Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol

From Yahoo News:
Activist Cindy Sheehan, who was invited to President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, has been arrested, according to CNN.

Sheehan, who was invited to attend the address by California's Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), was reportedly already seated in the House chamber when she was detained, CNN said.

A Capitol police official reportedly said Sheehan had unfurled a banner, which is a violation of House rules.

Parents of fallen soldiers have been special guests at Bush's State of the Union speeches. But Sheehan was one invited guest he couldn't have been eager to see: Sheehan, gained international fame with her anti-war protest outside Bush's Texas ranch last year.

"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech, and reported arrest. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."

Sheehan's vigil in memory of her 24-year-old soldier son Casey, who was killed in Iraq, reinvigorated the anti-war movement. Woolsey had offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech as Sheehan attended an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group promoting the end of the Iraq war.

I really feel for Cindy Sheehan losing her son but she's got to realize that by doing these things she's going to be portrayed as a left wing peace activist. Her getting arrested is only helping the President. The Republicans and the media will spin it so that it appears everyone who doesn't support the Iraq war are a bunch of hippie peace activists. Cindy Sheehan could really use some public relations courses.

Why americans should be concerned about being spyed upon

Daily Kos has an excellent entry explaining why americans should be concerned about the NSA spying on them. I didn't think about the identity theft angle.

commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Monday, January 30, 2006

My views on Harry Bellefonte and Cindy Sheehan

Let me first start off by saying that i respect everyones right to free speech. Everyone has the right to criticize the President. I sure do my fair share of it. Given the current political climate we're in however, i think it would be wise for those on the left to choose their words more carefully. When i say given the current political climate i think i need to carify what i mean by that.

In a normal political climate, misleading a country into an unnecessary war would be an impeachable offense. Loosening up restrictions to allow the use of techniques that could be classified as torture under the Geneva Conventions would be an impeachable offense. In a normal political climate, a President who goes on tv and essentially admits he broke the law by not seeking a court order to spy on american citizens would be impeached. In a normal political climate a large majority of US citizens would be outraged by any one of those offenses let alone all of them taken together.

We are not however in a normal political climate. We're in a political climate that is ruled by fear and that fear is perpetuated by the Bush administration and by a main stream media who seem unwilling to do their jobs. 911 really changed this country for the worse. It enabled the Bush administration to grab more presidential power and to govern from the extreme right. Something which pre 911 they would have never been able to do.

Many of the statements made by Cindy Sheehan and Harry Bellefonte are often used by Republicans and the media like an albatross to tie around the neck of the Democratic party. In the end some of their statements ultimately hurt the Democrats chances of winning back Congress. Republicans like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson can make all sorts of ridiculous statements without hurting the Republican party. Democrats on the other hand are constantly asked about the statements made by Cindy Sheehan and Harry Bellafonte. It's a double standard.

The Democrats cannot win back power unless they appeal to the moderate or swing voters. I know i've been tough on the Democrats for not having any fight, but they also have to fight smart. As much as i agree with what Bellefonte and Sheehan say, their statements often turn off a lot of the moderates. What i would like to see are more people like Kristin Brentweiser, the 911 widow who helped push for the formation of the 911 commission, take center stage in speaking out against the President. People who are not seen as being on the far left but as being in the political center of this country.

I'm not saying that Sheehan and Bellefonte need to shut up. I'm just saying that they would help their cause more if they would just tone down the rhetoric. They need to remember that the Democrats can't win elections with just their base anymore. At least not in the "current political climate".

Bush administration crushed dissent among it's own people

This a must read article from Newsweek. Here is an excerpt:
These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Real Story of John Walker Lindh

Alternet has a very interesting article about John Walker Lindh, the 'american Taliban.' It's long but well worth the read. John's father gives his side of the story after 4 years of silence.

Dissention over Alito filibuster

John Aravosis over at Americablog has just made an entry that is causing some controvery among his blog readers. He's come out against the filibustering of Alito. Many are accusing him of undercutting the rest of the liberal bloggers attempts at gaining the momentum needed for a filibuster. Whether or not he was right to come out against the filibuster efforts is not something i'm going to debate.

Where he is absolutely correct is that the Democrats have failed miserably in getting the message out to the american people as to why Samual Alito should not be on the Supreme Court. They were terrible at the Alito Senate hearings where they had a large audience watching. They missed the perfect opportunity to make the case against Alito to the american people. It's like they're not even trying.

I'm really starting to think it's time to rebuild the Democratic party. All the current Democrats have got to go and be replaced by Democrats who are not afraid to stand for something and to fight. If they won't fight to keep an extreme right wing idealogue like Alito off the Supreme Court, then what will they fight for? For those who haven't read my entry as to why Samual Alito should not be on the Supreme Court, you can find it here.

Al Gore starring in environmental movie

It's nice to see Al Gore in the news again. From www.thetowntalk.com:
Al Gore is back. Back from the political abyss. Back from the brink of the cavern into which so many crestfallen people tumble.

Gore, who was the American people's choice for president in 2000 -- he won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush in the all-important Electoral College balloting -- now calls himself a "recovering politician." But his resurrection has actually lifted Gore to a much loftier height.

He has re-emerged in the public spotlight as a crusading environmentalist who is bent on saving the world's people from self-destruction.

Gore's stage this time is not the nation's capital, where he served 16 years in Congress and eight as vice president. It is Hollywood's big screen -- or at least he hopes it will be.

He's starring in a documentary on this world's looming environmental doom -- a movie that got rave reviews at the Sundance Film Festival. Called "An Inconvenient Truth," the film is a warning shot about the disastrous global climate changes Gore believes will occur if nations, especially the United States, don't do more to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Sure, Gore has been beating that drum for a long time. But what has given him and his message new life is the way his pitch has been turned into a slick documentary that drew a standing ovation from Sundance audiences. Among those who had a hand in bringing Gore's film to the big screen is "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill" producer Lawrence Bender.

