Sunday, October 31, 2004


Minister of Fear....

Check out the job of our Minister of Fear...

Free online progressive videos...

Come gather arond the fire kids....let me tell the scary story of the republican party ad its false Messiah George W. Bush...

You can go to Media for a Better World...and read more or watch the films....

Friday, October 29, 2004


an accident...a great loss....a tradgedy....

it is just a joke...but a funny one...

President Bush visits a primary school classroom. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the President if he would like to lead the discussion of the word “tragedy.” So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a tragedy.

One little boy stands up and offers: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs him over and kills him, that would be a ‘tragedy’.”

“No,” says Bush, “that would be an ‘accident.’

A little girl raises her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a ‘tragedy.’”

“I’m afraid not,” explains the President. “That’s what we would call a ‘great loss.’”

The room goes silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searches the room."Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a ‘tragedy’?”

Finally at the back of the room a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says: “If Air Force One, carrying you, Mr. President, were struck by a ‘friendly fire’ missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a ‘tragedy.’”

“Fantastic!” exclaims Bush. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a ‘tragedy’?”

“Well,” says the boy, “because it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘great loss’ and it probably wouldn’t be an ‘accident’ either.”

America the Free?? Yeah, right...not under Bush!

This will make you sick, but remind you of why we need to vote Bush out of office and restore constitutional right back to America

Paygo internets is hard work

From a patriot (aeschylus ) on Democratic Underground Forums - Paygo internets is hard work...

Paygo internets is hard work
Loyalty oaths are a bitch
Filtered questions are like cigarettes
Spreading a new cancer through our nation
Which internets is you on?
Where you can see the soldiers’ coffins
Or hear the wounded cry
Is it the internets where America is united?
Can you tell me how to log on?
My internets shows a guy standing on a box
Hooded, with electrodes wired
Being told, “If you slip you die”
Just like you tell me everyday
Paygo internets is hard work
Payback elections are sweet
For hell hath no fury
Like a democracy scorned

Wednesday, October 27, 2004


Can America Afford Four More Years? AFL_CIO

Can America Afford Four More Years? from the AFL-CIO....

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


Save the time for Halloween...

Visit the flash info and participate in saving YOUR forests!

if you liked the Eminem video....

you might like this...

Bush just can't keep the record straight...

The Associated Press -
Published: Oct 26, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) - A look at some of the shifting explanations President Bush and his spokesmen have given for events in Bush's Texas Air National Guard service:

Why did Bush skip a required yearly medical examination in 1972?


July 1999: Campaign spokeswoman Karen Hughes tells reporters Bush missed his physical because he was working on a political campaign in Alabama and had no access to the "special" doctors who perform the examinations.

July 2000: Campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett tells the Boston Globe that Bush doesn't remember being grounded.

October 2000: Bartlett tells the Boston Globe he can state unequivocally that Bush was never grounded.

November 2000: Bartlett tells reporters Bush had no reason to take the exam because he was transferring to Alabama and his Texas unit was phasing out use of the F-102A fighter. Bartlett says Bush chose not to take the exam.

Feb. 12: White House spokesman Scott McClellan tells reporters: "He moved to Alabama for a civilian job and he was on non-flying status while in Alabama. There was no need for a flight exam."

Sept. 9: Bartlett, now White House communications director, tells CBS: "The records have been clear for years that President Bush did not take a physical because he did not need to take a physical because, obviously, the choice was that he was going to be performing in a different capacity."

Sept. 29: White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, in response to an Associated Press question about why Bush did not retake his medical exam after returning to Texas in 1973: "When he returned to Texas, the F-102 (the plane he was trained to fly) was being phased out and pilot slots were limited. Since the president was then planning to go to the Harvard business school, it would not have made sense to allocate one of the F-102 slots or to spend the financial resources to train him to fly a new plane."


National Guard doctors perform medical examinations. Bush could have gotten an exam either at his base in Texas or at any of several Alabama Air National Guard installations in and around Montgomery.

Bush was required to take his medical exam by his birthday, July 6, 1972, which was more than a month before he won final approval for temporary training with an Alabama unit. Bush's Texas commanders ordered him grounded Sept. 5, 1972, the same day Bush wrote to them asking to train with the 187th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Montgomery. That unit did not use the F-102A jets Bush was trained to fly.

Bush's home unit, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, was beginning to shift to F-101 jets in 1973. But the unit continued to fly the F-102A until 1974 and trained F-102A pilots for other Air National Guard units during that time. Records released this month show the 111th added two F-102A pilots from a Vermont National Guard unit to its roster in 1973, the year Bush claimed the unit was eliminating F-102A pilot slots.

Bush has said he decided to go to Harvard in the summer of 1973, months after his return to Texas from Alabama. He formally asked to be released from the Texas guard in July 1973, a request granted that October.


When did Bush train in Alabama, and what did he do?


During the 2000 campaign, Bush spokesmen said he trained with the 187th from May to October 1972.

May 2000: Bartlett said Bush remembered performing some duty in Alabama and "recalls coming back to Houston and doing (Guard) duty, though he does not recall if it was on a consistent basis."

May 23, 2000: At the request of the Bush campaign, retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., the former personnel director of the Texas Air National Guard, tells reporters Bush returned to his Texas unit in November 1972.

June 1, 2000: Campaign spokesman Ari Fleischer, asked if Bush temporarily left his Texas unit, responded: "Of course he did, with the permission of the Guard, which is not unusual."

June 23, 2000: At a campaign appearance in Alabama, Bush says of his service there: "I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time... I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes."

June 24, 2000: Fleischer tells reporters Bush remembered doing "paper shuffling" in Montgomery.

June 26, 2000: Bartlett tells the Dallas Morning News that Bush showed up several times for training in Alabama but said the president does not remember how many times. Bartlett says Bush returned to his Texas unit in December 1972 and made up for missed drills then. In Alabama, "most of his work was paperwork related," Bartlett says.

October 2000: Bartlett tells The New York Times that Bush was too busy with the campaign in mid-1972 to report to guard duty, but he made up the training later.

Feb. 3, 2004: Bush says on NBC's "Meet the Press": "There may be no evidence, but I did report (for duty in Alabama)."

Feb. 10, 2004: McClellan acknowledges that documents released by the White House do not prove Bush served in Alabama.

Feb. 12, 2004: The White House releases an incomplete dental examination form dated in January 1973 saying it was performed in Montgomery. McClellan says: "This document further demonstrates the president fulfilling his duties and serving while in Alabama."

Sept. 9, 2004: The White House tells CBS Bush "met his drills then when he came back" from Alabama "and that's why he received an honorable discharge."

Sept. 29, 2004: Buchan tells AP that Bush did "administrative duties" in Alabama. "The records demonstrate that he followed the proper procedures and worked through the chain of command to receive approval to perform equivalent duty in Alabama."


Payroll records show Bush did not show up for any guard service between mid-April and late October 1972. At the time he was in Alabama working on the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend.

Air Force officials rejected Bush's first request to train with an Air Force Reserve unit in Alabama because the unit did not fit Bush's training requirements. In September 1972, Bush asked for and received permission to train for three months with the 187th.

Payroll records show Bush was paid for guard service twice in October 1972 and four times the next month. The pay records do not say where Bush served.

The dental record says Bush got his teeth examined at the 187th base in January 1973, a month in which he was paid for six days of duty. Bush was next paid for two days in April 1973.

A performance evaluation by Bush's Texas commanders in May 1973 said Bush had not appeared at the Texas base for an entire year.

No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don't remember ever seeing Bush there.

