October 31, 2004

Pumpkin-flation

Pumpkin-flationI was shocked, shocked I tell when I got to the front of the line of at the local pumpkin patch to find out that the mishapen pumpkin that we plucked from the ever dwindling stock was going to cost us $18. EIGHTEEN BUCKS!!?!!

Anyway, we plunked down the money in the spirit of the season and carved the mutha up with a happy design to entice people into our apartment block, but alas, we had only one trick or treater, and we almost missed him because he knocked when we in the middle of making dinner.

Carving up the pumpkin was fun and we made two batches of roasted seeds onw with olive oil, salt and rosemary and one with butter, cinnamon and sugar. Delicious.

October 29, 2004

Republicans for Kerry

Yet another GOP man has come out in support for Kerry. This time it is Bob Smith former senator from New Hampshire who lived at the far right of the GOP and even once left the Republican Party at one point because he considered it too moderate.

Here's what he has to say about John Kerry:

As someone who worked with you daily for 12 years as a United States Senator, I am acutely conscious of the fact that we disagree on many important issues. Despite our differences, you have always been willing to engage in constructive debate in an effort to forge sound public policy.

I deeply respect your commitment to our nation and your patriotism which, I believe, was forged when you-like I-proudly wore the uniform of the United States Navy in Viet Nam...

Because of the courage and character you demonstrated in Vietnam, I believe you when you say that you'll do a better job than President Bush to win the peace in Iraq, as well as to win the war against terrorism.

And that coming from a hard-card prolifer pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Here are more porminent Republicans endorsing John Kerry:

  • Elmer L. Andersen, former Republican Governor of Minnesota (1961-63) -- Oct. 13
  • Tim Ashby, director, Office of Mexico and the Caribbean, U.S. Commerce Department under Reagan and Bush I -- Oct. 14
  • Jack Bogle Founder of the Vanguard Mutual Fund.
  • David Catania, Republican (now Independent) Councilman from Washington, D.C. -- Sept. 29
  • Steve Chapman, conservative syndicated columnist, Chicago Tribune -- Oct. 24
  • Mike Cobb, former Republican Mayor of Palo Alto, California -- Sept. 8
  • George Comstock, Mayor of Portola Valley, California -- Sept. 1
  • Marlow Cook, former Republican Senator from Kentucky (1968-74) -- Oct. 20
  • David Durenberger, former Senator from Minnesota (1978-95) -- Oct. 27 (endorsing Kerry health plan over Bush's)
  • John Eisenhower, son of former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Sept. 9
  • John A. Galbraith, former Republican Ohio General Assemblyman -- Sept. 28
  • Peter Gillette, former Republican Commissioner of Trade for Minnesota (1991-95) -- Oct. 20
  • Lee Iacocca, former Chrysler Chairman -- June 25
  • Anne Morton Kimberly, widow of Rogers C.B. Morton, former Republican Representative from Maryland -- Oct. 14
  • Steve May, former Republican state legislator from Arizona -- Sept. 10
  • Pete McCloskey (editorial here), former Republican Representative from California -- Sept. 8
  • Ballard Morton, son of Thruston Morton, former Republican Senator from Kentucky -- Oct. 14
  • Clay Myers, Republican Secretary of State (1967-77) and State Treasurer (1977-84) for Oregon -- Sept. 1
  • Clyde Prestowitz, counselor to Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Commerce -- Oct. 6
  • Rick Russman, former Republican State Senator from New Hampshire -- Oct. 7
  • William Milliken, former Republican Governor of Michigan (1969-82) -- Oct. 18
  • Charley Reese, conservative columnist/journalist, Orlando Sentinel (1971-2001) -- May 17
  • Bill Rutherford, former Treasurer of Oregon and Chair of the Oregon Investment Council -- Sept. 1
  • Richard Schmalensee, former Council of Economic Advisers member for President George H. W. Bush -- Oct. 12
  • Jon Silver, former Republican Mayor of Portola Valley, California -- Sept. 24
  • Gail Slocum, former Republican Mayor of Menlo Park, California -- Sept. '04
  • Bob Smith, retired Republican Senator from New Hampshire -- Oct 28
  • Andrew Sullivan, conservative columnist, former editor of The New Republic -- Oct. 26 (on Jul. 25 he announced he wouldn't vote for Bush)
  • Russell E. Train, (interview) EPA chief under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford -- Jul. '04
  • Jude Wanniski, former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, coined term "supply side economics" -- Oct. 27
  • Marshall Wittmann, former communications director to Arizona Republican Senator John McCain -- Oct. 7
  • Various Republican Business Leaders -- Aug. 5

