Wednesday, August 11, 2004

McCain's Wrong-Bush SHOULD have Flinched

McCain's Wrong--Bush should have flinched

I heard Arizona senator John McCain publically say that George W.Bush didn't flinch when faced with "hard choices".

Hard choices?

Bush, according to verifiable sources, had planned to go after Saddam Hussein (the words "F**k Saddam, we're taking him out" were used by the prez) well before 9/11.

Was it a hard choice to lie to the American people about the reasons for attacking Iraq?
It should have been.

McCain tries to make Bush look heroic in his decisiveness.

He says Bush didn't flinch.

Knowing what we know now (and even what we knew then), he damn well should have flinched.

The act of "deciding" isn't worth a slimy spitball if you don't have the intuition, intelligence, honesty, or character to decide what is truthful and right.

Custer decided to move his troops toward the Little Bighorn one day. The decisive cuss went and killed himself along with hundreds of others.

I would have told Custer to flinch.
How about you?

_____________


Do you think John McCain has sold his soul? Read Thomas Schaller's thoughts.

And at Norwegianity, we see that Mark has offered another way of thinking about the whole thing.

Ron Reagan: The Case Against George W. Bush

Ron Reagan: The Case Against George W. Bush

In this month's Esquire magazine, I have read what I consider to be a superb article. Ron Reagan takes on almost every issue I think we proud liberals have been talking about for the past two years and lays out the facts in an orderly, persuasive, succint, non-aggressive, truthful, and dignified manner.

On the same day I read this article, I saw that, sadly, Laura Bush had publically stated that she believed John Kerry's case for opening up the field of stem cell research was "ridiculous". I thought to myself, 'Gee, Laura Bush must think Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan's ideas are ridiculous as well'. That isn't saying much for Laura Bush, is it? I've made observations about her defense of her husband's unrealistic restrictions on American freedom once before when it came to this issue. Bottom line, I think she publically disgraces herself on this issue.

Book Review: "Bush on The Couch" by Justin A. Frank M.D.


Wanted:

President, 2004


Unstable Psyches Need Not Apply



Book review:
"Bush on the Couch"

by Justin A Frank M.D.

Also reviewed at DKosopedia Book Reviews/Daily Kos





George W. Bush has never graced a couch in Dr. Justin Frank’s office, but he has a public persona that we, as a nation, have come to know well over these past four years. We were already familiar with his family since his father was our 41st President. After nearly four years as president, we are familiar with GW Bush’s style, his facial expressions, his words, his attitudes about religion, and his attitudes regarding the rule of law. We’ve even come to know a bit about his personal demons—as much as this secretive president will allow us to know.

Dr. Frank, a Washington-based psychoanalyst and clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical center, educates readers with a historical record provided by journalists, biographers, and those who’ve known the president well. He traces the development of Bush’s character from childhood to the present. Through psychoanalytic investigation, “Bush on the Couch” explores how the current president’s efforts to cope with his many anxieties weave their way through his familiar life story.

The purpose is not to reduce the president, but to enrich our way of being able to know and understand him. Dr. Frank's professionally developed conclusions are quite persuasive—some are very surprising. Dr. Frank asks us Americans to be compassionate yet realistically conscientious because we are, after all, the employers of the person in the Oval Office. It is our sober civic responsibility to determine and ensure that our leader is well suited for his position in every way.

Dr. Frank employs varied studies from both historic and contemporary luminaries in the field of psychoanalysis to help us understand the contradictions and inconsistencies which may cause us to seriously question our president’s sound ability to govern. I decided to format my review in the form of a number of questions and display Dr. Frank’s thoughts about them based upon his own psychoanalytic investigation.



-How can someone so friendly and playful be the same guy who cuts government programs aiding the poor and hungry?


Austrian psychoanalyst Melanie Klein’s model of the development of an infant’s worldwide view holds the key to understanding the psychological processes at work, and Dr. Frank relies upon her work in the psychoanalytic field to help us unravel the mystery that surrounds the sometimes-confusing public actions and/or words of Mr. Bush. The role of the president’s parents is carefully explained, investigated, and analyzed. His mother’s, own insecurities may have prevented her from adequately nurturing her first-born son. His father was often unavailable and detached. Deep in Bush’s childhood are the roots of a dramatic psychic split that has forever hampered his ability to manage his emotions—filling him with anxiety and conditioning him to see the world in black and white. The death of his younger sister and the way he was sheltered by his family from naturally grieving left a psychological mark upon him—leaving him with a seeming lack of true empathy which is actually a self-protective indifference to the pain of others.



-Is Bush’s possible untreated alcoholism shaping our nation’s agenda? Has the press been walking on too many eggshells when it comes to asking all-important questions regarding our President’s state of mental health?.


By attempting to solve his own drinking problems, Bush has externalized his enemy rather than acknowledging that a greater threat than the alcohol has actually been the enemy within. The result has been his reliance on the crutch of his own rigid thought processes, which has become a hallmark of the GW Bush presidency. Too often, we see a consistent stubborn streak in Bush's words and actions, which may be the sole comfortable source of psychological solace for him, according to Dr. Frank.



