Crossing The Line

I have an clear idea of what Karl Rove can do with that microphone... I'll make the call right now, too!

TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE!

Oy indeed!

Karl Rove gets hailed as a genius, but he wouldn't have gotten so far if it wasn't for an utterly complacent media machine. Concepts like equal time, or truth in advertising, are nonexistent in today's media landscape. That's why we need even more voices available to people, we need to work towards building a consensus of credibility. Fair Reporting? Don't look to Fox, NBC, CBS, or any 24 hour cable news network. Look to the independent voices of bloggers and podcasts, and newspapers, magazines, and the internet will expose you to far more detail and nuance than TV will allow. We here at DCP attempt to be as objective as possible, but because of our liberal leanings and general disdain for The Way Things Have Become, we're going to display our goals openly: Electoral reform, because leaders shouldn't be liars, and Media reform, because we must be informed instead of marketed.

If you want to continue to support Democracy Cell Project, specifically our podcast feature, please take a moment to vote for our show at Podcastalley.com. You can vote for the same show only once a day, but vote for multiple podcasts to encourage independent voices reaching out to you!

To vote for the DCP podcast:

http://podcastalley.com/search.php?searchterm=democracy+cell

Yes, yes, yes! Happy news.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=985943&tw=wn_wire_story

Dean Poised to Be New Democratic Party Chief

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, whose high-flying White House bid crashed a year ago, is poised to win the post of party chairman and tackle the job of leading Democrats back from November's election losses.

One week before the Democratic National Committee votes on a new leader, the outspoken former Vermont governor has more than 250 public pledges from DNC supporters, according to the political newsletter Hotline -- well more than the 214 needed to win.

An interesting article about what Dean might be able to do as DNC chair... it's from the Washington Times, which I avoid at all costs, but this one is worth the read.

Analysis: How Dean may transform Democrats

--snip--
Most of all, Dean will make the Democrats interesting again, and he will free them of the reflexive "me-too-ism" that has kept them on the defensive against the GOP for more than 30 years, with the exception of Clinton's remarkable, trend-defying career. For more than a generation, Republicans could count on firing devastating political missiles at the Dems with impunity. Only Clinton ever really succeeded in firing back. But in the coming era of Dean-ball, that may be about to change.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050202-031510-6827r.htm

P.S. marc says to watch out for the pop-ups at the Wash. Times site. They're bound to get you p.o.'d.

Posted by Casey L. Morris at February 4, 2005 04:56 PM

We need our own network. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It is scary.

Posted by: madame defarge at February 4, 2005 07:41 PM

I had to block pop-ups from the church site to get thru..

Posted by: madame defarge at February 4, 2005 07:38 PM

Reverend Moon is running scared, I hope!

Here's a good story recapping how Bushco Prpaganda decided what was good for us to know and what was good for us not to know.

The Emperor's New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

Bill Keller, the NY Times executive editor, was a supporter of the Iraq war. He used to be a Saturday columnist for the Newspaper. He once wrote a largely supportive column describing how the Bush Administration had talked to the author of the "Bible Code" books in an attempt to find Bin Laden. He used to get challenging emails from me on a regular basis!

Gross criticizes Social Security plan

Manager of biggest bond fund contends individual accounts not the answer, wants deficit reduction

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/04/markets/gross_social_security/index.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Bill Gross, manager of the world's largest bond fund, is criticizing President Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security.

Gross, managing director at Pimco, called the argument about the solvency of Social Security "silly" and said it was an example of the president not focusing on more important issues, such as the budget deficit.

The president's argument for individual Social Security accounts is meant "to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR," Gross wrote in comments posted on Pimco's Web site.

"Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich," Gross wrote.

"Presto!" he continued. "We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the president intends to spend his well-advertised political capital."

But while the president says that will help fix Social Security, "the problem has more to do with demographics than the lack of ownership," Gross wrote.

Gross argued that it will take more than individual Social Security accounts to correct a projected shortfall and suggested the government should focus on cutting the budget deficit instead.

"Production can only come from employed workers and so the basic solution is to produce more workers, either through immigration or postponed retirement for the existing work force," he wrote.

"By reducing budget deficits now, and especially that portion of the deficit owed to foreign governments, we would be able to keep more of our domestic production within our borders and therefore available to senior citizens."

President Bush on Thursday kicked off a five-state tour to push his plan to overhaul Social Security, an issue highlighted in his State of the Union address.

While the president offered new details of how individual accounts would work in his address, he did not address many outstanding issues.

There's some intersting figures in here...

More borrowing, divided politics among freshmen

(AP) -- More new college students are expecting to take on jobs, borrow at least $10,000 for their first year and receive that much from their families, according to a comprehensive annual survey of incoming freshmen released Monday.

UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, which has been surveying freshmen annually for 39 years, also found a record number of students defining themselves as "far right" or "far left" politically and a record low calling themselves "middle of the road." Fewer than ever believe racial discrimination is a problem.

A record 47.2 percent of the 289,000 freshmen who started college last year said there is a good chance they will get a job to help pay for college, with 53.3 percent of women and 39.6 percent of men saying they would need to find work.

The 29.5 percent expecting more than $10,000 in family support was the highest figure since the question was first asked in 2001. The percent expecting to borrow more than $10,000 their first year rose to 8.8 percent from 7.8 percent last year and 5.6 percent in 2001.

However, only 13 percent reported "major" concerns about paying for college, compared to a record high of 19.1 percent in 1995.

The survey also found more students than ever viewing themselves as at political extremes, with 3.4 percent calling themselves "far left" and 2.2 percent "far right."

The percentage of students identifying themselves as liberal (26.1 percent) or conservative (21.9 percent) also rose from last year. The category "middle of the road" remained the most common at 46.4 percent, but declined 4 percentage points from a year ago to its lowest level in 30 years.

The survey also found a record 22.7 percent of freshmen believe racial discrimination is no longer a problem in America, but the number reporting they frequently socialized with members of other racial or ethnic groups in high school fell slightly, as it has since 2001, to 67.8 percent.

Also rising: reported high school grades. An all-time high of 47.5 percent of freshmen said they had "A" averages in high school, compared to a record low of 17.6 percent in 1968.

The 42.8 percent who reported being bored in class during their final year of high school also was a record.

~this is for all the John Kerry fans here...

there's a terrific diary at DailyKos tonight...yes, at DailyKos! In full support of our JK :)
Go visit, I was amazed at the positive postings!

Why I stay loyal to Kerry
by MonteLukast
Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 11:39:39 PST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/4/143939/1852

Repost from previous thread.

The media sells Bushco to rural America.

