Pollingreport.com comes clean on Bush approval numbers - Time pollsters are HIDING them!

To: Editor@PollingReport.com
Most recent Time magazine included a graphic showing a CNN/Time poll which had Bush's approval numbers at 55%. Just curious as to why you didn't include these numbers in your latest updates.

From: Editor@PollingReport.com
Thanks for your note. Time/CNN Poll results are released to us by their pollsters. So far, what they’ve sent us from the Dec. 17-18 poll has not included an overall Bush job rating. When and if they provide it to us, we’ll report it.


Al Gore Redux

According to published results, Al Gore kicked ass a couple of weekends ago, giving "Saturday Night Live'" it's biggest audience since Britney Spears's appearance back in February. Preliminary stats suggest that Gore garnered more viewers on NBC in late night on Saturday than had any prime-time show on any network. The next night, Gore's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS logged 14.7 million viewers -- about 2 million more than the season finale of "The Sopranos" the previous Sunday. Gore was that Sunday's biggest draw on any network. That pounding and screaming you heard later that week was coming from the White House, where George W. Bush was screaming for equal time. Would someone please tell Dubyah he's already the butt of jokes and he doesn't have to appear on Saturday Night Live to be made fun off. All he has to do is open his mouth...

Speaking of Al Gore, who won the election of 2000 by the way (mentioned here to further piss off the right loonies reading), I ran across an old article this morning while doing research. It was from the Newspaper Association of America and basically confirmed what I already knew to be true... George W. Bush was a chickenshit when it came time to debate Al Gore.

From the article: Paraphrasing Mark Twain, Vice President Al Gore told publishers, “There are only two forces that can carry light to the end of the globe: the sun in the heavens, and the AP.”

In a speech at The Associated Press annual meeting Monday, the Democratic presidential-primary victor also offered a proposal to replace television campaign ads with twice-weekly public debates between himself and Republican candidate Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.

“I will accept invitations from any newspaper to debate issues with Gov. Bush,” said Gore. While 13 major newspapers around the country have taken Gore up on his offer, Bush at presstime had declined to participate.

Replace television campaign ads with twice-weekly public debates? Hmmm... not bad! A plan like that would effectively prevent the candidate with the most advertising money from steamrolling his or her opponent. Of course, that is exactly why reTHUGlicans will never go for it.

Why Won’t Republicans Debate Anymore? (something I wrote a while back...)

I'm going to talk about Republicans and debating for a while. It's going to be really long. There will more stories and comments to follow if you want to skip down to it but you may find this debate discussion entertaining...

I spent an hour recently meticulously and systematically refuting the latest rightwing mass e-mail that was inadvertently sent to me. I say inadvertently because most of my friends and acquaintances who are of the conservative persuasion know I have and will make then look quite naive for forwarding that rubbish around. My method is simple: I don’t just reply to the sender, I include everyone in the usually long e-mail list so that they all benefit from the exposed lie.

It didn’t take long to get a reply back from one of them. The message was straight to the point. After all the facts and sources I listed, this Einstein merely wrote ignorant liberal. That was it. No counter arguments. No vain protests of my sources. He basically said I was ignorant for believing what I did and all the facts, history, and sources be damned. He was probably patting himself on the back for that one. Whoo hoo! I could just hear the "ditto dittos" from the others reading it. Never one to be outdone, I again replied back to all who were on the e-mail list and challenged him to an open debate in a chat room with all his friends watching. I gave him the opportunity to prove I was an “ignorant liberal.”

Why won’t Republicans debate anymore? I mean, really debate? I’m not talking about a verbal orgy of rumor spouting, mud slinging, and name calling that they’re so good at. A good healthy exchange of ideas, policies, and opinions in front of an audience of fence sitters is probably the best way to win over those who are undecided about something. It used to be standard. Now it seems the right will run at the first hint of actually having to present and defend their positions in front of anyone other than a FOX News audience.

Watching (and participating) in political debates are fun in a cruel kind of way. Seeing one guy squirm while the other rattles off a litany of facts and figures is like watching your team hit one out of the park or passing for the game winning touch down. Unfortunately for conservatives, their exchanges with liberals in the last 30 years or so has more often than not resulted in their team being the one watching the ball sail over their heads and into the seats!

Witness the George H.W. Bush/William Jefferson Clinton debates of ’92. Before Clinton, by most estimates, summarily cleaned Bush’s clock , Clinton had to enlist a flock of costumed chickens to tail President Bush around the country until he agreed to debate him . Like father like son, George W. Bush also did his fair share of “ducking” Al Gore’s invitation for debates in 2000.

George W. Bush and his handlers resisted having prime time debates almost immediately. People wondered if he just didn’t want to debate Gore during the time when most people could view it. He finally agreed to the prime time debates but then suggested they be held on sole-broadcast forums such as CNN's "Larry King Live," quite possibly as a way to still limit the amount of viewers. Bush also didn’t want them to be held under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates, an independent organization that has been the prime sponsor of such forums in the last three elections.

When Bush finally agreed to debates, he – like his father – was slayed by another so-called “ignorant liberal.” For example, after the first debate an Associated Press panel of high school and college debate coaches judged Al Gore the winner. According to William Woods Tate, debate coach of Montgomery Bell Academy in Nashville, Tenn., and president of the National Forensic League, “on the basis of six debate-judging criteria -- reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, cross-examination and presentation -- Gore was the better debater. Gore simply had more information at his fingertips.” Earlier panels, with some rotating members and some holdovers, also picked Gore as winner of his two previous debates against Bush.

Melissa Maxcy Wade, debate coach at Emory University in Atlanta, said Gore used ‘assertive confidence’ to good effect in the debates. James Unger, director of the National Forensic League of Washington, which brings together high school and college debaters and educators to study competitive debate, said Gore had shown steady improvement. ‘Gore finally mastered the debate process, his debate opponent and himself," he said. ‘The newest Al Gore is the best.’”

Only one judge chose Bush as the winner in the St. Louis debate. Dallas Perkins said "Gore was woefully unprepared and pathologically incapable of following the rules." Incidentally, Perkins was the debate coach at Harvard University. George W. Bush revived his Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. The Bush family breeds loyalty for sure!

The Republican elite aren’t stupid. They have their share of researchers and pollsters just like our side does. They should know research shows that debates don’t matter a whole lot. Usually a candidate's poll numbers only increase marginally – if at all - after a debate victory. That’s because only partisans tune in. Independents, the key swing voters, tend to be less engaged in politics. So they’re much less likely to watch the debates. Additionally, debates tend to reinforce preconceived notions, not change them. Most of each candidate’s supporters say it’s their guy who won.

If the above is true than why is there an overall trend in conservative politics – from office water cooler pundits and internet chat room participants to national level candidates – to avoid engaging liberals in open discussions of the issues? Could it be that, like no other time in history, conservative arguments are at best weak and at worst out right lies? Are they afraid of being exposed in front of just one person who will then spread the word of how “republican x” was caught lying or exaggerating to make a point?

During the Clinton years, the right engaged in what has since been termed “the politics of personal destruction.” They couldn’t beat Clinton on the issues (as daddy Bush so beautifully displayed) so they attempted to make character an issue above and beyond the economy, domestic, and foreign policy by attacking his personal life. By hammering their point so loudly and so often that Clinton was immoral (by their standards) they found a debate they could win. After all, and to be fair, Mr. Clinton did give them plenty of ammo on that front. So sure were they that attacking character was the way to win elections that in 2000, they managed to get a Federal Court to throw out rules during, and only for, the 2000 election. The rules that were suspended were ones that forced broadcasters to give candidates and private citizens a chance to respond to personal attacks and political endorsements. In other words, rightwing politicians were now free to slander liberal candidates and private citizens without fear of effective and meaningful rebuttal.

