Independents For John Kerry Blog

Kerry Out in '08, But Wins Contest of Ideas

2007-01-28T16:35:00.000-08:00

By now we all know John Kerry has decided not to run for President in 08.

My own feelings are mixed, which is why I couldn't bring myself to post immediately. I'm hugely disappointed Kerry won't be President, but in many ways I think he made the right decision for ‘08. It would have been incredibly hard to repeat as the Democratic nominee and in the end John may be right, he can do more NOW to end the Iraq war by focusing on his job as a Senator over the next 2 years.

Much like Al Gore, Kerry is now completely free to speak his mind about the issues without the media spinning each word as some '08 position statement. While Kerry will eventually play a big role in the Democratic Party's '08 chances with his johnkerry.com email list and fundraising efforts, he is now free to focus on Iraq rather than fundraising for President.

AND, perhaps more important for America. While Kerry lost his bid in '04, he won the contest of ideas, and should set the stage for a Democratic victory in ‘08:

-American Foreign Policy is re-focusing on international treaties and cooperation.
-Global warming is commonly accepted as fact now, even by the Bush Administration
-Stem Cell research is favorably viewed by a majority of Americans
-National health care is being discussed and promoted by Republicans and Corporations
-Energy Independence is a major topic of discussion for both parties

This doesn’t even include the things Democrats were strong on to begin with: Protecting social security, education, better wages, environmental protections, etc.

Clearly John Kerry’s priorities in ’04 have become the priorities of Americans going forward. Thank you, John, for leading us into the future.

You can count on us to help you continue your efforts!

As for this blog, I’m not yet sure what will happen. I’d like to focus my attention on global warming and alternative energy solutions, so I may start something new down the road.

Thanks to all who visited and posted here.

Let’s turn our challenges into opportunities. Time to get to work! –IFK Editor

Yawwwwwn, Hillary's In

2007-01-20T11:58:00.000-08:00

Oh, how exciting this must be for the talking heads and Republican smear machine. Their number one lightening rod just made it official.

Look, Hillary is a savvy politician, but lets face it folks she's no Bill. AND even if she was, so what!

Isn't it time to move beyond Clitonomics? Last I heard we still lived in a democracy not a Monarchy. Do we really need to alternate between a Bush or a Clinton every 4 to 8 years?

Surely there must be another qualified leader in the US?

But hey, welcome to the big top, Hillary. Won't this be fun?

Terry McAuliffe Demonstrates He's a Clinton Brown Noser

2007-01-05T07:06:00.000-08:00

Hey Terry, I always thought you were a weasel whenever I saw you on TV. Now you've proven it without a doubt. Thanks for the new Hillary ass kiss book. Your Monday morning quarterbacking isn't winning Dems any elections either.

Kerry was trying to run a positive, hopeful convention. He thought America wanted change and was sick of the negative, lies and deceit. Too bad he was two years ahead of his time and Americans have regretted their vote ever since. Get a life would you. - Love IFK Editor

Ex-Dem. Party boss blasts Kerry in book

Former Democratic Party boss and Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe is lambasting John Kerry's unsuccessful presidential campaign, calling his effort to unseat President Bush "one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics."

Rudy Giuliani Blows his 2008 Chances

2007-01-02T17:12:00.000-08:00

I never thought Rudy G. had a prayer of getting the Republican nomination, once his marital affairs and other shady business dealings came to light, (not to mention his unforgivable decision to build the NY Emergency Command Center next to the Twin Towers, thus rendering it useless and costing lives when the towers collapsed) but I didn't think he'd be the one to highlight his own weaknesses.

This story speaks for itself. How do you trust the guy and his team with American classified secrets if he can't even keep his own. Wow. - IFK Editor

Giuliani campaign strategy is out

The presidential campaign strategy for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — complete with a $100 million fundraising target for this year — is out of the bag.

The 140-page schedule for the Republican's budding presidential bid was reported in Tuesday's editions of the New York Daily News.

The paper said an anonymous source obtained the document after it was left behind on a campaign swing in 2006, but Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel claimed it was actually pilfered from luggage from a private flight.

New Year's Resolutions for 2008 Presidential Hopefuls

2006-12-31T11:29:00.000-08:00

OK, it's New Year's Eve 2006 and you're running for President of the the United States in 2008, or strongly considering it, or leaving the impression you are considering it. What's your new year's resolution?

Before you answer let me put it another way: What are your personal goals for 2007 and beyond, and what are your goals for America?

What sets you apart from the other contenders in your own party as well as the opposition party?

What makes you a visionary leader, a problem solver, a big picture planner who understands the details? Where will you take this country on your watch should we elect you?

Rather than promising what you're going to do if elected, show us, and ask us to help you.

What's your vision? Will you ask Americans to join you in a great new mission for the betterment of humanity and the future of our species or will you ask us to go shopping?

If you can explain your vision/mission in a clear, concise way, we just might might make you the next President.

So about that resolution...no pressure, now.

2008 Presidential Race Should be about Global Warming Solutions

2006-12-30T18:31:00.000-08:00

by Jim Witkins

What's the number one challenge facing America and the rest of the world?

It's not Iraq, terrorism, homeland security or Al Qaeda.

It's not immigration, outsourcing, or job creation.

Want a hint? Al Gore and John Kerry have been talking about it for years. They are the two potential Presidential candidates most knowledgeable and up to speed on the dangers America is facing if we continue to ignore this problem.

Of course I'm talking about GLOBAL WARMING caused by our dependence and reckless use of fossil fuels.

We all know Gore has a movie on the topic, but Kerry also made it a critical component of his 2004 Presidential bid touting alternative energy Independence as both a national security strategy, a way to create jobs and lead the world in innovation, and an important step to reducing global warming causing gases.

And, yes those other problems seem more immediate and we should work to solve them, but the fact remains that the American public and business world is going about their daily routine with their heads in the sand when it comes to the consequences of Global Warming.

The problems we face today will seem like small potatoes if we don't address Global Warming immediately.

Global Warming solutions should be the focus of the 2008 US Presidential Race.

Which 2008 candidate can offer real leadership, ideas and immediate actions?

They will get my vote.

If you never change your mind why have one?

2006-12-28T16:38:00.000-08:00

John Kerry turns around the mindless slogan "flip-flopper" and takes aim at President Bush's failed Iraq Policy urging him to change course and his mind, before more American troops are killed or maimed for a policy failure. - IFK Editor

When Resolve Turns Reckless

By John F. Kerry
The Washington Post & Truthout.org
Sunday 24 December 2006

There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.

I say this to President Bush as someone who learned the hard way how embracing the world's complexity can be twisted into a crude political shorthand. Barbed words can make for great politics. But with U.S. troops in Iraq in the middle of an escalating civil war, this is no time for politics. Refusing to change course for fear of the political fallout is not only dangerous - it is immoral.

I'd rather explain a change of position any day than look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die so that a broken policy could live.

No one should be looking for vindication in what is happening in Iraq today. The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Iraq or that some of us were wrong. The lesson is simply that we need to change course rapidly rather than perversely use mistakes already made and lives already given as an excuse to make more mistakes and lose even more lives.

When young Americans are being killed and maimed, when the Middle East is on the brink of three civil wars, even the most vaunted "steadfastness" morphs pretty quickly into stubbornness, and resolve becomes recklessness. Changing tactics in the face of changing conditions on the ground, developing new strategies because the old ones don't work, is a hell of a lot smarter than the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again with the same tragic results.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial died after America's leaders knew that our strategy in that war was not working. Was then-secretary of defense Robert McNamara steadfast as he continued to send American troops to die for a war he knew privately could not be won? History does not remember his resolve - it remembers his refusal to confront reality.

Clark Clifford, the man who succeeded McNamara in 1968, was handpicked by President Lyndon B. Johnson because he was a renowned hawk. But the new defense secretary reviewed the Vietnam policy and concluded that "we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force, and the time has come to begin to disengage." By the time he left office, he had refused to endorse a further military buildup, supported the halt in our bombing, and urged negotiation and gradual disengagement. Was Clifford a flip-flopper of historic proportions, or did he in fact demonstrate the courage of his convictions?

We cannot afford to waste time being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. We've already lost years being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy.

This isn't a time for stubbornness, nor is it a time for halfway solutions - or warmed-over "new" solutions that our own experience tells us will only make the problem worse. The Iraq Study Group tells us that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." It joins the chorus of experts in and outside of Baghdad reminding us that there is no military solution to a political crisis. And yet, over the warnings of former secretary of state Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington is considering a "troop buildup" option, sending more troops into harm's way to referee a civil war.

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops.

Last May, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad gave the new Iraqi government six months to make the necessary political compromises. But a deadline with no teeth is only lip service. How many times do we have to see that Iraqi politicians respond only to firm, specific deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government - before we understand that it's time to make it clear that we are leaving and that we will not sacrifice American lives for the sake of squabbling Iraqi politicians?

Another case where steadfastness long ago gave way to stubbornness is our approach to Iraq's neighbors. Last week in Damascus, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and I met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. We were clear about U.S. expectations for change in his regime's policies, but we found potential for cooperation with Syria in averting a disaster in Iraq - potential that should be put to the test. Washington can't remain on the sidelines, stubbornly clinging to a belief that talking to our enemies rewards hostile regimes.

Conversation is not capitulation. Until recently, it was widely accepted that good foreign policy demands a willingness to seize opportunities and change policy as the facts change. That's neither flip-flopping nor rudderless diplomacy - it's strength.

How else could we end up with the famous mantra that "only Nixon could go to China"? For decades, Richard Nixon built his reputation as a China hawk. In 1960, he took John Kennedy to task for being soft on China. He called isolating China a "moral position" that "flatly rejected cowardly expediency." Then, when China broke with the Soviet Union during his presidency, he saw an opportunity to weaken our enemies and make Americans safer. His 1972 visit to China was a major U.S. diplomatic victory in the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan was no shape-shifter, either, but after calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire," he met repeatedly with its leaders. When Reagan saw an opportunity for cooperation with Mikhail Gorbachev, he reached out and tested our enemies' intentions. History remembers that he backed tough words with tough decisions - and, yes, that he changed course even as he remained true to his principles.

President Bush and all of us who grew up in the shadows of World War II remember Winston Churchill - his grit, his daring, his resolve. I remember listening to his speeches on a vinyl album in the pre-iPod era. Two years ago I spoke about Iraq at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo., where Churchill had drawn a line between freedom and fear in his "iron curtain" speech. In preparation, I reread some of the many words from various addresses that made him famous. Something in one passage caught my eye. When Churchill urged, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in," he added: "except to convictions of honour and good sense."

This is a time for such convictions.

*************

Senator John Kerry is a Democrat from Massachusetts.

Christmas Presents for the Planet

2006-11-29T19:55:00.000-08:00

Want to give a more thoughtful gift this year than another tie or sweater or crummy box of chocolates. How about giving a gift that helps the planet and your fellow earthly inhabitants?

Get a Terra Pass!
http://www.terrapass.com/

For as little as $29.95 you can buy a carbon offset for a car, house, or airplane trip. A Carbon Dioxide offset reduces your carbon footprint, in other words the CO2 gases being released in the atmosphere due to your every day activities.

Give the gift that future generations will appreciate! - IFK Editor

2008 Presidential Polls are Laughable

2006-11-27T09:36:00.000-08:00

Did you hear the latest poll? (2 years out from anyone actually voting)

People say they like McCain, Giuliani, and Obama! That's great, but it's meaningless.

Lets see where the polls stand when the primaries start.

Lets see where they rank in comparison to John Kerry after 250 MILLION DOLLARS of negative ads are aimed at them.

Kerry ranks low now because people think they know him, but they really have no idea who the rest are. The rest will sink and Kerry will rise, when people once again realize everyone running for President is a mere mortal. -IFK Editor

Poll: Giuliani, McCain, Obama rank high

US Ranks 53 out of 56 For Worse Global Warming Offenders

2006-11-14T06:54:00.000-08:00

Global Warming solutions should rank high among the new democratic agenda. I've been following and posting articles about it since starting this blog and hope to see some movement from the US Government now that the Democrats have control of both Houses. Kerry spoke extensively about this issue on the campaign trail in 2004 and since then, however you wouldn't know it from the sound bite media who never seems to care about issues that mattered, but are happy to make up non issues to cover.

There are some moderate Republicans who will be willing to work with Democrats to fund alternative energy solutions and carbon emission regulations so it's a good issue to tackle, and SOON.

Climate Crisis is a national security issue, an environmental issue, an economic issue and a moral issue. What shape will we leave the planet for future generations? -IFK Editor

Sweden tops climate change list
Sweden, Britain and Denmark are doing the most to protect against climate change, but their efforts are not nearly enough, according to a report released Monday by environmental groups.

The United States — the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases — ranked at 53, with only China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia doing worse.

"We don't have any winners, we only have countries that are better compared to others," said Matthias Duwe of the Climate Action Network-Europe, which released the data at the U.N. climate conference. "We don't have big shining stars."

The index ranks 56 countries that were part of a 1992 climate treaty or that contribute at least 1 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The countries make up 90 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Dems Win. Now We Want Leadership

2006-11-11T07:37:00.001-08:00

If you're like me you were more relieved than excited by the Dems sweeping into office.

I'm not celebrating much. The challenges they face are many. I'm hopeful, but realistic. They will face an obstinate president and a Republican "Noise Machine" that once they get over the shock and finger pointing will regroup to go on the attack. Dems will need to show quick results and work even harder. Not only will they have to challenge Republican ideology, but they will have to govern, trying to undo the mess Republicans have made over the last 12 years.

The temptation for both parties will be to start the '08 horse race already, before even doing the job Americans are paying them to do.

With great power comes great responsibilities. Don't let us down.

IFK Editor

Dems Win. Now We Want Leadership

2006-11-11T07:37:00.000-08:00

Vote Nov 7 - Democracy Requires Participation!

2006-11-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

Maybe Americans get what they deserve from our government. All the flag waving and talk of patriotism by both parties and in many states less than half of the eligible electorate can even be bothered to vote. Here are the numbers.

Makes you wonder how much we value the freedoms we've supposedly championed since our birth as a nation when it's too hard to even participate in the process of being a democracy.

Please get informed and go vote this Tuesday. Nov 7. Don't vote for a party. Vote for your country.

-IFK Editor

From the Associated Press

State by state voter turnout, by percentage of voting age population, in the 2004 presidential and 2002 elections. Turnout historically is higher in presidential election years.

State 2004 2002
Ala. 55.1 40.7
Alaska 69.9 53.1
Ariz. 53.4 34.1
Ark. 51.3 40.1
Calif. 59.8 36.6
Colo. 65.0 44.9
Conn. 66.1 42.7
Del. 62.4 39.6
D.C. 58.2 32.9
Fla. 63.9 44.2
Ga. 53.8 34.2
Hawaii 48.9 44.4
Idaho 60.8 43.6
Ill. 61.7 41.8
Ind. 54.0 33.8
Iowa 68.8 47.2
Kan. 60.8 43.3
Ky. 57.3 36.8
La. 58.7 38.2
Maine 75.3 51.9
Md. 62.7 45.4
Mass. 64.6 48.9
Mich. 66.4 44.1
Minn. 77.3 62.8
Miss. 52.9 32.1
Mo. 64.4 45.0
Mont. 63.5 48.0
Neb. 62.0 38.8
Nev. 54.3 35.1
N.H. 71.9 48.3
N.J. 63.3 37.2
N.M. 57.2 37.8
N.Y. 59.2 36.7
N.C. 56.4 38.6
N.D. 64.8 48.1
Ohio 66.3 38.4
Okla. 56.7 40.8
Ore. 71.2 50.5
Pa. 62.5 38.6
R.I. 58.1 44.3
S.C. 51.9 36.2
S.D. 68.2 60.4
Tenn. 54.6 38.0
Texas 52.2 32.8
Utah 58.5 36.8
Vt. 66.5 48.9
Va. 60.5 29.2
Wash. 65.4 41.0
W.Va. 53.1 30.9
Wis. 73.9 44.5
Wyo. 64.1 50.0
U.S. 60.7 39.7
___
Source: Center for the Study of the American Electorate, American University

Kerry's "Stuck In Iraq" Joke Frames The Debate Around Iraq

2006-11-01T12:07:00.000-08:00

Love him or hate him, John Kerry's joke gone bad about getting "stuck in Iraq" has focused the midterm 2006 election back on what the GOP least wants: IRAQ!