And some Republicans who stop short of endorsing Kerry, but will not vote for George W. Bush


  • Basil Akers, 1992 RNC NM delegate for George H. W. Bush and U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Vietnam, Oct. 25
  • Bob Barr, former Republican Representative from Georgia (1995-2003) -- Oct. 14

  • Robert L. Black, retired Republican judge of the Ohio First District Court of Appeals -- Oct. 13
  • John H. Buchanan, former Republican Congressman from Alabama -- Oct. 4
  • Lincoln Chafee, Republican Senator from Rhode Island -- Oct. 4
  • John Dean, former White House Counsel to former Republican President Nixon -- Apr. '04
  • Paul Findley, former Republican Representative from Illinois -- Apr. '04
  • A. Linwood Holton, former Republican Governor of Virginia (1970-74) -- Aug. 29
  • Log Cabin Republicans -- Sept. 8
  • Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary to Republican President George W. Bush -- Jan. '04
  • Richie Robb, mayor of South Charleston, WV (and 2004 Electoral College WV Republican elector) -- Sep. '04
  • William Saletan, "liberal Republican" columnist for Slate -- Sept. 1
  • Karl W. B. Schwarz, very conservative Republican from Arkansas -- Oct. 20 (see also [1])
  • Walter Olson, Bush 2000 campaign advisor -- Oct. 26

Kerry will win.

October 28, 2004

He Said What?!?

"The President needs to get all the facts before jumping to politically motivated conclusions."

-GWB at a rally today

Does he think no one was paying to attention when he took us to war with mistaken intelligence based on politically motivated conclusions? That bubble must be cutting off oxygen circulation to his brain.

Eyewitness to a Failure in Iraq



Eyewitness to a failure in Iraq

by Peter W. Galbraith | October 27, 2004

from the Boston Globe

IN 2003 I went to tell Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz what I had seen in Baghdad in the days following Saddam Hussein's overthrow. For nearly an hour, I described the catastrophic aftermath of the invasion -- the unchecked looting of every public institution in Baghdad, the devastation of Iraq's cultural heritage, the anger of ordinary Iraqis who couldn't understand why the world's only superpower was letting this happen.

I also described two particularly disturbing incidents -- one I had witnessed and the other I had heard about. On April 16, 2003, a mob attacked and looted the Iraqi equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control, taking live HIV and black fever virus among other potentially lethal materials. US troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important.

When he found out, the young American lieutenant was devastated. He shook his head and said, "I hope I am not responsible for Armageddon." About the same time, looters entered the warehouses at Iraq's sprawling nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha on Baghdad's outskirts. They took barrels of yellowcake (raw uranium), apparently dumping the uranium and using the barrels to hold water. US troops were at Tuwaitha but did not interfere.

There was nothing secret about the Disease Center or the Tuwaitha warehouses. Inspectors had repeatedly visited the center looking for evidence of a biological weapons program. The Tuwaitha warehouses included materials from Iraq's nuclear program, which had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations had sealed the materials, and they remained untouched until the US troops arrived.

The looting that I observed was spontaneous. Quite likely the looters had no idea they were stealing deadly biological agents or radioactive materials or that they were putting themselves in danger. As I pointed out to Wolfowitz, as long as these sites remained unprotected, their deadly materials could end up not with ill-educated slum dwellers but with those who knew exactly what they were doing.

This is apparently what happened. According to an International Atomic Energy Agency report issued earlier this month, there was "widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program." This includes nearly 380 tons of high explosives suitable for detonating nuclear weapons or killing American troops. Some of the looting continued for many months -- possibly into 2004. Using heavy machinery, organized gangs took apart, according to the IAEA, "entire buildings that housed high-precision equipment."

