. "

Abriendo Caminos

This is part of Bush's outreach to Latinos. A website called "Opening Paths" has a sign-up page. As the WaPo reports, This webpage contains a sign-up sheet.

Signing up promises Spanish-speaking folks that President Bush and the GOP will "send you weekly news about the topics that most interest you." The sign-up page asks the usual stuff -- name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. You are to check which of many listed topics -- immigration, health, Social Security, corporate responsibility, crime prevention and so on -- are of most interest. Then it asks what you are. There are four options: war veteran or retired military; teacher or educator; senior citizen; or farmer or rancher. That's it. Nothing for lawyers, doctors, engineers or corporate executives to check. Not even a box for "otro?"

Enron: red-handed

Tapes reveal what we all already knew. That Bush & Cheney's second-favorite energy conglomerate, Enron, deliberately manipulated the energy market artificially to create an energy crisis in California in 2000. Despicable. Coincidentally, some of these conspirators are heard to be hoping for a Bush win in 2000. What a surprise. "It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

Haven't been posting much

Spring is here, and my thoughts have wandered pretty far from politics. Honestly, this country is, in my opinion, in the midst of a pretty bad period, and it seems to me as if no one cares. Let's take a journey of the mind. It's 1998, and Bill Clinton is President. - Gas prices are routinely at $2.13/gal for regular. - We are engaged in an urban guerrilla war that we chose to fight as an aggressor. - Over 800 US servicemen and women have died in that war. - Although the war itself went swimmingly well, the postwar occupation has been a tactical disaster. It was poorly planned and executed with a blind, arrogant bravado. -- We have successfully alienated a great portion of the local population with our incompetence. - The deficit has returned with a vengeance. - There is a prison scandal in the occupied nation, which has brought great shame on the US. - The government justifies its shameful prison scandal by arguing that at least it isn't as bad as it was under Saddam; thus lowering the bar of decency and humanity to "better than a murderous dictator". I could go on, but why bother? Could you imagine the cacophonous clammer from the right if any one of those items had happened under Clinton? Amazingly, many on the right blame the whole thing on Clinton and the Democrats anyway, so their credibility is in the toilet. In any event, New York is pretty solidly in Kerry's corner, so all that's really left to do is raise some money and get out the vote. That doesn't really matter until the fall, the way I see it, so I think I can take a well-deserved break from campaign matters until then. I'll post when time and news permits.

How charming

This from the infamous Lucianne Goldberg she of Lewinsky/Tripp infamy, and a woman who is best compared with Ursula the Sea Witch from Disney's Little Mermaid: Under a photograph of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), she adds this quote: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -President Abraham Lincoln Just another example of the rise of blatant fascism in the "conservative" movement. I prefer this quote: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring" -- Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950

"Broken Engagement " by Gen. Wesley Clark

Wes Clark brilliance. Check it out here. Here's an excerpt: "During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events. We have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; assuming that they exist at all, they obviously never presented an imminent threat. Saddam's alleged connections to al Qaeda turned out to be tenuous at best and clearly had nothing to do with September 11. The terrorists now in Iraq have largely arrived because we are there, and Saddam's security forces aren't. And peace between Israel and the Palestinians, which prominent hawks argued could be achieved 'only through Baghdad,' seems further away than ever. "

Zell Miller the wingnut.

According to Zell Miller, what went on at Abu Ghraib is nothing more serious than what goes on in school locker rooms across the country. As Pandagon comments, the school locker room can be an intimidating place, but "since nobody locked the door, put a bag over my head, beat me, sodomized me with broomsticks and light sticks, forced men into sexual acts with other people, threatened my life, and took pictures of the whole thing for their amusement, I never thought to compare it to what happened in Iraq, because it wasn't even in the same galaxy of occurences". Indeed.

Pathetic.

Bush likes to go around visiting factories, (mostly those run by his supporters) and making a big point about just how successful and helpful his tax cuts, etc. are for manufacturers. This is an especially important point in battleground rust belt states like Ohio and Michigan. A visit to Counterspin Central will reveal that a factory in Canton, OH, which Bush visited in 2003, and where he gave a self-congratulatory speech in front of a "Jobs and Growth" banner similar to the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Well, that plant's been shut down.

A glimpse

of John Ashcroft's America. Who would have thought that the pride and flag-waving jingoism of 2002 would give way to utter shame and disgust in 2004?

If you didn't already think Bush & Co needed to go...

The GAO investigates and discovers that 28 top (read: executive-level) federal workers sport bogus "diploma-mill" degrees. Including some who work in the TSA, and three managers at the office that handles nuclear weapons safety. Let's not forget about the Abu Ghraib scandal. Could you IMAGINE the headlines and the unbridled venom that would be spewing from the mouths of people like Limbaugh, DeLay, etc. if this had happened under, say, Clinton? Well, there are some new as-yet-unreleased pictures, and the question isn't whether, but when they'll be made public. Apparently, some of the photos depict soldiers having sex with each other. Apparently, other photos depict US troops sodomizing Iraqi prisoners with glow sticks What's also striking is that, all of a sudden the very "black and white" world of conservative punditry has opened itself up to the wonders of moral relativism.

Yaay. My LTE is published

Here's the link. Here's the text: We'd be better off with Kerry at helm 5/5/2004 Recent letters to The News attacking Sen. John Kerry are misguided and ironic. One letter touted Bush's tax cuts, yet criticized Kerry supporters for demanding more government programs, using the old canard that Democrats are tax and spenders. The Bush administration's idea of wealth redistribution involves cutting taxes, while spending the people's money with unbridled enthusiasm. Wealthy individuals and big corporations get huge tax breaks on the backs of middle-class taxpayers. In place of a huge budget surplus, we now have a record deficit. The Republican federal government is all about spending without actually paying the bill. That's not guts. It's irresponsibility. Kerry wants to decrease the federal deficit. He believes that a strong economy can coexist with sound environmental policies. He knows firsthand what war is like, and will not be cavalier when putting our men and women in harm's way. Kerry will make it easier for middle-class kids to get a college education. He will stop giving tax breaks to companies that take their headquarters and jobs overseas. By the way, last year, I was a Republican, too. ALAN BEDENKO Clarence Center

Great new website

Everyone remember David Brock? Back in the early 90s, he was a shill for the conservatives - he was, in fact, their darling. He wrote the "Real Anita Hill", and broke the Clinton "Troopergate" story, among others, working for the ultra-right-wing "American Spectator." Turned out, Brock is gay. Turns out, the ultra-right-wing conservative movement doesn't much care for gays. So, now Brock has changed his ways and is turning his undeniable talents against his former masters on the right. He is the editor of this new website: Media Matters for America. Please go check it out. There's too much good stuff about ..ahem.. lying liars there, and it seems to be updated regularly.

GOP Strategery

According to Oliver Willis, here's a paraphrase of GOP strategy: "Senator Kerry, please explain to us what you did with the medals you won for being shot at and for saving lives during your service for our country, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney were avoiding the draft. Senator Kerry, release your military records so we can reveal your excellent performance reviews and compare them to President Bush's middling and missing ones."

