Strength above Power

Self-Inflicted Gag Order or What's Blackwell Got to Hide?

Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell "is seeking a court order to keep
himself from being interviewed as part of a court challenge of the Nov. 2
vote."

Blackwell claims his deposition is not required, and accused 37 voters
challenging the election of "frivolous conduct."

Attorney General Jim Petro, representing Blackwell, said the voters "are not
trying to actually contest the presidential election but are merely using
this litigation to cast public doubt on the voting system of the State of
Ohio without a shred of evidence."

On Dec. 21, officials learned lawyers for the voters planned to issue
subpoenas to several high-ranking officials, including Blackwell, Bush and
the president's political adviser, Karl Rove, according to Petro.

href="http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=169">http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=169

Plan your DC vacation!

http://inauguralmap.com/

Plan your DC vacation!

http://inauguralmap.com/

E1 keeps saying:" it's NOT to upset the election!" NONSENCE! I want
this election upset to wake the people up already.
Two known cases of mad cows,four severe hurricanes,early unexpected snow in
the NE,not enough flu vaccine,drug companies that want only to line their
pockets and to hell with public safety,now a tsunnami,the war in Iraq with
no exit plan,AND ONLY THE lORD KNOWS WHAT ELSE WILL HAPPEN .Yet 59 million
americans voted for this idiot and madman who now are having buyer's
remorse! We need OHIO and we need to move Bush out . Our only consolation
(if he stays )is he won't be invited to any public speaking events after he
leaves the WH...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! I hate this feeling of doom and of
on all days..my birthday! I did get my late night visitor tonight..the deer
returned.

Arundhati Roy is a fantastic woman and writer of the finest order. "The God
of Small Things" is a lyrical, intelligent read. The woman who wrote it no
less so.

Patti! Happy Birthday!!! And I'm happy the deer returned to celebrate
with you. :-)

Happy Birthday Patti!

Hi gang -

I'm setting off this evening for a 5 day visit with the red side of my
husband's family, and I need ammo!

Someone mentioned last week that Disney makes more money on the porn side of
the company, than on the kids videos side. Anyone know where I can get more
info on that?

Thanks!

Hey Patti!

Do what Dick said and use that RAGE! hehe

...and happy happy birthday! =)

Tsunami toll tops 50,000

By the way, we need international alliances.
Kerry was willing to try to build them.
What now, as Bush has isolated us.
We are trapped here with him
& his party in control.

Happy Birthday, Patti
(Try to remember all the things they can't take)

Tsunami toll tops 50,000

By the way, we need international alliances.
Kerry was willing to try to build them.
What now, as Bush has isolated us.
We are trapped here with him
& his party in control.

Happy Birthday, Patti
(Try to remember all the things they can't take)

There is no reason this should post twice.

Just reading some of the comments that came after mine last night. I'm not
in the mood for "flogging" other democrats either, and I certainly didn't
mean to diss JK last night, if that's what anyone thought I was doing. I
don't agree that Kerry, Dean, and Clark had the same views on the war
though- Dean was completely against the war in all his public statements,
and Clark opposed it even prior to the resolution. I think Clark's
opposition was based on his private knowledge of the workings of the inner
offices of the president- he certainly has stated that he knew from the
beginning of the Bush presidency that Bush intended to go to war in Iraq.
Bush obviously didn't relay this information to congress in the same way
that he did to those in his inner circles, and that's probably why Kerry
voted the way he did. Clark's views have been distorted by the media in the
same way that Kerry was labelled a "flip flopper." What I meant to convey
last night was that the media controlled the flow of the primaries and the
election in such a way that the election was basically decided by the
corporations that controlled the media. Anyway- apologies to any who
thought I was dissing JK. I will say though, as I did last night, that my
own adult children were somewhat disillusioned by the Grand Canyon
statement, and I do think it also strongly affected the outcome of the
election. We have to learn from our mistakes, and find out what went wrong.
I suspect that there was a lot of voting booth manipulation that occurred as
well, and that Kerry probably did win Ohio, and thus the election. All that
aside, since the American people agree with our party on the war, the
economy, social security, education, and nearly every major issue polled,
there has to be a problem somewhere else. The election was too ridiculously
close when we own all those issues. I think that Dick Bell has pinned it
down several topics ago- we have to stop being seen as the "anti-religion"
party in this country. And Howard Dean was right when he said we cannot
afford to continue to ignore the South. If the South continues to be solid,
the Democratic party has to take 75% of the votes in all other areas of the
country, and that's almost impossible. Significant change has to take place,
and it can't take place if we aren't allowed to analyze what the problems
are.
So,that's just my thought for the day, from down here in the Solid South.

Chuck in Baku (with the flu) for DiAnne:

The Bush folks are trying to isolate us. I don't think that is feasible.
It is an act of hubris, for we are not isolated. We will not be isolated

On this Tsumani -- what a thing. Forty to fifty thousand dead, and almost
all, to my understanding, could have been prevented with a simple
weather-service type national warning system in these countries. Think of
it -- that is like fifteen or twenty 9/11's -- preventable for the cost of
one or two navy fighters, I'd wager.

I've been trying to construe that into a thought that is congruent with
Andrew's post at the top of this thread but thus far to no avail. I think
it's in there somewhere, though.

Chuck in Baku

Hi Chuck. Just a short version of what I was saying above. We need another
Jimmy Carter to run for the White House. Wonder where we can find one?????

Morning gleanings from newsletters:

href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=4&u=/usatoday/20041228/ts_usatoday/rosaparkscenteroflegalstorm">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=4&u=/usatoday/20041228/ts_usatoday/rosaparkscenteroflegalstorm
Rosa Parks center of legal storm

Bush Sending the Wrong Message as Chaos Smolders in Iraq
href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1227-02.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1227-02.htm

C.I.A. Torture Flights Authorized by Executive Order
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804A.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804A.shtml

U.S., Britain Hold 10,000 Prisoners in Iraq
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122904Z.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122904Z.shtml

Fred Kaplan | China Expands. Europe Rises. And the United States . . .
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804F.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804F.shtml
[Couple of stories linked to the recent Russian-Chinese alliances.... and
like someone who posted similar links on a previous thread, the alliances of
other nations may not bode well for the US in the future.]

Michele Alliot-Marie | In Defense and Space, Europe on the Move
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804H.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804H.shtml

Taxpayers May Be Liable for Oil Cleanup
href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1227-05.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1227-05.htm

Pentagon Is Pressing to Bypass Environmental Laws for War Games and Arms
Testing
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/politics/28exempt.html?th">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/politics/28exempt.html?th

Iraq, Critics Could Alter Bush Agenda
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804C.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804C.shtml
[The second piece further down the page may be more interesting than the
first, since it deals with "recess appointments" made by shrubbie....]

Exit Packages in Dispute at Fannie Mae
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30435-2004Dec27.html?referrer=email">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30435-2004Dec27.html?referrer=email
[Okay... remind me again... why do executives who run companies with
"accounting irregularities" that need "adjusting" still expect to receive
their benefits packages, no matter what, even if the US taxpayers are
picking up the tab for the "accounting irregularities" - ???]

Alexander Cockburn | Balancing Your Moral Outrage Budget
href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1227-25.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1227-25.htm

Bill Moyers: "Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed"
href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/24/1731220">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/24/1731220

Tiny Car to Test U.S. Tastes
Land of Living Large May Not Be Ready for the Smart
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30439-2004Dec27.html?referrer=email">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30439-2004Dec27.html?referrer=email

Hey Linda! This is Chuck in Baku (Anthony Hopkins Fan)

Good to see you here! Quick question: in what sense could the Democratic
Party be construed as being "anti-religion?" I never have understood that.
Carter and Clinton were Southern Baptist (I think) and Kerry and Kennedy
were Catholics. Where does that come from?

Just curious,

Chuck in Baku.

PS: Both my grandma's were deeply religious -- one Catholic from Chicago, a
life-long activist Democrat, the other a Methodist from West Virginia -- a
yellow-dog Demo up until civil rights (1965-68), when she started tending
toward Wallace and ended up loving Reagan. Bless her heart.

House of Representatives web site (home page)
http://www.house.gov/

Senate web site (home page)
http://www.senate.gov/

Also, for those of you who want to write to your senator or representative
directly, these are the home pages for the House and the Senate....

Churk- I can't tell you where it comes from,because I don't get it either,
but that is definitely the view down here in the Red States. It's propagated
by a lot of very powerful ministers down here,and their congregations
believe it wholeheartedly. Jimmy Carter was accepted as a Christian to
Southerners, because he wore his religion on his sleeve, but most people
down here don't believe Bill Clinton was a Christian (obviously because of
his dalliances.) I do think that the gay-marriage issue was completely
misunderstood down here (Southerners tended to believe Kerry was pro-gay
marriage even though he was only for civil unions. The Massachusetts court
decision did nothing to change that view either.) And they also are firmly
in the anti-abortion column, though that obstacle can be overcome in the
South with the right candidate. After all, Bill Clinton did get a lot of
votes down here. We have to have a candidate who makes his religious
beliefs a part of his campaign though (even though I personally hate that
thought) in order to change these red states around. Something's just got to
give. We can't just keep losing- if we do, this country is really gonna go
to the dogs.

