The Wounded Liberal

Now You See....

2007-05-22T15:13:00.000-04:00

It's been more than 2 years since I last posted here, and I hate to say I told you so, but c'mon, look at the state of the world and what the idiot in the White House has done to it...

Farewell for Now...

2005-05-09T12:09:00.000-04:00

My friends-

After six months, I have concluded that too many people are doing what I am trying to do. Since I have not been able to cut through the clutter, I have decided to take a blogging hiatus. I may re-launch this site at some point, but right now there are other ways I can use my energy. I will write more to political leaders, for one thing, which I got away from when I started this weblog in anger after the 2004 election.

Let me assure you that my anger has not subsided. I am still appalled on a daily basis by what Bush and his buddies are trying to do. They appear determined to ruin this country while telling us it is in our best interest. They push God on us, telling us that we are God-less if we disagree with them, not to mention unpatriotic. They are even attempting to change 200-year-old Senate rules in order to exert more power.

It is not unpatriotic to disagree with the President. It is our right as Americans, and if we love this country it is our duty to speak up if we feel it is going in the wrong direction. The pendulum will swing back, and when it does, conservatives will be crying about (or investigating and trying to impeach) the Democrats. When that day comes, hopefully very soon, there will be many a weblog set up in anger at the results of that election. And so it goes…

Take Care,

Bush's Disapproval Rating

2005-05-05T09:24:00.000-04:00

Let’s see…

Bush’s approval rating is now 46%, the lowest since he took office. He won the 2004 election with 51% of the vote. Do you think maybe some people who voted for him are having second thoughts?

Bush was photographed holding hands with a known supporter of terrorism. Let me repeat, he was photographed holding hands with a known supporter of terrorism.

Rats

2005-05-04T16:39:00.000-04:00

A woman walks into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the
exotica, she notices a very life-like, life-sized bronze rat. It has no
price-tag, but is so striking she decides she must have it. She takes it to
the owner: "How much for the bronze rat?" "Twelve dollars for the rat, one
hundred dollars for the story." She pays him the $12 and says, "Keep the
story."

As she walks down the street carrying this bronze rat, she notices a few
real rats have crawled out of alleys and sewers and have begun following
her. This is a bit disconcerting, so she begins walking a little faster.
Within a few blocks, the number of rats has grown by hundreds, and they're
squealing. She is at a dead run toward the bay when she looks back at what
seems to be thousands, or even millions of squealing rats coming toward her
at full speed. Terrified, she runs to the edge of the Bay, and throws the
bronze rat as far out as she can.

To her surprise, the million rats jump in after it and drown! She returns to
the curio shop where the owner, who is waiting, He says: "Now I suppose you
want the story?"

"No," said the woman, "I came back to see if you have a
bronze Republican."

Social Security: The Musical

2005-05-04T10:10:00.000-04:00

Nothing to say today, but something to show you. Enjoy...

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/11688/Social_Security_14.swf

Energy Imbalance Behind Global Warming

2005-04-29T11:20:00.000-04:00

We are creating a greenhouse effect...our pollution and use of fossil fuels has resulted in the Earth letting sunlight in, but trapping the heat that it generates.

This was detailed in an online verion of the journal Science on Thursday, April 28th, 2005.

Sometime by April 30th, 2005, you can expect many Republicans to denounce this report as "junk science." Bush will be one of them. We can't have anything that impedes his and his buddies' oil profits, can we?

Bush's Press Conference

2005-04-29T09:26:00.000-04:00

I will withhold comment on Bush's press conference last night pending further review. Sure, it sounds good....tilting Social Security to the poor and all, but Bush's rhetoric rarely matches his action on social issues. He has rarely done anything that benefits that majority of Americans, and with his party controlling the entire government, why should he start now?

The Wisdom of Peter Griffin

2005-04-26T13:55:00.000-04:00

Peter Griffin, protagonist of the cult cartoon Family Guy, was riding an elephant in one episode as he led a parade into his backyard (don't ask).

From atop the elephant, he says to his wife, "hey Lois, look...the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who's afraid of change."

Round-Up: GOP Finally Starting to Be Held Accountable

2005-04-24T23:27:00.000-04:00

Let’s see-

-Bush’s Social Security ideas don’t seem to be getting anywhere

-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is under fire from Democrats AND some Republicans over possible influence peddling, ethics violations, and not-so-veiled threats of violence to judges of whose decisions he disapproved

-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is having trouble in his quest to change Senate rules so the GOP can hammer in Bush’s too-conservative judicial appointees. There is major opposition from sensible people, both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, both evangelicals and business leaders are starting to disapprove, creating headaches for Frist and putting his 2008 presidency hopes in peril

-Bush’s nominee to represent the U.S. for the United Nations, John Bolton, is getting heat for both his harsh treatment of his staff (not a big deal, really….who hasn’t had a boss who was harsh?) and his apparent cherry-picking of intelligence to suit his needs. THAT is a big problem. Bush and his buddies did the same thing to force us into invading Iraq.

Bush and the Republicans are finally starting to get some heat for their dishonest and sometimes fraudulent actions, and not because of the "liberal media" that they often blame for their problems. They brought these problems on themselves, and it’s about damn time they faced the music for all their nonsense.

John Podhoretz - GOP Getting Scared

2005-04-22T09:19:00.000-04:00

John Podhoretz, if you're not familiar with him, is a conservative blowhard who never, ever has anything nice to say about liberals and other people with common sense. He still doesn't in his most recent column. However, he does write about how the Republicans might be starting to feel vulnerable. Flawed as this column might be, the simple fact that he is worried means that the GOP might have cause to worry. The 2006 elections are a long way off yet, but take a look at what he says:

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/42983.htm

Bush Elected the New Pope!

2005-04-18T13:59:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush Elected Pope ... Cardinals Stunned!
Reported by Monsignor Guido Sarducci

The almost 120 Cardinals from around the world that gathered to choose
a successor in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel were stunned and expressed
amazement.

Cardinal Mohoney the Vatican spokesperson had this to say...

"We in the conclave are all shocked. We cast our vote's using these
new electronic voting machines. The results overwhelmingly favored
George W. Bush over all the Catholic candidates. The last Pope, John
Paul, was a superb linguist, fluently speaking 11 languages, this one
can't speak fluently in one language. We just don't know what to say."

The White House has announced that Dick Cheney will assume command as
President of the world tomorrow morning, when "W' travels to Rome to
begin his duties as Pope.
George W. Bush had this to say moments ago as he spoke from the Rose
Garden:

"I am honoured to be the spiritual lighthouse, and the first War Pope.
I promise Evangelical Catho-licks and Prostates alike that I will be
embodied in salvation and fair in the performance of my duties.

I am a Unitifier, not a Divide-a-cater. I am obliged to try to save as
many lost souls as I can, at least the Devout Wealthy Elite Souls, as
it is well known that Heaven is a very select place, indeed, it is
more exclusive than even the best of country clubs. It is a members
only Heaven. I may have to put a fence around it.

I will perform miracles in a fair and balanced manner. Just as God
used to wipe out entire races of people without warning, burning whole
towns of perverts, killing off entire nations, and drowning everybody
without a ticket to board Noah's Ark, I shall deliver the world from
Evil Empires as I unleash the Apocalypse Wrath of Revelations.

I will ensure the Rapture and the Reunion with our beloved deceased
family members and with our departed purebred pets. I will not allow
those awful Liberal Sissy Homosapiens to marry each other and I will
put and end to the Clergy marrying Choirboys.

I will lead the Crusades against all them towel-headed
heathens-possessed voodoo-hoodoo barbarians who's Pseudo-religions
that don't accept the Lord as the Light of Democracy, and who worship
fake, made-up gods.

They shall suffer my Godly Conservative Wrath and I will Destroy them
with my Cherubic Armies of Angels and they shall burn for eternity in
Hell, because Me and God don't take no prisoners!"

Tom DeLay: Leader

2005-04-15T09:16:00.000-04:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a quote from Tom DeLay, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. He is the man who leads the people who have a strong majority in one of the houses of our Congress. He really did say this, regarding federal judges with whom he disagreed regarding the Terri Schiavo case:

"the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

What the hell does that mean? Is this man advocating violence? Is this more of that "Texas cowboy" machismo crap that Bush tries to show off?

And again, I remind you that this man is facing so many questions about ethics violations that even some Republicans are starting to call for his resignation.

Have you noticed...

2005-04-12T09:05:00.000-04:00

...That Republicans have always derided "Big Government," but love it now that they are in charge? They want to change the Senate rules to cut off debate so they can more easily get their policies [and Bush's judicial nominees] through.

Let me get this straight...they have a majority of seats, yet feel the need to prevent debate on legislation that they theoretically should be able to push through? Could that mean their polices are, oh I don't know, misguided? Or that Bush's choices for federal judges are, oh, too conservative, maybe? Even John McCain has spoken out against this blatant grab for [more] power.

If they do succeed at this, and God help us if they do, then what happens when the Democrats are back in power? Then do they go complain that the rules need to be changed back?

Funny, But Should Be Funnier....

2005-04-10T00:36:00.000-04:00

I saw the greatest editorial cartoon today. I can't post it because it's apparently not available online yet, but I had to pass it on.

It shows pilgrims going to England as they seek to escape religious oppression in the U.S.

It would be funnier if it weren't so scarily true. This is not a religious country, at least not officially, but religious zealots are doing their best to make it one. World history has many cases of people marginalizing others who do not share their religious beliefs. Or when marginalizing isn't enough, eliminating them.

Bush's War in Iraq

2005-04-08T08:59:00.000-04:00

The wonderful syndicated columnist Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, wrote a superb and wonderfully articulate analysis about how and why Bush misled us into going to war. He wanted this war, and did everything possible to convince us that we needed it.

Here is the column in its entirety, to save you the trouble of clicking on a link:

The Iraq deception

History could prove war to be right - but lies were wrong

Shortly before the U.S. went to war in Iraq, I was in contact with a former member of the American intelligence community. This is what he told me: Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program, no chemical or biological weapons program to speak of and no link to Al Qaeda. He said that if America invaded it would cost us "perhaps 1,000 casualties" and would lead to prolonged "terrorism and harassment." I thanked him very much - and urged the U.S. to attack anyway.