Melanie Klein observed that the destructive forces we fear most are those we could turn against ourselves. Dealing with this fear can be a lifelong struggle and must be confronted directly. Bush’s admitted past alcohol-abuse was likely caused by his many anxieties which he now staves off by maintaining high control in most—if not all—aspects of his life. Examples used by Dr. Frank are the president’s famously short meetings, the near-obsessive exercise schedule, the daily Bible readings, limited office hours, and time spent away in Washington (42% of his first seven months in office). Dr. Frank suggests that the press needs to ask more questions intead of walking on eggshells as they've done in the past. The fear of their “excommunication” has stifled journalists' discussion of the issue in the past, making the press enablers of his alcohol-related psychological impairments.



-How can the president sound so confused and yet act so decisively? How does it come to pass that truth becomes the constant casualty of Bush’s fears? Does he think he’s fooling the American public?


Melanie Klein has proposed that we are all unconsciously subject to a Biblically-cited psychic law of retribution called the Law of Talion—or “What goes around comes around.” By Bush’s making our own world seem more dangerous, he creates a permanent self-fulfilling justification for his own behavior. Instilling the fear of discovery and retaliation, this ancient law of retribution helps Bush to control his own destructive impulses unconsciously. Dr. Frank explains how Bush’s refusal to accept blame for any wrongdoing suggests a consistent desire to live outside the Law of Talion. For instance, Dr. Frank mentions Bush’s abrogation of many international treaties and his exhibition of a flagrant disregard for the truth.

According to Sigmund Freud, those who felt that normal laws didn’t apply to them were assigned the character type he termed as “the Exceptions”, and Dr. Frank believes this comes close to what we know about GW Bush. One of the capacities that help us distinguish fact from fiction is the ability to process complex thought. When this ability relies on a mental apparatus that is primitive and misguided, limitations and mistakes may become unrecognizable to the individual.

While he avoids an exhaustive review of our current president’s many misrepresentations, Dr. Frank carefully explains Bush’s flagrant flouting of authority throughout his professional life. He examines Bush’s manifestations of grandiosity where “magical thinking” borne of a false sense of omnipotence is filtered down to the American people in all-too simplified terms. Bush’s often-repeated use of sweeping phrases results in a failure to take realistic consequences into consideration. In this process, Bush (and his administration) tap into the part of our personality that hates internal reality and prefers to cling to a simplistic, secure worldview. This theory is supported by 20th century British psychoanalyst Wilfed Ruprecht Bion (pioneer of group dynamics). Bion pointed out that the part of the personality that hates internal law—the law of reality, of time, of responsibility, and of loss—hates external reality as well.



Dr. Frank throws Bush’s obvious antagonism toward the press into the mix, using examples such as Bush’s method of distracting his press-questioners from the truth, his threats to psychologically punish skeptical press-questioners, and his actual statements about the press using “trick questions” against him. Sadly, Bush’s own difficulty with reasoning itself seems to have bred an indifference—and perhaps even hatred--toward it.

Unfortunately, truth is the casualty of Bush’s limping psychological coping mechanisms. When much of the truth is left behind—unchallenged and unquestioned, it is truly a frightening national proposition. Because of Bush’s own fear of vulnerability (which his grandiosity cannot hide), Dr. Frank shows us that it is natural, when Bush feels threatened, that we all (appropriately) feel vulnerable.



Living in a psychological world where the fear of discovery motivates stonewalling, Bush seems to fear of any “evidence he might uncover if he were so bold as to pick up a newspaper on his own”. Dr. Frank uses a reference to Jeff Daniels’ character in the Woody Allen film The Purple Rose of Cairo to compare Bush’s inhabiting of an unreal world whose laws are dominated by magical thinking. In the film, Daniels’ character was a movie character-turned-real person who only had fake money to pay his restaurant bill and he didn’t imagine anyone would have a problem with it. This drives home the point that Bush’s own theatrics may fool some people, but unless he’s entirely mad (and no one’s suggesting that he is), it’s unlikely that he can completely fool himself.



-How is it that our deeply religious president feels free to bomb Iraq—and then celebrate the results with open expressions of joy?


One of the most compelling chapters in the book deals with Bush and God. Religion has been seen by some as a parental substitute and, according to Kleinian theory, has the capacity to discourage intellectual independence. In religion, the president may have found a source of calm not wholly different from alcohol.

Because belief can simplify one’s life, it tends to narrow most debate—greatly reducing the number of questions and stifling the natural curiosity that would usually stem from a wide universe of possibilities. Fundamentalist religion narrows this universe of possibilities even further. While protecting his own self from his many fears and anxieties, it’s quite possible that Mr. Bush may actually believe he’s protecting the rest of us as well (although the result is just the opposite).

Dr. Frank discusses how religion replaces ambiguity with dualism. Banishing ambivalence and nuance from his anxious mind, Bush envisions himself in a belief system as fixed as his fundamentalist faith—which can be used to justify any and all types of behavior since it views the world as full of one kind of infidel after another. It is all too easy to cloak oneself in the certainty of ‘goodness’ while disregarding the possibility that you could make a mistake. Bush’s inability to deal effectively with opposition and get along with the world arises directly from this handicap. It is a handicap his affability and religiosity cannot cover.