What does all this mean to you? Simple. This rule does not apply in public. If a right-winger begins spouting his simple minded rhetoric, you have the choice to correct him or her. Honestly, it’s not that difficult to do because they’re usually parroting some Limbaugh lines and will become flabbergasted at the mere suggestion of a challenge. When they begin huffing and puffing and calling you names, you know they're on the ropes. Once they launch into a tirade on Clinton’s penis, you’ve won!

I did receive a reply from the person I mentioned at the beginning of this article. As expected, he declined my debate invitation.

“I don't have to argue with someone whose thinking is an inch deep,” He wrote.

”Your whole approach is humanistic and therefore faulty. God was and is the original conservative. If you don't like the rules that he laid out for you take it up with him not with me."

With that, I challenged God to a debate. However I don’t believe a reply is forthcoming.

Leanmc over at Democratic Underground believes that lots of conservatives lack the mental capacity to engage in debate. According to Leanmc and in his words, "traditionally, congnitive developement has been imagined in 4 stages (Piaget was the fellow who really did the heavy lifting here). They are sensimotor (0-2) , preoperational (2-7), concrete operations (7-12), and formal operations(12-18). These stages broadly represent an individual's capacity to think about and understand the world from multiple perspectives.

Infants are enthralled by peek-a-boo because they don't understand that their partners do not disappear completely. Young children have problems with extreme egocentricity or imagining physical events out of sequence. Older schoolchildren have a hard time with abstract thought. Its only with formal operations stage that individuals become fluent with abstract reasoning. The modes of thought included in formal operations are heavily associated with education and culture; most Americans do not regularly use formal operations in their daily lives. Some theorists propose a 5th category of post-formal thought, which would be where individuals would be able to intellectualize about different abstract systems, sort of meta-criticism.

I [Leanmc] offered that mini-lecture because it seems that a lot of the conservatives "arguments" really betray cognitive deficiencies. Take the whole "no morality without God" bit, or the "why do liberals not oppose Saddam" questions. The lack of an ability to see how dumb those statements are sort of calls into question the mental capacity of the persons making such claims (or at least that of their target audience). Or think about the total closed-in logic of many conservatives, the truisms and the circular arguements. The bitter ad hominium attacks, even in their primaries. The tendency to focus on one part of the problem and miss other key parts (like tax cuts divorced from budget woes, or Iraq apart from the rest of the Middle East).

Debates are teaching methods that *increase* formal (and post-formal) thought. Listening to ideas, responding to ideas, playing devil's advocate, even having absurd debates, this is how people develop their ability for higher level thought. Listening to a one-sided factually shakey monologue is not. "

Too bad we won't get to see Gore debate Bush again.

pResident Bush's Possible '04 Signature Issues

You may recall my update from Sunday, Dec. 29, where I mentioned that Bush was going to politicize the war on terror in the 2004 elections. This was based on a document titled "Possible '04 Signature Issues" that was discussed this month in a White House meeting chaired by chief of staff Andrew Card. I thought all of you might find the whole list interesting...

1. War On Terrorism (Con't)
2. Protecting The Homeland (Con't)
3. Health Care Costs and Access
4. Legal Reform
5. Faith-based Services
6. Education
7. Higher Education
8. Social Security Reform
9. Tax Reform
10. Immigration Reform

Interesting, huh? Faith-based services rank higher than Education? Does the dumbass really have such a high regard for health care? WHERE IS THE ECONOMY? We've always suspected this adminstration's true agenda...now it's spelled out.

How do we reward someone who blocked the CIA from pursuing terrorists?

The Star Tribune's Greg Gordon reported recently that at a quiet little ceremony earlier this month, Marion (Spike) Bowman was given an award for "exceptional performance." The award invludes a cash bonus of 20 to 35 percent of the recipient's salary and a framed certificate signed by the president.

Bowman heads the FBI's National Security Law Unit. That's the unit that blocked Minneapolis agents from pursuing their suspicions about Moussaoui. Just another example of the dumbassery of the Bush cartel...

The Financial Fornication and Coporate Copulation of the reTHUGlicans!

Zizka points this out: Republicans and their kept men and women in the media are still charging, predictably, that Clinton and the Democrats are responsible for the Enron disaster. This takes gall, given the record. A little outline of which follows:
A few convenient and very significant examples showing that the Democrats were NOT running Enron's errands, and the Repubs WERE.

From MediaWhoresOnline.com

A (Very) Brief History of How the Clinton Administration and Democrats Tried to Prevent the Enron Disaster from Happening -- But Got Defeated by the Republicans.


1997: President Clinton's chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Brooksley Born proposes greater regulation of energy derivates by way of more stringent disclosure. Her proposal is beaten back by House Republicans, including then-House Banking Committee Chair Jim Leach (R-IA) who scolds Born for two hours at a hearing.

Energy derivatives were the key instrument with which Enron Corporation was building its trading empire.

Four years earlier, the outgoing chair of the CFTC, a gung-ho de-regulator, pushed through a special lucrative exemption for the Enron Corporation. A few days later, she was appointed to the Enron board of directors. Her name: Wendy Gramm, wife of Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

1997: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposes banning investment of more than 10 percent of the total 401(k) plan in the employer's stock --the maximum that investment experts recommend a person sink into any one company. (If enacted, Boxer's proposal would have saved thousands of Enron's employees from their current dismal fate.)

The GOP Senate passes her bill, but waters it down so completely that it
doesn't apply to a single company in America!

1998-2000: Clinton Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Arthur Levitt proposes regulations to prohibit accounting firms from simultaneously serving as consultants and auditors. Arthur Andersen LLB and other giant accounting firms mount a massive lobbying campaign against the Clinton-Levitt regs, killing them. The lead lobbyist for the accounting firms is Harvey Pitt.

1999-2000: Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers proposes a crackdown on tax havens such as those used by Enron. His proposals are opposed and defeated by the GOP Congress. Later Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill opposes efforts by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to protect investors from tax havens.

May, 2001: George W. Bush appoints Harvey Pitt as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most Canadians see U.S. as a 'bully,' survey finds

Canadians have their backs up over American foreign policy, according to a new survey that shows the vast majority believe the United States is acting like a bully with the rest of the world.

Hey, Canada! I would like to apologize for Bush and his thugs. We know it's really the republicans you have issues with, not all Americans. Give us two more years and, if we haven't blown up the world, we'll boot the dumbasses out of office.

out...

Powell Blames Clinton For The Current North Korea Situation...

Do the reTHUGlicans have no shame? Do they not see what DUMBASSES they are? Spoken on a certain ABC Sunday morning talk show:

"Powell, however, said North Korea had restarted its nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, which the United States learned about last October.
'This program was not started during the Bush administration; it was started during the previous administration,' Powell said on ABC. 'We inherited this problem.'

Hello? I have just lost whatever respect I had for Colin Powell. Let's put the cards on the table concerning this North Korea situation, shall we?

- The NY Times Reported just last week that in July, American intelligence agencies tracked a Pakistani cargo aircraft as it landed at a North Korean airfield and took on a secret payload: ballistic missile parts, the chief export of North Korea's military. The shipment was brazen enough, in full view of American spy satellites. But intelligence officials who described the incident say even the mode of transport seemed a subtle slap at Washington: the Pakistani plane was an American-built C-130. Did this happen under Clinton's watch? Noooooo...

- The same NY Times article reported the White House (Bush) has ignored federal statutes that require President Bush to impose stiff economic penalties on any country involved in nuclear proliferation or, alternatively, to issue a public waiver of those penalties in the interest of national security. Mr. Bush last year removed penalties that were imposed on Pakistan after it set off a series of nuclear tests in 1998. Was it Clinton that removed the penalties from Pakistan, the country helping North Korea with their nukes? Noooooo....