Chuck: And thanks for that "bless her heart" for your grandma. I love it. As
far as the Roman Catholic religion, that probably worked against Kerry in
the South. Maybe not in Louisiana, but probably in most of the other parts
of the South. Down here, anything but Methodists, Baptists, and Assembly of
God members are a little suspect:-) 'Tis still a bit backwards down here- I
can say that, 'cuz I'm a native.

I just saw and read the thread titled "False Religiosity and Bush's Victory"
dated Dec 21, 2004. You can't believe how happy I was to see it!!!

I have been busy with travel, work, and holiday preparation and haven't
visited the blog like I normally would have. I wanted to add this thought
where you all would be sure to see it, and forgive me it is not in keeping
with the theme of this thread.

As many of you know, I was very vocal during the latter part of the campaign
because as a Christian who has read and studied the bible, I knew the
tactics used to get George Bush elected, then reelected,
were sinister. I repeatedly wrote about it
on the John Kerry for President blog. I
not only wrote about it there, I screamed about it, preached against it,
lamented over it, tried to get someone to see how serious the problem was,
and what the end
result would be if it was allowed to succeed. I forwarded the Kerry campaign
Rove instigated propoganda that was being sent out to millions of Christians
in the hope the Kerry campaign would take the ammunition I gave them and
fight back with it. I cannot tell you the frustration I felt as I recalled
all the devious, cunning preparation Rove and Co. put into the strategy of
controlling church goer's minds for their vote as early as during the first
George W. Bush election bid. I felt as though I was not getting through
because people never guessed the effect it would have. I knew, I was seeing
it from inside the church. He never stopped campaigning for W., and may very
well have set his sights on another "candidate" as early as now for 2008.
Power is never handed off easily, and the kind of power they have now is not
going to be let go. I must say again!!!
Church goers and secular patriots!!! We MUST fight this!!!! And the fight is
never ending. Do not think for a moment that Rove is asleep at the switch.
He is the Republican Golden Boy....and you can be sure he is already at work
to control the minds and votes of the American people in 2008. You will see
signs of it..and he
will also operate in stealth fashion. Everyone with integrity and morals
must begin now to educate America with the truth, from everything about our
agenda being more Christ- like, more compassionate, more honest, to the
evils
that await America's democracy should she
continue to blindly and innocently believe that someone who pushes God for
evil gain is honestly Godly. We cannot afford to sleep again. Do your
homework. Let the education of America against this mighty evil begin NOW!

Posted by: A Christian Who Was For Kerry | December 28, 2004 11:40 AM

Linda:

Thanks. This is an issue I am struggling with. By the way, it seems to me
(not knowing the man from Cain) that Bill Clinton is very spiritual. He's
just got one of those -- what do you call them -- weaknesses. And a very
easy one, I would think, for most of us to understand. Especially for
charismatic guys that have a need for acceptance. So is religion basically
just about sex to those folks? Is that all it is?

Respectfully,

Chuck in Baku

Truth Shall Prevail- AMEN. You said it much better than I did. The
Democratic party is the party of Christian Values- caring about our
fellowman is our number one job in life. I tried to tell people too, but we
obviously failed. We can't fail again.

No, it's not all about sex, but that's certainly a part of it, and the type
of sex involved didn't help a bit with a lot of churchgoers either :-) The
gay issue is involved, and abortion is involved as well, but that could all
be lined up in the column of sex, if you really get down to it, couldn't it?
I honestly think the Republicans felt they had a RIGHT to the White House
since Jimmy Carter was the only Democratic president between Johnson and
Bill Clinton, and they never accepted Clinton as president even before the
Monica thing. I don't know what the answer is, but I know we've got to find
it. We can't just keep ignoring the religious segment of society. They just
control too many votes. And we also have to some day elect a president again
that both parties accept as the president of all the people in this country.
I'll certainly never accept Bush as that, so maybe I'm working against my
own goal. But it really does need to happen.

Linda:

So, if I'm reading you right, in the SE it's not really a "religion" issue
per se, it's rather an issue of (1) whether or not a person belongs to a
Methodist, Baptist, or Assembly of God type church, and (2) whether or not
such a person will be attacked by the pillars of those communities in public
for sexual -- err -- picadilloes -- if that's what they are called.

Chuck in Baku

PS: Thanks, this is helping me. And in the spirit of the topic -- I can
only think when I write things down!

Its a thrill to see Linda back.YI disagree with your comment if the Dems
keep losing this country will go to the dogs. Sorry Linda we are already
there.

I am one of those who saw up close how much the abortion issue hurts us.
Even more than whether we are a a religious party. Abortion voters seem to
be more one issue voters than others. And things have unfortunately changed
for the worse regarding abortion since Clinton lost. I have such mixed
feelings about Bill Clinton these days. I am still convinced that his
dalliance with Monica costs all of us 8 years of W and the right wing
governanace he so abhored. I will never ever forgive him for that. The hell
with the affair. Its the long lasting consequences of that affair and its
costs to Al Gore and this country that still pisses me off.

Personally it sickens me to see any politician Democrat or Republican 'use'
religion for political gain. Clinton's image of religious faith was gained
by his constant images in black churches and with black ministers. That's as
far as I would go w/o appearing hypocritical. We are we not embracing Jimmy
Carter more. Why wasn't there images of Kerry with Jimmy Carter and helping
with Habitat.Its that umanity that I knew that our candidates had that
seemed to be missing; at least visually. I think millions of Americans now
see Jimmy Carter as a great Umanitarian and a great American.
And again Linda its wonderful to hear from you again. After the hurricanes
we thought you blew away.

Chuck in Baku for Linda:

And I'm not really trying to be argumentative -- this is just the sort of
dialog I can't have anywhere but here. So if we can't go on ignoring
religious sentiments, as defined above, can they just go on ahead and ignore
us? If so, what have we won? What is the point? On topic: "There are
plenty of warriors that I know and love, people far more valuable than
myself, who go to war each day, knowing in advance that they will fail.
True, they're less successful in the most vulgar sense of the word, but by
no means less fulfilled."

Very Respectfully Yours,

Chuck in Baku

Its a thrill to see Linda back. I disagree with your comment Linda, "if the
Dems keep losing this country will go to the dogs." Sorry Linda we are
already there.

I am one of those who saw up close how much the abortion issue hurts us and
I hope we don't ignore its significance even more than whether we are a a
religious party. Abortion voters seem to be more one issue voters than
others and they will not even consider or tolerate those that don't meet
that threshhold. How to appeal to those that voted for Coburn in Oklahoma
who want the death penalty for obgyns performing abortion, bewilders me. And
things have unfortunately changed for the worse regarding abortion since
Clinton left. I have such mixed feelings about Bill Clinton these days. I am
still convinced that his daliance with Monica costs all of us 8 years of W
and the right wing governanace he so abhored. I will never ever forgive him
for that. The hell with the affair. Its the long lasting consequences of
that affair and its costs to Al Gore and this country that still pisses me
off.

Personally it sickens me to see any politician Democrat or Republican 'use'
religion for political gain. Clinton's image of religious faith was gained
by his constant images in black churches and with black ministers. That's as
far as I would go with our candidates w/o appearing hypocritical. Why are we
not embracing Jimmy Carter more as a party. He is the embodiment of what
Religion truly means. Why were there not images of Kerry with Jimmy Carter
and helping with Habitat? Its that humanity that I knew that our candidates
had, that seemed to be missing; at least visually. I think millions of
Americans now see Jimmy Carter as a great Humanitarian and a great American.
And again Linda its wonderful to hear from you again. After the hurricanes
we thought you blew away.

sorry about the typos

Ira:

When I wrote above that to me, not knowing the man from Cain, Clinton seems
spiritual, was based strictly on what I've seen him say or read him say. I
think the "black church" acceptance of him says a lot too, because from
where he came from, you could get a lot further a lot faster taking the
other tack. I believe this from things I've seen and heard in my own
experience.

Chuck in Baku

PS: Ira, so, are you for making abortions illegal again because it hurts us
in other areas?

