Lefty Soapbox

Senator Durbin (D-IL) gives an excellent speech from the floor of the Senate regarding CBS's censorship of the MoveOn.org Super Bowl ad.

Okay, this is a little weird. I read this at Counterspin, but the story is from The Hill. Apparently, some guy is claiming that in the late 70's/early 80's, John Kerry stole his cookie franchise idea. If this is a Republican smear tactic, I hope this is the best they got. I'd really like to see them try to build some serious controversy over Kerry's cookie store dealings in the early 80's.

"Some guy who called me up was John Kerry, in ’79 or ’80,” [David] Liederman recalled. “He said he wanted to come down and talk to me about franchising. He came to the office and said he had an incredible space in Boston, which was Faneuil Hall. He said he needed some plans and some layouts and all sorts of things to get the approval of the landlord.”

“So I gave him the layout, the package, and he went back and I didn’t hear from him for six or seven months.”

Then one day Liederman got a call from someone who said they’d seen one of his stores in Faneuil Hall. Not having a store in Boston, Liederman decided to have a look for himself.

“It was a direct, 100-percent knock off of David’s Cookies,” said Liederman, from the appliances to the shop’s design to the cookies themselves. “If you had walked into a David’s Cookie’s store in Manhattan at the same time he opened ‘John’s Cookies’ in Boston, you couldn’t tell the difference.”

In his 1989 autobiography* “Running Through Walls,” where the charge first appeared, Liederman wrote that he challenged Kerry on the origin of his business. “I told him he had stolen my idea, and he replied: ‘You’re absolutely right. I am a politician; I shouldn’t be in the cookie business, so let me sell you my store,’” Liederman wrote.

Kerry, of course. denies it. And, like any good Republican smear campaign, the story ends with a glowing endorsement for Bush:

"I’d support anybody that wasn’t Bush,” he said. “If Kerry got the nomination, I’d absolutely support him — although Bush never stole David’s Cookies from me.”

HA! Take that, Bush! Seriously though, I can see where he's coming from on this one. If the Democratic candidate had eaten my first born child before my very eyes, I'd still vote for him over Bush.

* This cookie guy wrote an autobiography? Seriously? Wow.

Via Daily Kos:

Bush Job Approval Ratings

Overall
Approve: 47
Disapprove: 47

Economy
Approve: 42
Disapprove: 54

It's about time America started getting smart.

I love George W. Bush because he is our President and he is a good man. He's knows I don't like to think about things too hard because I have more important things to do like watch TV. That's why I'm glad he makes things simple to understand.

Like when he says "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them. He had deep hatred in his heart for people who love freedom. We know he was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We know that he defied the United Nations year after year after year. And given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein, because he didn't have any."

Thanks George! You're good, Saddam is bad. Because I not think so smart, I also keep forgetting that Saddam Hussein was the bad man who did September 11th, but thank George Bush because he keeps reminding me that he did!

Then President Bush says:
"I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

I think I remember a guy named Hans Blix when I think really hard, but I'm not smart like George, so I guess I must be wrong. Probably thinking of someone else. Doesn't he play for the NY Rangers?

"I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security."

Ooop! There I go, dumb ol' me, forgetting that Saddam was the bad man who did September 11th! Good thing the President says things again and again and again, because I keep forgetting. He also says "grave and gathering danger" a couple other times, but it's almost time for my TV shows so I didn't write them all. If you want to see more, go here.

What the Bush camp is saying:

But the line of attack is the same: Whether Dean or Kerry, the Democrats' nominee would be a left-leaning New Englander who wants to "raise taxes" and reverse course on Iraq, campaign officials and Bush advisers say.
"This week's front-runner is very much like the front-runner of two weeks ago: a Northeast liberal who motivates his support based on anger and negativity," said Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.