Rural America has been a drastic change for me, because I came from a big
city. I have managed to find a few people here that know what Bushco is up
to, and we have had some good rant sessions.

Judging from the numbers after the election, Karl Rove successfully marketed
to rural America. People from rural areas don't keer if the Prez- ee-dent
kin talk good, cuz they kaint either. The average education here is the
eighth grade.
To win their vote, you need to make people identify with you, and think you
identify with them. It is no accident that the shill the present
administration is using (W.) talks like one of the common folk. It wins
votes when he mispronounces words, winks, cuts trees in his levis at the
ranch, attends church with the little woman, and talks about values and God.
His "Aw shucks" demeanor makes him that much more endearing. It doesn't hurt
that he is "in good" with the rural pastors and priests, thanks to Karl
Rove's years of planning and mailers.

Drive through any small rural town. Even the smallest of them have these
things in common:
A post office, a bar, and at least two or three churches. On Sunday, the
churches are packed.

Where are two places you are ensured to meet Uncle Ned and Aunt Nora? They
will be at church on Sunday, and they watch the evenin' news.

"George the Lesser", indeed.

Truth Shall Prevail,

How inspiring to hear about your day. It is both important to speak and to speak with others. And so glad you are here to lend your perspective as well. We do need to figure out how to talk with people like your neighbors, and how to lead them to a clearer focus on their own future.

Keep sharing your insights--

onto:
I was also shocked to find the pro-JK thread on DK. Most of the comments are pretty positive. As positive as I could expect them to be on Dean lovin' DK. The only two pols who get across the board praise there are Dean and now Boxer, so this is a really good thread for JK.

As for Shrub blasting the MSM...Puhleeze. This is an old parlor trick. ShrubCo knows they have MSM running scared and into their hip pocket. The above Rove CNN moment is proof positive. Shrub's out peddlin' the old conservative fairytale of liberal media bias to pump up the crowd and to give his supporters the impression that the media is pro-Dem, thereby leaving them to believe that any morsel of bad news for him is a lie and anything that pops up on the news against the Dems is well accurate reporting because they believe the MSM would never diss the Dems unless they really screw up. Good ol' Rovian parlor trick goingon here.

One more thing...
And I'm sure it's no accident that I saw a news report on CNN attacking Sen. Max Baucus for his fundraising efforts while Shrub was in his home state stomping his bogus SS plan. I guess some lobbyists are complaining. So of course it tied back into how ineffective the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation really is. He's not up for reelection until 08 but the Repubs are still gunning for him, possibly to make him vote in favor of Shrub's SS scam. Hmmm....

I think in order to win back control, it is important for the Democrats to
find a way to identify with the Uncle Jeds and Aunt Noras in rural America.

Many Democrats don't want to water down
their true values to appeal to the masses. They are holding tenaciously to their insistence
that the most controversial "liberal" issues be presented as part of the campaign platform, stating that to do otherwise would be compromising their true beliefs and value system.

They could be right. But then again, they could be dead right.

Could the Democrats market a more moderate platform to counter the negative image that "liberal" has been successfully marketed to evoke? That negative liberal image has been bought, hook line and sinker by moderates and religious right voters and has been marketed, and sold to rural America as well.

In my opinion, adopting a more moderate marketing position is not the same as sacrificing your values. To me, it is not putting the most controversial issues out there, but rather marketing the ideals and values that make a majority of the people identify with us, and we with them. Once we are in, we don't argue or make an issue out of the issues we hold dear, we just
quietly support them.

It is marketing, not giving up a position, or sacrificing a value.

In my opinion.

Bush Healthcare Tax Credits Not Helpful To Low Income Families

The Bush administration will propose a tax credit of up to $3000 to help increase the number of people with health insurance. It appears these tax credits will be aimed at families whose incomes are below $60,000 per year and individuals who incomes are below $30,000.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=321

It Really Is Pravda
4 February 2005

MSNBC is reporting on more journalists that have been paid by the government. This one is a little more chilling than the others, as it pertains to the military.

"..The Balkans Web site, called Southeast European Times, as well as a second aimed at audiences in North Africa, have no immediately obvious connection to the U.S. government but contain a linked disclaimer that says they are “sponsored by the U.S. European Command.” That is the military organization based in Germany responsible for U.S. forces and military activities in Europe and parts of Africa."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=320

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at February 4, 2005 11:23 PM

Truth,

Working within the genre of frames, I think it will really strike a chord in rural America when we and others start to characterize Bushco not as a strong, respected and admired father figure, but as abusive, careless, and unforgiving. Rural America may feel comfortable with somebody who "dumbs themself down", but rural America is uncomfortable with somebody who is unfair and heartless. Rural America (take it from somebody who worked on a farm-me) is full of good people who recognize a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Truth Shall Prevail

I just talked to my mother in Jamestown (former Republican). She watched the Bush brouhaha in Fargo, which she felt was orchestrated by Rove. She complained about the Republican-leaning local media & felt that the protesters they interviewed were articulate.

It is so cool when my 76 year old midwestern mother calls me up all excited & tells me to watch protesters on C-Span. She listens when they have speeches from rallies & wishes she could be one of the "Raging Grannies" who sing (they started in Australia but ar all over).

If my dad was alive, he'd roll over in his grave. His formerly Republican brother sends me antiCheney emails & has even sent me things to put on this & the Kerry blogs.
----
Glad to hear Kos had a good Kerry angle - I can never have the patience to wait for DU or Kos links to open so will take your word for it.

I used to live in rural America (South Dakota, Minnesota) & my alma mater there was at least as difficult as mine on the west coast.

I am deeply offended by dumbed-down stuff & was then. We had smart people - McGovern, McCarthy etc.

& I find THIS very offensive:

Bush tells CBC he's 'unfamiliar' with Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON (NNPA) Ñ President George W. Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus recently for the first time as a group in nearly four years, but what CBC members said stood out the most was the president's declaration that he was "unfamiliar" with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the history of the United States.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Bush was asked by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Illinois) whether he would support the re-authorization of a portion of the Voting Rights Act that must be approved every 25 years (It will come up for consideration next year).

"I donÕt know anything about the 1965 Voting Rights Act," Jackson quoted the president as saying.

He said that a hurried Bush went on to say that "when the legislation comes before me, I'll take a look at it, but I donÕt know about it to comment any more than that, but we will look at it when it comes to us."

"It was so unbelievable to me that as soon as I walked out, I got Frank (Watkins, JacksonÕs top legislative aide) on the telephone, put (Congresswomen) Maxine (Waters, D-Calif.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), so that I could confirm what he just said is what I heard," Jackson said.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) said he recalled the president saying he was "unfamiliar" with the Voting Rights Act.