Truth Shall Prevail, you are spot-on with your comments. The neocon
Pharisees have hijacked many Christian congregations in this country and I
think it has little to do with doctrine and everything to do with how easy
it is to influence large groups of people that way. They saw the tremendous
political power generated by African-American preachers over the course of
100+ years and especially culminating in the '60s and '70s and found a way
to harness that power for themselves. Once you get past their fa�ade of
"professing and calling themselves Christians", their disguise quickly falls
away. They believe in only one thing: war, continual war; and adamantly
persecute all those who dare to stand in their way, using labels such as
"homosexual", "raghead", "liberal", "atheist", "Hollywood", and others to
disguise their hate. The true color of their hatred is revealed when they
accuse even exurban "security mom" WASPs who protest their actions as
"bleeding-heart liberals" and the like; or when they give only paltry aid to
countries reeling from 50,000+ dead because they are "pagan nations".
We must fight this war on their battleground and in their language, just as
they stole territory from us by using techniques of progressive black
preachers. We must expose the neocons as modern-day Pharisees, a group of
the so-called religious who cared so assiduously about appearing perfect yet
their actions and beliefs laid bare their hypocrisy. They were also much
more concerned with their political than their religious impact, though they
marauded as a great religious and moral force.
Although it is difficult, we must not attack the large groups of adherents
the neocons have attracted to their pulpits, for they have "like sheep, gone
astray"; no, we must concentrate our efforts at undermining the crumbling
pedestals the neocon leaders stand on and exposing them as frauds and
pretenders.
No one political party is the party of one religion or another, and it would
be taking the wrong path to try and out-"Christian" the neocons...we must
remember, however, that Jesus was a defender of the poor, the outcast, the
downtrodden, the ignored, the hated, the persecuted segments of society. We
need to expose to the mislead Christian congregations that our leaders are
more clearly living out the life of Christ by reaching out to the poor, the
sick, the elderly; by defusing human conflicts (and leaving it in God's
hands: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord"); by accepting all as neighbors
and coworkers and equals ("in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or
female, neither slave nor free person...")...etc. Does this mean our
leaders have to preach their Christianity or even be Christian? No...("by
their fruits you will know them")...but we need a lot of surrogate action
going on in the churches to show the false piety of the neocon leaders and
the true compassion of progressive leaders.
Let me repeat, we do not need to become a "Christian party" in order to win
this battle, nor should we: our strength is in our diversity and no one
person or belief system can see Truth from all angles ("What is Truth?" asks
Pilate). But we need to get sympathetic progressive preachers fanning out
across the country and guest-preaching in exurban mega-churches (and on
Faux) on the evils of false Christianity, especially by elected leaders.
This is the kind of grass-roots effort our party sorely needs. (and then we
need to reform our voting systems so we can make sure all those
newly-awakened Christians can have their progressive votes counted
correctly, but that's another front on this battle...)

Chazman:

I am not personally for making abortions illegal, but it going to happen.
And I am to the point that I really don't care anymore. Single women and
especially college aged women, did not vote in particularly high numbers in
Nov. I posted weeks ago that young people just don't seem to know or care
that their mom's pre 1973 were at risk with back ally abortions or if they
had money had to fly to New York to have an abortion. W is full of himself
when he says he has no litmus tests for abortions. Just look at the mind set
of his federal judicial appointments. Look at what he did to make it harder
and harder in Texas to get an abortion, especially for minors. The Y
generation looks like they will have to learn the lesson the hard way about
abortions. Chazman: Am I willing to give up sound economic policies, sound
environment policies and universal healthcare in exchange for giving up the
right of young women who don't get it to have an abortion. Yea, in a New
York minute. unfortunately the choice today is no abortions, a US Senator
that wants to give the death penalty for obgyns and oh yea crappy economic
policies, dirty air and unafordable healthcare. That's not my choice
Chazman.

Posted by: Carol | December 28, 2004 10:12 AM

I mentioned the info and I think it was Karen who mentioned she had also
seen the same show.

Porn Profits: Corporate America's Secret
Corporate America Is Profiting From Porn � Quietly
href="http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132370&page=1">http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132370&page=1
Excerpt: first and last paragraphs. This appears to be a partial
transcript, not a full transcript. I do remember Diane Sawyer mentioning
the disclaimer that ABC was owned by Disney in the original Primetime
broadcast, so it may have been edited out on the rerun or just for the
online transcript.
"May 27, 2004 Pornography has grown into a $10 billion business � bigger
than the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball combined � and some of the
nation's best-known corporations are quietly sharing the profits. "
"This story originally aired on January 28, 2003, and was updated for
re-broadcast."

The transcript runs on for four pages.... I did copy and paste all four
pages into a draft email, but it's too long to post. The transcript online
is (I think???) from the rerun of the show and stressed more the angle of
health issues for the "performers" in the porn industry, so it was an
"update" of the original show.

If the link puts you through to the home page for ABC, go to the News
section, then search their web site for "Primetime"+"porn" and the above
link comes up first. There are other links below that, too.

George Carlin quote:

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is
that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them
together is certain death.

Ira:

You framed the tradeoff well. Two points:

1) The abortion issue is a Judicial Branch issue. Executive and legislative
branch candidates can do a "Dred Scott" dance all around it but ultimately
it is a matter of Constitutional rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court
and the states.

2) Let's say I have a friend with a wife that's getting, well, beyond the
child-bearing years but happens to get pregnant and wants to get an
abortion. And let's say the wife is not a US citizen. So, if we are to
ditch a pro-choice postition, would I then have to say to my friend "if she
does this, you are an accessory to murder" and to his wife "you are a
murderer." Now, beyond the moral issue, will this position get or lose me
votes in the bigger picture? I'm not sure. My guess is, anyone that votes
strictly on the basis that a zygot is a complete human being would find
another reason to vote against us even if we caved on that. And a lot of
people that beleive in the other issues you mentioned would throw up their
hands in disgut. Me, I just don't think we have anything to win by giving
up principles.

I know this is a very difficult issue on which reasonable people can
disagree, which is why I prefer to think of it as a matter of individual
liberty, under some reasonable test of the viability of a fetus.

Chuck in Baku

Thanks to all for your ongoing dialogue about religion. Not as comfortable
with religosity, as a New Englander, Jewish, just as happy without
formalized relgion altogether, and living in New York, I take in all you
say. I have to force discussion of the issue in my group, yet they want to
reach out to other states, or make better inroads to our black churches in
Brooklyn. Bush had success with both the Jews concerned for Israel (he won
both the pro-Israel and anti-semitic vote, go figure), and the black
churches with the same littany used south. Many came up to me to tell that
Bush would never lie, and he's against abortion and gay marriage.

So, please keep pushing how this fits with our universal values as caring
humans and Dems. More are listening than just me.

I went away for awhile for a late breakfast. No, I don't want to become the
political party of religion either. Although it's true that I'm a Democrat
because I'm a Christian and believe the Democratic party is the only major
party that even comes close to practicing Christian values, I know we
can't be the party of only Christians either. We have to be the party of all
Americans- Howard Dean was right about that- but I do think we need to
change some of our focus in the future. We have to make our view on partial
birth abortions more clear- it was never made clear down here in the South
that most Democratic politicians would go along with the ban on that
procedure as long as the health of the mother was made part of the equation.
I honestly think that's the view of most Democrats in congress, but
Southerners think Democratic votes against Bush's attempts to ban the
procedure were an endorsement of the procedure itself. Coupled with the
confusion about what Kerry thought about gay marriage, and with the
confusion brought on by the NRA about his record on gun control, the South
was bound to go solidly Republican this election. Some of it is simply about
not getting our message across, but a lot of it is the power of the white
pulpit over Southern politics. The African American pastors down here have a
lot of influence as well, but I don't believe they embraced John Kerry in
the same way as they did Bill Clinton. And just to be honest- that had more
to do with the personality and background of the candidates than anything
else. I will say, and I'm going to make everyone mad again on here, that I
think had our ticket been flipped over, with Edwards at the top and Kerry as
the VP candidate, we'd have had a very good chance of taking Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Florida, and winning this election. But that's hindsight, and
I suppose it does no good to speculate. I think John Edwards would have
sparked the African American community in the same way that Bill Clinton
did, and turnout there would have been huge. That's just speculation, I
know, and it does no good to speculate now. But we do have to make our
candidates views more clear in the future- and not allow Rove to continue to
cause confusion among the voters in the red states. Because apparently,
knowing where someone stands is larger in the minds of American voters than
agreeing with the candidate on where he stands. That's a really strange fact
to me, but all the polls say it's so.

Not to detract from an of the wonderful and important (and ADULT!)
discussions here, but I do wnat to acknowledge Patti F's birhtday. Patti
was the first person we contacted on the Kerry blog--and she has been the
salt of the earth and the fire in the sky ever since!

Happy birthday, Patti! You are a fighter and a sage! We will prevail!

Happy birthday Patti!!!!! I meant to say that earlier. Keep up the fight-
you're an inspiration to us all.

Marjorie:

Kerry won 70% of the Jewish vote w/i 5% of what Gore Lieberman won. I think
this supposed support of Israel message by W from the Jewish community was
way overblown. The 30% of the Jewish vote like my uncle who voted for Bush
was really due to protecting their upper income status, tax cuts for the
rich. That will continue, but the support from Jews for the Democratic party
is unwavering.I don't get your reference to the antisemetic vote. I agree
that there are antisemites and racist in the Republican party, but that was
not the rationale for Jews to cross over, it was clear and simply an issue
of money. And I can say that w/o being branded antisemetic.

Linda:

You'll never make me mad with an honest opinion! But, just for the road,
think of it from the point of view of a non-southernern when it is
suggested, even obliquely, that a southern-accent is a prerequisite for the
White House. And a southerner that belongs to a handful of specific
Christian denominations to boot. Most of us are not southerners. I find it
disgusting that the current POTUS found it acceptable to make fun of people
from Massachusetts, as he did more than once and quite openly on the
campaign trail (even though he's from Connecticut -- no good carpet-bagger).
Massachusetts is a great state, even if I can't spell it half the time,
with a booming high-tech economy and some of the best educational
institutions in the world.

In the spirit of dialog,

Chuck in Baku

Before we beat ourselves up too badly about polls, or as if we had done much
differently, whoever ran, top or second, would have been turned into mulch,
and just this side of the devil.