Bush has not been shy to tell America that he relies heavily upon God, and whether it's a fixed set of faith-based beliefs or a set of stock phrases in press conferences on which he relies, the need to cling to such objects can reveal an act of desperation when an individual feels lost and threatened by the complexity of possibilities in the wide universe. Ironically, Bush has used faith to attempt to escape his powerful fears by retreating to an all-too simplistic view of a frightening situation. This character trait, in a national leader, does not contribute to protecting the nation itself. Dr. Frank asks us, for example, to compare Rudy Giuliani rolling up his shirtsleeves after 9/11 and getting directly to the work of his terror-stricken city with Bush’s early advice to terribly frightened and confused Americans to shop and travel as they had before (a near-denial of radical measures he was taking in the nation’s actual response to the attacks). We have witnessed similar conflicting information in the most recent terror alerts in New York City, Newark, N.J., and Washington D.C. Do we honestly feel protected and do we trust our leader who tells us one thing (go about your normal day-we are safer than ever) and does another (wielding carefully timed homeland threats like a color-coded Chicken Little)?

I’m sure you have heard our president tell us time after (nauseating) time that terrorists “hate us for our freedoms”. You may wonder where that‘s coming from. By externalizing evil (even more quickly than he "externalizes" American jobs), Bush absolves America--and himself-- of responsibility, transforming his non-integrated infantile worldview into a combative foreign policy.

The concepts of ‘Mr. Bush-- the nation’s president’ and ‘Mr. Bush-- God’s own chosen president’ become nearly interchangeable, which makes it easier to cheer when we see bombs dropping over civilian heads in “evil” lands.

When you’re aligned with angels, you’re pretty much beyond reproach.



-How can a president send American soldiers into combat under false pretenses and then proceed to joke about the deception, finding humor in the absence of WMD under his Oval Office desk?


Lo and behold—GW Bush has brought institutionalized sadism to the Oval Office. The grandiose Bush’s indifference to the real sufferings of others is a passive manifestation of innate sadism. While he tries to maintain an inner life free from conflict, he betrays an unconscious fear of conferring reality to others. His own sadism may escape undetected if the object of his attacks is a known sadist. (Can you say Saddam Hussein?)

While he can joke about the absence of WMD, he denies the public a chance to view the Dover military coffin photos. Dr Frank believes this may suggest an unconscious resentment toward troops whose extreme bravery put his own sad wartime service record to shame.

Falling back on the infantile apparatus that causes the individual to “project” (or “call the kettle black” in simple terms), a sadist detaches his destructiveness and assigns it to someone else. Interestingly, Bush turned the public’s post-9/11 pain into a fantasy of even greater pain—diminishing the real tragedy of 9/11 while trying to elevate his ”anti-Saddam vendetta” into a new national crusade. His treatment of the killings of Saddam’s sons sent a vivid message about his insensitivity to violence. (I can’t help but wonder if it didn’t inspire those at the Abu Ghraib prison to act out as they did).



Why did Bush feel the truth was so terrible during the lead-up to the Iraq war that it had to be concealed?


Dr. Frank suggests that Bush was incapable of safely confronting the true extent of his own innate sadism.

I experienced an “Aha!” moment when I read that Saddam Hussein was an “ideal vessel” for Bush’s projected sadistic self. Ultimately, sadism is a confusion of love & fear---of leadership & torture. The sadism that motivated the war in Iraq was evident in Bush’s lack of any plan for the post-war phase. His delusions of omnipotence appear to have prevented him from thinking about the future as anything but victorious.

Sadly, Dr. Frank compares the sad reality of the Iraq charade to the domestic charade Bush has sadistically created right here at home—with no provisions for the ruins left behind as a result of his “barrage of domestic initiatives”.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



If Mr. Bush was to be elected in 2004 (note that I didn’t say re-elected), Dr. Frank reminds us that he would only be poised to add to his already-existing history of failures, which have become our collective national failures. (Does anyone you talk to really have a clear vision of how or where the Iraq war is going?) Dr. Frank believes a collective denial on our part has helped to put Bush in his position (along with five Supreme Court justices) and it is our work to overcome any further denial. This leads to Dr. Franks’s bottom-line analysis and recommendation:

“Having seen the depth and range of President Bush’s psychological flaws … our sole treatment option — for his benefit and for ours — is to remove President Bush from office.”


Many thanks to Dr. Frank for his professional analysis and advice.
I don’t think we can afford to doubt him.
Frankly, (no pun intended), I think we'd have to be nuts to allow this president to continue to sew up his record of failing America while hanging by a psycho-thin thread.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

I wasn't the only blogger in Provincetown...

I wasn't the only blogger in Provincetown..

..last week.

I didn't run into Berta Walker, but I did run into Joel Meyerowitz.

We talked about this photo....


Credit: Joel Meyerowitz photo

...it had deeply touched me. He pointed out that the welder had just received five stitches to his cheek before the photo was taken. He also mentioned there was a tear in the welder's eye. The tear had little to do with the injury to his cheek.


photo credit: CapeCodOnline.com

If you are anywhere near the Cape this summer,don't miss Mr. Meyerowitz' exhibit, "Inside the Forbidden City : Photographs from Ground Zero", which runs through September 5th at the Provincetown Art Association and Museum.

Kerry draws Bush war distinction

Kerry draws Bush war distinction



"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."

