Hilary Rosen's Washington Post column Outrage That Rings False shows how once again an issue made into an "outrage" by the Bush campaign is going to turn around and bite them on the ass.
The issue is turning now to how Lynne and Dick Cheney, and Mary, too, have ignored for four years the constant Republican attacks on gay people, not speaking out about any of the Bush administration's anti-gay manoeuvers, and are now using a manufactured "anger" just to try to demonize Kerry.
Rosen writes that she feels sorry for Mary Cheney, that she is now a pawn in this race. I don't feel sorry for her in the least.
The Cheneys, all of them, have had their chance to show leadership, and they decided long ago to shut up and make their alliance with the gay-bashers. I hope they all sink together.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
More Doonesbury articles
Here is Friday's article, the Lone Star Iconoclast editorial "Kerry will restore American dignity" This editorial states "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."
and here is Saturday's article "A Questionable Kind of Conservatism" by George Will. Writing in July, 2003, Will says "Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent. "
And earlier this week I missed referencing Wednesday's article, Salon's "Why Conservatives must not vote for Bush" where Doug Bandow writes "Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle."
Its an interesting series that Doonesbury has undertaken here -- I would love to find some discussion about whether it has influenced anyone.
It is likely a useful exercise to gather these articles together -- the one problem I see is that the links are so complicated to read and to follow, particularly when written in 6- point type on newsprint, that I think it would have been better to post them day-by-day as links on a single website -- still, I hope they were read and discussed. When I google "Honest Voices Reading List" I get more links today than I did on Monday, so some blogs are talking about it. Unfortunately, many are complaining about the small print of the URLs, just like I did, instead of discussing the articles. For the left-wing, however, the articles are mainly old hat, yes-we-already-knew-that stuff. But hopefully they will open some previously-closed eyes.
And check this out, on a blog called John Dufresne there is a priceless photo of a movie theatre marquee whose owner has posted this message "Congratulations to John Kerry for exposing Bush as an incompetent moron in debate" -- just goes to show that blog-culture is spreading EVERYWHERE!
and here is Saturday's article "A Questionable Kind of Conservatism" by George Will. Writing in July, 2003, Will says "Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent. "
And earlier this week I missed referencing Wednesday's article, Salon's "Why Conservatives must not vote for Bush" where Doug Bandow writes "Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle."
Its an interesting series that Doonesbury has undertaken here -- I would love to find some discussion about whether it has influenced anyone.
It is likely a useful exercise to gather these articles together -- the one problem I see is that the links are so complicated to read and to follow, particularly when written in 6- point type on newsprint, that I think it would have been better to post them day-by-day as links on a single website -- still, I hope they were read and discussed. When I google "Honest Voices Reading List" I get more links today than I did on Monday, so some blogs are talking about it. Unfortunately, many are complaining about the small print of the URLs, just like I did, instead of discussing the articles. For the left-wing, however, the articles are mainly old hat, yes-we-already-knew-that stuff. But hopefully they will open some previously-closed eyes.
And check this out, on a blog called John Dufresne there is a priceless photo of a movie theatre marquee whose owner has posted this message "Congratulations to John Kerry for exposing Bush as an incompetent moron in debate" -- just goes to show that blog-culture is spreading EVERYWHERE!
Friday, October 15, 2004
Gays ARE born, not made -- THAT'S the issue
In the dispute over Kerry's so-called "outing" of Mary Cheney, Kerry's defenders are missing the point.
This Salon article John Kerry's lesbian moment sums it up at a personal level by contending that Lynne Cheney is embarassed that her daughter is gay. No doubt she is, but Salon misses the larger issue here.
Kerry has the temerity to state that the religious right is wrong. Kerry has challenged the right-wing conviction that gays are made, not born. And he uses Cheney's very own daughter as an example -- no wonder Cheney and his wife were mad. They really were hoping, I suppose, that no one would notice that Mary Cheney's very existence proves that one of the most heartfelt beliefs of their electoral base is wrong, wrong, wrong. No wonder the family keeps her under wraps at events like the convention.
Only if you believe, as the religious right do, that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" can you justify the hatefest of discrimination against gays which stains American public discourse and policies.