I hear this again and again and I never understood this logic. Dean can't win because he's from the Northeast. Kerry can't win because he's from the Northeast. Edwards lists being from the South to his credit. What is it about being from the North East that suddenly makes you unelectable? Haven't these people seen Deliverance? I'm writing this right now from my home in New York and let me tell you, I've seen the conservatives up here and if anyone seems out of touch, it's these people.

Valet parking. The Penthouse Suite. That's all I got to say about them.

All the pieces are in place. Bush is doing poorly in the polls. His State of the Union speech got lower ratings than The Simple Life reruns. Voters have turned out in record numbers at the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary looking to nominate a president who can beat Bush. People are starting to talk/reports are starting to be written about how there were no WMD's in Iraq. What's a struggling president to do?

Try to find Osama bin Laden again. Nothing unites this country more than our hatred for those who hate freedom.

If finding terrorist leaders leads to higher polls, it's got to be worth a shot, right?

The New Hampshire primary is over. Kerry, the media favorite at this point, came out on top, but by much less than he expected. Dean pulled a solid second place. Edwards and Clark were neck-and-neck, but Clark was concentrating specifically on NH, so this is not a good sign for his campaign. Lieberman ought to get the hell out.

My take on this is that, with these results, Dean can still pull it off, ESPECIALLY since he has the money at this point, whereas Kerry is practically broke. Edwards will be the second choice once Kerry runs out of steam sometime in the next week or so. However, Kerry might win over the Gephardt crowd, and he might regain his momentum. Who knows? I'm sick of hearing predictions anyway, I don't know why I just tried to make one.

I'm still pro-Dean.

Word on the streets is that Bush will drop Cheney and possibly pick up Giuliani.

Cheney being gone is a good thing. But if Giuliani is Bush's running mate...wow. That is a very smart political move. That will definitely make Bush seem less of a right wing whore and more of a moderate conservative who cares about the people. Course, if they win, that means Giuliani will likely run for President in 2008, and I personally wouldn't mind seeing him win.

Hmmm....a 2008 Hilary vs Rudy. That will be something. Assuming she runs. (which she will)

At least Cheney can go back to the millions he'll be getting from Haliburton.

Part of the "Patriot" Act has been ruled unconstitutional. Hallelujah!!!

Too bad it's not the part that allows the government to take people away forever without access to a lawyer and without being charged. It's funny. I thought we lived in America. You know, land of the free?

First post. No content.

I, for one, can't wait for the 2020 elections. I know, that's a funny thing to look forward to. However, if I've done my math right, that will be the first election where the issue of where the candidate was during the Vietnam War will actually not be an issue. For the past, well my entire life, a big campaign question that is tossed around is where the candidate was during that late 60's-early 70's time period. I assume this is because, for the generation above us, this was such a big deal. However, honestly, I don't care. That war didn't really affect me, and it doesn't bother me all that much if so-and-so fought in the war and won a medal and so-and-so got a medical draft deferment for a slipped disc and so-and-so skipped the war to sell cotton candy in France. I don't feel that that's an issue that should affect us this year, when there are so many other bad things going on that could be talked about. The media just loves this point to harp on, though.

Yes, I know, my boy Dean is the one being attacked for this, so it bothers me a little more this time around. But for bush to criticize him for this is hypocritical, and for the war veteran Democrats to bring it up, well, that's cheap. Because he skipped a war thirty years ago, he's not LESS likely to be a good president now. Just get over it, and debate his talking points and his message, not his past.

I kept hearing about it, but I didn't actually see it until now. So, what's the big deal, again? I thought it was a pretty good way to keep up the fight.

I'm feeling good vibes with the Democrats, especially after the latest debate, where they remember that what the people really want is someone who can beat the Shrub*. That's a message that can really resonate with the electorate. And the fact that that this has the potential to be a very close race come Super Tuesday makes me even more excited, since it will invigorate the voters and get them more aware of and involved with the process, and hopefully get them to open their wallets a bit to help the Democratic nominee fight Bush's war chest.

After McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 primaries, it seemed like Bush had lukewarm support from the McCain supporters. In the Democrat camp, it seemed like Gore had the same lukewarm support. My opinion on this is definitely coloered by the fact that I was a Green Party activist at the time and a hard core Nader supporter, but I didn't really see anyone around me getting too worked up about either of these guys. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you were a hardcore Gore fan. I don't know. Since I've been cursed with the unfortunate inability to predict the future, I really didn't think a Bush presidency or Gore presidency would be much different. OHHHH GOOD GOD how wrong I was. I, along with countless other conservatives and liberals alike, really bought the moderate picture Bush had painted of himself during the campaign. I also couldn't predict that terrorist attack that happened mid-September 2001 (the exact date is slipping my mind at the moment). Since then, it seems like Republicans just rally around Bush and worship the ground he walks on. Do you know what I mean? Do you get that feeling too? That man can do no wrong**. It's like he's the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan, and I want the Democratic nominee to have that same broad support from the Democrats. Howard Dean has done an amazing job in getting the Democratic hopefuls to let their balls drop a bit and take a serious stand against the President, and I think the Democrat party is stronger thanks to him. Otherwise, I fear that Joe "Republican" Lieberman would have won the party's nomination and we would have seen Election 2000 Part II, but without the benefit of a close race (and the Democratic win). Unfortunately, I don't feel like Howard Dean will be that kind of Democratic nominee. I'm not sure the party would rally behind him. Kerry and Clark both give me the impression that they could get broad party support and win swing voters, while Edwards, well, I don't know a single thing about him, and I'm waiting to see how he does in the Granite State** before I look into him a little more. But I don't forsee a strong united front behind Howard Dean, even though I personally think he'd make a fine President. Me, I'll be voting for Kucinich because I'm ridiculously idealistic, and then I'll be throwing my support and $$ wholeheartedly behind whoever it is the Democrats pick to be the next President. As long as it's not Joe the Republican (see above).

And thus ends my $.02


*doesn't that sound Dirty? With a capital "D"?
**Remember when Republicans were all about things like fiscal responsibility and were always criticizing those "tax and spend" liberals? Sure Bush is a "don't tax but still spend" conservative, but, aw, who cares! He likes to talk about domestic security! He's going to take us to Mars!
***LAME State Nickname Alert!

I may not need to bother picking the State of the Union apart this year. It seems like everyone and their mother are doing it already. This is a good one, for example. As is this one. And for those of you who like pretty pictures and colorful graphs to illustrate Presidential dishonesty and disingenuity, you'll like this one!

Seriously, what the fuck? Do these Republicans not realize that we're in record amounts of debt? Or...wait a second? Could they be...spending OUR money because theirs isn't at risk, and it'll appease the special interests? No, they'd never do that, would they? I mean, no one's that reckless...are they?

I'm a Dean fan. I've been a Dean fan ever since I heard about his ideas, but I wasn't a Dean fan who planned on voting for Dean until he entered the realm of viable candidates. However, I've got to admit, I like the guy a lot. I'd really like him to be our president. He's getting a lot of flak for his rallying speech that he gave after coming in third in Iowa, but seriously, is being fired up such a bad thing? When did it get so bad in politics that having a guy who is excited about something, like changing the country for the better, gets labelled a nutcase. Sure, he was loud, but volume isn't just a sign of anger, it's a sign of passion. The guy cares about being president. Did you see Kerry's speech? He looked like his cat just died. He was stiff, wooden, and completely emotion-free. I guess to some people this is the safer option, because emotional presidents make mistakes (no other presidents make mistakes, it's a proven fact...well, proven by the Bush administration in a sourceless doctrine probably). But, you know, I'm pretty angry, too. I like that Dean is outraged at the state of the country because, damnit, so am I. The country sucks right now. Something needs to change. 50% of the country supports Bush, and I bet most of them aren't getting all the facts, and I also bet that 48% of them also believe the media's labelling of Dean as a nut.

