Note to Senator Kerry

After reading this Boston Globe article about your Iraq vote, I started to wonder why you give those slimy bastards on the right more rope with which to hang you. I know you want to take an honorable stance and not let on that the current president of the USA can't be trusted to take the country around the block, much less to Iraq. But it's time to call a duck, a duck. I've come to agree with an alternative answer that a certain professor I know suggested you use the next time the question comes up:

If I had known then that the president and his advisors were going to handle the Iraq situation in such a boneheaded, hamhanded, incompetent way, then I wouldn't have voted to give the president authorization to go to war. I made my vote on the assumption that the president could be trusted to act responsibly. Obviously, I was mistaken.

It's short but sweet.

If you had any suspicions that political motivations determined the timing of Tom Ridge's targeted Orange Alerts last week the AP story today about the handling of similar intelligence about Las Vegas casinos seems to confirm that the Bush administration has no consistent policy about how to keep the public informed about terror threats and tends to release information when it is to its advantage to do so. The decision about whether or not to go to an Orange Alert in 2002 when FBI officials informed Las Vegas authorities about threatening videotapes was left to local authorities, whose fears about liability and loss of tourist revenues led them to suppress the information. So much for protecting the nation. Any chance Bush & Ridge will face tough questions from the mainstream media?

So here's the deal.

For the past couple of weeks I've been engaged in tying up umpteen thousand loose ends before leaving my job and today was finally the last day. Tomorrow I am off to New York to look at apartments for four days. At some point after that I will be moving. So yes things are going to be a little sloppy here for the time being. I've been sorta keeping up with the news but in a channel-surfing way. But I do see things picking up. I will be busy once I start classes but I also will be in a very good thinking place and hopefully my posts will blossom. I might--MIGHT--start a New York blog. We'll see. So bear with me. Life is happening.

This is great.

I stuck to watching C-SPAN for most of the convention so I missed most of the pundit reaction to Kerry's speech, but I did hear tell that on PBS for a bright and shining moment, David Brooks removed his head from his ass.

Unfortunately he has reassumed the positionor rather he never really removed it in the first place.

So far, I think Josh Marshall has the best first-hand take on the convention. I'm glad I'm not there (Bono's presence notwithstanding). It sounds like chaos. But back to Josh. Having watched most of the speeches last night, I'd have to agree that the dems seem to understand their base a bit more than we give them credit for.

When it first occurred to me to write this post I was going to say that partisan Democrats have decided to give Kerry a free hand in appealing to independents and swing voters. But that doesn't get it quite right. That was the case in 1992 when the party's core voters, after twelve years out of the White House, were willing to give Bill Clinton all sorts of leeway with what most viewed as his DLC heterodoxies. But something different is at work here.

Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. The headline of Susan Page's piece in USA Today reads: "Speakers offer few barbs, try to stay warm and fuzzy." But the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.

Gore’s Speech

I always enjoy watching Gore speak. I also hate it. I hate it because seeing him reveals in stark relief exactly what should have been. Seeing him makes it harder to hear Bush speak, to open the paper and see how far we have fallen. I hate it because the man who spoke tonight is not the same man who conceded the election nearly 4 years ago. This man would have fought tooth and nail. This is a man who hit his stride too late to himself any good.

Seeing Gore reminds me that I don’t ever again want to feel the way I did nearly 4 years ago.

Convention Blogging

Not much of this from me. All the cool kids are in Boston. I might blog on some key speeches throughout the week.

And apparently someone's crashing our party. Ann Coulter in Boston, during the Democratic Convention? She must be breaking out in hives. I hope she gets all scabby.

Dear John

Here's a nice letter from Barry Crimmins to John Kerry. I think he handles Kerry's vote to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq quite nicely.