If America accepts that Kerry is correct, that gays are born not made, then discriminating against gays is no more justifiable than discriminating against blacks, or against people in wheelchairs -- and then, it's bye bye constitutional ammendment, bye bye workplace discrimination, bye bye sodomy laws, hello gay marriage.
And of course, it appears to be an Article of Faith for Republicans that they DARE NOT demonstrate any actual leadership toward educating or changing public opinion, but instead MUST pander to the beliefs of their base at all times, however hateful and misguided they are.
This Salon article John Kerry's lesbian moment sums it up at a personal level by contending that Lynne Cheney is embarassed that her daughter is gay. No doubt she is, but Salon misses the larger issue here.
Kerry has the temerity to state that the religious right is wrong. Kerry has challenged the right-wing conviction that gays are made, not born. And he uses Cheney's very own daughter as an example -- no wonder Cheney and his wife were mad. They really were hoping, I suppose, that no one would notice that Mary Cheney's very existence proves that one of the most heartfelt beliefs of their electoral base is wrong, wrong, wrong. No wonder the family keeps her under wraps at events like the convention.
Only if you believe, as the religious right do, that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" can you justify the hatefest of discrimination against gays which stains American public discourse and policies.
If America accepts that Kerry is correct, that gays are born not made, then discriminating against gays is no more justifiable than discriminating against blacks, or against people in wheelchairs -- and then, it's bye bye constitutional ammendment, bye bye workplace discrimination, bye bye sodomy laws, hello gay marriage.
And of course, it appears to be an Article of Faith for Republicans that they DARE NOT demonstrate any actual leadership toward educating or changing public opinion, but instead MUST pander to the beliefs of their base at all times, however hateful and misguided they are.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Be ready for Strike Four!
Every now and then in baseball, a pitcher ends up having to pitch four strikes to get a batter out -- or a team has to throw four batters out to end an inning. Like when there is a dropped third strike and the runner gets to first safely, or when the infield bobbles an easy pop fly, or when the umpire calls a good pitch a ball by mistake, or when a batter cocks the bat but the base ump rules it no swing.
I have the feeling in this election that the Democrats are going to be in this situation -- they will have to get Bush out with four strikes, rather than just three, to make up for all the Republican foul play. Reading the blogs recently, there have been stories about electronic voting data tampering, spurious voter registration companies tearing up Democrat registrations, black voter intimidation, not to mention the redistricting scandals. What it means is that Democrats will have to get their voters to the polls by the millions and millions, to create a victory so obvious and so complete that it cannot be questioned, or overturned by an umpire's ruling.
I have the feeling in this election that the Democrats are going to be in this situation -- they will have to get Bush out with four strikes, rather than just three, to make up for all the Republican foul play. Reading the blogs recently, there have been stories about electronic voting data tampering, spurious voter registration companies tearing up Democrat registrations, black voter intimidation, not to mention the redistricting scandals. What it means is that Democrats will have to get their voters to the polls by the millions and millions, to create a victory so obvious and so complete that it cannot be questioned, or overturned by an umpire's ruling.
Third Doonsbury article
in his Honest Voices series is here. It is a Lincoln Journal Star article entitled LOCAL VIEW: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake, by Representative Doug Bereuter, who retired at the end of August after 26 years in the House. He concludes "Was the pre-emptive military strike to remove Saddam in America's best interest? . . . I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
How stupid do they think people are?
This story from Las Vegas Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed (via Josh Marshall) says a company called Voters Outreach registered hundreds of people, then tore up the democrat registrations.
Now, did they actually think that no one would tell? And did they actually think that their financing by the RNC would not be revealed? Its getting pretty wierd down south.
Now, did they actually think that no one would tell? And did they actually think that their financing by the RNC would not be revealed? Its getting pretty wierd down south.
Batteries not included?
When Jay Leno asked Edwards what was the lump on Bush's back during the first debate, Edwards replied "His battery?" It brought down the house.
Second Doonsbury reference
Here is today's Doonsbury reference. ""An analysis of Bush's war in Iraq" from what his Honest Voices Reading List -- WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends She writes about the reality of American occupation for reporters - who do not dare to leave their hotels- and for the people of Baghdad:
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt . . .
Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel [this piece was published on Sept. 29]. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq? . . .
. . . One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.