One former member of the unit, retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun, has said he remembers Bush showing up for weekend training drills with the 187th during the summer and fall of 1972. Bush's records, however, show he was never paid for any dates in 1972 when the 187th performed its weekend drills. bringing people together...against the man...

Get the MP3 or better watch the video:

Windows Media Player

Real Player

Quicktime #1 or Quicktime #2

Monday, October 25, 2004


Who is Bush?...find out...

Click, sit back and watch....

Katherine Harris working....'in congress'

go read about it here on

Go see it here:

yeah...right wing family values!

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...

A chart will be up tonight....but here is some info on the vast right wing conspiracy....more info here on the video...

Here is a great video that sums up the campaign for new leadership in a world gone mad...if may be large (5MB)...but it is good.

Bubbie strikes again....

Check out the second installment of Bubbie...classic Cheney impersonation.....

if papers could elect a would be over

The New Yorker backs Kerry,in its first political endorsement of its history.

The New Yorker (circulation: 958,179) has made the first political endorsement in its 80-year history, backing Sen. John Kerry in next week's presidential election. The five-page editorial in the Nov. 1 issue criticizes President Bush's tax cuts, his environmental policies, his execution of the war in Iraq and his Justice Department's record of "secrecy and arrogance."

Meanwhile, news editors throughout the land, continue to pound bushinc with more Kerry endorsements

Newspapers switched to Kerry from Bush in 2000

State..... Newspaper............ Circulation
IA Des Moines Register ( 152885 )
IA Press Citizen (Iowa City) ( 14803 )
WA Walla Walla Union Bulletin ( 14409 )
CO Daily Camera (Boulder) ( 33031 )
NY Star-Gazette (Elmira) ( 28834 )
FL Bradenton Herald ( 52163 )
IL Arlington Heights Daily Herald ( 150364 )
MO Columbia Daily Tribune ( 18411 )
NM Albuquerque (NM) Tribune ( 14373 )
OR Oregonian (Portland) ( 342040 )
CT The Day (New London) ( 41113 )
TX Crawford (TX) Lone Star Iconoclast (Weekly) ( 500 )
WA The Sun (Bremerton) ( 30370 )
MI Muskegon Chronicle ( 46769 )
FL Orlando Sentinel ( 257191 )
ME Bangor Daily News ( 63611 )
MO Columbia Daily Tribune ( 18411 )
WA Seattle Times ( 237303 )
IL Chicago Sun-Times ( 410000 )
WA The Star (Grand Coulee) ( 3577 )
WI Wausau Daily Herald ( 22840 )
TN Memphis Commercial Appeal ( 157820 )
CA Los Angeles Daily News ( 178360 )
MT Billings Gazette ( 46980 )
CT Stamford Advocate ( 38558 )
MA Worchester Telegram ( 102592 )
CA Contra Costa Times ( 182541 )
CA Ventura County Star ( 99425 )
CA Santa Cruz Sentinel ( 26063 )
IL Rockford Register-Star ( 66249 )
IA Quad City Times (Davenport) ( 51876 )
MI Flint Journal ( 84897 )
PA Allentown Morning-Call ( 111594 )
WA Tri-City Herald (Kennewick) ( 41246 )
Defections to Kerry ( 3,141,199 )

1 Million join the ABB club...

Newspapers who endorsed Bush in 2000, who refuse to endorse anyone this year

NC Winston-Salem Journal ( 85266 )
FL Tampa Tribune ( 224220 )
MI Detroit News ( 227392 )
TX Wichita Falls Times Record News ( 32005 )
PA Harrisburg Patriot-News ( 101322 )
VA Clinch Valley Times ( 2100 )
LA Times-Picayune ( 253610 )
We ain't with ya this year George .... ( 925,915 )

In contrast, Bush picks up a measly:
PA York Daily Record ( 43108 )
MA Sun (lowell) ( 48571 )
CO The Dever Post ( 361317 )
Total Bush pickup from Gore in 2000 (452996)

The Final Tally

Total Papers endorsing Bush: 82
Total Papers endorsing Kerry: 155
Total Circulation endorsing Kerry:19,888,686
Total Circulation endorsing Bush: 9,811,636
Defections from the Bush Camp to The Kerry Camp:
.... 34 newspapers either moved from the Bush camp 2000 to the Kerry camp 2004
.... 7 newspapers who supported Bush in 2000, now refuse to endorse anyone.

(as of Oct 25,2004 1:00 pm)

Friday, October 22, 2004


If you need Sinclair Boycott info...

A good collection of Sinclair Boycott info here.

visualize winning...witch it over and over....

click and watch and then hit replay:

Visualize Winning

Vote REB (Republican Except For Bush)

More republicans who won't vote for Bush

Vote REB (Republican Except For Bush)

Wednesday, October 20, 2004


(didn't know I was) unamerican...

great flash...check it out...

(didn't know I was) unamerican

Interesting points on the flu vaccine problem....yes, Bush is involved...

Democrats have seized on the vaccine shortage to accuse the administration of being unable to protect Americans - from either illness or terrorism. "If you can't get flu vaccines to Americans, how are you going to protect them against bioterrorism?'' Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, asked in an interview with National Public Radio. "If you can't get flu vaccines to Americans, what kind of health care program are you running?"...

Mr. Thompson said that more had been done to fight the flu by this administration than by any previous one. Echoing comments made in recent days by Vice President Dick Cheney, he said that tort reforms proposed by the administration were needed to help vaccine manufacturers even more.

But Congress in 1986 passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that largely shields vaccine manufacturers from serious legal liability. Congress voted this year to add flu vaccines to the program, a bill that only awaits President Bush's signature, according to a spokesman for the program.

So to summarize:

- seniors vote

- the two largest senior states are FL and PA

- Bush policies are involved with the flu shortage

- Bush has added the issue to his stump speech and visit to Florida

- conclusion: this is an issue with legs, one that breaks against the President.

Not only seniors, but children with asthma and other chronic medical conditions will have trouble finding the vaccine this year. For many families, women are the health care deciders in the family, taking care of children and their parents, and determining for them where health care is obtained. How this demographic may vote their interests will be a fascinating dynamic.


Tuesday, October 19, 2004


from the American Conservative!....Bush is losing friends left AND RIGHT!

Check out what the American Conservative has to say about John Kerry.......seems their editorial board can't come to grips with supporting Bush...

CIA report withheld????....Imagine that!!

Robert Scheer
The 9/11 secret in the CIA's back pocket
Agency withholds damning report that points at senior officials

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."


undergroundclips....great clips

spend some time here....a great collection video clips and xomment:


Monday, October 18, 2004


the bulge....

everything you wanted to know about the bulge but were afraid to ask....

Kerry endorsements page....

Link to the Kerry newspaper endorsements.

Sunday, October 17, 2004


maybe not fascism...just a military dictatorship...

Military Dicatatorship USA

By Norman Livergood, former Dept Head, US Army War College.

We usually think of a nation being controlled by a military dictatorship when a military leader seizes control through a putsch, as in the case of General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The previous government is overthrown and a military strong man places himself in power with few if any constraints from judicial or legislative oversight.

But we must look for the essence of a military dictatorship, those features which are present whenever this form of oppression occurs. In essence, a military dictatorship is a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a repressive ruler or a small clique who use military and police power to dominate the people mentally and physically.

Taking this definition as our touchstone, in the United States we know we're living under a military dictatorship when we see:

* a leader put into power through a coup d\'etat, not through democratic elections

* the military used to control the civilian population in violation of the U.S. Constitution

* the president ordering a US citizen held indefinitely by the military

* a shadow government being set up consisting entirely of executive branch officials in violation of the Constitution

* government informants spying on fellow citizens

America becoming Facsist??? No way!....Oops, wait a minute....