I understand the political pressure you felt, but still, you’re a brilliant guy and had to know what a load of hooey was being dumped on us. I further estimate that the hard-bitten among your insiders advised, "Look, you know we can always just say they lied to us," and considering who was trumping up this war, that was a pretty safe fall-back position. But please, you did a nice job investigating and exposing much of this crew back when terrorism was a central component of Saint Ronald Reagan’s not-so-secret foreign policy. And so when the same gang of thugs who help facilitate death-squads in Central America came forward as the defenders of innocence and champions of democracy, you should have marched right outside of the Capitol and joined the hundreds of thousands of us who were in the streets screaming, "Noooooo! Don’t do it!"

Well, Senator, we told you so.

Some of my lefty pals won’t forgive you and I can see their point. Nevertheless, I refuse to join their circular firing squad. I know how to face political reality myself, and if ever there were an occasion for compromise, this is it. I don’t value my moral purity more than the lives of countless innocents. My stridence withers when I consider how much suffering would result if the Bush regime extends beyond next January. Someday, George W. Bush’s administration will be labeled for what it brought us to: the "New Low." Under your leadership, even a slight trajectory of improvements in health-care, environmental regulation, civil liberties, and workers’ rights will have to be measured against the all-too-imaginable speed at which of these vital matters would reach even newer lows during a second Bush term...

I especially like the "New Low" for Bush's campaign slogan. I wonder if the people who write the history books are paying attention.

Yeah about this.

For the record, Kate had everybody beat weeks ago with photographic evidence of this ass-hattery.

And it doesn’t matter that it’s idiotic and wrong. It will work anyway. It will work because there are enough reptilian brains that work like this.

A) Terrorists are bad
B) Bush hates terrorists
C) Bush is good
D) Kerry hates Bush
E) Kerry is bad
F) Kerry likes terrorists.

It’s hurts that this kind of thinking is out there in the world. I remember shortly after the 2000 Election was consoling my mom with the undeniable fact that Gore won the popular vote. She said it didn’t matter because the knowledge that there were that many people out there who had voted for him made her sick to her stomach. Seeing bumper stickers like that gives me that same kind of feeling. And I wonder if it’s worth it to try to get Kerry in office. Because even if he wins he’ll have to combat the Jack Richardson’s of the world, cajoling, placating, and compromising with them just so his time in office can be a little more bearable.


Wouldn’t you love it if Kerry were asked to comment on the bumper sticker, and he just let loose with, “Jack Richardson IV is big greasy turd. Where I’m from, we flush those.”

Please God, no

[Mike Ditka]The 66-year-old former head coach of the Chicago Bears appeared on television news shows to talk about a possible bid for Senate. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition for Republicans to draft Ditka as the "people's choice" for November.

"I'm getting excited about it. I'm just thinking about it," Ditka told WGN-TV, Chicago.

Let's not take the stupid baton way from California just yet.

My aunt called from Albuquerque, NM Friday night. She was standing in line at the Hispanic Cultural Center with about 10,000 other people to shake John Kerry’s hand. In front of her was a gentleman with arthritis who had difficulty standing. He informed her that he hadn’t ventured out to see a presidential candidate since Kennedy ran. She said that Edwards was positively glowing and Kerry towered over the waving signs. She got to shake his hand. She was so excited.

The Bush-Cheney team is acting like scared rabbits and they should be. It’s hard to fight that kind of excitement when you’re also busy covering your behind.

You don't want to be on this list.

Seriously, if you live in Florida, double check.

Barbara Ehrenreich is subbing for Tom Friedman this month. Book leave my ass. That man's off in a "spa" somewhere settling his nerves. Ms. Ehrenreich should go ahead an get comfortable.

I don’t think I really need to say anything about Fahranheit 9/11 that hasn’t already been said and said better. That’s what comes of seeing the film after everyone while on vacation from blogger duties.

It was fun to read Hitchens’ piece after seeing the movie. Clearly he didn’t enjoy it mostly because images of dying children contrast badly with the tune of “The 1812 Overture” playing in his head. I won’t go through the whole thing. Rereading it will send me into a fugue state. But Chris should keep is gin-soaked paws off of Black History.