This equipment could be anywhere. But one good bet is Iran, which has had allies and agents in Iraq since shortly after the US-led forces arrived.

This was a preventable disaster. Iraq's nuclear weapons-related materials were stored in only a few locations, and these were known before the war began. As even L. Paul Bremer III, the US administrator in Iraq, now admits, the United States had far too few troops to secure the country following the fall of Saddam Hussein. But even with the troops we had, the United States could have protected the known nuclear sites. It appears that troops did not receive relevant intelligence about Iraq's WMD facilities, nor was there any plan to secure them. Even after my briefing, the Pentagon leaders did nothing to safeguard Iraq's nuclear sites.

I supported President Bush's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. At Wolfowitz's request, I helped advance the case for war, drawing on my work in previous years in documenting Saddam's atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. In spite of the chaos that followed the war, I am sure that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein.

It is my own country that is worse off -- 1,100 dead soldiers, billions added to the deficit, and the enmity of much of the world. Someone out there has nuclear bomb-making equipment, and they may not be well disposed toward the United States. Much of this could have been avoided with a competent postwar strategy. But without having planned or provided enough troops, we would be a lot safer if we hadn't gone to war.

Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is a fellow at the Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. In the 1980s, he documented Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

October 27, 2004

It's the Minorites...

"It is clear that minority turnout is a wildcard in this race and represents a huge upside for Sen. Kerry and a considerable challenge for the President's campaign. If one assumes minority turnout exceeds their 2000 election levels, then it appears a number of these states would tip to Sen. Kerry."

This comes directly from a report entitled, It Can't Get Any Closer in the Battleground States Minority Turnout is Kerry Key, from Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, Inc. The report concludes that when the data is weighted to reflect minority turnout based on the 2000 exit polls, Sen. Kerry leads by 3.5% and if minority turnout is weighted to census levels Sen. Kerry's lead expands to 5.2%.

So there should be no doubt as to why the GOP is engaged in a concerted effort to challenge minority voters in battleground states. It's the only way they can win.

You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor and it would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could…jump to.

Wes Clark on George Bush's recent remarks about Kerry's lack of competence to be Commander in Chief:

Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that "... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief".

President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.

By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief.

Mr. President, I couldn't agree with you more.

Finally, A Democrat With a Backbone

Lawrence O'Donnell, the moderate Democratic commentator, was on Scarborough Country with Swift Boat front man and long time Kerry adversary John O'Neill and just comlpetely slammed him.

You can see the video on the Daily Recycler, but what's more interesting is to read through the 200+ comments from the readers, most of whom are conservative. There's some quality stuff in there. The vitriol is heavy on both sides.

It doesn't matter what the story is or what the facts are, partisans on either side are quick to back whatever version of whatever story is being pumped that day that supports their view. I'm definitely guilty of this myself sometimes, but at least I make an effort to absorb as much media from all sides as possible in order to make an informed decision.

Letter to a Republican

from The Atlantic (subscription)

Letter to a Republican
The case against a vote for Bush
by Jack Beatty

A vote for George W. Bush will make you an accomplice after the fact in the death of thousands and the maiming of thousands more—an infliction of suffering unexcused by justice or necessity. As theologians argued before the invasion of Iraq, preventive war is justified only on grounds of self-defense. But we know now, through the President's own inspector, Charles Duelfer, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States, or to its neighbors. In saying he would launch the war knowing everything he knows now, President Bush has endorsed a principle that most Americans would denounce if other countries espoused it: Might makes right.

Bush could (but doesn't) claim he was misled by bad intelligence into believing that Saddam possessed WMD. But you know better. In voting for Bush now, you would be taking a position you would not have taken before the war—that even if Iraq had no WMD and no connection to 9/11, the U.S. should invade and occupy it; that even without justification, we should kill from ten- to twenty-thousand Iraqis; that even though self-defense does not require it, we should will the death of over 1,000 U.S. servicemen and women and the wounding of 7,000 more. Bush is stuck with that position. He is a politician; you are not. He is asking you to endorse all that has happened knowing that none of it was necessary. Won't that be worse than endorsing what the Pope called the war before it began—"a defeat for humanity"? Won't it be more like endorsing a crime against humanity?

