Say it loud: The Bush administration cut and ran from Afghanistan to Iraq rather than finishing the job they started in Afghanistan, and now they are planning to cut and run from Iraq to Syria and Iran, rather than admit they screwed up so badly that no one could fix their mistakes.
On yesterday's Lieberman diary of the day, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/12/17112/3162 besides the usual pro-Lieberman arguments, it was stated that symbolic votes, i.e., votes that have no influence on the actual outcome, are essentially irrelevant. (This was in the discussion of Lieberman's pro-Gonzales vote.)
I didn't respond at the time, being too busy objecting to the charge that being anti-Lieberman = anti-semitism, but I did spend some time last night thinking about it, and I decided this argument is nuts.
Of course a symbolic vote has not only symbolic value but actual value.
Steve Gilliard has a great entry and challenge up on his site- a way to start taking the fight to them- by calling lies lies and writing op-eds. His initial challenge is to write an op-ed about social security and send it to an honest-to-god print newspaper. I think this is a fantastic way to start spreading the word, and the more people in on it the better. Anyone here want to spread the word, and should we spread out or concentrate on Social Security first, then the next topic- and what should the next topic be?
The LA Times is reporting that Sinclair, a conservative owned media conglomerate that has channels in several large media markets, is forcing all of its affiliates to air this movie shortly before the election.
NEW YORK -- The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.
So, how can we prevent, or, if necessary, counter this act of propaganda? Will the film change any minds anyway (Please, JamesB3 don't answer that)? Any ideas will be entertained, short of promoting bodily violence- the more creative and/or outrageous the better....and to think I was about to go to bed happy after the debate and reading Maryscott's diaries.
Obviously, the founding fathers were anti-American and did not believe in defending our country. This could make a decent talking point for K/E since it's a phrase that everyone learned in 2nd grade, and that everyone understands with no need for spin or explanation.
The usual way to tie Cheney to Halliburton is to state the obvious fact that Halliburton has made out like a bandit in Iraq, while still making annual payments to Cheney. A more interesting feature of Cheney's experience in Halliburton is his acquisition of a company without doing due diligence, leading to major liabilities for Halliburton.
The same lack of due diligence is shown in the way he helped stovepipe intelligence from Iraqi con man and Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi. His refusal to do due diligence, which led to over 1000 American deaths, is exactly the same as what he did to Halliburton, and shows an ongoing pattern in which Cheney believes what he wants to believe, and neither looks beneath the surface nor does any alternative scenario planning..
From "elrod" in a thread on MyDD on how to win the debate (and post-debate), Kerry should:
Answer questions succinctly.
Not contradict something he's said before (post-debate analysis will check closely)
Make his prime attacks on Bush's character, not just his decisions: poor judgment, lack of curiosity, living in fantasy land, dishonesty.
Have a memorable line - call Bush the Tinkerbell Presidency. It will attack Bush's manliness and his attention to reality.
I think the Tinkerbell idea is perfect, both in the debate - allowing a moment of angry humor which will probably get the audience to express its recognition and appreciation, and as a bonus, get Bush where he lives, since it is a wonderful repudiation of his faux macho personality. It could be the line that sends him over the edge.
The polls were in Missouri, Arizona, West Va, Ohio, and New Hampshire; MOE 4, Bush up in all except West Va where there's a tie. Polling by Mason Dixon which may be a red flag. None of the methodology and only some of the internals were posted although when I went back to get them, that page has disappeared and only the text story is still there.
One interesting thing, it doesn't sound like anyone is much interested in Vietnam anymore.
The story we've all been waiting for is now up, although it reads more like a cliffhanger than the end of the tale. Apparently, there have been a number of meetings with Iranian dissidents going through Michael Ledeen, a known neoconservative nutcase, to a backchannel at the DOD in Doug Feith's office. The backchannel was apparently for the purpose of encouraging Iranian regime change. Although doing that with the help of Ghorbanifar, a known serial liar, made as much sense as trying the same thing in Iraq with Chalabi. The neocons have a problem with judging character.
I've given up hoping that each successive scandal will actually cause a earthquake, but possibly this one will.
This joke was sent by the Note in an e-mail today.
"The new joke in Washington -- told by all gallows, quasi-panicked Democrats -- goes like this: "John Kery read in The Note that this was his race to lose, and he's giving it his best shot." Someday, Karl Rove's precocious grandchildren will say to him, "Grandpapa, what's it like to run a presidential campaign against an opponent who has had his own background thoroughly researched well before the general election; who is broadly personable and possessed of great campaign skills; and who projects an image of constancy?" To which Grandpapa Rove will reply, "I haven't the slightest idea." "
Although we are mercifully (mostly) free of trolls here - thank you kos- most of us have noticed the recent explosion of trolldom on other sites. I consider this a good sign, symptomatic of increasing desperation among the faithful.
I think it's more interesting to consider who/what trolls are. What sane adult would spend hours of the day disrupting threads, making no attempt to persuade or actually engage in the topic of conversation, but only trying to make it impossible for those who are interested to maintain the thread?
The obvious answer is...
It occurred to me as a result of reading 2 interesting diaries posted today - about jumping the shark and Bush's worst mistake, that what we are seeing in the Bush's campaign- one slogan after another, apparent chaos, no planning for reversals, is an exact simulation of the Iraq war transposed to a campaign environment. They started out with Shock and Awe- $100 million of negative campaign ads intended to blow Kerry out of the water. Bush/Rove were planning (hoping?) on being in control at this point as they coasted towards a landslide election.
Instead, reality interfered. The economy is going to hell, Iraq is going to an even hotter destination, the media is no longer playing along as it once did, all the things any rational observer could have expected...except they weren't expected.
We're agreed, except for a few potential trolls, that Bush has to go for the country's sake. I think it's also clear that the Democratic Party is more united and enthusiastic than it has been in a long time, in part because of our losses in 2000 and 2002, and the way in which they happened.
The Republican party which has been so disciplined and tight, seems to be coming apart at the seams. If (when) they lose this year, it's likely the internecine struggles and the probable purge of the neocons will take up at least part of their attention for the next few years. Is it possible they'll rue the day and way in which they "won" the 2000 election?
Agonist has an entry saying that Russia and the Bushies are in discussions over Russia sending up to 40,000 troops to Iraq. It sounds speculative and it's not clear what the quid pro quo would be. Has anyone been following this? or are there any Russophiles here who would know if it's likely and what the political fallout in both countries might be? Thanks for any informed speculation. http://scoop.agonist.org/
Today is Good Friday- a whole lot of people are not paying much attention to the news and won't be all weekend. What is your best guess as to what damaging information the White House will release today?
By the way, this is my first attempt at a poll. Be merciful, please.
In keeping w/ Kos', Atrios', and JMM's comments the other day, Kerry needs a response to both the new attacks in Spain and the probable capture of OBL in the next few months. I know it's important not to use the bombings in Madrid in any obvious political way, but I think it's also very important to begin linking any new Al Queada attacks to "taking our eye off the ball" by going after Saddam instead of OBL. This will also be an important talking point when OBL is finally captured- "It's wonderful he's finally caught but think how many people would be alive today if we had gone after him full bore 3 yrs ago instead of going after Saddam Hussein instead.
Any thoughts on how best to phrase this and how to get it into the mainstream?
