The West Virginia Gazette reports that a couple were arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at a rally for the President:
A husband and wife who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s Fourth of July appearance aren’t going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court.
Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, “Love America, Hate Bush.”
Spectators who wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons were allowed to stay.
Thanks to Jon Lebkowsky at GreaterDemocracy for the link.
If I were John Kerry, here's what I'd say about the gay marriage amendment in a debate:
There he goes again. George Bush — the uniter, not the divider — is using this issue as a wedge to drive Americans apart by making this complex question of morality, religion, states rights, and love into a simple yes-no, "you're either with us or against us." Americans are smarter than that, Mr. President. We can handle tough questions in all their complexity. And, frankly, it's a failure of leadership and of vision that you can only see things in black and white.
Then I'd pants W.
From the NY Times:
When a questioner noted that Mr. Edwards had been described as charming and a "nimble campaigner" and asked Mr. Bush to compare the one-term senator to Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush snapped: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"
I understand the argument that Edwards isn't experienced enough to be president - although he's got more experience than W had in 2000 - but does the Bush campaign really want us to dwell on the testicle-shriveling possibility of President Cheney?
I just received a letter (paper and everything) saying that I've been credentialed to blog from the Democratic Convention. Woohoo!
The Kerry campaign is countering the new Bush ad that features footage of John McCain by releasing a report by Judy Woodruff:
Judy Woodruff: “I just called the office of John McCain just to clarify whether the Bush campaign checked with him that they were using him in this ad, because we know that George W. Bush and John McCain have not necessarily been close friends. The McCain people said yes, he was called, they did give him the courtesy to let him know. But they also point out that this is exactly what they expected, that this was an appearance that John McCain made on behalf of George W. Bush, that John McCain wasn’t consulted about the timing. And they went on to point out that John McCain remains close friends, good friends with John Kerry and John Edwards and that he does not plan to criticize either one of them during this campaign. So it’s a little interesting wrinkle.”
Just blurt out it out, Senator McCain: You think Bush has bungled the war on terrorism. Oh, and the Kerry administration is leaving the light on for you in the office of the Secretary of Defense... : )
The Kerry campaign is countering the new Bush ad that features footage of John McCain by releasing a report by Judy Woodruff:
Judy Woodruff: “I just called the office of John McCain just to clarify whether the Bush campaign checked with him that they were using him in this ad, because we know that George W. Bush and John McCain have not necessarily been close friends. The McCain people said yes, he was called, they did give him the courtesy to let him know. But they also point out that this is exactly what they expected, that this was an appearance that John McCain made on behalf of George W. Bush, that John McCain wasn’t consulted about the timing. And they went on to point out that John McCain remains close friends, good friends with John Kerry and John Edwards and that he does not plan to criticize either one of them during this campaign. So it’s a little interesting wrinkle.”
Just blurt out it out, Senator McCain: You think Bush has bungled the war on terrorism. Oh, and the Kerry administration is leaving the light on for you in the office of the Secretary of Defense... : )
The right-wing National Review is already telling itself that Edwards is bad news for the Kerry ticket. Since I've never been right with a single political prediction (All hail presidents Dukakis and Dean!), it doesn't matter that I think Byron York's article is wrong, but I do.
York's reasoning is that Edwards made his national bones with his "Two Americas" stump speech that said nothing about terrorism. Edwards polls just ahead of Kucinich on the issue, according to York. And this is election is going to be about terrorism. Hence, Edwards hurts the ticket.
IMO, the Democratic ticket can't afford the Bush-Cheney '04 gambit of putting an affable, detached values-guy at the top with the reassurance that there's a hard-ass grownup to guide in him in the #2 spot. Kerry will win this election by being a candidate Americans trust to run the government he's leading. If we think Kerry isn't credible on terrorism, then it doesn't matter if he appoints Thor as his vice president, he's going to lose. (But, Kerry is credible on terrorism - I feel safer just having him run than I do with the Bush crowd of gasoline-tossers running the show.)
Appointing a war vice president would have played into the Republican strategy of defining this election as being only about who is harder on the bad guys. The Edwards selection says that terrorism is not the only issue we need to confront. Nor can we afford to confront it in isolation from the rest of what's going on in our country and in the world.
I think it's a great selection. I look forward to eight years of Kerry followed by eight years of Edwards.
Go Kerry!