But, you say, Saddam is in jail. His regime is gone. The Iraqis are free. Toppling his regime, however, was not an end in itself but a means to the end of securing Iraq's WMD. Which did not exist. Such threat—faint, almost notional—as Iraq posed was contained before the war. And now? Osama Bin Laden wanted to provoke Western intervention in an Arab country and Bush played into his hands. How much will Iraq help Bin Ladenism? We can't know. But, from the point of view of U.S. security, the cost of removing Saddam exceeds the short-term benefit, and weights the odds against realizing any long-term gain by way of "democracy" in Iraq.

As for the Iraqis, they are free of Saddam, but at what cost? Put it this way. The U.S. population is roughly twelve times Iraq's. How would you feel if, in liberating us from an oppressive government, a foreign invader killed 120,000 Americans? If your son or daughter was among those killed, your loss would be absolute; beyond balance by any future gain for the country. That is how it is for many of the Iraqis we have "liberated." Life was hard under Saddam, but it was life nonetheless. Saddam was not perpetrating genocide, which would have given the intervention a humanitarian justification, allowing us to claim we killed thousands to save hundreds of thousands. But you know better.

A vote for Bush promises the absolution of denial—and that, I think, explains his otherwise inexplicable hold on the electorate. The President cannot face the truth, but his moral blindness won't excuse yours. Our soldiers have done their duty. No dishonor attaches to them. It attaches to Bush; and it will attach to you if you vote for him.

50-48 Kerry

Not that I put much stock in this, but Kerry has hit the 50% mark in the latest WaPo tracking poll.

To me, this means that Kerry will garner something like 52-53% based on what I think will be huge voter turnout including a large chunk on newly registered voters who hate George Bush.

A four point spread in the national polls should translate to something around 300 Electoral Votes for Kerry. I think he will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (unless Gov. Bush can pull a rabbit out of the hat). Kerry should also take Michigan and Minnesota. New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin, which Gore took in 2000 by small margins are in jeopardy, but it won't matter if Kerry wins OH, PA, FL, MN and MI.

There's still a week to go and a terror alert at the last minute can swing the balance of the electorate in the wrong direction, but it seems to me at least, the good guys are finally headed in the right direction, so to speak.

Go Team!

October 26, 2004

What's This About?



Powell's China Comments Anger Taiwanese

TAIPEI, Taiwan - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has angered Taiwanese officials and lawmakers by making unusually strong comments denying that the island is an independent nation and suggesting Taiwan should unify with China.

Washington usually avoids weighing in on the touchy split, which arose when Mao Zedong's communist army won control of the Chinese mainland in 1949 and anti-communist forces took refuge on Taiwan.

But Powell waded into the unification question Monday in interviews with CNN and Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television during a one-day visit to China.

According to a State Department transcript, Powell told Phoenix: "There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."

That was a departure from the U.S. government's longtime "one China policy," a purposely fuzzy approach that merely "acknowledges" people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree there is one China. Washington also insists differences should be settled peacefully and in recent years has emphasized that the Taiwanese people should have a say in the matter. [more]

I suppose Powell is out there in the continued attempt to repair Sino-American relations after W appeared on Good Morning America back his first 100 days in office and gave away the diplomatic store on Taiwan:

GIBSON : I'm curious, if you, in your own mind, feel that if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?

BUSH : Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.

GIBSON : With the full force of American military?

BUSH : Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.

Bush's comments marked a clear reversal of 30 years of American policy in relation to China and Taiwan based on a doctrine known as "strategic ambiguity" and the first (i think) major gaff in a long line of foreign policy mistakes from this administration.

The Election: Only a Week To Go

And thank the good lord for that. This constant barrage is draining. I suppose I could turn off the TV, unplug the radio at work and stop surfing the web, but I can't stop. To me this campaign is like a car wreck on the side of the road. I don't want to look, but I have to.

The rightwing nuts and the leftwing nuts all think their guy is going to win in a landslide. Me. I'm cautiously optimistic. I think Kerry is edging away slightly in important swing states, most notably Ohio and Pennsylvania (both states where Nader is off the ballot, incidentally) and will win if everyone who plans on voting is able to vote and their votes are counted.

