Kerry: 1 Bush: 0
In the first presidential debate, John Kerry stayed on message and defined himself irrefutably as a leader with a plan, and as a man we can trust.
The president's lack of composure, his difficulty with mastering complex issues and his redundancy were as annoying as his nervous need to gulp water.
Kerry showed he is fast on his feet with extemporaneous thought and speech. Bush showed moderate recitation skills, but showed he cannot muster an original thought without Karl Rove telling him what to say.
A clear win for Kerry.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Addicted
Oh my.
Hard as I tried to avoid the trap, I have become addicted to The Apprentice.
The show was scooted over to Wednesday night this week, and I just watched some perfect poetic justice: Jennifer C., the snippy bitch with the bad Audrey Hepburn French twist, got booted for being a bad project manager for a restaurant with a horrid color scheme and bad art, that was too upscale for the 'hood it was in.
Hint: Vermilion and chartreuse, mixed with light cocoa beige are not colors that stimulate digestion. They stimulate vomiting, which may be a whole 'nother story with some of these chicks.
When two old ladies were seated and asked why bread was being served at an Asian/Fusion cuisine restaurant, Jennifer later referred to them as, "those grouchy old Jewish ladies."
They are in New York, for God's sake. To get all het-up over two old Jewish ladies kvetching at a New York restaurant would be like complaining about Texans asking where the jalapenos were at a barbecue dive in El Paso.
The boy's team worked together like happy elves, even overcoming a table of snippy faggots by flirting with them and giving one of them a free T-shirt. Even their token Mosaic woman Pamela, who was at first as brittle as a parakeet's cuttlebone, has gotten kinda loose and giggly on the guys' team.
At first I loved Maria because she is so hot. Now I want to sneak pebbles into her Manolo Blahniks and stick pins in the seams of her black St. John's knits. Pretty is as pretty does, and if she looked like she acts, she'd look more like Miss Jane Hathaway.
The worst part about this entire crew of male and female career whores is that I think the men's team is so much better than the women's team, and for a lesbian feminist, that's a bad, bad thing to have to admit.
Even Raj, who dresses like Don Ameche playing a gay guy from the 30's, managed to be an excellent, amiable project manager for the boy's restaurant project. They even managed to replicate for their restaurant walls some decent, quasi-abstract art, using only a house painting brush and some cheap acrylic paints.
In the boardroom, catty Jennifer selected for the chopping block not her friend Sandy, who was no good at her assignment, but her enemies Elizabeth and Stacy R., who had the temerity to raise an eyebrow at Jennifer's imperiously haughty management style.
Jennifer, you're fired. And Carolyn hates you.
Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.
Geh cocken offen yom, you big Jewish old lady hater.
Oh my.
Hard as I tried to avoid the trap, I have become addicted to The Apprentice.
The show was scooted over to Wednesday night this week, and I just watched some perfect poetic justice: Jennifer C., the snippy bitch with the bad Audrey Hepburn French twist, got booted for being a bad project manager for a restaurant with a horrid color scheme and bad art, that was too upscale for the 'hood it was in.
Hint: Vermilion and chartreuse, mixed with light cocoa beige are not colors that stimulate digestion. They stimulate vomiting, which may be a whole 'nother story with some of these chicks.
When two old ladies were seated and asked why bread was being served at an Asian/Fusion cuisine restaurant, Jennifer later referred to them as, "those grouchy old Jewish ladies."
They are in New York, for God's sake. To get all het-up over two old Jewish ladies kvetching at a New York restaurant would be like complaining about Texans asking where the jalapenos were at a barbecue dive in El Paso.
The boy's team worked together like happy elves, even overcoming a table of snippy faggots by flirting with them and giving one of them a free T-shirt. Even their token Mosaic woman Pamela, who was at first as brittle as a parakeet's cuttlebone, has gotten kinda loose and giggly on the guys' team.
At first I loved Maria because she is so hot. Now I want to sneak pebbles into her Manolo Blahniks and stick pins in the seams of her black St. John's knits. Pretty is as pretty does, and if she looked like she acts, she'd look more like Miss Jane Hathaway.
The worst part about this entire crew of male and female career whores is that I think the men's team is so much better than the women's team, and for a lesbian feminist, that's a bad, bad thing to have to admit.
Even Raj, who dresses like Don Ameche playing a gay guy from the 30's, managed to be an excellent, amiable project manager for the boy's restaurant project. They even managed to replicate for their restaurant walls some decent, quasi-abstract art, using only a house painting brush and some cheap acrylic paints.