"I was surprised and astounded," Rush told the Defender.

White House spokesman Allen Abney did not specifically address BushÕs statement of being unfamiliar with the Voting Rights Act, but said that Òthere is a section of the Act that is up for re-authorization in 2006, and the president is firmly committed to protecting voting rights. He indicated today that he would be looking closely at the Act as it comes up for re-authorization and certainly take their concerns into consideration."

According to the description on the Department of JusticeÕs Web site, the Voting Rights Act is Ògenerally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress."

The bill guaranteed that African Americans and any other group would not be denied the right to vote, and put in place provisions to ensure that voting rights would not be trampled on by local and state officials.

Mel Watt [D-N.C.], the new chairman of the CBC, said: "We told the president that he will have three opportunities in the next few days and weeks to signal to us his willingness to work with us to achieve closing and eliminating (racial) disparities."

In addition to public comments about the meeting, Watt said the Caucus is paying close attention to BushÕs State of the Union address on Wednesday and the budget he submits to Congress for fiscal 2006.

ÒThe president appreciated the opportunity to meet with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to listen to issues that are important to them and discuss ways that we can work together on shared interests,Ó White House spokesperson Maria Tamburri told the NNPA News Service.

BushÕs meeting with the CBC was the second of two days of meetings with Blacks. On Tuesday, he met with more than two dozen pastoral and business leaders, all supporters of the presidentÕs policies. A couple of weeks ago Bush sat down with Kweisi Mfume, who had recently announced his resignation as president and CEO of the NAACP.

Rush said the meeting was different from the others because he has had a fractious relationship with the CBC, and was dealing with ÔÕmore knowledgeable people around the different issues that affect the African American community."

ÒIn that room you had 43 individuals whose whole life of activity and endeavor have been around trying to upgrade and uplift the life of Black America,ÕÕ Rush said. ÔÕWe are elected into the Congress and we know the ins and outs of it and we know the machinations that the administration and the Republicans engage in and so, yea, we werenÕt wild-eyed and in a state of ecstasy just to meet the president. We came to be about business."

As for BushÕs mood, Rush said the president was ÒcordialÕÕ but also ÔÕas non-responsive today as he was four years ago to the overall agenda."

"He did become animated around the issue of Darfur (Sudan),"Rush said. As for Rice, Rush said the new secretary of state said Òabsolutely nothing. She was just there. For what reason, IÕm not sure."

Jackson praised CBC Chairman Watt for focusing on the disparities facing African Americans in six categories, such as economics, social justice and international issues.

He said Bush mostly nodded his head and took notes, but he was adamant about his opposition to statehood for the District of Columbia, a point raised by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents Washington, D.C. in Congress.

Jackson said Bush thought he was going to bring up the issue again and cut him off, saying, "IÕm against statehood. IÕm consistent on that and have been consistent on that since I was governorÕÕ (of Texas).

NNPA Washington Correspondent Hazel Trice Edney contributed to this report.

http://www.dallasexaminer.com/cgi-bin/examiner/display_story.cgi?front_Page/story4.txt

If you've read this far, here is the LTE that the person who sent this to me wrote:

To: editor@dallasexaminer.com

Dear Editor:

I am just going to kill myself now. I cannot take
one more minuteof possessing the knowledge that our
president is the most ignorant andmalicious human
being on the earth.

I can't take it any longer!!!!!

Sincerely,

Robin
Bend, Oregon
(Born on Myerwood Lane in North Dallas)

Truth Shall Prevail

We need to bring back the value system that led to the New Deal because that is what the Republicans want to destroy.

I heard Grover Norquist on NPR this morning again and he said that those who support programs like Medicare & Social Security will die off & be replaced by young people who are into the stock market, owning and investing. Then they will turn Republican.

He feels the Democrats have had too much power in the last 60 years & it's time for 60 years (at least) of Republicanism. My son thinks that if Social Security is eroded (they talk of saving it but the amount the government contributes WOULD be less), then Democrats are "over" - as had we not had the New Deal programs, we might have had some sort of Socialist revolution because of the disparity between the haves & have nots.

So if we have a few decades of Republican domination, that could happen again way on down the road. When the rich keep getting richer & the poor keep getting poorer, eventually the tension is like a rubber band - so tight that it SNAPS & that is a revolution.

The Republicans are playing a very dangerous game.

Somehow, everyday people have to not trust them. If they do, they are selling their souls.

DiAnne-
Yep. The CBC is not too happy about Bush not mentioning the Voting Rights Act in his SOTU. Although Shrub is ignorant of this historic piece of legislation, I doubt he won't sign it. I mean, even Reagan signed it when it was up again during his term. The difference is though, this time the GOP is all about getting a bigger share of the black vote and I suspect that Shrub is going to make a huge deal out of signing it to woo blacks. I wouldn't be surprised if they revised history and made it seem like the Repubs, beginning with Reagan, created the legislation itself, and try to re-make Reagan and Shrub into modern-day Lincolns. And you know what, the MSM will buy it hook, line and sinker!

DiAnne,

I knew a Robin from Bend, Oregon. Met her while I was in Reno. We both worked at Excel. Wonder if it's the same gal. She was a nice gal.

DiAnne,

Your mother is in Jamestown? Jamestown North Dakota? If it is Jamestown North Dakota, I would love to drive over to Jamestown some day and meet with her, perhaps take her to lunch or something. That would be wonderful. To think we may have DiAnne's mother here in our state of North Dakota. Our towns are so spread out Jamestown is a neighbor of ours. Would only take a couple of hours to get there. Let me know, okay? If you have been to N.D. to visit her you know the nearest towns are not measured by distance, but by the time it takes to get there.

Gonzales Added to War Crime Complaint in Germany
CCR Says Attorney General Designate’s Testimony before the Senate Confirms His Role in Abu Ghraib Torture

Synopsis

CCR filed new documents on January 31, 2005, with the German Federal Prosecutor looking into war crimes charges against high-ranking U.S. officials including Donald Rumsfeld: one includes new evidence that the Fay investigation into Abu Ghraib protected Administration officials – it is a comprehensive and shocking opinion by Scott Horton, an expert on international law and the Chair of the International Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The second is a letter that details how Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms his role as complicit in the torture and abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
Description and Status
In a declaration filed with the prosecutor in Karlsruhe, Germany, Scott Horton, who was asked to consider whether or not the U.S. would conduct a genuine investigation up the chain of command for war crimes, unequivocally states that “…no such criminal investigation or prosecution would occur in the near future in the United States for the reason that the criminal investigative and prosecutorial functions are currently controlled by individuals who are involved in the conspiracy to commit war crimes.” One of the legal issues before the prosecutor is whether the German investigation should be dismissed or deferred so that the U.S. authorities have a chance to conduct their own investigation. The obvious answer from Horton’s affidavit is no. The impossibility of an independent and far-reaching domestic investigation of high-ranking U.S. officials coupled with the United States’ refusal to join the International Criminal Court make the German court a court of last resort.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9392  

Truth Shall Prevail

My mother would talk your leg off!