Beneath the hubbub about a joke is the underlying truth that Iraq is a quagmire. 100+ American soldiers died in October alone. Bush has no solution. Iraq is a tragic and massive failure and the President and his party are responsible for it. He lied about WMD's as an excuse to invade and he's too stubborn to alter course. American lives and tax payer money are being wasted. It’s a national disgrace, which has taken a toll on how we are viewed around the world and how we view ourselves as Americans.

Sure the Republicans, sensing an opportunity to score quick political points at the expense of Kerry, attacked his comments as anti-troops, but the 800 pound gorilla in the room still remains the President's "stuck in Iraq" policy.

Most average voters know John Kerry is a distinguished Vet himself. They probably realize he made a stupid blunder and will forget about it.

What they won't forget when they enter that election booth next Tuesday is that President Bush is an incompetent leader who lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and who has no plan to win the peace and bring our valiant troops home.

So please by all means when you go to the polls on Tuesday Nov 7, ask yourself which party is really going to serve the troops by providing leadership that can help them complete their mission and get them home?

-IFK Editor

White House Attacks Kerry's Iraq Comment in Shameless Diversion Tactic

2006-10-31T13:50:00.000-08:00

I guess since the Republican Party has no plans to bring home the troops from Iraq, or a coherent policy for winning the peace there, they'll attack John Kerry instead.

It's really shameful. This is just another stunt by the White House to paint Kerry as some sort of critic of the troops and by extension the Democratic Party. Give me a BREAK!!!

Kerry's fighting to protect these men and women who risk their lives, while Bush is using them as political pawns.

Who's the real patriot? Here’s a hint. It ain't the President.

-IFK Editor

Republicans No Longer "Staying the Course" in Iraq

2006-10-23T17:47:00.001-07:00

So, Bush has burried the slogan, "Stay the Course" referring to American Troops in Iraq, now if only he would bury the policy that matches the slogan.

We even hear whispers and rumors of some secret new Republican plan to "succeed" in Iraq, but they can't say any more until after the 2006 midterm election apparently. Here's Kerry's reaction to this news...indignant and rightly so! - IFK Editor

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some are suggesting that the White House actually is thinking about a radical change in strategy, but they’re going to wait until after the elections.

KERRY: Well, there you go. That’s a really beautiful thing. While young Americans are on the line and their lives…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think that’s happening?

KERRY: I think it’s immoral to have the lives of young Americans being put on the line, waiting for an election day event or strategy. If you’ve got a better strategy, Mr. President, we deserve to have it now.

And the fact is that, for 3 1/2 years, we’ve been sitting here with a strategy that many of us have said, again and again and again, will not work. It will not work. Our own generals have said there’s no military solution. What are we doing?

We’re pursuing the same old, same old. And the president, contrary to what he said in the interview, has said again and again, we’re going to stay the course. And he keeps playing this demagogue card that somehow it’s a white flag of surrender, in the United States of America, to suggest the way to actually get the job done.

We don’t have to sit around and be bullied by a bunch of people who have misled America, lied to America and, in fact, have made America less safe. And I’m not going to stand for it.

Republicans No Longer "Staying the Course" in Iraq

2006-10-23T17:47:00.000-07:00

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some are suggesting that the White House actually is thinking about a radical change in strategy, but they’re going to wait until after the elections.

KERRY: Well, there you go. That’s a really beautiful thing. While young Americans are on the line and their lives…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think that’s happening?

KERRY: I think it’s immoral to have the lives of young Americans being put on the line, waiting for an election day event or strategy. If you’ve got a better strategy, Mr. President, we deserve to have it now.

And the fact is that, for 3 1/2 years, we’ve been sitting here with a strategy that many of us have said, again and again and again, will not work. It will not work. Our own generals have said there’s no military solution. What are we doing?

We’re pursuing the same old, same old. And the president, contrary to what he said in the interview, has said again and again, we’re going to stay the course. And he keeps playing this demagogue card that somehow it’s a white flag of surrender, in the United States of America, to suggest the way to actually get the job done.

We don’t have to sit around and be bullied by a bunch of people who have misled America, lied to America and, in fact, have made America less safe. And I’m not going to stand for it.

Kerry Launches Blog to Coordinate Final Fundraising and Volunteer Efforts for 2006 Races

2006-10-09T20:50:00.000-07:00

Kerry is on fire lately, barnstorming the country in a final push to fundraise and get out the democratic vote for House and Senate races. Democrats can smell blood in the water, but this is no time to let up.

Kerry is setting an example of party leadership through his intense drive and passion on the issues and using his clout to help get Democrats elected around the country.

For the latest volunteer opportunities and ways to get involved visit:
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Kerry can't do it alone. He's counting on all of us. We got your back John. -IFK Editor

10 Reasons the Democrats deserve your vote in Nov. 2006

2006-10-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

OK, lets do a little side by side comparison of the two parties. Which one would you trust to lead you? Which one will you vote for this Novemeber?

DEMOCRATS

Telling the truth on Iraq - The course is broken. A new strategy is needed.

Fighting a smarter war on terrorism - fully funding port security and implementing the homeland security commission recommendations.

Protecting Social Security - a promise is a promise.

Fighting for affordable healthcare for all - Healthcare should be a right not a privilege.

Offering solutions for energy independence - incentives for new technologies and no more tax cuts for big oil.

Balancing the budget - common sense budgets. Cut spending and yes raise some taxes.

Protecting your drinking water, air, and environment - It's the only one we have.

Cutting global warming emissions - rejoin the world's efforts to stop global warming. Lead the way with technology research.

Ending Special Interest Hold over Washington - give power back to the voters.

Working for the Middle Class and those who aspire to join it - give everyone a chance with affordable education, decent wages and a safety net.

REPUBLICANS

Lies, Lies, Lies about Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction. No ties to Osama bin Laden. No real plan to win the peace.

War in Iraq creating more insurgent terrorists rather than defeating them.

Tried to Dismantle Social Security, the most popular government program in American history.

OK with 40 million uninsured Americans and a drug bill that benefits the drug companies.

Leave no Oil company behind policy instead of planning how Americans will have secure affordable energy in the future.

Spending, spending, spending - your children are inheriting a crushing debt.

Destroying our natural resources and poisoning our water, air and neighborhoods.
What global warming? Can you say Katrina?

Pandering to lobbyists, right wing extremists and illegal fundraisers.

Working to hold power even if means coving up a sexual scandal involving minors.

DNC Rolls out "PartyBuilder" Web 2.0 site

2006-09-15T09:04:00.000-07:00

Better late than never. Learn More about PartyBuilder at the DNC site.
- IFK Editor

---
This article can be found online at the following location:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3631476

The Democratic National Committee is rolling out this week a Web 2.0-like service that may grow into something akin to MySpace for the party faithful.

PartyBuilder is the name of the Democrats' new tool. With party organizers waxing optimistic about their chances of reclaiming the U.S. House of Representatives this fall, the online networking service is appearing just in time to make a difference in some close races -- or so the Democrats hope.

Roll Your Own Political Network

Like a lot of other "social networking" sites, the strength of PartyBuilder lies in the enthusiasm of the users it attracts. Unlike MySpace and Facebook, which skew toward school-age participants, PartyBuilder is designed to attract Democratic political activists.

Plenty of political candidates, of course, have been using the Web effectively for years. Sen. John McCain broke new ground (for a politician) when he raised millions of dollars through his Web site during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. In the 2004 race for the White House, Howard Dean and the Democrats' eventual nominee, John Kerry, both tapped into the networking potential of Meetup, a meeting-planning service.

PartyBuilder takes these steps by individual politicians to the next level. Some of the features that are built into PartyBuilder are:

* MyFriends. Perhaps the essential core of any networking site, MyFriends is the Democrats' name for the list of people you've invited into your circle. PartyBuilder has three levels of relationships: your friends, friends of friends, and unrelated users. People can allow messaging from individuals in any of these categories or restrict any category so that only a notification is received whenever an attempt at contact has been made.

* Find People. Once a user is registered with PartyBuilder, he or she can find other active Democrats in a particular geographic area via a ZIP code search. Each participant can opt out of such searches by selecting a check box on the profiles page, but the party is encouraging people to be findable.

* Groups and Events. PartyBuilder users can easily form groups. Once in a group, it's a simple matter to notify everyone of events being organized locally. The host of an event can directly message everyone who's signed up to attend.

* Personal Fundraising. Perhaps most important in terms of its potential political impact, fundraising is built into PartyBuilder. Users can invite others to contribute to a campaign or cause. If multiple efforts are running simultaneously, fundraisers can track them via a unified reporting tool. The system automatically reminds recipients to send a thank-you message as soon as a contribution has been received.

* Letters to the Editor. To keep those crucial op-ed pages hopping, PartyBuilder includes a letter-writing function. A user simply enters a ZIP code and a list of area newspapers that print letters to the editor is generated. Any or all of the media outlets in the list can be selected to receive the letter the member writes.

* Blogging. Last but certainly not least, PartyBuilder is a complete blogging system in its own right. The user clicks "Write a Post" and the now-familiar blog interface allows one's stream of consciousness to be immediately posted online. The system is complete with "tags," key terms that help others find similar posts. While a participant is wriring a blog entry, PartyBuilder suggests tags that similar posts have used. If bloggers adopt the suggested tags, it could conceivably make posts on the same topic easier for other people to find.

To be sure, none of this technology is particularly new or revolutionary. But considering that many politicians have no Web savvy at all, most local candidates could never create the suite of features that PartyBuilder has conveniently integrated for them. Just add motivated volunteers.

Getting an Edge on the Net

In a telephone interview, the DNC's Internet director, Josh McConaha (rhymes with "hay") overflowed with confidence that PartyBuilder will make a difference in the U.S. elections this fall.

"By making easier the work that activists have always done," McConaha said, "it will make them more efficient at reaching out to voters."

PartyBuilder quietly went live on Sept. 1, with a "soft launch" (mainly an e-mail to party insiders) on Sept. 5. No serious public relations effort has been directed toward major media, prior to a formal announcement that's expected to be issued today.

Despite its low-key introduction, the service attracted almost 10,000 registered users in its first week alone, according to McConaha. That number is expected to grow geometrically -- and PartyBuilder's users are already forming groups as fast as bunnies multiply. "I think we have 500 groups now," McConaha estimates. That's one for every 20 users.

Isn't the Republican Party's "MyGOP" service a lot like PartyBuilder? "No, not at all," McConaha says. Unlike PartyBuilder, which is almost entirely self-directed, the Republican site requires central approval for any major activity, he explains. "Everything's very top-down and Soviet with them."

Next week in this space, I'll describe MyGOP and how the two competing Web services may make or break this year's midterm elections and the 2008 contest for the White House.

For more information on PartyBuilder, visit the DNC site. For details on MyGOP, see its page at the Republican National Committee.

Swift Boat Clones Back Joe Lieberman

2006-08-15T17:03:00.000-07:00

A new group with ties to the Swift Boat Liars who smeared John Kerry's distinguished Vietnam record during the 2004 Presidential race are now backing Joe Lieberman's 2006 race for senate.

Get the full scoop and well documented paper trail at the Democratic Daily.
Group with Ties to SBVT, ‘Vets For Freedom’ Back Lieberman

Joe should denounce the group as a GOP front group. While he's at it he should drop his bid for senate.

As someone who claims to be an "independent" I suppose if he wants to stay in it and let the voters decide that's fine, but being a Bush lacky formerly of the Democratic Party doesn't make you a moderate anything in my book. It makes you part of the problem.

Time to go Joe. Stay in the race if you want, but your days are numbered either way. Americans want a new direction for this country.

If Lieberman Loses in CT - What does it mean for the Democratic Party?

2006-08-03T10:27:00.000-07:00

By IFK Editor

With less than a week to go before an important Democratic primary in Connecticut, a new poll shows Lamont leads Lieberman by 54 to 41 among like primary voters. What does it mean if these results stand up?

If you listen to the conservative talking heads it means that democrats are crazy anti-war peaceniks. Lieberman is a “victim” of liberal Bush haters. His only crime is supporting the president during a time of war. The Fox News’s of the world wrongly twist the truth to accuse democrats of being weak on defense and fighting terrorism, and in their world if Lieberman is thrown overboard it only underscore how weak the democratic party really is on defense.

In the REAL world nothing could be further from the truth!

First let me ask, could anyone actually be worse than Republicans at planning and executing a war in Iraq. They can't rebuild New Orleans after Katrina, yet they insist they are the party to rebuild Iraq and their only “plan” is staying the course.

The course is broken! The course is broken! The course is BROKEN!

Use your common sense. If you had a car that wasn’t running properly and you took it to a mechanic and it came back with the same problems, would you go back there? Maybe you’d give them the benefit of the doubt the first time, but how many chances would they get before you took it to another mechanic?

If Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman to win the Democratic nomination next week it will be because Joe kept taking his car back to the same mechanic, even though his car trouble was never solved.

Swiftboaters Still Active and Going After Murtha

2006-08-03T08:50:00.000-07:00

Blogger James Boyce makes a convincing case that the same people involved in spreading dirty lies about Kerry's military duty are now at it again, only this time in an effort to defeat vocal war critic John Murtha of Pennsylvania. When is enough, enough?! Isn't it time these scum faced some consequences for all the smearing and lies they've propagated. Read his piece and get angry. Contact the media in your area. Hold them accountable. Don't let the media repeat their false message, without a direct challenge. -IFK Editor

Blood In The Water: Swiftboating NeoNuts To Launch Attack On John Murtha Tomorrow

Tomorrow at 11:00 am in Johnstown, Pennslyvannia, there will be a press conference outside of John Murtha's campaign headquarters where a recently-formed group called Veterans For Truth will announce a major veteran's rally to be held in October in an attempt to stop John Murtha from getting re-elected.

I first found out about this late on Monday when Max Cleland left me a voicemail message - the summary of Max's message: same people, same tactic, same strategy, same donors, different candidate.
Sadly, Max is right.

Kerry proposes universal coverage by 2012

2006-07-31T17:15:00.000-07:00

As a recently uninsured person, I have a new appreciation for how important health care is. I have catastrophic coverage to protect against anything major, but I am paying out of my own pocket and will probably put off any regularly scheduled preventative trips to the doctor until I can regain employee sponsored coverage. Hopefully this is only temporary, and I remain healthy during this period, but now I understand the dilemma facing millions of American families. It’s not right.

Kerry is leading on this issue within his own party and clearly ahead of the Republican party on this important issue. -IFK Editor

Read full text: Kerry proposes universal coverage by 2012

BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it."

The Massachusetts Democrat, whose name is figuring prominently in 2008 White House speculation, repeated his 2004 presidential campaign call for expanding the federal Medicaid program to cover children. He also proposed creating a program to cover catastrophic cases so an employer providing insurance doesn't have to pass the cost to his other workers, and; offering Americans the ability to buy into the same insurance program used by federal workers such as members of Congress.

Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually. He did not immediately elaborate on how he would enact his insurance mandate, but one aid said he would do so with a requirement written into the legislation spelling out that the government covers anyone who is uninsured.

"One of my biggest regrets is that fear talk trumped the health care walk, and that we are less safe abroad and less healthy at home because of that," Kerry told a crowd of several hundred during a midday speech at Faneuil Hall. The senator had previously delivered two other speeches at the Revolutionary War meeting house laying the ground work for a second presidential campaign.

Stem Cell Debate - Kerry is Right

2006-07-19T10:29:00.000-07:00

In an Op Ed John Kerry clearly outlined why the debate on stem cells is a false debate between pro-life and science. Life saving research can be done in a moral way that lives up to our high values. See his text below. Readers may also want to learn more about Stem Cell Research and the newly formed National Stem Cell Bank. -IFK Editor

Text From Kerry's Stem Cell Op Ed

I’ll never forget almost two years ago standing in Winnacunnet High School’s gymnasium in Hampton — talking with people from across New Hampshire who believed in the promise of stem cell research to find cures and save lives. Many in wheelchairs, many who had lost loved ones to disease, and many who knew a cure wouldn’t come in time for them but could save others wanted leadership that fought for them back in Washington.

One woman stood up, her frail body shaking, and pleaded for her government to embrace stem-cell research. It was the moral clarity of her message that will stay with me forever. “It’s too late for me,” she said, “but we need to do this for those who still have hope.”

I have not forgotten the look in her eyes, or my promise to her and so many others.