. . . I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt . . .
Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel [this piece was published on Sept. 29]. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq? . . .
. . . One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.
. . . I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"
Monday, October 11, 2004
What do you want to bet . . .
. . . that one of Rove's promised "October Surprises" will be this announcement (drum roll, please): Rumsfeld will report, following his trip to Iraq, that things are going so swimmingly and there are so many Iraqi troops now that a substantial number of US troops can come home immediately after Iraq's January elections (cymbals clash!)
Shameless Agitator - great blog
Great posts on Shameless Agitator -- as well as some new "bulge" photos, Andrea excerpts important passages from the NYT interview with Kerry about his war on terror.
Here is the Doonsbury reference
In today's Doonsbury, he refers readers to "an overview of how well Bush has served republican principles by Dwight Eisenhower's son" -- here is the article: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President After criticizing Bush's record, John Eisenhower writes "Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Dred Scott case = Roe v Wade = making abortion illegal
In last night's debate, Bush made a bizarre reference to the Dred Scott case in the mid-1800s as an example of the kind of decision a new Supreme Court justice should or should not be making -- I couldn't really follow it, not being an expert on American constitutional history.
But now it is explained -- Paperwight's Fair Shot explains that the Dred Scott case is being used by anti-abortion groups now to compare their cause to the cause of abolishing slavery.
So Bush was speaking in code to the radical religious right, promising them that if reelected his pick for the Supreme Court would be someone who would want to overturn Roe v Wade.
This is getting seriously wierd, isn't it?
But now it is explained -- Paperwight's Fair Shot explains that the Dred Scott case is being used by anti-abortion groups now to compare their cause to the cause of abolishing slavery.
So Bush was speaking in code to the radical religious right, promising them that if reelected his pick for the Supreme Court would be someone who would want to overturn Roe v Wade.
This is getting seriously wierd, isn't it?
Still feeling a draft
The draft question came up at the debate last night, and Bush said how a volunteer army was working great. "Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president."
But people do not believe him - Yahoo! News - Poll: Youth Tie Bush, Draft Reinstatement
Why?
Well, two reasons really: the first is pretty obvious -- the Pentagon IS actually making plans to reinstate the draft, likely focusing on people with so-called critical and special skills.
And Bush has lied about everything else to do with the Iraq War, so why would he be telling the truth about this? As Representative Tim Ryan put it during the House debate "We're not trying to scare kids. This president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country. And if people have said today, "Why are people believing this, why are people believing this big Internet hoax?" - well, it's the same people that told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Same people that told us we were gonna be able to use the oil for reconstruction money. Same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. Same people, same president, that told us the Taliban is gone. Same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out. Same president that tells us Iraq is going just great. Same president that tells us the economy is going just great. Same people that told us the tax cut was gonna create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only costs $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion. So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying. Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, or that has been told to these college students, has been true. Not one thing."
I think its worth noting this, as well:
In spite of how firmly Bush said during the debate that he wouldn't reinstate a draft, he did leave himself an out. He stated during the debate " . . . the all-volunteer Army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized . . ." and he said "The all-volunteer Army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well . . . [also mentioning housing and less rotations. Concluding with] . . .(We} will be more likely to be able to keep people in the all-volunteer Army."
The unstated continuation -- but, if we aren't able to keep people, and if we can't get people with the right specializations to enlist, then, gosh darn it, I guess I just might have to . . .
But people do not believe him - Yahoo! News - Poll: Youth Tie Bush, Draft Reinstatement
Why?
Well, two reasons really: the first is pretty obvious -- the Pentagon IS actually making plans to reinstate the draft, likely focusing on people with so-called critical and special skills.
And Bush has lied about everything else to do with the Iraq War, so why would he be telling the truth about this? As Representative Tim Ryan put it during the House debate "We're not trying to scare kids. This president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country. And if people have said today, "Why are people believing this, why are people believing this big Internet hoax?" - well, it's the same people that told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Same people that told us we were gonna be able to use the oil for reconstruction money. Same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. Same people, same president, that told us the Taliban is gone. Same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out. Same president that tells us Iraq is going just great. Same president that tells us the economy is going just great. Same people that told us the tax cut was gonna create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only costs $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion. So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying. Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, or that has been told to these college students, has been true. Not one thing."