The record will show, however, that as war approached I was expressing second thoughts. I urged patience since it was becoming obvious that my source might be right. In short, I knew that the most alarming case against Saddam Hussein - that he was an imminent threat to the United States - was a lie.

Paradoxically, that basic fact becomes increasingly obscure the more one commission or another looks into America's epic intelligence failures. America went to war because George Bush wanted to go to war.

Of course, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were inept. Of course, they had all failed to stop 9/11 and, worse, the Bushies disregarded the warnings of the Clinton administration that fighting terrorism should be their first priority. Instead, the Bush administration - knowing best, as always - decided to concentrate elsewhere.

That little dig at the President is both purposeful and, in my view, warranted. From the very start, he had expressed the view that he had no need to read newspapers because, as he insisted, he got everything he needed from briefings. Unlike Bill Clinton, who got the PDB (the President's Daily Brief) on paper and routinely defaced it with questions and comments, Bush's briefings were delivered orally, much like children's medicine. Much was made of them, but we now know they were worthless and sometimes misleading. So found the latest commission to look into the matter, the one headed by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.) and Laurence Silberman, a senior federal judge. Neither man is known for making rash judgments.

Had the President read the local newspaper, however, he might have questioned if much of what he was being told was nonsense. Every piece of evidence the Bush administration was citing to support its assertion that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program was being challenged. None of it mattered, of course. The United States was going to war.

It is now clear that the decision to do so was made shortly after the 9/11 attacks - maybe even the next day. History may well decide that this was the correct decision, but it won't change the fact that the administration failed to make a truthful case for war. Instead it built a sham one based on the hysteria, hate and panic created by 9/11. Intelligence hardly mattered. Saddam was going to go, regardless of the evidence. My source in the intelligence community understood this from the get-go. I did not - not right away, anyway.

Iraq, fundamentally and above all, was a breach of faith with the American people. When it comes to matters of life and death, we expect our government to level with us. The Bush administration did not - and it would not matter if all of the Middle East, from the Tigris to the Nile, becomes a democracy overnight. The fact will still remain that this war was fought for a lie. The failure was not in intelligence. It was in political character.
>>>
Please send him an email to compliment him for this analysis and honesty. He can be reached at cohenr@washpost.com

Tom DeLay and the "Liberal Media"

2005-04-07T10:44:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay is now blaming some of his current problems on the "liberal media." It's hard to believe anyone will still fall for that old lame line, but people obviously believe it.

The "liberal media" of which he speaks...is that some sort of shadowy conspiracy group? What's next, blaming non-Christians?

Tommy Boy, I know you're a corrupt politician and a spineless fascist moron, but come on, already.

Here's complete article from a segment of the "liberal media:"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/06/delay.reponse/index.html

I tried to find a comparable article from the "non-liberal" media, but Fox News Channel's web site has no mention of this. Go figure.

Bush a Hypocrite? No Way!

2005-04-04T09:38:00.000-04:00

Fantastic column this week by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek (well, last week, I guess). He talks about Bush’s hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. Imagine that!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/

The Schiavo Saga is Over

2005-03-31T11:46:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans are for states’ rights, except for when they disagree with a state’s decision?

Terri Schiavo has died. Somewhere, Republicans are blaming northeastern liberals.

Rest in peace, Terri. The glare of those cameras is finally out of your face.

Jerry Falwell

2005-03-30T12:05:00.000-05:00

The Rev. Jerry Falwell is hospitalized in critical condition, battling his second case of viral pneumonia in just five weeks. The man is 71 years old.

Personally, I blame the Jews. And homosexuals.

The Schiavo Case

2005-03-24T09:37:00.000-05:00

I originally felt no desire whatsoever to write about this case. It was a family matter in Florida. I am not a member of that family, and I do not live in Florida. I cannot believe the circus it has turned into.

The Schiavo family situation has been hijacked by politicians, ones who believe in the sacred right to life as well as the death penalty. This poor family has been pulled into the national spotlight as a cause celebre on both sides.

Her husband believes she should be allowed to die. Her parents want her to live. I agree with the husband, and I agree with the parents. That’s part of the problem with being a liberal: I actually listen to both sides of a story. And the thing is, I am not part of the Schiavo family. I am not getting involved. Period. I only wish everyone else would release their grip on this family.

Leave it to a fascist moron like Tom DeLay to continue to invoke God. Gee, maybe a ploy to divert attention from his ethics violations? Read about it here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050323/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_politics_dc

Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller: Cousins?

2005-03-19T15:33:00.000-05:00

Remember Zell Miller? He was a Democratic Senator from Georgia who almost always sided with Republicans in recent years, until he retired last year. Months before retiring, he appeared at the Republican National Convention to praise Bush and condemn John Kerry, the candidate of his own party. Despite repeated overtures from the GOP, he repeatedly turned down the opportunity to defect and increase the GOP majority in the Senate.

Now, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, faces a similar situation. The difference is that while Miller came from a state that increasingly turned Red, Connecticut is a true-blue New England state, and his constituents are starting to notice.

I have long admired Lieberman, and supported him in his brief run for president in 2004. An Orthodox Jew, his strong faith and belief in his convictions has always set him apart from generic double-talking politicians. He was elected to the Senate in 1988 in an upset victory, and has faced little competition since. His 2004 opponent, a man named Philip Giordano, is currently in prison for molesting children. Lieberman was elected Vice President in 2004, until Bush & Cheney’s lawyers prevented him from ever assuming the office. Despite getting some guff for simultaneously running for reelection and for Vice President in 2000, he has been very popular in his state.

Long a "moderate Democrat,’ he has veered dangerously close to becoming a conservative. His early attacks on Hollywood "indecency" bordered on government censorship, and made him a rare Democrat not in Hollywood’s favor. He was one of Bush’s original supporters of the Iraqi invasion, which I forgave because Bush convinced a lot of people that it was necessary. He voted with the GOP in confirming Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and has not ruled out supporting Bush’s absurd Social Security ideas. There was some talk of his being asked to join Bush’s cabinet overhaul, but he quickly ruled that out.

A February poll showed him with an outstanding 69% job approval rating, but there are certainly rumblings. Web sites have popped up such as www.timetogojoe.com and
www.dumpjoe.com. The last straw for many, it appears, was when Lieberman embraced Mr. Bush on February 3rd, following the State of the Union address. He literally, physically hugged the man. In Connecticut, which went overwhelmingly for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 (with Lieberman on the ticket), that is tantamount to treason.

In the midst of his third term in the Senate, Lieberman needs to assess where he stands. His "moderate" positions got him nowhere in his presidential campaign. He runs for reelection next year, and could be beaten, possibly even by another Democrat. He needs to ask himself if he is truly a Democrat, or Zell Miller’s northern cousin.

Things We Need to Remember

2005-03-17T22:38:00.000-05:00

As of this writing, 1,518 American soldiers have died in Iraq since we invaded the country for murky reasons on 3/19/03. Since Bush declared an end to major combat on 5/1/03, there have been 1,381 American military casualties. We must not forget these brave men.

For more information, go here: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

There are several other things we need to remember, courtesy of a column by Juan Gonzalez of the NY Daily News:

-Earlier this week, a leaked Pentagon audit revealed that Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, which has so far received $10 billion in Iraq contracts, overbilled the government by $108 million for supplying fuel imports to that country. In one instance, the company billed the federal government $27 million to transport $82,000 worth of liquefied gas from neighboring Kuwait! The report was finished last fall but became public only after U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) obtained a copy.

-The House of Representatives approved a whopping $81 billion supplemental bill...to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. That brings the total cost of those wars so far to an astounding $300 billion.
{WL Note: Remember that the Afghanistan war and subsequent occupation was absolutely necessary}

-Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi announced this week that his country will become the latest to pull out of Iraq later this year. Berlusconi acted after American soldiers mistakenly shot and killed an Italian undercover agent who had just succeeded in obtaining the release of a kidnapped Italian journalist. Italy becomes the 15th nation to pull out of Bush's Coalition of the Willing since the war began.
{WL Note: Reminds me of what John Stewart said on The Daily Show: "and Poland! Don't forget Poland!"}

-A recent survey of global attitudes by the Pew Research Center points to how isolated the United States has become in the world. The Pew survey found that 64% of Turks, 60% of Germans, 58% of French and 51% of Russians believe the United States is occupying Iraq to control Mideast oil - something only 18% of Americans believe.

"Anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history," the survey concluded, and the Iraq war is the principal reason.
>>>>
So when you see all these kudos for Bush and his boys as they purportedly spread democracy around the Middle East, remember these things that they neglect to mention.

The Butterfly Effect

2005-03-14T11:32:00.000-05:00

Several years ago, a weird Texas millionaire decided to run for president. He believed his vast business experience was enough to overcome his complete lack of political experience. I am not talking about George W. Bush. I am actually talking about H. Ross Perot, the little man who, though now mostly forgotten, had a huge impact on U.S. and world history.

In 1992, this man ran for president and then withdrew from the race, citing fears that Republicans would sabotage his daughter’s wedding. He later re-entered the race. His reliance on business charts and homespun metaphors gave him a certain outsider charm. His Republican opponent was George H.W. Bush, a man whose huge approval ratings during the Gulf War had plummeted, and Bill Clinton, a fairly unknown Arkansas governor with some questionable past relationships. Given that competition and his penchant for straight talk (or telling people he was using straight talk), he won 18.9% of the popular vote, a staggering total for an independent. Bush managed just 37.4%, and Clinton won with 43%. Conventional wisdom had it that Perot siphoned more votes from Bush than from Clinton, meaning that Clinton should have sent Perot at least a thank-you note after his victory.

If Perot had not run, Bush may well have fended off this unknown Arkansas and won a second term. If he had been in office until 1996, who would have run to replace him? Maybe Bob Dole? Maybe the two-term Vice President Dan Quayle? On the Democratic side, Clinton might have missed his window, and we might have seen someone like Bill Bradley. Whatever the case, George W. Bush would not have run in 1996. If his father had not gotten beaten, he might not have run in 2000, either, especially if a Republican was already in office.

Ross Perot ran again in 1996, but his credibility was shot by then and he managed just 8.4% of the popular vote. That is a respectable total for an independent candidate, to be sure, but at less than half his 1992 total, it has to be viewed as a failure. It didn’t matter, though. He essentially put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office (and is the reason I can’t argue about Ralph Nader doing the same for Bush in 2000), and Clinton’s being in office is part of what precipitated Bush’s decision to run. If Clinton was never elected, we also would never be talking about his wife as a possibility in 2008. Ross Perot may have sank back to obscurity, but his impact on world affairs might not be over just yet.

