Blogs for Bush: Comment on Kerry 2008?

Blogs for Bush: Comment on Kerry 2008?

Let's go ahead and put this to rest.


John Kerry, if you are reading this. And I imagine you aren't, but please, please don't run in 2008. Don't even consider it.

You were unable to leverage a heavily divided nation against an unpopular president that even his supporters believed was taking the country in the wrong direction.

A poor economy, a dangerous social policy, 3 retiring or dying Supreme Court justices, an unpopular, unsuccessful war in Iraq, an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, unprecedented nuclear proliferation, record deficits, record unemployment, corporate scandals, no-bid military contracts, corrupt energy policy, Christian jihadist mentality, isolationist, alienating the world foreign policy, and past history of drug, alcohol, AWOL, and a criminal record (DWI) to boot.

What do you think will give you the edge over that in 2008? I mean, if the GOP declared martial law and started street executions, it may not even be enough to help you.


The fact is, Kerry was chosen because he was the least offensive to all the liberals. No one on the left (save, perhaps Dr. Dean) had anything personally against Kerry. This faction hated Lieberman, that faction hated Gephardt, this other faction hated Graham, there is one agiainst Clark, everyone hated Kucinich, Sharpton, and Brawn. Its downright silly. So they chose the man with the least level of offense, which translates to the least personality.

Also, the least ability to invoke emotion in people. Put up against a president that has connected with "Americana" with his emotional relationship with them ... uh ... Now, I know I'm shooting the loser because he lost, but .... We actually knew that no one really supported him (except for a loyal few that believed in him) ... we were actually ... just mostly ... anti-Bush. And ... much like terrorism, anti- anything is not a valid vehicle for success.

Anti- anything is, at best, a vehicle to interrupt the status quo. Which, I believe we did. At least Ashcroft is gone ... replaced by a guy who just wants to use torture, not extrajudicial surveillance. I wonder if Uncle John has a powder room in the DoJ the way J. Edgar did in the FBI .... Anyhow, if the Bushies are supporting Kerry in 2008, you know ... picking him ... may be ... walking into their trap. Duh.

This should have been the first place we looked

ABC News: Bloodshed in N.Iraq, Govt. Hails Falluja 'Success'

So on a sign over the door, was a plaque that reads "Al-Qaeda Organiation" adorned with rifles. We believe it may have been the HQ for al-Zarqawi.

Perhaps ... and I know I am not a ... foreign specialist on military affairs, but perhaps we should have looked, earlier for buildings with signs that read "Al-Qaeda Organiation." That would be a better place to start ... then say, for instance, inside of Mosques. But ... you know, its not my war.

On a sidenote, I have to say that I do support the effort in Fallujah. We should have done this the very day the insurgency started. However, I understand the Political Capital needed to spend on this type of operation. However we have lost much of the country and most of any remaining "hearts and minds" by allowing so much chaos to ensue. We created the insurgency, we needed to destroy it. Well, I'm glad that is over.

The invalidity of the "Cultural values cost us the election" argument

All this talk about the cultural values of the President winning him the election has empowered and emboldened fragment Christian groups to all new levels. They are marching in Chicago with 10 foot high banners of dead babies, praying in DC outside Arlen Specter's office, on the news, on the radio, in print, on the Internet.

Fact is, they aren't the only ones who were voting their morals on November 2. Every Kerry supporter I have spoken with (and remember, I did canvassing, so that is a large number) cited cultural issues as a large reason for voting against Bush.

1) Woman's right to choose v. Christian beliefs
2) Homosexual marriages v. Christian beliefs
3) Killing babies in Iraq v. killing unborn American children
4) Extrajudicial killing v. due process
5) Putting criminals that hurt Americans behind bars, like Gary Winnick of Global Crossing, Ken Lay of Enron, Bernie Ebbers of World Com, and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco v. Martha Stewart
6) Due process, right to council v. Illegal international war crimes detention in Guantanamo
7) Separation of church and state v. unification of Christian church and US policy
8) Admitting ones faults v. blindly insisting they have not made mistakes (doing God's work)
9) Fiscal responsibility v. tax cuts in the face of record deficits

These are all beliefs held by the 49% that did not vote for "Cultural Values" and "Moral Issues" ... these all are cultural values and moral issues as well. Just not the ones of central, ignorant Americana. With all the noise the news has made about how people chose Bush as the moral leader, little has been said about the 49% that chose against bush as the moral leader.