My grandmother died in 1938 after carrying a dead and decomposing fetus
inside of her for three months, leaving five children motherless - my mother
was 13 when her mother died. At a family reunion this past summer, a great
aunt told me how she sat by my grandmother's side while my grandmother cried
hysterically knowing her baby was dead - everyone knew the baby was dead,
you see. The pre-eclampsia that had killed the fetus which then decomposed
inside of her when her body did not expel the dead body naturally then
killed my grandmother. I have a copy of her death certificate and it's
gruesome; the fetus's death certificate says "of six months gestation, but
carried to term." If there had been NO laws whatsoever banning abortion, I
think the doctor would have performed the C-section when he knew the fetus
was dead. As is, he only did the C-section when she went into labor the day
before her death. There were no laws banning abortion in the US until the
late 19th century. I'm in favor of repealing all laws banning abortion.
Period. I'm tired of the stance that men can tell a woman what to do with
her body if women can't tell a man what to do with his body to prevent
conception.... Women are not idiotic children who need to be told what to
do, and anti-abortion laws make women into virtual slaves. We do not need
to go backward with our laws!

There was an article about this about a week and a half ago in one of the
e-newsletters. If the Democratic party "softens" its stance on abortion, I
will cease to be a Democrat. Period. I will never, but never ever support
any candidate who does not support reproductive freedom for women. A
candidate who supports going backward to 19th century laws would then give
women the choice of a Republican and a Lite Republican to vote for. That's
not a choice. That's going to promote the current Republican and
anti-choice platform and reverts to making women the equivalent of brood
mares.... So, I'll repost the previous link and my response to it....
~~~~~~

The men controlling the Democratic party might want to re-think what they're
proposing. Compromise for the sake of getting a few fundamentalist votes
(which they won't get anyway) and giving more power to the kool-aid
christians would NOT be a wise decision on the part of Democratic leaders or
senators or representatives. Don't forget, women comprise 51% of the
population of this country....

Democrats Eye Softer Image on Abortion
href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-03.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-03.htm

How about this for a softer stance on abortion: If you don't need an
abortion because a fetus has died inside you at the beginning of the third
trimester because of pre-eclampsia, and you aren't expelling it naturally,
and the dead body is decomposing inside you and will cause your own death if
it's not taken out, or if you don't have any other life-threatening
condition that requires an abortion, or if you don't want an abortion early
in the pregnancy because you want to carry your baby to term, then don't
have an abortion!!! The solution to that artificially and intentionally
divisive "issue" is solved by freedom of choice: letting the person who can
get pregnant be responsible for her own decisions regarding her body and her
fetus. If you don't need or want an abortion, don't have it!!! It's just
that simple!!! Duh!!! "Softening" the stance on a woman's right to choose
is NOT a good "justification" for the Democratic party or representatives or
senators to change the stance on women's reproductive rights.

If a woman does not want to become a mother - ever - she might choose tubal
ligation to avoid pregnancy entirely. If a woman wants to delay her entry
into motherhood, there are all kinds of birth control choices and options
(including also making sure her partner is using condoms even if she is on
the pill to help prevent STDs). If a man does not want to become a father -
ever - he can choose a vasectomy. There are options and choices that no one
ever discusses!!!

The only people who are virulently anti-choice are the brainwashed religious
fundamentalists who are mostly men with control-freak issues whose
masculinity is somehow threatened at the notion a woman can responsibly
decide what's best for her own body, and they are trying to not only keep
women from knowledge about birth control from early school days forward
(abstinence is an unrealistic dictum!!!), but those same men (and some
control-freak women who want other women to suffer because they suffered
somehow at the hands of a man who controls her life) want to force teenage
girls and women to have babies they can't or won't be able to take care of
once the babies are born.

And what if a teenage girl or a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape
or incest??? The laws in some states mandate a teenage girl's parents have
to be notified if she wants to have an abortion.... purely unrealistic if
her father or her brother or her uncle or her cousin or her grandfather is
the biological father - why should she have to notify anyone before choosing
abortion, especially when the one who potentially got her pregnant while
committing incest and child-rape might be the very parent whom (mostly male)
legislators who wrote that piece of drivel called a law want notified!?!?!?

I'd recommend that if the anti-choice people are so "pro-life" really want
to help, they should adopt any number of children who are legally able to be
adopted..., but I think the control-freaks who are virulently opposed to
women having the right to choose would probably be really lousy parents.
There's no "pro-life" without compassion, and the anti-choice people
certainly talk and act like they have no compassion. This is a real life
"issue" that some real teenage girls and some real women face, and the
legislators and supreme court justices have no business whatsoever
regulating women's bodies like they would their prize brood mares, their
property they have control over. A full repeal of all abortion laws, rules,
and regulations needs to be done; let women make their own choices, and
treat women like the responsible adults they are!!!

Women did just fine making decisions about their own bodies before the late
19th century when abortion laws were first put in place, thank you very
much! Women are not, after all, children, and do not need not be told what
to do with their own bodies! I do wish men who's masculinity is somehow
threatened by a woman making mature decisions and controlling her own body
would go away, grow up, and get some common sense perspective about
abortion. If you can't get pregnant, don't dictate (by law or otherwise)
what a woman can or cannot do with her body, or what she can or cannot do
with the fetus she may or may not have in her womb!!!

Yes... that means if you can't get pregnant, shut up already, and take your
stupid laws with you that make women into nothing more than slaves and brood
mares, as you see fit.... (This sentence is for the anti-choice repukes who
have no clue....)

Ira, I studied the Israel vote very well, and they did turn the vote on
Israel, in Florida in particular to 30%. But I also said, from the beginning
to the more hand-wringing, it gave cover to those who felt guiltier going
for Bush over taxes, especially with how draconian the tax cuts, other cuts
and the war. It's been a slow movement from the social progressive with
cushier lives voting their pocketbooks.

A few thoughts on the conversation today...

Abortion has been framed in recent years as a religious issue - our country
was founded on a separation of church and state. Abortion is a privacy
issue. Healthcare is protected by privacy laws. Throw out legalized abortion
and then they will continue to hammer away at legal birth control and a lot
more healthcare concerns of people who have a right to privacy. Men, have no
business telling women whether they can or can not have an abortion.

Clinton's dalliance was nothing that plenty of "good religious men" have not
been guilty of! He got caught. Many of them have been caught too. Does that
make him any less religious others? No! Compare Clinton's dalliance to the
crimes of the Catholic priests in this country and the world. No contest in
my eyes.

Do we, the Democrats have values? Our values are perhaps more rooted in the
Bible and every other religious text in this world. We've been screwed by
the constant interpretation of who is right, who is better, my God, your
God, who's God is the right God.

The Fundamentalists have been gearing up for a witch hunt for years. Bush
has his Crusade. Protecting abortion is protecting separation of church and
state and the fundamental rights and liberties of all in this country.

religion & earthquakes

href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1380248,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1380248,00.html

Linda:

Does this mean that you are an Edwards supporter today? I was quite
disappointed with Edwards performance and his failure to even excite his
home state and make it close. And I think the black turnout was just fine,
it just got overwhelmed by Evangelicals.The south was lost way before the
election cycle started. The DNC has completed walked away from state part
elections in the south. They have no prsence down here in Texas, none and so
naturally southerners have come to conclude that the Democratic Party does
not care about them. We need some part leaders to start showing their faces
on local tv networks for southern governors and state legislative campaigns
regardless of whether we have a chance to win them. Believe me when there is
just a void, Republicans are happy to fill it. Just the DNC leader's
ocassional presence would signal that the Democratic party cares about the
south. And the party can't start thinking about that 6 months before the
next presidential election cycle; they must start now.

For instance, here in Harris Cty, Houston a Democrat actually won a state
legislative seat against a 20 year veteran sleeze bag Republican by 42
votes. I was hoping and praying to see a DNC leader come down here and get
on our local tv stations and announce that the Democratic Party was back in
Texas and guess what nothing. Again just keep leaving voids in the south and
expect southerners to give Dems a second look. Aint going to happen.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin | December 28, 2004 01:06 PM

Linda,

For all intents and purposes, it's is quite evident to many in this country
that John Kerry actually did WIN the election. it was stolen, with the
biggest conspiracy in the history of this country.

That said, your analysis of what JK did wrong, your touting of Dean or Clark
did right, or your wish that the ticket were reversed (JE & JK instead of JK
& JE) are all moot points.

Dean NEVER had a chance beating Bush, nor did Clark or Edwards. There are
plenty of things that the campaign could have done better. The media screwed
JK royaly. The question now is not who could have done better, but how to
overcome the media bias, show our values and build up our party.

John Kerry received more votes than any other Democratic presidential
candidate in history.

" Throw out legalized abortion and then they will continue to hammer away at
legal birth control and a lot more healthcare concerns of people who have a
right to privacy. "