Nightline controversy

According to Poynter Online, The Sinclair Broadcast group, which owns several ABC affiliates, mainly in the Southeast, will refuse to air Friday night's Nightline. Why? Because Ted Koppel will read the names of the servicemen and women who have died in Iraq. Here's part of Sinclair's reasoning. It's flawed. Click the link above for the whole disgusting thing: "The ABC Television network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30th edition of Nightline will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." Thankfully, ABC responds, in part: "We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt "Nightline's" tribute to America's fallen soldiers which will air this Friday, April 30. The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country. ABC News is dedicated to thoughtful and balanced coverage and reports on the events shaping our world with neither fear nor favor -- as our audience expects, deserves, and rightly demands. Contrary to the statement issued by Sinclair, which takes issue with our level of coverage of the effects of terrorism on our citizens, ABC News and all of our broadcasts, including "Nightline," have reported hundreds of stories on 9-11. Indeed, on the first anniversary of 9-11, ABC News broadcast the names of the victims of that horrific attack."

People just don't trust Bush anymore

Just click here and check it out.

Clark op-ed in NYT

Check out Wes Clark's brilliant defense of Kerry's Vietnam War Record in today's New York Times. "When John Kerry released his military records to the public last week, Americans learned a lot about Mr. Kerry's exceptional service in Vietnam. They also learned a lot about the Republican attack machine." "The evaluations were uniformly glowing. One commander wrote that Mr. Kerry ranked among 'the top few' in three categories: initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Another commander wrote, 'In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed.' The citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star praises his 'calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire.'" "In the United States military, there's no ideology - there are no labels, Republican or Democrat - when superiors evaluate a man or woman's service to country. Mr. Kerry's commander for a brief time, Grant Hibbard, now a Republican, gave Mr. Kerry top marks 36 years ago." "Now the standards are those of politics, not the military. Despite his positive evaluations, Mr. Hibbard recently questioned whether Mr. Kerry deserved one of his three Purple Hearts. In the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions." Go check out the rest.

LTE

A letter of mine will be printed in the Buffalo News shortly. I'll link if I can find it.

"I watched Kerry throw his war medals"

The slime du jour is the old charge that Kerry-claimed-he-threw-his-medals-but-never-really-threw-them. Tom Oliphant pretty much puts an end to this latest GOP nonsense in today's Boston Globe. "ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry." "As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse." The point is that "medals" and "ribbons" was interchangeable back then. The ribbons one wore on one's uniform symbolized, among other things, medals that the soldier had won. Obviously, unless you're a member of the Soviet Politburo, you don't go around wearing medals all the time. They get cumbersome, you know. So, because Kerry said he threw his "medals" when, in fact, he kept the metal medal but threw the ribbon instead, the GOP is trying to paint Kerry as a liar and, probably, a murderer of small animals. Next.

Honor. Duty.

We're fighting two old-fashioned wars overseas. We're fighting a newfangled war against terrorism. Things are, by most accounts, not going swimmingly. In the middle of all of this, the right-wing attack squads are all over John Kerry's military record. Release it all! they scream. That first purple heart was for a mere flesh wound! they yell. Well, Kerry released his entire military file. Bush still can't account for a good chunk of his service. In any event, here is something to consider: From George W. Bush's file: From John Kerry's file: 'Nuff said, really. Thanks to The Washington Monthly for the quick info.

Honestly.

We're the wealthiest country in the world. Bush has about $150 million in his campaign treasury. Don't you think that any 13-year old with a PC and photoshop could have done a better job than this juvenile, tacky background? It looks like "protection" is most important. it appears, in one form or another, seven times. Next comes "prevention", which appears five times. Bringing up the rear is "enforcement", which merits only four entries. I like how there is uneven spacing between "prevention" and "enforcement" on the second row. I also like that "protection" appears next to itself on the fourth row down. Finally, note how the words are arranged in such a way as to perfectly surround the President's head. That's quite creepy.

Haven't been posting much.

I've been relatively busy lately and haven't been too active. Sorry about that. The President came to Buffalo yesterday. I was, frankly, more interested in seeing a 747/AFO land at Buffalo-Niagara than I was in what Bush had to say. It was a campaign photo-op, pure and simple - even though he doesn't have a prayer to win in New York. Bush was in town to stump for re-election, and to provide some inarticulate puffery for the Patriot Act, which is set to expire next year. Honestly, I think it's pretty significant that Bush doesn't have a chance to win in the state which bore the brunt of Septemebr 11th - New York. I also think it's pretty significant, and underscores a complete lack of understanding of the issues that Bush comes to Buffalo and doesn't say anything about the Homeland Security issues surrounding our border with Canada. It was all nothing but a big photo-op, complete with "Mission Accomplished"-style background. I'd like to give a belated shout-out to the good folks who protested Bush's visit to Kleinhans yesterday.

I don't like paying for Bush's propaganda

Look. Either we have public funding of campaigns, or we don't. In this case, Bush and Kerry both explicitly rejected matching funds, so they're both supposed to be using money they raise on their own to pay for their campaigns, right? Well, apparently Mr. Rule-of-Law, who makes a big deal out of seeing things in black and white, found some grey after all: Go to this blog and compare a quote on the Treasury's website (for which you and I pay), and another quote at the RNC's website. Bush. Ain't he a stinker?

Glad to see the grownups are running things now.

According to this WaPo article, the US is gearing up to finally let the UN handle some of the Iraq reconstruction. The problem is that Iraq is completely devoid of meaningful security. You know, back in the winter of 2002-2003, when my goverment told me there were WMD and a nuclear program in Iraq, I believed it. When it told me that these WMDs were not only violative of existing UN resolutions and posed a growing threat, I believed it. I mean, why would my government, in a post-Watergate, post-Lewinsky era, LIE to me about matters of such import? Not only that, but I certainly believed that these experienced people would devise a coherent plan decisively to win that war, and quickly bring peace and stability to this newly-occupied country. Wouldn't they? Well, as it turns out, they lied to me about WMDs, they lied to me about nuclear weapons, and they had absolutely no post-war plan. Just about anyone with half a brain can tell you that before you go into an adversarial situation, you analyze all of the possible outcomes and prepare for them. Obviously, the UN doesn't want to go near Iraq without some security. So, the US wants to put together a "New Global Force" to protect it. Among the countries the Bush administration is courting to join this force? France. (as Atrios asks, do they still call them "Freedom Fries" in the House cafeterias?). France, India and Pakistan, among others. Any Arab countries? No. Any of Iraq's neighbors? No. Turkey? No. Simply beyond inept, beyond pathetic. Over 600 US servicemen have died for what really has become a folly. I'd love for someone to explain, with a straight face, how the war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism. Please.

Franken to Hannity: You just got SERVED

I am really, really disappointed that no local affiliate carries Air America, and I'm not about to get XM radio - at least, not until the Sopranos is done for this season. Franken does have a sort of nascent blog, and brilliantly eviscerates Sean Hannity's (and the remainer of the proto-fascist right's) disgraceful, cheap and ignorant attacks on Kerry. You absolutely must read this in its entirety. Here's the intro: "About a week ago on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity spewed a litany of lies about John Kerry being a flip-flopper and tax raiser, lies that came directly from the Bush campaign. Oddly, Alan Colmes did not respond. So we will. Hannity said: 'Here's a guy that supported gay marriage, now against it. Here's a guy that by my count has had six separate different unique positions on the war on Iraq. Here's a guy that voted for the $87 billion to fund the war before he voted against it. Here's a guy that was for the Patriot Act. Now against it. No Child Left Behind, for it, now against it. Here's a guy that supported -- was against the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans. Now he's for it. The only thing he seems consistent on is that, throughout the 19 years he was in the Senate, he voted to raise taxes consistently 350 times. What does that tell us about a man that has no core values or principles? Franken takes these on one at a time. With actual facts and quotes. Would that Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the chickenhawk parrots could do the same.

Not for nothing,

But isn't this the dorkiest picture you've ever seen of someone trying to look serious & tough?