Now if that sounds like some left-wing, mutual admiration society consider this: Last year, Fox News Channel Chairman Roger Ailes was so moved by a presentation he heard Gore make on global warming that he quickly aired a documentary on the subject that caused some right-wingers to cry foul.

But Gore isn't looking for partisan victories these days so much as he's pining for a concerted effort at home and abroad to combat climate changes he believes will make the ravages of Hurricane Katrina look like child's play.

The new Al Gore is a cross between Theodore Roosevelt, the environmentalist president, and Mariah Carey, the sultry songstress whose music career recently recovered from a big tumble.

People who have seen him up close say Gore is more relaxed, less stilted and a lot funnier than he was during the many years he spent roaming Washington's political circles. I suspect that's because he is now free to speak from the heart -- rather than have his words shaped by political ambition.

Though Roosevelt was a man of many interests and an environmentalist whose views would make many members of today's crop of right-wing Republicans shudder, he was first and foremost a politician.

Gore is now very much a political backbencher; notwithstanding his recent attack on Bush for ordering the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on Americans suspected of being in contact with foreign terrorists. For the most part, he has focused his attention in recent years on the global environment, not this nation's grueling partisan politics.

His movie is a byproduct of that focus. And so, too, is a book by the same title that is scheduled to be published in April. But as with his presidential campaign, Gore will be judged by whether he can achieve the ultimate victory.

If he's right about the doom that awaits the world if we don't sharply reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the air, Gore has positioned himself to lead the fight to save us, from ourselves. And if he wins that fight, Al Gore will find a place in history that a term in the White House could never have secured for him.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Court Lifts Ban on Kansas Underage Sex Law

From Yahoo News:
A federal appeals court lifted a ban on a Kansas law that required health care providers to report consensual underage sex to authorities.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed the finding of a lower court, ruling that Kansas has a legitimate interest in information about the voluntary sexual conduct of children that overrides the minors' right to privacy.

Under Kansas law, sexual contact with or among children under 16 is a crime.

The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that although minors have a right to informational privacy it doesn't exist for illegal sexual conduct. They ruled the state has a greater interest in enforcing its criminal laws, protecting the best interest of minors and promoting public health.

The ruling lifts a preliminary injunction and the case goes back to federal court for trial.

In July 2003, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline issued an opinion on the state's 1982 law requiring doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, social workers and others who work with minors to report suspected instances of underage sex, even if it involves willing partners of similar ages. Kline said even consensual sex is inherently harmful to children.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of health care providers at the Kansas City-based clinic Aid For Women, who argued they were being forced to choose between violating the law or violating their patients' trust.

Neither Aid for Women nor Whitney E. Watson, spokesman for Kline, returned after-hours phone messages left by The Associated Press.

I never knew that Kansas had a law like this but it doesn't surprise me. I could just imagine the undue stress this law would put on a teenaged girl who's having consensual sex with her boyfriend. Kansas is still living in the 19th century as far as their laws and politics go.

Negative Washington Post article on liberal blogs

From The Washington Post:

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.

"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan."

I just love how they portray liberal bloggers as angry activists and as people out of the main stream. I guess they haven't seen the polls. A majority of americans are now opposed to the Iraq war. There is also a majority who feel Bush is doing a poor job as President. Most americans agree with the liberal bloggers. I'll say it again, if the Democrats continue to play nice with Republicans they're never going to win elections. If they learned anything from John Kerry, it should be that Republicans are ruthless and that you can't expect them to play fair. The Democrats need to show that they're different from President Bush. Why should americans vote for Democrats if they agree with Bush and his failed policies? They never learn from their mistakes.

Coat Hanger Industry, "Confirm Alito!"

In bad taste but it's a reminder of what likely will happen once Alito gets confirmed.

Problems keep mounting for President Bush

With President Bush's State of the Union Address coming up, there's been a lot of stories in the news that give the Democrats ammunition in going after the President.

The big oil companies are yet again reporting record profits. With Bush and Cheney's close relationship with the oil companies you would think this would really have a negative impact on the President's approval ratings. Remember that Dick Cheney had those secret meetings with all those oil company executives and has fought to keep what was said at those meetings a secret. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Chevron Corp. reported the highest profits in its 126-year history Friday, prompting outrage and charges of gouging that are likely to echo through next week as other oil giants report their earnings.

Higher oil prices coupled with increased production from its acquisition of Unocal fueled Chevron's fourth-quarter results and propelled it to its second straight record-setting year.

The San Ramon-based oil giant reported a net income of $4.14 billion in the last three months of 2005 and a profit of $14.1 billion for the year. The total likely would have been higher had the company not reported an estimated $1.4 billion in damage from the Gulf Coast hurricanes.


There's the recent article in the Washington Post reporting that many of Bush's promises to clean up New Orleans have not been met. One would think that after all the negative publicity Bush got from his response to hurricane Katrina that he would make sure things that needed to get done would get done. From the Washington Post:
While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.


Finally, there's an AP article which says that Bush is going to cut the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades. From AP:
President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs.

The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.

The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

If the Democrats can't take any of these issues and hit Bush over the head with them then they don't deserve to be re-elected. President Bush's approval ratings should be in the negative numbers right now. How they can still hover around 40% shows what a terrible job the Democrats have done. Bush's presidency is a failed presidency yet Democrats are acting like they're scared of going after him. They need to throw caution to the wind and go for the jugular. I think they all need to take some political lessons from former President Clinton. He seems to be the only Democrat who knows how to win elections.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Alito confirmation appears inevitable

From Yahoo News:

Long-smoldering Democratic dissension flared openly Friday as liberals sought support for a last-minute filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito against the advice of leaders worried about a backlash in the 2006 elections.

"I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. ... The choice is now," said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate and a White House hopeful for 2008. He said it was imperative to fight for "those people who count on us to stand up and protect them."