--GW Bush, August 9, 2004

________________________


Yesterday I recommended that John Kerry write a piece for the NY Times or the Boston Globe, drawing us a map of distinction and separation from Bush's war.

After all, Bush was the Commander in Chief..the man on whose shoulders rested the one final decision to place American boots on the hell-ground of Iraq where insurgents waited to spill the blood of our troops.
There were no roses.
There were no flowers, save for the ones that beautifully rest upon the silent graves of 930 American troops.
There were no WMD.
Liberation has become a hollowed-out word.
Civil war is all that blooms in the land of Iraq.

Today, we learn that John Kerry has given an initial response.

John asks George:

George, why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?

George, why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

George, why did you mislead America about how you would go to war?

George, why have you not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?

Why, George?
These are questions for George and George alone, regardless of how John Kerry voted in October of 2002.
It's time for George to take responsibility for his own actions.

In the presidential debates, I expect that Bush (unconsciously or consciously--who knows?) will psychologically project his fear, guilt, and anxiety over all his failures and attempt to make John Kerry the receptacle of the baggage.

It isn't going to work.

This man was the President.

There can be no pot calling the kettle black when you're the biggest, blackest kettle in the country.

Accountability, George.

It's all about accountability.

Yes, George. Your sweeping-phrase theatrics haven't fooled us, and come November, you're probably going to be terribly surprised (because you don't read news or blogs) to find out just what kind of leader we think you've been.


Divider Bush picks a partisan for CIA

Divider Bush picks a partisan for CIA

Bush picked the nominee I suspected he'd pick.

Bush never does anything surprising.

He's a divider..just as Tom DeLay told him (in no uncertain terms after his inauguration) that he would be. *July 2004, Vanity Fair magazine*

He chose Porter Goss..a wicked partisan.

They say elephants never forget.

Neither does Iddybud.

The folks in the Bush administration are bitter dividers. They understood fully what this choice would do to Americans and their representatives.

Benjamin Franklin told us that if we won't hang together, we might all end up hanging separately.

Here we are--shreds of America flapping in the proverbial breeze.

Why does the Bush administration love to see us hanging so divided...why is it that they are purposefully driven to see us divided?

Monday, August 09, 2004

Schumer wants to know who blew it

Schumer wants to know who blew it

Senator Chuck Schumer has written a letter to White House domestic security adviser Frances Townsend, wanting to know who the heck blew a Pakistani terrorist-informant's cover. Naeem Noor Khan's name was spread like strawberry jam on toast while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Now he's "toast" and we're in a "jam" when it comes to hoping for success in getting allies to cooperate with us in the future. The White House spokesman Scott McLellan offers no details on how it happened or the repercussions it might have, although he did say it was inappropriate. One former senior U.S. intelligence official said he suspected a political motive. I wouldn't doubt it. Call me cynical, but chalk this up to another White House failure in the name of dirty politics.

Gen. Shalikashvili in guarded condition

Gen. Shalikashvili in guarded condition



This is rather shocking news.
Former Joint Chief of Staff chairman and Retired Army General John Shalikashvili has been hospitalized and is in guarded condition, per the Army Times. He entered Madigan Medical Center in Washington state on Saturday morning, and his family is requesting that no more information be released, said Mike Meines, a hospital spokesman. The former NATO supreme allied commander had just spoken at the Democratic National Convention a little more than a week ago, endorsing John Kerry for president. Kerry's statement can be seen here.
My prayers are with the General and his family.

Alan Keyes will need his trademark sweater

Alan Keyes will need his trademark sweater

...for the cold weather in his new "home state" and the cold shoulder he'll be getting in Illinois this November.

Josh Marshall has some amusing things to say about Keyes.

Photo


photo by Iddybud

Sunset- Head of the Meadow Beach, Cape Cod

Press Laughs at Bush

Press Laughs at Bush

Question: "Mr. President, what do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and federal and state governments?"

Answer: "..Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a … you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

--Answer by GW Bush, August 6, 2004

I know. My headline sounds mean..maybe even childish. Too bad. It's true. Bush got unexpected laughs after a comment about a worse-than-Chauncey Gardiner response about the sovereignty of Native Americans and I saw journalists with their heads in their hands in the audience at the UNITY conference this past Friday. I also saw one audience-member taken away while yelling about something I couldn't quite make out. No one in the press seems to mention what the heckler had to say. I'll bet it was interesting. Kos has a link to an audio version of the laughter. You can read Albor Ruiz' opinion of Bush's performance in yestrday's Daily News.

Smiling at the Rage

Smiling at the Rage

Wow.
I've never seen right-wing Republicans expressing and acknowleging such fear of the real and present threat of the defeat of George W. Bush in November.
It's clear they're finally getting it.
And in true form, they're going gonzo-overboard with negativity, betraying themselves for what they've always been, regardless of how affable and positive a frontman they claim Bush to be.
I can just feel those ulcers coming on.

Meanwhile, I'm pulling out all my Bruce Springsteen albums and for the first time in a long time, I'm smiling at the rage.

Scott Ritter's Advice

Scott Ritter's Advice

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders. When speaking of international law as set forth by the United Nations Charter it is impossible to come up with any scenario today that would justify military action against Iraq based upon its current behaviour."