- As reported by the BBC, Who gave North Korea $95m as part of an agreement to revise their nuclear program, which the US suspected was being misused, then waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors? Was it Clinton? Nooooo...

Why are you LYING Mr. Powell? Sure, the two nuclear reactors being built in North Korea have the potential to be used for manufacturing weapons, but their stated purpose is to provide a fuel source. Even so, why remove the inspectors who were put in place to prevent misuse?

Colin Powell is such a damn whore for Bush. Fortunately for us and him he'll only be sodomized by his dumbass boss for two more years.

As a side note on North Korea and the "Blame Clinton" irresponsible dumbasses...

General Wesley Clarke took a few phone calls from viewers on a CNN recently. Watch how one caller assumes Clinton is responsible for North Korea having nukes and then how Clarke smacks him down.

Caller: "When the U.S. signed the 1994 pact with North Korea, they gave them 2 water reactors as part of a deal. What role did those reactors have in allowing North Korea to produce their nukes?"

General Clarke: ""Absolutely nothing because the water reactors haven't even been produced. They haven't been built. Also, the [type of] reactors do not produce plutonium, which is needed to produce nukes"

PEOPLE! WE CANNOT ALLOW THE RIGHT TO TWIST THIS STORY INTO SOMETHINGIT ISN'T AS THEY HAVE DONE SOOOO MANY TIMES! IF YOU HEAR ANYONE SPOUTING THE "CLINTON'S FAULT" GARBAGE, CALL THEM ON IT!

This should interest everyone but especially those of you from New York!

Do you remember after 9/11 how Bush wrapped himself in the American flag and wallowed in his bloody new popularity? How he stood shoulder to shoulder with the NYFD and other fine people in New York and promised to help rebuild the city and restore its morale? Well, Bush just screwed ya! Yes he did! Raped your ass good. He pledged $21 billion to you but has only given $4.5 billion. If someone promised you 21 dollars but only gave you $4.50, wouldn't you be pissed? We're talking billions here - to rebuild building, schools, and lives. But he lied to you. Know why? Because you didn't vote for him! And you know what? Hundreds of millions of dollars in grants hat are available to NY are subject to federal taxes, a fact that both reduces the real value of that aid and discourages some from taking advantage of it. Many people also haven't been told that about a quarter of the total aid package — some $5.5 billion - will only be in the form of tax breaks NOT real dollars!

But why should you complain? He's already given everyone a tax deferrment and that should be good enough! But don't you worry! Once he slaughters everyone in Iraq and takes all the oil, you'll have cheap gas... not that you need it in NYC! more

Are Bush's REAL approval numbers being covered up?

Remember that scanned image from Time magazine showing Bush's 55% approval numbers from a Time/CNN poll I posted here Saturday? Those stats only appeared in the print edition of Time magazine. They never appeared online at either Time's website or CNN.com. Bush's low approval is being covered up on the internet! See for yourself. Scroll down to my Saturday update and see the Time magazine graphic of the CNN/Time poll, then go here and see how pollingreport.com has updated but has neglected to include the most recent CNN/Time poll. I'm waiting to see if pollingreport.com reps call me on this but I'm not holding my breath.



U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup... DUH!
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. more


Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam. Booty buddies?

From The Mailbag

Just a quick comment. EXCELLENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Made me feel good reading your website. You're certainly not lacking in the brain department. Very good reading. Keep up the good work.
- Paul

Slayer: Are you disappointed that Gore isn't running for a 2nd term? I would've voted for him again. He was great on talk shows,and he let me down by not running. Also, The deficit numbers are higher for Dumbya than reported in the graph because of a bad economy and the wars to come. Figure deficits approaching record levels for Dumbya, especially if he "wins"again.
-Brian

I'm not too disappointed Gore pulled out. I agree with his reasoning. I don't feel he let anyone down. And, of course, things are going to get A LOT worse with Dumbass Dubyah in office.

I'm outta here for Monday!!

It's Sunday. Last day of the NFL's regular season. Which means for my Atlanta Falcons to make the playoffs, they either have to win today or the Saints have to lose.

Hey! You know the oil that this war with Iraq is NOT about? Turkey gets 10% of it!

"The Turkish daily Sabah said yesterday that Turkey informed the US officially that it wants a share of the Iraqi oil at a rate of 10%, noting that in case that Washington approves the said request, Ankara will get a 5.5 billion dollars of the oil revenues annually." more

The question is will the greedy bastards in the White House give up that much?

Thanks to Barney Grumble for pointing out that story!

Oh, now THIS IS RICH!

How is Bush handling the political fallout of our current 6% unemployment rate? He wants to make sure you don't notice! The Bush adminstration will no longer issue a monthly report of mass layoffs! This carefully orchestrated action is designed to make the economy look healthier than it is by hiding some of the bad news. Read about it here

The next time some dumbass demands to know what Clinton did for the economy, hit 'em upstyle with these graphics! BOOM!








I've reached a startling conclusion about Matt Drudge! He's a tool for the DOP (dumbass ol' party). Oh, you knew that already? This is his latest headline: 'SEX ORGY SECRETS' OF THE BABY CLONE CULT REVEALED BY PAPER

OK! I have no problem with Drudge reporting about a sex orgy cult. I mean, damn, if I had to choose a religion I could only hope it would include activities like that! (apologies to my women readers. I am, afterall, a man. And If any of my republican family is reading, I'm really not a pervert - I'm just trying to be funny... so chill!)

However, what Drudge is doing with this story is trying to cast an even darker slant to something conservatives are already pissed about - cloning a human. See, Drudge knows that if you add an element of sex to anything, it will mobilize the fanatical reactionary right. So, if an individual or group is already doing something the republicans disagree with - oh, say, like getting legitimately elected President, eliminating the deficit, adding millions of jobs to the economy, etc. - adding a deviant sex slant will only piss off the conservative numb brains even more. I think you ALL get my point...

Terror War Tops Bush Re-Election Agenda

Well, well! An internal White House document outlining President Bush's re-election agenda starts with "War on terrorism (Con't)" and homeland security! DUH! Afterall, the war on terror sustained his approval ratings for over a year until the bad economy and that farce of a war in Iraq bit his ass. But homeland security? If I were a betting man I would say that was one of the factors that has made Bush's approval numbers tumble to 55%. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the document does not portend efforts to make terrorism a political centerpiece in 2004. But Dan? THAT IS ALL HE HAS! What? Is he going to make the economy the political centerpiece?

Anyway, the document is titled "Possible '04 Signature Issues." Other items were not listed but may include more money for the rich, death and destruction for the world, an official religion for the country, and relegating women and minorities BACK to second class citizen satus.

From The Mailbag!

What Welch didn't address in his commentary (Suffering Suffrage! by Daniel Patrick Welch from the Dec. 28th update) was the entire voting machine chicanery. There are only three companies making these machines, and all have been/still are involved with very questionable criminal activities.

You DO KNOW that the machines in Vegas are designed and PROGRAMMED to favor the house. Why would you not think that the politicians who order and use these
voting machines haven't designed and programmed them to favor "the house" so to speak.

Since there are no "paper trails" to follow, we just have to accept what these machines report. It would take a very small alteration, (hey, you guys know how computers
work!) to give the win to the 'favored son'.