Two of the party's Senate leaders, Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, privately made clear their unhappiness with the strategy, even though they, too, oppose Alito's confirmation. And Rep. Harold Ford (news, bio, voting record), seeking a Senate seat in Republican-leaning Tennessee, dismissed the filibuster approach openly.

"It does not appear that there is any reason to hold up a vote. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move quickly to bring this process to a dignified end," he said.

The Democrats will continue to lose elections if they don't unite and get a backbone. This is why the Republicans keep winning elections despite their lack of ethics and a failed presidency. They always stick together and stay on message. During the Alito hearings the Democrats failed miserably in getting the message out to the american people as to why putting a right wing idealogue such as Samual Alito on the Supreme Court is very bad for this country. The only message the american people saw was that Democrats made Alito's wife cry. Is it any wonder why Scotty McClellan is making jokes about John Kerry calling for a filibuster from Switzerland? He knows the Democrats are seen as weak. Seeing how this latest filibuster fiasco has played out, i gotta say i'm not liking the Democrats chances for gaining back control of either of the houses of Congress.

State of the Union Contest

Just a reminder that Bartcop is doing his annual 'When a Chimp speaks' State of the Union contest.

Maureen Dowd on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann had New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on his show last night. She really has an entertaining way of criticizing the Bush administration. Here's an excerpt taken from the transcript at MSNBC:
OLBERMANN: On several occasions in the last few years, this White House has seemingly defied this idea that a lot of societies have been held together by, that no man can hold back the tide. They're going to stand there, they're going to try to do exactly that.

If it doesn't really work, they'll say, Well, yes, it did work, you're wrong. And if you question them about that, they'll get you in a semantical discussion. Is not the whole idea of that—this definition, international versus domestic, is this not by itself a red herring? I mean, you could call it intergalactic spying, and the issue is the legality, not the name, right?

DOWD: Don't give Cheney and Rummy ideas. They're going to be doing intergalactic spying.

It's all a red herring. What this is about, Dick Cheney wants to throw off all of these rules. He wants to go to war without permission, he wants to torture without permission, he wants to snoop without permission, because he and Rummy were Ford officials at a time when presidential power shrank. They felt emasculated. They did not like it. They stewed about it for 30 years.

Now they are trying to do everything they can to expand presidential power. So they're doing exactly what they want to.

OLBERMANN: Who has enabled this? I mean, in a perverse way, is it almost necessary to say that Bill Clinton paved the way for George Bush to conduct a kind of fingers-in-his-ears, shout La-la-la-la-la, presidency?

DOWD: No, they're two entirely different things, because when Bill Clinton would deceive, he would throw in a semantic clue that let you know he was deceiving. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” we knew what he meant by that. You know, I did not—about Doe (ph) -- I didn't break the laws of this country.

So it was sort of poignant and endearing. He would let you know he was lying, and then the right wing would come down so hard on him and overpunish him.

And in the case of Bush, he's just in a completely different reality. You know, they call us the reality-based community, and they create their own reality. And so Bush is just in a bubble. And when you're in the bubble, you don't know you're in the bubble.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

John Kerry trying to gather momentum for filibuster of Alito

John Kerry has just made a entry at Daily Kos explaining why he's trying to get the Democrats to filibuster Alito.

Some examples of President Bush protecting americans

When President Bush brings up that he's protecting americans during his upcoming State of the Union address everyone should be aware of what he has done to protect americans during his Presidency. So here ya go:



He was clearing brush on his ranch in August of 2001 when he received this memo:



On September 11, 2001 he was reading to school children after finding out that we were under attack.




Here he is at a photo op while New Orleans was completely under water.




Fine job President Bush has done keeping americans safe.

The Bush Abramoff Photo Coverup

Talking Points Memo has an interesing story about their attempt to get one of those photos of President Bush and Jack Abramoff.

The question remains. Why is the Bush administration going through so much trouble to hide photographs of President Bush with Jack Abramoff? If the photos are just the typical meet and greet photos that thousands of people take with the President then it's not a big deal. They're only making it worse by acting like they have something to hide. The only logical explanation is that they are hiding something that could be quite damaging to the President. After all, the existence of the photos has not been challenged. So what is it about the photos that has the White House so scared?

Bush authorized domestic spying prior to 911

The nation's second-highest-ranking intelligence official, General Michael V. Hayden made this statement in trying to defend Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program:
"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al-Qaida operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."

The problem is that he's wrong. Just like he was wrong when he claimed that that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution doesn't specify that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.

From Truthout.org:

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

The declassified report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. When news of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered last month by the New York Times, Democratic and Republican members of Congress appeared outraged, claiming that they were never informed of the covert surveillance operation. It's unclear whether the executive order signed by Bush removes the NSA Director from his duty to brief members of Congress about the agency's intelligence gathering programs.

I just don't see how anyone can believe a single word the President or anyone in his administration says.

Edwards visits Ohio

From the Columbus Dispatch:

Visiting Ohio for the fourth time in 13 months, former Sen. John Edwards, of North Carolina, said last night that success by Democrats in Ohio this year could provide a launching pad for his party to win the 2008 presidential election.

Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a likely presidential candidate in 2008, called the state "enormously important" in the party’s effort to end Republican control of Columbus and Washington.

"There is an awful lot of good movement here towards the Ohio Democratic Party," Edwards said. "I feel very optimistic about our races in 2006 and I think they will provide us with momentum going into 2008."

Looks like Edwards is definitely going to run again for President in 08. I like Edwards. John Kerry should have used him more during the 2004 election. He definetely plays well with the red staters unlike Kerry.

Edwards does have a few problems to overcome if he decides to make another run for President. The main problem being that he doesn't hold any office right now. The fact the he and Kerry lost in 04 has also left a bad impression among Democrats who desperately want to win back the Presidency. It would be very difficult for him to get the Democratic nomination for those reasons. He's also a trial lawyer, and a majority of americans have an unfavorable opinion of lawyers. Having said all that John Edwards was very good at getting the Democratic message out there. If he decides not to run again for President i think it would be wise of the Democrats to use him.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Republicans playing dirty politics

Courtesy of horsesass.org:

House Democrats on Monday accused Republicans of dirty politics for mailing out 25,000 postcards that accuse certain lawmakers of being soft on crime and protecting violent sex offenders.

