« Dr. Frist, You Could Be Next... | Main | My Democracy Cell Meeting Changed My Life »
You can't hide your lyin' eyes...
And your smile is a thin disguise... -- The Eagles
Have you heard the audio clip of President Bush talking about tsunami aid?
In it, he says that the generosity of America comes not from the government, but from the hearts of its people.
Is this just another saccharine statement, or is there something more at work here? There's evidence it's the latter in the new Social Security scam.
On one level, the tsunami statement reflects the real stinginess of the U.S. government's initial reaction to the disaster. We initially offered less money than was being spent on the corona...I mean, inauguration. Only when we were exposed as cheapskates did the government up the ante to something more respectable. Not enough, but still more than before.
What's deeper is Bush's and the radical right's longtime message of separating the American people from their government. It's the line we've heard overtly and covertly since the time of Barry Goldwater: government is bad.
Of course, the Republicans will never say that the government-paid soldiers are bad, or the government-built highways are bad or the fat, no-bid government defense contracts are bad. What's bad are all those burdensome regulations that keep people doing the real work of this country safe on the job or protected from Enron-style crooks. What's bad are those dangerous taxes that pay for things the conservatives don't want, like Social Security.
From Goldwater to Nixon to Reagan, when Democrats warned senior citizens that the Republicans wanted to cut or eliminate Social Security, the GOP accused them of using scare tactics. Republicans pledged their troth to Social Security then and forever.
But wait, what happened?
The Bush administration has dropped even that facade. They want to eliminate Social Security, because, as columnists in the New York Times and Washington Post have said so eloquently, it works.
The crisis-atmosphere propaganda we'll see over the next months will rival the campaign of distortion waged against John Kerry. Simply put, it's the Nixon tactic of the Big Lie: Tell it long enough and loud enough, and pretty soon, enough people will start to believe it. After all, Bush convinced a large part of America that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
During the presidential campaign, a telling criticism of the media, especially television, was the he-said, she-said "debates" over issues and non-issues. It played right into the Republican hands of creating an opportunity for demagoguery on their part while trivializing the opposition. The Democrats' most forceful spokesmen --like James Carville and Howard Dean -- came off as shouters and screamers.
Reasoned, thoughtful debate has been lost in our sound-bite world. Kerry found that out the hard way when he tried to be nuanced but was seen as inconsistent.
What we'll hear over the coming months is scaremongering of a looming crisis -- just like the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But the GOP's real message still will be served by the anxiety it creates, that government is bad.
Perhaps the Republicans should pay attention to something one of their truly great leaders had to say.
At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln talked about post-Civil War healing and that the "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."
Americans can take heart, too, in something else Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
Want to do something about it? Let your members of Congress know that you want them to protect Social Security. You can write, call, or fax letters to your senators and representatives and you can sign this petition from Moveon.org. Their goal is to deliver 200,000 signatures on a petition to Congress when they return after the January 20 inauguration.
Great piece madame
Scathing!!!!
If CNN, just under new management, wants to make amends for the sins of "Crossfire," it might dispatch some real reporters to find out just which "others" Mr. Williams is talking about and to follow his money all the way back to its source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/arts/16rich.html?ex=1106847764&ei=1&en=519943753c9d3e96
The whole thing is worth reading.
A Comparison of Excerps from UFPJ mailing and most recent Bush interview r/t Iraq:
On January 12, sixteen Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
This initiative is a clear reflection of the breadth of antiwar sentiment across the country, and a sign that the demand to bring the troops home now is gaining more and more mainstream support. The Congressional letter comes at a pivotal moment when, according to the New York Times (January 10), discussions of how the U.S. might disengage from Iraq are "bubbling up in Congress, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House."
Every day brings news of more defections from Bush's "stay the course" policy:
* North Carolina Republican Rep. Howard Coble, head of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, declared January
8 that "it's time for the U.S. to consider withdrawing." Noting a shift in public opinion in his largely conservative district, Coble's office
announced that "letters, phone calls and messages that had been overwhelmingly supportive of the war are now about even."
* Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser during Bush's father's presidency, stated January 6 that the situation in Iraq now raised the
"fundamental question of whether we should get out now." At the same Washington, D.C. insider event, former National Security Adviser under
President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, flatly declared, "I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we're in now. If it cannot be changed
drastically, it should be terminated."
* The government of the Ukraine (which recently elected a "pro-Western" leader) announced it was accelerating the full pullout of all its troops
from Iraq.
* The latest U.S. opinion polls indicate that a majority of the U.S. people believe invading Iraq was wrong or not worth the price.
* Mel Gibson, a hero of many conservatives shocked many of his fans after the People's Choice awards January 9 by declaring that he liked Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and exclaimed: "What the hell are we doing in Iraq? No one can explain to me in a reasonable manner that I can accept why we're there, why we went there, and why we're still there."