That’s why I am so troubled that the president’s political adviser, Karl Rove, has announced that President Bush is threatening to use the veto pen for the first time in his presidency to strike down a stem-cell research bill that offers hope to millions of Americans suffering from devastating illnesses.

President Bush has signed 1,163 bills into law without vetoing a single one of them. A veto now would send a message to all Americans that, on crucial issues, our differences are greater than our shared convictions. It would tell the world that America no longer wants to be the country that pushes the envelope of scientific knowledge and discovery.

Congress has taken the politics out of stem-cell research. It’s time the White House does, too.

What a tragedy it would be if the first veto of Bush’s presidency were used to make a political wedge of something that Washington and the rest of America overwhelmingly support - regardless of their political party - and a promise that offers hope to millions and could put American on the path to leading the world in the discovery of cures.

The issue of stem-cell research is deeply personal and raises profound moral questions. But people of goodwill and good sense can resolve these complex ethical issues without stopping lifesaving research. Growing numbers of conservatives have looked at the scientific facts and searched their own consciences in realizing that opposing this groundbreaking research isn’t a “pro-life policy,” that an ethical consensus can be found to ban human cloning while protecting stem-cell research. The House of Representatives has passed bipartisan legislation, and as early as this week the Senate is poised to pass groundbreaking stem-cell legislation, with the support of Republicans like John McCain, R-Ariz., Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Nancy Reagan.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Right now, more than 100 million Americans – more than 600,000 right here in New Hampshire – suffer from illnesses that may one day be treated or cured with stem-cell therapy. Stem cells could replace damaged heart cells or cells destroyed by cancer, offering a new lease on life to those with a diagnosis that once came with a death sentence. Research has the potential to slow the loss of a grandmother’s memory, calm the hand of an uncle with Parkinson’s, save a child from a lifetime of daily insulin shots or permanently lift a best friend from a wheelchair.

Some of the most pioneering cures and treatments are now right at our fingertips, but because of politics they could remain beyond reach. Every day we wait, more than 3,000 Americans die from diseases that may someday be treatable because of stem-cell research. Instead of facing the facts, this Administration seems prepared to continue arguing that supporting stem cell research gives the American people false hope. Imagine if we’d told researchers studying polio that they were creating false hope. Imagine if we’d told those working to eradicate small pox that they were creating false hope. It’s unthinkable.

Americans have been presented with a false choice between the sanctity of human life and the scientific knowledge that can save it. The president’s veto rests on the false assumption that we have to choose between our dreams and our principles. We can have both.

We can support our scientists, help the sick and ensure that our legal and ethical boundaries reflect our unshakable sense of human dignity.

I’ll never forget that woman who told me ‘it was too late for her’, but not too late for millions of others. Nearly two years later, it’s still not too late for this President to change his mind before tying the hands of doctors and ethicists with a veto. It’s not too late to give millions of Americans what they want most of all: hope.

Republicans: the Party of Infidelity in 2008

2006-07-01T18:13:00.000-07:00

In 2004, during the Presidential campaign and about the time Kerry was wrapping up his party's nomination, there was a brief rumor on the internet that Kerry had an affair with an intern. It was quickly debunked and any respectable publication didn't even mention it, however that didn't stop the republican slime machine (the drudge report and numerous blogs) from promoting it as fact.

With that in mind I can't wait to see how the media covers the potential list of leading Republican candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. The Washington Monthly fires the first shot with its article entitled "High Infidelity", describing the liabilities of several GOPers and rehashing old Clinton bedroom politics.

Lurking just over the horizon are liabilities for three Republicans who have topped several national, independent polls for the GOP's favorite 2008 nominee: Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.

While I believe the media goes too far most times in reporting private matters about candidates personal lives, in this case the issues is fair game in my book, since the Republicans claim to be the morally superior party and make an issue of social values. I guess I never learned that 11th commandment, "Thou shall not have affairs, unless you are a registered Republican".

Kerry Promotes Energy Independence & Climate Crisis Solutions

2006-06-26T18:11:00.000-07:00

Equating American energy independence with national security and global climate crisis to a threat as grave as terrorism, John Kerry laid out his energy policy vision today. While many of these ideas were raised during his 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry now further elaborates on his plan and incorporates a new sense of urgency with regard to the consequenses of global warming. The debate is over. Scientists agree global warming is a real threat and that human actions are to blame. It's time our government started doing something while there is still time to act. - IFK Editor

For Kerry's full remarks read: Our Energy Challenge by Senator John Kerry

Iraq War Bill: 11 Ways we could have spent the money to actually make America safer

2006-06-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

The American Prospect Magazine offers us this month's cover story on 11 ways the US could have spent the projected $1.27 TRILLION (with a T)war cost to actually make America more secure.

1. Military Transformation

2. Nuclear Materials

3. The Other War: Afghanistan

4. International Security

5. Transportation Security

6. Ports Security

7. Airplanes Again

8. Emergency Response

9. Public Diplomacy

10. Development Assistance

11. Fight Climate Change

Kerry Shows Independent Mind, Out Front of Party on Iraq

2006-06-22T12:22:00.000-07:00

John Kerry once again proves why independent voters should consider him as a Leader not just a "Democratic" leader. Bucking the Democratic Party, Kerry lead the charge in the Senate to bring about a true debate on Iraq. His call to redeploy American troops and force Iraqi's to stand up for themselves is a valuable idea vs. a rubber stamp congress devoid of new ideas on Iraq.

“Lie and Die” as Kerry called the President’s plan is not a strategy to win Iraq and make America safer against terrorists. After 3 years of military combat isn’t it time we recognize that the problems now facing Iraq must be solved diplomatically. Yes security is an urgent issue that will be met with Kerry’s plan, but Iraq’s have said themselves they want American troops to stand down. Iraqis need to rule their own country.

As the Democratic Party tries to come to terms with its position on Iraq, they are clear on one thing. The president lied about WMD’s and why we went there in the first place. Regardless of whether you think our troops should leave in a year or stay longer democrats want a diplomatic solution equal to that of the military one. They want what’s best for our troops and for Iraq as a country, but they are smart enough to realize tough talk and slogans are not a substitute for a successful policy.

Kerry is willing to take the heat for his party and from his party which is still coming to terms with wanting to look tough on terrorism yet angry over how Bush and republicans use the war as a wedge issue. This is why I support Kerry as an independent voter. He is out in front on the issues not towing the party line.

More background: John Kerry on the Vote on Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Leahy Amendment

Republicans on Iraq: More "Lie and die"

2006-06-21T11:36:00.000-07:00

Kerry calls the Republicans plan for Iraq "Lie and die" and he's right. Republicans repeat the President's tough talk about staying the course, but the course is wrong. It's costing US tax payers and future generations billions of dollars, and costing US troops their lives and limbs. Bush's mistaken war of choice has also given America a black eye around the world.

Democrats want to succeed in Iraq, but the Bush policies are not making America safer. Kerry's goal to bring combat troops home or redeploy some of them to bases in the area is anything but cut and run. That's Republican BS. Kerry's plan would leave training and special ops troops in Iraq and they would have access to American air power and other recources.

Iraq will succeed or fail based on Iraqi willingness to stand up for themselves and learning to compromise with their fellow Iraqis, not on military action.

Kerry is leading on this issue. It's time Americans, democrats and republicans alike, demand more results from their leaders and stop hiding behind pathetic slogans to cover for disasterous policy.

Kerry: Democratic Ideas for 2006 and Beyond

2006-06-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

Speaking at the Take Back America Conference Kerry offered some simple Democratic ideas for 2006 and beyond.

• Set a deadline to bring home the troops. It's time Iraqi's stand up for themselves.

• Tell the truth to the American people.

• "Fire the incompetents" and hold government accountable.

• Make America secure by making America energy independent.

• "Value work, not wealth."

• Export products, not jobs.

• Provide affordable health care for all Americans.

• Address global warming and the pollution of our air and water.

Kerry demands US troop pullout

2006-06-14T06:10:00.000-07:00

Help Kerry gain support for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Contact your senator today.

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | June 14, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry is placing himself at the center of congressional action over the war in Iraq this week with a crisply worded resolution to require President Bush to withdraw almost all US troops by the end of this year.

The measure has exposed Kerry to attacks from Republicans and some Democrats, as critics rushed to tag the plan as a ``cut-and-run" strategy. But it also has made him a rallying point for antiwar activists.

The sweeping resolution amounts to the senator's sharpest condemnation of the war and his broadest repudiation of his own vote to authorize force. It also stands in contrast to his handling of the war issue during his campaign for president two years ago.

``My friends, war is no excuse for its own perpetuation," Kerry said before a group of cheering liberal activists who had gathered in Washington yesterday for a ``Take Back America" conference. ``It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake -- to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride. . . . It was wrong and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution."

Kerry Defends 9/11 Widows Against Ann Coulter Attack

2006-06-09T07:56:00.000-07:00

John Kerry calls 'em like he sees 'em. Ann Coulter will say anyhting to sell her hate filled books, even attacking 9/11 widows. Rather than discuss Iraq or Homeland Security she would rather stir up controversy to make a buck. Join Kerry in holding these Republican Shills accountable for their words and bad policies for America.

When I heard on cable television what Ann Coulter wrote and said about the widows of 9/11, my first reaction was pretty much unprintable. I have no apologies for it. Did this woman ever for a second stop and think that these women's children might be watching TV and have to listen to her venomous words?
So much for family values.

Then I thought: grotesque as it is, this is her attempt to be provocative -- infamy's its own kind of fame -- to get her mug on TV and sell books. Coulter is counting on this "controversy" to get her ink and sell her angry harangue of a book.

Which is why we owe all the 9/11 families Ann Coulter slandered so much more than just outrage.

We owe them thanks. Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, Kristen Breitweiser, and Monica Gabrielle -- and others -- provided an incredible service to each of us. And we also owe it to them to put the focus where they originally put it when, in the middle of their grieving, they stood up to demand answers and action from a government that invoked their husbands' memories for political reason but then wiped them away when the real work of fighting terror and providing homeland security got to be too tough and less ideologically attractive compared to a sideshow disaster in Iraq.

These women weren't and still aren't "in politics." Many voted for George Bush in 2000, some voted for me in 2004 and I was proud to have their support. They're independent-minded, they're their own people. They take homeland security more personally than many Members of Congress -- and they take it more seriously. These are women whose sole mission is to make our country as safe as it can and should be -- so the same thing that happened to their husbands will never happen to someone else's, or to their children. Think about what they accomplished -- bottom line: We would not have had the 9/11 Commission and their recommendations to make America safer without these brave women.

Read Full Post: Shameless, but the Real Shame Is If We Don't Act

Rolling Stome: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

2006-06-01T20:13:00.000-07:00

Finally someone documents the story the main stream media is all too happy to ignore. It also bolsters Kerry's case for another shot in '08 and shows how hard it would have been for Kerry to prove any wrong doing, when it was so easy for Republicans to play dirty within the system by keeping the Kerry vote supressed in swing states. Lets hope the media revisits this issue with some real reporting. -IFK Editor

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

Read More: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Kerry Taking the Fight to the Swift Boat Liars

2006-05-27T12:52:00.000-07:00

Like many other Kerry supporters I was shocked at how pathetic the media coverage was during the summer of 2004 as the Swift Boat liars made up charges sank Kerry's momentum heading into the fall. While some faulted Kerry for not responding (which was not true, his ship mates and surrogates where out in force answering lies with truth) the real issue is that the swifties were able to lie without consequences and the media repeated each accusation over and over verbatim, without regard to the facts.

Kerry is making sure this won’t happen again and making sure the record is set straight. His staff is compiling a case to refute each claim and one wonders if they may be thinking lawsuit in the future. If the media won’t do its job then maybe the law will.

For more read: Kerry Refuting Swift Boat Lies, Again

Global Warming Deniers Take to the the Airwaves

2006-05-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

You've got to be kidding me?! This is a new low. Wait what am I saying, actually it's just the same old dirty tricks. Timed to coincide with Al Gore's new movie about Global Warming a new group is running TV ads sugar coating the effects of the oncoming climate crisis in an attempt to muddle the facts about CO2 and the threat we face.

Please join me in contacting the media outlets who run this ad and make it clear to them how wrong it is. - IFK Editor

"Carbon dioxide... we call it life," TV ads say

A little girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life," in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists," especially Al Gore.

The television ads, screened for the press on Wednesday and set to air in 14 U.S. cities starting on Thursday, are part of a campaign by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute to counter a media spotlight on threats posed by worldwide climate change.

Kerry Debunks 'Voting for War' Myth and 'Not Counting Every Vote' Myth

2006-05-18T11:24:00.000-07:00

Here's a MP3 of Kerry's witty, very loose sounding appearance on the Stephanie Miller show on May 17, 2006.

Between talking about how President Bush has failed us, the Democrats real solutions and the '06 elections, and reflecting on '04, Kerry also puts the smack down on the persistant Myth's that he voted for the war and that he didn't fight hard enough to count every vote in Ohio in 2004. Both are wrong, and anyone who tells you otherwise has their own distorted agenda to push. - IFK Editor

More discussion here:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3014

Watch Trailer for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

2006-05-16T08:36:00.000-07:00

Al Gore is at his best when he is fighting Global Warming. His new movie is due out at the end of May. Watch for it in your area and watch the trailer here: An Inconvenient Truth

TruthOut .org: Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

2006-05-13T18:26:00.000-07:00

If true Bush's problems are just beginning. -IFK Editor

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

The Nation: The New Kerry

2006-05-12T07:34:00.000-07:00

The Nation has an important article outlining Kerry's hard hitting new message as he takes on President Bush and tries to help his party win in 2006 and beyond. - IFK Editor

In the past few months Kerry has presented a side of himself very different from the one the public saw during the 2004 campaign. Freed from the grip of consultants, the spotlight of the national media and the Republican attack dogs, he is looser, clearer and more compelling. Call it the Al Gore Effect. At the end of a presidential campaign, losing candidates either retreat, keep up the good fight or attempt the arduous task of redefining themselves. Kerry's both fighting and redefining these days.

Read Full Article

Bad Joke? Bush Backs Jeb in 2008

2006-05-10T14:04:00.000-07:00

Um...NO! - IFK Editor

A 3rd President Bush? First 2 All for It

ORLANDO, Fla. - Could there be a third President Bush? The current chief said Wednesday that younger brother Jeb would make a great one, too, and has asked him about making a run. The first President Bush likes the idea as well. Jeb Bush, the Republican governor of Florida, has one asset that his presidential brother doesn't right now ? approval from most of his constituents. While George W. Bush's approval ratings are in the low 30s, some 55 percent of Florida voters surveyed last month by Quinnipiac University said Jeb was doing a good job.

Cheney's daughter on family dinners, Kerry and coming out

2006-05-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

Must be tough living in a family when your dad wants to make you a second class citizen because you are gay. It's clear from this article Cheney's daughter was emotionally torn between supporting her father and realizing that support underhanded a movement for equal rights for Gay people.

Interesting how she reserves most of her anger for John Kerry, the man who wanted to extend civil rights to everyone and who pointed out that disconnect in a 2004 debate. I can understand her reaction, as one's sexual preference should be a private matter, but when one's father is making an anti-gay platform a major part of his strategy to win votes, and you are actively involved in campaigning for him, it seems only fair to bring up this point. - IFK Editor

It was as the vice-president's lesbian daughter that Ms Cheney became known to the broader American public when she essentially ran his 2004 re-election campaign. She was also involved in the 2000 race, but at that time her mother, Lynne Cheney, was saying in public that her daughter had not come out as a lesbian. By the time of the 2004 elections the Republicans were using their opposition to gay marriage to win votes.

Homosexual rights were an election issue, and so was Ms Cheney's sexuality as she worked to restore an administration opposed to gay marriage to the White House. Republicans were denouncing gays and lesbians as "selfish hedonists".

Ms Cheney admits her discomfort with that position. She writes that she had planned to be in the gallery for the president's state of the union speech in 2004, but cancelled when she saw a text in which he pledged to defend the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

"I didn't want to be there when the members of the House and Senate and all the invited guests applauded the president's declaration," she writes. "I sure wasn't going to stand up and cheer."

AP: Kerry 'Troubled' by Hayden Nomination

2006-05-08T16:31:00.000-07:00

NASHUA, N.H. - Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004 and a possible contender in 2008, told a firefighters' union Monday that he had "serious reservations" about the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the
CIA.