In the boardroom, catty Jennifer selected for the chopping block not her friend Sandy, who was no good at her assignment, but her enemies Elizabeth and Stacy R., who had the temerity to raise an eyebrow at Jennifer's imperiously haughty management style.
Jennifer, you're fired. And Carolyn hates you.
Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.
Geh cocken offen yom, you big Jewish old lady hater.
14 year old loses election
Bush's Support Hexes Ohio High School Boy
President Bush's coattails evidently do not extend to Wheelersburg High School in southwestern Ohio. On Sept. 10, Bush visited the area for a rally and took a question from 14-year-old Dillon MacDonald. "I'm running for student president of my freshman class, and I was wondering if I could have your support," Dillon said to laughter from the crowd.
"Man, you're heading in the right direction," Bush replied. "I assure you, when I was 14, I couldn't have stood up in front of all these cameras. Yes, you can have my support." Bush promised he'd be "watching the [Wheelersburg] election
Alas, the endorsement proved insufficient: Days later, Dillon lost the class election to a girl in a three-person race. "It didn't quite put him over the hump," Principal Mark Knapp said of the president.
President Bush's coattails evidently do not extend to Wheelersburg High School in southwestern Ohio. On Sept. 10, Bush visited the area for a rally and took a question from 14-year-old Dillon MacDonald. "I'm running for student president of my freshman class, and I was wondering if I could have your support," Dillon said to laughter from the crowd.
"Man, you're heading in the right direction," Bush replied. "I assure you, when I was 14, I couldn't have stood up in front of all these cameras. Yes, you can have my support." Bush promised he'd be "watching the [Wheelersburg] election
Alas, the endorsement proved insufficient: Days later, Dillon lost the class election to a girl in a three-person race. "It didn't quite put him over the hump," Principal Mark Knapp said of the president.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
This is the Crawford, Texas newspaper editorial that endorses John Kerry
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
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.
• Givhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gife 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.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.
Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.
Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.
Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.
What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.
Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.
Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.
Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.
Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.
The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.
We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.
Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
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.
• Givhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gife 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.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.
Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.
Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.
Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.
What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.
Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.
Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.
Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.
Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.
The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.
We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.
Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.
Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.
Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
They Aren't All Dumb Bastards in Crawford
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The newspaper in President Bush's adopted hometown of Crawford threw its support on Tuesday behind Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry.
The weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and for turning budget surpluses into record deficits. The editorial also criticized Bush's proposals on Social Security and Medicare.
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda," the newspaper said in its editorial. "Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry."
It urged "Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country."
Bush spends many of his weekends and holidays at his Crawford, Texas, ranch.
The Iconoclast's publisher and editor-in-chief, W. Leon Smith, said the newspaper is sent to Bush's ranch each week. "But I don't know if he reads it," Smith said.
The Kerry campaign welcomed the endorsement in an email to reporters.
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The newspaper in President Bush's adopted hometown of Crawford threw its support on Tuesday behind Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry.
The weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and for turning budget surpluses into record deficits. The editorial also criticized Bush's proposals on Social Security and Medicare.
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda," the newspaper said in its editorial. "Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry."
It urged "Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country."
Bush spends many of his weekends and holidays at his Crawford, Texas, ranch.
The Iconoclast's publisher and editor-in-chief, W. Leon Smith, said the newspaper is sent to Bush's ranch each week. "But I don't know if he reads it," Smith said.
The Kerry campaign welcomed the endorsement in an email to reporters.
F.B.I. Said to Lag on Translations of Terror Tapes
More than 120,000 hours of terrorism-related recordings have not been translated by the F.B.I., and computer problems may have erased some Al Qaeda recordings.
Gee, you'd think with the president's war on terrorism, the FBI on his watch would be a bit more conscientious.
Seems there were plenty more translators when Bush took office, but he fired all the ones who were gay.
When one thinks about it, it makes sense. Why risk national security by employing gay people just because they can translate terrorists' native languages?
George W. Bush: making the nation safer.
(from gay civil servants)
Gee, you'd think with the president's war on terrorism, the FBI on his watch would be a bit more conscientious.
Seems there were plenty more translators when Bush took office, but he fired all the ones who were gay.
When one thinks about it, it makes sense. Why risk national security by employing gay people just because they can translate terrorists' native languages?
George W. Bush: making the nation safer.
(from gay civil servants)
Monday, September 27, 2004
The Problem Liars Have
Bush and his fiendish band of warmongers are scampering around, trying to quell rumors that a vote for Bush will result in a return to the draft, which this time will include females and exclude college deferments.
Of course they don't want anyone to believe they'll need to start drafting people- they'd lose the election.