Just think more oversight of the programming and software of these machines is necessary. As Welch says, WHY would people vote against their own best interest?
Maybe they're not.
- SB Tyger

I love your site! However, in your piece about Bush following Gore's advice, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek, I just wanted to point out that the real reason Bush dumped Paul O'neil was that Mr. O'Neil was beginning to see the laughable 'tax-cut stimulus' for the real joke it is. So he had to go get a new 'loyal subject' who wouldn't make the mistake of thinking on his own. Er, well just thinking for that matter ;) Anyway, keep up the great work! Someone has to hold the FMF's feet to the fire!!! (FYI FMF=Fascist Mother Fuckers formerly known as the GOP)
- Ken

I like your site but its too wide, very hard to read that way!
- Kim

Kim. The site is best viewed at a screen resolution of 1024 X 768. - Slayer

It was good to find your site thru Buzzflash. Thanks for what you're doing.
- Chuck

Cool site. btw, i wonder what ever happened to John Ritter. that former UN inspector - he sure disappeared. I wonder what's up with - anyway keep up the good work.
- Xander400

Are your referring to Scott Ritter? He just co-wrote a book with William Rivers Pitt on the faux Iraq War. Check it out here. - Slayer

Hey, man. We don't live in a democracy. Stop pretending otherwise. They stole the power and nothing short of insurrection is going to get it back. They own every branch of government (and if you think they actually won any of the elections since 1996, you probably also believe in Santy Claus); they own the media; they own the military; and of course they *are* industry. They're going to fuck the poor. They're going to jail the outspoken. They're going to rape the environment. They're going to cut the trees. They're going to destroy the remaining wilderness. They're going to foul the air, pollute the water, kill the fauna. And you know what? There's nothing you or any of us can do to stop them. They have...The Power. All of it. Every stinking iota. They orchestrated December 2000, 9-11, and the assassination of Paul Wellstone. They'll let you whine and whimper and moan so that they can lay claim to a "democracy" and a "free press". (Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.) Give it up. Face facts. There is but one option remaining. Show some guts and admit it.
- JRS


Here are my guts on full display. Our founding fathers gave us the power to remove the government by force if necessary. Armed revolution doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. It just might get a little sticky. - Slayer

More later. Maybe. If I'm not caught...

LONG update today...but worth it!

Bush's Over-inflated Blood Induced Approval Numbers Fall...American Public Wises Up!

This says it all...



WOW! From 90% approval to 55% approval! We all heard the media crow about how Georgie was shattering all presidential records for the highest approval numbers and for maintaining them the longest. Add the biggest DROP ever to that list of accomplishments! In about 15 months, our Resident and Thief has lost a whopping 35% of his approval. Tell me...if you owned stock in a company that lost 35% of its value, how long would it be before you unloaded it? But the number that is really telling is the one about Bush's "accomplishments. Only 35% of the American people give him credit for anything!

This, in contrast to our last elected President, Bill Clinton.



Look at #1. 68% approval the day he walked out of the White House! Check out #2. 73% approval rating the day after the repTHUGlican dumbasses tried to get him thrown out for getting a blowjob!

What does all this mean? Well, now Bush HAS to attack Iraq. Maybe even North Korea. He has to put on his cowboy hat and swagger around like John Wayne. He has to prove to the American people what a badass he reallly is! He has to get our sons, brothers, fathers, sisters, daughters, and mothers KILLED in a war to line his contributors' pockets with oil money and to get elected.

If you voted for Bush, you are a dumbass. If you're one of those people who didn't but you're saying you're glad Bush is here to handle this mess, YOU are dumbass, too.

When Al Gore Speaks, George Bush Listens!

You know, it must really be embarassing for Bush to concede points to Al Gore. After all, once Bush stole the election, he knew he could do everything HIS way. No more pesky Clinton and Gore! But wait! The pResident seems to have made some key policy decisions based on things Al Gore has said in recent months.

Flashback to Oct. 3 of this year. The media widely reported a speech by Gore in which he called for a short-term stimulus program that would include extended unemployment benefits “to jolt the U.S. economy out of stagnation.” He also suggested the replacement of some members of the Bush economic team. more

So, what did Bush do in December? He overhauled his economic team then reversed an earlier decision on unemployment benefits - just as Gore suggested! more

Now, Gore speaks again and again, Bush listens and... well... obeys! In Gore's book on the environment, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Gore predicted the end of the internal combustion engine, and our reliance on it. He suggested alternate fules like hydrogen. Of course, the dumbass oil addicted conservatives howled and laughed and slapped their knees in amusement! However, NPR is reporting a breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cells, which will lead to automobile engines that will break our dependency on oil... and the Bush Administration has begun pushing federal money toward groups research and development.

Gore was right. Again.

I Got This In My E-mail This Morning. It's definitely worth a read...

Suffering Suffrage!
Daniel Patrick Welch

Take a deep breath-or better yet, a stiff drink. Don't watch any news if it makes you too sick, and try to get plenty of fluids (hopefully of the aforementioned variety). But before succumbing to the war fever that is supposedly gripping the nation, take time to think a bit. I just read a piece on vote suppression by Joe Conason, and even though I feel sick I must admit it struck a chord. I've been mulling over some thoughts about this particular election, its ancestors and its progeny, and the GOP's penchant for vote suppression is as good a place to start as any.

'Challenging voters' under the guise of 'preventing fraud' is an old White Supremacy trick--and until Florida 2000, it was widely acknowledged as such. What the Democrats' cynical reaction to 2000 did was far worse than their short-term mindset could have imagined. It allowed the right wing to dress up this old racist scam just like David Duke tried to do with the Klan in Louisiana. The measured, lawyerly response allowed the slick, 'modern' argument about accuracy to become the new republican mantra--which hampers progressive efforts for years to come. What we rightly tried to do--and were discouraged from--is to make Jim Baker look like Bull Connor. God knows he fit the bill enough, with his puffy red face screaming into the cameras. Without exaggeration, he was basically 'Keepin the niggers down,' as Randy Newman might say.

The poster boy and the poster moment for reactionary resistance to voter reform was always Strom Thurmond's historic filibuster against the Voting Rights Act. Instead, it has been allowed to transform itself into a sort of Klansmanship Without Robes. Imagine John Ashcroft, a stone's throw from being a klansman himself, sending out monitors to 'make sure that every vote counts!' It is Bizarro World stuff, the The Big Lie run amok.

No, I'm not ranting here. I'm convinced this really is the crux of the matter. Those of us on the left all believe, more or less and to varying degrees, in some version of what we might call the SPM: Suppressed Progressive Majority. It's not a pipe dream or wishful thinking--common sense also dictates that the people shouldn't collectively vote consistently against their own interest. And yet elections yield far worse calamities than our failure to see this majority emerge in the U.S. Across Latin America, people have voted for their own killers time after time, in the grip of fear, bribery and the Big Lie. One of many nagging problems is that broader participation is anathema to incumbency on both the right and left. New voters, more work, uncertainty, and more money. Basically, it's just a big pain in the ass.

This is why no mainstream political force has pursued it aggressively with the exception of the Democrats in the Civil Rights era. White politicians, for the most part, were dragged to it kicking and screaming, but it was one of the party's finest hours. And the modern Knights of Reaction believe fervently that vote suppression is cheaper and more effective than expansion (as Joe Conason's insights show). Basically, reactionary forces have put up barriers to voting as quickly as others fall, from the Black Codes to Klan intimidation to Jim Crow to poll taxes to reading tests to loyalty oaths and Byzantine registration processes.

There is an unbroken historical link from slavery to the scrubbing of voter rolls in the name of accuracy and fraud prevention. Across the country, but most pervasively in the old Jim Crow South, restrictions on felons voting have continued this trend, with the more insidious form being a permanent loss of suffrage, even after convicts have served their time. A demographic footnote? Hardly. What this means is that, notably in something like nine states of the old Confederacy, upwards of 20% of black men are temporarily or permanently disenfranchised. Now, we may be accused of arrogance simply to assume that these potential souls 'belong' to the left or progressive majority. But the consistent targeting of this and other constituencies by the right certainly implies that they think so (such as those targeted by Bill Rehnquist in the nefarious Operation Eagle Eye in Arizona in the early 60's-and no, it didn't hurt his appointment as Chief Justice).