I'm going to be coming to see her later in the spring or early summer so if you are still around we could all meet up. It IS Jamestown, ND! The Democrats she knows mostly work at the hospital or the college. She feels outnumbered alot but is not one to keep it to herself!! I'm proud of her.

Keep in touch!

Truth Shall Prevail
This Robin has not lived in Bend long but TX then AZ then OR. It's a small world & I've retained my midwestern habit over the years of assuming that everyone I meet knows someone I know & in fact they do! So now I've lived in a city for many years & because of living in the midwest from ages 4-26 I carry my small town framework with me so usually know way way more people than the average person! I still have the curiosity of someone in a small town but have more privacy since I can avoid my own neighbors easily if I want to.

Connie Rice, Condi's cousin with diametrically opposed value system!

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/socialsecdebate.htm

Constance Rice
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rice.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4117735

Florida Dem

That is so discouraging - imagine this country as one big stock-owning, truck-owning, gun-toting Republican monolith with rednecks of every race but only one creed.

Time Magazine:

Democrats view social security the same way Roosevelt did, as a form of insurance, a safety net for senior citizens. When FDR created the plan, the country was in the middle of a Great Depression. Seniors were living in extreme poverty and many people feared they would never have a secure retirement. Social security was a guarantee that no matter what happened to your finances, the government would be there to back you up. You couldn't live in wealth and splendor on a social security check, but you could live with dignity.

Many conservatives — and a good number of Republicans — believe that social security is welfare for old people. It forces current workers to pay taxes to finance handouts to the elderly. They argue that the program makes the elderly unnecessarily dependent on the government and lets younger workers think they don't need to invest and save. Conservatives believe that the government's job is not to hand out monthly support money to senior citizens, but to give citizens a helping hand to invest money and build their own personal nest egg for retirement.

-- Gee - I guess I'm a Democrat. I worked for about 10 years in nursing homes with stroke patients, etc. That may have something to do with it. These Republicans are not living in the real world.

John Kerry will appear on the imus show Monday the 7th at 7:29 am.

If you do not get Imus on radio in your area, you can watch him on
msnbc.

If you do not get either, come to the blog - someone will have the scoop!

Cool article, from Andree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04cong.html

Social Security .. Cool Reception on Capitol Hill

Somehow, everyday people have to not trust them. If they do, they are selling their souls.

Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 01:18 AM

You are exactly right DiAnne. Trust has to be earned and nurtured. We have to be our own media so that rural America learns who it can trust to serve their best interests. But before we do that, we have to have a better understanding of what their interests really are. We can't force what we believe their interests should be on them. We have to simulataneously listen and educate so that our message is one with which they can identify.

Rural America does have different social mores than non-rural America, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that they necessarily have different "values". The majority of Americans, no matter where they live, believe in equality, liberty and justice. Some issues certainly are very difficult to reconcile, but not just between rural America and non-rural America, but also within each demorgraphic.

I firmly believe that when the question is one of equality and fairness, most Americans learn to trust those whom they believe are most dedicated to those principles. We have an obligation to those Americans who have been fooled by Bushco Propaganda to show them the truth. Our obligation goes beyond just showing them the truth, but also showing them the lies that have been told to them. This will take manpower, money and dedication.

On Call

It's a matter of people realizing they are subsidizing the rich & companies & doing things like trading away their right to organize their labor, sue companies who harm their health & the right to keep their job without it being outsourced.

It's a matter of people realizing they are being tricked by Orwellian language & mind control.
Freedom = Peace, Bush said. I am the War President, I am the Peace President. No Child Left Behind. Clean Air. Liberate Iraq. & so on.

When I lived in the rural area, people wanted to be able to feed their families & provide for them, basically! Some owned a family farm but no one was getting rich. Travel & higher education were mostly dreams.

I fail to see how Bush is going to help - as far as social conservatism - most people didn't worry too much about what people were doing in other places or more urban areas. Now it's worse - where I work is more rural than here & what greeted me today when I walked in? A big giant headline about meth labs, & they're in the midwest too. The only person who mentioned them during the campaign was John Edwards.

I heard from him today, by the way! He is starting a new Center in North Carolina, for the study of social issues such as we are discussing.

I think where Democrats & Republicans split - I don't believe that Republicans are realistic - there are always going to be those who need some help, even if they are doing the best they can. Even Reagan didn't destroy "safety net" programs. If there is a complete capitalist selfish greedy nation where everyone owns but is responsible bot all social needs, there will surely be more poverty, crime and misery. They don't care.

Looks like Dean.
Let's make this work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4779776,00.html

http://toolbar.google.com/

If you're running IE in Windows, Google has a free toolbar with popup blocker.

http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/
Link I found off of the Q & A section of the Google toolbar that explains about spyware, adware, etc., and so on. Three of the links near the bottom of the page are to sites where you can download software to additionally block spyware, etc.)