At the page of the official George W Bush campaign site where you get to print out your own customized poster, if you say you're from Massachusetts, you get an error message. Of the half dozen other states I tried, none gave an error message.
I think I'm going to take this personally...
Click to get the full screen capture.
Fantastic speech by Gore today about the administration's dangerous consolidation of executive power:
The seductive exercise of unilateral power has led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that would have been the worst nightmare of our framers...
...In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between al Qaeda and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing Constitutional power grab by the President. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public’s mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties – again on his personal discretion – and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election.
And here I thought The Daily Show was the only place capable of telling the plain truth. Wait ... Gore cites The Daily Show:
Ironically, his [Cheney's] interview ended up being fodder for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart played Cheney’s outright denial that he had ever said that representatives of Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence met in Prague. Then Stewart froze Cheney’s image and played the exact video clip in which Cheney had indeed directly claimed linkage between the two, catching him on videotape in a lie. At that point Stewart said, addressing himself to Cheney’s frozen image on the television screen, "It’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire."
Until I find where this is posted on line officially, I've unofficially posted it here.
I just got a call from Rep. Tom Reynolds, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee asking for my help. I am, after all, a co-chair of the Republican Small Business Council of Massachusetts. (I may have gotten the name wrong.)
Someone named Lisa Meyers asked me to listen to a taped message from Chairman Reynolds in which he assured me that as a small business leader, I am what makes America's economy grow. But, surely I don't want to be impeded by "taxation, red tape and over-regulation." Chairman Tom reminded me that the previous electoral victory had been "razor thin" (decided by a single vote, actually), and "if the unthinkable happens and liberals take control of the Congress," I am going to be "at the top of their hit list."
After the message, Greg Henchman (no, I'm not kidding) introduced himself and asked if I would be attending the Presidential dinner I had been invited to.
No, I told him, and I asked him to pass along to Representative Reynolds that I found his message to be over the top. There are differences of opinions, I said, but liberals aren't really going to be putting me on a hit list.
Disingenuous on my part? Yeah, I guess so, in that while I haven't told any lies, I also haven't volunteered relevant information. Until they ask me if I support the President or am a registered Republican, I am happy to let them show me what they're showing their supporters.
The Republicans have launched a new Internet ad that cranks up the ol' class warfare. Ah, yes, those Dickensian childhood years W spent clearin' brush and boiling it up into thin gruel.
Pray for Reason wants us to counter the prayers of the pro-Bush religious folks with our own prayers:
Why are we collecting this information? The Presidential Prayer Team website has collected 2.8 million pledges to pray for unreasonable religious fervor. There are 300 million people in this country, which means that there are 297 million people who probably do not want our foreign policies to resemble a holy war. We want to counteract the affect of the Presidential Prayer Team by amassing as many reasonable people as possible.
It's hard to tell this site and the ones it's countering from parody, which is a little disturbing...
(Thanks to Mark Dionne for the link.)
The Washington Post is running a bi-partisan (non-partisan?) "Create a Slogan" contest.
The DNC has started a convention blog. Matt Stoller, who likes to ask funny-disarming questions at conferences, is one of the bloggers, which is a very good sign.
The blog is looking for a name. Any suggestions?
1. So, we're going to tear down Abu Ghraib. Excellent. But we're going to replace it with a modern maximum security prison. Replacing an old prison with a new one. Too bad we couldn't have stopped with the first half of the metaphor.
2. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Bush over-mispronounciated Abu Ghraib all three times he uttered the words:
The prison, the scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and the US military, has a name that English speakers usually pronounce as "abu-grabe".
But Mr Bush, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, stumbled on the first try, calling it "abugah-rayp". The second version came out "abu-garon", and the third attempt sounded like "abu-garah".
(I was on the road and missed the speech.)
BTW, here's what Al Jazeera had to say about the speech. Since tearing down the prison is a symbolic act, let's hope that the majority of Iraqi's don't see it the way Al Jazeera does. (Al Jazeera also ran a piece claiming that Nick Berg was killed by the CIA in Abu Ghraib. Among the "evidence": One of the 5 murderers "appeared wearing very clean tennis shoes. This will not be the case with an Al Qaeda fighter." Jeez.)
Robin in a comment to this entry points out that I've been fooled by what seems to be a spoof site. Aljazeer.com is not the same english.aljazeera.net. Sorry. (Thanks, Robin.)