I think its worth noting this, as well:
In spite of how firmly Bush said during the debate that he wouldn't reinstate a draft, he did leave himself an out. He stated during the debate " . . . the all-volunteer Army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized . . ." and he said "The all-volunteer Army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well . . . [also mentioning housing and less rotations. Concluding with] . . .(We} will be more likely to be able to keep people in the all-volunteer Army."
The unstated continuation -- but, if we aren't able to keep people, and if we can't get people with the right specializations to enlist, then, gosh darn it, I guess I just might have to . . .
What? Me Worry?
Bush continued his Alfred E Newman channeling last night.
Go read Josh Marshall on the "mistakes" answer -- Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall "In the Bush world you never admit mistakes. The only mistakes the president can think of are the times he appointed people who do admit mistakes -- who put reality above loyalty to the president . . . recognizing mistakes . . . is how you prevent mistakes from metastasizing into disasters. Which all explains a great deal about how we got where we are now in Iraq." Don't make the mistake of voting for this man.
Kerry, on the other hand, came across as more presidential than ever before.
Go read Josh Marshall on the "mistakes" answer -- Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall "In the Bush world you never admit mistakes. The only mistakes the president can think of are the times he appointed people who do admit mistakes -- who put reality above loyalty to the president . . . recognizing mistakes . . . is how you prevent mistakes from metastasizing into disasters. Which all explains a great deal about how we got where we are now in Iraq." Don't make the mistake of voting for this man.
Kerry, on the other hand, came across as more presidential than ever before.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Crying havoc
And letting loose the dogs of war -- on Kerry
Isn't this disgusting? Bush: Kerry Would 'Weaken' U.S. : ". . . A Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race with more biting attacks on Kerry's record and trustworthiness and on what Bush charges is Kerry's reluctance to use U.S. military force to defeat terrorism. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry's ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush's image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said . . . " [emphasis mine]
They can't raise the terror alert level anymore, because no one would believe them, so they send out notices to schools warning about Beslan-style attacks.
They can't claim anymore that the Iraq war was justified, and they can't talk about how Iraq proves their preemptive war doctrine, so they attack Kerry because he wouldn't start another baseless, unjustified war.
They can't claim fiscal conservatism, or even competence, and their own medicare and education reforms are an unpopular mess, so they lie about Kerry's plans.
They can't talk about how they're destroyed the capacity of the US military, so they are trying to imply that its Kerry who wants a new draft.
The one thing they haven't talked about, funnily enough, is Kerry's own health -- and one blog (which I now cannot find) noted today that Bush did not take his usual August physical this year -- one could speculate that Bush is a serial avoider of August health check ups. Earlier this spring there were stories around about how Bush's mental health was deteriorating, and the rumour is now circulating that in the last debate Bush was wearing a secret earpiece to help him answer the questions. So maybe his health is one area that Bush does not want to have to answer any questions about.
Isn't this disgusting? Bush: Kerry Would 'Weaken' U.S. : ". . . A Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race with more biting attacks on Kerry's record and trustworthiness and on what Bush charges is Kerry's reluctance to use U.S. military force to defeat terrorism. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry's ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush's image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said . . . " [emphasis mine]
They can't raise the terror alert level anymore, because no one would believe them, so they send out notices to schools warning about Beslan-style attacks.
They can't claim anymore that the Iraq war was justified, and they can't talk about how Iraq proves their preemptive war doctrine, so they attack Kerry because he wouldn't start another baseless, unjustified war.
They can't claim fiscal conservatism, or even competence, and their own medicare and education reforms are an unpopular mess, so they lie about Kerry's plans.
They can't talk about how they're destroyed the capacity of the US military, so they are trying to imply that its Kerry who wants a new draft.
The one thing they haven't talked about, funnily enough, is Kerry's own health -- and one blog (which I now cannot find) noted today that Bush did not take his usual August physical this year -- one could speculate that Bush is a serial avoider of August health check ups. Earlier this spring there were stories around about how Bush's mental health was deteriorating, and the rumour is now circulating that in the last debate Bush was wearing a secret earpiece to help him answer the questions. So maybe his health is one area that Bush does not want to have to answer any questions about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)