He said that a hurried Bush went on to say that "when the legislation comes before me, I'll take a look at it, but I don't know about it to comment any more than that, but we will look at it when it comes to us."
Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 01:07 AM
~~~~~
Besides yet once more and again displaying his obvious stupidity (deliberately keeping himself ignorant) and his lack of concern for disenfranchised voters.... Was anyone else offended by his switching to his usual selfish personal pronouns, mid-sentence, to the use of the royal "we" and "us" in that quote?!?!? Gag-g-g-g-g......!

Nonny... I'm waiting for the dope to be asked by a reporter how he feels after his annual physical... if he answers, "We feel great, the doctor gave us a clean bill of health", then I'll be a little suspicious...

Until then, I just take comfort (NOT) in knowing that his butchering of the English language is nothing more than a another sign of his phenominal stupidity.

Us the people...

WOOPS! Wonder how "we" are feeling about this news this mornin'.

Fresh attacks kill 17 Iraqis, 2 U.S. troops
Shiite alliance has lead over pro-U.S. PM Allawi in election returns

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents launched fresh attacks with bombs and bullets, killing 17 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers, as partial returns from the historic elections show a Shiite alliance with ties to Iran rolling up a strong lead over pro-U.S. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Allawi is way behind!

Quick! Get Blackwell from Ohio to Iraq while they are still counting the votes!

I'm sure it's just bad exit polling data.

Ink stained fingers:

By the way, that gets me to one observation I had about covering the State of the Union, just 36 hours after being in Baghdad. To me, it was surreal to see the members of Congress arrive in their nice cars and motorcades... and then walk into the house chamber wearing their fancy suits and ties. It was even more surreal to see that some lawmakers, in this incredibly secure and safe coccoon, had stained their own index fingers.

The courage of ordinary Iraqis last Sunday was unmistakable. They were literally risking their lives by standing in line to vote and by getting their fingers stamped with ink. The members of Congress who stained their own fingers and wagged them proudly for the cameras were an affront to that courage. And in my eyes, those lawmakers diminished the true significance of what happened last weekend in Iraq. The fact is, few members of Congress have a son or daughter serving in the U.S. military. And few lawmakers have actually ever served themselves. Furthermore, in Washington, D.C., even "political courage," (never mind the real stuff) is exceptionally rare. Am I being too cynical? Probably. (And I'm sure I'll get a ton of nasty e-mails from some of you.) But, if members of Congress want to show "solidarity" with the Iraqi people... they are welcome to head to Baghdad, put on a flak jacket, and help/advise the new assembly on writing the constitution. Or, our lawmakers could serve as "election monitors" in Iraq when the constitution is put to a vote as early as this fall. That would be courageous and show real solidarity. An ink-stained american finger, waved for the TV cameras on the floor of the House chamber... is a political stunt.

Questions/comments: DShuster@msnbc.com

Oh, Marc.... Love your posts...!!! :-)

Do you ever wonder if any of the "doctors" from Gitmo or Abu Ghraib will be asked to do physicals on him or Gonzilla or Condisleazy or any of the other people in his administration?!?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62097-2005Feb3.html?nav=rss_opinion/editorials
Excerpt:
"Bartleby Democrats
Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A16
HERMAN MELVILLE'S "Bartleby, the Scrivener" tells the tale of a lawyer's assistant who inexplicably stops doing his job, instead spending his days staring blankly at a brick wall. "I'd prefer not to," he invariably tells his employer when asked to copy a paper, go to the post office or even answer a question. "No: at present I would prefer not to make any change at all," Bartleby says when asked to leave. In their response to President Bush's State of the Union address Wednesday night -- indeed, in much of their reaction to Mr. Bush's push on Social Security -- the Democrats share a disturbing resemblance to Bartleby.

Unlike Bartleby, the Democrats' maddening passivity can be excused in part by the administration's maddening evasion of hard choices. The accounts proposed by the president would not, in themselves, extend the solvency of the Social Security system by a single day. Mr. Bush not only presented his private accounts to the country as risk-free, he made none of the tough calls about what should be done to achieve solvency."
~~~~~~~~~~

Key in on the phrase "Democrats' maddening passivity." Whatever Kerry's positive points are, I remember many, many old Kerry blog entries from before the election wondering why he wasn't speaking up to counter the lies coming from the BushCo campaign, wondering why Kerry and Edwards weren't being more aggressive....

Haven't we all done a gleeful dance around the room if/when our senators and representatives have - for a CHANGE in the last four years - voted with some sense of good ethical and moral values (which, BTW, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious values; that's a spin BushCo and media have put on the word "values" which has twisted the meaning out of context)... i.e., first some legislators voting against approving Condisleazy, then voting against approving Gonzilla last week...??? And didn't we congratulate the FEW representatives (plus Senator Boxer) who voted to reject the OH electoral college votes??? Haven't we all been ecstatically happy in the last few weeks when our senators and representatives have, for a change, "done the right thing" and voted ethically and morally, and not compromised for the sake of expediency and compromising - going along to get along so they wouldn't appear unpatriotic??? The media and the Repuke campaign twisted the word "values" around to somehow mean "religious moral values" - and the Dems all seemed to back away from the whole Repuke-fabricated "issue" about pseudo-values as espoused by BushCo, which included religion and patriotism and all the things that made Dems back off and help vote into being the laws that have now made us a fascist nation. Our Dem legislators are part and parcel of the blame for the fascism that has been allowed to flourish in the last four years because they didn't want to seem 'unpatriotic' when there was no one to prosecute after 9/11 (the criminals died with their victims - no one to put on trial), and Bush went head-long into "grab all the power now while the nation is weak and mourning" mode....

I have been one of the first to congratulate legislators for showing some backbone for a change in the last few weeks, after wondering for years if they all needed spinal surgery to have titanium rods implanted to keep their spines straight. I'm sick and tired of passive Democrats who cave in to anything shrubbie wants for the sake of "compromise" I'm screaming in frustration - repeatedly and as loud as possible!!! The Dems who have voted in favor of the Patriot Act and other laws that have eroded our rights owe all of us an apology for letting shrubbie lead them by the nose, and they owe it to the citizens of this nation to repeal of all laws enacted since BushCo was put into office!!! Imperfect though this democracy is, we most certainly don't need to live in a fascist nation, and we need to go back to what the laws were prior to BushCo being handed their office in 2000 and start all over again eight years later.

Someone, directly or implicity, needs to restate the obvious: Religious values do not make for a moral or ethical human being who is capable of telling this nation the truth, or using power judiciously, or being uncorrupted by power. Exhibit #1: BushCo and his administration; Exhibit #2: the religious leaders who have been caught with their hand in the till and/or other illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.... I rest my case.

I respectfully disagree with Truth Shall Prevail's opinion about "adopting a more moderate marketing position." That is precisely what lost the 2004 election (besides the lack of positive media coverage - which we might have gotten had they assertively refuted the swifties or any of the other lies in a timely fashion - a lesson the Dem campaign didn't learn until the last minute). Kerry and his people behind the scenes just did not aggressively market the Democratic principles and platforms and values we believe in. Compromising our positions for the sake of marketing would force Democrats to compromise later to "live up to campaign promises," IF an election could even be won on a moderate platform that is weak and ineffective, as the 2004 campaign was with its lack of assertiveness or any sign of aggressively standing up for principles. We do not need to lay down and let the Repukes walk all over us - again - as we did in 2000 and 2004. Gore at least waited before conceding; Kerry conceded much too soon. I still respect both men for other reasons, especially Gore with his environmental stance, but each lost a huge amount of my respect for the simple reason they conceded and did not put up a more vocal and forceful fight on behalf of the people who voted for them, especially Kerry & Edwards. (I know the Kerry groupies on this blog don't like that kind of statement and call that 'Kerry bashing.' I'm not Kerry-bashing; I'm stating an obvious fact that I don't much like because I long ago faced that one difficult truth - the concession speech came much, much too soon - the swiftness of the concession speech took our breaths away, and we all howled "WHY?!?!?" when he conceded. How many of us are still grieving over a lost election and believe the whole thing was stolen from us? If there had been no immediate concession, perhaps someone would have more swiftly dug into the voting "irregularities" - especially with the e-voting machines... and we might now have a different president.... That was not a time for Kerry or Edwards to act like nice gentlemen....)