--Scott Ritter from a speech in early September, 2002


All along, Scott Ritter is someone I’d trusted to be a non-partisan--especially during the distressing lead-up to the Iraq war. I’d listened closely to what he had to say. Due to his experience in Iraq and his fine service to our country, I'd felt that he was a credible source of information in a world that was in turmoil and in a country where I intuitively doubted the words of my own president.

I still feel that way about Scott and I hope he will read this--my response--to his op-ed that appeared in the Boston Globe last week.

I have heard that president Bush looks forward to pressing John Kerry in the fall debates about Kerry’s apparent support for Bush's Iraq war—Kerry’s “yes” vote on the October 2002 Iraq resolution. I think we should all look forward to this topic in the fall debates. It will be John Kerry’s golden opportunity to separate himself, for once and for all, from the stench of an irresponsible president who would make the one final decision to put our beloved troops’ boots on the ground in a hell-hole we were misinformed to believe would welcome us with flowers and hugs. Instead, we got over 900 draped coffins shamefully hidden from our view by our president—not to mention that he’s a president with a pitiful wartime service record who secretly revels in seeing his supporters (ones who did have a decent wartime service record) disgracing and betraying themselves as partisans by turning on a true brother-in-arms and misleading Americans about what they supposedly knew about Kerry’s service (tantamount to nothing of substance).

I understand that Scott Ritter is confused about the reason John Kerry would choose not to allow him to speak to Congress about what he knew before the war was begun. We have to ask ourselves if Senator Kerry truly believed that Bush would keep his promises to act with the United Nations to enforce all resolutions. Has he ever come out and said he was sorry he ever trusted Bush to do the right thing? We have to ask ourselves if Senator Kerry simply gave Bush far more credit than Bush deserved in October, 2002. We have to ask ourselves if it would have been better to have been a cordial statesman and give this particular president carte blanche-- or to have dug deep into the gut and place the good of the American people before any political importance? We have to ask ourselves if Kerry’s uncertainty about the true nature of the imminent threat to America caused him to give benefit of doubt to this particluar Commander-in-Chief.

We have to ask ourselves. That is the crux of the problem. We shouldn’t have to ask ourselves. Senator Kerry should be steadfastly reassuring us in order to instill our confidence in his personal beliefs about the matter. If he doesn’t do it now, he may be taken off-guard in the debates this fall.

If the Iraq resolution were presented knowing what we all know today, would Kerry still have voted “yes”? If so, why? Sending congressional authority as a strong message to Saddam Hussein may have been a fitting reason back in 2002, but why is Senator Kerry afraid to say he’d never have voted for that resolution knowing what he knows today? Would any of you readers have voted for the resolution knowing what you now know? Personally, I wouldn’t have voted for it back then and certainly would reject it today.

I think this is a topic worthy of a N.Y. Times (or Boston Globe) piece written by Senator Kerry himself.

If this important race is going to come down to the wire and Mr. Ritter’s self-described inspiration of swing voters is needed in order to choose the right candidate, (whom I see clearly as John Kerry), then I firmly believe Senator Kerry had best look all of us directly in the eye and explain how his leader’s heart and intuition lead him to the “yes” vote in October 2002 and, in the case of any ideological metamorphosis since that day, explain how it came to pass.

I don’t think Mr. Ritter’s plea should be underestimated.

Perhaps someone will finally listen to Mr. Ritter. He may be a royal pain in the Democrats’ ass, but he’s no bitter partisan. He loves the United States of America. He makes a lot of sense.

Those who wish the best for Senator Kerry need to offer tough love. Walter Cronkite can be included in this group. I'm another one of the group.

I understand that clarity is the only cure for the "flip-flop" trust-killing talking points..and there can be no one more important topic than national security to be crystal-clear about.

Iraq's been a highway to hell thus far. The Bush administration has failed to take the responsibility for what they have wrought. We've lost track of heaven and anything residing close to it.
I believe John Kerry can raise our eyes back to something both great and achievable.
Draw us a map, John.
It's yours...all yours to win or to lose.
Draw us a map.

Friday, July 30, 2004

Gone fishing (..reading)



I'll be taking a beach-chair and few books to the Cape Cod shore with me and I plan to be back refreshed and ready to return to blogging duty in about a week.

Please send me some of your thoughts here on my comments section. I'd love to hear what you think of the blog and what you thought of the Democratic Convention.

Jude

Thursday, July 29, 2004

A Letter from an Ohio Citizen

A Letter from an Ohio Citizen

Flip-flop no more: This letter I received today, along with other discussions heard and observations made this morning, confirms that there is now a fresh consensus among most Democrats. After John Kerry's speech at the Democratic Convention last night, there is unity and support for both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry; even among those who were skeptical at the beginning.
_____________


I wanted to write and tell you that tonight, in Hudson, Ohio, the boyhood home of John Brown, we had a convention party at a fine restaurant that drew 500 plus attendees. This gathering was the largest of its kind in the entire state of Ohio, and was put together by a wonderful woman named Chic Canfora, the sister of Alan --one of the wounded at Kent State. It was a rollicking good time, and was a grand display of grassroots citizens of every stripe that are ready to relieve our land of the sickness that is Bush.