But with the war in Iraq undermanned, existing troops on stop orders that compel them to serve sickeningly extended tours of duty, and with Bush eyeing Iran with his familiar twitchy trigger finger, where the fuck do people think Bush plans to get more troops, from his "coalition"?
Come on people, most of the tiny nationettes in the coalition don't even have armies, fer chrissakes.
Vote for Bush and you better damn well believe there will be a draft.
And draft dodgers like Dick and Bush know too well the loopholes for avoiding the draft, so they'll know to close them.
You think Bush won't lie about his intentions?
Of course he will- he lied to get us into war, he lied about us being greeted as liberators, he lied about Saddam's ties to Al Qaida, he lied about his military record, he lied about wanting to go after Osama Bin Laden.
He's a liar- that's what he does!
I wish I was of draft age. They wouldn't have to ask- I'd tell.
Of course, Bush may suddenly have a change of heart and allow queers to be drafted.
At the rate he's going, he'll have to draft pretty near anyone who's ambulatory.
And if you think he won't initiate a draft within moments of his second term, you just haven't been paying attention to what a colossal liar he is.
Bush and his fiendish band of warmongers are scampering around, trying to quell rumors that a vote for Bush will result in a return to the draft, which this time will include females and exclude college deferments.
Of course they don't want anyone to believe they'll need to start drafting people- they'd lose the election.
But with the war in Iraq undermanned, existing troops on stop orders that compel them to serve sickeningly extended tours of duty, and with Bush eyeing Iran with his familiar twitchy trigger finger, where the fuck do people think Bush plans to get more troops, from his "coalition"?
Come on people, most of the tiny nationettes in the coalition don't even have armies, fer chrissakes.
Vote for Bush and you better damn well believe there will be a draft.
And draft dodgers like Dick and Bush know too well the loopholes for avoiding the draft, so they'll know to close them.
You think Bush won't lie about his intentions?
Of course he will- he lied to get us into war, he lied about us being greeted as liberators, he lied about Saddam's ties to Al Qaida, he lied about his military record, he lied about wanting to go after Osama Bin Laden.
He's a liar- that's what he does!
I wish I was of draft age. They wouldn't have to ask- I'd tell.
Of course, Bush may suddenly have a change of heart and allow queers to be drafted.
At the rate he's going, he'll have to draft pretty near anyone who's ambulatory.
And if you think he won't initiate a draft within moments of his second term, you just haven't been paying attention to what a colossal liar he is.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
The Bloggy Doldrums
Seems the little band of Bloggers I hang out with and I are suffering from pre-election Blog ennui.
It sort of feels like that lag time between feeling sick and seeing what the doctor is going to diagnose--knowing help might be on the way, but then again, maybe not.
I feel like I'm resting up between playoff games- knowing that in the last few weeks before the election, I owe it to myself and those I care for to Blog concisely and convincingly about why Bush needs to go.
Last night, I had dinner with a Ph.D. psychologist and her husband, a Presbyterian theologian.
Midway through dinner she said, "What are we going to do about Bush? If he gets reelected, we are in trouble."
In Texas, it's more or less a given that Bush will win the state's electoral college votes, but my friend said, "He doesn't have to win San Antonio."
She's right.
I told her I planned to rent Fahrenheit 9/11 and show it to neighbors who are undecided. I'm neighborly, but I have never had the neighbors over, nor have I socialized with them in their homes. This time, however, I think it's important enough to break my penchant for privacy, just so they can see what kind of man Bush really is.
Each day, my e-mail brings me many lists that detail the lies, the incompetence, the arrogance and the criminal behavior of Bush and his administration. The horrible news has gotten to be so widespread and varied, I am lately at a loss as to which to write about.
The Bush people had what seems to be a strategy so ballsy, it's a miracle it's worked as well as it has. They have managed to corrupt, embezzle, force-feed or otherwise lie to the American public about so many things, their collective wrongdoing are so massive, they have diluted the outrage.
• Environmentalists are so mad at Bush's regressive, pro-business, pollution causing policies-that's the only issue they see.
• Balanced budget, healthy economy minded people are so mad about the deficit, that's the only issue they see.
• People who resent the lies Bush told us to get us into war with Iraq are too angry to see past that.
• Human rights activists still think Abu Ghraib detainee torture defines the sadistic nature of the Defense Department, and that's the issue they focus on.
• The unemployed and underemployed seethe at corporations getting tax cuts for outsourcing our jobs, and that's the issue they focus on.
• Globally minded Americans hate that Bush has created isolationist policies that endanger worldwide peace. That's their primary issue of concern.
• Gays, lesbians and tolerant people resent that Bush has created a wedge of fear and loathing against their basic human rights.
• Educators and parents seethe over "no child left behind" because they know it's rubbish.