The postcards show a mug shot of a middle-age man with slicked-back hair. His eyes and his name are blacked out to shield his identity. The cards, shown in photocopies provided by Democrats, carry a bold headline that reads, “This violent predator lives in your community.”

The cards are part of a $75,000 Republican ad campaign that Democrats say is targeting lawmakers in swing districts for the November election. In addition to the cards, the campaign is using radio spots, television ads and automated phone calls.

“It’s politics at its worst,” fumed House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam.

You can read the Seatle Times article here.

Bush says Bin Laden means to hurt americans

From Yahoo News:

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he takes the threats from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden seriously.

"I understand there are some in America who say 'well this can't be true, there aren't still people willing to attack.' All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously," Bush said at the National Security Agency.

"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again or try to, he means it. I take it seriously and the people of NSA take it seriously and most of the American people take it seriously as well," he added.

Bush made the remarks as he visited the NSA to again defend authorizing a domestic spying program to eavesdrop inside America on communications of terrorism suspects without court approval.

Bin Laden in an audiotape that aired last week warned that al Qaeda was preparing attacks in the United States but was open to a conditional truce with Americans.

"The terrorists will do everything they can to strike us. I am going to continue to do everything I can within my legal authority to stop them," Bush said.


This would be comical if it wasn't for the fact that Bush is using 911 as an excuse for trampling all over the Constitution. He's using fear to stifle any criticism of his illegal wiretaps. If only President Bush took that Presidential Daily Brief in 2001 as seriously. You know the one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". I think there are very few people in America who believe that Bin Laden doesn't want to hurt us. Again, Bush is trying to make it seem that those opposed to his illegal wiretaps are somehow for the terrorists. It's just not true. The issue is spying on Americans without a warrant. It's as simple as that. Bush broke the law and needs to be held accountable.

Joel Steins controversial article

Joel Stein from the LA Times has written an article that's been getting a lot of press because he begins the article by saying he doesn't support our troops. Here is the article in it's entirety.

Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

This article has got the wingnuts in a real tizzy. If you read the whole article though, Stein does make some very valid and reasonable points. No where in the article does he say that he hates our troops which seems to be the spin the right wing is trying to put on this article. They obviously haven't read the last paragraph. They're also trying to portray it like Joel Stein is speaking for all of those in this country who were against the Iraq war. That is not the case.

Where i disagree with Stein is of his defining what it means to support our troops and what americans mean when they say that they support our troops. Everyone has their own definition of supporting our troops and that's the main problem i have with his article. Not everyone goes by Steins definition. This is the kind of nuanced crap that cost John Kerry the election. Could you imagine the field day Karl Rove would have if some Democrats running for Congress were saying they don't support our troops and then go into some long diatribe defining what it actually means to support our troops? That in a nutshell is the problem with Steins article.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Republicans worried about state of the union expectations

From USNews.com:

Some senior Republicans are worried that White House strategists are placing too much emphasis on the State of the Union address to lift President Bush out of his political doldrums.

"The danger for Bush is he has so much riding on the State of the Union," says a former adviser to two Republican presidents. "The problem is increasingly that the American people are tuning him out. When people watch Bush on TV, they hit the remote to change the channel. It's the same old, same old."

Bush needs to come up with something innovative in his address on January 31 and try to shake up the dynamic, these GOP insiders say. White House strategists have been pointing to the State of the Union as the next big event on Bush's calendar, one that will set the course of the entire year. But they have told U.S. News that the president's goals must be tempered by the political reality that it's an election year and Congress has little desire to do anything big or bold.


Republicans are nervous because Bush's approval rating is now at 36%. They know that Bush is going to repeat the same old lines as he did in the last state of the union address. The only reason anyone will watch is to count how many times he says "stay the course", "it's hard work", "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", "911". Look for President Bush to include his newest catch phrase, "terrorist surveillance program", which is his spin on the domestic spying program. As someone pointed out on another blog, if it was really a terrorist surveillance program then why haven't all those terrorists who are being surveilled been arrested?

I'm hoping there aren't too many college kids out there playing that drinking game where they have a shot of whiskey everytime Bush repeats a certain catch phrase. There would be a lot of incidents of alcohol poisoning. Also look for him to mention that he's "protecting the american people" at least a half dozen times. The american people are finally starting to see through all that rhetoric. Of course it would have been nice if it would have happened last year.

Political groups in US were spyed on

From Newsweek:

A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

In December, NBC News obtained a 400-page compilation of reports that detailed a portion of TALON's surveillance efforts. It showed the unit had collected information on nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including one at a Quaker meetinghouse in Lake Worth, Fla., and a Students Against War demonstration at a military recruiting fair at the University of California, Santa Cruz.


So now the Bush administration is spying on those opposed to the Iraq war. It's looking more and more like what went on during the Nixon administration. The question is, are Republicans going to put politics above their country and continue to be appologists for Bush or are they going to stand up for the Constitution and put a stop to this nonsense?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Hoover is proof as to why our government needs checks and balances

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana

The Truth about Hoover.

Bush to Take Unscripted Audience Questions

From ABC News:

WASHINGTON Jan 23, 2006 — Move over, Oprah. President Bush is making himself into television's newest talk show host by making audience participation a feature of his appearances.

Bush has been taking questions from audience members in recent speeches, and the White House says none has been prescreened. It's a throwback to the folksy style on the campaign trail that helped him win re-election and a departure from the heavily scripted speeches that were the norm last year...