The Bush campaign has spent $126M so far to drive the President's ratings to their lowest point so far.
Let's hope they keep it up!
Micah Sifry, who writes for The Nation among other places, asks that many of us make a small donation in order to beat back a Big Money attempt to undo campaign reform in Arizona:
Arizona's pioneering full public financing system, called the Clean Elections Act, is under attack by wealthy special interests with deep pockets and national conservative ties that run all the way from Tom Delay to Bush's fundraising machine. They've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to put a constitutional ballot on the November ballot that could crush America's best hope for people-powered democracy--we need to do the same to make sure the dream of elections, not auctions, doesn't die.
"There are those who would vote for a tree stump to replace the president..."
— Mickey Edwards, "The Making of the Next Al Gore," Boston Globe, May 15, op-ed.
First sighting here.
The Boston Globe today quotes a former Naderite who is reluctantly supporting Kerry as describing the Senator as "tree-stumpy." Ulp.
Islamicate has sent an unthinkably radical letter to W and Kerry suggesting that the US president ought to uphold the Constitution. What a concept!
It's a well-put letter.
The Bush-Cheney team — or is it the Al Franken wing of the Democratic party? — has put up a new page touting the Administration. (If you're uncertain, check out the donation page.) (Thanks to Mark Federman for the link.)
Just in case you were having trouble believing the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, here's a frame of the Bush-Cheney ad that used a flag-draped coffin of a firefighter. Now please compare and contrast with Bush's forbidding the media to show photos of flag-draped coffins of our dead soldiers.
I don't have a problem with using images of fallen heroes in campaign ads. I do have a little problem with censorship for rank political aims.
Great news! Congressman Tom Reynolds of the National Republican Congressional Committee has personally invited me, via a tape recording played over the phone, to become an honorary chairman.
Of course I said yes, proudly and humbly.
The live person who came on after the tape assured me that this was very exclusive. I'm going to get surveys and have a chance to attend a dinner with President Bush. And, as my first act as honorary chairman, I was given the opportunity to pay $500 to sign a full page in the WSJ. Plus I'd get aooden gavel and a picture of the President.
"Can be an honorary chairman without taking part in this ad?"
"I haven't had anyone ask me that before. Let me ask my supervisor." A few seconds pass. "You don't have to have your name appear in the ad."
"But I don't want to give money..."
"I know $500 is a lot. Would you be able to give $200-300?"
"But Congressman Reynolds just told me how much he values my opinion. Now it sounds like you just want my money. I'd love to give you my opinion."
"Very good, sir. We'd love to hear from you. So, can I sign you up as an honorary chairman?"
"Will I have to give you money?"
"No, sir."
"Then, great, yes, I humbly accept."
She takes my personal information.
"I have a question," I say. "I'm an honorary chairman of what?"
"Of your state."
"But what am I chairman of?"
"You'll get surveys..."
"That's great, but I was wondering if I'm honorary chairman of blank. Could you fill in the blank?"
"Your state."
"Ok, great."
She also offered me 24/7 access to the Republican convention via the Internet. Woohoo!
BurningBird reports a conversation that we can only hope is going on around the country, not just because it's bad news for Bush but because it means we're not as easily misled as some would have us believe.
Zack Exley of MoveOn.org has signed on as director of Kerry's online organizing efforts. This is great news for us Kerry supporters. Zack is smart, focused, passionate and fun to be around.
Over the course of the Dean campaign, Zack changed his mind - a political guy capable of changing his mind! - about the importance of using the Net to enable supporters to self-organize and connect. He's come to think that there's value to that, but his heart and his mindset remain centered on using the Net to do the bread-and-butter of campaigns: raise money, get out the vote, etc.
A couple of weeks ago, I was on a panel that "debated" Zack and a guy from RightMarch.com. I argued that using the Net to let us supporters connect is part of the bread and butter of campaigns, especially when the campaigns are going to bomb us back to the stoned age with Wal-Mart style ads. So, while I'm thrilled that someone as talented as Zack is going to be directing the Net side of the Kerry campaign, I'll be very interested in seeing how seriously the campaign takes the task - the opportunity - of using the connective power of the Net to generate enthusiasm for the candidate.
(A good sign: Cam Barrett is helping the Kerry campaign figure out what to do with their online activism tools.)
Bill Clinton, talking about the Republicans at the big Democratic Unity event last night:
"They're the mature party, they're the daddy party. They remind of teenagers who got their inheritance too soon and couldn't wait to blow it."