The sight and sounds of John Kerry's comrades tonight, led by Max Cleland was almost too much to take. I honor these men's service, as I know you do. I shudder to imagine how the right will attempt turn this obviously genuine display of loyalty and duty into something unholy. But we know they are less than dogs , so try they will.

My friend, you know that cleansing the White House of these Constitutional criminals is what people like me have worked for. You also know that I (as I think you did too) had questions about John Kerry as our candidate. But I learned things tonight about John Kerry that I didn't really hadn't known or understood. I know, without question that our battle for the Constitution is our obligation and is just. But now I know that having Kerry as the leader of that battle is a sound choice. We are doing the right thing.

One last thing. If we are victorious in this election, it will be the doing of everyday people--people who took a stand when the stand was dangerous. People like you. From my family and me, thank you. I love what you do.

JOHN KERRY SPEECH

JOHN KERRY SPEECH

Here is a preview

July 29 Convention News

July 29 Convention News

"..it is time to reach for the next dream..."

What is in tonight's convention nominating-film about John Kerry?

Michael Moore gave his own speech today in Cambridge at an "alternative" convention.
"One thing I do know about Kerry, he will not invade a country like George W. Bush did."

Joe Gandelman has a post commenting on and leading us to internet writing by blogger Dan Bricklin titled "DCon Bloggers: What Has Been Learned From Convention Blogging?" You can find a follow-up by Dan here. I would love to see Joe Gandelman cover the Republican Convention as a blogger.

Matt Drudge says Ron P. Reagan will rip away at Bush (and not just about stem cell research) in an upcoming Esquire article.

Boston Police are dealing with DNCC protestors, some who are not particularly choosy about which candidate to protest. One group set fire to a two-faced effigy--one side showing Bush, the other Kerry.

See writer Anick Jesdanun's perspective titled "Convention Bloggers Are Feeling Their Way".

I think I could do a whole blogpost about the incredible lack of lustre and "hip" in the music and entertainment at this year's convention.


TODAY'S SCHEDULED SPEAKERS:

Thursday, July 29
Stronger at Home, Respected in the World


Madeline Albright, Former Secretary of State
Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware
Wesley Clark Speech TEXT...VIDEO
Max Cleland, Former U.S. Senator from Georgia
James Clyburn, U.S. Representative from South Carolina
Alexandra Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
John Kerry,DRUDGE HAS BROKEN PEEK
Vanessa Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
Joe Lieberman TEXT ...VIDEO
Ed Markey, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative from California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. Representative from the District of Columbia
Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Representative from California, Democratic Leader
Jim Rassman, Green Beret rescued by John Kerry in Vietnam
Louise Slaughter, U.S. Representative from New York
(joined by Congressional Women)
John Sweeney, President of AFL-CIO
Mark Warner TEXT...VIDEO



Anti-War or Anti-Bush?

Anti-War or Anti-Bush?
Examining the state of democracy and social justice in America today, do we really have the luxury of that choice?

What should be our priority?

At the Chronicle, Debra Saunders writes a piece titled Herding Cats. She cites a general feeling of anxiety and a lack of exuberance in many convention delegates who believed the war in Iraq was wrong from the beginning. The feelings stem from the DNC strategy of backing away from harsh critiques of the war during this convention. She quotes from a recent letter written by Rabbi Michael Lerner stating that he believes the forces of peace are being isolated in the name of winning an election.

If setting an example of civility was the reason to tone down the speech-rhetoric, then why, as Ms. Saunders suggests, did the crowds go wild upon hearing little Ilana Wexler mock Dick Cheney in her "time-out" speech?


The Question

Saunders says: the Democratic Party is at odds with itself: Its members are hungry to win, but not enthusiastic about how they're getting there. Conventions usually fire delegates up, but many here instead have to cool their passions down. You see, the nominee's support of the war has left his many anti-war supporters in a dicey position. They've had to decide: Are they more anti-war or more anti-Bush?


I think that's a great question. Do we really have to make that distinction when making our choices in November? Are anti-Iraq war Democrats satisfied with what they've heard over the course of the last four days? The DNC strategy seems to be to attract as many new swing-voters as possible, believeing they will have full and uninterrupted unity from the anti-Bush crowd. Yet, some in the left wing are feeling they've been taken for a bit of a ride and wonder how sincere Kerry and Edwards are about the issue of peace, given that they both voted for the Iraq resolution in October, 2002. Has the DNC taken their left base for granted assuming they "hate" Bush more than they love peace?

How did we get here?

I am not sure what the fallout of this political strategy will be, but I can say that I haven't completely agreed with it for quite some time. I've wanted a Democratic candidate who could make an obvious distinction between himself and George W. Bush. I thought Howard Dean had done the best job and that's why I'd supported him steadfastly, at least until I realized the powers-that-be (and the primary voters) had decided against him. It's odd, though. The reaction I saw to Dr. Dean on Tuesday night as he came out to give his convention speech reminded me that he had been one of the candidates who had appealed to our better senses when the Democratic party in America seemed lost. He was our compass. (I credit Dennis Kucinich as well).


Where are we now?

David Broder quotes a Boston Globe survey (of 400 delegates) where 80% say they opposed the decision to start a war in Iraq and 95% oppose it now. The DNC can try to convince journalists covering the convention that they've eliminated internal differences, yet I wonder how many delegates would agree with my thoughts from last summer?