Wake up Americana. You are left behind.

Remember, don't trust "the man"

Terrorism Informant In Serious Condition (washingtonpost.com)

We we bring this fellow, Mohammed Alanssi, over to the US to act as an informant with the FBI. He is a state witness and was to be their star witness in a trial against Mohammed Ali Hassan Al Moayad and Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed.

They promised him US citizenship and to be a millionaire. This was their promise. Perhaps it was an unreasonable request, but nonetheless one to which they agreed.

Instead, they stole his passport, and refused to allow him to return home to Yemen to see his wife and 6 children. His wife is seriously ill and will be dying soon. They prevented him from going to see his dying wife.

Let me reiterate, they stole his passport and prevented him from going to visit his dying wife.

Let this be a lesson to you. Never, never trust "the man." They are not intrested in your benefit. They, like any other gang of thugs, will use you until you cease being beneficial to their needs, and then will throw you away, without fulfilling their end of the bargain. They always move the ball a little bit further. Just a little further and we'll give you what we promised. I know you have given 150% of what your end was to do and we have given 10% of our side, but just go for 160% and then we'll kick out.

Don't trust "the man"

Bible Questions for President Bush

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman."

I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them, like in Lev.24:10-16? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Voter Irregularities in NM, a final follow-up

Two weeks later, presidential election still undecided in New Mexico

It looks like we will eventually have a certification, but no real backup for the votes. Of course, it doesn't matter, our 5 votes are somewhat irrelevant. Well, we know we fought the good fight.

The end of diplomacy

Bush to Name Rice Secretary of State (washingtonpost.com)

Oh no. This is not a positive change for the US. Yes, she will be the first black female Secretary of State, and yes, she is to be 4th in line for presidency should the president, vice president, speaker of the house and minority leaders all be .... removed ... which is a huge accomplishment for women everywhere.

However, I was much more comfortable knowing that after Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi that Collin Powell would take over ...

Ok, the truth of the matter is Dr. Rice is a very intelligent and successful person. She may be one of the smartest people in the cabinet. She is also amazingly competent, and dedicated to action.

My major complaint with her is her background. She is a Sovietologist. No matter how much things have changed, it is very hard to unravel the core of your belief system. Sovietologists truly saw the world in black and white, us versus them, with us or against us. The world today, contrary to the comments of the president is not that way.

Unfortunately, Dr. Rice still sees the world this way, perhaps one could say, pigeon-holes issues to conform to this worldview. At the Pentagon, that type of view would be very useful, very strong. As national security advisor, she was effective, but it was not the proper position for her. Unfortunately, in our diplomatic core, it is not a trait which lends itself easily to success. You cannot be a successful statesman while rigid and forcing everything into one view or the other.

Also disconcerting is the departure of Richard Armitage. He was a great moderate undersecretary. Also disconcerting was the comment that she was going to remove many of the more moderate statesman in favor of strongly conservative ones. I should also mention Stephen Hadley looks way too much like John Malkovich in "In the Line of Fire"

AA Flight 77 9/11/01

These are the questions you aren't supposed to ask.

I lived about half a mile from the Pentagon when 9/11 occurred. No one, and I stress no-one I asked heard the plane or the explosion. I also heard a very interesting story from a firefighter on duity that morning, which I will retell in person if anyone is interested, but not in writing.

Sole moderate in cabinet to resign

Secretary of State Powell Expected to Resign (washingtonpost.com)

Secretary of State Collin Powell was an excellent choice for the post. In an administration that spoke with bombs, and old-west style threats, he was the only one to bring a touch of class and dignity to the post. He also was an up and coming moderate Republican. It had been widely rumored he intended to run for President. A Powell/McCain or Powell/Guliaini ticket had been discussed.

No more. Mr. Powell has been comprimised by his involvement with the Bush administration. He, the only one people could believe, made the presentation of the mobile chemical labs to the United Nations. The world believed him. He betrayed us. Powell is just one more in the list of marginalized Republicans left in the wake of this radical administration. Others include the up-and-coming Tom Ridge, a powerful, well liked governor from Pennsylvania; Christine Whitman, a well liked, tough moderate governor from New Jersey, Tommy Thompson, health and human services, along with Senators McCain and Specter. Leaving a path of devistation.