________________________________________________
Meanwhile, aboard Air Force One:
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administrationofficials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end.
On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he
received only about 11 percent of the black vote,
according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.
"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."
Here's another lyin' eyes link from (garrrr) our president.
Bush says Williams wrong to take money
By LAUREN MARKOE
WASHINGTON â?” President Bush this week said that radio commentator Armstrong Williams was right to fault himself for taking $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind, the centerpiece of Bushâ?™s education policy.
But Bush found no fault with his Education Department, which suggested the arrangement and paid Williams the money.
HELLO. Williams was wrong to take the money that the Education Department offered him... wtf
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/10657454.htm
We need some bumpersticker frames in support of social security:
With the white house and capital in the background
Social Security
as strong as US Gov
Social Security
stronger than wall streat
Social Security
there for your grand parents
there for you
With Bush, Cheney, Frist in background looking like the 3 stooges as con artists looking like stock brokers
Swap your parents social security for Enron securities?
Another soc sec bumper sticker
Will Merrill Lynch make it to 2042? --
Did Arthur Abdeson make it to 2002?
Another soc sec bumper sticker
Will Merrill Lynch make it to 2042? --
Did Arthur Anderson make it to 2002?
Comment to blogmaster after being flagged for posting a message too soon after another --
You need a list of trusted bloggers!
Swap your parents social security for Enron securities?
Posted by: bob-in-co at January 16, 2005 06:19 AM
That one is GREAT!!!
HELLO. Williams was wrong to take the money that the Education Department offered him... wtf
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/10657454.htm
Posted by: Mark at January 16, 2005 04:31 AM
This is like Lakoff's discussion on Bush as father. In this case, it's literally, "Do as I say,not as I do" that any child see's a mile away as "Dad's a lyin' ..."
Good thing I have no intention of using Bush as MY father figure.
HELLO. Williams was wrong to take the money that the Education Department offered him... wtf
Posted by: Mark at January 16, 2005 04:31 AM
What do you expect; wasn't it that way in the Garden of Eden too...
Email from Boxer, please sign.
Dear Irina,
Thank you so much for signing my petition to hold Condoleezza Rice accountable during next week's Senate confirmation hearings. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you standing up with me in this critical fight.
But I need you to do more.
Please forward this important petition to five of your friends -- today. Because Monday is Martin Luther King Day, we only have this weekend to gather more petition signatures before the confirmation hearings begin on Tuesday.
More than 17,000 Americans have already joined together with you and me in demanding the truth from Condoleezza Rice. But to make the greatest impact at the confirmation hearings next week, we need thousands more.
So please -- tell at least five of your friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues to join our critical effort. And if you've already told five friends, tell five more! Invite them to sign our petition at pacforachange.com/petition. And let's send a message -- loud and clear -- to Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and George Bush that the American people demand real, honest, and complete answers to the questions about Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and the war on terrorism.
Thanks again for everything. Know that I'll be standing up for you next week in Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings, and every week so long as I have the privilege of serving the people of California in the United States Senate.
In Friendship,
Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator
P.S. I can't over-emphasize how important it is for you to tell your friends about this petition. I know I can count on you to get our message out.
Long but worth it:
Digging Up the Truth on Republicans' "Dead Man Voting" Conspiracy Theory: Cite This Article to Every Republican Friend You Have Who Won't Stop Talking About Dead People Voting
Sometimes you just have to let an article speak for itself.
Here's what the Seattle Times has to say about Republicans' annual rehashing of the "dead man voting" conspiracy theory, which Republicans use as an excuse to make "election reform" all about purging voter rolls -- even though doing so invariably leads to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of legitimate voters for every one illegal voter properly purged.
Says The Times,
In six of the state [of Washington's] largest counties [Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, and Yakima counties, covering 1,752,800 voters ] at least 24 dead people were credited with voting in the November election. Some of those can be explained as clerical errors -- a voter mistakenly signing the wrong line in a poll book, for instance -- and others are cases in which people inadvertently voted in their relatives' names but not in their own.
But three of the cases warrant referral for felony prosecution, elections officials said last night, and several others require further investigation.
Allegations of dead-voter fraud have reverberated on the Internet and talk radio. And the state Republican Party intends to cite dead voters in its expected challenge of the closest gubernatorial election in state history, one in which Democrat Christine Gregoire beat Republican Rossi by 129 votes.
But despite the handful of suspicious cases in which dead people were credited with voting, in at least half of the two dozen cases there is no evidence that extra votes were cast in dead people's names, according to a Seattle Times analysis reviewed by county officials. The clerical errors and surviving relatives' slip-ups mean the wrong person -- but not an additional person -- was credited with voting.
....
Nationally, there is rich lore about dead voters, said election reform expert Doug Chapin, citing an old joke from Boston about voters wanting to be buried in specific city boroughs to have their voting rights live on.