The moderate and compromising Democratic platform for the 2004 election led to other Democrats in various state and local elections laying down and letting the Repukes walk all over them and put the Dems in a defensive, rather than offensive, position, and lose other offices in 2004, just as Kerry & Edwards lost (there was a particularly nasty and lying attack against a first-time Dem candidate in this state; the Dem lost). The fact that most Dems were 'shocked and awed' that the Repukes would stoop as low as they did resulted in Dems being slow to respond to the smear attacks is irrelevant at this late date - but it should serve to teach us a few lessons about compromising in the future. The Democratic platform did not define itself before Repukes did in 2004, and we lost. That would suggest we have not done well with "compromise" or weak and moderate marketing for the sake of "inclusiveness" or "framing" our position. Rather, with any marketing done with "framing" in the future, the Dems need better PR people who know how to do aggressive marketing with a positive spin. We need assertive, positive, definitive marketing, not more compromise and moderation on top of the compromising we've already done since BushCo was handed the presidency in 2000.

We need Democratic positions firmly stated and marketed as such, not Lite Republican-type marketing which we know will lose us more elections, just as it lost us the 2004 election because Dems were marketed with a Lite Republican stance toward the end for the sake of swaying the so-called "undecided" voters. We need rock-solid firm lines of demarcation!!! Isn't that one of the things the Repukes liked about Shrubbie? "Everyone knew where he stood..." was the phrase, and people voted for him even if they didn't like him or agree with him, just because 'they knew where he stood,' per the "positive" spin on the Repuke marketing side. Did he care whether or not anyone agreed with his platform? No. "Everyone knew where he stood" whether you were "fer him or agin' him" and that was marketed as a positive point, even though we all knew where he stood had nothing to do with ethics or morals. We need PR strategies that let everyone know precisely where we stand before the Repukes get a chance to define us - again....! Compromise has gotten us precisely nowhere, and it's certainly not won us any elected offices recently. If we learned nothing else from the 2004 campaign, that is the one grand lesson we should have learned: NO MORE COMPROMISES!!! Time now to dig in our heels, state our positions, and don't budge...!!!

We've done nothing but compromise and give in to the Repukes for four years, going on eight years by the time election day 2008 gets here, during which we will, I'm sure, hear a lot more yakkity yak from BushCo about how we should work "with him" - meanwhile, he won't be budging an inch to work with the Democrats to get anyting done, but ram every piece of legislation he wants passed down our throats until we choke on his proposals....

How well do we like being the bottom face on the totem pole and getting pissed on every time BushCo walks by and lifts his leg?!?

GOP introduces bill to suspend ALL laws

From dailykos:

On January 26, 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005. In the name of homeland security, it includes a number of items changing immigration laws, use of drivers' licenses, etc.

But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill. It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the "expeditious" construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out.

It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law.

ON EDIT: While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads "near San Diego," it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads "in the vicinity of the United States border." (See comments below).

The text of Section 102 is below:
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

What does this mean? What laws might the Secretary of Homeland Security suspend?
The first obvious sets of laws that would come under attack would be environmental and labor laws.

On the environmental side, think "Endangered Species Act."
On the labor side, think "Davis-Bacon" prevailing wage laws and the right to organize and collectively bargain.
Also think "whistleblower laws." Homeland Security wouldn't want any pesky do-gooders blowing the whistle on corruption in contract awards.

But wait, would all of these suspensions only apply to the physical, on-location construction of the roads and barriers?

Nope! There's no such limitation in the law. You can follow this right to suspend the laws anywhere someone might be claiming legal rights and slowing down the process. The manufacturers of equipment and materials would certainly fall under this provision, for example.

The government workers dealing with any aspect of this construction, in Washington or California or wherever would also fall under this provision. A city council objecting to something about the project could fall under this provision.

It's an incredible usurpation of the rule of law. A cabinet secretary is given the right to suspend any and all laws. And guess what? The courts are prohibited from reviewing his decision! Perfect! So the Secretary can abuse his "authority" all he wants. No review. No nothing. Welcome to the Second Term

LINK: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/5/15448/41910

Nonny O
I do not consider that Kerry bashing.

& about that reptile Condi:

She will soon be in russia to talk to her counterpart there; Word is... she is really gonna slap him on the noggin for not having a real democracy, what with the (1) appointment by putin of governers; and (2) govt control of the media. Wow. Takes Chutzpah.

And this takes some moxie..

Rice hits London:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1406522,00....

"She said the Iranian people wanted a democratic future: 'And that is something that those of us who happen to be on the right side of freedom's divide have got to speak about.'"

"Such emphasis on the "special relationship" could be counterproductive for Labour in the run-up to an election in which the Iraq war will be an issue."

US Pours Cold Water on G7s Plan to Help Poor African Nations

Where is Condi?!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hearafrica05/story/0,15756,1406566,00.html

Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 10:46 AM

The thing I can't figure out:

How can shrubbie and chubby and condisleazy and gonzilla and the rest of them criticize other countries about "human rights violations" with a straight face and not choke to death on their own lies - knowing what is going on at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and who knows how many other jails thanks to that little jet that takes prisoners all over the world for torture in other countries...?!?!?

Leaves me speechless....

DiAnne,

It IS a small world. Imagine, our DiAnne's mother lives in Jamestown!!!

Yes, when you get to N.D., give me a jingle, and if I can I will drive to Jamestown to have coffee or lunch in a local restaurant with you two. I work with a non-profit co. that has an office in Jamestown, and we work with seniors. It is quite possible a couple of our staff have met your mom, we are a helpful and friendly bunch. The staff in Jamestown has had several open houses and booths at street fairs in Jamestown. We work around the state to offer varied assistance to seniors! I, of course, will always honor confidentiality, and no one will ever contact your mom. (I have excellent references.) If you happen in the chat the same time I am in there, PM me and I will tell you the particulars and give you my email addy.