Bankruptcy Reform - Good For Banks, Bad for People

2005-03-09T14:07:00.000-05:00

The Republican-controlled Senate is close to passing landmark bankruptcy reform that would make it harder for people to file for bankruptcy. In theory, this makes sense. After all, why should some people be able to escape financial accountability by declaring bankruptcy? Isn’t it better to tighten up the system, to prevent abuse? Well, yes, in theory. However, there are always gray areas

Banks, credit card issuers and retailers have pushed for years for bankruptcy revisions that would force more people to repay at least part of their debt. Well, that would mean the Republicans in the Senate are pushing a law that is pro-business. No surprise there. An earlier version was defeated in 2002 when abortion clinics somehow were brought into it. Somehow, anti-abortion types seem to drag the practice into everything.

A recent Harvard University study found that costly illnesses led to about half of all personal bankruptcies (CNN). It is also true that many single mothers, often with sky-high debt, rely on child support payments that do not come. A single mother working three jobs who cannot afford to pay her bills is presumably not the kind of person the lawmakers have in mind. Or maybe she is.

As George W. Bush has consistently refused to acknowledge, there are gray areas to everything. Democrats have tried to address some of them here, with amendments to the bill that would provide for some exceptions. Those amendments were defeated along party lines. So, could Republicans be pushing legislation that is good for business and bad for people, at least potentially? Nah, that can’t be it…

Remember Enron?

2005-03-03T13:36:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration and family has deep connections to Enron. We all know how the people in charge of Enron screwed many people, and we all know how the Bush administration has been doing the same. Both have their foundations in the Houston business world, and are connected in many ways.

Mark Shields, a columnist and CNN commentator, wrote a recent column that ties them together. Conservatives would dismiss him as "part of the liberal media elite," or something like that, but here are excerpts from that column. Read it and see if you can answer his question: where is the outrage?

>>>>>
Thanks to the Snohomish County (Washington) Public Utility District -- which argues that it was swindled by, and is fighting a legal suit against, Enron -- audio transcripts have now been made public that show that in the middle of California's acute energy crisis in 2001, when power plants were under an emergency U.S. order to keep operating, Enron conspired to take a power plant off-line to price-gouge even more the state's homeowners and business owners.

As a direct consequence of the plant's being taken off-line for phony repairs, the very next day California was forced to impose a power emergency, and over half a million residents endured rolling blackouts.

On the tapes, one Enron trader reports, "They had to do a rolling blackout through the town, and there was a red light there he didn't see," to which a second trader responds, "That's beautiful." Earlier, the Snohomish utility (not the torpid Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) had through the courts made public tapes that revealed Enron executive laughing over how their price-rigging was ripping off "Grandma Millie" and congratulating each other over the record profits their schemes were producing for the Houston company.

Let's look at the record. According to the respected Center for Responsive Politics, the biggest corporate contributor to George W. Bush's two campaigns for governor was Enron. Its employees contributed more than $312,000.

Enron's CEO, Ken Lay, gave $100,000. Enron and its employees donated $118,000 to George W. Bush's first presidential campaign, and Lay was designated as a Pioneer by the Bush-Cheney committee, which meant he had raised at least $100,000..

Enron, corporately, and Lay, individually, each gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural. But of perhaps greatest value to the Bush candidacy, Enron corporate jets were used by Bush on 14 different occasion for a bargain-basement total price of just under $60,000.

...

Remember Vice President Dick Cheney's "secret" Energy Task Force? Lay remembers. In the midst of the California energy crisis, with increasing demands for the imposition of federal caps to provide relief from the skyrocketing prices, Lay met with Cheney on April 17, 2001.
One day later, the vice president told the Los Angeles Times that price caps, which would not be considered, provided "only short-term political relief for politicians."

Enron's unquestioned criminality inflicted enormous human suffering. Employees saw their life savings, their pensions and their retirement plans destroyed. Investors were robbed.
Ordinary citizens and communities were fleeced and swindled by illegal price-rigging. Families -- faced with utility bills they could not pay and did not deserve -- lost their confidence, their homes and their peace of mind.

Enron, a white-collar Fortune 500 star, did not commit victimless crimes. Where is the accountability, and where is the outrage?
>>>>>
Shields makes some fantastic points. As for me, I wonder how many people who were victimized by Enron went and voted for Bush in 2004?

Imagining Different Eras

2005-02-25T18:53:00.000-05:00

I’m currently reading Philip Roth’s book “The Plot Against America,” which depicts a fictionalized America of the 1940s where President Charles Lindbergh makes a deal with Hitler and stays out of World War II, letting Hitler and his buddies continue their atrocities. It makes me wonder…what if George W. Bush was the leader of this country in a different era? How would things be different?

1930’s – Well, we know what Bush thinks of New Deal programs, so it’s safe to say that many American people would have been in trouble. We know what he thinks of Social Security. When the Depression hit, what would Bush have done? Tax cuts for the wealthy? He probably would have been “saved” by WWII, much as Roosevelt was. However, President Roosevelt developed the New Deal programs, with all their government intervention, in the wake of the Depression. We know that Bush and his allies despise government intervention unless it is to prevent abortion or gay rights.

1940’s – Bush would have entered WWII immediately after Pearl Harbor. No question there, and no doubt the correct decision, unless you argue that we should have entered the war earlier. Would he have used the bomb on Hiroshima? That’s a tough call, and impossible to judge.

1950’s – No change. Eisenhower had similar ideas and loved to play golf as much as Bush likes to retire to Crawford. He even had a scoundrel-type as his Vice President, and we know what great things are part of Nixon’s legacy. Some have argued that Bush wants to take the U.S. back to this era culturally, with its repression and distaste for women and minorities achieving any power.

1960’s – Cuban Missile Crisis is a very tough call, but I think Bush’s handlers would have this right. Now the tough one…Vietnam. Kennedy & Johnson were the ones complicit here, and Bush may not have made the same mistakes. Then again, the attitudes of the day were “we must stop communism” and “we do not ever lose,” so different men could well have led us down the same path. Look at modern-day Iraq. Our swagger and ideas of “we must stop terrorism” (which of course I agree with, by the way) and “we must not lose,” harken back to the earlier era. Was it absolutely necessary to send troops to Vietnam then? Was it absolutely necessary to invade Iraq when we did?

1970’s – I could see Karl Rove initiating dirty tricks, only he would be sneakier about it. In some ways, he's been using them all along. We still don’t know who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, do we? If Bush presided over the gas shortage, what would he have done? Does he react to Roe v. Wade by calling for constitutional amendments? How would he handle the hostage crisis?

1980’s – Bush could not spell détente. I could see him being Reagan-esqe (he himself obviously does), but with higher deficits than Reagan amassed. Would he have brought down the U.S.S.R.? If Bush was president in the 1980’s (the current Bush, not the 1980’s drug-addled version), he may well have antagonized the Soviets to a very bad point. Reagan held off for a while before finally engaging in talks with them, and Bush may well have done the same. However, I don’t think Bush the diplomat would have accomplished what Reagan did. His cowboy talk would have just made the Soviets angrier. It appears they would have crumbled eventually anyway, but put Bush in the White House from 1980-88 and they don’t crumble until the mid-1990’s.

1990’s – Taxes would be so low with increased personal income that we would have very wealthy rich people, and very destitute poor people. The “internets” might not have had so much innovation, what with the government censoring ”indecency,” much as the FCC does these days. Al Qaeda would grow, just as it did in the real 1990’s, because of America being asleep at the switch. For you naysayers who say Bush wouldn’t allow that, remember that in January 2001, he cut the federal antiterrorism budget. He did nothing to combat terrorism until September 11th.

2000’s – Oh, wait. Bush IS president. Damn….we’ll be bankrupt soon and run by the Religious Right.

Except for that last part, this is all completely a mental exercise and total speculation. There never was a President Lindbergh, but Roth paints a scary picture of one. Each of our presidents was important in his own time, but would they be as important if you moved them to a different time?

Doug Wead: My New Buddy

2005-02-22T09:52:00.000-05:00

Have you heard about the formerly secret recordings that a now-former friend of George W. Bush made before the 2000 presidential campaign? The man’s name is Doug Wead, and I salute him.

“I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago,” Bush said. The Texas Governor also discusses the tricky task of bridging his conservative evangelical base with gay voters, calls Al Gore a “liar” and says that John McCain’s relevance will fade. The part about Gore isn’t a big deal, and neither, really, is the part about McCain. The evangelical-gay thing is interesting, considering that Bush has never tried to “bridge” anything and now calls for a constitutional amendment to intrude on gay peoples’ personal lives.

About the part where he apparently acknowledges his past drug use, I can only say:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Whew…..that felt good!

My only regret here is that even though everyone knew about it, it did not make a difference in the 2004 election, and not enough of a difference in 2000. Remember when Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” remark provoked the ire of conservatives everywhere? Funny how they were soooo quiet this time, huh?

Presidents Day and Baseball - Neither Means as Much as it Used to

2005-02-17T09:55:00.000-05:00

Presidents Day is coming up on Monday, and as a big fan of both presidential trivia and baseball, I see some parallels between each of them today.

Baseball has been cheapened by steroid abuse. Many of its hallowed records are now a joke (73 home runs in a season?!?!?). Barry Bonds may well break Hank Aaron’s lifetime home run record, but at what cost? Jose Canseco has called the players on it. His credibility may be shot, but he raises so many suspicions that one has to call into question all players’ exploits and achievements in recent years.

George W. Bush has cheapened the presidency in a similar fashion. To be fair, President Clinton cheapened the presidency as well. We all know how, particularly Republicans who are only too happy to remind us. However, just as baseball players have boosted their statistics with cheating and lies, Bush has demeaned his office. To wit:

Baseball players got record contracts because of inflated statistics. Halliburton gets record contracts in Iraq because there is no open bidding.

Baseball players have secret doings in the locker rooms where their activities might be illegal. Cheney had secret meetings with energy companies to devise our nation’s energy policy, which may or may not have been illegal.