So low has the bar been set for this President that it's a big story when he decides to take unscripted questions. Let's not forget that the people doing the questioning are pre-screened before hand so these are all loyal Bush supporters. It's just like when he did those campaign speeches last year. I'd like to see him take some questions from people who strongly disagree with his policies. Of course that will never happen. Instead we get the usual dog and pony show from President Bush and the press eats it up.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Future charges possible, Dems warn White House

From SFgate.com:

Washington -- House Democrats warned President Bush, top leaders of his administration and officials of the National Security Agency on Friday that if the political climate changes they could face criminal prosecution for ordering and carrying out warrantless domestic eavesdropping.

"These are clearly crimes and the statute of limitations extends beyond this president's term,'' which will end in January 2009, said Rep. Jerry Nadler D-N.Y., at an ad hoc hearing called by House Judiciary Committee's Democrats to assail Bush's contention that his order for warrantless domestic wiretaps on American citizens is legal.

Another member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, said, "I hope the administration ceases and desists, at least out of respect for their own liability.''


Let's hope that the Democrats don't have to wait until Bush is out of office to hold him accountable for all of his illegal activity. The focus needs to be on getting back control of both houses of Congress during this year's elections. The Democrats can't sit back and expect the political climate to change all by itself. They need to develop a backbone and fight for that change. They've been presented with a winning hand in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Now they need to paint the Republican party as the party of corruption which shouldn't be hard to do given all of the current Republican scandals.

Begala, Carville: "Democrats need a spine"

Nothing like stating the obvious. From Meet the Press:

MR. BEGALA: ...about that campaign. But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back.

Does President Bush think he's king?

With all the recent controversy over President Bush's illegal NSA spying program one has to wonder if President Bush believes that being President means he has the power of a king. It's not like this is the only incident in which Bush has proclaimed he can do whatever he wants in the name of protecting the American people. He has stated that he can ignore the anti-torture bill Senator John McCain helped pass. He's also previously ignored the Geneva Conventions with regards to torture.

In regards to the NSA spying case, Bush's explanation for not obtaining a court order from the FISA court which was set up to provide oversight is that his lawyers told him he didn't have to. That arguement simply doesn't hold water. It shows a blatant disregard for the system of checks and balances put into place. Consulting with his lawyers is fine but it doesn't excuse the President from following the law. A law which is not open to interpretation. The President seems to believe that through his lawyers he can interpret any law however he sees fit or ignore laws he doesn't like. Kings and dictators think that way as well.

Bush has stated that God chose him to be President. That is something Kings claimed in order to justify holding on to power over the people. In fact President Bush has even said that it would be easier if he were a dictator. Dictators are really modern day kings. The american people cannot fall for the arguement President Bush gives that he's doing all this to protect them. The President took this oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.


So far the president hasn't done a very good job of defending the Constitution. Maybe one of his handlers needs to give him a copy. Perhaps they can sneak it into one of those books that he claims to be reading.

MSNBC scrubs comparison of Bin Laden to Ken Mehlman from transcript

When MSNBC does something like this, it's as close to a smoking gun as you can get that they're in the tank for the Republicans. This is why the Democrats had better learn to fight. Not only do they have to deal with Republican attacks, but they have to deal with a main stream press that is hostile towards them. Why 99% of the Democrats go out of their way to be nice to Republicans when they're comparing them to Bin Laden is beyond me. What do they have left to lose if they fight back?

Saturday, January 21, 2006

George Clooney upsets Abramoff family

George Clooney sure knows how to rile up the right wingers. Unlike other Hollywood liberals who fall into the hands of right wing commentators by making impassioned speeches, Clooney is using humor to thumb his nose at those on the right. Take his acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards. Clooney won a Golden Globe for best supporting actor for his role in Syriana. During his acceptance speech Clooney thanked Jack Abramoff "just because" and made a comment about the lobbyist's name.

"Who would name their kid 'Jack' with 'off' at the end? No wonder the guy's screwed up."

Clooney said it with a big grin on his face. I'm sure he was probably hoping to bait those on the right into trying to defend Abramoff, a guy who is as crooked as can be. After all it'd be pretty hard for the right wingers to start their usual liberal elitists whine about Hollywood liberals without looking like they were defending a guy like Abramoff.

One person who did take the bait was Abramoff's father who went as far as writing a letter to Clooney which included these comments:

Your glib and ridiculous attack on my son, Jack, coupled with your obscene query as to the choice his mother and I made in naming him brought shame and dishonour on you and your profession.

"What drove you to this lapse in lucidity, I can never know, but you need to know that your words were deeply hurtful to many innocent and decent people."

You can read the whole letter here. I think the Abramoff family should be concerned with more importants things. First of all their son has admitted to all sorts of wrong doing and may be spending 10 years in jail. Had he not agreed to cooperate with the feds, his sentence would be significantly longer. Secondly by writing that letter they only added further publicity to Clooney's statements which would have been forgotten after a couple of days. They gave the story "legs" as they say in the news business. Let's hope the rest of the Hollywood liberals take a lesson from George Clooney and his use of humor.

MSNBC conservative team continues to smear the left

On Chris Matthews Hardball show last night he had on a new segment called MSNBC "hotshots" with Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Rita Cosby to discuss this past weeks headlines. I'm sure i'm not the only one who sees how unfair it is to have on three conservative commentators (Rita Cosby did work for Fox News) along with Chris Matthews giving their opinions on political issues. I'd understand if this was a Fox News show but this is Hardball, the premise of the show is to go after both sides. Well the first topic they covered was the Hillary Clinton "plantation" remark and big surprise, they all had something negative to say about Hillary Clinton. They eventually got to the release of the latest Bin Laden audio tape and his statements. Here is an excerpt of what Matthews and Scarborough had to say about it:

MATTHEWS: Why is [bin Laden] doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he’s getting some advice from people, he’s getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he’s jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: Listen, if somebody can’t look at the words that Bin Laden said last night and match them up with what Michael Moore said, with what John Kerry said on Face the Nation when he said Americans were terrorizing Iraqi women and children in their homes at night, which is what Bin Laden in effect said. What Ted Kennedy has been saying. Remember he said after Abu Ghraib that Saddam’s torture came bers were turned over to — chambers were turned over to new management, U.S. troops, that’s the same thing Bin Laden hit on.