But voting by the dead usually indicates simple error and not a widespread scheme, he said. "The reality may not match the lore," said Chapin, director of the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project.
So, let's get our numbers straight: out of 1,752,800 ballots cast in six Washington counties, as many as 12 -- and as few as 3 -- "dead people" voted.
Let's take the high number first.
If there were 12 illegal votes cast, that's one illegal vote for every 146,067 legal votes.
And now the low number: if there were only 3 illegal votes cast (and thus far, only three instances of possible illegality have been found -- one, according to The Times, where a man was trying to respect his recently-departed wife's dying wishes) then we've got one illegal vote for every 584,267 legal votes cast.
That's right -- it takes 600,000 legal voters for the Republicans to find 1 illegal "dead person" vote. And if you forgive a man for trying to respect his wife's dying wishes, make that 876,400 legal voters for every 1 illegal vote from a deceased person.
Where's the fire? We don't think that's the right question to ask. Where's the smoke -- now that's the real question.
To use an old saying: "there's no there there."
The Seattle Times
Office of Florida's Republican Secretary of State: Undervotes Are Your Problem, Not Ours
In a signal that the Republican Party has been, is, and will continue to give American voters a giant middle finger on the subject of election reform, the Office of Florida's Republican Secretary of State, Glenda Hood, on Saturday told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that "an undervote is the prerogative of the voter, and not an error."
Oh really?
According to Office spokesperson Jenny Nash, who was responding to a Sun-Sentinel report revealing that the touch-screen electronic voting machines used primarily in Florida's largest, most heavily-Democratic counties were, during the 2004 presidential election, 50% more likely to register an undervote than those machines used primarily in Republican counties, "[the difference is] not significant...I believe it is incorrect to state that touch-screen machines were outperformed by optical-scan machines due to a minor difference in the undervote rates."
Minor difference?
Who is this person?
And why does the media not realize that it's getting the same middle finger in its face from the Republican Party that the rest of us are getting?
And how long do they plan on falling on their swords for the "Jenny Nashes" of America?
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research Called the More-Accurate 1996 Exit Polls "An American Waterloo" -- So What Do They Have to Say About One-in-a-Million Odds?
According to an October 2000 essay by Heidelberg College Professor Arnold J. Oliver, after the 1996 presidential election Everett Ladd (of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research) called the inaccuracy of the nation's exit-polling "an American Waterloo."
[For those not familiar with the historical reference, Waterloo, in central Belgium, was the site of one of the greatest military defeats in the history of mankind. in 1815, an army of English, Dutch and Prussian troops, led by the Duke of Wellington, routed Napoleon's French army. Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena shortly after].
According to Ladd (as told by Professor Oliver),
Almost all the final pre-election polls [in 1996] uniformly showed that Presidential candidate Bill Clinton had a commanding lead over Bob Dole. While this did accurately reflect the outcome of the election, most of the major polls erred in the same direction, underestimating support for Dole. The final New York Times/CBS poll, for example, had Clinton with an 19-point advantage, far greater than the actual final margin of 8.4 percent. Purdue psychologist Gerald Wasserman computed the odds that seven of eight of the final surveys [in the 1996 presidential election] could err to such an extent, and in the same direction, solely due to chance. The odds were calculated at 9,800 to 1. "In other words, one would have to run presidential polls for over 39,000 years in order for chance alone just once to produce a pattern on eight polls that is as extreme as the one that occurred in 1996," according to Wasserman.
Others were equally alarmed. Everett Carll Ladd of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research called the 1996 Presidential election poll results "An American Waterloo", pointing out that some of them were more inaccurate than the infamous Gallop survey of 1948 which showed Truman trailing Dewey late in the campaign.
[Citations omitted].
An "American Waterloo"? With 9,800 to 1 odds? How about the current election, in which the odds of the exit polls being as far off the raw vote totals as they were is (as estimated by University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven Freeman) 662,000 to 1 -- or more than sixty-seven times less likely than the 1996 odds?
And even those odds are conservative. Some present estimates put the chance of the nation's 2004 exit polls deviating as far as they did from the "actual" vote tallies at more than a trillion to one.
Joe Lenski, spokesman for embattled National Election Pool (NEP) pollster Warren Mitofsky, has said in an e-mail to Dr. Freeman that "all of the exit poll data [from the 2004 presidential election] will be archived at the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut some time in early 2005. You will be able to access all of the exit poll data at that point."
So, The Advocate can't help but wonder, given that (according to Lenski) we're only a matter of weeks away from the release of the NEP data to the Roper Center -- what battle was sixty-seven times more devastating for the losers than Waterloo?
Researchers at the Roper Center should be checking their history books.