Baseball players (though not all) believe it is their God-given right to be arrogant and self-serving. Bush is nothing if not arrogant.

Baseball players often believe they are entitled to perks that come with being wealthy and well-connected. Bush believed he was entitled to the presidency.

Baseball players often make a ton of money despite little education. Bush is wealthy from money his family made and has a good ed-joo-cay-shun because of his family’s connections. Of course, he brags about having been a poor student who partied a wee bit too often, but I digress.

It’s interesting that Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers when Canseco joined the team. Canseco says that Bush was aware of rampant steroid use on his team but turned a blind eye toward it. Maybe, maybe not. I was not there, and I do not know. I know Bush used the position as a stepping-stone to become Governor Bush. We all know what he did after that, so maybe he didn't want a small matter like mass use of illegal drugs to disrupt his path.

I wish you all a Happy Presidents-Plus-Bush Day. May you be the beneficiary of many sales. If you’re wealthy, you have more money to spend thanks to Mr. Bush, so go knock yourselves out.

The Famous Axis of Evil

2005-02-15T14:23:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, Bush established his “Axis of Evil,” comprised of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Remember that? Of course you do. Well, what of it?

Iraq? Check! Country was invaded using Weapons of Mass Deception. Is currently a quagmire of epic proportions. Bush proclaimed an end to “major combat” and since then we have seen, well, lots of major combat. Invading was the easy part. Cheney and other chicken hawks believed the Iraqis would “welcome us as saviors,” apparently believing also that very little post-invasion planning would be necessary. Well, that went well. It eroded our credibility around the world and made Iraq a terrorist breeding ground. Mr. Cowboy decided we should go in ourselves, then famously mentioned Poland as the second country helping us there (after Britain). Yes, Poland was our second country. Poland is now reducing its number of troops to 900. Yes, 900. Oh, and those weapons? Bush himself made light of the hunt, showing up on a video looking for them in the White House couch cushions. Funny. Oh, the current reason for our being there is the “spread of democracy.” Until it changes to a new reason.

Iran? Well, they’re in the process of developing nuclear weapons. They say they’re not, of course, but all intelligence indicates that they are. We know they would love to fire off a few nuclear warheads toward Tel Aviv. Bush’s obsession with Iraq gave Iran short shrift, and it shows. Good job, Mr. Bush!

North Korea? Hmmm, not so good. Their “Dear Leader” recently proclaimed that his nation really has nuclear weapons (Mr. Bush, if you are reading this, that would be “nukular weppins”). He wants to have talks with Bush, whereby he can grab concessions. That didn’t work with Clinton, though we all thought it had. As with Iran, Bush focused on the wrong problem and tried to marginalize a growing problem. Reagan tried the same method with the Soviet Union and then finally, eventually met with Gorbachev. Bush is no Reagan, hard as he tries.

Bush focused on the country that was really the least problematic among the three. We’re still not sure why we had to invade Iraq and let the other problems fester, but we have and now must deal with it. We no longer have the credibility or manpower to invade either Iran or North Korea, so this must be done diplomatically, and Mr. Texas Cowboy has proven to be somewhat of a poor diplomat (“Bring it on”). Thanks, Mr. Bush. What I must ask you, and what I hope and pray you are asking yourself is this: was invading Iraq worth it? Was getting the Bad Man out of power worth creating and exacerbating many other problems? I hate to tell you this, but the answers to Iran and North Korea do not involve another tax cut for the wealthy.

Howard Dean - Doctor, Governor, Democratic Boss

2005-02-12T14:57:00.000-05:00

After his humiliating flameout in the 2004 Democratic Primaries, who imagined that a year later, Dr. Howard Dean would be running the Democratic Party? I did not support him for president, believing his campaign had peaked too early and that he would run out of gas against Bush. As it turned out, he lost his momentum much earlier and never won a single state primary. Now that same famously outspoken politician intends to lead the Democrats out of the wilderness.

Dean has proven himself a champion fundraiser, but he needs to be more than that. His predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, raised a ton of money but nearly drove the party off a cliff with his lack of a cohesive and coherent vision. Dean needs to determine what the party stands for and how it is to make inroads in the Red States. The new face of the party needs to show Americans that Democrats do stand for things other than "we’re not Bush."
The right-wing part of the media has helped demonize Democrats, and Dean has the energy and passion to counter that. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, to name a few, will paint him as out of touch, as a radical, blah blah blah. Don’t believe it. Dean is a little left of center, yes, but that is not a bad thing. It does not mean he is a communist, which Fox News might have you believe.

Remember how his grass-roots campaign took off and utilized the internet in ways no one had seen before. Remember how passionate his followers became. John Kerry never inspired that kind of passion and still got 48% of the vote. Dean has already said he will visit Red States often. Kerry ran for president, and how long do you think he considered even looking at a state like, say, Kentucky? The Democrats are a national party, and they should start acting like one instead of targeting "safe" and "swing" areas.

He is volatile and will undoubtedly say things that conservative types will pounce on. I’m sure Ann Coulter is licking her venomous chops right now. I say fine – let him become the lightning rod. He seems to thrive on it. More importantly, he will be able to convey his passion to people and, I think, will make a fine leader for the party. I have reservations, to be sure, but the Democrats need something to energize them and pull them together, and I think Howard Dean will be able to do that. I will support him, and if you believe that Bush and his ilk are continuing to destroy this country, then you should too.

Bush's Journalist Stool Pigeons

2005-02-10T13:19:00.000-05:00

First it came out that a conservative talking head named Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration with taxpayer dollars to promote the Bush Education Plan. Let me repeat: THE ADMINISTRATION PAID A JOURNALIST WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PROMOTE ITS AGENDA.

Then, it comes out that conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid by the administration with taxpayer dollars to defend the Bush administration’s position on marriage, specifically the strengthening of marriage.

Neither Armstrong nor Gallagher notified their readers of these conflicts of interest.

But wait, there’s more: conservative columnist Mike McManus was paid by the administration to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families.

Now comes word that one James Guckert, a White House reporter for the Talon News Service under the name "Jeff Gannon," is quitting his job. So what, you ask? Well, he has come under scrutiny because he is an employee of a Republican-owned news website that is closely linked with GOPUSA, a GOP activist organization. This man somehow got access to the exclusive White House Press Corps under an assumed name. Why would he need an assumed name? Well, he seemed to make a point of lobbing softball questions to Mr. Bush at press conferences.

At a news conference on January 26th, Guckert asked Bush how he could deal with Democratic congressional leaders "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." Do you think maybe he was there to help make Bush look good to other reporters, who would then report how good he looked to their readers around the country?

Guckert admitted to having conservative beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when journalists’ beliefs lead them to become propaganda tools for the administration, something is definitely wrong. Williams, Gallagher, and McManus were wrong, and Guckert/Gannon appears to be. Is it just me, or does all this seem just a little shady?

Asked about Guckert, the White House offered no comment. Well, duh. Bush has said “Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Well, obviously, he doesn’t believe that. If he doesn’t even think his agenda is good for all American people, why should we?

Things I Wonder...

2005-02-08T13:56:00.000-05:00

When did "liberal" start to mean "evil communist?" Was it around the time that Fox News Channel began?

Why is it okay for Republicans to want less government in peoples’ lives, unless it comes to personal issues like abortion or gay rights? Then they want more.

In light of the CBS fiasco, will anyone ever again try to figure out what really did happen to Bush in the Air National Guard?

Why was it really, really bad that Clinton didn’t inhale pot, but not a big deal that Bush didn’t snort cocaine?

Who helped Cheney devise the administration’s energy policy? What companies were they from, and why does he still refuse to say who they were?

Will the upcoming Enron trials highlight the Bush family’s relationships with Enron executives?

Why do people still believe Bush when he says he is a “fiscal conservative” when he has lowered taxes to decrease government revenue while blowing our deficits higher than ever?

What did Bush know when he owned the Texas Rangers, and his players were allegedly juicing up? Maybe he was willfully ignorant?

Will John Kerry have the nerve to run in 2008?

Will John Edwards, considering he turned invisible after he became Kerry’s running mate?

Will Al Gore? A Southern Democrat like him might have a second chance. There are many second chances in politics. Richard Nixon, in fact, had two second chances.

As the likely head of the Democratic Party, will Howard Dean focus the party and help set a cohesive agenda, or will he radicalize and therefore marginalize it?

How long before Bush has a Supreme Court nominee that will rile Democrats, which in turn will make Republicans label all Democrats “out-of-touch obstructionists.”

How is it that men who went out of their way to avoid Vietnam were so gung-ho about invading Iraq? How is it that it doesn't seem to matter?

Will the Democrats lose more ground in 2006? Notice that Bush is pushing his Social Security plan on tour in Red States that have Democrats up for reelection in 2006.

Why did Bush have such extravagant inauguration balls when soldiers that he sent to Iraq do not have enough body armor?

Why is it unpatriotic to criticize Bush's government? Is it because the man never, ever makes a mistake?

Saxy Chambliss won a Senate seat in Georgia after smearing his opponent as “unpatriotic.” His opponent, Democrat Max Cleland, lost three limbs while fighting in Vietnam. What I wonder is, how does Mr. Chambliss sleep at night?

The Big Scary Social Security Monster

2005-02-07T10:22:00.000-05:00

I read up some more on the Social Security proposals, and I’ve concluded that I don’t like them.

Bush’s idea is that privatizing part of Social Security gives people control of their own money, and therefore removes government more from people’s lives, a basic conservative tenet. Of course, conservatives have no problem involving themselves in people’s private lives when abortion or gay marriage is involved, but I digress. It gives people more control over their money, but is that a good thing?

In theory, yes, but many people do not know the first thing about investing. How many people would put much-needed Social Security money into aggressive and risky funds, hoping for a big payout but losing the money? Conservatives would respond that that’s their own fault. Perhaps, but people need brokers to invest, and often need investment advice, none of which is free. These fees would eat into more money that people might need. Who benefits the most? Investment and brokerage firms. Hmmm.

More money invested in the stock market sounds like a nod to Big Business and the fat cats that support Bush. That can't be right, either. Certainly, Bush has the interests of the American people at heart, no?