More on Tax & Spend Cheney

Through this press release, we also learn that, "on February 3rd, 1987, John Kerry and 15 Senators cosponsored a resolution in opposition to import fees and taxes on oil, including Republican Senators John Heinz and Alphonse D'Amato. Senator Pell said that "the truth is that an oil import fee is not a good idea and would certainly not be painless for consumers. An oil import fee would impose heavy new costs on all who use oil and oil products in manufacturing and production. It would also impose higher costs on all who heat their homes with oil or use oil-generated electricity. In addition, by increasing the production costs of energy and raw materials, an oil import fee would make American manufacturers far less competitive in world markets-a situation certainly not tolerable with today's current trade imbalance."

Bush/Cheney 2004. Liars and hypocrites of the world, unite.

By now, if you have cable or satellite TV, you've probably seen this ad that Bush/Cheney 04 are running. You may also have noticed that, to date, not one single, solitary POSITIVE Bush ad has been in rotation. The ONLY Bush ads anyone has seen have been crude hits against Kerry. It begs the question, why can't Bush just run on his own record? Because his record sucks eggs everywhere, in every way. Back to the point... So, this recent Bush ad contains the following: "Some people have wacky ideas, like taxing gasoline more -- so people will drive less. That's John Kerry. He supported a 50-cent gas tax." Wow, you say. How embarassing for Kerry, you say. Geez, what was he thinking, you say. Heck, I just paid $35 to fill up a tank of gas. The last thing I need is a 50% increase in that amount, right? Sure. But what if the copy went like this: "Some people have wacky ideas, like taxing gasoline more -- to artificially prop up the price of a barrel of oil so oil producers can charge a premium. That's Dick Cheney. In 1986, he introduced a bill in Congress that would have artificially kept the price of a barrel of oil at $24, at a time when the market price was consistently $18." Well, it doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, but it's true. In 1986, Mister "gas taxes are crazy" said this: "'Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States,' The Times/IHT continues: "Oil prices had plunged to $15 from nearly $40 a barrel in the early 1980s, and Cheney argued the tax was needed to stabilize oil-state economies devastated by the collapse. "...the cost of Cheney's oil-tax plan ultimately would have been passed on to consumers through higher prices on gasoline and other petroleum products. "Under Cheney's proposal, any imported oil bought for less than $24 a barrel would have been taxed with a fee equal to the difference between the cost of that oil and the $24 base price. "'It is hard to explain how they could attack John Kerry for even considering a 50-cent gas tax, which he didn't introduce or vote for, and ignore Cheney's own legislation in 1986 which would have dramatically raised the cost of gasoline," [Senator Richard] Durbin [(D) Ill.] said.

Fiscal conservatism and less government?

Not from this Bush administration. Although there is not enough money for basic homeland security services such as Immigration, border control, and first responders, I'm glad to see that the fanatically right-wing theocrat John Ashcroft is spending millions to go after what I guess is now public enemy #1. Adult porn.

Compassionate Conservatism.

There's a rising star in the conservative punditry named Kathleen Parker. She is a syndicated columnist, and a contributor to the right-wing Townhall.com site. This week, she revealed that the "unanimous" decision in her household was that the entire "Sunni Triangle" area of Iraq. (You know - that country Bush & co. lied about so he could fight a war). Remember Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, predicting how we'd be greeted as liberator. Some greeting. Anyway - completely ignoring the irony - this conservative commentator opines that we should just obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent (and maybe a couple of guilty) Iraqis. Just kill them dead. Why? Because 4 American "private security contractors" (read: mercenaries) were killed, and their bodies desecrated. I seem to recall that, in their occupied territories, the Nazis would murder 10 local, innocent civilians for every 1 Nazi soldier killed in partisan ambushes. The new conservatives are merely chips off the old block. Here's Ms. Parker's wish that we use a final, nuclear solution on Fallujah. Here, Ms. Parker gets it completely wrong about gay marriage, and stereotypically lumps homosexual men and women with transvestites. She also approvingly quoted conservative "democrat" Zell Miller as advocating that the then-9 democratic presidential candidates be "lined up and slapped." Ha ha! Of course, the original column, and the actual quote, advocated that these 9 candidates be lined up and shot. Tee hee.

Wow!

Krugman gets it

Honestly, he always has. Still think that the White House won't blatantly lie its way out of any stupid little thing? Then you should read about the shenanigans between the White House and CNN regarding a funny video from a Bush speech that Letterman ran earlier this week. "On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches. "CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: 'We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video.' Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video. "On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: 'That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape.'" Bush has already alienated Howard Stern, who had been a big supporter in the wake of 9/11. Now he's alienated Letterman.

Plamegate

Wow. The Bush administration cares soooo much about national security that it's willing to out an active, covert CIA operative just to embarass her husband. But that's not all. Oh, no. That is not all. The NY Times reports that the FBI is now expanding itsinvestigation: "Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say." The coverup was worse than the crime in the early 1970s. What makes this crowd think it's any different in the early 2000s? The more things change...

This sloping graph

is a 10-poll average of Bush's approval ratings since taking office. As the blogger formerly known as Calpundit offers, "Do you think the White House is a wee bit worried by this?

Bush's friends, the Saudis

Wow. What a lot of pull former Halliburton CEO Richard "call me Dick" Cheney and former Harken CEO George W. Bush, Jr. have with their OPEC buddies - especially their best friends, the Saudis. "The Bush administration, in an election year, had pressed OPEC to lift export restrictions to help control U.S. pump prices and prevent energy inflation slowing economic growth. OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia led the push for the cartel to implement cuts of one million barrels a day from April 1, as first agreed in Algiers in February. 'The Saudis have gone from being a reliable OPEC price dove to OPEC's arch price hawk,' said energy consultant Mehdi Varzi. 'That's because of the demands of the Saudi budget. They need higher and higher oil prices every year to meet current expenditure for a larger and larger population.'" Thanks, Saudi Arabia! Thanks for those 19 lads who blew up 3000 innocent Americans. Thanks for Osama bin Laden. Thanks for ever-higher gas prices to prop up your failing, decadent regime. Bastards.

Far be it

Far be it for conservatives to suggest nuclear strikes on Arab countries, right? RIGHT? Hello?

Bush: The only good taxation

Is regressive taxation. And why do I call these obscenely high gas prices taxation? Show me what Bush has done to convince his friends in OPEC, including our new friend Libya, to increase production.

War Rationale: Version 10.0

This truly is a brilliant recounting of just how deviously inept the Bush administration has been on the war in Iraq. Here's a taste: "Saddam Hussein poses an 'imminent threat' to the American people. Version 1.0 - Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat Version 1.01 - Saddam Hussein is a gathering threat Version 1.02 - Saddam Hussein poses a real and dangerous threat Version 1.1 - The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud Version 1.2 - We can't afford to wait Version 1.3 - We never said imminent Version 1.3.1 - OK, maybe we did say it once or twice Version 1.4 - We should have been more precise " Go check out versions 2-10

Fallujah = Mogadishu '04

This is just horrific. One wonders exactly what Delay, Frist, Limbaugh, et al. would be saying now had this happened under a Clinton or Gore administration.

Wes Clark meetup

I'm somewhat disappointed that the Clark meetup for Buffalo was automatically cancelled, because only 4 people voted for a venue. I sincerely hope that we local Clark people might meetup again in the future. I think that we should maintain our identities as Clark supporters as we help John Kerry win the White House in November. We took a candidate who had never before sought political office, and turned him into a front-runner in a mere three months. That's a pretty big feat. Wes Clark was the one who made it ok to be a democrat and strong on defense. After the near-miracle we pulled off with Clark, imagine what effect we could have on the Kerry campaign. Although I urge all of my fellow Clark supporters actively to join the Kerry effort, It'd be nice to strategize Clark-centric ways to get Kerry's message out there. Maybe in May.