In the meantime, can the Advocate make a suggestion as to a possible historical/cultural point-of-reference, if 1996 was "an American Waterloo"?
How about "Armageddon"?
Heidelberg College
Night of the Voting Dead II: Republicans' Stirring, Nationwide, Nauseatingly Self-Righteous Campaign to Stop "That-One-Guy-in-Kentucky-a-Few-Years-Back, I-Can't-Remember-His-Name-Or-What-Town-He-Lived-In" From Voting Illegally
There's a clamor for election reform in the State of Washington -- and it's coming from Republicans.
Unfortunately, the G.O.P. prescription is more of the same asinine posturing the nation has seen in the past from Republicans, most notably after the 2000 presidential election: namely, purge, purge, purge.
Republicans are already famous for anecdotally reciting scattered instances of felons and dead people voting in general elections -- while sweeping under the rug systematic inadequacies in the nation's election processes which habitually wreck the Democratic base come Election Day.
According to Washington State Senator Pam Roach [R-Auburn], the Washington legislature must pass a bill now to have (as paraphase by KOMO-1000 News in Seattle) "every voter re-register so that felons and dead people can be removed from the poll books."
Smashing idea!
But please read the first entry in this Report, Pam, before you swing by Olympia for the floor vote.
Thanks!
KOMO-1000 News
posted by News Editor at 1/15/2005 10:38:14 PM
http://nashuaadvocate.com
News: Election 2004: A.P. Quotes U.S. Senator Gordon Smith [R-OR] As Saying Exit Polls Have "Never Been Right" in His Election Races; Advocate Baffled
By ADVOCATE STAFF
Is it really possible that, in the experience of a U.S. Senator, exit-polling -- the most accurate form of polling known to mankind -- has never been right?
It's more than possible, according to U.S. Senator Gordon Smith [R-OR], one of the first nationally-recognized Republicans to be forced to discuss, in a public forum, exit poll discrepancies in the recent presidential election.
While defending the accuracy of George W. Bush's November 2nd, 2004 re-election, and attacking what he termed the "spinning" of "internet bloggers" on the subject, Smith, a millionaire businessman and lawyer, made the amazing assertion that -- as has now been paraphrased by the Associated Press -- "exit polls have never agreed with the outcome in any of the elections [I have] been in."
Smith was participating in a joint town-hall session with his personal friend and Senate colleague, Ron Wyden [D-OR].
The Advocate cannot yet conclusively establish that Smith's assertion is a lie: but yes, Virginia, the bottom line is that it almost certainly is a lie.
And if so, it's a particularly vicious and hypocritical lie, given that Smith has led the fight in the U.S. Senate to discredit election processes in the Ukraine -- processes which include exit-polling so faulty the current Republican presidential administration refused to recognize the government elected by Ukrainians in last November's presidential election.
If Smith doesn't believe in exit-polling, what was wrong with last year's Ukrainian elections? Or was Smith just lying to the public -- and even more particularly, his constituents in Oregon -- for political reasons?
We think the latter.
We think it's a lie, first and foremost, because it simply cannot be accurate. Oregon can't and doesn't conduct exit polls in the same way that other states do -- because the state sponsors entirely-by-mail balloting. Moreover, a simple review of Smith's political career reveals that there's just no reasonable statistical chance that all of Smith's prior elections have been inaccurately called by exit-pollsters, such that Smith could honestly tell his constituents that the exit polls "have never agreed with the outcome" of his elections.
According to Smith's own website, and research conducted by The Advocate, he has been involved in, at a minimum, the following elections:
Oregon State Senate [1992]
U.S. Senate - 1 (General) [1996]*
U.S. Senate - 2 (Primary) [1996]
U.S. Senate - 2 (General) [1996]*
U.S. Senate [2002]
[ * Smith first ran for U.S. Senate in 1996, in a special election against Ron Wyden [D] to replace disgraced Senator Bob Packwood [R]. Smith then ran for the Senate a second time -- in the same year -- when Senator Mark O. Hatfield [R] announced he would retire at the end of the 1996 Congressional Session. Smith lost the first election, and won the second. The Advocate notes that Race #2, above, was the first in which Oregon used entirely-by-mail balloting. Those even casually acquainted with politics will notice that The Advocate's research references here only five elections -- when, of course, Smith would also almost certainly have faced a primary battle in 1992, and perhaps even another primary in either 1996 or 2002, giving Smith a grand total of seven elections without a single accurate exit poll. The Advocate notes that Smith's comment gave no indication whatsoever that any of his election races did not have exit polls associated with them].
(SNIP)
How timely and on topic... Today's New York Times' magazine had a great article on the social security "crises." It's lengthy, but worth the read.
A Question of Numbers
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: January 16, 2005
THE CONSERVATIVE NEW DEAL
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazine/16SOCIAL.html?oref=login&th
It's doesn't have a surprise the ending, so for those who don't want to read it...