From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Shorter Hitchens: Well somebody has to fight these wars and the blacks have always been so good at it. Moore is a racist because he doesn’t want them to succeed at their God-given talent.

Surfacing

I probably should've mentioned that I'd be on vacation this week. I'm in not-so-sunny San Francisco with this crazy biz-nitch. It's been one crazy weekend. Today we marched in the parade with Stop AIDS and handed out condoms to crazy people and little old Asian ladies. And Kerry support was alive and well.

We're going to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" tomorrow. Don't tell me what happens!

Fahrenheit 9/11

I heard from a friend who attended the premier of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in D.C. that Tom Daschle was there. I don't know what he was thinking, but he apparently didn't stand up and apologize. I guess no one gave him a heads-up that he appears several times in the film—he should be ashamed of himself. In fact, he is the most prominent Democrat in the film, so any critic who claims this documentary is just one big Democratic love fest, must've gone out for popcorn and soda more than once.

My own take on it? I think it will be an eye-opener for a lot of people who don't read alternative news sources, and even people who do. I knew there were protests during Bush's inauguration (our own Lenora was there) but did anyone see the footage of the limo being egged on CNN? or the massiveness and anger of the crowd? Even so, Michael Moore pulled his punches. He was restrained, but very effective. He limited himself to one grieving mother (very moving, nevertheless), one citizen who felt his rights had been violated by the FBI because he was critical of George Bush, when we know there are lots of angry citizens and at least 850 grieving families. Another thing missing from the reviews I've read is how sad "Fahrenheit 9/11" is, on so many levels. When contrasted with the trumped-up grief the media attributed to us for Ronald Reagan's funeral, Moore's film illustrates what the country really is mourning.

And did everybody else catch Condo explicitly linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11?

If you missed Jon Stewart eviscerate Stephen Hayes be sure to catch it at midnight Central Time or tomorrow at 6 P.M.

Jon is national treasure. Let's save the $10 bill for him.

My Late Clinton Post

I’m watching the 60 Minutes Clinton interview on tape (Father’s Day dinner and all).

I like that he said this: “I’ve said more about my personal life than any public figure should.” I like that

This proves once and for all that countries may fall, presidents may lie about death and torture and what have you, but we as a people will forever be obsessed with Clinton’s penis.

They’re framing his beef against Kenneth Starr as though it’s a paranoid fantasy he thought up to get himself out of trouble. No corroborating evidence.

Dan Rather bites ass.

I really don’t like the way they’re doing this. Everything he says, even the stuff that can be confirmed, is presented as being subject to debate. A good news program would provide context for his statements.

I can’t believe Rather just accused Clinton of wagging the dog.

I suppose it would have been too much to hope that they wouldn’t beat us over the head with the subject of his infidelity but Jesus fucking Christ, how many times can he possibly say that, “It was awful and I’m sorry”? And there was a right wing conspiracy for anybody who cares to do the goddamn research.

It’s a hard to watch the testimony again. It takes me right back to that surreal icky feeling.

Shut up Dan, just shut the hell up

This interview was supposed to make me happy. It’s pissing me off. The funny thing is that Dan is trying his damnedest to make Clinton look bad and it’s not working very well. It’s hard to smear someone who has nothing to lose.

This is a sloppy interview. First of all there is no conceivable structure. Even a third grader knows when in doubt start at the beginning. They can’t seem to leave the flashpoints of Lewinsky, Flowers, and Jones alone long enough to do any actual work. Secondly, it’s completely manipulative. Instead of saying anything new, they’re hitting all the hot buttons, all the boring ones at that.

And Reagan even had the crash this party. “Bill let’s talk about when you die.”

Friend and frequent commentor Regina has struck out on her own. Go check her out over at Chicana On the Edge.