Daschle: brilliant

Daschle doesn't get enough props, but go and read this statement from the Senate floor. Excerpt:: "If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don't hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the Administration's prescription drug plan. This is no way to run a government. "

Tax cuts and Iraq were Bush's highest priority.

I won't go into too much detail about Richard Clarke, simply because I don't have time to read his book and watch cable news 24/7 in order to find out who is accusing whom of what. I think everyone is pretty clear that some of the charges leveled by Clarke in his book and his 9/11 commission testimony eerily echo those raised by our own Wes Clark during his campaign: that the Bush team put terrorism on a backburner when they came to office, and that their invasion of Iraq was a costly and unnecessary diversion from the real war on terrorism. I also think Clarke makes an extremely valid point when he says that 9/11 presented a unique opportunity for us vis a vis state-sponsored terrorism. Not only was there a tremendous outpouring of international sympathy for the US after 9/11, but a lot of Arab dictatorships, as well as a number of average people on the street, decided that the Islamist radicalism had gone too far. By invading Iraq, we've only inflamed that radicalism, creating, as Hosni Mubarak forewarned, a hundred bin Ladens. Anyway, Soviet expert Condi Rice, the formerly well-regarded Colin Powell, and the petulant Don Rumsfeld have been vehemently defending the administration, insisting that terrorism was by no means on the back-burner or otherwise not a top priority during Bush's administration from January 2001 - September 2001. Calpundit finds these interesting non-Clarke tidbits from various sources to counter these latest weak attempts to defend inaction: The Washington Monthly: "General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff: the Bush administration pushed terrorism 'farther to the back burner.' Bush administration terrorism report, April 2001, via CNN: When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus on Osama bin Laden, 'a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.' Thomas Maertens, NSC nonproliferation director for Clinton and Bush: '[Clarke] was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S.' But Maertens said the Bush White House was reluctant to believe a holdover from the previous administration. 'They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration,' he said. 'So anything they did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it.' Lieutenant General Don Kerrick, Clinton deputy NSA who was held over for several months by Bush, comparing Bush's sense of urgency regarding terrorism to Clinton's: 'Candidly speaking, I didn't detect that kind of focus.' And this: 'I don't think it was above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen.' President Bush himself, quoted by Bob Woodward: 'I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus; it was not the focus of my team.'"

Kerry's new plan is simply brilliant

Kerry's proposal today takes care of three issues in one fell swoop. I think it's brilliant: He proposes a 5% overall corporate tax cut to encourage increased hiring and help businesses' bottom line. In addition, he will abolish tax breaks for corporations that take jobs and headquarters overseas. While the Republicans are running around in circles over Richard Clarke, (who, in case you forgot, happens to be registered Republican), the Democrats are looking for ways to improve the lives of average Americans. This proposal, from a supposedly liberal democrat, is the best and most effective response that Kerry could have provided to Bush's latest negative ad. And as for those negative ads - I think they're hilarious. They start out with a patriotic-looking GWB, with US Flag background with the voiceover, "I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message" and immediately fades into what can only be described as a Saturday Night Live-style parody of a cheesy negative political ad. Instead of tit for tat, Kerry gives us a solid, brilliant plan. Well played.

Terror aides strangely keep turning on Bush

Check this out for some great points by Josh Marshall. Why, exactly, is it that Bush's terror aides (Clarke, Wilson) keep defecting? "The first possibility is that the Bush White House is so freewheeling, inattentive and just plain unlucky that it keeps appointing senior counterterrorism aides who actually turn out to be both policy incompetents and closet Democratic partisans. The second that these malefactors leave the White House, they show their true colors and start leveling all manner of baseless charges against the president." "The second possibility is that every counterterrorism expert the White House hires who isn’t (a) a hidebound ideologue or (b) a dyed-in-the-wool Bush loyalist eventually becomes so disgusted with the mix of incompetence and mendacity that is the White House’s counterterrorism policy that he eventually quits and then immediately sets about trying to drive the president from office." "Which seems more likely to you? Choice one or choice two?"

"The Committee to Save the World"

Is how Oliver Willis captions this photo.

This gang couldn't shoot straight if it tried.

This, via Atrios. First, Condi says that: "[Richard Clarke] was in every meeting that was held on terrorism...All the deputies' meetings, the principals' meeting that was held and so forth, the early meetings after Sept. 11." Ms. Rice painted a distinctly different picture of the involvement of Mr. Clarke, who has prompted furious responses since he asserted in a new book and in testimony on Capitol Hill that President Bush did not heed warnings before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Yet, yesterday Scott McClellan said: 'Dr. Rice, early on in the administration started holding daily briefings with the senior directors of the National Security Council, of which he was one. But [Richard Clarke] refused to attend those meetings, and he was later asked to attend those meetings and he continued to refuse to attend those meetings.' Apparently, some meetings are more important than others. "

See Condi.

See Condi Lie.

GW Bush. Comedian.

At a TV correspondents' dinner on Wednesday night, Bush the jokemeister appeared. He awkwardly read some nonsensical jokes about Rumsfeld and "Queer Eye". Then he launched an "Election Year Slide Show." MSNBC has the entire presentation here. A couple of minutes in, there's a shot of Bush looking under his desk. He voices over, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere." Glad he can rib himself over misleading us about WMDs. I'm sure all of these families thought the joke was just hilarious.

Condi Rice: Nerve.

Condi Rice has some nerve. She's attacking Richard Clarke personally. How convenient for someone who doesn't feel answerable enough to her employer - We the People - to testify under oath before the 9/11 commission.

Foxische Beobachter? Izfoxtia?

In the finest traditions of TASS, TANJUG, KCNA, and XINHUA, Bush's politburo is now using the Fox News Channel as its official propaganda outlet. "Republican commission members -- armed with fresh information on Clarke released by the White House yesterday through Fox News -- played defense lawyers determined to discredit the witness as a closet Democrat. " Honestly, instead of "Fair and Balanced" or "We Report, You Decide", FNC should just change its motto to: "The Official Organ of the Republican Party's Central Committee". I am more and more convinced each day that the new, theocratic GOP is simply fed-up with multiparty plurality. Using an overtly pro-Bush news channel as its official mouthpiece, as it did yesterday, is just another tick-mark in the antidemocratic (in both senses of that word) column for the GOP. They don't just want to defeat Democrats. They want Democrats to go out of business. Why else would they demonize Democrats like they do? Still think FNC is "fair and balanced" or somehow objective? Then please explain to me how it could keep Tony Snow as an anchorman when he regularly subbed as the host of Rush Limbaugh's radio program? Snow also writes columns for the conservative Jewish World Review. (Snow now does a radio show for Fox's own fledgling radio network. I think he would be heard by more people if he just yelled out of the window of a Manhattan office building.)

Wow.

Ralph Nader must be stopped.