"I'm very troubled by the nomination because he is one of the main supporters representing Donald Rumsfeld who helped to put in place the programs of spying on Americans and has been one of the biggest defenders of it," Kerry said.

..."We passed the law that gave them all the ability to protect America, which I obviously want to do, but to protect America and also protect the constitution," Kerry told reporters after a formal speech to the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire.

"We gave them a court that they could go to on the shortest notice necessary. If they need to fix (the law), we'll help them fix it, but we want to do it in a way that honors America's respect for our constitution," he said.

More details

Kerry Text: Patriotism Means Telling the Truth, Making America Stronger

2006-05-07T18:10:00.000-07:00

Senator John Kerry: “Patriotism Means Telling the Truth, Making America Stronger”
Grinnell College - Grinnell, Iowa

Thirty-five years ago this spring, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.

It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn’t know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a “decent interval” between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.

I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to “support the troops”—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.

Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent—many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory—or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive “war of choice” that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives.

Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth.

Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”.

The bedrock of America’s greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are defining values—was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

And here in Iowa we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception.

Think about that now—in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles.

America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law—in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens.

America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom together with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right. They discard alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than roadblocks to the exercise of unilateral power.

What they forget is that America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate. As Thomas Jefferson said, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, we’ve heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or – amazingly - -as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. Now there’s some clear thinking. Someone please explain how a civilian speaking out is a threat to civilian control of the military! We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.

At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price for each mistake being paid by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard.

Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America’s true character and strength have a duty to speak out and they must be respected.

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration’s boastful claim of “Mission Accomplished.” The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America’s power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a strategy the leaders themselves knew could not accomplish the mission.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.

As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.

And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can’t bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq’s leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences. Iraqi politicians have only responded to deadlines – a deadline to transfer authority, and a deadline to hold three elections. That is why we need a deadline now for Iraqis to stand up and fight for their own country.

Our soldiers have done their job. Now it’s time for the Iraqis to do their job, and it is time to get our combat troops home in 2006 and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. This is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.

We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President’s position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.

When I testified thirty five years ago, I asked the question: ‘where are the leaders of our country?’

It’s time we ask that question again – and time we say clearly it’s not just in Iraq but on every issue where Washington has either failed to lead – or misled America in the wrong direction.

Rarely has there been a moment more urgent for all Americans to step up and define our country again.

Some people suggest we don’t have any ideas. You know, I have to laugh at that. If by ideas they mean running the debt up to nine trillion dollars, losing America’s manufacturing base, denying children after-school programs, cutting kids from Medicaid, and privatizing Social Security; if by ideas they mean violating the law, ignoring international treaties and forgetting diplomacy; if by ideas they mean filling the trough of the special interests’ pig pen – giving the money changers their bankruptcy bill, giving the oil industry their energy bill, and giving the big pharmaceutical companies their prescription drug bill — then they’re right: those are bad ideas being shoved down the throats of the American people by a Washington of bankrupt values and I’m proud we stood up and said no to them every step of the way.

We don’t have a selfish agenda masquerading as ideas and facilitated by those who refuse to hold them accountable and speak the truth.

In fact, the Administration’s agenda of the last years has so distorted America’s politics that now, straightforward, little ideas have become big ones.

So what do we say yes to? What are our ideas?

How about starting with this: tell the American people the truth!

Then, full-on fire the incompetents!

Make America secure with energy independence.

Value work, not wealth, and make our tax code fair for the middle class and people struggling to join it.

Export products, not jobs.

Make health care accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Do something about global warming and, while we’re at it, clean up our lakes and rivers so people can fish and swim in the United States.

Set a deadline for Iraqis to run Iraq and bring our troops home.

And all of this should be done because our one big idea is that leading America and building community requires the shared sacrifice and commitment of all Americans to a set of ideals bigger than self, and based on the truth. We need a Washington that doesn’t just talk about family values, but that actually values families.

That is why I think we should pay for the war instead of passing the bill to our children; that’s why I think we should invest in renewable and alternative energy to grow the fuels of the future; provide all our kids with health insurance; and make America secure by waging and winning a real war on terror.

These are real ideas. I believe that was an agenda worth fighting for in 2004, and it’s even more urgent today and America will be better off if we start getting these things done now.

But these ideas will only become powerful if you give voice to your values.

We need you to make your issues the voting issues of this nation.

I remember when you couldn’t even mention environmental issues without a snicker. But then in the 70’s people got tired of seeing the Cuyahoga River catch on fire from all the chemicals. So one day millions of Americans marched. Politicians had no choice but to take notice. Twelve Congressmen were dubbed the Dirty Dozen, and soon after seven were kicked out of office. The floodgates were opened. We got the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water. We created the EPA. The quality of life improved because concerned citizens made their issues matter in elections.

So we need you to speak out. Speak out if you want an America that is finally and forever independent of Mideast oil – an America that relies on its ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family.

Speak out so that instead of making a mockery of the words No Child Left Behind when China and India are graduating tens of thousands more engineers and PhDs than we are, we build an America where college education is affordable and accessible for every student willing to work for it.

Speak out so that instead of letting a few ideologues get in the way of progress that can cure Parkinson’s, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and AIDS, we build an America where the biology students here today will do the groundbreaking stem cell research tomorrow.

Speak out if you want to restore a politics of big ideas, not small-minded attacks.

Speak out if you’re tired of seeing America divided into red states and blue states, because you know we can be one America — red, white, and blue.

Dissent from this unacceptable status quo because you know the job of leadership is to prepare for your future - not ignore it. The people who run Washington today give in to special interests and rob future generations. Real leadership stands up to special interests and sets the course for future generations. You must demand leadership that works to solve problems - not create them.

Our challenge today is to speak out so loudly that Washington has no choice but to make choices worthy of the sacrifice of our neighbors here at home and our troops all around the world.

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: “My country right or wrong.” Our response was simple: “Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right.” That’s our mission – to get off our rear ends – go out – and make it right today.

Foreign Policy Magazine Article on Iraq: Cut and Run? You Bet.

2006-05-03T18:37:00.000-07:00

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) has an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy Magazine where he advocates, much like John Kerry, that it's time for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

Snip...

Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

The Truth Hurts: Colbert Roasts Bush At Press Dinner

2006-05-01T18:04:00.000-07:00

Thank you Stephen!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Kerry Promtes the Right to Dissent

2006-04-22T12:07:00.000-07:00

As reported at thedemocraticdaily.com: John Kerry wlll deliver a speech in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall about patriotism and dissent at a time of war and the assault on free speech in America today.

Below are Kerry’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Senator John Kerry
“Dissent”
Faneuil Hall
April 22, 2006

Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.

It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn’t know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a “decent interval” between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.

I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to “support the troops”—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like “peace with honor”—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.

The fissures created by Vietnam have long been stubbornly resistant to closure. But I am proud it was the dissenters—and it was our veterans’ movement—and people like Judy Droz Keyes—who battled not just to end the war but to combat government secrecy and the willful amnesia of a society that did not want to remember its obligations to the soldiers who fought. We fought the forgetting and pushed our nation to confront the war’s surplus of sad legacies—Agent Orange, Amer-Asian orphans, abandoned allies, exiled and imprisoned draft dodgers, doubts about whether all our POWs had come home, and honor at last for those who returned from Vietnam and those who did not. Because we spoke out, the truth was ultimately understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors.

Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent—many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory—or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive “war of choice” that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives.

This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation.

In the infancy of the Republic, in 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to smear Thomas Jefferson and accuse him of treason. Newspapers were shut down, and their editors arrested, including Benjamin Franklin’s grandson. No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: “Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.”

In the Mexican War, a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln was driven from public life for raising doubts about official claims. And in World War I, America’s values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in public schools in some states. At that time it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble. And it was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II—a measure upheld by Supreme Court Justices who did not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. We are stronger today because no less a rock-ribbed conservative than Robert Taft — “Mr. Republican” himself — stood up and said at the height of the second World War that, “the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”

Even during the Cold War—an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms—even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had in the right to dissent. They stood up to a bully and brought down McCarthyism’s ugly and contrived appeals to a phony form of 100% Americanism.

Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth.

Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”.

This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women’s suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America’s greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are defining values—was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: “A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood.”

Think about that now—in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles.

America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law—in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens.

America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom and self-determination in concert with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right, enabling us to discard the alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than impediments to the exercise of unilateral power.

America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we’ve heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.

The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, said “the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions–or bury the results.” It is hard for a career military officer to speak those words. But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out.

At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard.

Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America’s true character and strength must be respected.

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration’s boastful claim of “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America’s power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

Let’s call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable—and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool’s gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself.

According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary—and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.

The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that’s why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

And so there’s the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a mission the leaders themselves no longer believed in.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.

As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.

And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can’t bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq’s leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines—a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.

So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren’t willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they’re probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq’s leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year’s end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.

So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.

We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President’s position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.

Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.

We support the troops—the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today—in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.

But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country.

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: “My country right or wrong.” Our response was simple: “Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right.” And that’s what we must do again today.

What Does James Dobson Have to Say About His Boy George?

2006-04-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

As Bush’s approval ratings fall even further, only 33% in the latest Fox poll, I wonder why we don't hear much from Focus on the Family head, Dr. James Dobson. Maybe his work is done, after all he has his two conservative Supreme Court Judges. He only had to back a lying, incompetent President whose policies started an immoral war and who continues to promote an agenda that hurts the very people who Dobson claims to minister to (poor and middle class families), but I guess that’s all in a day’s work to save the unborn and protect us from gay marriage.

Thank you Dobby. May the disaster of the Bush presidency find you and your listeners well, just don’t blame those of us who voted for Kerry for the mess this country is in.

McCain's Pro War Stance Seen Sinking Presidential Chances

2006-04-20T09:43:00.000-07:00

Americans are weary of the Iraq war and angry with politicians who acted like cheerleaders for President Bush's failed policies in both the run up to war and the ongoing struggle. Perhaps no potential 2008 candidate is suffering more than John McCain, and justly so. However rightly or wrongly, McCain is often viewed as a moderate voice within the Republican Party, but on the Iraq war he stood out more than most in his unabashed support for the President. Nowhere was this more evident than during the 2004 Presidential campaign when McCain embraced the president (literally) on many occasions and trumpeted his "leadership" on Iraq. As Iraq drags on and the President's support, or rather lack of it, reaches historically low levels, McCain now finds his own presidential chances suffering greatly. -IFK Editor

Also see:
McCain's Support of War Looms as Barrier to Presidential Hopes

Letter the The Editor: Kerry Better Than Bush

2006-04-20T09:34:00.000-07:00

This is too good not to post the entire thing...Thank you Vicki Dow from Iowa. -IFK Editor

(Appearing in the Northwest Herald)
To the Editor:

"John Kerry speaks French and things like that, and he was just too darn fancy for us."

I often think of the good folks from Iowa, my home state, whom I met at the Mayo Clinic shortly after the presidential election and who offered the above as their reason for voting for Bush.

They said they didn't really like the Iraq war, and they didn't want Bush messing up Social Security, and they were leery of Vice President Dick Cheney.

But French and fancy ruled the day.

I wonder what they're thinking now.

Violence in Iraq continues; scandals and indictments are coming fast and furious; and recklessness and incompetence are pervasive in the administration.

The Iowa people also used the Bush is a "good Christian" selling point.

I wonder what they're thinking now.

His corporate-controlled unholy agenda of take from the poor and give to the rich is the opposite of what I learned in Sunday school. And where are the blessed peacemakers?

What a different world we would have had with a different president.

I bet that's what the Iowans are thinking now.

If you care about this country, please read Paul William Roberts' book "A War Against Truth."

Vicki Dow

Crystal Lake

Investor Class Fed Up with Bush Too

2006-04-19T18:52:00.000-07:00

A recent article in BusinessWeek Magazine shows one of Bush's most reliable voting blocks is bailing on him.

Some choice quotes:

Tada, who describes himself as "conservative across the board," isn't impressed by the management skills of America's first MBA President. "He certainly delegates and lets others screw up," Tada says. He calls the scandal- ridden Republican Congress "a hapless, self-serving mess."

The President, who received the votes of 61% of investors in 2004, now gets favorable job approval ratings from just 43%, according to Zogby International Inc., a nonpartisan polling firm. Investors' complaints include the Administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports deal, the management of the Iraq war, the $8.2 trillion national debt, soaring gasoline prices, and immigration policy.

It's not all good news, though, as the public isn't overly excited about democrats either. Dems need to directly challenge this storyline that the press seems to be repeating in all their coverage of the run up to 2006. Dems need to forcefully lay out their plans and vision for America. Kerry has been doing an admirable job lately ticking off his simple 10 points for a better America.

1. Obey the law, protect civil rights.
2. Tell the truth.
3. Fire the incompetents.
4. Chase the moneylenders and changers from temple of democracy.
5. Bring our troops home!
6. Find OBL and protect ports.
7. Stop subsidizing big oil and become energy independent. Commit to alternatives.
8. Make access to healthcare affordable to all Americans.
9. Reduce deficit. Respect work over wealth.
10. Fight for American jobs.

Oil Reaches New High - $100 A Barrel Closer than You Think

2006-04-18T19:33:00.000-07:00

Let me show my Independent stripes here. While many Democrats will blame the oil companies for price gouging as consumers start to feel real pain at the pump the truth is oil is a commodity that has gone up in price as demand has outstripped supply. That’s just the way the market works. Oil is a natural resource in limited amounts. The U.S. has very little of it and has to depend on imports to keep our economy humming.

Let me join the chorus of Peak Oil prognosticators. Cheep oil is over folks! Get used to it. It’s extremely costly to develop new oil sources and it takes many years to get production up to speed. China and India are also demanding more oil for their rapid growth so don’t plan on demand dropping any time soon. If it was up to the geniuses at GM we’d all still be driving Hummers and gas-guzzling SUV’s.

If you ask me it’s a good thing oil prices are going up. As Oil becomes more expensive alternative fuel sources will become more competitive in the market place. Ethanol, natural gas and Hydrogen Fuel cells will all become attractive energy options.

This is good for two reasons. First, the U.S. needs to be energy independent or it will face a very difficult future being so dependent on foreign oil sources, especially from parts of the world that don’t always like us. Second, global warming is real, and unless drastic measures are taken to reduce CO2 emissions the world faces catastrophic changes that could bring about a decline in our civilization.

If dems want to do more than score political points they will talk about long term solutions and spending 10-20 times the amount the Bush administration is currently spending on research for conservation and clean energy technology.

In the 1970’s America was the leader in innovative solar and wind technology, but as the coal and oil lobby took over the halls of congress we lost decades of valuable research time and are now behind most European countries in terms of technology and political accountability.

Instead of blaming oil companies Dems should be using this opportunity to promote alternative energy.

Earth Day 2006 - Saturday April 22

2006-04-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I initially became interested in John Kerry was his forward looking views on protecting and conserving our environment. I remember seeing him on the Sunday morning talk shows discussing energy policy, like raising CAFE standards for automobiles and promoting renewable energy sources way before it was fashionable, and way before anyone had heard of John Kerry, Democratic Presidential candidate.

Kerry has amassed one of the best records in the Senate on protecting our environment. He was involved in organizing the first Earth Day in Massachusetts in 1970. He talked about the environment in every stump speech he gave during the 2004 campaign, promoting his 2020 plan to invest in renewable energy, targeting 20% of our energy needs to come from clean alternative sources and moving away from oil dependence.

Kerry is a true hero for our environment. It has always been important to him, not just another talking point as it is to so many politicians.

As we look toward Earth Day 2006, with the mounting evidence pointing to a global warming tipping point in the near future, unless the world unites like never before to curb CO2 output, we can celebrate the example of John Kerry’s environmental leadership over the years and realize how much work we have ahead of us.

John, we need you now more than ever.

Visit EarthDay.org for events planned in your area.

Kerry To Rally Boston Crowd in Support of Patriotic Right to Dissent

2006-04-17T18:48:00.000-07:00

Kerry continues his harsh criticism of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policies and their attempts to stifle dissent with an event at Faneuil Hall on April 22.

Kerry is not only leading, but listening to Americans who are demanding their leaders change course on the war and a host of other issues from immigration, deficit spending, and homeland security, to energy independence and global warming. Thus far their voices have fallen on deaf ears, as the Republican controlled congress and Bush admin has ignored common sense policy in favor of political power grabs, politics of destruction and pandering to their special interest big donors.