Prudence dictates taking steps now to minimize the possible shortfall. This could include raising the cap, some modest cuts and tax increases and a gradual redeployment of the trust fund into assets that may not be tapped, willy-nilly, for whatever legislative purpose. But only a real crisis would dictate undoing an institution that has provided a safety net for retirees, that has helped to preserve in the social fabric some minimum of shared responsibility and that has been supported by workers in good faith. And, in looking at Social Security today, the crisis is yet to be found.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x98205
This was a discussion about the "liberal media" at war with the liberals.
What I particularly liked about the article was the fact that the media has been directing our thoughts, our actions, against people of our own. (i.e. The Dean Scream, Gore bashing, Kerry bashing, Clinton bashing, Boxer bashing...) In fact, look at how they directed people how to vote in the primaries through their "political analists" and will attempt to do for the DNC chair.
Listen to them, turn them off, and spread the truth! Don't let their lies and their directives go unanswered.
But Bush found no fault with his Education Department, which suggested the arrangement and paid Williams the money.
HELLO. Williams was wrong to take the money that the Education Department offered him... wtf
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/10657454.htm
Posted by: Mark at January 16, 2005 04:31 AM
Mark,
Alcholics are notorious for their inability to accept responsibility or blame for any wrong doing. It's always someone else's fault they've screwed up and ruined their lives. So, of course it's journalists' fault (because you know it's not just Williams) that the Bush administration hired them to plant propaganda about "successful" Bush programs.
Hey - we live in Bush World. What's the matter with you? Get with the program - lol.
(All kidding aside - although it's important to find out who has been bribed in the past - I want to know who's shilling for the Bush Admin on Bush's effort to kill Social Security. It shouldn't be that difficult to narrow down the choices.)
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
****************************
That's rich. (First of all, I don't think Bush won - legally that is.) But secondly - if people voted for Bush I don't think Iraq was at the head of the list of policies they were affirming by their vote. If fact, I would venture that many voted for him in spite of Iraq - focusing instead on his "strong leadership" and his having been "chosen by God" to lead our Godless nation.
resolute- I just got around to reading your comments last night about my plea for unifying behind Dean if he gets the DNC chair. Yes, I do understand that there are people of different viewpoints on this blog- I've always been of a slightly different viewpoint than lots of bloggers on here myself. But what a lot of people on here are saying is that they don't dislike Dean as much for himself as for the discord that his young followers tend to spread. Blaming Dean for the enthusiasm of his followers makes no sense to me, and their belief that just maybe he could have won the election where Kerry couldn't have is just human nature. We'll never know the answer to that, not really. We tend to think the media would have knocked off any of our candidates, but then, the media didn't invent the swiftboaters either- they did bring them to the forefront of the campaign, but they didn't invent them. The truth is that Kerry had some things in his past that, although most of us, myself included, look on as noble and good, many people do not. And they didn't vote for him for that reason. So, just in my opinion, which I'm entitled to as you are to yours, it's not unreasonable for followers of other candidates to think their guy might just have won this election.
I don't see how you can slam the "Deaniacs" as you call them for their enthusiasm for their candidate, and refuse to accept Dean for chairman (if he is elected), unless you intend to become like them and oppose the leadership of the party simply because the leadership is not your particular pick. Maybe I have a different attitude than you do- I'm coming from a background of nearly fanatical support for a candidate I loved too, to having "gotten in line" and COMPLETELY supported a candidate that I wasn't as enthusiastic about because he was our party's candidate and I do believe that this party is the only hope for the future of this country. Let's face it- there is no third party that's going to wrestle the White House from Bush's greedy little hands.
REgardless of whether we have opposing ideas, a circular firing squad isn't a good idea for the Democratic party. And if Dean gets the chairmanship, I'm not going to take pot shots at him from afar. I'm gonna give him a chance to move the party forward and support him any way I can. You can choose to not do so if you want to- but I reserve the right to feel that you're not doing the cause of defeating the Republicans any good if you don't support the chosen leadership of our party.
And it is our decision whether to do that or not. We can't blame Dean if we decide not to fall in line. The pre-election bitterness really has got to stop. I went to WIN. Because we can't change a damned thing unless we do that first. And that's just reality.
Linda,
I couldn't disagree with you more - on almost every level.
I respect your opinion so let's just agree to disagree.
resolute- ok. I agree with you on that :-)
The great thing about DCP is we can come at this from different angles and points of view, keeping in mind that we are all working for the same end goals.
Everybody's perspective is valuable and I have appreciated the insights you have provided from your neck of the words (being a Connecticut Yankee and all).
As we progress and develop best practices, it will be interesting to see if grassroots activities that work in - let's say Seattle - work well in Pennsacola - and vice versa.