Need some ammo against Ralph Nader? He's not all he's cracked up to be. Some might even call him a bit cracked, himself. For what does Ralph Nader stand? Ralph Nader, and not much else. This article, by the New Republic's Jonathan Chait explains just how self-absorbed and self-interested Nader is. (Link goes to Free Republic. sorry). Ralph Nader, Inc. reveals that Nader is particularly blind to life's realities, and peoples' desires. Think that Nader, Inc.'s PIRGs are a good idea? Think again. the "public interest research" produced by the Nader groups was systematically fraudulent. Every time I actually got into an issue deeply enough to understand the details -- nuclear power, toxic waste, pharmaceutical regulation -- I discovered that the Naderites had no more respect for the facts than the industries they were fighting: in some cases, less. According to this former PIRGer, "The PIRGs are gigantic beasts that feed on money, which it turns into . . . pretty much the same end product as any other beast." Think Nader is against big money special interests? This cartoon makes a good point. Looks like there are a lot of repentant Nader voters out there.

Why does Dick Cheney hate America?

Apologies to Atrios for appropriating that line, but I love it when he uses it ironically when pointing out Republican hypocrisy. The Kerry DBunker blog brings us this 2000 exchange between Dick Cheney and Tim Russert: "MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago? MR. CHENEY: I don't, Tim. It was--and it's been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we'd done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards--they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. [Meet the Press, 8/27/00, emphasis added]" To quote an oft-repeated right-wing phrase, if it were up to George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, Saddam Hussein would have remained in power between 1991 and 2003, and would have gassed a Kurdish village sometime in the 90s.

Factcheck.org: use it.

the most damning part of Bush's newest attack ad against Kerry points out that Kerry voted against sending body armor to troops in Iraq. That provision was part of the $87 billion package Bush demanded when our Iraqi "cakewalk" got a bit stickier than expected. Doesn't that beg the question, why didn't our troops have the latest and best body armor in the first place? The body armor provision represents 1/3 of 1 percent of the total bill. A newer version of Bush's ad shows Kerry seemingly contradicting himself. It's quite obvious that the quote is taken waaaay out of context, and I was quite curious to find out what, exactly, the context was. Here it is, from www.factcheck.org: Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.

A Paul Harvey Moment

Here's a story about a politically active fellow we'll call "Bill": "Lito Pena is sure of his memory. Thirty-six years ago he, then a Democratic Party poll watcher, got into a shoving match with a Republican who had spent the opening hours of the 1964 election doing his damnedest to keep people from voting in south Phoenix. 'He was holding up minority voters because he knew they were going to vote Democratic,' said Pena. The guy called himself Bill. He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman. He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote. " That young lawyer named Bill is.... William Rehnquist. And now you know. The rest. Of the story. Good day.

Why does the GOP hate children?

Check out this letter from Cleveland's Plain Dealer. "Too high a price on naughty words? 03/22/04 Dennis Mulvihill Cleveland I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000. So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000. Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: 'Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely.' "

Well, well, well.

It would appear that my candidate from 2000 doesn't buy the Bush/Cheney canard that Kerry would be weak on defense, or compromise National Security if elected president. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said today he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president. " To paraphrase Atrios, and others, why does John McCain hate America?

Could Stern help sway the election Kerry's way?

This commentator at the Boston Globe seems to think so. "Since the FCC crackdown on media 'indecency' in the wake of Janet Jackson's Nipplegate incident, Stern has transformed his morning variety show into a rabidly anti-Bush talk forum. Every weekday, he has been devoting hours of his broadcast (locally on WBCN-FM, 104.1) to impassioned criticism of President Bush and support of Senator John Kerry. Railing tirelessly against the president, Stern has been attacking Bush's yoking together of church and state, the legitimacy of his National Guard service, his use of Sept. 11 imagery in his campaign ads, his stances regarding First Amendment rights, his handling of Iraq, and his stands on gay marriage and stem-cell research. 'Join me and friends of this show who are outraged,' Stern said on the air last Friday. 'Vote out every Republican you can find.' He has also been urging his listeners to send money to Kerry's campaign, calling him 'a good man' and praising his record in Vietnam as well as his later criticism of the Vietnam War." "With all the talk of liberal talk radio," says Michael Harrison, the editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, "we're seeing emerging from the ranks of `shock jocks' one of the most potent and articulate liberal talkers we've seen in years."

$10 million for John Kerry in 10 days

Most of you probably received an email from former President Clinton, asking everyone to donate to the Kerry campaign, in the hopes that they can raise $10 million in 10 days. Click this link:

Iraq on the Record

Congressman Henry Waxman has posted this searchable database of the Bush Administration's false and misleading public statements on Iraq. Definitely worth a look.

There's liberal radio every weekday morning on WBUF 92.9

This, via Salon (view ad for daypass) (click here for print-friendly version) "He's got one of the biggest audiences in all of radio, and perhaps the most loyal," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, the nonpartisan monthly that covers radio's news/talk industry. Who, you might ask? READ ON. "And that's why he's so dangerous for the White House." "[Howard] Stern had strongly backed Bush's war on Iraq, but in the past two weeks, he has derided the president as a "Jesus freak," a "maniac" and "an arrogant bastard," while ranting against "the Christian right minority that has taken over the White House." Specifically, Stern has assailed Bush's use of 9/11 images in his campaign ads, questioned his National Guard service, condemned his decision to curb stem cell research and labeled him an enemy of civil liberties, abortion rights and gay rights. "In other words, it's the kind of free campaign rhetoric the Democratic National Committee couldn't have imagined just one month ago. "Our research shows many, many people in the 30- to 40-year-old range who were Bush supporters are rethinking that position and turning away from Bush because of what Howard Stern has been saying," says Harrison. [snip] "That's because of the bond Stern has built with his fans. "He's got a passionately loyal audience, which includes many extremely affluent and white-collar listeners," notes Paul Colford, who wrote an authorized biography of Stern, "The King of All Media." "However he wants to play his most recent grievance, he's got a nucleus of tens of thousands of fanatics who are willing make the phone calls and send e-mails and show up at Times Square to protest, whatever the course of action may be." "They're addicted to this guy and that's an awesome power," says Harrison. "Stern has moral authority with these people, in part because he has not been beating the drum for a political agenda for all these years." "It's that relative absence of political discussion on Stern's show in the past that might make the current anti-Bush barrage more influential. "The fact that his audience does not tune in to him to hear about politics means that he is not just preaching to a choir, in the way that most of the conservative talk-show hosts are doing," says David Barker, author of "Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion and American Political Behavior." It's an audience, he suggests, that might be more open to persuasion from a broadcaster like Stern. "Approximately 8 million listeners tune in each week. And at any given moment during his four-hour program roughly 1.4 million people are tuned in. By way of comparison, that's more than the number of morning viewers at any given time watching Fox News, CNN and MSBNC -- combined.

Just in case

You needed examples of profane language, the new Republican Taliban is happy to oblige. Legislatively. Just one more example of all hell breaking loose.

Nariman for Congress in the 26th

For all you folks in the 26th, please throw your support to Kerry supporter and Candidate for the US House of Representatives Ayesha Nariman. Tom Reynolds is nothing more than a WNY version of Tom Delay. Let's send him back to the private sector and take back the House.

Join.

Subscribe to buffaloniagara4johnkerry

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Um - can we Draft Wes Clark again?

Clark was on Wolf Blitzer the other day. I missed it. Via Atrios, I find that Clark just hits home run after home run on the National Security / Iraq issue. "And, you know, one of the things I always saw in any large organization is it's not just the people in the middle, it's the people at the top that have to participate in getting a grip on what went wrong. "As Americans, we deserve an answer to what went wrong that enabled Osama bin Laden and the terrorists to come in and conduct the attacks of 9/11. If that does become the issue, I think it's a loaded gun pointed right back at the White House." Of course. Would that they had let Clark be Clark during the campaign. Honestly - any future campaign that hires Bennett, Fabiani, Lehane and/or any combination of them might as well write itself off from day 1.

