|
|
|
Phew!
That was a good a first debate as we could possibly have hoped for. John Kerry is an experienced and savvy politician, but he hasn't been on that big a stage before, and he came through in very good shape.
In the early going, Kerry definitely had Bush on the defensive. It was Bush, not Kerry, who seemed nervous and jittery. It was Bush, not Kerry, who repeatedly fell back on the repetition of mostly meaningless mantras. I wish I had a dollar for every time Dubya uttered the words "mixed messages" over the course of that ninety minutes. Throw in a quarter for every time he said "hard work," and I could have quite a night on the town.
There were several instances when Bush seemed not to have enough to say to fill his alloted ninety seconds. He stuttered, he stammered, he paused for uncomfortable lengths of time -- and best of all, he managed to make none of his points regarding Kerry's supposed flipflopping and indecisiveness stick.
Kerry could've gone for the jugular a couple of more times than he did, but, inexplicable as it is to many of us, most Americans like Dubya. They may have questions regarding his abilities and his performance of his duties, but they think he's a decent guy. As much as those of us from whose eyes the scales long ago fell would like to see Dubya eviscerated during these debates, Kerry has to somehow attack the "president" and still remain sympathetic and appealing to Bob and Marge Middle-America. Going too hard after Dubya risks turning them off.
I think tonight he mostly successful at doing just that.
The early post-debate polls are showing Kerry to have won decisively in the public's eye. That's huge, because the press has been for weeks portraying him as an underdog whose campaign was in trouble. If the post-debate buzz is that Kerry was the clear winner (as it certainly should be), that repositions him very positively.
The polls have long revealed that Dubya's approval rating is very low, but it seemed that many voters needed a reason -- permission, if you will -- to "fire" on a guy they consider a likable (ptui!) fellow. John Kerry just may have given them that reason tonight.
Especially when you consider that Dubya's strength in the polls has been his handling of the war on terror. Well, that's what was discussed tonight, and if Kerry's the winner on that front, he should be able to mop the floor with Dubya on the domestic front, an area in which Dubya's approval ratings are historically -- and deservedly -- low.
Brothers and sisters, I'm looking forward to some sweet dreams tonight.
"I'm pleased with the progress (in Iraq)," -- President George W. Bush, Sept. 18, 2004
Baghdad Bombings Kill 35 Children
Thursday, Sep 30, 2004
By Alexandra Zavis, Associated Press WriterBAGHDAD, Iraq - Three bombs exploded at a neighborhood celebration Thursday in western Baghdad, killing 35 children and seven adults, officials said. Hours earlier, a suicide car bomb killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.
The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago. The children, who were still on school vacation, said they had been drawn to the scene by American soldiers handing out candy.
The blasts -- at least two of which were car bombs -- went off in swift succession about 1 p.m., killing 42 people and wounding 141 others, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The bombs targeted a ceremony in which residents were celebrating the opening of a new sewage system, and a U.S. convoy was passing by at the same time, said Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman.
"The Americans called us, they told us, 'Come here, come here,' asking us if we wanted sweets. We went beside them, then a car exploded," said 12-year-old Abdel Rahman Dawoud, lying naked in a hospital bed with shrapnel embedded all over his body....
There's more here.
The "liberal media"? Yeah, right. They're turning down dollars to keep Bush, Inc., happy.
Deadline Hollywood
When Might Turns Right
Golly GE, why Big Media is pro-Bush
by Nikki Finke
On any given day, the major TV networks rarely demonstrate good judgment, much less morality, when it comes to accepting a litany of nauseating advertisements. Hemorrhoid creams. Vaginal ointments. Erectile dysfunction. Army recruiting ads that portray war as a gee-whiz video game. KFC’s claim that fried chicken is the new health food. And, lest we forget, Bud Light’s farting horse during the Super Bowl.But ads for the October 5 release of the new Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD?
Now that makes Big Media gag.
L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks’ news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.
"They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no," one Sony insider explains. "It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting."
And protest Sony did....
There's more here, if you can stomach it.
The new MoveOn.org ad addresses the issue of Republicans blindly supporting a candidate who, if examined objectively, doesn't represent what their party has long purported to stand for.
Plus, it stars Rebecca Romijn, whom I think all right-thinking Americans can support.
Take a look, and send 'em a few bucks while you're there.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualtiesBy Charles Pope
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Washington correspondentWASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."...
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."...
What more do you need, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, to admit that they knew full well what lay ahead of us if we invaded Iraq? They put the lives of thousands of American men and women (not to mention many thousands more innocent Iraqis) at risk based on a stack of lies and next to no planning.
From today's Progress Report:
DAILY GRILL"[The] Taliban no longer is in existence."
- President Bush, 9/27/04vs.
"The death toll for Afghans by suspected Taliban [this year] is…45 percent higher than last year's."
- New York Times, 8/24/04
Growing tired of the lies yet, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter?
Dubya's been painting a rosy picture of our "progress" in Iraq, but what do the real experts have to say?
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies
By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff WritersA growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.
People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."
"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.
"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."...
Dubya and Co.are lying, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter. I know it's not easy to accept. We all want to believe in our "elected" leaders. It's not easy to come to terms with the notion that our president -- not just this one, but any U.S. president -- would lie about matters of such import, but it's so. Bush has been lying since the 2000 campaign, and he hasn't for a moment stopped since.
It has now been well established that Bush, Inc., knew going in that our "liberation" of Iraq was likely to go badly.
Bush ignored warnings on Iraq insurgency threat before invasion
Intelligence suggested country faced years of tumult
by Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
The GuardianThe Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.