Pamela you are definitely on to something. We need to go on the offense
about abortion and start attacking the other side as wanting to do away with
all contraceptives.e.g. overrule Griswold v Connecticut.
Maybe if more women heard that the abortion issue threatens their rights to
all contraceptives they might wake up. I don't see abortion as a religious
issue. Unfortunately our opponents see it as a Cultural Issue not as a
health issue. But you are right, do away with all abortions and they they
will just move on to something else, and contraceptives are in fact the next
step in that drive. Do any of us think that even the so called Country Club
Republican women are ready to outlaw contraceptives?

Chuck in Baku for Linda/Ira:

Sorry for promoting all this religion and southern thing, in a sense (me,
I'm half-and-half -- part border state, part Irish-Italian). I think it is
a very important issue that calls for some very serious introspection on
everybody's part. We can't let provocations divide us and at the same time
we must confront what makes some issues provocative, keeping in mind that
ours is a big and diverse country and that what may be perceived truth for
some may be anathema for others, on one level, even when they agree on the
underlying values. We've got a couple years (or more) in the wilderness to
work this out! Please keep the faith and keep trying!

God Bless and GOTV 2006!

Chuck in Baku

This may be one of the most difficult to implement posts and suggestions
that I have posted in a long time. I don't know if it is controversial.

How do we get the church goers who voted overwhelmingly against their own
interests and principled values to consider our message?
We go to Church or Synagogue (or other appropriate house of worship). We
participate in sponsored outings and activies. We invite speakers to give
lectures at our houses of worship. We speak up when we feel inclined. All
the while we don't shy away from our principled values. Certainly there will
be those individuals who will be driven by one or two issues, and they are
unreachable. We are all humans (including the ultra right wing nuts) with
the same basic cares and fears. When some of those we are trying to reach
understand that our message is delivered in a spirit of sincerity, they may
be more likely to consider our concerns. With this approach we are less
likely to be seen as a "bunch of trouble makers tying to make trouble"

Essentially what I am saying is we fight/educate our political adversaries
in a setting where they are most comfortable (take the fight to them-so to
speak). That way we are seen as less frightening.

Sorry, Ira, looked for the link. I'm at work and can't talk long, but check
half way down of the effects of anti Israel and anti semitism, dangerously
mixed. per Eric Alterman href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6707742/#041213">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6707742/#041213

Bush created and benefited from both cause and effect regarding Israel, with
his full support of Sharon and non-negotiation. Let me know if you want to
discuss this more, but later.

Especially on college campuses, support for Israel cannot be seen as a
right-only position, but a return to the humane policies of progressives in
world cooperation.

Posted by: oncall | December 28, 2004 01:52 PM

Change my last sentence in the second paragraph to: ...... "bunch of
outsiders trying to make trouble".

Chuck:

Where in the world is Baku? And how is it that someone as far away as you
can be involved in what is going on here, and all of my neighbors who have
a lot more at stake in this country don't give a rat's ass?

Pamela: the media is way out of control. I used to be a tv political junky.
Now I won't watch any of them: Matt Lauer, Russert,Kondracky, Chris Matthews
I think they are all whores who contribute nothing to political discourse
and I won't watch any of them. The 64 million dollar question is how to
replace them on the national picture?

Marjorie:

Kerry won 70% of the Jewish vote w/i 5% of what Gore Lieberman won. I think
this supposed support of Israel message by W from the Jewish community was
way overblown. The 30% of the Jewish vote like my uncle who voted for Bush
was really due to protecting their upper income status, tax cuts for the
rich. That will continue, but the support from Jews for the Democratic party
is unwavering.I don't get your reference to the antisemetic vote. I agree
that there are antisemites and racist in the Republican party, but that was
not the rationale for Jews to cross over, it was clear and simply an issue
of money. And I can say that w/o being branded antisemetic.

I am off work today and can understand your shortness of time but
antisemitism is a topic that deserves our attention. Yes Pat Buchannan and
Mel Gibson promote anti semetism but I disagree with your premise that Jews
voting for W are promoting antisemitism. There are some very conservative
Jews like any other religion, but to say they support antiemitism is a
stretch that even I won't buy in to. Perhaps for anyother time Marjorie.

Posted by: Marjorie G | December 28, 2004 01:23 PM

Ira, look for the above regarding pocket-book Jews.

Posted by: Ira | December 28, 2004 01:42 PM

Ira,

They are already hammering away on birth control as well. They have been for
a while. Teaching abstinence in our schools has been shown to be
ineffective.

Sometimes those who cry foul loudest are the biggest hypocrites.

Just look at what the media has been saying of late about the porn industry.
Those who make money from it donate heavily to the GOP and it's "product" is
oh so popular in the Red States.

Ira:

Baku is the capital of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet Republic in the Caucasus
and on the shores of the Caspain Sea. It is bordered by the Russian
Federation (Dagestan), Georgia, Turkey, Armenia and Iran. I am from
Portland, Oregon, basically (I was born on Tachikawa Air Base in Japan and
my dad retired from the USAF to Portland in 1968 - he volunteered for the
Army Air Corps on December 8, 1941). My dad was born in Chicago and my mom
in Baltimore (my grandad was a student at Johns Hopkins at the time). So I
am just your basic Amercian that works in the oil patch and that happens at
the moment to be in Baku due to the fact the the money is good (it's a bit
more than that but that's the basics).

Chuck (registered Oregon voter) in Baku

Off topic...

Disease fears rise as tsunami's toll hits 44,000

As count climbs, WHO expert says aftermath may be equally deadly

NBC News and news services
Updated: 2:09 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2004

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia - As the death toll from the epic tidal waves that
slammed 11 countries soared to around 44,000 people on Tuesday, a top World
Health Organization health expert warned that diseases could double the
natural disaster�s death count before the situation can be stabilized.

href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6754820/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6754820/

I've updated the Relief list on the LUTD Blog once again - href="http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=168">http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=168

Lastly, Ron Chusid has a good post about Intelligent Design on LUTD, as the
conversation here seems to be drifting towards religion and the right - href="http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=170">http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=170

Marjorie:

You are absolutely right that the Jewish vote for Bush allowed otherwise
Progressive Jews to use W's supposed support of Israel as 'cover' to mask
their greed for tax cuts. News though: W did absolutely nothing for Israel
in 4 years other than see more suicide missions; the only reason these
pocket book Jews as you appropriately described them voted more for Gore in
2000 was having Lieberman on the ticket. There will always be a small slice
of Jweish Republicans and even black Republicans. That is not this party's
concern. And yes I am sick of reading so called Progressives attacking the
DNC's support of Israel. I have some of those comments and pointed them out
on this and the Kerry blog. Its called free speech but I still am offended.

Ira and Marjorie:

I don't have any statistics at my fingertips, but with repsect to people
voting their economic interests, the basic "blue/red" thing shows that the
more affluent precincts of the country voted overwhelmingly for Kerry --
that is, one would suppose, "against" their economic interests. The
demographics of these precincts, as I understand it, also strongly correlate
to high education and low unwanted pregnancy (and hence low abortion).

Chuck (originally from SE Portland, Oregon, Hosford GS Cleveland HS)
currently in Baku

Ira:

"Bush had success with both the Jews concerned for Israel (he won both the
pro-Israel and anti-semitic vote, go figure), and the black churches with
the same littany used south."

What I said above, did not mean Jews as anti-semitic, just that he could get
both sides of the issue from everyone. Not to say there isn't self-hatred of
any group, but that's not what I meant.

Bush used the "same littany" everywhere, about abortion, etc, not the Jewish
thing in particular. Although I think his brand of fascist hate as religion
carries over.

That is why I don't visit as much as I'd like. Without time, can't be
thoughtful, and I'm definitely hasty. It's not natural conversation with
follow-up, and the comments sit, forever offensive and misconstrued.

Are we both more confused now?

Ira, I was Kerry for Israel in NY, so I have many specious arguments to
tell. When fundraising left, I was about it for the incoming calls those
last weeks, because we were the export state. I worked with NJDC for their
debates, and continue because the Jewish vote is still attractive for
manipulation and defection by the GOP.

Marjorie!

Never be hasty! Put on some good Mowtown, find your center (or as my
Methodist Grandma would have said: let that spirit get a hold of you) and
do it!

Chuck in Baku

PS: What was that passage from the famous Hamlet thing about conscience
making cowards of us all?

Veritas,

You said it all much better than I could.
Fighting the battle on their battleground and in their language is exactly
right.

To those who are concerned that we are saying that the Democratic party
should become the "Christian Party", I don't think it needs to do that, nor
will it be successful if it limits itself to that label.

We are for the principles that led the great moral, hopeful men who wrote
our
constitution.

The Kerry campaign actually did fight alot of the fight on their
battleground. He
stressed the values he and the party have
been consistent in living...truth, caring,
compassion, peace, etc. He also stumped
heavily on Bush not being honest with the American people. That was not by
accident.

He also fought alot in their language. However, he was advised by more than
one person to give
answers to the abortion and gay issue that would appease the anti-choice and
anti-gay
voters without alienating his base. Bill
Clinton was one person who urged him to do that. Kerry is an honest man,
and when approached with these subjects in the debates, he clearly stated
his positions.
He was respectful to those who, for their