My thoughts

As for me, a progressive, I'm one of those "Imagine"-style dreamers a la John Lennon. And I know I'm not the only one. I realize that if I sit on my ass on Election Day and gripe about the DNC failing to rip the Iraq war to shreds during the campaign, that I may well be partly responsible for the re-election of a man who never gave a second thought about 50% of America when he lied to them and pushed an unnecessary war upon them and when his (majority) ilk in Congress shoved unwanted liberty-sucking laws down our throats.



Regardless of my stand on the Iraq war, if a marmot approached the podium tonight to give his acceptance speech, I'd be sure to get off my tail on election day and pull the lever (or touch the election screen) for him rather than having to know my lack of participation may have contributed to four more years of the democracy-killing Bush.


Think "HOPE". It's surely no time to lose it.

John Edwards spoke of hope last night in his convention speech. This election is all about hope, no matter what we think of the state of the Democratic party. We have to move toward a better day, and we are faced with a choice to either vote with hope in November or vote against it by voting (or abstaining) and getting four more years of slow death to our democracy. There will be time to make necessary changes within our party once we establish that we will be enabled to ensure the survival of the democratic process that will faciliatete that change. We must use our heads. We must have priorities.

I hope the DNC strategists haven't turned off more than they've attracted with their toned-down strategy.


Last thoughts and a question for you

Where there is an electoral overthrow of Bush, there will be hope.

We need to understand this clearly, whether we're for the war or against it.

As corny as this may sound, I love my country and its people and I cannot sit back and watch the Bush administration take us backward.

Can you?

A Reminder: "America"

America- A Reminder


photo by Iddybud


"It is said that America
is a land where dreams
can be transformed
into reality
."