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. TOP

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. TOP

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. TOP

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. TOP

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. TOP

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. TOP

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. TOP

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. TOP

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. TOP

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. TOP

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. TOP

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


Yes, Bush Can!!

Funny website:

Yes, Bush Can website

Saturday, October 16, 2004


Flu shots...outsourcing??, get them from Canada?? what about a Bio attack?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. This week there was an issue that hit home with voters and forced the candidates to rethink their scripts. It even walked off with the political play of the week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SCHNEIDER (voice-over): They're standing in line in Florida and Michigan, in New Jersey. The line goes around the block. Eager swing state residents lining up to vote? Not exactly. They're lining up for flu shots.

DR. CHARLES GONZALEZ, INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST: It's incredibly serious. We have half as much vaccine as we should have.

SCHNEIDER: How did that happen?

BUSH: We relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizens.

SCHNEIDER: Uh-oh. Sounds like outsourcing. The president had a solution.

BUSH: We're working with Canada, hopefully they will produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary.

SCHNEIDER: But hasn't Bush expressed problems with drug imports from Canada?

BUSH: My worry is, it looks like it's from Canada, it might be from a third world. We have to make sure before somebody thinks they're buying a product, that it works.

SCHNEIDER: President Bush made a plea to the public.

BUSH: If you're healthy, if you're younger, don't get a flu shot this year.

SCHNEIDER: Sounds like rationing, something the president said would result from Kerry's health care plan.

BUSH: Government sponsored health care would lead to rationing.

SCHNEIDER: The government has the situation under control the president says.

BUSH: The CDC responsible for health in the United States is setting those priorities and allocating the flu vaccine accordingly.

SCHNEIDER: Isn't that government control?

BUSH: My opponent wants the government to run the health care.

SCHNEIDER: Maybe the answer is legal reform.

BUSH: Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and so therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.

SCHNEIDER: Kerry says the issue is the whole health care system.

KERRY: There still aren't enough flu vaccinations. What's the president's solution? He says, don't get one if you're healthy. That sounds just like his health care plan to me, hope and pray you don't get sick.

SCHNEIDER: The flu bug has infected the campaign. The side effect was the political play of the week.

And then this:

WOODRUFF: You know it's serious when you read that some states will fine or jail doctors and nurses who give flu shots to people who are not at high risk.

SCHNEIDER: Right, and that sounds a lot like rationing.


Friday, October 15, 2004


what to exptect from kkkkkarl rove...

The Atlantic Online | November 2004 | Karl Rove in a Corner | Joshua Green

the real contest for Kerry...

great comment from on the real contest...

John Kerry is running against Bush and Bush's media. Note the following media manipulations occuring right before our very noses:

1. Bush's outright lie that he did not say what has been evidenced that he did say about OBL is getting minimal play in the media.

2. Kerry's true, reasonable and compassionate reference to Cheney's daughter in the debate is getting much more negative spin and play than Bush's lies......

Cheney can tell a senate member to go "F*ck himself", and not apologize.....yet Kerry can speak compassionately about Cheney's Grown ass daughter and get smeared nevertheless. The fact that Bush said that he needed to keep his daughters on leashes is not even an issue. We won't mention the smears that the Bushies perpetuated on McCain's "black" daughter.....or the Chelsea Clinton attacks of years passed.

3. The Nightline report of last night that Kerry's Silver Medal story is backed up by the Vietnamese villagers witnesses who were in the village the day of the firefight, and the complete meltdown of Liar O'neil on the air have not been picked up by the Media mafia Cable empire.

4. Please notice that Zogby is turning the screws on us, once having his poll come out first showing Bush gaining. Also the ABC polls that showed a near debate tie was heralded on all of the cable channels with one important fact missing....the 30% Dems vs. 38% Republican bias gap. They are reporting the "tie"....and not reporting the flaw in the poll.

5. Online polls where Kerry beat Bush stressed as "very unscientifical" by cable stations.

6. Headlines about Bush or Kerry demonstrate a recurring theme.....Kerry is always passive...while Bush is always active, e.g., "Bush rips into Kerry" vs. "Kerry tries to sway undecideds".

7. The Flip/Flop Kerry meme is now reported as a fact. Bush being strong in the area of fighting terror is now reported as an unquestionable fact.

8. The fact that women have swung to kerry is being underreported....while the fact that they were swinging to Bush pre-debate was loudly heralded.

9. The GOP hanky panky with Dem voter registration forms in Nevada and other states being played down. It should be a big news story.....but is being basically ignored.

IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID....THAT WILL LOSE US THIS RACE. They have been manipulating the news....and will continue to do so. We must keep writing and giving them the facts. I don't know if we can beat them, unfortunately. They hold our future in their hands.......

The Media Mafia Presstitutes are doing a hell of a job on our Democracy!


Pass this around and send to friends....

for folks that whine about not nowing what John Kerry's plans are show then the following (.jpg image .pdf file):

Thursday, October 14, 2004 iraqi bodycount page...

spend some time at this page and learn what this war costs you (yes are paying for this war!)....

This section of has gotten a lot of attention, even above better and more eloquent pages on the Iraq war on other sites. When first written in early July of 2003, following the major portion of the "conventional war" in Iraq it's purpose was simply to present a visual aid to help people understand the scope and tragedy of this ill-thought and cynical adventure, particularly when considering civilian deaths.

When done scrolling through this, please leave your comments.

Not only is the number of civilian deaths morally indefensible but this sort of body count has always been strategically stupid, creating far more opposition than can be countered with even heartfelt humanitarian aims.

Many conservatives and supporters of the Iraq War --the mass of Americans who shrug off civilian deaths when they are not American civilian deaths--obviously have a pronounced problem with visualizing numbers and applying moral standards. Or they just don't care.

In other words, they are stupid and evil.


haliburton strikes again....

snipped from Americablog:

Yep, George and Dick can't stop doing favors for Halliburton. Here's a good LA Times story about their latest favor: distorting science to approve a technique for drilling owned by Halliburton that might contaminate our drinking water. Who cares if kids drinking dirty water and get sick if it can help Halliburton?

My favorite detail is about the panel that oversaw an EPA study that its own employees have raised serious doubts over. Who was on the panel, you wonder?

"The EPA report was reviewed by a seven-person panel: a senior technical advisor at Halliburton, a manager from an industry-funded research institute who previously worked for Halliburton, a senior engineer with BP Amoco and two academics who had worked for the energy industry. A sixth member, a state regulator with an engineering background, also had worked for Amoco. The final member was an expert on hydraulic fracturing from Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico."

Wow, talk about a balanced, independent panel. Will they be available to oversee that Florida post-election fracas?


94 reason not to vote for bush...

By Bob Whitby
Published 10/14/04

It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe, George W. Bush has betrayed you, specifically and repeatedly.

Are you a law-and-order type? Then you should probably know that Bush has an arrest record (see reason No. 24). Are you a devout Christian? Millions of people just like you think Bush is defiling God's creation with his ruinous environmental policies (reason 20); and God's man on earth himself calls Bush's war wrong and immoral (reason 21). Perhaps you voted for Bush because you fondly recall the days when Republicans stood for fiscally conservative government? Those days are gone, friend (see reasons 64 to 71). Do you think of yourself as an intelligent, rational adult capable of making your own decisions about the world around you? Bush doesn't (No. 28). Maybe you're scared that the terrorists are coming, and think W. is the one who will stop them. Read reasons 1 through 16.

Unless you are the CEO of a large corporation (that donated heavily to Bush's campaign), Bush does not have your best interests at heart. Those are the facts.