own personal religious or moral reasons,
needed to hear something different in order to vote for him, but he NEVER
sacrificed his integrity to "razzle dazzle" them. I
was more than proud. I remember when the
issues were presented at each of the last two debates, thinking "Oh, here we
go.
If he is honest about this it may cost him
alot of votes, maybe even the election." But respectfully, and very
clearly, he presented his position. It was no fluke of chance that those
questions were chosen, either. IMHO.

I don't think any of us realized the impact that particular segment of the
population would make, but it touched people of all
Christian based faith. Rove is brilliant
in that he knew how to manipulate them, and
the tool he used was Fear. He controls by using the people's primal
instincts. He led those people to
vote Bush by playing to their major fears:
Life itself (terror, terror, terror), and
Hell. (If you believe you will end up there if you "vote" for abortion.)

With what he was working against, Kerry actually did quite well, but not
quite well enough. He was trying very hard to expose
Bush. He outright told the people, in VERY plain language, what Bush was
about: corporate power and greed, war, and an untruthful image. Can't get
much plainer than that. But you see, the primal fear of losing your life,
and/or possibly going to
H-E-L-L over- ruled their rational selves.
They were unable to believe that anyone in America would use their language,
present
a "Godly" image, and do the things W. was
accused of doing. Who to believe? The person who says he will keep us
safe, and who "professes" honest Godly principles.
Figure it.

IMHO, we need to employ psychologists now
to tell us how to reach the American people
with the real truth. The dark side has used them, in a very major way.
That
facade was calculated. Precisely calculated. No speeches, on the stump or
televised, without a sign behind sending subliminal messages. The flag,
patriotic
themes. Laura Bush parroting away with
"Women want to be safe." Etc.

Chazman:

I agree that the highly educated voter supported kerry/Edwards I just have
doubts about the upper 1% income supporting Kerry/Edwards which I really
doubt.Unfortunately I know plenty of pocketbook Jews personally who voted
for Bush. You know that is fine with me. If they look at their own self
interest and tax cuts and end of capital gains above country they probably
belong in the Republican party anyways. That is not what we are about and it
is of no concern to me.

I know, Chazman, we did get the smarter and caring vote, from everywhere.

Plus, Marjorie, why, as it sometime seems, does "support" for Israel seem to
be deemed to be "support" for Likud and nothing else?

Just a LABOR/GENEVA thought from

Chuck in Baku

Chuck
Support for Israel does not mean support for Likuid. Where that came from I
don't understand.

Ira:

I wasn't so muc thinking of the 1% (natural born neocons) as the, say, 40%
(from a Lorenz curve perspective). Just trying to point out that the
reality we are dealing with is very subtle, and traditional labels don't
really cover it. Take me, for example. I've made decent money. But I'd
rather live in a community where the basics were covered for all before I
got my luxuries and, well, if I do a bit better, good for me, rather than
live in a community of, well, we've got lifeboats for 10, and there are 100
of you, so by God I'm gonna be one of the ten. It's just not the way I was
raised. I guess it's my values and I don't feel comfortable otherwise (and,
living in diverse cultures, beleive me, I've seen plenty bad).

Chuck in Baku

Chuck

That's the problem with what Bush did to the argument for and about Israel
by so embracing Sharon and Likud, and why people have turned against Israel,
therefore Jews, mixing anti-Semitism with anti-Israel. Embrace of Israel
does not necessarily mean embrace of Likud, and definitely not within
Israel. Even Sharon sensed the impossibility of some of his positions,
moving more moderately, lately, although I have doubts.

Happy Birthday Patti and may you be blessed with many, many more!!!

BOT: (back on topic of sorts)

Pamela and Ira...SPOT ON!

Recently on local Austin News (ABC affiliate KVUE-24 Austin) that State
Pharmacological group has been approached by some of their members to lobby
the State Legislature in Texas so as to free Pharmacists from liability if
they REFUSE TO SELL the morning after pill to women ON MORAL GROUNDS.

What will come next? Refusal to sell birth-control pills or condems based on
MORAL GROUNDS?!?!

They MUST BE STOPPED!

Marjorie:

With respect to:

"Support for Israel does not mean support for Likuid. Where that came from I
don't understand."

I mean that a lot of people that supported Bush due to considerations that
relate to Israel did so as an expression of support for the policies of the
Likud party and our President's special relationship with Ariel Sharon,
which to my mind, as a supporter of Israel, should NEVER be construed to be,
by defintion, support of Israel. That is not support of Israel but support
of Likud. Me, I'm a labor kind of guy.

Respectfuly,

Chuck in Baku

Indy, what are you saying? That the
neocons are pushing their religious
right views by big corporations being
allowed to sell a product according to
their conscience? Is the concern that it will lead to major control by
religion
dictating law? (Forgive me if it is
obvious, but want to make sure what your
major objection is.)

Chazman:

While have similar views in civic responsibility we are a dying breed.
Republicans have captured the me first mentality which I see as having
taking over this country. Just call me a cynic but if they were to remake
the story of the Titanic it would look much different today the Vanderbilts
and Browns would have pushed the women and children into the water.

I say that America should support Israel period.We should support the
country its people and philospohy for the founding of Israel as the Jewish
homeland, even if we disagree with the direction of its current leaders. It
is not up to us as Americans to dictate their internal politics. Israel is
just not that big a deal in US politics today.

Principles in a democracy are not VALUES.

The word has been twisted to mean political VALUES.

This country was founded upon Democratic Principles...not Values.

Taking back the English language and educating people in the difference
between values and principles is the tough nut to crack.

One more try: A person can be anti-Likud and pro-Israel.

Chuck in Baku

Chuck, Israel has always been an emotional issue about its survival. Just
one more fear issue for Bush to play with Americans, safely over here with
their hearts over there. Sharon came along after the Clinton talks broke
down, people were fed up, and took to the extreme policies of Sharon, and
the Mid-East non-negotiation from Bush, in particular. It went downhill from
there.

You are more in sync with Israelis.

Indy:

The answer to your question is Yes. We live in a whacko state what do you
expect. No liability for any corporation and 0 taxes. Read H.B 12. Again
look for the religious right to tackle Griswold v Connecticut next. It will
happen.

Trying to push for laws based upon religious VALUES instead of democratic
PRINCIPLES is what I am saying TSP.

It is a blatant disregard of Americans rights according to the First
Amendment.

Statute of Religious Freedom
1777

Jefferson first drafted his �Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom� in
1777. Although it was not enacted into law until 1786, it firmly established
the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state
and provided the basis for the First Amendment�s clause on religion.

The full text can be read here:

href="http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/frame_ih198172.htm">http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/frame_ih198172.htm

Indy, thank you.

For those interested in what Ira and I are discussing:

Argued:
March 29, 1965

Decided:
June 7, 1965

Subjects: Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury

Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave
information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples
concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a
Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other
medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state
restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of
contraceptives?

Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to
privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras,
or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third,
Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right
to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the
exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Ira:

I wish it was that simple. But the fact is, we underwrite Israel, so we are
morally implicated in their actions. When you say, "support Israel, period"
fine, but where are the borders of that state within which "we" must support
them? What should be our postion with respect to "non-Jewish" citizens of
those regions? These would seem to be principle issues that are rarely
addressed when people speak of "supporting Israel." I don't give any country
or interest group a carte-blanche. And I know many folks in Israel agree
with me.

Boy, I can't get out of the provocative ones tonight. Please don't anyone
think I am anti-Semetic or anti-anything except anti-racist and
anti-prejudiced. I just try to work of first principles.

Chuck in Baku

Does anyone here agree that maybe that Planned Parenthood and the DNC need
to approach the abortion issue as protecting women's right to
Contraceptives. Just a thought of how we might be able to overcome the
radical right's attcks on abortion rights.
Every time they call abortion murder our one word response should be
Contraceptives. Again the right will deny that they intend to outlaw
Contraceptives, but Indy's post of protecting Pharmacists here in Texas who
refuse to dispense Contraceptives, is living proof of the right's direction.
I am with you on this one Indy.
Don't ever underestimate the lunacy of the radical right.

Posted by: Indy | December 28, 2004 03:08 PM

Very nice, Indy! Thank you.

Posted by: Indy | December 28, 2004 03:08 PM

Thanks...! :-)

Intruding on the privacy of bedrooms needs to be firmly prohibited...! The
thought that that law could be overturned by the fundies is absolutely
repulsive...!

Posted by: Ira | December 28, 2004 03:17 PM

Ira,

The right wing fundies already argue that some women use abortion as a means
of contraception or birth control. Which is ludicrous, I might add. No woman
in her right mind would put herself through the physical pain of an abortion
as a means of birth control.

Chuck:

I don't think anyone here will question your motives regarding Israel, its
just that those of us that have lost family in the hollocost understand the
underlying and sometimes blind faith some of us have toward the stability of
Israel. We I read attacks against Israel here (not from you)from
Progressives, it gives me pause, and I will just leave it at that.Hopefully
those here with differing views on Israel will also understand those of us
with recognized blinders on do so with a good heart.

Ira:

Roger that. We are on the same side. Here's for a bit more peace and