Those statements are just plain wrong on so many levels. First i'll start by saying that Michael Moore wasn't responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people nor does he abdicate the killing of innocent people and neither do Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or any of the Democrats. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Comparing anyone who has been opposed to the war in Iraq to Bin Laden is simply outrageous. No matter how many times Chris Matthews tries to clarify what he said doesn't change the fact that he's linking the opposition party here in America with support for Bin Laden. This is the same sort of thing President Bush did in the lead up to the Iraq war when he kept mentioning 911 in the same sentence he mentioned Saddam Hussein. That gave many of the american people the false impression that Saddam was involved in 911. Chris Matthews and Joe Scarboroughs comments will give many americans the impression that the Democrats support Bin Laden. Karl Rove himself would be proud.

I have other problems with their statements, especially Joe Scarboroughs where he talks about John Kerry saying our troops were terrorizing Iraqis. John Kerry was saying that when our troops go smashing into iraqis homes in the middle of the night looking for insurgents that it frightens the women and children, that is a true statement. Scarborough would like everyone to believe that he called our troops terrorists. John Kerry was making the point about how many of our troops don't understand the Arab culture and how they treat Iraqis in their own homes could lead to the creation of more terrorists. Despite the hyperbole involved, Ted Kennedy's statement was also factual. Our troops were mistreating and yes torturing innocent Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

People need to be aware of false comparisons. It's very easy to generalize when making comparisons. For instance, I hear that Saddam Hussein really likes Doritos. I like Doritos as well but that doesn't make me an evil murderous dictator. Do you see now how ridiculous it is to compare Osama Bin Laden to Michael Moore? MSNBC needs to issue a statement condemning the statements of Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough and they need to appologize.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Chris Matthews causes firestorm in liberal blogosphere

Peter Daou at the Huffington Post has put together a good collection of entries from most of the larger blogs covering Chris Matthews latest remarks in which he compared Osama Bin Laden to filmmaker Michael Moore. You can find Chris Matthews reply to the criticism he's receiving for his comments here.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Influencing the call

Seeing the controversy this week over the bad calls made in the NFL playoff games i'm reminded that the news media in many ways are like referees. Both have a huge influence on how events will turn out. Just as a referee in a sporting event has to make a call as to who committed a penalty or foul, those in the news media must do the same when deciding what angle to take when doing a news story. Both bring to the table their own personal biases despite the fact that it's supposed to be their job to be unbiased. Many times this bias shows itself subconsciously. For example you'll often see more fouls or penalties called on visiting teams in most professional sports while many times fouls or penalties committed by the home team will be overlooked. Why is that? Well the referees know that they're supposed to be unbiased yet subconsciously they also know that they'll face the wrath of the teams hometown fans.

Just like referees can sometimes be intimidated by coaches or players, the news media can be intimidated by politicians or their supporters. Tennis player John McEnroe used to terrorize linespeople and chair umpires when he played. Whenever he thought he got a bad call he'd throw one of his famous tantrums filled with four letter expletives. Often times he'd complain about bad line calls even though it was obvious that he was wrong. Why did he do this? He did it so that any future call that was close would go his way. It was his way of intimidating the linespeople so that they were afraid to make that out call. You see examples of this in many sports. Basketball coaches whose team is going to go up against Shaquille O'neals team will often complain to the media before the game that certain fouls are never called against Shaq. They do this in order to have an influence on the referees who will be officiating that game. There are examples of this in all of professional sports.

Republicans have become very good at "influencng the call" when it comes to the news media. By constantly complaining about liberal bias they've managed to intimidate people in the news media into not reporting on certain stories or into putting a conservative spin on those stories. How else can you explain the reporting on the whole Jack Abramoff scandal? The news media has continually reported this as a bipartisan scandal when the facts show that it's a Republican scandal. Then there is the latest flap about Hillary Clinton using the "plantation" reference. Seeing the news media play this up like it's a huge news story when anyone can do a google search and see that many Republicans used the same reference shows a clear bias in the main stream news media. They're so afraid of that liberal bias tag that they're ignoring facts. What's frustrating is that this kind of thing has become common practice for the news media. If you think i'm just making this up then go to mediamatters.org and you'll see thousands of examples of the main stream media either not reporting on stories negative of Republicans or putting a positive spin on those stories.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Why all Republicans must go

I think a picture is worth a thousand words and this picture of McCain hugging President Bush at the 2004 Republican convention speaks volumes. Let me start off by saying that i generally like Senator McCain. Of course i disagree with a lot of his politics but I don't view him as some radical right wing Republican. The problem is McCain and the rest of the so called "moderate Republicans" have sold their souls to George W. Bush. While these Republicans from time to time may publicly voice their opposition to some of Bush's extreme policies, when it counts most they'll side with the President. In essence these Republicans have placed their political party over their country. For this reason no distinction should be made between them and the President when the 2006 midterm elections come up. Essentially a vote for any Republican is a vote for President Bush because moderate Republicans have no power in their own party when it comes to influencing policy.

For the life of me i cannot fathom how Senator McCain continually supports and defends Bush. During the 2000 primary the Bush campaign spread rumors that McCain fathered a black child and that he was brainwashed when he was a POW in Vietnam. They also spread viscious rumors about his wife. The latest indignity endured by McCain was when President Bush said he didn't have to obide by the anti-torture bill that Senator McCain helped pass. When it comes to President Bush, all of these moderate Republicans act like battered wives who just can't get out of a bad marriage. They'll keep coming back and being abused.