Bush is not polling over 50% in any swing state or nationally which is great news for the Kerry camp as undecideds trend towards the challenger at the end of an election cycle. The Democrats have also registered far more voters than the Republicans and I don't think that is being accurately reflected in the polls.

That said, there's a week left and so much could happen. I just hope that whatever the result is, that we know it on November 3rd. I don't think anyone wants to have to go through another 2000 experience again.

The Right to Vote

As a citizen of this crumbling republic, I consider the right to vote as precious as any right that I have. It bothers me that people don't take this seriously. I don't understand why more people don't vote. I understand the reasons, but I don't really understand the mentality.

It should be the case that regardless of what party you support (I'm an Independent supporting John Kerry), we as a country should be doing everything in our power to make sure as many people as possible vote. Registration should be an easy simple process. Voting should uniform across the country. Every effort should be made to make sure that everyone who wants to votes and all votes are counted accurately.

This is why it's so disturbing to see anyone or any party do anything to try to stop, intimidate or deny people from voting. I had a problem with the Gore campaign not wanting to count some military absentee ballots and not asking for a complete recount in Florida instead of just in a few key counties. I had a problem with Kathryn Harris dereliction of duty as an election official. And I have a real problem with what the NYT reported over the weekend about the GOP's plan to challenge voters at the polls in Ohio:

Republican Party officials in Ohio took formal steps yesterday to place thousands of recruits inside polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of voters they suspect are not eligible to cast ballots.

and the BBC report of voter intimidation plans in Florida:

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts

When it's obvious that one party is doing everything they can to register new voters and the other party is doing everything they can to deny people the right to vote, you have wonder why anyone of conscious would stand up for the party of subversion. If the Republicans can only win by minimizing turnout and keeping people away from the polls, then what is the point of being a citizen in this so-called democracy?

Standing Up For Massachusetts

Paul Waldman at the Gadflyer has an article about Bush's continuous slamming of Massachusetts that I've been talking about offline for a long time, albeit much less eloquently. This overblown charge goes unanswered by both the media and the Kerry campaign.

My questions about this are many:

a) how does the media let Bush get away with this?
b) why doesn't the Kerry campaign say something?
c) can you imagine the firestorm if Kerry said the same thing about Texas?
d) why don't people in MA stand up and say something?

Seriously, where is the backbone of the people from Massachusetts? If California was getting slammed by the president the same way, people here would be up in arms. My personal feeling is that the country would be a hell of a lot better off if the more states were like MA (I'm talking to you, Kentucky), but that's besides the point.

The real point is not why the good people of the Bay State are not speaking up, but why Kerry and his campaign isn't saying anything. Waldman puts it succinctly.

John Kerry knows that if he criticized one state or one region of the country, the press and the Republicans would come down on him like a ton of bricks, charging him with being a Northeastern elitist who doesn't want to be the president of all Americans.

But the rules are different on the other side of the aisle. In today's politics, it is acceptable for Republicans to traffic in ugly stereotypes and assert outright that people who come from some areas of America are not really American. Some might remember the ad to which I referred, aired by the conservative Club for Growth, which said, "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

Is This Really Happening In Our Country?

from the Des Moines Register:

One of the latest incidents came when John Sachs, 18, a Johnston High School senior and Democrat, went to see Bush in Clive last week. Sachs got a ticket to the event from school and wanted to ask the president about whether there would be a draft, about the war in Iraq, Social Security and Medicare.

But when he got there, a campaign staffer pulled him aside and made him remove his button that said, "Bush-Cheney '04: Leave No Billionaire Behind." The staffer quizzed him about whether he was a Bush supporter, asked him why he was there and what questions he would be asking the president.

"Then he came back and said, 'If you protest, it won't be me taking you out. It will be a sniper,' " Sachs said. "He said it in such a serious tone it scared the crap out of me."

Sachs stayed at the event, but he was escorted to a section of the 7 Flags Events Center where he was surrounded by Secret Service and told he couldn't ask questions. "I was just in a state of fear," he said. "I was looking at the ceiling and I didn't know what to expect, I was so scared."

They actually threatened to shoot him because he wanted to ask a question of the president. [when I wake up from this nightmare, will Bush go away?]

Read the whole story at the from the Des Moines Register.