Democrats, and Independent voters by wide margins, are fed up and ready for change. 2006 can’t come soon enough for most voters ready to throw out the current corrupt Republican led congress. Expect a well reasoned call to arms by Kerry who was out in front of these issues during his 2004 run for President, but wasn’t able to break the media’s go along to get along coverage of the Bush Administration and his war of choice and misinformation in Iraq.

From John Kerry’s email:

At 10:30 AM Saturday morning on April 22nd, I will be speaking at Faneuil Hall, and I hope you and your family can join me for a discussion of what is happening to our democracy when dissent - the right of patriotic people to speak out - is under assault.

This is a chance for me to put into context some things I have been thinking about and which have been important to me all my years in public life. There is no better group of people to share them with than loyal friends who have been there with me and my family every step of the way for decades, every time we have needed your help and support.

Massachusetts has a proud tradition of gathering at Faneuil Hall to speak out about freedom and democracy - a tradition as old as our country.

Next Saturday, April 22nd, I hope to continue that tradition with you in a very personal discussion about the meaning and responsibility of freedom and the enormous challenges our country faces as our soldiers are fighting and dying in a war that has gone off course, with dissent and debate stifled here at home.

This is a critical moment — a moment that requires each of us to speak out in order to put the country we love back on course.

As Dems Stand Up, GOP Stands Down

2006-04-12T16:46:00.000-07:00

John Kerry is leading his party on Iraq policy and as other Dems find their voice, the American people need to make it clear it's time for Republicans to stand down. How do we do that?

1. Sign on to Kerry's Petition supporting a deadline for Iraq

2. Write your Democratic Senator or Congress rep and tell them it's time to support Kerry's idea for a deadline and get tought with Iraq. This is not cut and run and don't let anyone tell you it is. This is standing up for our troops who did their job and who need Iraqi politians and Iraqi police to do theirs. If they get serious, we'll be glad to help, but why should we risk our brave soldiers lives and billions in tax dollars while they play politics.

3. Organize and vote for Democrats in 2006.

Democrats are standing up and offering real common sense solutions for Iraq, and a whole host of other crutial issues, like energy independence, healthcare, immigration, port security, education and many more. Republicans are tired and their ideas are bankrupt. It's time for the GOP to stand down. It's time for Americans to help Democrats stand up by electing them to the majority.

Kerry Not Giving up on America

2006-04-08T16:24:00.000-07:00

Friends and family often look at me funny when I still talk about what John Kerry is doing this week as if he's still campaigning for 2004, but to me what he's doing now is even more important since without his principled voice raising up against the Bush administration’s corrupt incompetence, there would be few checks and balances to the Republican ship of fools currently ruining our country.

This week in particular Kerry shows he has not given up on America. He has clearly articulated what so many Americans have been begging their leaders to say: we’re running out of patience with Iraq.

Unless Iraqi politicians show some urgency and form a government we’re through with them. A majority of Americans now realize Bush’s pre-emptive war of choice was a mistake yet they want to make it right by finishing what we started, leaving a stable Iraqi government that can defend its people, however we’re not going to stay there indefinitely while they fight amongst themselves to settle old scores and rekindle old religious hatred.

Kerry’s plan is a beginning. If Iraq can form a government and demonstrate a commitment to moving forward and ending the violence, America is still committed to working with them on reconstruction and security issues beyond 2006, but without a true partner our best intentions will not succeed.

MORE: Kerry Sharply Criticizes Bush on Several Fronts (NY Times)

Kerry Discusses Iraq and the CIA Leak

2006-04-06T19:52:00.000-07:00

Kerry turns a strong performanace on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Transcript here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12193430/

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST, "HARDBALL": Let me ask you about this big development today. Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the vice-president, he testified to federal authorities that he was authorized by his boss, the vice-president, in July of 2003, and told by his boss, the vice-president, that the president authorized him specifically to leak national intelligence information that made the case for the war in Iraq. What do you make of that?

SEN. JOHN KERRY, DEMOCRAT, MASSACHUSETTS: Well, if it's true, it proves that the buck doesn't stop anywhere in this administration. It also proves that the president has a funny sense of having an investigation, when he says we're going to get to the bottom of it and I'll fire the person who authorized it, if he indeed authorized it. Kind of tricky.

Prosecutor: Bush Authorized Leak of Intelligence Data on Iraq

2006-04-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

Vice President's Former Aide Says Bush OK'd Disclosure to NY Times Reporter

Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

GOP Focus Group Shows Kerry Performing Well in 2008

2006-04-05T19:56:00.000-07:00

In a pre interview clip featuring Tom DeLay on the Chris Matthews show (which was not meant to be aired) Matthews excitedly tells DeLay about the latest focus group data Frank Luntz (GOP insider extraordinaire) has put together about the democratic candidates for 2008.

According to Matthews the results shows Kerry performing well, compared to Hillary and Edwards. No other candidates are mentioned by name in the clip, and we don’t know if the focus group was made up of republican voters or what demographic they were focusing on. If anyone has more details please contact me.

The clip also features Matthews and DeLay acting incredulous that Kerry would be performing well mixed among jabs at the expense of Edwards and Hillary.

Update: Chris Cillizza of WaPo has more details. Apparently it was a focus group of 30 likely democratic voters from both Iowa and New Hampshire. His summary is either toned down or decidely less newsworthy than the remarks by Matthews would suggest.

Kerry on Iraq: Two Deadlines and an Exit

2006-04-05T09:02:00.000-07:00

By JOHN F. KERRY
Published: April 5, 2006
Washington

WE are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

For this transition to work, we must finally begin to engage in genuine diplomacy. We must immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit meeting. In a neutral setting, Iraqis, working with our allies, the Arab League and the United Nations, would be compelled to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction.

To increase the pressure on Iraq's leaders, we must redeploy American forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security backup, training and emergency response; we should leave routine patrols to Iraqi forces. Special operations against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists in Iraq should be initiated only on hard intelligence leads.

We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool. Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil, and the United States will be able to maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence with rapid response capacity. An exit from Iraq will also strengthen our hand in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat and allow us to repair the damage of repeated deployments, which flag officers believe has strained military readiness and morale.

For three years now, the administration has told us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis. In fact, terrible things are happening now because we haven't gotten tough enough. With two deadlines, we can change all that. We can put the American leadership on the side of our soldiers and push the Iraqi leadership to do what only it can do: build a democracy.

John F. Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004.

Breaking: Republican Tom DeLay to Drop Bid for Re-election in Disgrace

2006-04-03T20:03:00.000-07:00

So long and good riddance. Next stop, jail. Say hi to you good buddy Jack Abramoff. -IFK Editor

Rep. Tom DeLay Won't Seek Re-Election (AP)

Former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, a Texan touched by a lobbying scandal that ensnared some of his former top aides and cost the congressman to his leadership post, won't seek re-election to Congress, a Republican official said Monday.

DeLay was expected to disclose the plans Tuesday, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the DeLay had not publicly disclosed his plans.

McCain Gases up the Double Talk Express

2006-04-02T16:12:00.000-07:00

Senator John McCain appeared on Meet the Press today, wearing his 2008 Presidential ambitions on his sleeve, and checking his integrity at the door, as he conveniently denied that Jerry Faldwell was an 'agent of intolerance' as he expressed during the 2000 Presidential campaign. In the interview McCain also couldn't say enough nice things about the great job President Bush was doing on Iraq and defending our country. So much for the straight talk express. Sounds more like the ass kiss express to me. - IFK Editor

McCain Softens Language on Jerry Falwell (AP)
Potential presidential candidate John McCain says he longer considers evangelist Jerry Falwell to be one of the "agents of intolerance" that he criticized during a previous White House run.

The Republican senator from Arizona will be the commencement speaker in May at Liberty University, the Lynchburg, Va., institution that Falwell founded in 1971.

"We agreed to disagree on certain issues, and we agreed to move forward," McCain said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In 2000, as he sought the Republican nomination that eventually went to George W. Bush, McCain said: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

On Sunday, McCain said that Christian conservatives have a major role to play in the Republican Party, but added, "I don't have to agree with everything they stand for."

TV Ads: Fight Global Warming

2006-04-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Environmental Defense is running two TV ads to build awareness of global warming, its consequences, and how the public, government, and businesses must take action today to avoid a catastrophe. For more info visit: Fight Global Warming

Watch the "train" ad below.

Film Review: 'Our Brand is Crisis'

2006-04-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

By Jim Witkins

Last night I attended the Wisconsin Film Festival showing of 'Our Brand is Crisis', a truly amazing, if not disillusioning, behind the scenes look at the 2002 Bolivian Presidential Election in all its unflattering dimensions. The documentary features American consulting all stars Jeremy Rosner, Stan Greenberg, Tad Devine, and James Carville who are hired to turn around the faltering campaign of former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada (Goni).

While it’s hard not to admire the sheer brainpower and art of war mentality these guys bring to the campaign, you’re really left wondering if democracy can survive this focus-group driven, branding-is-everything approach to politics.

As many of these same consultants shaped the Kerry campaign in 2004, you start to question their tactics and strategy, much of which is foreshadowed in this film. You also see the Rovian influence at its worst when they decide to go negative with attack ads by ‘outside’ groups against a Goni opponent. In the end the audience is left wondering, did anyone actually win here? And does the media dictate the tactics or do the tactics drive the media’s coverage?

Highly recommended!

Kerry Fundraising for Key Senate Races

2006-03-29T13:28:00.000-08:00

Kerry puts his muscle behind the following candidates in his latest fundraising appeal to supporters. Obviously Ohio is of personal significance to Kerry, since it cost him the presidency in '04 and could tip the scale for a Democratic President in 2008 (regardless of who the candidate is). Harold Ford Jr. is a up an coming leader in the democratic party who was an early Kerry backer in '04 and who always impressed me when he was delivering the democratic message. Minnesota is another key swing state in the midwest that the GOP would love to pick up, which is why it's critical to make sure they don't. -IFK Editor

Harold Ford Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee, has never been afraid to take tough stands and hold our leaders accountable for policies he believes are failing the American people. He represents a new generation of leadership dedicated to breaking the stranglehold of Middle East oil, making health care more affordable, and building genuine national security at home and in the world.

I can tell you this: the Senate urgently needs his voice, his vision and his vote. By acting before the midnight Friday deadline, you can make it happen.

The Tennessee Senate race is so crucial that we're devoting this week to alerting our grassroots supporters around the country to Harold's campaign -- and to two other vitally important Senate races in Ohio and Minnesota.

In Ohio, Sherrod Brown is running a strong campaign against Senator Mike DeWine, who has spent his time in the Senate serving as a rubber stamp for Bush's failed policies and refusing to stand up to the culture of corruption. American families can't afford 6 more years of a Senator who supports privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Sherrod Brown will fight for health care and stand up to protect our seniors, and our children; as a Congressman, he was the chief Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan Children's Health Act of 2000, which expanded research on autism, birth defects, and other child-related diseases. A respected voice in Congress on U.S. trade policy, Sherrod led the bipartisan opposition to last summer's flawed Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Another leader we need in the Senate is Amy Klobuchar who is doing a terrific job frustrating Karl Rove's efforts to turn Minnesota red. Bush, Frist, and a whole parade of GOP leaders have been to the state trying to shore up Amy's Republican opponent who is a Bush rubber stamp, voting with the President 97% of the time. As Hennepin County prosecutor, Amy has been a strong advocate for women, doubling the number of domestic abuse cases prosecuted in the County. I need Amy with me in the Senate to fight for health care reform, energy independence, tax fairness and economic and international security.

219 U.S. Cities Agree to Kyoto Protocal Limits

2006-03-29T07:25:00.000-08:00

Last week, Seattle's Mayor Nickels launched his plan to bring Seattle into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global-warming emissions. Over the past year, Nickels has led a campaign to get U.S. cities to pledge to meet or beat the goals set in the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement rejected by the Bush administration. Already, 219 cities have joined the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Through its Cool Cities program, the Sierra Club is committed to doubling the number of cities signed up and to work with mayors to follow through on their pledges.

Read "Climate change is in the air" in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

New Books Detail Climate Change

2006-03-25T12:04:00.000-08:00

It's not like there's any shortage of evidence for climate change, however two new books present a very readable and important summary of what we currently KNOW, and more importantly how we can step up and reduce carbon emissions to avoid a global environmental and economic catastrophe.

THE WEATHER MAKERS
How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth
By Tim Flannery
FIELD NOTES FROM A CATASTROPHE
Man, Nature, and Climate Change
By Elizabeth Kolbert

I recommend both. Also see the review of each in BusinessWeek

2008 Presidential Horse Race As it Stands Today

2006-03-23T19:04:00.000-08:00

ABC's political unit has put together their best guess power rankings for 2008 Presidential contenders. They call it the 2008 Presidential Invisible Primary Ratings.

Hillary and McCain of course rank in the top spot for their respective parties, however the real story is the breakdown of individual strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. While the results are debatable, I think it's a useful tool regardless of who you support to assess the realistic potential of your candidate and understand what needs to happen for that person to move up between now and early 2008 during the nomination process.

As a Kerry supporter in 2004 who listened as the press made numerous preposterous statements about his chances to win the nomination, I take this latest predictive ranking with a grain of salt. That said, I'm not above realizing potential challenges Kerry would face in 2008 and working hard to improve on those areas, and thankfully neither is Kerry.

The Value of Values

2006-03-20T07:34:00.000-08:00

by The Rockridge Institute (Also see George Lakoff)

This is a passage from the first phase of the Rockridge Manual for Progressives, which will be available this summer. Using the tools of cognitive science and linguistics, The Rockridge Institute seeks to articulate and promote the values behind traditional American democracy. The Rockridge Manual provides a map of the overall framework of values and ideas for progressive thought, and offers practical material on how these concepts can be applied to communicate our positions honestly and persuasively.

Values come up again and again in political discussion. Candidates are pressed to identify and talk about their values, and are flayed in debate for not voicing them with clarity and conviction.

Values are guiding principles of behavior that have to do with comport (integrity, discipline), communication (honesty, truthfulness), and our basic beliefs about people (freedom, equality, worth) and how they should be treated (justice, equity). One of the most salient differences between the conservative and progressive interpretation of values is that conservatives typically understand values with respect to the individual, while progressives see them as fundamentally social, guiding relations among people.

This crucial insight explains why certain values are more central to one side of the political spectrum than the other. Core conservative values (such as self-discipline, tradition, independence) are guiding principles for individual actions, while central progressive values (like empathy, progress, diversity) are especially relevant as we structure our relationships with others and our communities.

We often take the meaning of specific values for granted and assume that our interpretation is consistent with the views of others. In fact, many values are highly contested, resulting in a wide variance in what they signify and how they are understood.

Read the rest of this article on our website: The Rockridge Institute

McCain and Bush Sittin' in a Tree

2006-03-18T18:59:00.000-08:00

Isn't this a cute picture?

Since the press can't stop repeating the ridiculous story line that McCain is some straight talkin' maverick within the Republican party I've been looking for a picture such as this to remind people that McCain is a phony sellout concerned more about political positioning than solutions to America's problems.

McCain knows he needs to beef up his conservative creds to have a legitimate shot in '08 and apparently he decided the best way to do that was by embracing the worst president in US history and backing him 100% in 2004. (This sweaty man hug must have been a bitter pill for McCain since it was Bush's operatives in 2000 who took McCain out of the republican primaries using typical dirty tactics like floating a rumor suggesting he was unstable and that he had fathered an illegitimate black girl, who in real life is his adopted daughter from Bangladesh.)

Is McCain crying on George's shoulder, realizing what a sellout he has become or is he whispering sweet nothing's into George's ear, "You own me in 2008, you incompetent prick."

More perspective here:

John McCain is no maverick, but rather is a Bush toadie

McCain has been working to get closer to Bush

Kerry Promotes Energy Independence - Against Arctic Refuge Drilling

2006-03-15T09:26:00.000-08:00

Kerry urges supporters to contact their Senators to once again defeat Republican attempts to drill in the Artic Refuge:

It didn't take long. Despite the stunning defeat we dealt them just a few months ago, proponents of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are at it again.

Because when they can't win the game they just change the rules, now they've inserted language in the Senate budget bill to hand over this precious natural treasure to big oil companies -- even though they know full well that it won't make a dime's worth of difference in making America more energy independent.

Tell your Senators to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and take real action toward achieving energy independence.