Also resigning today is secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, DoE Secretary Spencer Abraham, and Education's Rod Paige.

However, the scary part for this writer is the replacement. It has been widely roumored that former assistant defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz may be offered the post. Wolfowitz had to resign his post at DoD resulting from finance scandals. Also in the gang of seven, but even more scary are Richard Pearle or former California governor Pete Wilson. Pearle is not an American, but was a big supporter of the Iraq invasion. I believe he has dual citizenship in France and some other middle eastern country which shall remain nameless. Wilson is of course the archetect of the wonderful bill, basically cracking down on illegal immigrants in CA, which, for some reason, became something the entire country got behind, though it does not involve them.

(Dear Oklahoma, South Dakota, et. al, Thank you for your concern. However at this time your standing in the nation and your contribution to the GDP of the USA do not qualify you for making any decisions regarding, well anything. You have the low literacy rates, poor universities, and your primary industries are farms that lose money. Your economies are built on subsidies ... paid for in full by the good people of California. So, until you prove otherwise, our way works better, and if you would like those checks to keep rolling in, don't upset the balance of the Californian economy, thanks. Your Friend, Brian)

Scary time. Scary time.

Indiana Congressman's campaign to change the name of Interstate 69

Hoot. It turns out that this is actually a hoax! I love it! I fell for it just like everyone else did! Here is a link that discribes the situation. I thought about just deleting this post and pretending it didn't happen. However, I decided to leave it in the blog. I have to keep this up to show I am able to admit when I am wrong or misled. Also, most of the points I make are valid ... and ... mostly apply beyond the scope of this gag.

Hostettler mounting campaign to change the name of Interstate 69

This is an example of the weirdness that comes about when we elect people with ultra-conservative Christian core morals. These Christ-cores as I'll begin calling them seem to ... have problems with the way people think ... they don't like people thinking of sex they want to control your thoughts.

I agree with the sanctity of the numbering and naming conventions of the Interstate system. I strongly support changing the name to make it adhere to the existing system. That is one of the most wonderful things about traveling in the US, you don't need a map as long as you have a vague understanding of how the highways work. (Odd numbers north to south, even numbers east to west, roads ending in 5 or 0 are trans-national, 3 digit roads beginning with even numbers are bypass routes, odd numbers are spurs into downtown, etc) DOT Website.

The concern about teenagers snickering at the I-69 pin is ... uh like totally lame. Seriously, if you had a nametag that said "Hi, my name is Dick" teenagers will snicker. Should we outlaw the name "Dick?" How would Mr. Cheney feel about that law? Many, many things have double entendres. That is actually what makes double entendre fun for those that engage in their verbal trickery, the fact they enjoy carving out a different, perhaps more primal meaning from something relatively banal.

The problem I see with this is simple. We begin by letting them renumber highways like hwy 666 in NM (already done) and I-69 due to their connotations. Then cities like Hell, Michigan, Climax, Illinois, Intercourse, Alabama, and Beaver Lick, Kentucky are going to have to go as well. Stores like "Beaver Liquors" in Beaver Creek, Colorado and "Dick's Liquors" in Las Vegas, New Mexico will also have to go.

Logically, empowered with this moral sentiment, names like "Dick" and "Peter" and "Johnson" may take some heat. Perhaps we make laws that you can't name people, places, or things with a name that could have connotations. Constance? Beatrice? Young Goodman Brown? And of course, names that the conservative white Christ-core group have always hated come under fire. Shaniqua, Tyrell, Natiqua, and Mohammed. Uh, oh! Think it cannot happen? Germany still has laws, to this day, regarding what you can name children.

Point is this: I agree with the sentiments. I don't enjoy seeing open and obvious profanity. I find shirts with profanity or vulgarities offensive. But as much as I feel like a moral crusader to end that type of outrage, I believe their right to offend outweighs my right to not be offended. We don't say "Freedom of speech, unless I find it degrading or trashy" ... in which case we would all be wearing shirts with bible phrases. Some people already do that. Some people wear shirts that say "Will fuck for beer." Its freedom ... freedom to be vulgar. As for me, I prefer being offended and free when compared with protected from offence, and oppressed. I'm afraid there just isn't a middle ground.