Look Ma, No Tables

I'm towards the end of the process of removing tables (except where intended such as tabular data) from my site converting American Idle over to a CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) Design. My site is a very complicated mosaic of multiple blogs and I have close to a 1000 entries so it's tedious process, but the end is in sight.

Why am I doing this? The basic idea of CSS Design is that the substance of the site, the entries and the information, and the style of the site, how it looks, are separated completely. The great advantage is that once the meat of the site is removed from the style, it's very easy to change the look and feel of the site because one cascading style sheet controls everything about the site from what fonts you use to where information is placed.

To see how this works, have a look at my site without a style sheet applied. This is simply the blog in its rawest form. In the future, without too much effort, if I want to give my site a facelift, all I need to do is compose a new stylesheet which is far easier than going into every document and finding places where changes need to be made.

Since I'm in the middle of this process, the site is in a state of flux, so if you see something weird, don't worry, I'm probably just testing something new. However, there might be problems that I'm not aware of so if you see something straight-up wrong, just email me and let me know.

If you really want to see this in action, check out the CSS Zen Garden

Here It Comes

Tahoe Snow Report:

SNOW LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO START OUT AROUND 7000 FEET THIS MORNING...BEFORE DROPPING DOWN TO NEAR THE VALLEY FLOORS TUESDAY NIGHT. TOTAL SNOW ACCUMULATIONS OF 5 TO 10 INCHES ARE EXPECTED BELOW 7000 FEET ...WITH 1 TO 2 FEET ABOVE 7000 FEET. THERE MAY BE A BREAK IN THE SNOWFALL TUESDAY EVENING ...BEFORE ADDITIONAL SNOW DEVELOPS WEDNESDAY AS ANOTHER DISTURBANCE APPROACHES FROM CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.

I heard on the news this morning that there could be 12 feet of snow in the Sierras, but I think the news anchor was confused and actually meant 1-2 feet, but I'll take it. Heavenly plans to open on the 19th. Before then I need to get my tail down to San Diego where I left all my ski gear and fetch it back up here. I have a feeling it's going to be an awesome season.

October 25, 2004

I Hate to Say It, But...

...Please Shut Up!

from Mark Twang:
Please Shut Up

Wolfpaks For Truth

They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial!
--The Wolves

This is the Bush Campaignistration's answer to Reagan's "Bear in the Woods" ad from 1984. It's not clear whether the wolves in the ad represent liberals or terrorists, but it is clear that the Bush ad people don't care, as long as you come away with a negative opinion of John Kerry.

I have only seen the ad online and on news programs. Precious little national political advertising is on the California airwaves. I have no idea what affect, if any, it might be having in the various battleground states. Personally, I think the ad is weak and won't work.

Whatever the president does or says, it remains true that his approval rating is below 50% and that's a death knell for an incumbent politician. Traditionally undecideds break in favor of the challenger, 4-1. If Kerry can keep it close, he will win. If Democrats can parlay their sizeable advantage in new voter registration to Kerry votes, he might win, well, maybe not a landslide, but by more than a handful of electoral votes. This is my preferred outcome because the larger the victory, the less likely this election will be decided in the courts.

The get the skinny on the ad, take a gander at the story from FactCheck.org

The Bullshit Piles Up So Fast in Iraq,
You Need Wings To Stay Above It

380 tons of powerful conventional explosives --MISSING.

When Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary was asked about this, he said that not only did we only find out about the theft in the last few weeks, but "that the sites now are really -- my understanding, they're the responsibility of the Iraqi forces." I guess the buck doesn't stop at the president.

The problem is, according the NYT article, the US was informed by the IAEA about the explosive caches prior to the invasion.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

I can hardly believe what I read in today's McClellan briefing. When asked about Senator Kerry's remarks calling this one of the greatest blunders in the Iraq mission and this presidency, here's how McClellan responded:

Well, Senator Kerry has a strategy of protest and retreat for Iraq. It is essential that we succeed in Iraq, because Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. The President will talk in his remarks today about how the terrorists understand how high the stakes are in Iraq. They are doing everything they can to try to disrupt the progress we are making toward free elections in Iraq. And this is a critical difference in how the two candidates view the war on terrorism. Senator Kerry has a strategy for retreat and defeat in Iraq. The President has a strategy for success in Iraq.