Anyway, what it boils down to is that someone has come along to stir up the Democratic party into action, and I'll fight to get that guy into the president's office. I'll be at the Virginia primaries on Feb. 10th, voting to keep Dean in it. And regardless of who the eventual nominee is, so long as it's not Joe "The Republican" Lieberman, I'll be in the voting booths come November helping to boot Bush.

On March 17th, 2003, Bush gave his State of the Union speech, which was largely aimed at making his case for a war in Iraq. For maybe a week after that I worked for about an hour or two a day dissecting his speech and refuting many of the things he said. This was not only a painstakingly slow process, since almost every other line had a dubious statement that had to be refuted with a paragraph of cited primary source evidence, but I also couldn't finish it, because there were just SO MANY LIES. I mean, just for example:

“We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.”

I suppose that last statement depends on your definition of what returning good faith means. According to Dr. Hans Blix’s report to the UN Security council on March 7th, “One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. The numerous initiatives…can be seen as ‘active’, or even ‘proactive’…”

...and then I'd have a footnote citing a speech Blix made to the UN, taken straight from the UN website.

or:

"Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."

I’m sure even the most hawkish conservatives had to raise an eyebrow at this remark. Broad coalition? Well, there are, in fact, 30 other nations in the “Coalition of the Willing ”, but besides the 300,000 US troops and 45,000 British troops, only four other countries are sending troops to Iraq (2,000 from Australia, 278 from Romania, 200 from Poland and 70 from Albania), and other nations in the coalition include Spain (no troops though ), Italy, Japan (for post conflict support ), Ethiopia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.

I mean, these aren't even examples of the best responses I'd written. These are examples of the shortest. Oh wait, I had one that was shorter:

"We are a peaceful people."

Ha! This is your war speech! How dumb do we look!

...

But here's my point: I had spent hours at the beginning of 2003 wading through some of the most disgusting rhetoric I have ever encountered, and spent hours finding solid evidence to everything that I intuitively knew was misleading or wrong. And OH MY GOD, I just DARE you to try to go back and read that speech now, knowing what we now know. It's absolutely disgusting. Last January I had found source upon source that showed that Iraq most likely did not have WMD's and that sanctions were working, and yet a year later we've lost over 500 American lives (we don't count them Iraqis), found no evidence of WMD's, found no links to Osama (in fact, quite the opposite, which any well informed citizen could have told you a year ago), but somehow found a way to award Halliburton with several no-bid contracts in Iraq. Coincidence? Good God I hope so, because if not, that is absolutely sick. Sick. But I know better...

...

Which brings us to 2004. Another State of the Union written by an unabashed rhetoritician. How can these people sleep at night? How can Dick Cheney look his daughter in the eye? It was, as Steve said, so conservately-slanted and so full of LIES. Maybe it was opposite day and no one told me, but seriously, humor me right now and play a quick game of word association with me.

Ready?

Okay, the word(s) is: No Child Left Behind.

What did you think of? Underfunded, Sabatoged, Publicity Stunt? Any of those will do just fine, because as I'm sure you know, the President proposed and signed this bill, and then pulled the rug out from under the feet of his own initiative by drastically cutting it's budget. A miserable failure. You know what? I bet some children were left behind. So when Bush says:

"I refuse to give up on any child -- and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children."

Huh? Opposite day?

So I intend to give the 2004 SOTU the same college try that 2003 received. Hopefully I'll have it done before the 2005 SOTU. In the meantime, The Center for American Progress has already done quite a bit of legwork. I reccommend their "Claims vs Facts" chart.

Bush's State of the Union was crap. Really. I wish I could come up with a more intelligent definition of what it was, but a lame speech deserves a lame expletive. There's no way that I can figure that that speech could have been MORE conservatively-slanted, unless Bush started malfunctioning and Dick Cheney opened his back panel and started tinkering with his robotic innards. And he took out the "naive, assumes he's a compassionate conservative" chip and put in a new "blatantly realizes he hates the left" chip. Maybe THEN. But that's the only way.