Looks like someone's been reading George Lakoff. And it's a Good Thing, too.
I'm on the GOPTeamLeader mailing list (you can be to...just sign up). This week's message says I'll enjoy this video: Click here. I'm sure I will enjoy it, but I'm at a conference and can't get to it.
So, take it as a blind recommendation, which I guess means it isn't really a recommendation at all.
If we're going to have a gaffe-prone candidate, we might as well have Dean and do the gaffes right.
The Kerry site launched the D-Bunker blog recently. It fact checks Republican claims. Yes, of course it's biased. But useful. It might be even more useful if it allowed comments or even included a wiki where we all could fact check some asses.
Salon also reminds us of the Anenberg Fact Check Center.
Free Republic has put up a site on the Winter Soldier investigation, making the case that John Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam war betrayed his fellow soldiers.
If those cheap slurs on his patriotism is the best they can do, then the Kerry candidacy is in good shape.
Don't they have the slightest sense of what it means to live in a democracy?
Joe Conason analyzes the page, and uses Colin Powell's autobiography to back up Kerry's "traitorous" claim that My Lai was not an isolated incident.
Brian Hindo in BusinessWeekOnline has a trenchant article about Kerry's presence on Friendster. Brian assumes that Kerry's profile is carefully calculated to impress us the right way:
He has posted a picture of himself windsurfing and lists other interests such as "hunting, motorcycles...and offering a REAL DEAL to America." His favorite music choices include the Beatles, Bruce Sprinsgteen ("No Surrender is my campaign song"), and U2.
That's the problem with artificial social networks such as Friendster and Orkut: There is no possibility of any of us presenting "the real deal."
Note: Many years ago I formulated a law that says that whatever people most emphasize about themselves is the biggest lie they tell. If your boss tells you that he's all about teamwork, then he's all about himself. If Nixon says that he is not a crook, then he is. If Bush tells us that he's a decisive leader, we know he's not. If Kerry insists that he's the real deal...
I listened to Kerry's victory speech last night and was impressed. Perhaps because he's an ideological opportunist (yeah, this is going to be a left-handed compliment at best), he has absorbed the best messages from the other candidates. I thought his rhetoric and the set of issues he propounded were right on. (I wish the Internet and innovation were on his radar screen, but that's my own little "special interest.")
I just hope that he hasn't peaked. All three Boston Globe columnists today worry that his shallowness will be exposed over the long term. Why is he running, other than to dethrone King W? I believe Edwards and Dean had issues that kept them going, in addition to their personal ambition of course. Edwards cared about the immorality of there being two Americas. Dean had an inchoate vision of what a great country set free from special interests could do. I honestly can't tell you what gets Kerry going. And I've been paying attention.
I desperately hope Kerry figures it out.
The item on his list that struck me as having the most potential — keeping in mind that I have never ever once been right about this sort of thing — is the idea that Bush the Uniter has been Bush the Divider. Maybe Kerry's announced destiny is to pull America together again, rejecting the wedge politics Bush has been practicing here and abroad. Of course, I'm predisposed to this message as a registered Deaniac and Netiac.
Mini Bogus Contest: What Kerry bumpersticker would be worth driving down the re-sale value of your car?
One nation again
Back together
Because we are all Americans
For the America we love
Divorced Bush, Married Kerry, Got Custody of the Supreme Court
The Economist (pay-per-view) speculates about Cheney being asked to step aside in order to bring in a VP who might be more helpful to W's campaign.
The article suggests that Rudy Giuliani wouldn't "play second fiddle," although I think he might see it as the fastest way to becoming president. The article also pooh-poohs Condi, without giving a reason. It instead focuses on Bill Owens, Gov. of Colorado, since it would help derail Kerry's screw-the-South strategy that requires winning much of the southwest.
I found the final paragraph is amusing:
Mr Cheney would have to retire gracefully, blaming his dodgy heart (he has already had four heart attacks) and no doubt accepting a post as senior counsellor from a grief-stricken president. Persuading such a powerful vice-president to step aside will be no easy thing, of course. But the Bushes don't have a reputation as the Corleone family of the Republican Party for nothing. The next time Mr Cheney takes that jet to go duck-shooting, he may well find James Baker slipping into the seat behind him, with "a litl' proposal to discuss for the good of the party".
(Thanks to Dan Squires for the link.)