patience and understanding (and democracy) in the middle east. Given that,
and time, things will work themselves out. There really is no other way.
People have to live together.

God Bless!

Chuck in Baku

Not only is it an intrusion into the bedroom, we need to stress that these
kinds of moralistic crusades are an affront to the general Health and
Well-being of Americans.

To deny proper medical treatment based on "Moral" or "Religious" grounds has
been prosecuted in many states.

For example a couple refusing to get their child medical attention convinced
that prayer alone will save the child...then the child dies from neglect and
disease. There are many of these cases around the country, and they must be
used, no matter how distasteful it may seem, to provide a solid ground for
education and access to proper medical treatment including abortion,
contraceptives and medications that actually cure the disease not treat the
symptoms or create further health problems through fatal side-effects.

So there is a two-fold battle.
1.) The Fundamentalist fanatics who want to deny all Americans proper
medical treatment.

2.) The BIG Pharma comapnies who push drugs and medicines through the FDA
and use the American Public as guinea pigs and lab rats.

Chuck,

Israel has become a more polarizing issue again since everyone is more
concerned about mideast peace for their own safety. No easy fix, and there
are many reasons it gets used to stoke passions as much as it does. Try
reading my link above about effects of anti Israel and anti semitism,
dangerously mixed, per Eric Alterman, addressing shared responsibility.
Might help.

href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6707742/#041213">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6707742/#041213

Pamela:

You are probably correct and that is why Planned Parenthood doesn't use the
argument of Contraceptives in response to abortion. We need a strategy here
desperately and I just think that there are millions of moderate Republicans
maybe that magic 5% we so desperately need who would turn away from the
Republican party if they trly understood that their right to Contraceptives
was in jepordy. We just need to somehow turn the debate away from abortion
and their ugly response of baby killers. I don't have the answer but we sure
as hell better figure it out.

Susan Sontag, Author and Activist, Dies at 71
href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122904W.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122904W.shtml

FYI, general interest, breaking news.... Sontag was a political activist....

Apologies, and thanks, all, for your patience with our extremely long
discussion about Israel.

Posted by: Indy | December 28, 2004 03:34 PM

Good points again Indy...

One of the greatest arguments we have for abortion is the health issues.
Some Catholic hospital actually deny a woman the right to D&C after a
partial miscarriage!

Marjorie:

For what it's worth, Eric Alterman has been, is and will continue to be my
main man. Back in 2000, he was the one source of actual information about
the current administration that I was able to find. Plus he has decent
taste in music plus I love Manhatten!

Chuck in Baku

Chuck,

Eric's parting shot about liberals and where they live, Upper West Side of
Manhattan, he said in the article about Kerry, concidentally, "What do I
know, we can't even elect a Mayor of New York." Self-deprecating and
level-headed, always.

Marjorie:

Just to let you know how much I love New York. Way back when, when I was a
college guy doing construction work during the summers (i.e., I was in good
shape), I went through NYC on my way to a summer-study deal overseas -- just
another dumb hick. Now, my oldest brother lived in Sausalito back then, and
one of this best friends was from Puerto Rico via Queens/Northern Avenue, so
I stayed there. So I was day-tripping through Manhattan, just sort of
grooving, and this black guy (I'm white) came up to me and made a
threatening gesture. Now, I was in good shape back then, and he was kind of
skinny, and so I just laughed (and stood back and squared my shoulders). So
he put out his hand and shook my hand. He was just messing with me as an
obvious auslander and wanted to see how I reacted. When I just reacted
normally, he shook my hand. To me, that's Manhattan -- if you can make it
there...

I love New York.

Chuck in Baku

Chcuk,

You gotta love our diversity, and our comfort with most things. That's why
so many of these push button prejudices, while within us enough to
understand them, we don't like them in ourselves or others. Makes no sense
not to embrace and enjoy our cultural differences.

You've been fortunate in your travel and experiences.

Marjorie:

Fortunate? Maybe. I chalk it up to blind dumb luck (for which I humbly
Thank God). It's given me the small luxury of having seen a few things from
multiple sides -- something you all in Manhattan take for granted!

Chuck in Baku (listening to Jimi Hendrix, Garfield HS, Seattle Washington)

Chuck again for Marjorie:

Of course, then again, you all in Manhattan may or may not have ever felt
the tingle of a true, NW Coast drizzle, or a Steelhead on the other end, or
the rumble of glaciers, or the stars of a high desert sky. These are our
northwewstern things (DiAnne/Sandy/Marcia/Wild_Salmon -- help me on this!)

Chuck (from Oregon) in Baku

In the above:

northwewstern = northwestern

Goodnight All!

Chuck in Baku (waxing nostalgic about Oregon)

Nonny O

I could not agree with you more. MEN need to stop making laws for women to
follow. MEN need to make laws for MEN. Why not start with a law demanding
a vasectomy for every man who fathers an aborted baby?? Then we will see a
decrease in abortions because deadbeat "dads" will become fewer and fewer.
MEN do not need to control women, they can end abortions by controlling
themselves.

Why Falwall, Rush, Bush and others have not gotten on this bandwagon, I do
not know. All I know is that MEN should be controlling other MEN and
leaving women alone.

Abortion is an economic issue and men whose babies are aborted should be
held responsible. If a MAN can't be careful, then he can have a MANDATORY
Vasectomy--at government expense--and we can end the abortion debate right
now.

OK, I am off my abortion soapbox--what is it about abortion that gets the
emotions flying??

With the war raging out of control in Iraq and with us ushering in a new
year, thought this quote would make interesting conversation at New Years
gatherings--we have certainly been lied to.�

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of�the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter
to�drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship,
or�a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the
people�can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you�have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the�pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to
greater�danger."

�

�-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

My 2 cents on the Kerry loss and the analysis on the blog earlier--

Kerry did not lose becasue of abortion, gay rights, Christian Values and the
like. Kerry lost because the vote was stolen. Until and unless the
democratic party gets a handle on this, we will continue to lose elections
no matter who we try to appease. When Repubs feel they can't win, they
steal it and they steal it by taking away the minority vote--they have been
doing it for over 100 years and will continue to do it as long as we let
them.

We are revertting back to the party of the Southern Dems--and that would be
tragic--for our country, our democracy, and our way of life.

I do hope a Senator steps up on January 6--because even if we do not get a
change in the results, we can get a change in the process--this is what we
need to FIX--more than anything else.

Chuck, or when you awake,

I would trade all of this here, never feeling it was the end all and be all,
for some sustaining and enriching calm. Better to find that center you were
recommending. Rather than all kumbaya, embracing moments, I would say many
tolerate eachother here, as well as tolerate the psychic assaults of the
city. I'd like something more after 13 years here.

I'm ready to visit DiAnne and Patti, with a stopover to KJ.

Posted by: latina4justice | December 28, 2004 06:43 PM

Actually, latina, I advocate mandatory castration for men who commit violent
crimes like rape and child molestation. NOT as punishment, but so that
their DNA has no chance of going forward to the future. Prison would be the
punishment, but the castration is so thair DNA won't be half of a child who
could be potentially as dangerous as they are.

You are correct: if men had to have a mandatory vasectomy for every baby
they fathered who was aborted, control of men's bodies would become an
"issue" in the political arena, and then there would be a hue and cry from
the male population and how "unfair" it would be to have laws that control
their bodies. Men need to learn that if they do not want to be a father of
a baby who could be aborted, or for whom they were forced to pay child
support if a woman refused to have an abortion at his whim, then they must
ALSO learn to use birth control, too. Unfortunately, as per a link a week
or two ago, what happens when a man is that violent and has gotten a woman
pregnant and she refuses to have an abortion at his command, he simply kills
her, and thus the fetus.... and no more responsibility for being a parent,
no child support to pay. Men like that need to be castrated so their DNA
does not go forward into the future by some other woman who would be dumb
enough to have sex with a man like that. (And, no saving sperm from men
like that in sperm banks, either!!!)

I'm willing to strike a "compromise" about the whole issue: As long as men
have laws that control women's bodies, then it ought to be a right and a law
that women can make laws that control men's bodies.

As one of my philosophy professors was wont to quote often in his lectures:
"What ought to be done can be done....."

There ought to be a repeal of the original laws and the current laws about
abortion and have NO laws on the books whatsoever about abortion, pro or
con. Women were treated as responsible adults before the law was written,
so why not go back to that??? Let it be a medical decision a woman has to
make, and let it go at that. Period. (My grandmother would not have died
the way she did if there had been NO laws on the books about abortion!)
Women did quite well and acted responsibly about the whole subject before
there were any laws about abortion and whether they could or could not have
abortions or under what circumstances..... I'm all for women being treated
as responsible adults, not treated like slaves or children who can't
possibly make responsible decisions about their own bodies....

"What ought to be done can be done...."

OK, I am off my abortion soapbox--what is it about abortion that gets the
emotions flying??
Posted by: latina4justice | December 28, 2004 06:46 PM

When all the other "justifications" are stripped away, it's a control issue,
pure and simple. Men want to control women's bodies; women don't want men
to control their bodies. "Religious" men are the worst control freaks who
are the most vocal about it, along with the women they can brainwash into