• The 45 million Americans without health insurance, and the millions of elderly people whose prescription costs have risen resent Bush for saying one thing and doing another.
• Outrageous gas prices and Bush's well-known footsie playing with the Saudis have outraged another large segment of the population. That's their focus.
• Anti terrorists still think finding Osama Bin Laden should have been a priority over knocking out the benign, weaponless Saddam Hussein- and they resent Bush's distracting our troops and resources on the unwinnable Iraqi war and the forced occupation and costly rebuilding of Iraq. They think that issue is Bush's greatest failure, and it alone should be sufficient to oust him.
• First amendment proponents still are furious at Bush for the way he's avoided the press, muzzled dissent and refused to be accountable. That's their main beef.
• People who value fair play are outraged at the filthy lies, the harping on insignificant side matters, the blame game and the outrageous sums of money spent that Bush's race for reelection has displayed.
With so many areas to dislike, it's enough for people like me who resent Bush for all of the above to maintain basic civility toward his supporters.
Writing scathing critiques about a few issues at a time only dilutes the overall outrage.
So, yes, I can see why many Bloggers are in the doldrums.
We are resting up for the Main Event.
Seems the little band of Bloggers I hang out with and I are suffering from pre-election Blog ennui.
It sort of feels like that lag time between feeling sick and seeing what the doctor is going to diagnose--knowing help might be on the way, but then again, maybe not.
I feel like I'm resting up between playoff games- knowing that in the last few weeks before the election, I owe it to myself and those I care for to Blog concisely and convincingly about why Bush needs to go.
Last night, I had dinner with a Ph.D. psychologist and her husband, a Presbyterian theologian.
Midway through dinner she said, "What are we going to do about Bush? If he gets reelected, we are in trouble."
In Texas, it's more or less a given that Bush will win the state's electoral college votes, but my friend said, "He doesn't have to win San Antonio."
She's right.
I told her I planned to rent Fahrenheit 9/11 and show it to neighbors who are undecided. I'm neighborly, but I have never had the neighbors over, nor have I socialized with them in their homes. This time, however, I think it's important enough to break my penchant for privacy, just so they can see what kind of man Bush really is.
Each day, my e-mail brings me many lists that detail the lies, the incompetence, the arrogance and the criminal behavior of Bush and his administration. The horrible news has gotten to be so widespread and varied, I am lately at a loss as to which to write about.
The Bush people had what seems to be a strategy so ballsy, it's a miracle it's worked as well as it has. They have managed to corrupt, embezzle, force-feed or otherwise lie to the American public about so many things, their collective wrongdoing are so massive, they have diluted the outrage.
• Environmentalists are so mad at Bush's regressive, pro-business, pollution causing policies-that's the only issue they see.
• Balanced budget, healthy economy minded people are so mad about the deficit, that's the only issue they see.
• People who resent the lies Bush told us to get us into war with Iraq are too angry to see past that.
• Human rights activists still think Abu Ghraib detainee torture defines the sadistic nature of the Defense Department, and that's the issue they focus on.
• The unemployed and underemployed seethe at corporations getting tax cuts for outsourcing our jobs, and that's the issue they focus on.
• Globally minded Americans hate that Bush has created isolationist policies that endanger worldwide peace. That's their primary issue of concern.
• Gays, lesbians and tolerant people resent that Bush has created a wedge of fear and loathing against their basic human rights.
• Educators and parents seethe over "no child left behind" because they know it's rubbish.
• The 45 million Americans without health insurance, and the millions of elderly people whose prescription costs have risen resent Bush for saying one thing and doing another.
• Outrageous gas prices and Bush's well-known footsie playing with the Saudis have outraged another large segment of the population. That's their focus.
• Anti terrorists still think finding Osama Bin Laden should have been a priority over knocking out the benign, weaponless Saddam Hussein- and they resent Bush's distracting our troops and resources on the unwinnable Iraqi war and the forced occupation and costly rebuilding of Iraq. They think that issue is Bush's greatest failure, and it alone should be sufficient to oust him.
• First amendment proponents still are furious at Bush for the way he's avoided the press, muzzled dissent and refused to be accountable. That's their main beef.
• People who value fair play are outraged at the filthy lies, the harping on insignificant side matters, the blame game and the outrageous sums of money spent that Bush's race for reelection has displayed.
With so many areas to dislike, it's enough for people like me who resent Bush for all of the above to maintain basic civility toward his supporters.
Writing scathing critiques about a few issues at a time only dilutes the overall outrage.
So, yes, I can see why many Bloggers are in the doldrums.
We are resting up for the Main Event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)