Cheers :-)
As we progress and develop best practices, it will be interesting to see if grassroots activities that work in - let's say Seattle - work well in Pennsacola - and vice versa.
Cheers :-)
Posted by: resolute
The Republicans have a guy named Goeglein who coordinated the fundamentalist outreach nationwide, they have a guy named Mehlman to make sure there are up-to-date databases & PCOs all over the country & especially in the 97 of 100 fastest-growing counties where Bush won, & they have a guy named Rove who works on framing the message - then they stick in a guy named Bush & he wins.
The also made sure to use Republican-owned voting machines & to put the most in growing Republican-voting counties.
If we have a strong Democratic infrastructure in each state, with more uniformity across counties, message will be much easier.
Our cell drew the same number of people as Democracy for Washington. Ours focused on medium, theirs on message. Both are needed but ours has much much more potential for unifying the state in a badly polarized state (think Gregoire v Rossi).
& Spokane sounds alot like Pennsacola!!
There is a group from Vashon Island - "The Backbone Campaign" - they run around with a giant spine & they have some fresh planks in their platform (each is represented as a vertebrae on part of a giant spine). I saw them at the Dem convention here & I saw them "protesting" at the DNC.
A "backbone" in the message is fine but I now believe that the underlying "backbone" of well-organized infrastructure is more important.
It doesn't take money so much as volunteers who find ways to force the party to organize and change. Think globally, work locally should work.
There are Dem district heads & volunteer organizers in remote parts of the state that would welcome outreach from the urban area.
I am no longer very interested in preaching to the converted or obsessed with issues and messages. I think we are in an emergency situation and never want to happen again what happened this year.
Also we should organize now, not wait til 6 months before 2006 election. This site is doing that & it's good to see grassroots groups on the ground revving up already.
Our Dem State Chairman was always a Dean supporter & now he's working on the platform.
That is not our focus right now so we may have the urban faction (Dean took 3 precincts here but the state went as a landslide for Kerry) but what we are after is the whole state - winning Dem candidates statewide.
I think trying to make the whole party more "progressive" when it doesn't have a well-organized infrastructure is barking up the wrong tree.
Ohio had thousands of local volunteers for the Republicans & that made it easier to set up the unfair system they ended up with. I remember Ohio people coming on the Kerry site and saying the Democrats were not organized enough there in rural counties. I have no way to know but what I do know is that the same was true here in Washington.
Listen to them, turn them off, and spread the truth! Don't let their lies and their directives go unanswered.
Posted by sparrow at January 16, 2005 09:57 AM
I think we should stop calling the media "the main stream media". It gives them an aura of legitimecy that they don't deserve. Actually how main stream are they? Do they fight for mainstream ideals and for those that are suffering under Bushco? Any ideas?
My name for them is the Bushco media (BM). Take it up and use it. If others think of a name that is more likely to be used by the progressive movement we should adopt it. If there is another name that is more universally accepted, I will use it. However from here on out I will be referring the media as the BM (the scatalogical reference is intended).
Bush Faces Many Challenges in 2nd Term
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4736240,00.html
Contains ideas re. his weaknesses but I think Rove's tactic of attacking his perceived "strengths" could be powerful too.
I also wonder if he operates along the "strict but alcoholic father" model & we are all supposed to be co-dependents? If so, we shouldn't "enable" this!
Isn't it hypocritical how one of the next cases before the Supreme Court concerns posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings but one commandment broken most often is "Thou shalt not kill?"
Since when is there something called "Bagram Air Force Base?" I read about it in an article where 60 Afghans were released from Guantanamo with very little fanfare & no questions asked or answered. Is this part of a bribe?
On Call
"corporate media"? "Bush propaganda arm"?
Scott McClellan - Chief Propagandist?
Notice when Bush said he was probably NOT going to back a national Defense of Marriage amendment to the Constitution then McClellan called the press within an hour & backtracked - blamed Congress. I knew those "moral" voters had been had.
Speaking of "morals" - have you heard of the "love bomb"? One idea would be to test it at a neocon meeting.
Pentagon tried to create a love bomb, papers show
Michael Smith Daily Telegraph January 15, 2005
London -- The Pentagon examined the possibility of developing an aphrodisiac bomb that would cause enemy troops to find one another sexually irresistible, newly declassified documents reveal.
It also considered development of a "Who? Me?" bomb that would produce odours that suggested that other soldiers were passing wind or had serious halitosis to disrupt enemy morale.
The $11-million Cdn, six-year research project suggested the use of "chemicals that affect human behaviour so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected." It is not known if, or when, the program was abandoned.
"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behaviour."
They also considered chemicals that would make the enemy troops sexually attractive to "annoying or injurious animals" such as stinging and biting bugs or rodents.
The 1994 plans, from the U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Sunshine Project. That organization exposes chemical and biological weapons research.