That forecast radically departs from George Bush's upbeat assertions that the situation is improving in Iraq, and he initially dismissed the assessment as a "guess"....
But, in fact, he was warned a lot earlier than that, if only he'd paid attention to what his father had to say.
Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles....Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
--"A World Transformed," George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, 1998, p. 489
The truth is, Dubya was going to invade Iraq, come hell, high water, or solid, considered, informed advice warning him not to.
Last night, I braved torrential rains in making my way to Jersey City for the 75th anniversary celebration of the Loew's Jersey, an astonishing movie palace that first opened for business on September 28th, 1929.
Last night's admission price was the same as it was on the theatre's opening night: 35 cents.
The theatre's renovation hasn't progressed as far as I had somehow expected, but it's still an impressive place. It will be a true treasure when it is fully restored.
The featured film of the night was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and I'll admit that my initial reaction to that news was that there are any number of other Frank Capra pictures I'd rather have seen.
But the truth is, this creaky old warhorse should probably be viewed by every eligible voter in the country between now and November 2nd, for many of the vile practices of the film's villain, James Taylor (the great Edward Arnold) and his political machine, resonate more powerfully today than ever.
As in the picture, cronyism is very much the order of the day. Legislation for profit is common. Misuse of the press to mislead the public is rampant. Dissent is stifled, using both nonviolent and violent methods.
And formerly honest and decent men are reduced to playing along while corrupt and decidedly indecent men wreak havoc.
And, thankfully, a lone man -- Jefferson Smith, masterfully assayed by the great Jimmy Stewart (a true patriot who no doubt would be appalled today at what has happened to his Republican Party) -- is willing, at great personal risk, to speak truth to power, to stand up to the corruption, to remind not only the members of the Senate but the people they represent that we're better than this, that we stand for something as a people and as a country, that our rights and freedoms are precious and must be fought for and defended against threats from without and within.
The movie's ending is undeniably pat and corny, but I was nevertheless moved and inspired.
You will be, too, if you'll make it a point to rent (or, heck, even buy) this classic picture. It's a movie it wouldn't hurt most of us to revisit every two or three years. Most of us would benefit from the occasional infusion of the sort of decency, honesty, optimism, and passion that Capra, Stewart, and Co. deliver.
And Stewart's love interest is the great Jean Arthur (sigh...) -- how can you go wrong?
This comes from ACT (Americans Coming Together):
Desperation and 80 Pound Paper Stock in OhioWith only a few days left before the registration deadline here in Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is trying to bar thousands of newly registered voters from the polls.
Citing an arcane ruling that requires voter registration cards be printed on 80 pound stock paper, Blackwell is threatening to void registrations submitted on a lighter weight paper, demanding they re-apply. There is no time to reapply and thousands of voters could be left off the rolls.
This is not only unethical, it’s illegal. The 14th Amendment grants every citizen the right to vote -- regardless of race, gender, creed, or paper stock.
Republicans in Ohio are scared -- with good reason -- ACT’s Get-Out-the-Vote effort is working --in Ohio we’re out-registering Republicans by 10 to 1.
Sign the petition, and then sign up to volunteer with ACT in a swing state. Be part of the winning strategy.
Today I’ve taken action to protect the vote in Ohio, where the Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is trying to refuse thousands of new voters the right to cast a ballot in the upcoming election -- based on the weight of the paper of their application.
The 2004 election is going to be very close -- and could come down to just a handful of votes in this key state.
Please join me in signing the “Paper Stock” Petition today and pass it on to everyone you know.
Read it and puke.
Bullies at the Voting Booth
by Anne-Marie CusacWhat if Republican shenanigans tip the election? Many members of the media are looking at the dangers voting machines may pose to the integrity of the national election. Others are wondering whether voters may be disenfranchised by use of faulty felon lists, as happened in Florida in 2000. But there is another danger: Republicans may use a variety of tactics to suppress the vote of racial minorities in swing states. These tactics could determine control of the White House or the Senate.
In August, the Zogby International poll raised the number of battleground states from sixteen to twenty. In those states, notes John Zogby, "the pounding has been relentless."
Zogby was referring to negative ads, but the sanctity of the vote is also taking a pounding. In some states, Republicans are threatening to conduct widespread vote challenges in heavily minority areas. In others, recent events suggest that poll workers may wrongly turn away voters. In still others, new laws passed or enforced by Republicans have erected hurdles to trip up the minority vote. And on Election Day itself, say advocates, Republicans may direct numerous tricks at Democratic districts in an effort to confuse or frighten voters....
Read the entire article. It details, on a state-by-state basis, the lows to which the Republicans are willing to stoop to prevent eligible voters (mostly minorities, it may not surprise you to learn) from exercising their rights as Americans.
It's sick-making. These people are not conservatives. They are unAmerican fascists.
Think things are now fine and dandy with the electoral processes in Florida? Jimmy Carter, who knows whereof he speaks. says, "Think again."
Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote
By Jimmy CarterAfter the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair....
There's much more here.
This Knight-Ridder story reminds us that Iraqis should surely be forgiven if they're a little confused about just whom, exactly, the enemy is.
Iraqi civilian casualties mounting
By Nancy A. Youssef
Knight Ridder NewspapersBAGHDAD, Iraq -- Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.
According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -- when the ministry began compiling the data -- until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.
While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher.
During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed.
Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.
That suggests that more aggressive U.S. military operations, which the Bush administration has said are being planned to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, could backfire and strengthen the insurgency....
Suppose those innocent Iraqis take much comfort from the fact that it was American, not insurgent, bombs that killed or maimed them (or their loved ones)?