Playing off the poor white against black has of course also been an insidious historical trick, and another of slavery's distorting legacies. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the U.S. is the only major industrial democracy without a worker's party (why the hell not??) or serious popular front coalition, where racism hampered efforts time and again. But my point here is about structural barriers, and how the well funded right wing electoral project is able to magnify its perceived majority. Taking Tuesday's vote, for example, it would be unwise not to concede a victory for reaction. But perspective is always an important antidote to despair. The electorate, and more importantly a slim majority of that subelectorate that could be coaxed to vote, was scared to death, pure and simple.

Bucking demographic, historic and economic trends, this election result is an anomaly, an obvious, logical reaction to the fear instilled by the events of last September. It needn't have been so, and quite arguably wouldn't be without the fomenting of Bush and his henchmen storming the country shouting 'boo' at every turn, flat out lying about Iraq and al-Qaeda and bashing the U.N. It has been Halloween all year for this cabal, and it's only getting scarier. Before moving to Canada, consider that more sophisticated polling reveals that-surprise!--when people know the truth they are less stupid (not such an obvious fact for many of us on the morning after the elections). But a poll on Iraq which correlated people's awareness that there is no reliable evidence of a connection with al-Qaeda revealed that those who caught the lie oppose the war by a massive margin.

Feel just a little bit better? I thought you might. For a sweetener, add in the fact that Missouri was decided by 22,500 votes in a special election that wasn't even supposed to take place but for a plane crash that killed Jean Carnahan's husband two years ago. Speculating yet again, though the 2000 voting trends seem to give us ample room for it, Mel today would be serving out the last four years in a seat he wrested from John Ashcroft, not fighting for his political life in the wake of September 11 war fever.

Likewise, another plane crash might have altered the course of history, with the 55,000-vote margin that sank Mondale's seat in Minnesota (it's around 40,000 if you count the absentee votes for Wellstone. They were thrown out because no one can really be sure if those who bothered to vote early for Paul Wellstone wouldn't really have supported the republicans and their right wing agenda). Speculating yet again-isn't this fun?-we saw Wellstone pulling ahead before his untimely death. The obscenity of republicans in Minnesota spitting on his grave (repulsive, but effective) with their mock 'outrage' over his memorial service (which they charged was repulsive, but secretly envied as effective) was just the chest beating they needed to reenergize their base in the final days. [For the record, I told a Catholic priest to go to hell when he tried to tell me what I could say at my father's funeral, but maybe that's just me.] So what? No one can predict the weather, right? Well, okay, but I'm just saying….

Besides, I'm talking about structure, not climate. This isn't sour grapes, and I'm not just venting either. My point isn't that WE WUZ ROBBED. We IZ robbed, but in a much greater way than some touch screen fiasco in Florida. By the way, isn't anyone alarmed at the abolition of the paper ballot? My head almost exploded when I heard about this. But back to our friend, the Senate. The point is not just about vote counting, but the magnification of the result through the structural prism of our electoral system. All told, the republicans garnered about 1.6 million more votes for Senate candidates than Democrats. A three or four percent split. Hardly a whisper, I know-hey, I already admitted it was a reactionary night. But with those votes they scooped up 23 Senate seats to the Democrats' 10.

And, since it's structural, this phenomenon is not unique to this election. The Senate, itself a throwback to the belief that a barrier to direct democracy was necessary to calm the rabble-a sort of modified House-of-Lords type bulwark-is endemically prone to this thwarting of popular will. The very institution was conceived, in part, as a hedge by the slaveholding Southern states of the new republic against being overrun by the more populous north. This form of super-representation spread like a virus as new states entered the Union, compounded by the win/win compromise that allowed slavery's proponents to pimp off their chattel for representation without giving them the franchise.

And so it goes: everyone gets their two cents-or in this case, two Senators, from Wyoming to California. Except, of course, for the good people of DC, who perversely don't merit representation in this ponzi scheme because they allegedly have 50 Senators-and right in their own backyard, too! Ironically, in their attempt to fend off the potential bogeyman of Tyranny of the Majority, the (Slaveholding) Founding Fathers virtually ensured that this tyranny would be magnified beyond recognition, and that minority voices would never be heard.

The winner take all arrangement when the Senate moved to direct election, as well as the Electoral College, gives these overrepresented constituencies a Supervote that has ballooned with the growth of the republic. Again, who am I to deny this stacked deck advantage to the oppressed poor progressives of Montana and Wyoming? And how dare I automatically assume that our beloved SPM is concentrated in the underrepresented constituencies? Sue me-or consult the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Your choice. But whatever you do, don't grant true voting rights for DC. That would apparently just compound the problem (not to mention give the left two progressive black Senators).

What bears repeating is that Eleanor Holmes Norton garnered 113,000 votes, more than most of her (voting) House counterparts. Pundits who decry low black turnout have it backwards: the real story is why they bother to vote at all. The late Stephen Jay Gould, eminent natural historian, crusader against creationism, and spellbinding lecturer and writer, fascinated me with his penchant for explaining just about any phenomenon with a baseball analogy. Though an avid Red Sox fan as a kid, I have never taken sports that seriously as an adult. It's just a sport-you know? That's why it always surprises me that, in one realm, people would instinctively laugh you out of the room at the suggestion that Sox fans would pay just as close attention if their team isn't playing. Or root for the Yankees to win the World Series (hey, it's still OUR league, isn't it?) And yet black voters are supposed to be imbued with a sort of superhuman altruism in the voting game.

The amazing thing is that they still answer the call. In this game, without proportional representation (or in DC's case without any at all) it is completely impossible for minorities to get their cut without piggybacking off a majority winner. Not in a negotiated coalition for a share of control, of course, but only for the table scraps-which are getting less appetizing under the tyranny of the DLC. Maybe this explains why black voters are less prone to being picked off by third party candidacies than their liberal white counterparts. Being junior partners in a coalition is all they can ever squeeze out of this system. It's the same for other constituencies on the left, of course, but most don't quite realize how the winner-take-all scheme nullifies their vote.

And it is only by the bizarre gerrymandering of districts than any semblance of representation is maintained in the House-but of course this is neatly countered by the Supervotes already discussed. It seems like we've been here before, but the whole nut seems to come back to the fact that the Civil War is still unfinished business. Hey-don't blame me-I'm just a spectator. The undocumented aliens I descend from weren't in the country yet-and we weren't even considered white back then.

Yes, I've hear the reverent arguments about the wisdom of Tom Jefferson and his friends (though Sally Hemming might disagree, in hindsight). In a federated republic, the supermajority prevents fragmentation by giving a mandate to the True Majority. The one small problem is that True Majority only equals the true majority in times of enormous crisis, like the 1930's. And possibly the Great Opportunity of 1964 (later squandered on Johnson's War). At least those are the only times our SPM is able to punch through the Class Ceiling of American politics. The sad fact is that without structural change, the victories we long for will elude us.

Take your pick from a laundry list of options: statehood for DC, proportional voting, apportionment of seats, instant runoff voting, abolition of the electoral college, replacement of the Senate (sorry, Ted, sorry Strom)-not to mention sincere, rigorous enforcement and expansion of the Voting Rights Act. I'm not stupid or pie-eyed enough to suggest that this guarantees victory. But you just can't win without unrigging the game. These structural changes should be the among the top priorities of every progressive campaign from now until victory, first, because it's right (whew-glad we got that out of the way-and secondly, because it's a winning electoral strategy for the long term).