Consider the material below a primer, the Reader's Digest version of why you shouldn't vote for Bush. There are thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – of similar facts not included here for space reasons. Whole topics had to be cut; there's no mention of Bush's assault on civil liberties via the USA PATRIOT Act, for example, and no mention of the fact that he cannot explain why he didn't fulfill his commitment in the National Guard.

So pick a reason, any reason, and don't vote for Bush Nov. 2.


1. Former President Bill Clinton briefing President-elect Bush on security issues in December 2000: "I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn't get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to." Source: Testimony by Clinton, published in the 9/11 Commission Report

2. Upon taking office, Bush proposed cutting more than $500 million in counterterrorism funding from the Justice Department. Source: "Condi gets a reality check," Center for American Progress, April 8, 2004

3. On Sept. 10, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected an appeal from the FBI for more money to fight terrorism in the 2002 budget. Source: Toronto Star, April 13, 2004

4. On Sept. 11, 2001, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice planned to deliver a speech about national security that made no mention of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalists. Source:, April 1, 2004

5. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice: "The title of the [Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Source: Testimony before the 9/11 Commission, April 8, 2004



more thoughts from a republican....

A Republican declares his independence
By Robert L. Black
Guest Columnist

When in the course of a lifetime, it becomes necessary for a born Republican to refuse to support the re-election of the party's incumbent president, to exercise his discretion, and in all good conscience, to vote for an opponent (even a Democrat), a decent respect to the opinions of his fellows requires that he declare the causes that impel him to switch.

I am grateful to the Republican Party for the support it gave me on each of three elections as judge. I respect many of the party leaders in Ohio. Nevertheless, my loyalty to the party must give way to my love of this country. I consider it a patriotic duty to speak up when the future of our democracy is at stake.

It is self-evident that everyone has certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, and that among these are the right to his/her own conscience and the right to pursue his/her sense of justice. Whenever in the field of politics the party to which he has belonged, and that party's president, become destructive of his vision of what is not only right and fair but also good for our future, it is his duty to call the tune as he hears it. When that future is endangered by the present policies of the administration, it is time to act. The record of this incumbent president is a history not only of repeated violations of the key principles underlying our democracy, but of the core values of the Christian faith to which he claims commitment. Let his actions be stated candidly.


Still thinking of not voting? on....

snipped from

This is what I just wrote addressed to everyone I know who is too "left" to vote for Kerry, i.e. says there is no difference between the candidates and won't look past the fact that both candidates are part of the Empire.


After watching the debate last night, it must be obvious even to the people who missed the secret-Dred-Scott-code of the second debate that Bush is out to reverse Roe v. Wade, recriminalize abortion, send those women who didn't keep their legs crossed to Christian Group Mothers' Homes and in general bring The Handmaid's Tale to life.

So here is what I have to say to the people who are still wanking that there is no difference between the two candidates, people who are so far left that to them both candidates spell Empire in neon letters, people who are still not convinced that Kerry is the lesser of the two evils, people who refuse to vote for Kerry for some amalgam of the reasons I just listed.

You are creating a false binary between voting and ideology/activism. You are acting as if casting a vote for Kerry somehow compromises your ideas or your activist cred. Well, here is a newsflash, activism is about what you do. As far as I can tell going to the polls on election day does not and should not interfere with whatever activist work you will and should continue to do, regardless of who gets elected, be it grassroots organizing, independent media, or civil disobedience or anything else.
One of those two people, Bush or Kerry is going to be inagurated at the White House Lawn in January. One of them is going to win (or steal) the election in three weeks. 14 out of the 20 borderline states have counties or districts where Diebold electronic machines installed, machines that will be counting our votes without a paper trail, machines manufactured by a company whose president pledged in an open letter to his shareholders to "deliver the state of Ohio to George W. Bush." Activists who have been involved in this issue are working with international election monitoring groups. We can do our part by casting so many votes that the margin cannot be disputed, machines or no machines.

But back to abortion. And the people who don't want to vote for Kerry for ideological reasons, because they are so left, so involved in Really Changing The System. Hopefully you are Changing The System through real activism, not through arrogantly refusing to go to the polls on election day, because if THAT is your version of changing the system, that is pretty pathetic. And before you jump all over me telling me how not voting for Kerry is a logical extension of all your other platforms and actions, I repeat: you are creating a false binary. Whatever good work you do, whatever left position you identify is, you will hopefully continue to do that work regardless of who is in office. If you are involved in the antiglobalization struggle, your work will be cut out for you regardless of whether Bush or Kerry is elected. But if there is at least one clearcut difference between them (and we could argue about the others) it's that Bush will appoint judges who will reverse Roe v. Wade. Bush will impose his fundamentalist Christian values on me and on every single woman who may find herself in need of an abortion in his country. Bush has already started on his march of criminalizing abortion by banning partial birth abortion without providing an exception for the life or the health of the mother (ironically most partial birth abortions are performed as medical procedures when the life or the health of the mother are at risk). He has signed into law the Laci and Connor bill, which is a backdoor attack on abortion rights, because it grants personhood and legal status to a fetus. He has made it legal for pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception if it is against their morals or ethics to do so. The Bush Administration threatened to cut funds from the CDC if they didn't remove all links to AIDS prevention except abstinence from their website (they did). The Bush Administration denies aid to third world countries whose family planning includes options other than abstinence. He WILL promote his Orwellian Culture of Life which for women, especially women who can't afford or aren't able to travel out of the country to get a safe abortion, will mean a return to butchered abortions in back alleys and hot baths with coathangers.

So, if there is no other difference between Kerry and Bush, here's one that matters. If you refuse to vote for Kerry for ideological reasons, that means, to me, that you put your ideology ahead of my right to get a safe and legal abortion. That means your ideology does not include me or millions of other women. This is not the time for ideological arrogance. True activists are judged by actions, not by posturing. Organize that group, go to that protest, drop that banner, make that video, help the NLG, participate in campaign finance reform, do that die-in, go as a human rights witness to Guatemala or go on the ISM program, make your dad read Howard Zinn, stand in solidarity with the women of Code Pink, continue your work against CAFTA and the FTAA, protest the Patriot Act and the Miami Model, do whatever it is you do, none of those activities should be impeded by you taking a half an hour to go and vote on election day. And then we will all go back to whatever modes of activism we choose to engage in, regardless of who is in the White House. Except in one case myself and millions of other women will have our right to get a safe and legal abortion preserved. In the other case should we need an abortion we will have to pursue illegally, like criminals in the night, some shady operation which may or may not kill us, or opt to do it ourselves, with coat hangers or knitting needles.

Any questions?


liberal talk radio blog...check it out

i good blog with links to online LTR feeds.

Overall, a Convincing Winner...LA Times

LA Times Editorial:

President Bush's handlers tried to minimize the significance of his three debates with Sen. John F. Kerry, exaggerating Bush's lack of debating skills while insisting that he is the stronger leader. The trouble with this spin is that tens of millions of Americans watching the debates didn't feel they were watching a mere academic exercise. Stitched together, these three extraordinary exchanges amounted to a powerful indictment of the president's leadership.

Even on foreign policy and national security, supposedly the president's strong suit, Kerry had Bush on the defensive in the first debate, attacking him for fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the acceleration of nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea.

more on this editorial...

Dbate #3: What are folks saying??

Snagged from

Ceci Connolly: “You know, I gave Sen. Kerry a bit of an edge on substance, an A-, in part because he showed both depth and breadth on so many different issues.” (Fox, 10/14/04)

ABC Poll Who Won? Kerry 42%, Bush 41%, Tie 14%(Party affiliation: Republicans 38, Democrats 30, Independents 28%)

CBS POLL: Kerry has clear positions on issues: Before: 29%, After: 60%

Aaron Brown: “Bill Schneider, the polls are out and this one wasn’t close in the poll.”