Senator Arlen Spector's behavior at the Samuel Alito Senate confirmation hearings is another example that moderate Republicans just can't be trusted. Arlen Spector is supposed to be a pro choice Republican but you would have never known that by watching those Alito hearings. He should have been raising hell when judge Alito wouldn't even state that Roe V. Wade was settled law but he didn't, instead he gave his full support to Alito. Now how can anyone take Spector seriously when he says he's going to be highly critical of the Bush administration during the upcoming hearings on the illegal NSA wiretapping? It's the same way with Senator Lindsay Graham regarding the whole torture issue.

At the end of the day all these Republicans will side with the president simply because he's a Republican. So that is why no one running in 2006 with an "R" next to their names should receive your vote unless of course you're a Bush supporter. The same goes for so called Democrats like Joe Leiberman. A vote for them is a vote for the Bush agenda. Americans must select candidates who will oppose the Bush agenda with not just their words but with their actions as well.

Clinton did it

I'm sure i'm not the only one to notice that whenever the Bush administration is having a hard time defending themselves when they get caught doing anything unethical or illegal they resort to what i call the "Clinton did it" defense. The problem i have with that is that most of the time it's completely false or they're misrepresenting what Clinton actually did. The latest in a long line of examples is this whole spying on americans without a warrant issue. Al Gore hit the Bush administration hard in his recent speech about the illegalities of spying on americans. So good was Al's speech that the Bush administration accused Al Gore of hypocrisy by saying that the Clinton administration was doing the same thing. Well reminiscent of the old Clinton/Gore campaigns of 92 and 96, Al issued an immediate rebuttal. Here is his response:

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."


If only the rest of the Democrats would do the same thing whenever President Bush presented lies as fact. Maybe we'd have a Democrat in the White House right now.

Many times the Bush administration will take a program that the Clinton administration has authorized and take it to extremes. Take the matter of something called "renditioning". Renditioning is when the CIA kidnaps a terror suspect then flies him off to a foreign country that has no laws against torture to be interrogated. While it is true that Clinton and past presidents had authorized this, it was very rare and had many restrictions put into place.

http://rwor.org/a/1271/bush-torture-directive.htm

Before Sept. 11, the C.I.A. had been authorized by presidential directives to carry out renditions, but under much more restrictive rules. In most instances in the past, the transfers of individual prisoners required review and approval by interagency groups led by the White House, and were usually authorized to bring prisoners to the United States or to other countries to face criminal charges.


Of course President Bush loosened up those rules and increased the use of renditioning. The result was an innocent man being kidnapped and taken to a foreign country where he was held for months without his family knowing what had happened to him and without access to a lawyer or the courts. So the next time you hear the Bush administration pull out the "Clinton did it" defense, most likely it's either an outright lie or an extreme misrepresentation of what Clinton actually did.

Democrats have fought for this country too

There was an article in the Washington post this past weekend about a conservative website that says that Representative John Murtha didn't earn his Purple Hearts in Vietnam. Murtha is the Congressman from Pennsylvania who has come out and criticized President Bush's handling of the Iraq war and called for a withdrawal of our troops within 6 months.

This is absolutely appalling. Every time anyone who has served in the military is critical of the Bush administration their military service is attacked. This type of tactic needs to stop right now because it diminishes what those medals such as the Purple Heart represent. It places politics above service to one's country. Make no mistake about it, if President Bush or anyone in his administration wanted these tactics to stop they could do it with a simple phone call. Many of the people behind these websites have strong ties to the Republican party just as the people who organized the swift boat vets against John Kerry did. President Bush and others in his administration will speak out against these tactics but they'll continue to reap the benefits by not putting a stop to them once and for all.

The message of these right wing groups who question the legitimacy of those who recieved Purple Hearts such as John Kerry and John Murtha seems to be that if you're a Democrat then you mustn't have earned your medals. That is a terrible message to send. Democrats fought and died for this country as well as Republicans and Independents. It's funny considering that many of the people these right wing Republican groups support have never served in the military themselves. You know things have gotten way out of hand when the military service of a marine like John Murtha is questioned. Republicans like to say that the Democrats don't support the troops but it always seems to be the Republicans who are the ones attacking someone's military service.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

New to blogger.com

I just want to inform anyone reading this blog that i just switched to blogger.com from another blog service. I was having too many problems so i made the switch. Fortunately i had only made 3 entries on the old blog but i thought they were too good not to transfer to my new blog here, hence the reason the entries appear so close together. So far i'm really liking blogger.com. I can see why a lot of the big time bloggers use it.

If only Al Gore were President



I managed to catch a bit of Al Gore's speech yesterday on how President Bush has continually broken the law by eaves dropping on americans without seeking a court order. I really like Al Gore. Granted he often comes across as stiff and wooden in his tv appearances but there's no denying that he's a very smart man who cares a great deal about this country. I don't think it's possible to fake the kind of passion Al Gore has been showing when he gives his speeches railing against the latest Bush administration injustice or misstep. His latest speech was one of his best, I particularly liked how he pointed out how people like Martin Luther King Jr. were repeatedly spyed on by our government.

It's ashame that Al Gore had the Presidency stolen from him in 2000. That election literally changed history for the worse in my opinion. It really angers me when i hear Bush supporters say "Thank God Bush is President and not Al Gore" because of 911. That is one of the most ridiculous and ill informed statements i've ever heard. . If anyone thinks that Al Gore would not have retalliated against Afghanistan for sheltering Bin Laden then they're either very misinformed, extremely partisan, or both. For one thing, Bush's actions during emergency's seem to be lacking. What was he doing when this country was being attacked on 911? He was reading a damn childrens book. What was he doing when New Orleans was being flooded? Clearing brush on his ranch and off to do a photo op the day after New Orleans was under water. I rest my case.