One reason Bush wants to semi-privatize is that he refuses to raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, people do not pay into Social Security for income over $90,000. Raising this cap would put more money into the program and help keep it solvent. But noooooo. Bush fears the wrath of God if he does anything but continuously lower taxes on the wealthy. Another alternative could be raising the age at which people would receive benefits. This is a tough call, and I haven’t heard many people bring it up.

Bush calls it a “crisis” and is trying to scare us into doing something we should not do. He has done it many times, and unfortunately, has succeeded many times. Let it end here.

The Sad State of the Union

2005-02-03T17:49:00.000-05:00

I did not watch the State of the Union address, continuing the practice I started in 2001. I reasoned then that I had never cared what an illiterate redneck had to say before one stole an election, so why start now? Anyway, I did read about the speech afterward, and see that Bush placed a lot of attention on Social Security reform. He wants for people to be able to invest part of their money instead of just getting a handout. He’s talking about 1-2% or so, but that might just be a first step.

I’m not sure that it’s a good or bad idea yet. I’m glad to see someone thinking about ways to keep the program from going bankrupt. I am terrified of people investing in a market that does not always go up, up, up, and so possibly being left with less according to market fluctuations. If it’s only a small percentage that’s invested, that’s a different story. That also could give root to brokers and fees and all sorts of other costs for people, which could end up giving them less money when all is said and done. The jury is still out on the whole thing.

It should be noted that not only do many Democrats oppose Bush’s plan, but so do many key Republicans. They say that Social Security can possibly be fixed in other ways…tinkering with the retirement age, fiddling with taxes, etc.

This is my problem: Bush says there is a crisis, and that his way is the best way to fix it. Right away, an alarm should go off. This is a man who believes that our country is better off with record deficits, tax breaks for the wealthy, and an energy policy that benefits energy and oil companies instead of the American people. He believes that a swaggering, macho foreign policy that alienates our allies is in our best interest. Don’t even get me started [again] on Iraq. With all these precedents, why should we think that he actually has it right this time?

The Iraqi Elections & an Exit Strategy

2005-02-02T13:37:00.000-05:00

As you might have heard, Iraq had its first free elections in 50 years. Iraqis rejoiced, Iraqi expatriates celebrated, and George W. Bush could barely hide his smirk behind his glee.

When the results are announced next week, not all Iraqis will be happy. It's hard to see Sunni and Shiite Muslims sharing power, and one group ceding power to the other. That's not to mention the Kurds, the country's "other" large ethnic group. Iraq's problems (and ours) are far from over. It is still a terrorist hotbed and breeding ground. Whether the problem is worse now than during Saddam Hussein's time is both an open question and a moot point. Bush pushed us into this war for vague and continuously evolving reasons, and now we cannot simply walk away and let the country continue to disintegrate. The elections are a first step and will hopefully put an exit strategy in motion. We cannot just start bringing troops home now simply because there were elections...that could make it all worse.

Is Bush capable of making an exit strategy? Well, he's done such a ridiculously poor job thus far that it's hard to see it. Let's hope a thoughtful moderate Colin Powell can figure something out. Oops, he's gone. Maybe some non-chicken hawks can put a plan in place. Oops, there aren't any in this administration.

After Bush pre-empts good TV programming for a State of the Union that will be filled with half-truths and manipulations, he needs to come up with a concrete plan and tentative timetable. He created this morass for reasons that are still unclear--- WMD's? Uh, no. Saddam connected to 9/11? Sorry, Dick Cheney, but the answer to that is still no. Spreading democracy? Um, OK, yeah, that's it!

You are our president. For real this time. Figure something out. And if Halliburton profits more from whatever plan you set up, people had better start screaming.

The United Purple States of America

2005-01-31T10:32:00.000-05:00

A reader pointed out that that many Red States in the 2004 Election only went for Bush by a slim margin (and vice-versa for Kerry), and I have seen many columns which point out that the entire U.S. is really all comprised of purple states.

Look at a county-by-county election map. On November 3rd, a Republican I know chortled (yes, he actually did chortle) that Bush won in a landslide. He told me to look at how most of the country was red counties. He also said to get Mt. Rushmore ready for Bush, but I digress.

Well, let’s take a look. Just three states were 100% Red: Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Alaska. Only three states were 100% Blue: Vermont, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. The other 44 had varying degrees of mixture.

In Texas: we all knew Bush would win by a wide margin. He did (61% overall), but he did not win every county. The southern part of the state, the El Paso area, is lined with Blue counties.

In the South: Bush also won Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. However, there are a significant number of adjacent Blue counties, from Shelby County in TN (which has Memphis), down into Louisiana and encompassing both eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi. There are a number of adjacent Blue counties running through central Alabama.

Bush won most of the counties in Pennsylvania and Illinois, but lost the Philadelphia and Chicago areas, respectively, and that cost him each state. That pattern is evident throughout the country. If Bush wins ten counties of 5,000 people each, and Kerry wins one that has 500,000, which is more significant? Kerry won heavily in the Northeast, which is more heavily populated than, well, everywhere else.

The bottom line is that within each county there is an unknown number of swing voters. Bush appealed to enough of them to win. Kerry did not. In 2008, can any Democrat? Certainly. Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Howard Dean? That’s a topic for another day, but suffice to say that very few states are only Red or only Blue.

Democrats Rising in the West?

2005-01-24T17:10:00.000-05:00

Despite getting their butts kicked in general in the 2004 elections, the Democrats did pick up seats in lower levels in states that might surprise you, states in the Rocky Mountain and Sun Belt areas. There are plans afoot to gain a foothold in these states.

Arizona Democratic chairman Jim Pedersen is quoted as saying that Democrats have lost the South, and so need to look for “another field to mine.” That is not the proper way to go about restoring the prominence of the Democrats…to cherry-pick regions and/or states is a losing proposition. Just ask John Kerry. They need to look for ways to have a broad appeal ALL OVER, and not just the Northeast and California. With that said, their ideas to “mine” the Western states could be a start to new broad ideas to win back the country.

In Montana, Democrats captured control of both houses of the Legislature and saw a Democratic governor win for the first time in 2 decades. Bush won Montana handily on the national scale, but Bill Clinton won that state in 1992 (though not 1996).

In Colorado, Democrats won control of both houses of the state Legislature and also picked up a U.S. House and Senate seat. Clinton won that state in 1992 (and narrowly lost in 1996). In 2004, Bush won, but pre-Election polling had it very close and there was speculation that Kerry would win it.

In Nevada, Bush won in 2004 by 20,000 votes. The state has 2 Democratic Senators, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Clinton won the state twice.

There is certainly some potential here. I keep pointing out Bill Clinton’s victories to show that Democratic wins there are certainly not unprecedented. As more people move to these states, their clout in the Electoral College will increase, and Democrats would be wise to grab a solid foothold here. The population is booming, and a large chunk of the newcomers are Hispanics. The governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, is a Hispanic Democrat.

Democrats would have to develop strong positions on land use and urban sprawl, and reconcile their traditional positions on gun control. The Republicans do not have a leg to stand on with environmental issues, which are also big in those areas.

The potential here does NOT mean they should just write off the South, but it is potential that should not be overlooked. If Democrats can gain a viable foothold in this region and also figure out how to get more Southerners in their corner, then we’re talking. We’ll have a party for all people, not just ones that happen to live in California, the Pacific Northwest, New England, Chicago, Philadelphia, Southern Florida, New York City, and half of Ohio.

Lives of Women in Mississippi

2005-01-22T19:20:00.000-05:00

In posting about my recent trip to Mississippi, I noted how many churches I saw and how religion seems such a part of the social fabric. In the current issue of Newsweek, the wonderful Anna Quindlen has a column about Mississippi and how its residents' staunch religious beliefs have stunted its evolution. Well, actually, she doesn't write a column about it...she just states facts. Sometimes, apparently, that's all you need to do. See for yourself:

>>>
Connecting Up the Dots

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek
Jan. 24 issue - There is now only a single abortion clinic in Mississippi. Once there were seven. There are nearly 3 million people living in the state. No other state with only one abortion clinic has as many residents. Mississippi has enacted every restriction on abortion possible within the limits set by the Supreme Court. Among them is a provision that a woman must be counseled in person about the procedure and then wait 24 hours before being permitted to have it performed.

In 2000, researchers published a study of the effects of the waiting period. It showed that the number of later abortions increased sharply among Mississippi residents who relied on local clinics but not among those able to travel to neighboring states. The study showed that after the waiting period went into effect the number of second-trimester procedures in the state rose from 7.5 percent of all abortions to 11.5 percent. That study was done before the legislature passed a bill that would bar all clinic abortions after the first trimester. A federal judge blocked its enforcement, saying he couldn't understand how it "does anything to further the state's professed desire to protect the health and safety of women."

Mandatory counseling includes a lecture that notes that medical benefits may be available for prenatal, childbirth and neonatal care. The woman seeking an abortion must receive a list of services and agencies that could assist her in having a child, including those that handle adoptions.

Mississippi has the highest infant-mortality rate in the nation and ranks 43rd among the 50 states in the number of women who have health insurance, according to a recent report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. In 2004, the state failed to meet national standards on the length of time it took to restore foster children to their birth families and to place a child for adoption.

According to the Census, the average household in Mississippi has an income of just over $31,000 annually, about $10,000 below the national average. According to the Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child to age 18 is around $200,000.

The counseling provisions also require that patients in Mississippi be told that abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute reported last year that there is no scientific evidence to support that contention. The British medical journal The Lancet looked at dozens of studies and concluded there was no link.

Mississippi is one of only two states that require a minor to get the consent of both parents to have an abortion. If the minor has been impregnated by her father, she needs only the consent of her mother.

The state has the highest teen birthrate in America. While nationwide the teenage-pregnancy rate has declined in recent years, in Mississippi it increased. In 2001, nearly 200 babies were born to girls under the age of 15. In 2002, almost 55,000 Mississippi grandparents had primary responsibility for the care of their grandchildren, according to the Child Welfare League of America.

In 2001, 22 out of every thousand children in the state were reported to be abused or neglected. There was a 41 percent increase between 1998 and 2002 in the number of children younger than 18 arrested in the state.

Black residents account for only 37 percent of the state's population, but for nearly three out of every four abortions.

A typical woman in Mississippi earns 74 cents for every dollar a man makes. A typical black woman in Mississippi earns 79 cents for every dollar a white woman makes. Black children make up more than half of those in foster care and in the state adoption system, according to the Mississippi Department of Human Services.