Bill Schneider: “Nope, hat trick for Kerry, three games, three goals.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

James Bennet: "Yet even (Bush's) smile was askew for about half the debate, marred by a glistening light dot at the right corner of his mouth. Viewers could be forgiven for losing track of his answers and imagining Laura Bush in the front row in frantic semaphore, wiping furiously at the corner of her own mouth." (New York Times, 10/14/04)

John Roberts: “I would probably have to give it to John Kerry. He seemed a little bit more poised…” (CBS, 10/13/04)

Mark Shields: “I think Kerry is far more factual.” (PBS, 10/13/14)

Tom Fielder: “I think tonight was tough territory for President Bush to even be playing in. And the odds were tough for him. Frankly I don’t, again speculation, but I don’t think that he was able to do anything that either hurt John Kerry badly enough to change the dynamic or that helped him enough to push John Kerry off of the game right now.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

Ron Reagan: “John Kerry may win the day after. George Bush made a mistake. Kerry quoted him accurately as it turns out in saying he’s not really worried about Osama bin Laden and Bush came back and said, well I don’t recall ever saying anything like that, we’ll you’ll see the clip of him saying exactly that tomorrow.” (MSNBC 10/13/04)

Andrea Mitchell: “John Kerry was strong on minimum wage.” (MSNBC 10/13/04)

Carlos Watson: “And when all is said and done I think Kerry will be proclaimed the winner, which I think will be significant because I think he will be viewed as having won all three debates.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

George Stephanopoulos: “I thought Senator Kerry was most effective on talking about jobs, minimum wage, healthcare and social security” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Pat Buchanan: “Kerry was, I thought, very much at the top of his game and I thought toward the end, when you saw Kerry, you saw more of the humanity of the man in some of those questions, which was very helpful to them; talking about the daughters and things.” (MSNBC, 10/13/14)

Joe Scarborough: “I have no doubt that every Ivy League, Yale debate coach in America is going to say that John Kerry won on points.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Chris Wallace: "I thought perhaps, because of the subject matter, that John Kerry did better in the second half on subjects like minimum wage which the president seemed somewhat uncomfortable on and really ducked, and started talking about his education plan. On assault weapons which he pretty much ducked." (Fox News, 10/13/04)

Chris Matthews: “Senator Kerry tonight was able to score on the class issue. He relentlessly went back on the fact that the tax cut passed in 2001 was directed at the top 3%.” (MSNBC 10/13/04)

Jeff Greenfield: “I think to the extent that the Republicans were looking for the president to lay the heavy lumber on John Kerry, that did not happen. And so if we’ve gone this last ten days with Kerry slowly moving up on Bush, I don’t see anything in this debate that will change that.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Judy Woodruff: “The Bush people are answering questions, Wolf, I’ll tell you, about what the president had to say about flu shots. It’s interesting, there seems to be a lot of discussion about whether that was the best answer to give.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Anthony Mason: “Dan, the uncommitted voters in our survey have given the edge in this debate, to this final debate, to John Kerry.” (CBS,10/13/04)

Peter Jennings: “President Bush said on John Kerry’s vote on Homeland Security Bill that he voted against the Homeland Security Bill. Right or wrong?”

Jake Tapper: “Wrong.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Tavis Smiley: “I think, Peter, that you have to shore up your bases…I think Mr. Kerry did that with people of color on the left.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Chris Jansing: “He painted the president as some one who led us to a misguided war, who has put Americans at risk because they don't have health insurance, who has lost more jobs than any president.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Dean Reynolds: “I think the candidate whose numbers have been moving in the right direction for the last 10 days has been Senator John Kerry, this debate did nothing to stop that, and I think from the Kerry point of view they’ll be happy about the results tonight.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Tom Brokaw: “I think that they were seeing on the war issue that John Kerry had tapped into something out there in America. That there were doubts even among the president’s supporters on the Republican side of the agenda and especially in a lot of those traditionally red states where they have a lot of people overseas and beginning to wonder if this was going well or not.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Bill Schneider: “This was a decisive win for John Kerry. It was just about as decisive as his win in the first debate, which everyone agreed was a blow out.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Richard Wolfe: “John Kerry, I thought, took this one by points. The president really needed to get a big victory tonight and he fell short of that. You know, he beat himself in the previous debates, but that really wasn’t good enough. And John Kerry has looked more presidential and more personable as these debates have gone on.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Perry Bacon: “Senator Kerry probably still won on points.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Sen. George Mitchell "When President Bush gets sick, he goes to a government doctor, he's treated at a government hospital, he's cared for a by a government nurse, so is every Republican Senator and every Republican Congressman. If government care is so bad for the rest of the American people, why is it that the President gets government care. I don't favor a government program but the sheer effrontery of receiving government care from government employees and saying its bad for the American people, it, it's offensive." (PBS, 10/13/04)

Chris Matthews: “I think the president had sort of an unhappy look but it was a very controlled and disciplined look. He was obviously told ‘they’re looking at you, don’t put on a show.’ But he didn’t look happy. He wasn’t used to this kind of brow-beating.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Bill Schneider: “The viewers of the debate, we interviewed them beforehand. They were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. But they were not split on this debate. Their verdict? Kerry, by a decisive margin.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

Liz Marlantes: “Kerry was, in many ways, very consistent from debate, to debate, to debate.” (MSNBC, 10/14/04)

David Gergen: "The debates have changed the dynamics of the race. Most importantly, among women, and let me come back to that. Before the first debate, if you looked at the CNN-Gallup poll for example, a week before the first debate, the President was not only ahead substantially among men, but he was ahead 10 points ahead among women, 10 points ahead among women. Coming into this debate, John Kerry enjoyed an 8 point lead among women, there was an 18 point swing among women. That's what's tightened up this race and I thought what we heard tonight was John Kerry very directly appealing to women. It's the first time he's done that. I thought it was a very shrewd move on his part." (PBS, 10/13/04)

Mark Halperin: "The President has lost ground since the first poll, since the first debate rather. Nothing occurred in the second debate to reverse that process." (PBS, 10/13/04)

Bill Schneider: “But in the end, Kerry was perceived to be the winner by viewers of all three debates.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

George Stephanopoulos: “If you look at the sweep of the 3 debates he’s made this a dead heat and may even begin to have momentum going on his side.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Mike Barnicle: “The amazing thing about John Kerry… he has achieved, I would think, what any candidate running against an incumbent president would want to achieve. He appears to be his physical equal on the stage. He appears to be presidential alongside the president.” (MSNBC 10/14/04)

John Harwood: “Aaron, I think this was a night when President Bush needed to change the dynamic. If you look at the situation we were in before these debates began, John Kerry was clearly behind the President. Now we're in a situation where slowly the polls are sliding toward John Kerry and it did not appear that anything happened to really shake that fundamental dynamic tonight in which John Kerry goes before millions and millions of Americans and presents a reassuring picture.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

Larry King: “We asked tonight who did the better job in this debate? Kerry 52%, Bush 39%.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Candy Crowley: “If what you’re looking for in a candidate is the best debater, I mean, that is definitely John Kerry. He has a quick command of the facts, he is very articulate, and I think the poll reflects that.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Jon Meacham: “John Kerry took the populist war straight to the President.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)
Brian Williams: “The problem here is the word nuisance. It was first used publicly in this context by a trusted Bush family friend, advisor and ally, Ret. General Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor, as you know, in the first Bush White House.” (NBC, 10/13/04)