This is not the place to brag-well hey, screw it, why not brag? I'm proud of (most of) the political work I've done: from organizing, demonstrating, work in progressive campaigns, in Nicaragua, support for left causes, strikes, and so on.... But of all of it, I think one of my most radical accomplishments was a tiny little campaign a roommate and I ran on a dorm council in college. The council, whose meetings we almost never attended, was a direct democracy. There was no representation, and yet over the years the clique of members (whom we nastily and somewhat unfairly dubbed the Politburo) had instituted bylaws tying voting rights to various attendance requirements. 'What if the jocks brought a bunch of friends and raided the till by voting all the money for a party in their suite?' was a standard argument. Tough shit-bring your own clique-was our retort. Hey-it's either a direct democracy or a representative one. It can't be both a council and a club.

I know, it might be a silly anecdote. Voting is supposed to be serious business (like baseball). But the practice of democracy is simply not something people are exposed to-despite our lofty rhetoric-in their workplaces, homes, schools and institutions. People can call me a cockeyed optimist or romantic fool (for believing the SPM exists at all) or an insufferable downer (for believing that it will never emerge without structural change). But I still have a populist streak in me, and I do believe in the SPM. And I do believe that it will never emerge without structural change. Please-call me a cockeyed optimist.

© 2002 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted.

Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School.

OK! My Saturday update is a wrap!

I'm having dinner tonight with three friends from high school - two of them who I haven't seen in about 16 years. Should be interesting...

U.S. Revises Sex Information, and a Fight Goes On

Bush is censoring websites to make his anti-sex dumbasses happy! Check this out. The National Cancer Institute, which used to say on its Web site that the best studies showed "no association between abortion and breast cancer," now says the evidence is inconclusive.

The website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at one time said studies showed that education about condom use did not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity. That statement, which contradicts the view of "abstinence only" advocates, has been struck from a new version of that page.

Critics say those changes, far below the political radar screen, illustrate how the Bush administration can satisfy conservative constituents with relatively little exposure to the kind of attack that a legislative proposal or a White House statement would invite...

--snip--

Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the new statement on abortion and breast cancer "simply doesn't track the best available science."

"Scientific and medical misinformation jeopardizes peoples' lives," Ms. Feldt said, adding that any suggestion of a connection between abortion and cancer was "bogus."

--snip--

As for the disease control centers' fact sheet on condoms, the old version focused on the advantages of using them, while the new version puts more emphasis on the risk that such use may not prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and on the advantages of abstinence.

Posted on Dec. 2, the new version begins, in boldface: "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse...

--snip--

Read more for yourself here ... provided the page doesn't get revised!

The ReTHUGlicans Always Say: America - Love It Or Leave It. Too bad they won't take their own advice!

The south seems to be the powerbase of the Republican party these days and most dumbass southern conservatives think they have a monopoly on patriotism. Really, how many times have your heard them say "If'n you don't luv Amurica, then git the hell out!" They luv amurica so dayem much unless it gets put ahead of their true country - the good ol' Confederacy. Then America doesn't fare so well in their hearts and minds. For example, It seems the "America - love it or leave it" redneck nation is up in arms over a bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln and his son commissioned by the United States Historical Society that will be unveiled at the Civil War Visitor Center of the National Park Service in Richmond, Virginia.

Richmond, home to towering statues of Confederacy figures like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart, was abandoned after Union (American) forces attacked on April 2, 1865.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans see the Lincoln statue as "a slap in the face of a lot of brave men and women who went through four years of unbelievable hell fighting an invasion of Virginia led by President Lincoln," Said Brag Bowling, the SCV Virginia commander.

Wait a minute! One of the main reasons for the Civil War was to preserve the union of the United States - the country these Republicans claim to love so much. Lincoln led the United States in that endeavor. For that, among other things, Lincoln is a national hero. Republicans don't like him in the south, though, and for that they're hypocrits. Lincoln saved this country and they're whining about him being recognized in the south for it.

Hey southern conservatives, why do you hate America? If you don't like it here, leave!

Ha ha! Turning tables is fun!

Top Ten Ways to Tell if a conservative redneck freeper has been Working on Your Computer

1. The monitor is up on blocks
2. Outgoing faxes have tobacco stains on them
3. The six front keys have rotted out
4. The extra RAM slots have Dodge truck parts installed in them
5. The numeric keypad only goes up to six
6. The password is "Bubba"
7. There is a gun rack mounted on the CPU
8. There is a skoal can in the CD-ROM drive
9. The keyboard is camoflaged
10. The last website visited is freerepublic

Speaking of Southern conservatives ( a liberal buzzword for rednecks) Check out this psychic named Bubba. Go ahead, ask him if Georgis is bringing back the confederate flag.

UFO Cult claims first cloned baby!

A member of a cult that believes life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials claimed Friday to have produced the world's first human clone, a baby girl. The 7-pound (3.2-kilogram) baby was born Thursday by Caesarean section, said Brigitte Boisselier, a chemist and head of a company that did the experiment. She wouldn't say where the baby was born; she did say the birth was at 11:55 a.m. local time. Even before her news conference, other scientists expressed doubt that her group could clone a human. more...

I'm not completely sure I believe this. On the other hand, I'm all for genetic research, stem cell research, and all that. I might draw the line at cloning a baby for a couple that can't have their own kids. If this practice became routine, it would leave a lot of children who might otherwise get adopted hanging in the wind. Besides, why would I want a clone of myself for a baby? No way would I want to raise myself. I saw what my mamma went through when SHE raised me!

Call me wacked but extraterrestrials creating life on earth (as this cult believes) is more believable than them cloning a baby. Imagine, though, if other religious extremists did it. How would you feel about a Baptists cloning each other? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Top Talent Opposes Bush, War

Poor Dubyah! He reached out to Hollywood for their support in the war against terror and, after an initial period when the folks in tinseltown worked with the pResident, they're now slapping him in the face. There is a growing chorus of Hollywood celebs opposed to an American invasion of Iraq, which we all know has no relation to the war on terror.

The problem for Washington is that many Americans are starstruck, so when people like Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Robert Redford, and Ben Affleck take to the airwaves to blast the Bush administration hawks, people notice. Of course, the ReTHUGlicans howl about it but hey, these stars are Americans. They have the right to speak freely. And if bozos like Rush Limbaugh can spew pro-Bush trash to millions of Americans daily, what's wrong with Hollywood speaking out, too?

Just a word to conservatives reading this. Look for other entertainers, especially the ones who speak to our young people, to come out against your pResident. The next generation will be heavily female, minority, and liberal. Once performers like Eminem and Britney Spears start telling their fans to vote democrat, you guys are SCREWED!

Republicans Have ALWAYS Wanted Nuclear War To Show What BAD ASSES They Are!

Uh-oh! Bush screws us again! Did you know in April of this year, Bush released $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement on building the country's two new proliferation-proof nuclear reactors? Further, In releasing the funding, pResident Bush waived a requirement that would allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from their original reactors. Well, without those inspectors - and with that $95 million gift - North Korea HAS developed nuclear weapons! Read for yourself here.

Why are Republican presidents (and republicans in general) so fixated on nuclear bombs? Everytime you listen to a call-in show some republican redneck just has to say "we should bomb 'em back to the stone age!" They always say that and then they laugh as though they've said something witty, original, and profound. Dumbasses!

You might recall President Reagan making a stupid joke, saying "we start bombing in 5 minutes." Just a few weeks back, pResident Bush announced that the US would use nukes preemptively (meaning, oh, just because we feel like it!) And now, this little gem from the Washington Times on the Nixon years:

President Nixon ordered a worldwide secret nuclear alert in October 1969, calling his wartime tactic a "madman strategy" aimed at scaring the Soviets into forcing concessions from North Vietnam, declassified documents show.