LINK: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/5/15448/41910
Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 10:41 AM
~~~~~

Setting up the Dept. of Fatherland Security (er - Homeland Security...) was another stupid piece of legislation. Ditto an "Intelligence" director who can twist the reality of intelligence reports into any fantasy he wants to spoon feed to the self-appointed patriarch of this country who can then lie to us about why he wants to go to war next time and attack a country who didn't even attack us first....

The only thing that would have been necessary (and would have saved a ton of money) would have been to open lines of communication between the FBI and the CIA. That's all....

Duh.... Too simple to figure out....

Nor am I forgetting that BushCo had correct intelligence given to them in the first place for that August 2001 PDB, etc.... or that they sent back memos to "find something" - which was code for "find any excuse to attack Iraq..."

So what's the point of wasting tons of money for a whole new "fatherland" department and an intelligence director if no one's going to believe the truth when they hear it the first time?!?!?

Here is an Introduction - never mind that I don't know the guy - it's all good. Also there is a Kerry in 2008 Yahoo group. Good to see this stuff so early.

My name is Jordon Wright, and I'm the owner of
JohnKerryForAmerica.Com Our website is a grassroots operation to get John Kerry to not only run in 2008, but to win as well.

Website: http://www.johnkerryforamerica.com
Petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/kerry08

NonnyO
We're one engineered terrorist attack away from martial law.

Truth Shall Prevail

I'll do that! My mom actually joined the Episcopal church because they had the only pipe organ in town & she wanted to play it! She was sick recently & the priest called to ask why she didn't come to church & she ended up telling him she believed Bush is the antiChrist. She is also a Ragtime piano player.

Small world. One of our "crew" is from Iowa but went to my alma mater, USD/Vermillion - his mother went to the same art department I did & had some of the same professors.

My grandfathers - one was Democrat and one was Republican. The Democrat was the State head of Education & wrote a book of SD History called "Roundup Years: From Old Muddy to Black Hills." The Republican drove a Cadillac & made money auctioning off people's farms during the Depression!

Yes - I don't go to the chat much & have only recently figured out how - I would squander even more time than I already do on the internet, but I'll do that & we will connect. We could even come to Fargo - I sometimes rent a car if I go there!

Spot on!

Allawi is way behind!
Quick! Get Blackwell from Ohio to Iraq while they are still counting the votes!
I'm sure it's just bad exit polling data.

Posted by: Marc Trager at February 5, 2005 10:07 AM

Did George intend to create a new "theocracy"?
He did......
Ali Sistani leading by 67%!
Condi can start pressing her Tchador, and George might grow a beard....

So smart!

Andrée.

Humor break:

Some of the artists from the '60s and 70's are revising their hits with new lyrics to accommodate aging baby boomers.

They include:

Herman's Hermits: "MRS. BROWN, YOU'VE GOT A LOVELY WALKER"
The Bee Gees: "HOW CAN YOU MEND A BROKEN HIP"
Bobby Darin: "SPLISH, SPLASH, I WAS HAVIN' A FLASH"
Ringo Starr: "I GET BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM DEPENDS"
Roberta Flack: "THE FIRST TIME EVER I FORGOT YOUR FACE"
Johnny Nash: "I CAN'T SEE CLEARLY NOW"
Paul Simon: "FIFTY WAYS TO LOSE YOUR LIVER"
Commodores: "ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES TO THE BATHROOM"
Marvin Gaye: "I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPE NUTS"
Procol Harem: "A WHITER SHADE OF HAIR"
Leo Sayer: "YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE NAPPING"
The Temptations: "PAPA'S GOT A KIDNEY STONE"

GAMES FOR WHEN WE ARE OLDER:
1. Sag, You're It.
2. Hide and Go Pee.
3. 20 Questions Shouted Into Your Good Ear.
4. Kick the Bucket
5. Red Rover, Red Rover, the Nurse says Bend Over.
6. Musical Recliners.
7. Simon Says Something Incoherent.
8. Pin the Toupee on the Bald Guy.

OLD IS WHEN:
Getting a little action means I don't need fiber today.
Getting lucky means you find your car in the parking lot.
An all-nighter means not getting up to pee.

We're one engineered terrorist attack away from martial law.

Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 11:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~

Just as you, I'm uncomfortably aware of that one stark fact.... Oh, the scenarios that have played in my mind over that knowledge....

Nonny O

Cheer up - read this essay! (just kidding)

"Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens."

Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire

Interesting Essay....

http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/sorrows2003.html

DiAnne,

LOL, your mom sounds delightful!

Truth Shall Prevail

She would laugh at that description. She says things like "I'm too tough to get sick" etc.
Born in Witten SD, gave food & water to roving tramps during the Depression, joined the Young Republicans at Yankton State College, then married this delayed-stress WW2 vet who was obsessed with music & had 4 wierd kids.

http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/sorrows2003.html
Posted by: DiAnne at February 5, 2005 01:08 PM
~~~~~

I thought for a second by the excerpt you put online that it was talking about the fall of the Roman empire....

Insightful opening quote he used:
Although tyranny, because it needs no consent, may successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it destroys first of all the national institutions of its own people.

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
* * * * *
And then his closing sentences:

I fear, however, that the U.S. has indeed crossed the Rubicon and that there is no way to restore Constitutional government short of a revolutionary rehabilitation of American democracy. Without root and branch reform, Nemesis awaits. She is the goddess of revenge, the punisher of pride and arrogance, and the United States is on course for a rendezvous with her.
Chalmers Johnson

Interesting to deconstruct the below article and the other articles like this.... (1) No one in BushCo's administration mentions how much money the investors hired to handle the money people's "private investment accounts" would be making. (2) No one in BushCo's administration talks about who controls the money in those individual accounts that investors will be controlling. (3) No one in BushCo's administration talks about who makes the decisions about where the money would be invested - obviously, people who would be putting money in these "private accounts" wouldn't be making the decisions or investing their own money - in BushCo's 'fatherland' someone else has to make the decisions for otherwise responsible adults.... Ordinary people might discover that investing their own money in the stock market is like gambling at a local casino - the odds favor the house, and the customers lose.... which is how people who own gambling establishments make money: from the money their customers lose.... If a person can't afford to lose money, they ought not ever gamble.... However, BushCo is making the private accounts sound like a 401K, so it sounds reasonably safe.... He takes his cockamamie ideas to the public with lies spewing from his mouth, people will believe him, and ask their legislators to vote for the stupid idea... which will ultimately result in their own poverty in old age.

Seems to me the best route to saving for retirement would mean putting the money in a bank every month and not touching it until retirement, which serves to have total control over one's own money for the entire time, no money would be paid to an investment broker, and an ability to pass the money on to heirs if it comes to that.... Letting someone else control one's savings while gambling with that same savings account that one plans on depending on for an income in one's retirement years.... doesn't sound like a safe way to have money by the time one retires if the people doing the investing are going to be getting a huge chunk of that money from taxpayers....