David Gergen: "CNN/Gallup's yesterday was saying by 15 percentage points Americans thought John Kerry won the second debate. So you've got him winning the first, you've got him with the perception that he won the second, whatever the immediate polls may have said, we can disagree on that. If the perception now takes hold that he won the third debate, if there are two or three polls..ok, if that takes hold, I think that gives John Kerry an enormous lift, to win three debates against the sitting President of the United States, I think gives him a big lift." (PBS, 10/13/04)

John Harwood: “Not sure (Bush) changed the race in a way that some of his strategists had hoped he would.” (CNN, 10/14/04)

Melinda Henneberger: “Overall in the three debates, you really have to say that Kerry came across as more commanding and that the president… did not always even seem in command of himself.” (MSNBC 10/14/04)

Melinda Henneberger: “Kerry undercut the idea of him(self) as inconsistent by presenting himself as very consistent.” (MSNBC 10/14/04)

Melinda Henneberger: “I think that tonight, Bush did himself some real harm…he just seems so perpetually surprised… it really undercut his credibility I thought.” (MSNBC 10/14/04)

“Mr. Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, repeatedly portrayed himself as a fiscally responsible leader running against a spendthrift president who had cut taxes for the wealthy and tolerated a profound decline for the American middle class. All the while, Mr. Bush watched with impatience.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“ times, the strain of correcting the angry, defensive impression of the first two debates wore through. On a question about health care costs, he stopped midway through an antimedia joke - ‘In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about’ - with the words, ‘oh, never mind.’ And then he laughed, a ‘heh heh heh’ that was not echoed in the room.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“Mr. Bush, however, tends to regard even policy choices as matters of faith. The numbers on his Social Security plan may never add up; last night, when asked about the $2 trillion hole in the proposal, he simply ignored the question. But to the president, all of his initiatives are success stories, and the devil take the details.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“Mr. Bush, faced with the challenge of a debate that was supposed to be focused entirely on domestic issues - after building his re-election campaign on national security - cited a litany of events outside his control as he sought to rebut the battery of economic statistics Mr. Kerry used against him.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“Mr. Kerry, though, seemed calm and in command as he talked evenly into the cameras on subjects that his aides have long viewed as his strong suits.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“Yet even (Bush’s) smile was askew for about half the debate, marred by a glistening light dot at the right corner of his mouth. Viewers could be forgiven for losing track of his answers and imagining Laura Bush in the front row in frantic semaphore, wiping furiously at the corner of her own mouth. Mr. Bush's face slipped into a frown late in the debate, as he struggled with a question on why the nation was so divided under his leadership. He began thumping one hand flat onto his lectern, knitting his brows as he segued to a defense of his management of the Iraq war.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“If Mr. Bush loses the election, he will have to blame, at least in part, his own debate performance.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“They were a rough passage for Mr. Bush, who saw his September lead over Mr. Kerry slip away as the Democratic nominee established himself as a plausible presidential alternative. In a crucible where voters measure the self-confidence, authority and steadiness of the candidates, Mr. Kerry delivered a consistent set of assertive, collected performances.” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“For Mr. Kerry, one of the best pieces of news was his strong performance on social issues.” (Editorial, New York Times, 10/14/04)

“The president refused to accept any responsibility for the lapse of the ban on assault weapons and completely dodged the question of whether he wanted to see the Supreme Court reverse Roe v. Wade, while Mr. Kerry gave strong responses to both questions. ‘I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right,’ he said. ‘So I don't intend to see it undone.’” (New York Times, 10/14/04)

“Kerry, as unruffled as he has been throughout his personal confrontations with the president, did nothing to damage his prospects. Neutral observers -- including some who gave Bush a narrow edge -- predicted that Kerry would maintain the momentum that has brought him from an underdog's position at the beginning of September to rough parity with the incumbent.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

“An essentially dignified and thoughtful performance by John Kerry, contrasted with an oddly giggly turn by George W. Bush, combined to give the last debate of the presidential campaign to the challenger last night, but very narrowly.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

“Bush looked as smiley as Clarabell the Clown.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

“In a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 511 debate watchers, Kerry was seen as the winner by 52 percent to 39 percent. An ABC News poll had Bush and Kerry tied among a sample of debate watchers that tended to be more Republican.” (Associated Press, 10/14/04)

“President Bush overlooked a flip-flop of his own when he boasted Wednesday about launching the Homeland Security Department: He was against it before he was for it.” (Associated Press, 10/14/04)

“For Kerry, simply being on the same stage with Bush on three evenings was a plus because it took some of the sheen off the wartime aura the president has developed as commander-in-chief in the war on terror. But Kerry did better than that, raising questions about Bush's performance as leader of a troubled war in Iraq and establishing his own command of a wide swath of issues. He hit Bush particularly hard Wednesday night on the nation's growing health care problems, noting the increase in uninsured and fast-rising costs. ‘The president has turned his back,’ he said.” (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/14/04)

“The two-week period shaped by the debates appears to have drastically changed the nature of the race, leaving Mr. Kerry in a much stronger position for the endgame than appeared possible just after Labor Day. The Massachusetts Democrat ended the summer weakened by the Republican convention and attacks on his Vietnam War record. The challenger effectively used the nationally televised platform -- more so than he did during his nominating convention in July -- to make voters feel more comfortable with him. Mr. Bush's shaky performance in the first debate, by contrast, gave voters new doubts that he didn't seem able to dispel in the second round, despite what was widely seen as a better performance.” (Wall Street Journal, 10/14/04)

“A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken after the debate found most viewers thought Kerry won, 52%-39%, giving him an unbeaten streak in the three debates. Kerry had an advantage on health care, the economy and education and expressed himself more clearly, the poll found.” (USA Today, 10/14/04)

“Again, Kerry showed himself to be an articulate, thoughtful master of detail who weighs issues carefully, ultimately arriving at cohesive policy positions.” (Editorial, USA Today, 10/14/04)

“Kerry, who critics say often meanders, spoke in commanding tones.” (USA Today, 10/14/04)

“By double-digit margins, those surveyed gave Kerry higher marks than Bush for expressing himself clearly, understanding issues and caring about the needs of people like them. Kerry was more believable, they said.” (USA Today, 10/14/04)

“John Kerry, the four-term senator from Massachusetts, won the third and final debate against President George W. Bush, according to polls by CBS and CNN/USA Today/Gallup. An ABC New survey said Bush and Kerry battled to a statistical tie.” (Bloomberg, 10/14/04)

“Kerry gained the most ground. The lone undecided voter before the debate concluded that if the election were held today, the Massachusetts senator would get his vote.” (Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“For a third, and final, presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. John Kerry matched or bettered the president of the United States before a national television audience.” (Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“Kerry delivered a steadier and more confident performance than in last week's debate, the second face-off. From the outset, he sought to portray himself as a tribune of the middle class, promising to defend American workers and repeatedly charging that Bush's economic policies had favored the affluent” (Los Angeles Times, 10/14/04)

“President Bush's handlers tried to minimize the significance of his three debates with Sen. John F. Kerry, exaggerating Bush's lack of debating skills while insisting that he is the stronger leader. The trouble with this spin is that tens of millions of Americans watching the debates didn't feel they were watching a mere academic exercise. Stitched together, these three extraordinary exchanges amounted to a powerful indictment of the president's leadership. Even on foreign policy and national security, supposedly the president's strong suit, Kerry had Bush on the defensive in the first debate, attacking him for fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the acceleration of nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea. That the president was on the defensive again Wednesday night, in a debate devoted to domestic policy, is less surprising. Again, Kerry made a compelling case that, for all his plain-talkin' West Texas bravado, Bush had failed to lead.” (Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/14/04)