A couple of things. Let's get one thing straight. Is Kerry's strategy "protest and retreat" or "retreat and defeat"? We need to settle that once and for all. If the president has a "strategy for success in Iraq" it's about time we see it, huh?

Say it with me:

Wrong War. Wrong Place. Wrong Time.

Once more for emphasis:

Wrong War. Wrong Place. Wrong Time.

Remember what Bush said in the first debate:

I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, they are. They are not going to follow someone who ignores and distorts reality and fails to admit a mistake.

Wax My Skis & Sharpen My Edges

Two good things happened to me this morning. The first is that I paid my Visa bill in full and longer have any credit card debt. The second is that I my Season Ski Pass for Heavenly is bought and paid for.

It was a no brainer. The pass costs only 300 bucks for the entire season. That's right. Only 300 bucks. I don't know what Heavenly charges for day passes, but I do know that the mountain is owned by Vail Resorts where a lift ticket costs 73 bucks a day during most of the season. So for slightly more than the cost of four full-priced days, I can ski all season.

It's not going to be the same as last year where I lived in Vail and skied every day, but I will ski as many weekends as I want and take at least one and probably two full week vacations in the Sierras. On top of that, the pass also includes 3 days at Vail, Beaver Creek or Breckenridge, so I want to make a trip back to Colorado, I can ski for free.

So it's time to wax my skis and sharpen my edges and get ready to hit the slopes!

October 21, 2004

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program

A report from the Program on International Policy Attitudes graphically illustrates how the support for President Bush regarding the war in Iraq is based largely on innaccurate information. Big surprise, considering much of Bush support is not rooted in anything close to reality.

Here's how the report begins:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Possibly even more interesting is when asked if the United States should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence sources had agreed that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Therefore, the only way for them to continue to support the president is through a cloud of cognitive dissonance that shields them from having face difficult facts aka reality.

And you wonder why the country is so divided?

Read the entire report from the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

John Kerry for President

It's no big suprise that the New York Times has come out with an endorsement for John Kerry. I doubt highly that it will change any minds not already made up, despite being the most influencial newspaper in the country (or most hated if you're one of those who decries the "liberal" media bias". However, the piece makes a powerful case that Kerry will make a better president and how and where George Bush has failed. Here's one example

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

But the president asked for no sacrifice. He missed the opportunity to take a galvinized population to support a cause, any cause that would have benefited the United States or the world. Instead he called for more tax cuts and told people to go about their lives as normal, and above all, don't stop spending.

This missed opportunity will be the crux of how Bush's failed presidency is remembered after he is gone, whether he wins a second term or not, despite the president's assertion (as detailed by Bob Woodward) that we won't know how history will judge him because we will all be dead. He's as wrong about that as he is about anything from stem cell research to the war in Iraq.

Read the whole editorial from the New York Times

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.


October 20, 2004

God: The Ultimate Flip-Flopper

[File this under funny if it weren't so damn scary]

There's this extraordinary story on CNN where the founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition Pat Robertson describes a conversation he had with George Bush prior to the start of the war in Iraq in which he delivers the following anecdote:

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

Then Robertson went on to say, "I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy. I warned him about casualties."

Now, who are we to believe here? Is "God" speaking to Robertson or Bush? Is he speaking to both but giving them opposite and contradictory information?

Based on this limited information it would appear that Robertson has the ear of "God" while Bush is still getting disinformation from the Almighty. What I want to know is has "God" told Robertson who is going to win Game 7 between the Yanks and the Sox?

Bush Relatives for Kerry

It doesn't get any more personal than this:

Bush Relatives for Kerry

October 19, 2004

Don't Misunderestimate Us



Bonds Ball

How much would you pay for a Costa Rican-made piece of rawhide and thread?

Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

Well, I don't hate Bill, I just dislike him immensely, but this guy does:

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly, International is an organization
dedicated to the dissemination of information that exposes
Bill O'Reilly for what he is: an ego-driven, biased individual who
spreads fear, hate and misunderstanding. His views are firmly
anchored to the political right. He works tirelessly to enrage
Americans and pit them against anything he considers "liberal"
or, worse yet, "secular". Mr. O'Reilly uses highly manipulative
forms of presentation, phrasing and, yes, "spin".

--Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
an organization of hope

Then again, maybe I do hate him. (if you are one of the thousands of people who haven't heard of Bill O'Reilly you can find out all about him in the Rolling Stone expose)

Like freedom to Afghanistan, the sexual harrasment story is a gift from the Almighty to the publisher of Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly.

For the man on the street take on Bill O'Reilly, check this out.

Cross Party Endorsement

Michigan's former Republican Governor William Milliken has come out with a statement of support for John Kerry that eloquently dams current administration policy on everything from Iraq to fiscal policy to the environment and just about everything in between in a way that Kerry doesn't seem to be able to. Here's one example:

"My Republican Party is the party of Michigan Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg who helped forge a bipartisan foreign policy that served this nation well and produced strong alliances across the globe. This president has, in a highly partisan, unilateral way rushed us into a tragic and unnecessary war that has cost the lives of more than 1,000 of our young men and women. In this arrogant rush to war, he has alienated this nation from much of the world.

What's worse, the basic premises upon which we were taken to war proved to be false. Now, we find ourselves in the midst of an occupation that was largely unplanned and has become a disaster from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves."

I believe that there are many people of conscience on the Republican side who feel exactly the same way as Mr. Milliken does, but are afraid to speak out. I don't think his statement is going to affect the race in Michigan which is going to fall in the Dems column comfortably, but maybe it will convince likeminded people to come out declare for Kerry.

Read the full statement below.

As a lifelong Republican, I have had mounting concern watching this year's presidential campaign.

I have always been proud to be a Republican. My Republican Party is a broad-based party, that seeks to bring a wide spectrum of people under its umbrella and that seeks to protect and provide opportunity for the most vulnerable among us.

Sadly, that is not the Republican Party that I see at the national level today.

My Republican Party has always been a party that stood for fiscal responsibility. Today, under George W. Bush, we have the largest deficit in the history of our country - a deficit that jeopardizes economic growth that is so desperately needed in a nation that has lost 2.6 million jobs since he took office.

To make matters even worse, this president inherited a surplus, but squandered it with huge tax cuts structured primarily to benefit the wealthy and powerful.

My Republican Party is the party of Michigan Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg who helped forge a bipartisan foreign policy that served this nation well and produced strong alliances across the globe. This president has, in a highly partisan, unilateral way rushed us into a tragic and unnecessary war that has cost the lives of more than 1,000 of our young men and women. In this arrogant rush to war, he has alienated this nation from much of the world.

What's worse, the basic premises upon which we were taken to war proved to be false. Now, we find ourselves in the midst of an occupation that was largely unplanned and has become a disaster from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves.

My Republican Party is the party of Theodore Roosevelt, who fought to preserve our natural resources and environment. This president has pursued policies that will cause irreparable damage to our environmental laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the public lands we share with future generations.

My Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, who freed an enslaved people. This president fought in the courts to strike down policies designed to provide opportunity and access to our own University of Michigan for minority students.

My Republican Party is the party of Eisenhower, who warned us to beware of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. This president has pursued policies skewed to favor large corporations in the defense and oil industry and has gone so far as to let those industries help write government policies.

My Republican Party is a party that respects and works with the men and women of the law enforcement community who put their lives on the line for us every day. This president ignored the pleas of law enforcement agencies across America and failed to lift a finger to renew the assault weapons ban that they strongly supported as an essential safeguard for public safety.

My Republican Party is a party that values the pursuit of knowledge. But this president stands in the way of meaningful embryonic stem-cell research that holds so much promise for those who suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and other conditions.

My Republican Party is the party of Gerald R. Ford, Michigan's only president, who reached across partisan lines to become a unifying force during a time of great turmoil in our nation's history. This president has pursued policies pandering to the extreme right wing across a wide variety of issues and has exacerbated the polarization and the strident, uncivil tone of much of what passes for political discourse in this country today.

Women's rights, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, the funding of family planning efforts world-wide - all have suffered grievously under this president and his administration.

The truth is that President George W. Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross section of issues.

Sen. John