Since 1945 there had been extensive research into the effectiveness of the "Who? Me?" bomb, the declassified documents said.
But it was found "that people in many areas of the world do not find fecal odour offensive since they smell it on a regular basis."
The Sunshine Project, which is investigating, has obtained a number of documents related to the U.S. Government's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate since filing a Freedom of Information Act request for data in 2000.
The Times of London reported that activists are exploring whether the U.S. Army is working on opiate-type substances like those used to sedate terrorists and their hostages in the Moscow theatre siege in 2002.
MD,
Excellent post. Today we have learned that the Bushco is terrorizing employees of SS to support his proposals. If somebody goes so far as to actually speak out against Bushco are they going to lose their job? I wouldn't be suprised if something along those lines happen. Will BM report that? Don't count on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16benefit.html?th
Ex Social Security Official Offers Scathing Critique of Bush Social Security Plan
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/011605/b0116reisman.html
OnCall
I talked to someone locally who told me, off the record, that everyone she knew who worked there at SS locally was voting against Bush. (That was in October)
"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behaviour."
Posted by: DiAnne at January 16, 2005 12:29 PM
I would be RFLMAO if there was a friendly fire dropping of that bomb on our own troops.
Swift Boat Vets Gather in Ft. Worth Today to Celebrate Kerry's Loss
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/10660442.htm?1c
..I was about to eat
Then on 2/17 Zell Miller gives them a Valentine publically.
DiAnne,
I like Corporate Media, but the word media implies informative. That would suggest that it is beneficial. We all know that is not the case. Maybe Corporate Propoganda (CP) or Buscho Propoganda (BP)?
OnCall
If you want to be really accurate yes -
Bush/Corporate Propaganda
One reason I don't watch it is because I seriously think it can influence us via "frames" - there was just this moment during the lst Gulf War when I thought to myself, "This is just propaganda" & turned it off.
Maybe Corporate Propoganda (CP) or Buscho Propoganda (BP)?
Posted by: oncall at January 16, 2005 12:50 PM
These have my vote. So we'll have our (mostly) reliable sources of AP & Reuters.
And then for something completely different, there's BP & CP...
Introduced as "the man who torpedoed John F. Kerry's candidacy," O'Neill said that his group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, raised $28 million to help defeat the Democrat.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/10660442.htm?1c
28 million dollars raised. No relationship to Bushco? Give me a break. Is there a list of their donors available?
US NewsWire
http://releases.usnewswire.com/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ap.org/
Really Good Links Collection from Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/links/pages/
Categories:
* Blogs (297) NEW! Weblogs from the left.
* Democratic Party (28) General Democratic Party
* Forums and Communities (128) NEW!
* Government (15) Official U.S. Government links.
* Humor and Parody (295)
* Issues and Activism (358)
* Merchandise (212)
* News and Commentary (224)
Websites, Newspapers, Magazines, TV, Radio.
* Personal Homepages (120)
* Research and Dirt (65)
Investigative Reporting, Articles, Quality Dirt
* Services (11)
Consulting, workshops, seminars
* State and Local (1058)
Resources in your part of the country.
There are currently 2811 links in their database.
There is also an email address for contacting them to add a link.
I wanted to maintain a list like this & then discovered this & can think of some missing categories but this is a useful reference.
Maybe an online vote. corporate propoganda (CP) vs. Bushco Propoganda (BP). Personally I go with BP as that term more closely links our current government with all of the garbage we are expected to choke down. Therefore, I will withdraw my upthread declaration and refer to what is commonly referred to as main stream media as Buscho Propoganda (BP). If CP is the accepted choice I will of course go with that. How is that for unfaltering resoluteness? LOL.
See, OnCall? You & I posted the same Swift Boats link (which is sort & from a local TX source) within 15 mins. of each other. Now we can trace the spread of this through the media if we want - the echo chamber. I think I'd rather attempt to flush it down the toilet though, because it stinks so bad.
"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."
Posted by: DiAnne at January 16, 2005 02:41 AM
Not MY president...
I agree DiAnne,
It is so disgusting. Referring to it only is beneficial to those who perpetuate it.
Who can guarantee that Merrill Lynch or any other wall street firm won't go bankrupt before 2042? In the year 2000, who would have thought that Arthur Anderson would be bankrupt in just 2 years?
Bush, who probably was pushing his oil company's stock even as CEO he worked deals to unload his own stock, is telling us about the solvency of social security? To believe Bush's prognosis on social security you have to believe that the federal government will default on its federal bonds held in the social security trust fund.
Bush is doing the same scam he did to investors in his company -- At the same time he is claiming social security will go bankrupt, which can only happen if the government defaults on the bonds held by the soc sec trust fund, he is pushing the sale of government bonds to finance a $500 billion deficit. Scam artist at work.