a reminder from Nancy from Arlington,
inspired by Tersea Heinz Kerry

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

July 28 Convention News

July 28 Convention News


Credit: Reuters photo
Practicing for his big speech

12 Generals and Admirals Endorse Kerry
• Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca (United States Army, Retired)
• Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman (United States Army, Retired)
• General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired)
• Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired)
• Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired)
• General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired)
• Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired)
• Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired)
• General Merrill "Tony" A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired)
• Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired)
• General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired)
~~~~~~~~~~~~


THE SPEECHES

MARTIN O'MALLEY TEXT.....VIDEO
"My friends, for this generation of Americans
to have a rendezvous with destiny, we must choose.
We must choose to build a stronger America.
We must choose to defend the brave and generous America that our parents and our grandparents were courageous to choose for us.
America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears;
oh, my friends, to govern is to choose.
And at this hour, the man and the mission have met.
The mission is America's security.
The man is here.
And the choice is ours."



AL SHARPTON- TEXT...VIDEO
"Mr. President, we love America, not because all of us have seen the beauty all the time. But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.."


DENNIS KUCINICH- TEXT...VIDEO
We have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I was mayor of Cleveland and I could tell you
that I've seen weapons of mass destruction in our cities.
Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction.
Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction,
homelessness, a weapon of mass destruction...
... racism, a weapon of mass destruction,
fear, a weapon of mass destruction.
We must disarm these weapons.



Senator PATRICK LEAHY- TEXT...VIDEO
"I'm Patrick Leahy and I'm from Vermont. I want to offer a friendly word of advice. If the Vice President is watching this speech on TV, he might want to change channels."


Retired General JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "OLD SOLDIER/NEW DEMOCRAT"- TEXT
"I know about the horror of war and thus join with others like John Kerry in believing that we must go to war only when all other efforts to resolve the threat to us have been exhausted. And only then, when going to war becomes absolutely necessary, then to go with full resolve and to use force decisively. But we should never go to war without a comprehensive plan for how to secure the peace once military victory has been won."


BOB GRAHAM- TEXT

JOHN EDWARDS-TEXT...VIDEO


Google: Convention

St Petersburg Times: SSH! DNC tells Bob Graham his speech is too Bush-bashing, tells Bob to tone down the obvious.


Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley took the stage tonight. Mayor O'Malley addressed the burden of homeland security on U.S. cities.
He says his message hasn't changed much in the last few years because the Bush Administration has made so very little progress. Seen by many as having star-potential in the Democratic party, his national profile was raised during this afternoon's speech. READ IT HERE.....SEE IT HERE

Guardian: The Convention in Quotes

Amy Sullivan on Barack Obama: "..maybe that's a little premature, but standing there listening to the roar of the crowd (only Clinton has received a louder ovation at this convention) after Obama brought down the house with his keynote address, with "Obama" signs blanketing the hall, I said to myself, "You're looking at our first black president."

Matt Stoller/BOP: The most impressive part of the speech was when Obama ripped into the red and blue state myth..

Michael Kinsley: "..Although Democrats sincerely believe that election was stolen from them, they have been cowed by the successful Republican campaign to make any reference to 2000 seem like bad form....the party that gets the most votes is not "out of the mainstream," whether getting the most votes is enough to win the election or not."




"Recently the Vice President used a really bad word. If I used that word, I would be put in a time out. I think he should be put in a time out."
--12-year-old Ilana Wexler of Oakland, CA, founder of Kids for Kerry



Google: Convention bloggers



Arianna Huffington: Blogger Heaven
That's why I am such a big fan of Internet-based reporters and bloggers. When these folks decide that something matters, they chomp down hard and refuse to let go. They're the true pit bulls of reporting. The only way to get them off a story is to cut off their heads (and even then you need to pry their jaws open).

And because of the nature of Internet journalism, they will often start with a small story, or a piece of one -- a contradictory quote, an unearthed document, a detail that doesn't add up -- that the big outlets would deem too minor. But it's only minor until, well, it's not. Big media can't see the forest for the trees -- until it's assembled for them by the bloggers. That's why the blogosphere has become the most vital and important news source in our country.."




NPR: Bloggers Offer Intimate View of Convention

Wired News: Stars of Convention: Bloggers

Don't miss BBWW's convention diary from "Faithful Correspondent/an Ohio delegate".



Alex Massie/Scotsman: Online pioneers bring convention coverage new audience
"..bloggers proudly like to argue that they are modern-day pamphleteers. The publishing medium may have changed, but the principle has not. Harking back to the 18th and 19th centuries, bloggers maintain that they are merely extra voices in an increasingly crowded media universe but that, since they write as individuals rather than for corporations they can express themselves with a freedom denied to many journalists.."




At ABC, Mark Halperin reports: Steven Spielberg was an adviser on John Kerry's convention biographical video that will be shown Thursday night. Spielberg made recommendations to James Moll, who produced the film. Spielberg, who had been contemplating producing the biopic himself, screened a rough cut recently and offered up his ideas.

Dean-Dems for Kerry: Boston street-kudos are still going to Howard Dean. These Kerry-supporters are unashamed to tell you they are Dean-democrats.


Tom Tomorrow: Saw Josh Marshall yesterday, crouched down behind Al Franken, listening in as Franken and Sean Hannity went at it. After the interview, Hannity said to Janeane Garofolo, with mock outrage, "You called me a creep?"

"You are a creep," she replied. Hannity continued to smile broadly, as if he just couldn't believe these crazy liberals.



Thanks to The Angry Liberal, I connected with Josh Marshall's writing about a question he decided to ask filmmaker Michael Moore as he quickly passed him at the Fleet Center in Boston. Josh's impromptu question, in a nutshell, was to ask Mr. Moore what he made of the obvious and deliberate absence of Bush-attacks during the convention. Mr. Moore's said he liked the convention and when it came to the DNC's choice to tone themselves down on attacking Bush: "You don't even have to say it. Everyone knows how bad it is." (Thanks to Moore and blogdom, everyone does know how bad it is.) Regardless of current polls, I think this goes along with the belief that the election is Kerry's to lose. I think bloggers are owed a tremendous debt by the DNC for keeping it real out here exposing "the emporer whose clothes (and brains) aren't there".

On Monday, I'd written the following: "..Why wouldn't the Democratic party press for primetime coverage by the major networks on Tuesday night? I would think, other than Kerry and Edwards' speeches, the speeches by these two men, Dean and Reagan, would be of great interest to many Americans. Certainly more so than "According to Jim" or "Big Brother Five"....right??" At Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher has asked the same basic question: Obama or Big Brother 5? What's wrong with this picture? See Liberal Oasis for some other really good at-the-convention coverage, including an interview with Representative Jan Schakowsy of Illinois.



TNR: Unite and Conquer-

"They need a divided America,but we don't."

-Bill Clinton, from Monday night's Convention speech


To hear Bush tell it in 2000, the country had been divided into conservative and liberal camps by a philandering, pandering president--and the borderline ran between those who were happy living in immoral times and those who wanted to move on. Obama and other Democratic speakers this week have taken a different approach. According to their rhetoric, the country is, in reality, united; it only seems divided because pundits and Republicans make it that way.




THE COMPETITION: As I mentioned on July 26th, the Republicans are in Boston to counter any of the the Democrats' anti-Bush rhetoric to date. They plan to unveil an 11-minute video today that captures Kerry's changing positions on Iraq since 2001.


MP3 of "If I Was President" by Wyclef Jean . the song you heard at the Democratic Convention today, can be heard here.

Lyrics:

If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If I was president

An old man told me, instead of spending billions on the war,
we can use some of that money, in the ghetto.
I know some so poor, they use the spring as the shower,
when screaming "fight the power".
That's when the vulture devoured

If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If I was president...

But the radio won't play this.
They call this rebel music.
How can you refuse it, children of moses?

If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If i was president

Tell the children the truth, the truth.
Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
Tell them the truth.
The truth
YEAH! Tell them about Marcus Garvey.
The truth YEAH! The truth.
Tell them about Martin Luther King.
Tell them the truth.
The Truth.
Tell them about JFK

If I was President
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...


(more to come)
___________________________________


TODAY'S SPEAKERS:

*This Washington Post site will take you to text and videos of previous speeches.

Wednesday, July 28
A Stronger More Secure America


Steve Brozak, Ret. Lt. Col., USMC, Candidate for U.S. Representative from New Jersey
Elijah Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland
Cate Edwards, Daughter of John Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards, Wife of John Edwards
John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee
Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from Florida, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Greg Meeks, U.S. Representative from New York
Martin O'Malley, Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland
Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada
Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
Al Sharpton, 2004 Presidential Candidate