According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, Mississippi ranks 51st in the percentage of its citizens living above the poverty level. (The District of Columbia was included in the sample.) Mississippi has the highest number of women in prison of any state. Between 1995 and 2003 the percentage of women inmates grew by more than 13 percent.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group supported by foundation and government grants. In its most recent assessment of the overall condition of American women, it named Mississippi the worst state in the country. It was also named the worst state for women in 1998, 2000 and 2002. It ranked 49th in terms of women in elected office, and at the bottom of the list for health and well-being, including the incidence of diabetes and deaths from cancer and heart disease.

The institute ranked Mississippi worst in the nation for reproductive rights.

Protesters have vowed to shut down the state's sole remaining abortion clinic, which is in Jackson.

Sometimes you don't even have to state an opinion.

You just have to state the facts.

>>>

Thank you, Anna Quindlen.

Bush as Uniter? Ha!

2005-01-18T13:53:00.000-05:00

Bush has granted many interviews on the eve of an inauguration that will have 11 gala balls despite a necessary war in Afghanistan, a chicken hawk-procured one for manufactured reasons in Iraq (that has become a necessary war, something John Kerry failed to articulate), a massive deficit run up by the current administration, and massive suffering due to the tsunami.

This is from cnn.com: "I have a responsibility to try to unite this country to achieve big things for all Americans," Bush told ABC News. "I will say that in my inaugural address. I'm looking forward to the challenge."

Look closely at the phrase “try to unite this country.” Bush ran in 2000 saying he was “a uniter, not a divider,” and then proceeded to divide this country in every way he could for the purpose of political gain. In 2000 he was a uniter, from 2001-2005 he was a divider, and now he’s back to being a uniter again? I’m sorry, but forgive me if I don’t buy it. Before I do, I need to see him work with Democrats instead of spitting in their faces. I need to see him care about people who disagree with him instead of deriding them as “unpatriotic.” I need to see him reach out to working-class and middle-class people, instead of paying them lip service that his tax cuts benefit them most of all.

Dividing the country might have won him an election (for real, this time), but to do so for 4 long years and then turn around and suddenly say he’s going to unite this country…it makes me wonder why he didn’t bother trying in the first place. He could have won the election and actually be respected by more than just his rabid Red-State followers. I don’t buy it, and I am angry that no one has been able to call him on it.

Southern Culture

2005-01-12T16:56:00.000-05:00

Anyone traveling in the South will notice several things immediately. One obvious thing is the language. They have their own language down there, in which there are very few one-syllable words (we-ee-ee-ll), a lot of idiomatic expressions (I ain’t funinya), and no such words as “rush,” “hurry,” or “quickly.”

I often could not understand people who spoke this language. My cousin, a college student in the Northeast, translated for me a few times, but quite often I just nodded and smiled. One woman at a museum told me about a big “pahn.” I thought she was telling me about a pine tree, but she was actually talking about a pond.

Everything slows down in the South. It took us over an hour to get our rental car, and we were the only people in the place! If there was one person standing in line at the Food Court, the line was already too long. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just a cultural difference. There’s something to be said for not rushing through life, for stopping to have a conversation when you are supposed to be helping a customer…life is tough, so we might as well take our time and enjoy it. New Yorkers would be absolutely flummoxed by this notion.

Another thing about Southerners: they are a friendly bunch. As a Yankee, when someone gets in the elevator with me and has a big smile and a “how y’all doin,’” I wonder what they want from me. I was not familiar with such friendliness. No one snarled at me, and most everyone even made eye contact upon getting in. My cousin told me that even if Southerners run into someone they don’t like, they are liable to give them a hug and make small-talk. That seems like a colossal waste of time to me…I’d rather ignore them and save my energy for people I like, but that’s just my Yankee background talking. So we have people who are generally relaxed and friendly.

There was a show in our hotel on New Year’s Eve for $65 per person, and an ad in the elevator telling everyone about it. There was many a time when I heard “what…sixty-fahv dollars? Whoooweee, I ain’t never payin’ that much for a show.” Those of you from New York, who pay $65 for dinner and almost twice that for a Broadway show, can understand the big difference here regarding the cost-of-living. My cousin pointed out a nice house in Tennessee that her friend bought for $85,000. Granted, it wasn’t a mansion, but it was a decent-size place. Try finding a decent apartment for that in New York, never mind a house. So we have friendly, relaxed, people with a low cost-of-living.

Now, think of the average person in the Northeast. Is he or she a relaxed, easygoing, friendly [to everyone, including strangers] person who enjoys a low cost of living? Does he or she make eye contact with strangers and nod hello? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not always. Not like our brethren down South. In New York or Boston, people run for the subway or the T just to cram themselves in and rush to work to deal with more stress all day. It is a different culture down there, almost a different country. The United States is a big place, and it’s difficult to get us to agree on anything. Just like a large extended family, so it is with this country.

The Fox Blocker

2005-01-10T13:06:00.000-05:00

From the NY Daily News 1/10/05 -

How to Fox-proof your cable box

Attention, blue-state parents. Are you worried about what your children are seeing on TV? Have you caught them ogling Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as they engage in explicit acts of love with Bush administration policies?

Now you can protect your little liberals from hard-core right-wing positions the same way you censor cable porn. For just $8.95, The FOXBlocker eliminates the risk of exposure to Fox News Channel.
Sam Kimery and Joshua Montgomery, who are marketing the device, say it employs the technology already used to filter adult content.

And every time someone orders one of the gizmos from Foxblocker.com, Fox advertisers receive E-mail telling them that another consumer has just said no to Rupert Murdoch's brand of "fair and balanced news."

"We hope that companies will see people actually paying to block channels that won't offer alternative views, and then rethink how they spend their advertising dollars," Montgomery tells Variety V Life magazine.

Is Fox worried about this new product?

"I mean, clearly, it's not working," a Fox News rep told us. "Our ratings continue to skyrocket."

Religion and Politics

2005-01-05T15:18:00.000-05:00

Last week I drove about 1000 miles in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and saw many things. Most of them were churches. In the rural areas, in particular, I was struck by how many churches there were. In the urban areas too, but those had other types of buildings also. It seemed like there was a church for every person down there. I had lunch in a truck stop one day, and the people next to me were talking about how Jesus guides their lives. Religion, insofar as it relates to Jesus, was everywhere.

If religion is such a big part of people’s lives, then it will influence how they think, how they act, and how they vote. If religious people believe that a political candidate is God-fearing and culls his faith from the Bible, then he is their kind of guy. Do you see John Kerry as a faithful devotee of the Bible? I do not. Bush got 60% of the vote in Mississippi, 57% in Tennessee, and 54% in Arkansas. I don’t think there is any question that faith played a role in these numbers. Bush never stops talking about his faith, and it has justifiably registered with religious folks. The implication, though, is that his opponent is not religious and is unworthy of being their leader.

Can this be turned around by the Democrats? Yes. A Southern Democrat, if you can find one these days, might be a start. A Democrat whose life and religion are intertwined could also be a good candidate. It would have been interesting if Gore had not had the election stolen in 2000 and this country had ended up with a religious Democratic Jewish Vice President in Joe Lieberman. Having such a visible religious figure (even a Jewish one) would counter arguments that Democrats are a non-religious, possibly God-less people.

Bill Clinton won just 12 years ago, and won Arkansas and Tennessee, and other states that Kerry almost immediately gave up on. Clinton pointed out that the religious right holds the Bible with one hand and picks your pocket with the other, and he legitimately won two terms. People say this is a religious country. Parts of it certainly are. The trick is appealing to broad swaths of those who clutch their Bibles and also those who do not. The two need not be mutually exclusive, despite what the GOP has been telling everyone. Bush says he is a uniter, then goes about dividing, pitting people against each other. That may have been a way to stay in power, but it’s not the mark of a successful leader. Unfortunately, it is where we stand today, and makes it harder for a Democrat to break through.

Red State Tour 2004

2004-12-22T16:51:00.000-05:00

Well folks, I will be on a temporary hiatus from blogging and from life, as I embark on a long-awaited vacation to Red States. That is not a series of typos....I am going on vacation to visit friends, family, and sites in the Southern part of this country, in places that happen to be utterly RED when it comes to voting.

I will be in 3 different states overall, and look forward to getting a better sense of the culture and belief systems that these people have. It's very easy to sit at a desk in the Northeast and write about people in the South who you have never met. It's easy to make blanket statements about groups of people you do not know. It may be quite different to meet these people, and to try to understand where they're coming from.

When I return in 2005, I hope to delve further into this other, foreign culture who voted for Bush because they were afraid that a President Kerry would force them to do drugs and burn Bibles (oops, there goes another blanket statement. See? Very easy.).

I wish you all a very Happy New Year, and remember that all is not lost. Well, not yet. Give Bush some more time and it will be. Wait, we just did give him more time. Dammit...

Giuliani in 2008?

2004-12-16T09:12:00.000-05:00

Bernard Kerik is, and has been for a while, Rudy Giuliani's right-hand man. He was his NYC police commissioner, and is now a partner in Giulani's consulting business. We also now know that he is, and has been for a while, a complex man involved in some weird things. Two simultaneous affairs, mob connections....allegations of stalking. Who knows what else...

If Giuliani seriously wants to consider running for President in 2008, this is a huge liability. How can he pick a strong Cabinet if he can't even pick a strong #2 man? There is talk that unless he distances himself from Kerik immediately, he can kiss those aspirations good-bye. That is four years away, yes, but the candidate process will begin sometime in late 2005, meaning he has a year to do it. Don't bet on it.

Bush Gets Another Chance

2004-12-12T01:44:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, I praised Bush for nominating Bernard Kerik as the Homeland Security Director. Well, it seems that Kerik withdrew his nomination because of some questions about the immigation status of a housekeeper. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but they don't really matter.

What matters is that Bush now gets another chance to do screw up, which is something that he does quite well.

I wonder if he would nominate a Democrat from Congress, to further deplete their ranks there. Maybe one from a Blue State that has a Republican governor, who can then appoint a Republican senator as a replacement? Hmmmm......

Letter From California to Mr. Bush

2004-12-10T09:17:00.000-05:00

Dear President Bush:

Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving you. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, all of the North East States, and the urban half of Ohio.

We spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. God is going to give us the Pacific Ocean and Hollywood. In case you forgot, this also includes the perfect San Diego climate (Sorry, that's just how it goes.) But God is letting you have the KKK and country music (except the Dixie Chicks).

Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to need all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight in Fallujah, just ask your evangelical voters. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home.So, you get Texas and all the former slave states, and we get the Governator and stem cell research. (We would love you to take Britney Spears off our hands, though. She IS from the south, right?)

Since we get New York, you'll have to come up with your own late night TV shows because we get MTV, Letterman, the Daily Show, and Conan O'Brien. You get... well, why don't you ask your people at Fox News to come up with something entertaining? (Maybe you should just watch Crossfire. That's a really funny show.)

We wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously.

Sincerely,
California

Bush Gets One Right

2004-12-05T19:21:00.000-05:00

In four years, George W. Bush has gotten exactly 2 things right. Killing the environment? No. Spending us into oblivion while cutting taxes? Nope. Blocking stem-cell research that might eventually save lives? Of course not.

Bush did a fine job routing the Taliban in invading Afghanistan after 9/11. The invasion was absolutely necessary and his handlers did a fine job getting him through it. Osama bin Laden has not been found yet, but let's not quibble.

So he got that right. The second thing was hiring Bernard Kerik to be the new Director of Homeland Security. Kerik rose through the NYPD to its top position, and did a fantastic job. Working with Mayor Giulani, Kerik's police force lowered the crime rate dramatically. More to the point, he was on the job on September 11th. He watched the Twin Towers fall and was on the front line. He knows how to get things done and I believe he is the perfect person for this position.

One caveat...I worry if raising his national profile so much might lead him to a NY Senate seat down the road. He would have a good chance to be a Republican Senator from a Blue State. That, however, is a worry for another time. Bush actually got this one right. Maybe Cheney will give him a cookie.

The Clinton Library Dedication

2004-12-02T09:41:00.000-05:00

This post is a long one, but a very worthy article from Salon.com written by Sidney Blumenthal. It tells a lot about this Bush guy who this country opted to hire for another four years.

Salon
Nov. 25, 2004
At the dedication of the Clinton library last week in Little Rock, Ark., Karl Rove and President Bush received separate tours of the dramatic building, a glistening silver suspended boxcar filled with light and offering a panoramic view of the Arkansas River. Across the river stands an old railroad bridge that symbolically represents "the bridge to the 21st century," President Clinton's reelection slogan in 1996. The library exhibits, year by year, detail specific Clinton administration achievements in social and international policy, highlighting not only the arc of progress but the entwined method of governing and politics. And in one display, about the Republican Congress' failed impeachment trial of the president, emblazoned "The Fight for Power," the library makes explicit that these accumulated changes were fiercely resisted and hard won.

The opening ceremony was biblical in its spectacle, length and rain. For more than four hours we huddled in thin ponchos under the unrelieved downpour, through many church choirs and a Colombian children's band, a jazz trumpeter and Bono, awaiting four presidents. Only on election nights, after Clinton's two victories, was Little Rock previously inundated with such a cast of thousands -- former advisors and Cabinet secretaries, the diplomatic corps and high school friends of Bill, Wes Clark and Barbra Streisand, Madeleine Albright and Robin Williams -- spilling out of the Capital and Peabody hotels and down the main drag, and milling in the bars and streets until the wee hours. For the assembled Democrats, beneath the nostalgic celebration it was an unofficial convention, a kind of counterinaugural, with rueful discussions of the recent defeat.

Sen. John Kerry entered to take his front-row seat to defiant cheering from the crowd. Then, when the presidents were announced, Bush tried to push his way past Clinton at the library door to be first in line, against the already accepted protocol for the event, as though the walk to the platform was a contest for alpha male.

In his speech, Clinton sought to clarify the present by his broad analysis of globalization -- "an age of interdependence with new possibilities and new dangers" -- and the offer of conciliation: "America has two great dominant strands of political thought; we're represented up here on this stage: conservatism, which at its very best draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which at its very best breaks down barriers that are no longer needed or should never have been erected in the first place."

In his effort to transcend the division of America into two nations, red and blue states, Clinton was applying his tradition -- the absence of dogma, the belief that good ideas can come from anywhere, and that solutions cannot be imposed but must be worked out in democratic politics by building coalitions, compromises and experimentation, of which he was leading practitioner and survivor, ever the Comeback Kid.

Offstage, beforehand, Rove and Bush had had their library tours. According to two eyewitnesses, Rove had shown keen interest in everything he saw, and asked questions, including about costs, obviously thinking about a future Bush library and legacy. "You're not such a scary guy," joked his tour guide. "Yes, I am," Rove replied. Walking away, he muttered deliberately and loudly, "I change Constitutions, I put churches in schools ..." Thus he identified himself as more than the ruthless campaign tactician -- as the invisible hand of power, pervasive and expansive, designing to alter the fundamental American compact.

On his tour Bush appeared distracted and glanced repeatedly at his watch. When he stopped to gaze at the river, where Secret Service agents were stationed in boats, the guide said, "Usually, you might see some bass fishermen out there." Bush replied: "A submarine could take this place out."
Was the president warning of an al-Qaida submarine, sneaking undetected up the Mississippi, through the locks and dams of the Arkansas River, surfacing suddenly under the bridge to the 21st century to dispatch the Clinton library with a torpedo that could travel on water and land? Is that where Osama bin Laden is hiding?

Or was this a wishful, paranoid fantasy of ubiquitous terrorism destroying Clinton's legacy with one blow? Or was it a projection of menace and messianism, with only Bush grasping the true danger, standing between submerged threat and civilization? Was his apparent non sequitur a reflection of his inner logic about American politics in a fog of war, where little is discernible in the miasma but fear? Or was this simply his way of saying he wouldn't build his library near water? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a submarine just a submarine. And sometimes we all live in a yellow submarine.

Clinton concluded his remarks with a challenge to Bush couched in terms of his own failure: "Where we fell short ... the biggest disappointment in the world to me ... peace in the Middle East ... I did all I could." He turned to face Bush seated behind him: "But when we had seven years of progress toward peace, there was one whole year when, for the first time in the history of the state of Israel, not one person died of a terrorist attack, when the Palestinians began to believe they could have a shared future. And so, Mr. President, again, I say: I hope you get to cross over into the promised land of Middle East peace. We have a good opportunity, and we are all praying for you."

At the private luncheon of distinguished guests afterward, in a heated tent pitched behind the library, Shimon Peres delivered a heartfelt toast to Clinton's perseverance in pursuing the Middle East peace process. Upon entering the tent, Bush, according to an eyewitness, told an aide, "One gulp and we're out of here." He had informed the Clintons he would stay through the lunch, but by the time Peres arose with wine glass in hand the president was gone.

Tom DeLay's Ethics Crisis

2004-11-29T13:02:00.000-05:00

Let me get this straight…

The Republicans control Congress, have a host of problems to address in this country, and the FIRST thing they do is change their own rules (established under Newt Gingrich) to protect Tom DeLay? It's true...Congressional Republicans voted to change their rule that requires an indicted leader to relinquish his post.

Mr. DeLay, the House Majority Leader, is under fire for a multitude of ethics violations, and is being investigated by Ronnie Earle, a Texas District Attorney who happens to be a Democrat. He has been in his position since 1976 and has been recognized for his work several times. However, now that he dares to investigate a member of Congress from the opposite party, he has been smeared as an out-of-control prosecutor by Republicans.

If you want to discuss out-of-control prosecutors, I’ll be happy to bring up Kenneth Starr, who kept digging and searching and expanding his Whitewater investigation until he finally found something. Mr. DeLay has been criticized by some colleagues and may have broken the law. If there is a time to be investigated, it seems this would be one.

Since DeLay is a Republican, apparently he is above the law. Don't believe it, and keep an eye on this case to see the true nature of people who will do anything to hold onto power.

Observation of the 2004 Election

2004-11-26T17:36:00.000-05:00

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, a letter to the editor from a woman in Bethlehem, PA, states the following:

"This is not the first time our nation has been bitterly divided by color. In 1864 the colors were blue and gray. Then there were some fine people in the gray states, but their side, and their cause, were wrong. I believe history will prove in the not-too-distant future what Kerry supporters and world opinion already know- that in 2004, as in 1864, the Blue States had it right."

Those long-ago Gray States are now Red States, along with a few such as Indiana and Iowa. I agree. When people say that "Northeastern Liberals" or even all liberals are out of touch with the mainstream of this country, they should remember that those who do not remember history are indeed condemned to repeat it. A cliche, yes, but very true.

Time to Give Thanks

2004-11-23T10:35:00.000-05:00

Let’s give our thanks. Despite all its problems, we still live in the greatest country in the world. We elect our leaders without bloodshed or military intervention, we can criticize the government without fear of retribution, and we are free. That is more than many people in the world have been able to say, both currently and historically. We are lucky.

This country will withstand an assault by the right-wingers who threaten it, by the religious people who seek to shape it, and the hawks who mislead it. For at least two years and possibly four, the Republicans will control the Executive Branch and Congress. With their multitude of influential backers, they could seek to outlaw abortion, weaken the environment, and send us back to the Eisenhower era socially. They are well on the way to bankrupting this country, cutting taxes while increasing spending. They have already raised the debt ceiling to allow even more spending even as they talk of cutting more taxes and placing even more burden on future middle-class taxpayers.

There is much wrong with this country, and it is easy to get fed up and frustrated. If you see something wrong with this country or its government, then speak up. It is our right to do so, and for that I am thankful. Happy Thanksgiving!

No Comment Necessary

2004-11-21T13:19:00.000-05:00

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
---H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Fahrenheit 9-11

2004-11-19T09:50:00.000-05:00

Fahrenheit 9-11 will not be eligible for a Best Documentary Oscar. That’s because Michael Moore has decided to push it for Best Picture instead.