Bush flip-flops

Up on its site, the GOP has a list of "Kerry flip-flops". Leave it to Kos and his contributors to remind us of Bush's own flip-flops, including: BUSH FLIP-FLOPS • Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it. • Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. • Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. • Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it. • Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. • Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. • Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again. • Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. • Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution. • Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. • Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits • Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. • Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island. • Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding. • Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will • Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have. • Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote • Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team. • Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

Must-read piece on Bush in Slate

I guess this piece by Will Saletan is Slate's "equal time" to their hit-piece pointing out Kerry's inconsistencies. "How can Kerry persuade moderates to throw out Bush? By turning the president's message against him. Bush is steady and principled. He believes money is better spent by individuals than by the government. He believes the United States should assert its strength in the world. He believes public policy should respect religious faith. Most Americans share these principles and think Bush is sincere about them. The problem Bush has demonstrated in office is that he has no idea how to apply his principles in a changing world. He's a big-picture guy who can't do the job. "From foreign to economic to social policy, Bush's record is a lesson in the limits and perils of conviction. He's too confident to consult a map. He's too strong to heed warnings and too steady to turn the wheel when the road bends. He's too certain to admit error, even after plowing through ditches and telephone poles. He's too preoccupied with principle to understand that principle isn't enough. Watching the stars instead of the road, he has wrecked the budget and the war on terror. Now he's heading for the Constitution. It's time to pull him over and take away the keys."

If he's lost Stern, he's lost the country.

I know Howard Stern isn't everyone's cup of tea. I've been a devoted listener since 1984. After 9/11, Stern was a relentless Bush-backer. Up until 2/23/04, that is. Upon returning from vacation, Stern mentioned that he had read Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". He returned to the air a changed man. Atrios notes that Howard Stern's suspension from Clear Channel Stations seems to have coincided with Stern's decision to back "Anybody but Bush". Well, Clear Channel is in bed with GWB. Big time, to coin a Cheneyism. If you want Bush out in November and want a good laugh, you could do worse than tuning into WBUF 92.9 from 6am - 10:30 am every morning.

It's time to rally around presumptive nominee John F. Kerry.

This is it, folks. Kerry is the presumptive nominee. Edwards is expected to drop out at a North Carolina press conference at 4pm. Bush called Kerry last night to congratulate him. Please visit www.johnkerry.com and volunteer, donate money, do whatever you can to help defeat George W. Bush in November. Democrats must unify to defeat George Bush AND Ralph Nader. And don't buy that "Ralph Nader is a good guy gone bad" nonsense. Ralph Nader is a bad guy who did a few useful things in his life. Nader, also, must be defeated. In battleground states like Florida and Ohio, Nader must be defeated swiftly and decisively. Perhaps he doesn't get on the ballot. That would be nice. George Bush has given us record budget and trade deficits. He has spearheaded tax break after tax break for the wealthiest among us, and no benefit has "trickled down" to the middle class and working class. Health care is still a shambles for everyone except the HMOs themselves, which made record profits last year. Prescription drug prices are still sky-high, and this administration has done everything in its power to ensure that pharma companies do not have to succumb to any sort of price controls, as they must in other industrialized nations. George Bush has joined a radical right-wing cultural war that truly threatens to take away rights guaranteed in our Constitution. This administration is up in arms about Janet Jackson's anatomy, but couldn't care less about real problems that regular people face. Most importantly, George Bush and his neoconservative handlers sold us a war based on absolute falsehoods. How can Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Frum and Feith now tell us that the CIA OVERSOLD the threat that Iraq and its non-existent WMDs posed, when in February 2003 they were telling us that the CIA was UNDERESTIMATING that very same threat. This crowd is a bunch of liars that want the United States to impose democracy in other countries by force, rather than persuasion. Well, Iraqi democracy still hasn't come, and it is threatened by Sunni al Qaeda provocations against the Iraqi Shi'a majority. Neoconservatives, who see the Israeli far-right Likud party as their model, will not rest until the entire world is subjected to the sort of indiscriminate suicide bombings that Israel now suffers, and they expect to gain power and influence in this country as far-right Leninists. To coin a phrase - make no mistake. The neoconservative far-right Leninists want this country to be gripped by a constant fear of imminent terrorism. Just like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro learned that the best way to consolidate their hold on power was to perpetuate the revolutions that brought them to power, the neoconservatives hope to consolidate their power by perpetuating the feelings and opinions that Americans held on September 12, 2001. Never before has the choice been easier. Never before has the race been so important. Never before has our very way of life been so threatened. JOIN JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN RIGHT NOW.

Erie County Election Results

Click here to see the unofficial Erie County-only tally. In the beauty contest, Kerry defeated Edwards 58% - 30%. I must say that Edwards did rather well. Kudos to him and his local team. Clark received the smallest number of votes - less even than Lyndon Larouche. 240 Erie County voters went for Clark. Of the local delegates, Dave Swarts received the highest number of votes, at 991. Congratulations, Dave!

It's Super Tuesday

Go vote. Go vote for Clark and his delegates. If you've pledged to vote for another candidate, vote for him in the beauty contest, but vote for the Clark delegates. Last night we had a glass-clinking at Buffalo Brewpub. It was a nice time, and thanks to all who were there. The Clark meetup will change to http://wesleyclark.meetup.com in the future, and I'll show up as long as they keep going on. I also recommend that we grow the ranks of the Democratic Party meetup. http://democrat.meetup.com

Kerry coming to Buffalo

Kerry will be at Ellicott Square (EC Dem HQ) on Sunday afternoon - doors open at 4pm. I'm going to try to be there and hear the next President of the United States speak.

I'm on Kerry's Team.

Here is the local website, run by Buffalo attorney Mark Poloncarz. This pic pretty much seals it for me.

Here's a Dean postmortem

That you might find interesting. I did. I particularly like this passage: "As Mission Accomplished in Baghdad gave way to Mission Impossible and Mission Unnecessary and finally Mission Totally Fabricated, Dean soared. In the background, the Democratic powerbrokers shivered and quivered..." When Business Week is writing this about the President, you know he's in trouble.

Bush's economic policy in a nutshell

This letter from Congressman Dingell to Gregory Mankiw is a sufficiently sarcastic take on the administration's manufacturing policy.

Johnny Edwards came to town, doo dah. Doo dah.