Say...what if it HAD scared the Soviets...scared them so much they aimed and fired first? Just asking...

Of course, little Bushy's new policy of first strike nuke bombing may inspire China, India, Pakistan...

More BAD NEWS For the American Nazi Party

A CNN-"USA Today" Gallup poll asked African-Americans which party better shares your values. Seventy-four percent said Democrat, 6 percent said Republican.

The New York Times interviewed a handful of African-Americans at random recently. Here are a couple of quaotes:

African-Americn Moe Blackwell, 28, a Detroit clothier, said he believed most Republicans harbored views like Mr. Lott's. `He's just the only idiot in front of a camera that would say something like that,' Mr. Blackwell said."

Marvina Johnson, 32, an African-American health insurance coordinator, was even blunter. 'When you think Republicans,' she said, 'you think racist.'

So, whatcha think about this?

The "Houston Chronicle" reported Monday that in Texas, more than half of the cost of all the key state wide campaigns - $34 million in all - was paid by just 48 wealthy families. Not surprisingly the 48 Texans are fat cats coming from oil, gas, petrochemical, telecommunications and real estate fortunes. What is more, Bush's Republicans used that money to run campaigns that some thought were racially divisive.

Republicans dubbed the Democratic ticket led by Mexican American Tony Sanchez and African-American Ron Kirk "The racial quota ticket." They ran ads that accused Sanchez of being complicit in the kidnap, torture and murder of a federal drug agent despite the fact George W. Bush was so impressed with Sanchez's integrity he appointed him to a top job in state government. Some saw that ad as playing to racist stereotypes. Said one Republican if we can't take millions from special interests and run racially divisive adds, what is the point of being a Republican?

Paul Begala, telling it like it is...as usual!

More from Begala: What Liberal Media?

SUSAN MOLINARI, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMAN: I've not talked to Senator Lott. I think that... maybe he feels, as many of us do, that the media harps more on Republicans when they make mistakes and do silly things than when Democrats do.

BEGALA: Did you know that Clinton had a girlfriend and the media covered it up? They never mention that. I don't know if you all know in the audience, but he did. He had a girlfriend. Did the media ever bring that up?

HA HA! Only EVERY MINUTE of EVERY DAY! Thanks for nailing her, Paul! Imagine her calling Trent Lott's endorsement of lynching "silly." Kind of like someone calling Dahmer's killing spree a "youthful indescretion!"

So, now we've moved on to Bill Frist. Here are 10 things you might have missed about the new Nazi Majority Leader:

1. His connection to HCA, the scandal-plagued for-profit hospital
chain founded by his family
(http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/122102/usn_lottsteps.shtml)

2. The conflict of interest HCA presents when Frist deals with
Patients' Bill of Rights legislation.
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/850513.asp?0cv=KB20)

3. His attempt to deny a conflict of interest because his millions of
dollars of HCA stock are in a "blind trust."
(http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-ussucc213055585dec21,0,295590.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print)

4. After five years, HCA agreed to a settlement with the feds
regarding Medicare fraud.
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/850513.asp?0cv=KB20), just before Frist
entered the Majority Leader fray, and just before his brother, the HCA
Chairman, would have to submit to questioning.
(http://www.tennessean.com/business/archives/02/12/26668757.shtml?Element_ID=26668757)

5. His lauded trips to Africa to provide medical services are
sponsored by televangelist Franklin Graham
(http://www.oakridger.com/stories/031501/stt_0315010025.html), who has
repeatedly made anti-Muslim statements.
(http://news.christiansunite.com/religion/religion01323.shtml).

6. He was accused of racial prejudice when, as a Senate candidate, he
asked his staff to hand out unsharpened pencils at an event in a black
neighborhood because "I don’t want to get stuck."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/21/politics/21FRIS.html?pagewanted=print&position=top)

7. He worked to shield Eli Lilly from lawsuits as part of the homeland
security bill.
(http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-ussucc213055585dec21,0,295590.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print)

8. He was a leading figure in the failed legislative fight to gut the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
(http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/30/finance/print.html)

9. A top House Dem has called for a formal inquiry into voter
intimidation allegations leveled at the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, which was led by Frist this year.
(http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/122102/usn_lottsteps.shtml)

10. As a med school student, he falsely obtained stray cats to kill in
medical experiments.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20079-2002Dec20.html)

Just thought you'd like to know...

Well, now, look at this:

White House Aides Push for 50% Cut in Dividend Taxes

"White House officials are urging President Bush to propose cutting taxes on corporate dividends for shareholders by about half, according to administration officials and Republicans close to the White House. While many economists think it would do little to bolster the economy quickly, they say the proposal would give a boost to the stock market.

The 50 percent cut would cost the Treasury more than $100 billion over 10 years, and the tax benefits would overwhelmingly flow to the nation's very wealthiest taxpayers."

That from the New York Times.

WOW! Bush wants to give $100 billion to the wealthiest one percent! Who would have thunk it! As my friend Pete Hisey wrote, in his letter to the New York Times:

We are now deeply in debt, a Republican disease, meant to defund any and all social programs. This gives them cover to say, "we can't afford it." Meanwhile, the idle rich are sucking up money they neither deserve nor can ever spend. This is class war, pure and simple. It is meant solely to further impoverish the poor, who will then accept whatever wages they can find. The Clinton years, with full employment and employers begging for workers, scared them (the Republicans) half to death. Paying down the nation's debt, the greatest and fairest tax cut of all, terrified them. Enough. If we can back an unconstitutional "revolution" in Venezuela, I think it is high time we think about cutting our unelected "president's" term short and send him back to Texas.

Gee, Pete! Wasn't that $300. tax deferrment you got last year enough to shut you up? Of course, I'm being sarcastic.

I'm all for cutting little Bushy's term short but I'd rather send him to prison. Now be honest, people, wouldn't you rather have peace, a striving economy, low unemployment, and a president that screws an intern than war, recession, record unemployment, and a president that screws the country?

Bush is such a dumbass. Say it with me, B U S H I S S U C H A D U M B A S S.

Isn't Matt Drudge an idiot?

If you're not familiar with Matt Drudge, he runs a rightwing website that is very influential in the world of rightwing politics. He hammered the Clinton blowjob story so damn hard until most of the Republicans in this country realized they'd never had one themselves and boy were they pissed! Drudge played a role in pResident Bush stealing the White House. He helped put us in this mess. And he has the nerve to lead off his site today with a picture of the Pope praying for peace? Matt Drudge, folks like you don't want peace. Peace isn't good for business. Plus, war helps Bush keep his popularity numbers. YOU are pro-war and you want us to pray for peace?

This bears repeating, Mr. Drudge. I don't expect you to put this on your site: According to the recent issue of TIME Magazine, Bush's job approval rating is down to 55%, with a disapproval rating of 37%. Do you realize that that is is almost 20 points LOWER than Bill Clinton's numbers the day AFTER his impeachment?

2004. 2004...tick...tick...tick...

Holiday sales may be worst in 32 years

Retail stocks came under pressure Tuesday following reports of weaker-than-expected sales, with retailers poised to chalk up their worst holiday sales performance in 32 years! Well, duh! With people concerned about finding a job, keeping a job, and getting their asses killed in Bush's oil wars, why would anyone want to go shopping?

I have an acquaintance whose favorite line is "Better than Clinton." She was taught to say that and really has no idea why she feels that way. Perhaps if she saw the stats, she'd change her mind. A comparison of Bush's inauguration day and now:

Well, what do ya know? Wife had some last minute Xmas shopping to do which freed up a little time for me to update.