I saw the movie in New York on my fifth try, the previous four being sold out (and I mean with five or six consecutive shows sold out each time), and even then people were sitting on the stairs and on the floor to see it. The movie was also big in other urban areas, and was not even played in some parts of the Midwest. Republicans I know likened it to the Oliver Stone film JFK, meaning that it was a clever piece of fiction. Many Democrats lauded the film as an expose of the man who stole the White House. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

The film obviously grabbed a ton of attention, but is it a Best Picture or even a good film? The segment on Bush sitting in that classroom like a moron on September 11th is quite damning, and the part with the poor mother whose son died in Iraq was powerful. I think he was less successful with the parts about the Bush family’s connections to the Saudis. The timeline was a bit off sometimes, and I wondered where he got some of the monetary figures. Regardless of your political beliefs, the film grabbed you in some way. In that sense, it was a good movie. Best Picture? I would have to say no, mainly because it is so unbalanced.

I must add that I hope it doesn't win. Since Bush really did win the election this time, the movie’s chances might have fallen a bit. In addition, a Best Picture win would give more ammo to all the conservatives who blame Hollywood for society’s ills. A “Michael Moore liberal” has become more evil than a regular liberal as far as conservatives are concerned, and this would turn many more people into “Moore liberals” and further infuriate Republicans. Why they’re so angry when they’ve controlled the government for a few years now and will continue to do so for at least two more, well, that’s a topic for another day. With all the attention Fahrenheit 9-11 got, it wasn’t enough to help turn Bush out of office. Nice try, but it came up short there, and ultimately, will and should come up short for Best Picture also.

Anger, Fury, Rage...and Humor

2004-11-17T09:35:00.000-05:00

This ad was posted on craigslist.org and reported in Newsweek. It is not my ad, though I do wish I had thought of it and thank whoever did post it.

"I would like to fight a Bush supporter…If you are one, have a fiery streak, please contact me so we can meet and physically fight. I would like to beat the s--t out of you."

Thank you, Anonymous Poster.

Colin Powell- The Last of the Moderates

2004-11-16T10:56:00.000-05:00

Colin Powell has resigned as Secretary of State and will be replaced by Condi Rice. This is scary, folks. Powell was the only moderate in the administration, the only sane one in a room full of hawks who wanted to invade Iraq ever since Bush found himself in the White House. They used 9/11 as an excuse to finally do so. Remember when Powell made that fantastic presentation to the United Nations showing our “slam-dunk” evidence that Saddam had WMD’s. He was used by the hawks to justify their upcoming invasion.

I like Powell. The only gripe I have with him is that he joined the Bush administration in the first place, signifying that he thought Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election. He was a good man in an untenable situation. However, now the inmates are in complete charge of the asylum.

John Podhoretz, a fire-breathing conservative, wrote in this morning’s NY Post that “Powell is supremely competent and effective. But he is not imaginative, and it's not surprising that his constant expressions of caution did not hold sway during the first Bush term. Caution is not a foreign policy.” He goes on to say “The great irony is this: He would have been a terrible failure as secretary of state if the president had listened to him more.”

Bush pretended to listen to this man, this beacon of caution and sanity in his administration. Now he’s gone, and that is very, very scary.

More People Fighting the Good Fight

2004-11-15T10:27:00.000-05:00

New to this site are some links I found which may further your reading enjoyment. They're at the bottom of the page for now, until I can figure out how to move them and make them all pretty.

Please feel free to recommend more. I do have to add some reciprocal links, which I will do later on today.

Liberals & Hollywood

2004-11-13T20:05:00.000-05:00

Much to write on this topic, but there's limited space here (not to mention attention spans).

It's generally taken for granted that Hollywood is full of bleeding-heart liberals. Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Janeane Garofalo, and on and on. Republicans in Hollywood include Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and Charlton Heston, but you rarely hear about them. That's because it's the liberals who get blamed by conservatives for the breakdown of society. They won't yell at John McClane or Thomas Magnum because they're the good guys, but get mad when other celebrities speak their minds about politics.

Why do they care? Why do we? They have a platform from which they can command attention, and if they wish to focus attention on politics, then so be it. You and I do not have to listen to them. Linda Ronstadt criticized Bush in Las Vegas and got in trouble for it. That was during a show, so her critics may have a point there. We all know what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they dared speak their minds. We also see people like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand getting roasted for speaking their minds. Barbra Streisand is a talented woman who happens to be a liberal celebrity. Her years of supporting liberal causes have earned her the wrath of conservatives who depict her as the face of a Hollywood that corrupts our moral values (there they are again), a Hollywood that promotes drug use and encourages abortion, or something like that, I guess.

What if Ms. Streisand turns the tables in the next election and supports the Republican candidate (but still votes Democrat)? Then they would have no reason to yell at her. It would confuse them and possibly get the votes of some red-staters who also blame Hollywood and the "liberal elite" for trying to ruin their lives. Yentl would then join Moses, Magnum, and John McClane in the "OK" list.

The Red-Blue Cultural Divide

2004-11-12T09:13:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore plans to make a sequel to Fahrenheit 9-11. He said that "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," (Variety, 11/11). Now, I don't know about that. Certainly there are people who would have voted for Bush no matter how much Mr. Moore "educated" them, and it is within their right to do so. Personally, I felt the movie was a bit over-the-top in places, but that's a topic for another day.

It raises an interesting point, though. In terms of education (and not just about the election and political matters in general), is there a difference between blue and red voters, and does that make a difference in the way they vote?

The link below is to an interesting column about "Liberal Blue Staters" and "Conservative Red Staters." We have to share this country with each other, and while articles like this do not necessarily promote healing, they do provide a deeper look at things and examine the "why" in addition to the "what." It is biased, but does back up its arguments.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall

Democratic Leadership

2004-11-10T17:05:00.000-05:00

There is currently talk about who will, or should, replace Terry McAuliffe as the head of the DNC. The person needs to do more than just raise money. McAuliffe was a champion fundraiser, but look where all that money got the Democrats. It needs to be someone who will put forth a plan. As my buddy Rob points out:

The Dems need to kill all talk of Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Edwards and their consultants and find the next generation already. Then they need to find some people who are not me-too or socialists...We have no one yet who will speak up and lead. Regardless of what we felt about the Contract with America, it was a document that stated what the GOP stood for and the Democrats have never done that, even during Clinton. Let them say "we will fight for equality of opportunity with an inclusive society that protects freedom domestically and externally. We will do it by pushing for sustainable education, jobs and health care within a fiscal responsible model."

Nicely put.

Who do you think should head the DNC?

Pictures Are Worth A LOT of Words

2004-11-09T10:14:00.000-05:00

I can't post it here, or haven't figured out how just yet, but there's a picture going around on the Internet of President-Elect George W. Bush that is composed of photographs of the soldiers who died fighting in Iraq.

Right before the election, Bush referred to Kerry as a man who would rush to judgement before gathering all the facts. This from a man who did just that in a clumsy attempt to justify his attempt to settle a personal grudge. How pathetic that he would then describe Kerry that way. How pathetic that it worked.

WL

The Moral Values Debate

2004-11-07T14:22:00.000-05:00

It now seems clear, based on exit polling, that "moral values" was the reason that the Democrats took such a beating. Well, I am thoroughly confused.

So is it true that people might be worried about losing their jobs or a terrorist attack or a zooming deficit, but are even more worried about the prospect of gay marriage? I read somewhere that during the campaign, people passed out flyers in a southern state (possibly West Virginia) warning that if the liberals were elected, they would "take your Bibles." I laughed at the time, but it's pretty clear that a large portion of the country fears the Democrats.

At what point did the GOP become the standard-bearers for moral values? Was it the Clinton scandal, when they tried to paint all Democrats as being like President Clinton? Does it go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which played upon racial fears and prejudice? What role does Fox News play in tapping into these fears...I remember a parody of the network on The Simpsons, where the news ticker read "Do Democrats Cause Cancer?" What other factors come into play, if in fact these are part of it?

If people are more concerned about gay marriage and abortion and "God's Will" than with their own well-being, how do you convince them to vote for you if they fear you so much? The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to convince these people that they are indeed on their side.

What do you think?

For more on this, please see http://www.carenlissner.blogspot.com

Republicans Write Back....

2004-11-05T09:46:00.000-05:00

A few Republicans responded to my open letter. Here are excerpts from two of my favorites:

1)
obnoxious and bitter email.

basically your elite rhetoric sums up why your side lost. You have the simplistic view of the world.

Bush is 100 times better than Kerry in communicating and envisioning big picture ideas. Kerry is a pretzel logic policy wonk who is obsessed with political correctness and is part of a condescending elite mindset that has a very narrow view of most of America.

2)
{WL}, what happened to you? I used to respect your opinions, although completely different than mine, as a Democrat. Your "savor the victory" paragraph…sound [sic] like the rantings of an extreme left-wing, Michael Moore disciple.

The fact of the matter is that when this election is reviewed in the coming days and months it will be viewed as a rout in Bush's favor. Americans (outside of NYC, Boston, LA & San Fran) overwhelmingly support our President. Get Mt. Rushmore ready, my friend. In 4 years when there have been 50 million freed muslims in the Middle East, 8 years of economic growth after inheriting a recession from the impeached & disbarred Clinton, revamped tax code & Social Security that puts peoples' future in their own hands and a safer USA, you'll be thankful that you lived through this part of history ... During the tenure of the man that got more votes than Reagan, FDR, Teddy, Abe, Jefferson, Washington and every other president EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>

I liked Republicans better when they were harmless.

WL

An Open Letter to Republicans

2004-11-04T10:27:00.000-05:00

To All Happy Republicans-

Congratulations on Governor Bush finally getting elected.

Savor the victory. It may well make America a second-tier world power, by the time Bush is done increasing the deficit, ridding the world of clean air, blowing off other world leaders, and doing favors for his businessman friends while screwing up with Iran and North Korea because he insisted on settling a personal grudge with Saddam Hussein.

I'm not sure why this country deserves such poor leadership.

Sour grapes? Maybe. I am stunned that Bush's simplistic black-and-white view of the world has impressed so many people. The world is not black and white at all. While Kerry admittedly might be too deliberate with his actions and decision-making, at least he acknowledges that there are other viewpoints besides his own. That is my single biggest problem with Bush...he does not acknowledge other viewpoints. He came into office thinking he had a conservative mandate when he did not, and even now will not admit that other people might actually be right sometimes. If you are non-Christian, black, middle-class or lower, living in an urban area, not affiliated with Big Business, or otherwise not of similar background to him, he could not care less about you and your opinion means nothing. Unless, of course, it's an election year.

I had a bet that Bush would be a one-termer like his Daddy. I lost. Unfortunately, so did the country.

WL