Hey, boy, want to swap your parents social security for some Enron securities?
Swift Boat Vets Gather in Ft. Worth Today to Celebrate Kerry's Loss
eeek, they're in my city?! i feel dirty...
Views of the Three Ring Circus
The JibJab brothers, Gregg and Evan Spiridellis of Santa Monica have outdone themselves with their perspective of Bush’s upcoming second inauguration.
More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=234
Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at January 16, 2005 01:29 PM
Native,
How bad is the smell?
Terrible, Oncall. Dont think ill go out today... =/
No, I know what i'll do! I'll watch "Going Upriver"! ha! ;-)
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSUSElection0011/28_canadianelection-ap.html
A friend e-mailed this to me with the subject heading: It's not rocket science.
Please note the date. But the main messege is the essence of the story.
Bush Poll Presented As Positive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4736735,00.html
but look at all the negatives .. 1/4 of Republicans think our relations with the world have gotten worse .. of course to some people that is a positive (but how do they reconcile their isolationist attitude with the Empire building & occupation of oil-rich countries?)
Most people still do not get it.
(shaking head from side to side after reading poll..)
Actual Title:
Bush the King Blows Fifty Million on Coronation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1386231,00.html
Billionaires for Bush ReCoronation Inaugural Ball
http://billionairesforbush.com/dc/ball.htm
From Craig Ferguson, the new host of "The Late Late Show"... I think he's on to something.
So you're a left-winger?
I prefer to think of myself as a patriotic liberal.
The word liberal needs to be retired.
How about ''compassionate liberalism''?
Too bland.
What about ''nonconservative patriotism''?
A little verbose.
How about, ''I'm a neo-patriot!''
I like "I'm a peaceful progressive" :-)
Posted by: kj at January 16, 2005 03:32 PM
That's good too. It's all about reframing, eh?
I am a LIBERAL - I believe in the values & "Compassionate" is implied so doesn't have to be specified.
Compassionate Liberal is redundant.
Compassionate Conservative is an oxymoron,
like Military Intelligence.
Reagan defiled the word "liberal" but it can be reclaimed proudly, as "queer" and "dyke" were, as as young feminists have called themselves "grrls" and old feminists "womyn".
I think this has to be done in two manners though - one set of names is to energize, politicise & strengthen self concept & to make it so conservative don't "own" and define the terms they have created and/or defiled.
- one set of names it to "reframe" anew
So I can wear a button that says "proud liberal," as many people do here - that says "I know I am a liberal" "I am not afraid or ashamed of it" "I know what it is and you don't" "I am not afraid of you."
Or I can call myself a "progressive," which implies that conservatives are "regressive" and also differentiates from "liberal" (either because I don't want to be associated with the term, or because I think I'm further to the left - I've met both types!!)
Also (alternatively?), Democrats (including Kerry & Edwards - but I don't think it caught on enough or fast enough) pointed out that Bush was "radical" "extreme" - NOT a true or traditional conservative. Many Republicans know this but some never got it. It's true though - conservatives leave things alone - they stay the course - they don't fix it if it's not really broken. It's "liberals" and "progressies" who want "social change."
But then here is Bush "fixing" things - changing things, altering things - the Constitution if he can, the governments of other countries, the changing of regimes, the appointing of more conservative judges, the changing of laws, the lessening of regulations, and overt huge proposed changes in "safety net" programs that even Reagan didn't dare to change (Social Security, Medicare). These programs were put in after the Great Depression. He wants to abolish government (except for defense & enlargement of corporations).
This is "radical" - I used to think the Black Panthers or the Weather Underground were radical. Bush is radical.
Old Republican "frames" - "moral majority" (suggesting others are immoral & a minority), "secular humanist" (those who don't share the fundamentalist Christian mindset).
What an asshole. No further description needed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831621/
DiAnne,
I agree with you 100 percent on the subject of frames.
At the same time, I think there are exceptions, as when the opposition tries to co-opt a "value" that is universal. "Family values" is one example. Another is support for U.S. Troops.
A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting of peace activists at which one woman objected to to the group's new banner which bore the message: Support Our Troops -- Bring Them Home.
The woman offered two grounds for her objection. First, she said, "support our troops" was a frame created by the B*sh administration. Second, the word "troops," for her, connoted something negative, some kind of militaristic, Nazi storm trooper image.
As a newbie in that group, I held my tongue, though I probably shouldn't have. The slogan, "Support Our Troops," obviously predates the current administration. And her interpretation of the word, "troops," obviously is not the common reading of the word.
During the campaign, I put a lot of Kerry stickers on my car, which has Purple Heart license plates. I also threw two Vietnam vet hats in the back window, and added yellow "support our troops" magnets.
There are issues which we need to re-frame, but there are also issues on which we should refuse to allow the frame to be co-opted.