“Bush's weakness as a leader was also manifest in his response to a question about why he failed to renew the ban on assault weapons, which he professed to support. He basically said he didn't have the votes on Capitol Hill, even though the ban would have passed had GOP leaders allowed a vote, something Bush should have ordered” (Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/14/04)

“It's no wonder the Bush team, hobbled by such a record, acts as if it can win only if voters treat this election as a referendum on Kerry's fitness for office. It should be clear by now that Kerry is not for some Stalinist government healthcare system, that he won't give Paris a veto over U.S. foreign policy and that he doesn't think terrorism is merely a nuisance. He was thoughtful and firm in all three debates, despite his enduring stiffness. The shrillness of the Bush camp's attacks on Kerry betrays an unbecoming desperation, and adds to the sense that the challenger came out the convincing winner.” (Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/14/04)

“It's hard to dispute that the debates have been kinder to Kerry than to Bush.” (Mike Littwin, Column, Rocky Mountain News, 10/14/04)

“Kerry looked very much like he did in the first two debates. Why not? He appears to have won the debate over debates.” (Mike Littwin, Column, Rocky Mountain News, 10/14/04)

“Democrat John F. Kerry came away from last night's final presidential debate having staked his claim for the White House with aggressiveness in the first encounter, likability in the second, and command of policy in the third, seeming to grow in credibility as a prospective president with each performance” (Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“Kerry seemed to score well with health care, both in explaining his plan to allow people to buy into the same health services as members of the House and Senate and in blaming Bush for increased numbers of uninsured people on his watch.” (Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“For Kerry, who entered the debates skittering on the edge of derision, a man seemingly lacking convictions, the force of his commitment probably resonated more than any particular issue.” (Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“The president is the hotter, more emotive candidate; the senator is the cooler, more cerebral one…television is broadly considered a medium more receptive to cool performers,” (Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“Part way through a response to one of John Kerry's statements about healthcare needs in this country, President Bush ran out of gas and simply stopped talking.” (Thomas Oliphant, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“This was, by contrast, John Kerry's third opportunity to increase his standing with the American people, and he once again took full advantage of it. Challengers who have a chance to talk unfiltered and unchallenged before a mass audience about the future, who can joke about their wealth as well as make a clear and specific commitment to raising the minimum wage by 40 percent, are on the way to being called incumbents.” (Thomas Oliphant, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“The polls have already indicated that Americans think Kerry would be better than Bush on handling the domestic issues that came up last night. Kerry lived up to that billing, displaying far more command of the issues than Bush. Kerry talked as a hunter against assault weapons. He talked about women's unequal pay and unemployment among African-American and Latino males. He was very clear in saying that America still has separate but unequal educations. Most important, Kerry was far more forthright than Bush about key issues in the culture wars. Kerry flat out said that he would appoint judges who would protect the Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to choose. Meanwhile, Bush hid behind his patented rhetoric of appointing judges who would strictly interpret the law. Everyone knows that means an intolerant court full of Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases.” (Derrick Z. Jackson, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“Voters know that the Massachusetts senator has a brain. They want to know he has heart, and he revealed a little more of it last night.” (Joan Vennochi, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“This wasn't the lopsided win of the first presidential debate, but John Kerry nevertheless scored a solid victory last night.” (Scot Lehigh, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“…it was Kerry, playing the prosecutor he once was, who kept the president on the defensive for much of the evening, using an impressive array of facts and figures to explain the effect the administration's policies have had on average Americans. That helped root Kerry solidly in middle-class values.” (Scot Lehigh, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/14/04)

“Kerry scored big gains, as 42 percent of respondents said they had a more favorable opinion of him after the debate. Bush only increased with 27 percent of those polled.” (, 10/14/04)

“On the economy and jobs, Kerry said Bush was the first president in 72 years to preside over a net loss of jobs.” (Steven Thomma and James Kuhnhenn, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“In a recent private meeting with supporters, President Bush reportedly predicted that, in this race, he would "keep my foot on John Kerry's throat." Last night, he was true to his word. But it didn't appear that Kerry was suffering much pain.” (Dick Polman, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“But Bush was fact-challenged on health care last night.” (Dick Polman, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“On the other hand, Bush is the incumbent whose record is on the line, and he may not have helped his cause last night when Schieffer invited him to talk about hiking the minimum wage, and he quickly changed the subject to improving the schools.” (Dick Polman, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“Bush stumbled on a question not raised before, about the U.S. flu vaccine shortage… Also, he blamed lawsuits for the shortage. In fact, according to the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, the frequent vaccine shortages result from two factors: Vaccines aren't profitable, and drug companies keep merging.” (Matt Sterns, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“Bush said the economy is growing and more jobs are being created. But they are being created at a far slower rate than the 150,000 jobs a month that economists consider healthy for the economy.” (Matt Sterns, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“Bush said Kerry voted to raise taxes 98 times… the 98 number includes 16 votes on President Clinton's 1993 proposal to raise taxes and cut spending.” (Matt Sterns, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/14/04)

“But Kerry did better than that, raising questions about Bush's performance as leader of a troubled war in Iraq and establishing his own command of a wide swath of issues.” (David Westphal, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/14/04)

“Otis was the first person to ask a question at last Friday's presidential debate at Washington University. She asked Kerry if he had a response for people who thought he was ‘wishy-washy.’ Now, Otis said, she has pretty much dismissed that label for Kerry. ‘Kerry seems to be more straightforward,’ she said. Otis saw Bush as being on the defensive during much of Wednesday's debate. ‘If I had to go vote tonight, I'd be for Senator Kerry,’ she said.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/14/04)

“Kerry's answers ‘make me believe he is smarter, that things aren't as black and white as Bush would have you believe,’ Barrow said. ‘Kerry is a bright guy. I trust him.’” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/14/04)

“Network news polls named Kerry the winner of Wednesday night's exchange, as they had in the first two faceoffs.” (John Aloysius Farrell, Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“Network news polls named Kerry the winner of Wednesday night's exchange, as they had in the first two faceoffs. A CNN sample had Kerry winning 52 percent to 39 percent, while CBS had the Democrat winning 39-25 and ABC had a tighter margin, with Kerry the victor 42-41… Kerry ‘won’ the debates by calling upon skills learned long ago when, as a prosecutor striving to persuade judges and juries in Middlesex County, Mass., he had to take complex facts and weave them into digestible arguments.” (John Aloysius Farrell, Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“But over the course of the three debates, Kerry better exploited his opportunity to show undecided voters that he has presidential stature and a set of firm convictions.” (John Aloysius Farrell, Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“’Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans,’ Bush said, in an assertion vigorously and repeatedly challenged by Kerry. The tax cuts, though, are heavily weighted toward the wealthy Americans who pay the greatest share of federal taxes to begin with. That has meant that two-thirds of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, an independent Washington think tank that bases its calculations on Treasury Department data.” (Bob Deans, Denver Post, 10/14/04)

“Bush accused Kerry of wanting ‘government-run health care’ that would lead to poor quality and rationing. According to, 97 percent of Americans would keep the private insurance they now have.” (Kansas City Star, 10/14/04)

Wednesday, October 13, 2004


a seldom heard debate....on youth issues

youth vote debate...

A funny thing happened on the way to 'The Truth'

A funny thing happened on the way to 'The Truth'

By Karl W. B. Schwarz
Online Journal Guest Writer

September 24, 2004—I am a conservative Republican who has come to the conclusion over the past 12 months that I would not vote for Bush Cheney 2004 under bribe, duress or at gunpoint. I have come to that conclusion for many reasons that are well documented and in some instances is information that is known only to myself and several executives that I work with.

