When I first heard about the discovery of this lab, I shuddered and figured that the Bush Administration would start crowing about how they were right all along about Iraq and WMD.
This morning, however, I woke up to CNN and realized that this lab supposedly belonged to the insurgents, not to the Ba'ath Party. Oh joy.
War in Iraq: Stopping terrorism and removing the threat of WMD. Or the opposite of that. I'll have to check my notes.
Let me see...
Saddam's regime: No WMD; no al-Quada connections.
U. S. occupied Iraq: Overflowing with terrorists who apparently are developing WMD capabilities.
"Mission accomplished."
Friday, November 26, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
Just a Quick Post...
I've been wanting to write something about the turnover of cabinet members for Bush II, but I haven't had the chance to do the proper research yet.
I just want to say that while most of the people leaving were expected to leave, the administration's nominations for their replacements is terrifying. Everything that I fear to see in a second term for these guys (and gals) is being set up by these nominations.
Condi: Replacing one of the only sane foreign policy voices in the government with one of the most insane voices. I am sure that Rice is a very smart person, but putting the author of "How to Mismanage the Hegemony: 2001-2004" in place as the face of American foreign policy is deeply disturbing.
Likewise the new AG. Ashcroft's departure was not unexpected, but now we have the author of the memo explaining why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the United States as the Executive Branch's primary defender of civil rights in America. If you happen to be in a cell in Gitmo, just hang yourself now. You'll never see home again.
Anyone notice this guy's record in Texas? Or his peculiar strategy when briefing GWB on death row inmates?
I've heard a mumble, though, that the nominee for Secretary of Education is not actually evil. I am guessing that I just haven't done my research yet.
Seriously people, it is time to organize.
I just want to say that while most of the people leaving were expected to leave, the administration's nominations for their replacements is terrifying. Everything that I fear to see in a second term for these guys (and gals) is being set up by these nominations.
Condi: Replacing one of the only sane foreign policy voices in the government with one of the most insane voices. I am sure that Rice is a very smart person, but putting the author of "How to Mismanage the Hegemony: 2001-2004" in place as the face of American foreign policy is deeply disturbing.
Likewise the new AG. Ashcroft's departure was not unexpected, but now we have the author of the memo explaining why the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the United States as the Executive Branch's primary defender of civil rights in America. If you happen to be in a cell in Gitmo, just hang yourself now. You'll never see home again.
Anyone notice this guy's record in Texas? Or his peculiar strategy when briefing GWB on death row inmates?
I've heard a mumble, though, that the nominee for Secretary of Education is not actually evil. I am guessing that I just haven't done my research yet.
Seriously people, it is time to organize.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Republicans Too Liberal For Today's GOP: Theodore Roosevelt
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-Theodore Roosevelt
-Theodore Roosevelt
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Quote of the Day!
A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1798
- Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Lowering the Bar: A Mandate for GWB?
Even as I am writing this there is a talking head (Joe Walkins, Republican Strategist) on CNN demanding that the Bush Administration has a mandate because “they won by three and a half million votes!”
I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.
In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.
So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.
Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.
But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.
Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:
2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford
How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”
I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.
Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.
Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?
I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.
In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.
So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.
Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.
But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.
Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:
2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford
How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”
I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.
Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.
Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?
Monday, November 08, 2004
Democracy in Distress Message Boards
I spent some time tonight posting some messages to the boards. Hopefully they will act as seeds to start conversation there. Also, I can see how those boards can be a good way to "blog" topically, if few people ever end up reading these pages.
I haven't really started promoting this site yet, just one e-mail to my contact list. I am not sure how many of those addresses are even current, but I know some are.
Finally, the topics on many of these first message board posts were inspired (read stolen) from topics on the 3WA boards. My apologies, but those are good topics that fascinate me. The reactivation of my account there has not gone through yet, but when it does, I will be posting there, too.
Anyway, if you are reading this, thanks. And if you find any of this interesting or compelling, please help me start a conversation on these topics.
As I say, though, the conversation is just the start. The goal is real political action that makes a Democratic (or viable third-party) revoultion possible at all levels of the government.
democracyindistress.com
I haven't really started promoting this site yet, just one e-mail to my contact list. I am not sure how many of those addresses are even current, but I know some are.
Finally, the topics on many of these first message board posts were inspired (read stolen) from topics on the 3WA boards. My apologies, but those are good topics that fascinate me. The reactivation of my account there has not gone through yet, but when it does, I will be posting there, too.
Anyway, if you are reading this, thanks. And if you find any of this interesting or compelling, please help me start a conversation on these topics.
As I say, though, the conversation is just the start. The goal is real political action that makes a Democratic (or viable third-party) revoultion possible at all levels of the government.
democracyindistress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)