Here are the five cornerstones of Kerry's 2020 Energy Plan that Congress should be acting on instead of more oil subsidies and giveaways.

INCENTIVIZING RENEWABLE ENERGY
More than 20 states have implemented market-based Renewable Energy Portfolio programs that require utilities to gradually increase the portion of electricity produced from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. We should build on that success at the national level. Tell your Senators to enact a nationwide Renewable Portfolio Standard so that 20% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that implementing this policy would save $26.6 billion and that commercial and industrial customers would be the biggest winners.

PROMOTING BIO-ENERGY
We have the ability to transform our transportation sector from one that fuels our addiction to one that drives us toward a sustainable future. The President should build on that demand and fuel new production opportunities by supporting a mandate that agriculture will provide 20% of the total energy consumed in the United States by 2020.

INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
In addition to developing new sources of energy, we must make better use of available energy. New technological advances in appliances, energy grid systems, and buildings can boost productivity, create jobs, improve the reliability and safety of the energy infrastructure, and make dramatic inroads in reducing air pollution. Congress should enact energy efficiency measures to decrease energy use by 20% by 2020.

PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUPER-EFFICIENT VEHICLES
The government should provide an aggressive set of tax incentives and grants for consumers and for industries that are retooling plants to promote the manufacturing and purchase of hybrid vehicles, which run on a combination of gas and electric power to sharply increase efficiency. Twenty percent of all passenger cars and trucks on the road should be high-efficiency, low emissions hybrids by 2020.

SETTING AMERICA FREE FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL
Today, America spends more than $500,000 per minute on foreign oil or $30 million per hour. We paid more than $42 billion for Persian Gulf imports alone in 2005. It is bad enough that these dollars will not help grow our domestic economy -- it is even worse when you consider their impact on our national security. Congress should act to eliminate America's oil imports from the Middle East by 2020.

Kerry Considering 2008 Run

2006-03-12T16:31:00.000-08:00

From the Boston Globe:
Kerry takes another look at presidency:
Says loss in 2004 made him tougher

"When you get knocked on your ass and lose a race, you’ve got to stop and reflect on what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, what matters, and what’s important. And I did," Kerry said in an interview in his Senate office on Thursday. "There’s a very different John Kerry now who is absolutely crystal clear about how I communicate what I need to communicate. . . . People are going to be looking for leadership."

McCain Linked to Abramoff

2006-03-08T18:27:00.000-08:00

In the must read story of the week Vanity Fair has an exclusive interview with Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist extraordinaire, in which he talks openly about his resentment that so many Republican politicians are denying they ever met him or worked with him.

One large Republican fish specifically mentioned by Abramoff is 2008 Presidential favorite John McCain.

According to the article:

"Mr. Abramoff flatters himself," Mark Salter, McCain's administrative assistant, tells Margolick. "Senator McCain was unaware of his existence until he read initial press accounts of Abramoff's abuses, and had never laid eyes on him until he appeared before the committee."

Abramoff says, "As best I can remember, when I met with him, he didn't have his eyes shut. I'm surprised that Senator McCain has joined the chorus of amnesiacs."

Stay tuned. This could get interesting.

Stopping the Spread of Nukes

2006-03-06T18:24:00.000-08:00

On Saturday I attended a conference about stopping the spread of nuclear weapon technology, called Nuclear Hypocrisy: Iran, the United States, and the Perils of Proliferation. It couldn't have been a more timely conference as that very weekend President Bush was in India threatening to undermine non proliferation efforts by rewarding India with nuclear technology despite its earlier illegal actions to build and test a nuclear weapon of its own.

What message does that send to Iran who is now following India's path, intent on acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities? If it looks to India as an example the lesson is simple: There are no real consequences for enriching uranium and building a nuclear program.

Non proliferation only works if you apply it across the board to all countries, not haphazardly to certain countries when you don't agree with their leaders.

Bush's India deal is a mistake. Congress should take steps to stop it.

Other points raised during the conference include the U.S.'s hypocritical stance on the production and potential use for nukes. How can the US make it a top priority to stop the spread of nuclear weapons when it continues to maintain thousands of lethal nuclear missiles and funds programs like missile defense, which is in violation of non proliferation agreements? Perhaps the most egregious program the pentagon has been pushing is a 'conventional' use for nuclear weapons under the guise of bunker buster bombs.

Complicating matters, with regard to Iran and the Middle East, is that Israel is said to have an undisclosed number of nukes, which Arab countries perceive as a threat.

If the US is serious about non proliferation it must demonstrate by example, otherwise it's just empty rhetoric. It should work to reduce its own stock piles of nukes, discontinue its missile shield program, work with UN weapons inspectors to verify and track fissile materials, and help to dismantle and protect old Russian nuclear weapons.

For further reading:
Text of Speech: Nuclear Hypocrisy: Iran, the United States, and the Perils of Proliferation - pdf
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
www.mayorsforpeace.org
www.2020visioncampaign.com

Kerry: America must bolster UN, 'end the empire of oil'

2006-03-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

In a speech on the global dynamics of terrorism, Kerry had several quotable and important points. Some highlights as reported in USA Today.

---------
"Great American presidents, from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy, understood that success requires a community of nations working together, drawing strength from shared sacrifice and steadfast commitment to our shared ideals," he said.

He added that "great alliances" should be formed again and "that means strengthening and reforming — not weakening and walking away from — the ability of the UN to play a forceful role in troubled places like Iraq and Darfur."
---------
The "war on terror," Kerry said, was not principally about the U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but was "fundamentally a war within Islam for the heart and soul of Islam, stretching from Morocco east to Indonesia." He said terrorist threats against the West and within Muslim nations exist in part because "no center of moral authority has emerged to stop those who would murder in the name of Islam."
---------
Kerry, D-Mass., said unified pressure from the democracies of Europe, Asia and the Americas would be more effective "to counter the teaching of hatred in madrassas (Muslim religious schools) throughout the Middle East. ... And we must work with moderate Muslims, especially clerics, to permanently discredit the belief that the murder of innocents can be justified in the name of God, race, or nation."
---------
Kerry said developing effective replacements for oil-based fuels also was key. The West's appetite for petroleum from the Middle East "has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power. The international community of democratic nations cannot afford to continue funding both sides of the war on terror. We must end the empire of oil."

Bush was Warned that Levees Could Breach

2006-03-01T19:07:00.000-08:00

The incompetence is stunning. - IFK Editor

AP Gets Video: Bush Warned Fully About Katrina

WASHINGTON In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

The footage - along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press - show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

Catholic House Democrats Stand Up for their Religious Beliefs

2006-03-01T08:33:00.000-08:00

As a person who was raised as a Catholic in a tradition that valued thinking for yourself and helping those that were persecuted, nothing bothered me more in the 2004 presidential elections than how religion was used to influence voters in their decision. 'Moral' positions seemed to be defined by extreme evangelical or ultra conservative religious thinkers, with little voice from more liberal and tolerant religious leaders. Kerry's presidential chances were undermined repeatedly by attacks from 'moral' authorities who disagreed with him on the issues of abortion and gay rights. They all but assassinated Kerry's character, because they disagreed with him, while spoke little of the differences their religious teachings had with the Bush Administration or Republican ideology. It is hypocritical, wrong and dangerous to mix religion and politics by associating yourself with one party and vilifying the other.

House Democrats are finally sick of it too. -IFK Editor

The House's Catholic Democrats Detail Role Religion Plays

Still reeling from the attacks on Sen. John F. Kerry's brand of Roman Catholicism during the 2004 presidential race, 55 House Democrats issued a joint statement yesterday on the central role that the Catholic faith plays in their public lives.

The signers said they were fed up with being labeled "good Catholics" or "bad Catholics" based on one issue -- abortion. They said their religion infuses their positions on many issues: poverty, war, health care and education.

"Some of us are pro-choice and some of us are pro-life," said Rep. William J. Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.). "But we respect each other and we're going to defend each other, because we're all operating in good conscience."

The statement stressed that all of the Catholic Democrats share the goal of reducing the incidence of abortion.

"We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion -- we do not celebrate its practice," the statement said. "Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

The statement also said that though the Catholic Democrats "seek the Church's guidance and assistance," they "accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas."

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the Catholic Democrats "have decided to stop letting others define us."

Bush says bin Laden tape aided re-election

2006-02-28T08:07:00.000-08:00

For once I agree with the President. I do think the Osama tape which aired days before the election played an impact on the outcome of an extremely close race, causing last minute anxiety, and ultimately more Bush votes. That said, I think Osama played the US citizens for fools. Osama bin Laden needed Bush's failed Iraq policies to remain in place if he was to be successful in inciting Islam extremists against the US and create an Iraqi civil war. Why would he want Bush replaced? The simple answer is he didn't. He relied on the US electorates great fear of him, and Bush's campaign message which demonized democrats on security issues to ultimately get what he wanted. A year and a half later and Osama is still sending video tapes taunting America, Iraq is descending into chaos, and George Bush wants to stay the course, which means he's out of ideas. I hope the American people who voted for Bush are happy with these results. The bigger question is will they have more moral courage than Bush has demonstrated and admit they made a mistake and vote for Democrats in 2006 to force a change of direction on Iraq policy and American security in general. - IFK Editor

From The Examiner newspaper:

U.S. President George W. Bush said his 2004 re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry was inadvertently aided by Osama bin Laden, who issued a taped diatribe against him the Friday before Americans went to the polls, The Examiner newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Bush's comments in the Washington newspaper were excerpts from the new book "Strategery" by Bill Sammon, a long-time White House correspondent.

"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?" Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes. "Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.

"I thought it was going to help," Bush said. "I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."

Edwards Misses the Mark with War on Poverty Campaign

2006-02-27T19:32:00.000-08:00

By Jim Witkins

First let me say I like and respect John Edwards. When Kerry chose him as his running mate in 2004 I was cautiously optimistic and all things considered thought he was the best choice at that time, because after all he had a strong showing in the primaries finishing second behind Kerry in most states. It had the makings of a great ticket and it seemed Kerry was honoring the will of the democratic primary voters too. Edwards had a positive message for working class Americans and his down home style and upbeat sunny delivery was a good compliment to Kerry's more serious, statesman like demeanor.

In hindsight though, perhaps Kerry would have been better off going
with a more experienced security wonk with beefier credentials on foreign
policy and national security policy, however no use looking back now.

The point of this post though concerns fighting poverty, Edwards' new
cause de jour since the 2004 election results left him without a job.
While I am, of course, in favor of reducing poverty in the US and abroad,
and I am sympathetic to those who live below or near the poverty line,
especially single parents, I can't help but wonder if Edwards is fighting a
rhetorical fight that can't be won. By attempting to fight 'poverty' a broad
and wide ranging term, isn't he setting himself up for failure, similar to how
the Bush's administration has failed to win its war on 'terror'.

Concrete Solutions Not Empty Rhetoric
Fighting 'poverty' is certainly an admirable goal, however with US
budget realities being what they are, wouldn't it be smarter to promote
concrete solutions toward lifting up those people who seek to improve their
situation, rather than casting a wide net to fight poverty as a whole,
whatever that means exactly.

For instance, Kerry has invested considerable resources and thought in
devising a realistic health care plan for all children under 18, the Kids Come First Act that would go a long way toward making sure kids, regardless of family income, are healthy. Healthy kids are more successful kids, period, and the benefits to the parents are enormous as well, among them less stress and financial burden.

Combine that idea with better funding for early education, public schools,
and increases to federal pell grants which would give more kids an
opportunity to afford to go to college and you'll go a long way to lifting people out of poverty in the US.

On a global scale, the US would show real leadership and help to rebuild its damaged credibility around the world by fully funding its commitment to the United Nations' Millennium Goals which have concrete targets for helping lift people out of extreme poverty, along with many other health and security initiatives.

Yes, fighting poverty is noble, but there are so many demands for tax dollars at
the moment that you have to do it in a realistic way that gets you the most
bang for your buck. That's not to say people shouldn't donate and give their own time to help those less fortunate (THEY SHOULD), but lets be real about how much the US tax payers can accomplish.

Avoiding a Global Poverty Catastrophe
Finally, I fear that if global warming is the looming crisis that most
scientists now believe it is, the US government needs to make clean alternative energy options a reality, and in a hurry, or the ranks of those in poverty
will most likely swell to catastrophic levels in the US and globally if certain doomsday scenarios play out in the coming decades. Imagine if more coastal cities begin to flood regularly due to rising sea levels and storm surges similar to what we witnessed with Katrina. How can the American way of life, whether you're in poverty or not, continue if millions of people are continually being displaced by natural disasters or forced to fight for control over resources, like water, fertile land, or energy sources.

It sounds too scary to be real, but most scientists believe that to avoid such a disaster, the US Government needs to prioritize scientific research and development for a new Apollo Project immediately while drastically curbing our carbon emissions in the near future.

I give Edwards credit for making poverty an issue, but I think he needs to offer more concrete workable solutions and think bigger picture.

Bush Adopts Kerry's Strategy for Iran

2006-02-27T12:41:00.000-08:00

From the Carpetbagger Report...

Maybe that Kerry guy knew what he was talking about

In the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry offered a very clear approach as to how the United States should deal with Iran: have the international community offer Iran nuclear fuel to be used in a peaceful nuclear energy program. As Kerry put it at the time, "We should call their bluff and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon."

Nonsense, said the Bush gang, which argued such an approach would effectively be "appeasement." Condi Rice dismissed Kerry's approach, telling Fox News, "This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote 'engaged.'" Frank Gaffney Jr., a former Pentagon official and Bush ally, knocked Kerry's plan in an op-ed entitled, "Kerry's Nuclear Nonsense." Gaffney boasted, "Mr. Bush understands the folly of going that route." National Review ran an item calling Kerry's proposal "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong."

But Kerry was unyielding, insisting that this was the best approach, even working his idea into an answer in one of the presidential debates. ""I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said. "The president did nothing."

That was 2004. Now, suddenly, after deriding Kerry in the campaign for his dangerous ideas, Bush is staring to think, "You know, maybe that Kerry guy was on to something."

President Bush's endorsement of a plan to end the nuclear standoff with Iran by giving the Islamic republic nuclear fuel for civilian use under close monitoring has left some of his supporters baffled.

One cause for the chagrin is that the proposal, which is backed by Russia, essentially adopts a strategy advocated by Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

"I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia," Mr. Bush said at a news conference yesterday. "I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it," he added.

Maybe so, but he was against the idea before he was for it.

Just out of curiosity, any chance we'll see National Review blasting Bush's new approach to Iran as "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong"? Or maybe Condi Rice will explain why the idea rewarded Iran for bad behavior when Kerry recommended it, but it's brilliant leadership when Bush recommends it?

Kerry Fundraisers Calling for 2006 Campaign Dollars

2006-02-24T21:37:00.000-08:00

If you're like me you hate getting phone calls asking for money, however with important 2006 elections coming up I was actually pleasantly surprised to get a call from Kerry's fundraising team asking for my contribution to be used to 'help democratic candidates all over the country'. Sure I get the occasional email blast from Kerry, which always has a contribute link, but dialing for dollars is a whole different ball game. It takes resources and dedicated volunteers and staff.

For the record I declined, as I had donated only days before via Kerry's PAC web site,
http://www.keepingamericaspromise.com/, however I was glad someone was tackling that thankless task, and doing it sooner rather than later.

While Hillary gets the most attention when it come to fundraising dollar figures it remains to be seen whether her pile of cash will be used predominantly for her own re-election, or to help other democrats win in 2006, OR if her main goal is simply to get a jump start on 2008. Sure she has to be prepared to fight the inevitable Republican attacks, but all indications are that her re-election will be a cake walk.

Lets hope she follows Kerry's example and spreads the wealth. Same goes for all the other democratic contenders positioning for 2008. Put up or shut up in 2006. Your political ambitions are secondary to getting progressives elected in 2006, period.

The Case for Bush's Impeachment

2006-02-20T10:31:00.000-08:00

Many Americans are salivating at the possibility of impeaching Bush as communities and activists around the country organize to get mostly symbolic referendums on their spring election ballots in 2006, however is impeachment a realistic option? In a well reasoned op-ed, a Professor of Constitutional Law makes the case:

Impeach: Yes, But...

Jamin B. Raskin (jbr@jaminraskin.com ) is a professor of Constitutional Law at American University and Director of its Program on Law and Government. He is also a Democratic candidate for the Maryland State Senate in the 2006 elections.