I went to the Edwards rally last Friday, and I honestly wasn’t as impressed as I thought I’d be. He’s a good speaker, and has a folksy manner about him. I disagree with him on some issues, and I just don’t think he made a strong enough case for voting for him over Kerry. I refrain from calling him a lightweight, because GWB is the lightest of the lightweights. Teresa Heinz-Kerry was supposed to come to Buffalo Saturday morning, but she cancelled at the last minute. Kerry himself was supposed to come to Rochester, but that, too, got cancelled. Kerry is supposed to come to Buffalo on March 1st. I've read some comments from people who are giving Edwards points just for coming to Buffalo, and criticizing Kerry because Teresa cancelled so abruptly. I don’t think Edwards' coming to Buffalo, by itself, makes a compelling enough argument to vote for the guy. And I heard that Teresa pulled out because of health reasons (eye infection or some such), and who am I to begrudge her that. (Show me that she attended some other event that same day, and then I’ll feel as if the campaign insulted us.) So, I'm still trying to decide whom to back in the nomination process. Both Kerry and Edwards are vulnerable to Bush attacks on the issues of the Iraq vote and no child left behind. This region is in serious trouble, and some think that, by ignoring WNY and the Southern Tier, a candidate signals that he won't help our region. If you want to better Buffalo, change needs to come from Albany. Not from Washington. Why is NYS near the bottom in job creation? Why is NYS second only to California in shedding jobs? Ask your State Senator. Ask your Assemblyperson. Ask Pataki. The only thing you can/should look to your Federal reps for is positions on more macro issues, (abortion, gun control, federal spending) and the occasional spreading around of pork. When Albany decides that it wants NY to be competitive with the other 48 states, then we’ll see some progress. We had 8 years of a Clinton administration, and WNY didn’t boom at all. That is proof positive that change in the White House means squat for this region. Let’s just say that getting things accomplished in other parts of the country is a whole lot easier than in NYS. Sometimes I feel that our State government exists for no other reason than its own self-perpetuation. People like Brian Higgins are the stark exception to that rule. Bush has already written NYS off, anyway. Just look at the Federal Courthouse shenanigans. Does Kerry take NYS for granted? Probably. And you know what? He’s probably right to do so. He should focus more energy and resources in places where the fight with Bush will be more competitive. He should be commended for paying as much attention to battleground states (Ohio is one) as he can. So, first of all I think Kerry’s got it wrapped up. He’s beating Edwards on the delegate count 613-192. Edwards is running a strong VP race. Staying positive, big smile. I’m voting for Wesley Clark in the March 2nd primary. Why? Because he’s the best candidate for the nomination. We slogged around for weeks getting signatures for him, and dammit I’m going to vote my conscience. Neither Edwards nor Kerry have convinced me that I should throw my vote to either of them – Kerry doesn’t need my vote, and Edwards didn’t earn it. So, I'm not working for either candidate's campaign because I don't care which one of them wins. They're both ok. The real battle begins in July, when the nominee is selected and goes out to do battle with Bush.

A Campaign to Remember

This piece in the NY Times is more, shall we say, "informed" than the one in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. In addition to the appeal of his biography, General Clark also brought an informed legitimacy to the Democratic critique of the president's national security policies. Before he entered the race, most of the candidates were talking about the importance of multilateral action — often in platitudes and generalities. General Clark could explain the specifics of how such actions could win wars and secure peace. Soon the other candidates were parroting his answer. The very fact that a four-star general who for most of his adult life voted Republican was saying that the president had failed the troops made those critiques seem less partisan and more credibile. General Clark had another profound influence on this campaign: with the possible exception of Joseph Lieberman, he was the most willing to talk openly about his religious faith.

Richmond editorial.

This piece of cheap, ignorant, pro-Bush propaganda had me steaming today. Here's the text of my reply: In your scathing February 19th editorial, you allege that Clark “added nothing to the race.” How remarkably ignorant. Ignorant of the facts – the political reality that existed on September 17, 2003 when Wes Clark officially announced his candidacy. You may recall that, at that time, Howard Dean was not only the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination, he was the presumptive nominee! At that time, John Edwards was not polling big numbers, and John Kerry’s campaign had all but been written off. The time seemed ripe for an anti-Dean to emerge. That anti-Dean was Wes Clark. Dean has no foreign policy or military experience. Clark has both. Dean had an angry core constituency that was uniformly in opposition to the Iraq war and little else – it was the vanguard of angry liberalism. Clark offered not only hope, but a rational alternative to Bush’s neoconservative permanent war. Unlike Bush and the neoconservative clique around him, Wes Clark actually fought in wars. He was the commanding officer of a successful one in 1999. He knew the reality of war, and the sacrifice that soldiers make to fight it. People like Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rice neither know nor, evidently, care. Throughout the Clark campaign, certain fringe-right commentators and media, (apparently bereft of any available, substantive criticism), simply took to calling Retired Four-Star United States Army General Wesley K. Clark a “high-strung loon”, or crazy. Or creepy. In a sorry attempt at sarcasm and/or humor, you state that General Clark took “approximately 352 positions on the Iraq war”. No, he didn’t. Apparently, a nuanced and though-out opinion on the difficulties in dealing with Iraq are too difficult for you to comprehend. Indeed, the “controversy” over Clark’s positions on Iraq only existed in the minds of people who can only see matters in black and white. A more complicated and sophisticated analysis, as set forth by General Clark, never made it you’re your ignorance. (For the record, Clark said that he would have voted for a resolution that required Bush to obtain Security Council authorization and UN assistance for any military campaign against Iraq. Since that didn’t happen, Clark would not have voted for the “blank check” resolution that ultimately passed. I find it fascinating that Bush and his surrogates now routinely allege, in essence, what were we to do? They now say, openly and without irony, that Hussein had forbidden UN weapons inspectors from entering Iraq. As if Hans Blix never existed.) You throw around an accusation that Clark spoke of “bizarre fantasies and conspiracies.” Name one. It must be fun to make wild accusations against someone without any proof of same. Perhaps Clark’s “statements just didn’t make any sense” to your ignorant mind. You then turn to Bob Dole’s insult of General Clark, the response to which also went straight over your head. Bob Dole, in commenting on Wes Clark’s third-place showing in New Hampshire (ahead of John Edwards), told Clark that he had been politically demoted to Colonel. Interesting how that fact gets left out of every hit-piece written against Clark and his handling of that awkward situation. It wasn’t Clark’s alleged surliness or craziness that ended his candidacy. In the end, it was sheer ignorance, such as yours, and an across-the-board media blackout, that touted John Edwards’ fourth-place finish in NH over Clark’s third-place; touted Edwards’ “momentum” in finishing third or fourth in AZ, ND, NM, and OK over Clark’s second and first place finishes there. I never thought that a daily newspaper such as yours would consciously be victim to, and perpetuate the dumbing-down of America. I suppose, in your view, if so much as one person believes your cheap, insulting and obnoxious propaganda, your work is complete. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But shame is out of style in the midst of today’s selfish, “conservative” hedonism.

Campaign events in WNY this weekend

The Erie County Democratic Committee at www.ecdems.com has information for all the still-active campaigns. According to this page, John Edwards will be at the Polish Cadets Hall, 927 Grant Street in Buffalo (across the street from Tops, north of the 198) on Friday, February 20, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. I know some Clark folks will be there. Also, Teresa Heinz Kerry will be at the Ellicott Square Building Lobby, 295 Main Street in Buffalo on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 8:30 a.m.

Another postmortem

This one from Newsweek, via MSNBC "Clark finally hit his stride on Monday night, 24 hours before dropping out of the race. Joined by his wife and son for the first time in a week, the general ad-libbed his way through his stump speech to yells and whoops from charged supporters. He attacked Bush on his handling of the Iraq war with passion: "Shame on you, Mr. President! Shame on you!" to wild applause. But the game was already over. And Clark had run out of time. "

Now what?

I must confess that I’m not really ready to commit to either Kerry or Edwards yet. I have concerns about both, and I also have great respect for them both. (You see, to me Clark was the perfect amalgam of both Kerry and Edwards, but he’s gone now, so it’s desperately hard to choose). Obviously, I think each of them could defeat George Bush. I’ll be honest – I like Edwards better. I like his message, and his biography. I like his focus on the economy, and I think it’ll play well upstate. Basically, I’m concerned that Edwards is somewhat of a lightweight – especially on foreign policy. Of course, GWB was (and is) a lightweight on every issue. He’s really a great and inspiring communicator, though, and I think that would be a stark contrast with the current mumbler-in-chief. On the other hand, Clark endorsed Kerry, and that counts a lot for me. Quite frankly, I have so much respect for Clark that his endorsement alone may find me in Kerry’s corner sooner rather than later. I think Kerry has more “gravitas” and is a more serious candidate. I also respect both his military service and his outspoken opposition to Vietnam. My concerns with Kerry are that: 1) Karl Rove and his stormtroopers will misrepresent portions of Kerry’s personal, military and congressional record; 2) That same crowd will (possibly with some effect) pin Kerry as a new Dukakis; 3) That Kerry won’t do well in the South. Doing well in the South is important– About a month ago, Kerry made a bad gaffe that may come back to haunt him. He said that Al Gore proved that you don’t have to win the South to become President. I would argue that Gore proved that you DO have to win the South to become President. Gore won the popular, but that didn’t count. Kerry needs to absorb a little of that Dean inspiration (not too much – just a little) and really start firing people up. Josh Marshall recommends that you just go compare www.johnkerry.com and www.johnedwards2004.com, then come back and tell me which campaign is more fired-up and inspired. I’m not quite ready to go to work for either Kerry or Edwards yet, but I’ll make a decision soon.