I have written a book about my experiences with the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Bush Cheney, and bring forth facts that I found stunning and disgusting to the point that I am convinced that both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and RNC, and our political system, are in need a serious house cleaning. America needs leadership, not an endless stream of talking heads and game show hosts to keep us entertained. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

It would also help if Americans had The Truth but that seems to be something that Washington, DC fears these days.

I read the recent analysis written by Sibel D. Edmonds regarding the 9-11 Commission findings and recommendations. That article was posted on for those readers that missed it. For those that do not know who Sibel Edmonds is, she is the FBI translator that Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft have gone to great lengths to silence.


Vote for a Man, not a Puppet

From poster: This was written by Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel. If you know the writer and his strongly conservative reputation, you should find it eye-opening. He is no friend of the Democrats. Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.

"Vote for a Man, not a Puppet"
Charley Reese
May 17, 2004

I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague.Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.

It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century.

His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.

It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site ( and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.
Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.


what soap does Bush use to wash the blood from his hands?

Read and watch the video...


get your own bush earplug!

Here is where you can find your own earplug....just like the president!

60 ways to hate your administration...

how will you be defeated once again...let me count the ways....60 so far

There are so many reasons to oppose four more years of George W. Bush it can be hard to keep them all straight. And so we provide you with this handy guide, listing 60 reasons (in no particular order) why this administration sucks major butt.

1. Despite Bush’s endless assurances that "Americans are safer," he’s done astonishingly little to protect the continental U.S. from terrorist attacks. His administration spends more in Iraq in four days than they’ve spent protecting our ports in four years, and Bush has blocked mandatory safety and security requirements at nuclear/chemical facilities (such requirements are unpopular with his corporate buds), leaving these facilities perilously vulnerable.

2. While there’s no established connection between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, there are established connections between Sept. 11 and Saudi-government officials, who not only provided funds to the hijackers (15 out of 19 of which were Saudis), but also supported front groups that funneled millions in aid to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Say what you will about Michael Moore sometimes getting screwy with the facts, but his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 does raise serious questions that the major media should have at least asked about the special treatment given numerous Saudis—including Bush’s longtime family friends the bin Ladens—to fly out of the U.S. in the days after Sept. 11.

3. Bush often reminds us we should be grateful to our soldiers, but in 2003, he proposed closing seven veterans hospitals, cutting combat bonus pay 33 percent, cutting assistance to soldiers’ families by 60 percent and cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care. So far, Bush has not attended the funeral of a single soldier killed in Iraq.

4. Native Alaskan villages are being destroyed as sea ice melts and huge waves pound the coastline. El Niño caused China’s Yangtze River to overflow, killing more than 3,000 people and leaving 230 million homeless. Despite this and substantial evidence that global warming is real and man-made, for four years, Bush has misrepresented science in order to avoid passing measures that could annoy his campaign supporters in the fossil-fuel and auto industries. Bush has allowed companies to set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and surprise, they set themselves very unchallenging goals.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


Going Upriver - The Long War of John Kerry

Going Upriver - The Long War of John Kerry

boycott sinclair...gret flash animation

Check it out....Take Back The Media - Flash Animation: Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group - Here's How

Repungnant voter registration fraud....

they will simply stop at nothing...from

watch the new video

Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.


FCC Commisioner on the Sinclaire broadcast....

Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election:

“This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”

The Truth Seeker - Behind The "News"

Interesting stufff...spend some time there....

The Truth Seeker - Behind The "News"

donor profiles....

take a look at the donors to the Dems and might surprise you...

Top All-Time Donor Profiles

A Tiny Revolution....

a good read...check the blog out...

A Tiny Revolution

bush's war is raping america....

Sy Hersch at his 10/8 talk in Berkely:

HERSH: I got a call last week from a soldier -- it's different now, a lot of communication, 800 numbers. He's an American officer and he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. It's a place where we claim we've done great work at cleaning out the insurgency. He was a platoon commander. First lieutenant, ROTC guy.

It was a call about this. He had been bivouacing outside of town with his platoon. It was near, it was an agricultural area, and there was a granary around. And the guys that owned the granary, the Iraqis that owned the granary... It was an area that the insurgency had some control, but it was very quiet, it was not Fallujah. It was a town that was off the mainstream. Not much violence there. And his guys, the guys that owned the granary, had hired, my guess is from his language, I wasn't explicit -- we're talking not more than three dozen, thirty or so guards. Any kind of work people were dying to do. So Iraqis were guarding the granary. His troops were bivouaced, they were stationed there, they got to know everybody...

They were a couple weeks together, they knew each other. So orders came down from the generals in Baghdad, we want to clear the village, like in Samarra. And as he told the story, another platoon from his company came and executed all the guards, as his people were screaming, stop. And he said they just shot them one by one. He went nuts, and his soldiers went nuts. And he's hysterical. He's totally hysterical. And he went to the captain. He was a lieutenant, he went to the company captain. And the company captain said, "No, you don't understand. That's a kill. We got thirty-six insurgents."

You read those stories where the Americans, we take a city, we had a combat, a hundred and fifteen insurgents are killed. You read those stories. It's shades of Vietnam again, folks, body counts...

You know what I told him? I said, fella, I said: you've complained to the captain. He knows you think they committed murder. Your troops know their fellow soldiers committed murder. Shut up. Just shut up. Get through your tour and just shut up. You're going to get a bullet in the back. You don't need that. And that's where we are with this war.


more news from crawford...(not good for bush)

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.
He let us down.


Bush Like Me....undercover republican

good reading from an underground republican... Politics - Bush Like Me

still doubt the earpiece thing???

Take a look at the following video of bush and chirac in a joint press conference...notice the following....bush does not use the same words in the propting and the actual speach...bush adjusts his earpiece when he is completed with his speech....chirac has a puzzled look on his face....even the press questions are prestaged...he is a sick, sick man....america deserves better:

the damming video of bush and his earpiece...

listen to Bubbe!

from your friends at the National Jewish Democratic Council....good stuff:

NJDC Victory Fund Politics - Kerry Fights Back

i especially like the parts about the non-professional press corp:

.......Unlike the 2000 Bush plane, which became notorious for its party atmosphere -- margaritas flowed at the end of the day and affairs among the press corps were widely rumored -- the feeling on the Kerry plane is professional and businesslike. It soon became apparent that many members of Kerry's traveling press make no attempt to hide their open dislike of the candidate. The morning after Kerry had addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala on the evening of September 15th, two members of the press corps were talking on a campaign bus. "That event was stupid," one said, referring to the previous night's occasion -- one of the largest Hispanic galas of its type. "A waste of time," the other said.

Other reporters were just as dismissive. Kerry had gotten a series of impassioned standing ovations during his speech. But when Elisabeth Bumiller described the event in the New York Times, she said, referring to a moment when Kerry spoke an entire paragraph in flawless Spanish, "Kerry's audience . . . listened in startled silence, then broke out into cheers and applause when he made his way through ."

But to report on these events accurately would mean you had to say something unqualified and positive about Kerry. This is something his traveling press corps has been -- and still is -- loath to do. On the evening of September 21st, outside an auditorium in Orlando, where inside more than 7,500 people were screaming wildly as Kerry spoke, Candy Crowley stood next to the venue and reported on CNN that Kerry was "trying . . . to rev up the crowd." The implication was unmistakable: Kerry's supporters in Florida were resistant, even standoffish. Just to make sure Crowley was able to get away with downplaying the event as she was, CNN never showed a wide shot of the large, cheering crowd. Politics - Kerry Fights Back

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?