Excerpt

The key is to think of impeachment not as a single event but as a series of steps to restore the rule of law and reassert the practices of popular democracy that have been trampled ever since the Republican Party and five collusive Supreme Court justices derailed the presidential election in 2000. We should follow these three specific steps to restore constitutional law and order:

1. Moral Impeachment: One meaning of impeachment is to charge with malfeasance in office, but the other is "To challenge or discredit." We can debunk the administration's policies all over America, especially with the excellent work done by Rep. John Conyers and his staff on the fraudulent rush to war. Institutions with moral authority like universities, municipalities, unions and churches should conduct their own "Impeach-Ins" to impeach the various frauds and policy deceptions of the administration. The Federalist Society and others who support Bush should be invited to defend the constitutionality of Bush's actions.

2. Electoral Impeachment: We should nationalize the coming elections and use them to "impeach the Republican Party," which has been captured by its most extreme elements and now poses a real threat to the Republic. The Abramoff-soaked Republicans in Congress have presided over dangerous political corruption, deficit spending, violation of civil liberty, and military and national security lawlessness. The 2006 elections must become a nationwide referendum on corruption and restoration of the rule of law at every level of government.

3. Congressional impeachment: If the Democrats recapture Congress or at least one chamber in 2006 and evidence of the administration's law-breaking continues to mount, the moral, political and legal predicate will have been laid to introduce articles of impeachment that can actually be heard and passed. If President Clinton can be impeached (though not convicted) for lying about sex, why can't President Bush be impeached for lying about weapons of mass destruction, for spying illegally on Americans, for violating the Constitution and international treaty obligations, and for criminal dereliction of duty before, during and after 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina?

Kerry Fundraising Hard for 2006 Democratic Candidates

2006-02-19T16:18:00.000-08:00

John Kerry is heading to Minnesota next Thursday to raise money for Democrats. The Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee will be traveling to Minnesota and Colorado during the congressional break to raise money for Democratic candidates and state party organizations.

Kerry will headline an event for the Minnesota House as well as the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

Kerry's leadership committee, Keeping America's Promise, says it helped raise more than $3 million last year for Democrats running in 2005 and 2006.

Last year, Kerry traveled to Minnesota to support Chris Coleman's successful campaign for mayor in St. Paul.

-----------------------

You can contribute to Kerry's political Action Committee Keeping America's Promise

Kerry Highlights 2005 Accomplishments

2006-02-19T16:05:00.000-08:00

Letter to Kerry Supporters...

Together, we had an amazing year in 2005, mobilizing grassroots volunteers, supporting Democratic candidates, and fighting for the issues and causes we care about most.

Take a look at all that we accomplished together in 2005:

* This past November, our 3 million citizen volunteers helped spearhead Get Out The Vote efforts in critical Democratic victories across the nation.
* Since the end of 2004, together we gave $4.5 million to Democratic candidates, committees, state parties, and progressive causes.
* We mobilized to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the Bush-Cheney drill-at-any-cost onslaught.
* We garnered endorsements from over 700,000 citizens, from every state in the nation, for our Kids First Act to provide health care for the 11 million uninsured children.
* Our national lawyers' network helped ensure that the voting problems of 2000 and 2004 were not repeated in 2005, and it is poised to do it again in 2006.
* You also helped me travel around the country to rally citizens, engage grassroots volunteers, and help raise funds on behalf of Democrats.
* In Pennsylvania, we've helped Bob Casey wage a strong Senate campaign that has incumbent Rick Santorum on his heels. Long a poster boy for mindless support of Bush policies and the right-wing agenda, Santorum is now scrambling to convince Pennsylvania voters otherwise.
* In Washington state, we've stood by Senator Maria Cantwell. She joined me in leading the fight to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - and now powerful oil company special interests are coming after her with everything they've got.
* In Florida, we're helping Senator Bill Nelson, who is running for re-election against Katherine Harris. As you know, Harris made a name for herself by playing a leading role in the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, and we will not allow her to parlay her partisanship into a seat in the Senate.

And we're just getting started. Together in 2006 we'll help more Democrats achieve victory at the local, state, and national level. And we'll be there, each and every day, to make sure no Democrat stands alone against the Republicans' underhanded election tactics and facts-be-damned campaign ads. Stay tuned for the next steps in our work together.

Wisconsin Anti Intelligent Design Bill First in Nation

2006-02-16T18:22:00.000-08:00

Go Badgers! I'm proud to live in Wisconsin the 'UnKansas'. - IFK Editor

Bill banning intelligent design draws national notice
Restricts teaching of intelligent design
By Judith Davidoff

Religious conservatives around the country are up in arms over a Wisconsin bill that would ban the teaching of intelligent design as science in the state's public schools.

Focus on the Family, the evangelical Christian advocacy group led by founder James Dobson, panned the legislation this week on its Web site.

"If you can't beat them, keep them from showing up for the game," the group opined. "That's the tack Wisconsin evolutionists and liberal lawmakers are taking in attempting to ban the study of intelligent design in public schools."

Baptist Press, the online wire service of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville, also was critical. It called the introduction of the bill by Democratic Rep. Terese Berceau "an unprecedented political move to protect evolution."

Meanwhile, the University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists who helped draft the Wisconsin proposal are contacting friends and allies in other states, hoping to curry the introduction of similar legislation around the country.

"We think what we've introduced is just a standard for science education and we would like it adopted nationwide," said Alan Attie, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who helped draft Berceau's bill.

Attie said the Baptist Press and other critics are misrepresenting the bill as banning intelligent design and creationism from the classroom.

"We're not planning to do that at all," he said. In fact, Attie said, the bill provides an opportunity to fully explore the question of what is science and how it should be defined. "We see this as a wonderful teaching moment," Attie added.

The proposal has been popular blog material since Berceau announced it last week. A search on Google's new blog search turned up 48 references to the bill.

William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of intelligent design, is offering a $1,000 award to the first teacher in Wisconsin who would challenge the policy by teaching intelligent design as science within a public school curriculum.

On his Web site, Dembski said Berceau's bill bodes well for proponents of intelligent design, which proposes that biology was shaped by an intelligent creator.

"I take this as a clear sign that we are winning," he said.

"Wisconsin may well be evolution's Waterloo," Dembski added.

Berceau said her office has received more than 50 phone calls and e-mails from all over the country about the bill and almost all have been favorable.

Berceau said only one person in an e-mail called her a "communist" and an "atheist."

"If the Christian right is interested, they're not calling me."

Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian law firm based in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview that his firm would take a hard look at the legislation.

"Mandating a point of view and trying to enshrine your current science in law is, to me, just scientists begging for disaster," McCaleb said. "It's very problematic to have scientists trying to shut down the debate."

Attie said he and the other UW scientists backing the bill are doing just the opposite.

"We're trying to uphold standards for science education, but by no means do we want to stop discussion. We've very interested in discussing this issue at length, but we want truth in labeling. Intelligent design is religion and it's not science."

Inc. Magazine Names John Kerry “Entrepreneur-friendly” Member of Congress

2006-02-07T19:09:00.000-08:00

So much for the Republicans being the party of business. (Large corporate donor scandals maybe) Meanwhile John Kerry is ranked one of the best Senators for small business.

Sen. John Kerry
Democrat from Massachusetts

Ranking minority member, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee

Republicans pilloried Kerry as antibusiness during the 2004 campaign, but few senators have done as much to promote entrepreneurship. Back in 1985, he sought out a spot on the Small Business Committee--a low-profile post for an ambitious man. His signature initiative in recent years, the BRIDGE Act, would create tax breaks on small-business stock. The bill hasn't gone very far, largely because he is a member of the minority party. But in November the Senate did pass Kerry's plan to provide low-interest loans to drought-stricken small businesses. He has also hounded the SBA over procurement data that makes it seem as if the government is awarding more contracts to small businesses than it is. "John Kerry is the biggest friend small businesses have in Congress," says Lloyd Chapman, head of the nonpartisan American Small Business League.

Filibuster Fails, But Netroots Step Up

2006-01-30T17:44:00.000-08:00

Yes, the filibuster failed miserably today (and the netroots know who is responsible), but at the same time it was a battle no one expected just days before.

Thank you Senators Kerry and Kennedy for leading the charge. Because of your courage the progressive Online community has a pair of champions and a blueprint for future actions. Hopefully we all learned a valuable lesson in how to work together, which will be vitally important in the coming battles ahead for 2006 and ultimately 2008.

If we can continue to coordinate our talking points and message we can be more effective. None of this would have happened except for the fact that we tried. Lets make it a habit and show Democrats (especially the Red State cowards) what it means to stand up for what we believe. - IFK Editor

TAKE URGENT ACTION: Contact Senators to Support Filibuster

2006-01-29T18:09:00.000-08:00

SaveTheCourt.org has put together a list of Senators who urgently need to hear from you about supporting the Filibuster. Tell them to take a principled stand and oppose Alito. Tell them you want your civil rights protected, not destroyed.

Submit your message to all these Senators Here

For more up to date action alerts visit: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/

How to Help Kerry Filibuster Alito

2006-01-26T18:19:00.000-08:00

As posted on the The Democratic Daily.com/
I urge everyone to stand up with Senators Kerry and Kennedy on this fight! Let them know we have their backs. Our focus is to lobby our Senators.

There’s a Senate Phone List here, with numbers to all the Democratic Senators and the key moderate Republicans. There are also two toll free numbers - 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Here’s a list of key Senators to press:

UPDATE: 1/28/2006
Leading the Fight:
John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy.

Committed to Filibuster:
Barbara Boxer (D- CA), Dianne Feinstein (D- CA), Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT), Richard J. Durbin (D- IL), Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI), Robert Menendez (D- NJ), Harry Reid (D- NV), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY), Charles Schumer (D- NY), Ron Wyden (D- OR), Russell D. Feingold (D- WI).

Who to keep the pressure on…

Undecided - Needs Pressure:
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Barack Obama (D- IL), 202-224-2854
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD), 202-224-4524
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI), 202-224-2921
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141

Against Filibuster:
Mark Pryor (D- AR), 202-224-2353
Ken Salazar (D- CO) , 202-224-5852
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI) (1,), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA) (1,), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2551
Kent Conrad (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2043
Olympia Snowe (R- ME) (1,), 202-224-5344

Supporting Alito:
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Tim Johnson (D- SD) , 202-224-5842
Robert C. Byrd (D- WV) , 202-224-3954

Sign Kerry’s Alito Petition: www.johnkerry.com/action/alito.

Kerry Leads Filibuster Fight Against Alito

2006-01-26T18:14:00.000-08:00

By John Kerry posted at The Democratic Daily

Filibuster Alito
January 26th, 2006

Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes.

Yesterday Senator Kennedy and I spoke with our colleagues about it. I don’t have a shred of doubt in my opposition to Sam Alto’s nomination. I know Senator Kennedy does not either. He has truly been a great leader in the effort to oppose Judge Alito.

I spent a lot of time over the last years thinking about the Supreme Court and who America needs on the highest court in the land. So I don’t hesitate a minute in saying that Sam Alito is not that person. His entire legal career shows that, if confirmed, he will take America backwards. People can say all they want that “elections have consequences.” Trust me, more than anyone I understand that. But that seems like an awfully convoluted rationale for me to stay silent about Judge Alito’s nomination.

I voted against Justice Roberts, I feel even more strongly about Judge Alito. Why? Rather than live up to the promise of “equal justice under the law,” he’s consistently made it harder for the most disadvantaged Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to excessive government power regardless of how extreme or egregious the government’s actions are. And, to this date, his only statement on record regarding a woman’s right to privacy is that she doesn’t have one.

I said yesterday that President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would unite the country in a time of extreme division. He chose not to do this, and that is his right. But we have every right, in fact, we have a responsibility, to fight against a radical ideological shift on the Supreme Court. Just think about how this nomination came to be. Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet Miers–a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked–President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands.

This was a coup.

Miers was removed and Alito was installed to replace the swing vote on the Court. The President gave no thought to what the American people really wanted–or needed. So it’s up to us to think about what America really needs - that’s part of the true meaning of “advice and consent.”

Here’s the bottom line though and I’ll just be blunt and direct about it. It takes more than one or two people to filibuster. It’s not “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” I’m doing what I can, Senator Kennedy is doing what he can, but if, like me, you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito, we can’t just preach to our own choir. We need even more of your advocacy.

Fighting Against the Traditional Media

2006-01-25T17:03:00.000-08:00

Peter Daou is Kerry's former head of netroots campaigning. His assessment of the 'Traditional Media' and the role it plays in creating perception is dead on and worth noting if you ever want to see progressives regain the White House and congress. -IFK Editor

THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media
By Peter Daou

What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.

There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.

You’ve heard the narratives: Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush’s strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a “strict interpretation” of the Constitution, and on and on.

A single storyline is more effective than a thousand stories. And a single storyline delivered by a "neutral" reporter is a hundred times more dangerous than a storyline delivered by an avowed partisan. Rightwingers can attack the media for criticizing Bush, can slam the New York Times for being liberal, but when the Times and the Post and CNN and MSNBC echo the ‘Bush stands firm’ mantra, it adds one more brick to a powerful pro-Bush edifice.

Jim Rassmann: A Swift-like attack

2006-01-20T06:58:00.000-08:00

Amen Brother!!! - IFK Editor

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Jim Rassmann: A Swift-like attack
By muddying the waters, the smear merchants hope to sink a decorated patriot -- John Murtha
Friday, January 20, 2006

Before 2004, I'd never been involved in politics and considered my duty done at the ballot box. My memory of a man I served with in combat in the Mekong Delta -- Lt. John Kerry -- became my sole reason for coming off the political sidelines in the last presidential election. Watching the assault on his military record by partisan operatives armed with falsehoods was a shock.

Perhaps I was naive. Watching those same tactics used against another decorated Vietnam veteran, Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown, has been a reminder of not just why I felt compelled to get involved, but why I must remain involved. I can't in good conscience remain silent in the face of the "Swift Boating" of Jack Murtha for daring to challenge President Bush's policy in Iraq.

Today I see that the very same smear tactics the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" used against John Kerry are now being unleashed against Rep. Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who served in Vietnam.

The radical right Web site Cybercast News Service, formerly the Conservative News Service, has attacked Mr. Murtha, claiming he was fraudulently awarded Purple Hearts for wounds received during two tours in Vietnam.

Since it is unseemly for a leadership that never served its country to attack the patriotism and veracity of decorated soldiers and sailors who did, this administration has returned to its proven tactic of finding surrogates to do its dirty work. Today, neoconservatives are hoping that by muddying the waters of Jack Murtha's military record they can neuter another of their most passionate and sincere critics.

It's an all too familiar pattern. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan once described Rep. Murtha's stance on the war as "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt quickly followed in lockstep with the White House by saying on the floor of the House, "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Copying the administration's change of tactic, Rep. Schmidt almost immediately reversed herself and gave Rep. Murtha several apologies.

It was clear to most observers that the Republican strategy of ad hominem attacks failed -- seeing the danger in attacking a hawkish Democrat like Rep. Murtha, the White House quickly followed suit with perfunctory praise from President Bush who described him as, "a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a United States congressman." Vice President Cheney referred to Rep. Murtha as, "a good man, a Marine, a patriot."

How laudable. This rapid reversal by the White House appears, at first glance, to be remarkable given their penchant and near universal insistence for uniformity of message. It isn't at all remarkable though. I believe it was engineered in the same way as the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry during the 2004 election campaign -- attacks are made, the public's attention is captured, the White House offers platitudes, the surrogates press on with the administration's covert support.

Now, like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Cybercast News Service is taking up the underhanded attack that the president and his henchmen can't afford to be caught doing themselves.

Like the attack last year on John Kerry's service, this administration has shown yet again that it is not above crude tactics for disseminating its message on the sly. The trouble is in so doing they attack the very military institutions that they've put in harm's way. If Jack Murtha's military record -- which the Republicans loved to tout when, for example, he was an advocate for the first Gulf war or higher defense budgets -- is now fair game for scurrilous attack, then who's next?

John Kerry and Jack Murtha both love their country and proved their patriotism in the crucible of war and on the battlefield of public service. But far more is at stake than even these good men's reputations. They have the honor of their service, as do the hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform in harm's way today, and that's enough. The health of our democracy, the integrity of our debate, the voice of our free press and the true meaning of patriotism are under assault if a new generation of Swift Boat style smears are allowed into the public sphere today unchallenged.