Clark & Kerry

Clark gets a lot of flak for allegedly making a derogatory, yet ostensibly off-the-record comment about Kerry. The record is made clear here. "HE DID SPELL JOHN KERRY CORRECTLY: Just in case anybody was still wondering whether anything in the original Drudge item about John Kerry was accurate, I can confirm that Wesley Clark did not say what Drudge says he said at that off-the-record conversation with reporters in Nashville one week ago. "I was there when Clark spoke, and just to make sure I didn't miss anything, I've also checked with other reporters who were there. Since it was off the record (sort of), I can't get into what Clark actually said (let's just say it was not his finest moment on the campaign trail), but I can report that the quote Drudge attributes to him--'Kerry will implode over an intern issue'--is not accurate. He never said that."

Clark got out too late

But we all knew that. Check out this piece from the Moderate Independent blog: "Yes, we told you they'd turn on Kerry the second Clark was out."

Fascinating postmortem

Check out this post-campaign analysis from Matt Bennett, Clark's communications director, and Craig Smith, who worked on the Lieberman campaign.

Wes Clark endorses John Kerry

I don't follow leaders blindly, but I have to say Clark as a VP would help absorb the criticism that Kerry will face from August - November. Clark comes to this without any anti-Nam, peace movement baggage. If not VP, then he'd make a great Secretary of State or UN Ambassador. Clark can't be SecDef because he hasn't been retired from active duty for 10 years. Honestly, pick Clark as VP and Bill Richardson for Secretary of State, and you've got a dream team.

MARCH MEETUP IS STILL ON!

Hey, just because Wes Clark dropped out of the race doesn't mean we can't have one last meetup for old times' sake. Instead of the old reliable Brounshidle, we will hold our final Clark 2004 campaign meetup at the Buffalo Brewpub - New York State's Oldest Brewpub! MARCH 1st at 7:00 p.m. What we need you to do is go to http://clark2004.meetup.com and vote for the Buffalo Brewpub location. If you already voted for the Brounshidle, go back and CHANGE YOUR VOTE! It'd be great to see everyone again and raise a pint to our efforts, to General Clark, and to the defeat of George Bush in November. If you haven't already, please go and join the Democrat meetup at http://democrat.meetup.com. The next meetup is set to happen at the Starbucks coffee on Main Street in Williamsville at 7pm on February 18th. It'd be nice to have a big turnout. Cheers!

A new look for a new movement

I switched to the Democratic party in order to help elect Wesley Clark President of the United States. I think there's a great many, like me, who want to continue working toward the future that Wes Clark envisioned. Join us as we look forward to new challenges, new ideas, and new battles to forge a New American Patriotism.

A nice epilogue to a great movement

This is a nice farewell from a Draft Clark warrior.

Clark's Hard-Charging Campaign Comes to a Close

Here's a good wrap-up from the LA Times. (Registration req.) By Eric Slater, Times Staff Writer MEMPHIS, Tenn. Wesley K. Clark's late-starting whirlwind of a run for the White House always had the odds against it. Tuesday night, the quest ended when the retired four-star general bowed out of the Democratic presidential race after finishing third in Tennessee and Virginia. Clark, who had never run for public office, in a relatively short time built a nearly nationwide campaign and during the last three months of 2003 raised more money than any other candidate except former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Clark's campaign was bedeviled by rookie mistakes and organizational problems. But his main trouble probably was more basic - most voters simply didn't know much about the man who served as supreme allied commander of NATO. Click the link for more.

Iraq mess

Rummy and Wolfie trying to wash their hands of the situation.

It's over.

General Clark dropped out of the race last night after finishing a disappointing third in Virginia and Tennessee. I'm sorry to see it come to this, and I think that although rookie mistakes were made, he ran a good race with a positive, inspiring message. I'm very proud to have worked for Clark, volunteered for Clark, and to have had the opportunity to see him speak and to meet him. I'm also grateful for the friends I've met in this effort. No matter whom you choose to support, it is imperative that George W. Bush be removed from office. I'll still vote for Clark in March, but I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in November - whoever that may be. Thanks for visiting this weblog. I don't know if I'll keep updating it or not. Check in and see.

eblock Tennessee!

The win in OK and our 3rd place finish in NH were made possible in large part by remote phonebanking from Clark supporters around the country. The Clark campaign has made it known that it wants to win Tennessee. To that end, please become an eblock captain and make as many calls to TN as you possibly can. Make sure to tell people from where you're calling. http://www.forclark.com/eblock

Clark and the Media

Here's one take: There's only so much media oxygen out there and Clark can't catch his breath. "I don't get it. If Clark was floundering and the press was pressuring him to withdraw, I'd understand. But if Clark is doing just as well as Edwards, why won't the pundits give him his due?" Indeed.

Clark wins OK, 2nd in ND, AZ, NM

Last night was a good night. Not a great night, but a good night. The media, of course, will concentrate on Kerry, Edwards and Dean. Let me reiterate: Edwards has been at this now for over a year - longer, I think, than any of the other candidates. IIRC, he was the 1st to declare his candidacy. I think he's doing worse, not better, than one would expect, but that's not the spin du jour. Dean has yet to win one primary or caucus. He's also been at this for over a year, and just weeks ago, he had more money and momentum than any other candidate in the field. For some reason, however, he gets this anticipatory coverage from the media, and I have no idea why. Heck, Al Sharpton polling double digits in SC is bigger news than anything Dean did or didn't do last night. The exit polling is showing that people are far more concerned about the economy and electability than they are about Iraq or even terrorism. This makes sense - with what would you be more concerned - an abstract risk of possible terrorist attack, or the fact that you lost your job and might not make your mortgage next month? So, I think that shift in focus has really done Dean in, and it hasn't done Clark any favors. Edwards isn't running a homeland security campaign, he's running a feel-good domestic agenda campaign, and people are responding. That's why he did so well in OK last night. I think that the Clark campaign really needs to re-focus as it goes into the primaries leading up to, and including Super Tuesday. It needs to get its domestic message out there. It's a good one. Forget Michael Moore's deserter comment. Forget Iraq for now. Tell America about your plan for their future. Tell them how you'll return fiscal responsibility, accountability to our country. Tell them about your tax relief package for the middle class. Tell them about your health care agenda. And when you're done, remind them that you fought in wars and sent people to fight in wars, and that you'll be accountable and responsible when making such tough decisions. We can do this folks. We have a month to make a difference leading up to Super Tuesday. Now's our chance.

WNY4CLARK meetup 2/2/04

E-block

For Wes Clark today. http://www.forclark.com/eblock Here are the final Zogby numbers for today's contests. A win in OK and strong showings in ND, AZ and NM would be very welcome, indeed.