Interesting title: "Part of a Solution???" Solution for what??? Paying back the funds he already took from SS to finance his tax cuts to the wealthy?!?!?
~~~~~~~~~~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050205/ts_latimes/bushsaysprivateaccountsareapartofthesolution&e=5

Bush Says Private Accounts Are a Part of the Solution
Sat Feb 5, 7:55 AM ET
By Warren Vieth Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Long before he took possession of the White House, before he talked the issue to the top of the national radar screen, George W. Bush began making the case for personal investment accounts in Social Security.

Bush was promoting private accounts as far back as his unsuccessful race for Congress in 1978, five years before a federal commission came up with a combination of tax increases and benefit cuts to avert an imminent financial crisis.

Today, he is promoting them still, even after acknowledging that private accounts alone wouldn't repair the fiscal imbalance that is expected to drain the Social Security trust fund by 2042, according to the system's trustees.

"I fully recognize a personal retirement account is not the only thing needed to … solve Social Security permanently, but it's a part of a solution," the president said Friday during a forum in Omaha, one of five stops on a two-day road tour to sell his restructuring initiative.

If private accounts wouldn't fix Social Security's finances, why bother? The answer, for Bush, appears to be partly economic and partly political. But at its core is an unwavering ideological commitment to personal ownership as an alternative to government assistance, his advisors say.

"People ought to be encouraged to own something in America," Bush said at Friday's second stop in Little Rock, Ark. "You'll be owning a part of your retirement account. It's actually your money to begin with. It's not the government's money. You're paying it in."

According to several administration allies and adversaries, Bush's bedrock belief in individual ownership as an antidote to collective dependence transcends for him any argument over the severity of Social Security's financial shortfall or the merits of other potential fixes.

"There is a tyranny of the Great Society that afflicts a lot of Americans," said Michael Franc, vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation and an informal administration advisor. "The solution that is coming from Bush's conservative ideology is to give people some personal ownership and control. He is looking at this as a pivotal moment in what we do with all the promises that were made in the '60s and '70s. We can no longer keep those promises."

If weaning Americans from government assistance improves Social Security's finances and pays big political dividends, all the better, Bush allies say.

"The president just believes personal accounts are good policy in terms of giving people more control, more choice, the ability to pass money on to their kids," said Jeffrey Brown, a University of Illinois finance professor who is advising the administration on Social Security. "The issue of ownership and control would be important even if we were starting off with a system that was relatively balanced, which we're not."

Some Bush critics suspect a darker motive at work. Although Bush says his intent is to strengthen Social Security for the ages, some opponents of his plan say personal accounts are the first step in a conservative campaign to systematically deconstruct the New Deal.

"They want to dismantle Social Security and replace it with private accounts, even if there is no assurance that anybody would be better off and even if many would be worse off," said Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee. "It's a Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest, everybody-on-their-own philosophy."

Dean Baker, director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research and co-author of the 1999 book "Social Security: The Phony Crisis," said that even if Bush sincerely wanted to shore up the system, some conservatives saw personal accounts as an opportunity to tear it apart.

"I really believe they want to dismantle the big social programs, Social Security and Medicare," Baker said. "They know they're hugely popular. They can't just say, 'We're going to take these down.' So they're trying to convince people they're giving them something in return."

In the case of Social Security, that something would be personal accounts. Bush has proposed giving all workers born in 1950 or later the option to divert into private investment accounts a maximum of 4 percentage points of the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax.

The money in the private accounts could be invested in broadly diversified stock and bond funds. When workers reached retirement age, they would convert all or part of their private accounts to annuities that would pay them a guaranteed stream of income. Any money not used to buy an annuity could be passed on to heirs.

Under Bush's plan, the traditional Social Security benefits paid to private account holders would be reduced to offset the money diverted into their accounts over the years. If workers earned an average annual return of 3% after inflation, the benefit reduction would be the same as their account value. If they earned better than 3%, they would come out ahead.

But those cuts in benefits wouldn't fix Social Security's solvency problems. So Bush is expected to endorse other, potentially bigger cuts for all Social Security recipients to close the gap between future payroll tax collections and benefit payouts.

The White House says those cuts are subject to negotiations with Congress. But it has held out as a blueprint a proposal to tie future increases to the rate of inflation instead of wage growth, a change that could reduce promised benefits by at least a third for workers now entering the labor force.

The economic argument underlying the president's proposal is that substantial tax increases or benefit cuts are unavoidable to erase the long-term shortfall, and Bush has ruled out raising payroll taxes. And, the argument goes, if benefits must inevitably be chopped to bring Social Security into balance, why not let workers open private accounts that might make up some of the difference.

"The Social Security crisis is not that the system is bankrupt in 2042," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an administration confidant. "The crisis is that 25-year-olds get less than a 1% rate of return on their payroll taxes. That crisis is now."

Norquist acknowledged that for some conservative activists, including himself, the ultimate objective was to eventually replace traditional Social Security benefits with a system of individually owned accounts.

"If the left views the purpose of the New Deal as making older people dependent on politicians, then this will in fact undo the New Deal," Norquist said. "But if you view the New Deal as trying to give older people independence and dignity in retirement, then the president's reform provides that."

Some also see personal accounts as a way to constrain government growth. Bush's initiative would require Washington to come up with as much as $2 trillion over several decades to replace the payroll tax revenue diverted into private accounts. Although those "transition costs" eventually would be offset by benefit reductions, the initial effect would be to tighten the government purse strings.

"There is within the current Republican coalition a group of starve-the-beasters who believe that by keeping revenues low and keeping pressure on the budget, one can steadily reduce the size of government," said Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution.

Conservatives also cite a potential political benefit. Research suggests that support for Republican candidates and policies is higher among the roughly half of American households that own stock. Allowing younger workers to open private investment accounts in Social Security would further expand the pool of shareholders.

"If you can move from a nation where 50% of Americans own stock to a nation where 75% to 80% own stock, you could change political attitudes and the political culture in a way that's more conservative and more pro-Republican," said Stephen Moore, former president of the Club for Growth, who recently founded the advocacy group Free Enterprise Fund.

The fact that the White House is now acknowledging that private accounts would not by themselves ensure Social Security's solvency shows the president's agenda is driven more by ideology than by economics, according to some insiders.

Some administration critics say that admission could undermine support for Bush's restructuring campaign.

Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said some members of Congress were starting to question the motivation behind the push for private accounts.

"He is dismantling Social Security in the name of fixing a crisis that doesn't exist," Kennelly said. "He does not believe that government should play a role in healthcare or secure retirement. He's like a dog with a bone, and he can't let go."
...................
Times staff writer Edwin Chen in Little Rock contributed to this report.

---------------------------------------

New Thread

---------------------------------------