that attitude, and they coerce legislators into making laws that control
women's bodies.

I'm aware that not all men are control freaks.... but they dang sure have
gone along with the men who are and have seen to it that laws that control
women's bodies have been passed.... and that's morally and ethically wrong!

When Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win," he could have been talking about Ohio in
2004. Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who presided so triumphantly
over the granting of Ohio's 20 Electoral votes to President Bush on December
13 even though the recount had not yet started, has gone past ignoring and
ridiculing the recount movement. Now that his house of cards is tumbling
down, he is starting to fight back.

http://www.votecobb.org/�

Nonny,

I agree with you--we need to change the conversation--it is about control
and until we get some controls on them, it is all about cntrolling us. I
agree that it is not all men, but the men in power who are not control
freaks, need to stand up and be counted.

As Indy said earlier, THIS HAS GOT to STOP--what's next??

Thanks to ALL for the wonderful BD cards,em's and to those of you that
called and burst into song you continue to touch my heart in the most
profound way! I am so blessed to have met you,and touched you back!
Linda,so happy you're back and I agree with you:we lost the election on the
brink of the Grand Canyon! Not to mention we could have gotten it back.....
and we did with the debates..until that Mary Cheney remark and then the
press ran with it and also THK's remark about Laura never working a day in
her life.
Look,Rove and minions went after 4 million religious zelots that didn't vote
before. But where oh where are the other 11 million votes?? STOLEN in
Ohio,Missouri, NM,Ia, and Az.This makes me sick as we knew Fla. was a given
for "W" because of Jeb and that Sec of State. Every time a job was lost in
Oh and the other states mentioned JK and JE should have been standing with
those workers and connected the dots pounding moral values as R/T
Healthcare,family values and education We had "THE" message,the press never
picked up on it as Iraq came into play all the time,but the media hung on
the Cheney and THK remark! How can the incumbent lose ALL three debates and
win is beyond the pale ! If our team had just given up on Fla,...let it go
and watched/monitored how the voting would go....stayed in Missouri,Ia,and
Oh there would have no
"uncertain" misgivings about who won!.....And there would have been NONE of
this "values" debate going on now as after the 04' exit polling has gone on
only 22% voted on this "values" crap. JK was right on Iraq with more
troops,but Bush said no,only to change his mind the day after the election.
Every time IRQW came into play we should have had "the" message of Bush's
incompetence and again HAMMERED it and related it to "morality"!!
I for sure don't think we need or want to become another REP party,tho we
definitely need to clean up the message and the messenger.
Think back to the right to chose issue. The reps kept hammering we were
por-abortion when that's NOT our stance at all. So they get to claim the
party of pro life while we get issued the death sentence on that one.
Clinton had it right:"SAFE,LEGAL...and RARE..and it's you're right to chose.
Not ONE mention from our side was made about the present policy as in this
ADM abortion rates have increased not decreased! How could we have missed
this opportunity makes me sick to death.
Anyone notice a great advocate has NOT ret'd to msnbc...Bill Press is gone!!
Pat Buchannan for his distrust of the neo-cons is now hosting Bush to the
hilt. We have NO advocates in the media left.We need to PRESS on about
this,continue to BLAST them and take them down. Tweety continues to have his
love affair with the Reagan presidency,while his son Ron is about the only
one I can listen to.
Interestingly enough yesterday,Olberman had Howard Fineman on and Keith
asked Howard:"Does this mean that Jk may have won Ohio and can unseat the
election?" Fineman:"Look this is politics,the president's in trouble with
even the moderate reps,things on the hill are all about fighting now,it's
not a united front,and yes..anything can happen." Go whoopas Jk and let's go
to Washinton and march in the real president's parade.
Enough already you guys!!!

At a party last night with former students--all in late 30s and early 40s
now--the abortion issue came up.

Joe yells "LIKE ANY ONE WANTS TO HAVE AN ABORTION!"

Discussion followed about what to do about: election fraud, assuring gay
rights, media reform, and a woman's right to choose what happens to her own
body.

Answer: www.democracycellproject.net

Go Forth and Multiply.

Karen,

Joe get it--I have never met a woman who had to have an abortion--under any
circumstances--that WANTED it or ENJOYED it or would do it again.

Woman agonize over this decision--and it is not easy, no matter what to
choice.

Those of us who wanted our babies, are truly blessed.

Posted by: Pamela | December 28, 2004 03:21 PM

Not just the physical pain, but the emotional pain as well. it is truly not
an easy decision or undertaking--Most men just don't understand--it is
their agenda.

Now that youve got me going I'm like the bunny and will keep going.
I often wondered why our side took the Arnold hits of "girlie men"? What an
insult and gross disrespect to Jk and also the policies that actually work
for the people's best interest. How about the term "liberal"...define it for
god's sake and don't run from it. As much as that word was used to define
Jk we needed a counter like "bigot" or "phoney","say one thing then do
another president" and point to how/why for Bush! Bush came across as a
regular guy and nothing was further from the truth..born in the
NE,privledged family,no accomplishments etc Compare his Texas laws to
actually what he did. When the term "ambulance chaser" came into play
counter with "why is Ken Lay still running around and the people still
suffering?? The secrecy of this ADM was enough to put them behind bars and
yet we lost...OUTRAGEOUS!!
The real dyed in the wool zealots would never change their minds,however
there were many on the fence that we could have had...and lost! Also poor
early on organizing in Oh and letting go of Mo..huge mishap!!

Ira- just reading back some of the posts of the day. No, I'm not an Edwards
supporter now- the election is obviously over, so I'm not really a supporter
of anyone anymore. I'm just a democrat who wants our party to succeed. But I
was an Edwards supporter after Clark dropped out of the race for a couple of
months. After Northwest Fla. for Clark folded up, I was asked to help
organize a Win with Edwards group here in Pensacola, and I gladly agreed.
Clark was always my first pick, Edwards was always my second, and Kerry was
third. I am from "down heah," remember? I know you are too. But when Kerry
got the nomination I supported him wholeheartedly, grew to think a lot of
him, and held my Kerry sign outside one of the most Republican precincts
in the most Republican county in Florida on election day, so I'm not here
trying to cause division. I do think we probably won the election in Ohio,
but the electoral college has already met. All proving that would do at this
point is to prove to the country that we STILL have an unelected president,
which isn't such a bad idea. But, unless we can prove outright illegal
behavior that is trackable directly back to the Oval Office, an Ohio win
still doesn't really mean anything. And, the president has to be impeached
before he can be arrested- isn't that the law? Unless I'm mistaken, that was
the rule back in the days of the Nixon administration. We obviously won't
get an impeachment out of this congress, so recounting all the Ohio votes
is just interesting, but not really significant.
Yes, it's depressing.
latina4justice- I had a friend who had an abortion way back in the early
70's, and she still wonders today what that baby would have been like had
she had it. Republicans think women take abortions lightly, but then,
they're idiots, aren't they?

There's a new thread. How come when I click on yesterday's date, I get
today's posts? Now the one for today's date is starting. Seems like we've
got to skip a day to catch up, huh:-) Or, are we using the Hebrew system
where the day starts at 6 PM??? If so, I still think we're a day behind.
ARGH!!!!!!!

Posted by: Patti Ferschke | December 28, 2004 07:39 PM

With all respect and fairness to John Kerry, he HAMMERED the message of
Bush's incompetence, and related it to morality.
Loud and clear. He worked tirelessly. He was HUSHED by
the media. He was robbed of fair and equal exposure. He was given one sound
bite to every hundred Bush was given. He pulled alot of votes despite the
force against
him. I have enormous respect for his effort. I thinked he was also
limited by the length of his exposure after his nomination to be the
candidate of the Democratic Party. He stumped all over the nation
delivering those very themes. Maybe he would have had better results had
he thumped his chest, and said in monotone: "Administration crooked".
"Bush liar.""War bad." "Bush phoney". He refused to stoop to name calling,
but he did EVERYTHING but draw the people a picture.
They played dirty by smearing his credibility before he had a chance in the
media to close.

People HEARD......so either the election was fixed, or Karl Rove did his
homework on the hearts and minds of the masses he knew he could reach years
in advance. He reached
masses of people by focusing on a theme, and using the clergy and the
Christian coalition to help him do his dirty work. He was the silent
schemer, and in the end they thought it was their own idea.

I live in rural America. I asked alot of questions before the election, and
I can tell you that I heard alot of people in say "I don't know who to vote
for, so I will vote for the man who holds my values." Period. Somehow, some
way, they were taught in the past eight years,
at a very basic level, that Bush shared their moral value system.

Now, be encouraged!!! Kerry kicked booty anyway. Mother Theresa
wouldn't have stood a chance. We are up against a ruthless adversary. If
we
realize this and don't allow discouragement and pessimism to get the better
of us, think of what we can accomplish.

So what was I saying earlier today? That we need to communicate our values
in a stronger way for a longer period of time, and it wouldn't hurt to pick
a candidate sooner. And I was telling the story of churched America being
manipulated.

Truth, thank you for everything you just said. The angry and disappointed
are out telling me what I know to be true didn't happen, but I know what he
said and he did what he needed to on the issues, where is morality without
the good works, as well as connecting. Just so little time and opportunity
to bond with the voter. That last weekend all I heard was how the tape
played to Bush's strength on terrorism, media insisting it be so.

Bush was really sold as likable and the savior, over and over. Still, if all
the voters had been allowed to vote as wished or counted as cast, Kerry
would be our next president.

I worry that his potential leadership and possible impact may be undermined
by the blame gamers, and youngsters without the long view or election
history. I really want Kerry's voice listened to with the respect he
deserves.