One thing Al Gore would not have done is take his attention away from getting those who attacked us on 911 and go to war with a country that wasn't a threat to us. Not only wasn't Iraq a threat to us, they weren't even connected to Al Qaeda. Just think about it, over 2000 of our troops would be alive and many more not permanently maimed had Al Gore been President. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, our good standing in the world wouldn't be tarnished because of Abu Ghraib and the whole torture issue. Environmental laws wouldn't be gutted. There'd be no unfair tax breaks for the wealthy. There would be no hiring of unqualified cronies in major positions. Just think if we had a President like Al Gore during hurricane Katrina instead of one who appoints a guy like "you're doing a fine Job" Brownie. There truly would be honor and dignity restored to the White House.

If anyone deserves another chance at the Presidency it's Al Gore. He seems to be the only Democrat with any fight in him. John Kerry is a fine man but he showed a lack of fight and ran a terrible campaign. Americans like fighters and when John Kerry waited all that time to respond to attacks on his military service, it spelled disaster for him. If it wasn't for all the shennanigans in Florida in 2000 and that bogus Supreme Court decision, Al Gore would have been President. He also won the popular vote. Clearly more people wanted him to be President than George W. Bush and that ought to account for something. If Al Gore has another Presidential run left in him i say give him a chance. If anyone deserves another chance, it's him.

Why Chris Matthews pisses me off




I admit to being a political junkie. I watch my fair share of the political news shows on MSNBC and CNN. I rarely watch the Fox News Channel because i can only take about a minute of that bs before wanting to throw a brick through my tv. Unfortunately the other networks are becoming like the Fox News Channel, nothing but a Republican spin machine painting every Bush administration and Republican scandal as a partisan attack by the Democrats. That brings us to a perfect example of this, Chris Matthews. I'm sure many have seen his show Hardball on MSNBC. The premise of this show is that guests go on, usually politicians and spokespeople for the politicians from both sides and Chris Matthews asks them the tough questions. Unfortunately what usually occurs is that Matthews will repeat Republican talking points as if they were fact. MediaMatters.org named him misleader of 2005 for this very reason. He'll throw out the softball questions for the Republicans and really go after the Democrats appearing on his show.

Republicans love to say that Chris Matthews is a partisan Democrat by pointing out that he was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and worked on Tip O'neill's staff. However, Matthews love for President Bush became apparent on that faithful day in 2003 when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier all dressed up in his flight suit. On his show Chris Matthews acted like a teeenaged schoolgirl with a crush describing how great President Bush looked in that flight suit. He was literally beaming. A more recent example of Matthews love for president Bush occurred just a few weeks ago when he mentioned to a guest that most americans liked President Bush and that the only ones that didn't like him were the radical lefties. I'm paraphrasing but that's pretty close to what he actually said. Of course polls show that a majority of americans have an unfavorable opinion of President Bush, it's not just those on the extreme left.

The one time that i thought Chris Matthews may have been turning the corner and becoming more balanced was when he went after Michelle Malkin in 2004. She went on his show and tried to say that John Kerry had shot himself in Vietnam. I don't know what got into Matthews that day but he really laid into Michelle Malkin. It appeared she was on the verge of tears by the time Matthews got done with her. Anyway,once the Republicans got wind of this they decided to boycott Matthews show for awhile. Their boycott obviously worked as Matthews is back reciting the Republican talking points. Just this past week he had on the NSA whistleblower who revealed to the New York Times that Bush was illegally spying on Americans. Matthews actually said to him that sometimes it's the President's job to break the law. Unbelievable. He sure didn't have that attitude when it came to Clinton and Clinton only lied about a blowjob. Have i mentioned that Chris Matthews really pisses me off? I'm just thankful that MSNBC still has on Keith Olbermann. How long before MSNBC pulls the plug on his show like they did Phil Donahue's show? Let's hope not for quite awhile.

Alito should not be confirmed

Watching some of the Senate questioning of Judge Alito it occurred to me that the majority of american people just don't get what's at stake. Polls show a majority of americans are opposed to overturning Roe V. Wade yet here is Judge Alito on the verge of being confirmed as a Justice to the Supreme Court. Make no mistake about it, Judge Alito was chosen mainly because he will overturn Roe V. Wade. American women should be extremely concerned about this. I always hear the arguement from those on the right that if Roe V. Wade is overturned it simply means that the right to an abortion will become a state's decision. What that translates to is that poor women living in places such as KnuckleDrag Oklahoma and Hicksville Alabama would have to travel to blue states if they wanted to have an abortion, something many poor women don't have the resources to do. What you'll see in those states outlawing abortion will be doctors illegally setting up unsanitary abortion clinics as well as women aborting their own pregnancy. This will result in many unnecessary deaths. On this issue alone, Judge Alito should not be sent to the Supreme Court. However it's not the only issue.

I cannot fathom that a majority of americans would approve of having their 10 year old son or daughter strip searched. Judge Alito was the only member of a three judge panel who didn't have a problem with a 10 year old girl being strip searched. Perhaps the lack of outrage is due to the "me" mentality of most americans. They'll approve of strip searching someone's 10 year old daughter as long as it's not their 10 year old daughter. Judge Alito has a history of ruling in favor of big corporations and against the "little guy" as Senator Kennedy mentioned in his questioning of Alito.

Then we have Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton or CAP. A group formed because they were angered at Princetons' decision to admit women. They would also rail against the growing number of minority students at Princeton. Alito now tries to distance himself from his membership in CAP. In 1985 however, he was proud enough of his membership in that organization that he put it on his employment application when he was seeking a position in the Reagan administration.

I'll say it again, i cannot believe that a majority of americans would approve of Judge Alito being confirmed to the Supreme Court. I cannot believe most americans would approve of doing away with a womans' right to choose. I cannot believe they would approve of strip searching 10 year old girls. I cannot believe they would approve of ruling in favor of large corporations. I cannot believe they would approve of americans private phone calls being recorded. This is a very troubling time for america. If Judge Alito is confirmed, the extreme right wing agenda of the Bush administration will be carried out for decades after Bush is out of office no matter who is elected President. Much has been made of Alito's wife crying during his questioning in the Senate. I have a feeling that once Alito is confirmed they'll be a lot of americans crying and they won't be tears of joy.