For my country's sake, I hope brave Americans of good conscience will speak up and make it clear that we will not tolerate such smears today, just as we shouldn't have tolerated them in 2004.

Defending Kerry against GQ Hit Piece

2006-01-19T14:01:00.000-08:00

By Jim Witkins

Michael Crowley's negative story about John Kerry in the latest GQ Magazine, is a sad hit piece on an American Patriot. Say what you will about Kerry's past failings or future ambitions, he fought a tough race in 2004 with integrity and courage and continues to battle for middle class Americans and democratic principles. To read that story is to re-write history and forget why Kerry won his party's nomination in the first place: he was the best candidate.

To write Kerry's obituary three years before the 2008 election also seems foolish, but then again the traditional press loves to write off Kerry's chances. Maybe they should be reminded of how wrong they were in IOWA in 2004.

Don't believe conventional wisdom. Kerry is still formidable and has many loyal supporters both in and outside Washington. Ever hear of Teddy Kennedy?

Voters always love candidate X (the un-candidate), but as soon as that candidate becomes a real person with a name it's time to declare open season. That's unfortunate. It also reduces the race to a mere popularity contest and takes out all notion of ideas and solutions for Americas real problems.

Ex-EPA Chiefs Blame Bush in Global Warming

2006-01-18T17:41:00.000-08:00

Is it getting hot in here? Five former Republican leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency blasted President Bush today for a 'failure of leadership' on the issue of Global Warming. Where were they during the 2004 election? Better late than never, I suppose. -IFK Editor

Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.

"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."

Read Full Article:
Ex-EPA Chiefs Blame Bush in Global Warming

Group Claims Kerry Really Won Ohio in 2004 - And They Have Proof

2006-01-17T19:48:00.000-08:00

Is this sour grapes or incontrovertible evidence? You decide. –IFK Editor

The Gun is Smoking - 2004 Ohio Precinct-Level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) is the first mathematical team to release a valid scientific analysis of the precinct-level 2004 Ohio presidential exit poll data. NEDA's analysis provides virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.

(PRWEB) January 17, 2006 -- There is significant controversy about whether the 2004 presidential election was conducted fairly and its votes counted correctly. According to results of the major national election exit poll conducted for the National Election Pool by Edison/Mitofsky (E/M), Kerry won Ohio's pivotal vote, though the official tally gave the state, and thus the presidency, to Bush. The conduct of Ohio's election was formally debated by Congress in January 2005.

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) is the first mathematical team to release a valid scientific analysis of the precinct-level 2004 Ohio presidential exit poll data "The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount" available at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf. NEDA's analysis provides significant evidence of an outcome-altering vote miscount.

The analysis is based on the most accurate statistical method yet devised for determining whether exit poll error, random variations, or vote count manipulation cause the discrepancies between exit polls and official vote tallies. This analysis method was made public recently by NEDA in "Vote Miscounts or Exit Poll Error? New Mathematical Function for Analyzing Exit Poll Discrepancy" available at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit-Poll-Analysis.pdf

Exit Polls were conducted in 49 of Ohio’s 11,360 precincts. At least 40% of Ohio's polled precincts show statistically significant differences between Kerry’s exit poll percent and official vote count percent. 35% of these exit polls overestimated the Kerry official vote share. This is five times the number expected. Three of the most glaring examples are:

1. In E/M precinct 27, with an estimated 100 respondents, Kerry’s official vote count was 29% less than his exit poll share, creating a 58% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 867,205,500 chance of this occurring due to chance.

2. In E/M precinct 25, with an estimated 62 respondents, Kerry’s official vote count was 28% less than his exit poll share, creating a 56% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 234,800 chance of this occurring due to chance.

3. In E/M precinct 48, with an estimated 100 respondents, Kerry's official vote was 16% less than his exit poll share, creating a 32% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 17,800 chance of this occurring due to chance.

There are also two precincts where the Bush official vote count is significantly less than the Bush exit poll share. The number of significant discrepancies and the pattern of Ohio's discrepancy shown in the NEDA report provide strong support for the conclusion that vote count errors converted a Kerry win to a Bush win.

New electronic voting equipment without voter verified paper ballots, implemented under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, makes it easier for a small number of people to manipulate vote counts and nearly impossible to independently audit vote count accuracy. Virtually every county in America today publicly reports its vote counts in a way that hides evidence of miscounts. This allows those with access (whether authorized or not) to manipulate or make mistakes in vote counting with negligible possibility of detection.

Without accurate elections, America is not a democracy. NEDA urges the media to publicize the results of this report and its recommendations, in order to return to the American people their right to determine the country’s leaders.

About the National Election Data Archive
The National Election Data Archive is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to scientifically investigate the accuracy of elections through the creation and analysis of a database containing precinct-level vote-type election data for the entire United States. By making detailed election data publicly available NEDA furthers its goal of providing the means for independent analysts to evaluate the accuracy of vote counts in time to ensure that properly elected candidates are sworn into office following future elections.

###

Paul Hackett Takes on Republican Religious Zealots

2006-01-17T19:13:00.000-08:00

Readers of my blog will know how eager I am to see Paul Hackett do well in Ohio in 2006. I previously posted about his rise and chances here: Kerry Clone, Hackett to Run for Senate in Ohio
Hackett continues to impress. his hard charging, take no prisoners style is just what the Dems ordered. Here's a recent example:

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world,” he said. “The challenge is for the rest of us moderate Americans and citizens of the world to put down the fork and spoon, turn off the TV, and participate in the process and try to push back on these radical nuts – and they are nuts."

Then responding to Republican counter attacks Hackett really unleashes:

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it. Equal justice under the law for all regardless of who they are and how they were born is fundamental to our American spirit and our American freedoms. Any person or group that argues that the law should not apply equally to all Americans is, frankly, un-American.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by religious fanatics, who are out of touch with mainstream America. Think of the recent comments by Pat Robertson – a religious fanatic by any measure – that the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela, and that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine punishment because Sharon wished to trade land for peace.

Since the Republican Party has been utterly unable to stand for something positive, they have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and have pandered to religious fanatics not to vote for something they believe in, but to vote against their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. Those among us who would use religion and politics to divide rather than unite Americans should be ashamed."

For more info on Paul Hackett and how you can help his campaign visit: http://www.hackettforohio.com

US Senator Kerry to visit Middle East, South Asia

2006-01-10T17:45:00.000-08:00

Tue Jan 10, 2006

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senator John Kerry will travel next week to Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a 12-day trip to assess progress on the US war on terror, his office announced.

Kerry is traveling to the Middle East "to focus on the steps that must be taken in Iraq and hear from experts in the region about the war in Iraq, the war on terror and the Middle East peace process," his office said.

Kerry's itinerary also includes Pakistan, Jordan, Kuwait,
Israel and India. In addition to military and security issues, he will focus on global health crises and US competitiveness in the global economy.

Full story

Republicans face 'partywide crisis'

2006-01-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

Lets recap...

Analysis: GOP Woes Don't End With DeLay

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Republicans worried about their party's future have succeeded in pushing embattled former Majority Leader Tom DeLay off the stage. Even so, the Republicans' election-year troubles are far from over.

Need a reminder?

President Bush, the titular head of the GOP, is waging an unpopular war in
Iraq and presiding over a nation with lingering economic anxieties. He suffers from approval ratings around 40 percent — near record lows for his presidency. Questionable stock transactions by the top Republican in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, are under investigation. A special prosecutor's probe continues into whether Bush administration officials outed a
CIA operative in retribution for her husband's Iraq war criticism. A secret anti-terror program that Bush approved to eavesdrop on people inside the United States without warrants is raising concerns about overly broad presidential powers.

Potentially most damaging is an influence-peddling scandal on Capitol Hill.

Last week's guilty pleas to corruption and tax evasion charges by the central figure in the scandal, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are anything but the last chapter. Abramoff is cooperating in a wide-ranging investigation that could ensnare dozens of lawmakers with close ties to the generous and powerful lobbyist, including DeLay and House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney, R-Ohio.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, called it a "partywide crisis" that the GOP has problems with its leadership in all three areas of the federal government that it controls.

"The removal of DeLay from the leadership doesn't end their problems with scandal and, more broadly, with running the House," said Norm Ornstein with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "That's their challenge, is to begin to get their policy act together. And they're going to have to do it with just Republicans because Democrats are going to be against them."

Republican domination of Congress is at stake in the November elections. Indeed, a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they would prefer to see Democrats take control of Congress, compared with 36 percent who want a continued Republican majority.

With that in mind, Saturday's decision by DeLay to abandon his bid to resume his No. 2 post in the House was welcomed by Republicans.

The man Democrats love to hate is battling campaign finance charges in Texas that had forced him to step aside as majority leader. Maintaining his innocence, he had said he intended to take his leadership position back once cleared of the charges. DeLay changed his tune under pressure from fellow Republicans that only grew as the Abramoff case mushroomed.

At the White House, where aides had insisted for weeks that the famously effective DeLay retained the president's support, there was a sharp pivot. "We respect Congressman DeLay's decision to put the interests of the American people, the House of Representatives and the Republican Party first," Bush spokeswoman Erin Healy said.

Democrats have made clear they plan to make GOP corruption a centerpiece campaign theme. They pounced.

"Tom DeLay bears much of the responsibility for the culture of corruption Republicans have created in Washington, D.C., but his removal from House leadership alone will not end the pervasive cronyism and corruption that he and Washington Republicans created," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The anti-corruption tact gives Democrats the opportunity to overcome bad fractures within their party as well as their lack of a cohesive message. An AP-Ipsos poll last month showed that 88 percent of Americans say that corruption reaching into all levels of government is a serious problem.

Bush had hoped to rescue both his and his party's political fortunes by turning a new page in 2006 and focusing on immigration reform, good economic news and turning around public opinion on Iraq.

But I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, is expected to stand trial in the CIA leak case this summer, just ahead of the midterm elections. The special prosecutor's inquiry continues, leaving the fate of other senior White House officials, notably Bush's deputy chief of staff and political guru Karl Rove, in doubt.

And the election for a new House majority leader will serve as a reminder of the GOP's troubles right when Bush is unveiling his election-year agenda. The House reconvenes the week of Jan. 30, with the election likely to be held right away. Bush's annual State of the Union address is tentatively scheduled for that week.

Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the GOP whip who temporarily has filled in for DeLay and is expected to run to permanently take his place, also could suffer from his association with Abramoff. He was among many lawmakers who refunded or gave to charity some or all of the donations they received from Abramoff, his associates or clients.

Though House Speaker Dennis Hastert's position seems secure, some are calling for a wider leadership shake up that would be messy and distracting. "The conference needs the ability to reassess the leadership team as a whole," said Rep. Melissa Hart (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa.

Another Blow to the Republican Culture of Corruption

2006-01-03T18:58:00.000-08:00

Only three days in to the new year and already a breaking (mostly Rebublican) scandal is about to tear apart Washington headlines. And this was supposed to be Bush's big turn around year! -IFK Editor

Abramoff Plea May Rock GOP Boat

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 3, 5:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The plea deal worked out by Jack Abramoff could send seismic waves across the political landscape in this congressional election year. The Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, are likely to take the biggest hits.

The GOP has more seats to lose and has closer ties with the former lobbyist. But some Democrats with links to Abramoff and his associates are also expected to be snagged in the influence-peddling net.

While the full dimensions of the corruption probe are not yet clear, some political consultants and analysts are already comparing its damage potential to the 1992 House banking scandal that led to the retirement or ouster of 77 lawmakers.

"You don't have to be a political genius to sniff the smell of blood in the water," said GOP consultant Rich Galen.

Galen said even lawmakers in seemingly safe districts, and those "who don't have a reputation for being fast and loose with the rules," could be vulnerable if voters rise up in reproach "and everybody drops five or six points" in this year's midterm contests.

Abramoff, a former $100,000-plus fundraiser for
President Bush with close ties to former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. That cleared the way for his cooperation with federal prosecutors in bringing charges against former business and political associates.

The investigation is believed to involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides and possibly several administration officials.

The timing couldn't be worse, politically, especially for Republicans. Lawmakers who may be indicted could find themselves coming to trial this summer, just ahead of the midterm elections. Around the same time, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney, is expected to stand trial in the
CIA leak case.

DeLay, who had to step down as majority leader in September after a grand jury in Texas indicted him in a campaign finance investigation, is awaiting a trial date. And former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., gave up his seat Dec. 1 after admitting he had accepted $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

With so many trials and prosecutions in the works, speculation is swirling over whom Abramoff might bring down and on the possible fallout for others.

"Most seats in Congress are relatively safe this year. But they are not safe from a tsunami," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, author of a book on political scandals. "
Iraq, plus economic problems, plus these scandals, could produce a tsunami. That's what every incumbent on Capitol Hill has to fear."

Most Americans are convinced that corruption reaching into all levels of government is a deeply rooted problem. According to an AP-Ipsos poll last month, 88 percent say the problem is a serious one, with 51 percent calling it "very serious."

People need to know "that government is not for sale," Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said in pledging to pursue the investigation "wherever it goes."

For months, federal prosecutors have focused on whether Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribal clients of millions of dollars and used improper influence on members of Congress. Tribes represented by the lobbyist contributed millions of dollars in casino income to congressional campaigns.

Abramoff also took members of Congress on lavish overseas trips and provided sports tickets, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment and jobs for lawmakers' relatives and aides.

Some lawmakers have already returned contributions. Others no doubt are nervously scouring their memories and appointment books.

For years, many lawmakers have shrugged off lobbyists' gifts as campaign contributions, harmless wining, dining and socializing. "Now you've got someone admitting exactly what the motivation was and explaining all the avenues they used," said Kent Cooper, a former
Federal Election Commission official.

"You're talking about standard operating procedure here in Washington suddenly being turned on its head and a key operator signing a plea agreement that he may have been involved in some kind of public corruption," said Cooper, who tracks lobbying and campaign contributions for the nonpartisan Political Money Line service.

The Democratic National Committee called the situation the latest installment of a Republican "culture of corruption." That notion was disputed by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who denounced Abramoff's activities as "outrageous" and noted that the lobbyist and his clients contributed to both parties.

That may be so, said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, "but it will disproportionately affect Republicans. They are the majority party and because Abramoff is a conservative Republican."

Top 10 Political Predictions for 2006

2005-12-31T06:47:00.000-08:00

Here's my off the cuff predictions for 2006. - IFK Editor

1. Bush's 2006 turn around plans won't go anywhere. His state of the union address will be another dud filled with little substance to solve real problems. Americans (especially independents) will yawn and continue to shake their heads. (Why did we ever vote for this guy?) From there his year will only get worse.

2. 2006 will be a breakout year for Democrats at the polls. Republicans will stay home in droves despite old tactics to dredge up God, Guns, Gays, Taxes, and Terror. Independent swing voters will tip the scales toward a democratic landslide. The senate will lean democrat, even if they don't take it back outright, due to moderate Republicans joining our ranks on most legislation.

3. More of the same in Iraq. Slow attrition. Dems and Repubs will spin modest withdrawal plans as a victory.

4. Ken Lay and CO. will finally go to trial and get prison terms for their ENRON misdeeds. Cheney and Bush will have more bad news to deal with.

5. Delay, Libby, and Rovegate will continue to drag on the Republican agenda as their scandals simmer in the background.

6. Oil will see its old highs, based on some chaotic events like hurricanes, war, Iran, Chavez, global growth. This will be a good thing, as it will move the country toward energy independence. FINALLY. (Dems will make energy independence a major 2006 theme)

7. At least one of the 2008 presidential contenders from either the dems or Repubs will have a major scandal or health crisis to contend with in 06. Their stock will fall. Front runners Hillary and McCain in particular should get ready for a drop in supposed support.

8. The American economy will hum along at 3.5% growth, despite Bush's best efforts to undermine it (by dismantling middle class gov. programs), a slowing housing market, rising interest rates, and high energy costs. (You can thank the marketers, for creating unending 'need' where none exists). Now if we were focusing on priorities like education, energy independence and infrastructure improvements that would be another story. That would be forward looking. But we won't do that.

9. Osama still won't be captured. Remember him, President Bush?!

10. Nov 7th 2006 can't come fast enough!!! (Then expect all hell to break loose as contenders line up to position themselves for '08)

Wishful thinking bonus. Dems will filibuster Alito's nomination. Remember 2006 is your year. Say NO to Scalito!!!