As the fake christians in the Republican party are singing "Let There Be Peace On Earth," I think a quick look at the headlines this morning is in order:

NORTH KOREA THREATENS TO 'DESTROY WORLD'...

Defense chief vows to punish 'U.S. hawks'...

Rumsfeld warns: U.S. can wage two wars at once...

Meanwhile over in freeperville, the online hangout for good little conservatives, we're getting this:

As long as they hit San Francisco and New York City first, then I suppose it won't matter. We can probably get the votes to install the thing after all the liberals are barbequed

On the subject on North Korea, don't forget how this who nuclear comedy started.

From the NY TIMES:

Last July, American intelligence agencies tracked a Pakistani cargo aircraft as it landed at a North Korean airfield and took on a secret payload: ballistic missile parts, the chief export of North Korea's military.

The shipment was brazen enough, in full view of American spy satellites. But intelligence officials who described the incident say even the mode of transport seemed a subtle slap at Washington: the Pakistani plane was an American-built C-130.

It was part of the military force that President Pervez Musharraf had told President Bush last year would be devoted to hunting down the terrorists of Al Qaeda, one reason the administration was hailing its new cooperation with a country that only a year before it had labeled a rogue state.

--snip--

So far, the White House (Bush) has ignored federal statutes that require President Bush to impose stiff economic penalties on any country involved in nuclear proliferation or, alternatively, to issue a public waiver of those penalties in the interest of national security. Mr. Bush last year removed penalties that were imposed on Pakistan after it set off a series of nuclear tests in 1998.(!!!!)

THANKS, MR. BUSH!

Perhaps real Christians should be praying you lose BIG in 2004!

Merry Christmas!

This is my Christmas Eve edition. I know it's dated Dec. 23 but I may not be around tomorrow. So, this is what you get!

Christmas came early to some courtesy of pResident bush

President Bush pardoned seven Americans Monday for an array of mostly minor offenses, from a Mississippi man who tampered with a car odometer to a postal employee who stole $10.90 worth of mail.

They were the first pardons of his administration.

Bush also pardoned a Tennessee man sentenced in 1962 for making untaxed whiskey; an Oregon man convicted in 1966 in a grain-theft conspiracy; an Iowa man sentenced in 1989 for lying to the Social Security Administration; a Washington state man sentenced in 1972 for stealing $38,000 worth of copper wire; and a Wisconsin minister who refused to be inducted into the military, sentenced in 1957.

You know what? Stealing $38,000 worth of anything is a felony. So is stealing mail. Tampering with a car odometer is fraud. And the minister? Why didn't he just get inducted then go AWOL like Bush himself did?

Yeah, I know, all Presidents make dubious pardons and I have a feeling Dubyah's just getting started. However, We've heard so much noise from the reactionary rightwing about the pardons Bill Clinton (our last elected president) made I've just got to ask: Where was the outrage when George Bush the First pardoned a Watergate felon, a Cuban exile terrorist and a Pakistani heroin dealer?

The very first G.H.W. Bush's presidency went to Armand Hammer, an oilman known for hanging out with Soviet leaders dating way back back to Lenin. Hammer had pleaded guilty in 1975 to laundering $54,000 in illicit contributions to Nixon's reelection war chest. Hammer finally got his pardon in 1989 after he contibuted well over $100,000 into Republican Party coffers, and another $100,000 into the accounts of the Bush-Quayle Inaugural committee. Hmmm....

Also in 1989, a few Cuban-Americans began bugging Bush to pardon Orlando Bosch, a man who American intelligence and law enforcement authorities firmly believed was responsible for the 1976 explosion that brought down a Cuban airliner, killing all 76 civilians aboard. He was also tied to several other bombings.

Leading Republican contributors and politicians lobbied Bush to pardon him - labeling him a freedom fighter - because he was anti-castro. The FBI, however, said he "repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death."

And speaking of "freedom fighters" (a Republican word for a terrorist who fights on their side), what about his Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of Weinberger and the other Iran-Contra defendants? This crew was responsible for the illegal arms for hostages crap Ronald Reagon enacted - then lied about.

On Jan. 18, 1993, the president released Aslam Adam from Butner federal prison in North Carolina. He was a Pakistani national serving a 55-year sentence for smuggling $1.5 million worth of heroin into the United States.

So when some monkey howler dumbass starts whining about the Clinton pardons, remind them Bush the First's were much worse. Then consider those serving time for minor offenses who don't have the money or political clout to buy a Pardon from the current Bush.

Call Me Conspiracy Minded...

I'm a frequent visitor to pollingreport.com so I can follow public opinion on Bush, issues and such. I'd noticed that the site had not updated in over a week. Hmmm....could something be amiss here? Do they not want the public to see the latest Bush approval numbers?

Further, I've see no new Bush job performance polls on the news sites like CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.

Have they been "discouraged" from posting them or even taking them? or am I just paranoid that the Republicans are hiding something?

Now! Check THIS out! According to the recent issue of TIME Magazine, Bush's job approval rating is down to 55%, with a disapproval rating of 37%. These are levels that haven't been seen since Summer, 2001. The media, of course, hasn't called much attention to them. The numbers are only in the print edition of TIME. CNN hasn't mentioned them. They can't be found online.

Some more from TIME/CNN Poll:

"Do you think Bush is a leader you can trust, or do you have doubts and reservations?"
Trust: 50%
Doubts: 48%

"In your view, have Bush's accomplishments in office been mainly because of his team of advisers?"
Mainly because of advisers: 55%
Would have them regardless: 35%

So, is the American public finally catching on to what a MORON Bush is? 55%! Remember, Clinton's numbers were 68% the day after his impeachment and 63% the day he left office!

Oops! Time to invade Iraq! What? North Korea, too. GOT...TO...DIVERT...ATTENTION...FROM...

Thanks to Snellius over at Democratic Underground for this!

CNN Catching on to the Bill Frist/Abortion Story

Paul Begala on Crossfire just mentioned it. Now, how about all the political bribes Frist has taken from pharmacuetical groups...c'mon...

More Republican Racism...

See if you can guess who this is...

When he was a U.S. senator from Missouri, he praised Rebel leaders of the Civil War in the pro-Confederate Southern Partisan magazine, accepted a diploma from the racially discriminatory Bob Jones University and met with a leader of the white-supremacist Council of Concerned Citizens.

He led a protracted fight against a federal court's school desegregation order and had a voting record during his 1994-2000 Senate term that mirrored that of Trent Lott and other conservatives.

In 1998, he gave an interview in 1998 to Southern Partisan magazine, saying he and others need to do more to "set the record straight” on the Confederacy.

"You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like Lee, Jackson, Davis,” He said. "We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we will be taught that these people were giving their lives, ascribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda.”

The man is... Attorney General John Ashcroft. Oh, and that "perverted agenda" was the abolition of slavery.

Vote Democrat in 2004!

Or you'll be...a...dumbass!

Democrats could win by 3 million votes in 2004

On Sunday's "Meet The Press" on NBC, Tim Russert, quoting pResident Bush's own personal pollster, said by 2004 the dynamics of the country will favor the democrats largly due to minorities.

Of course, most Republican and Democtatic pollsters already know this which is why the Republicans wanted Lott out so quickly. Don't need Lott confirming what Black voters already suspect - that the Republicans are a bunch of racist redneck dumbasses.

If you want to read more about the country's current voting trends, I recommend this book:

The Emerging Democratic Majority
by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira

A few points on this book from Amazon.com:

"[the authors] argue that, if current demographic and political trends continue, a new realignment of political power is inevitable... sweeping Democrats to power. In support of their thesis they argue that the electorate is becoming increasingly diverse, with growing Asian, Hispanic and African-American populations-all groups that tend to vote Democratic. On the other hand, the number of white Americans, the voting population most likely to favor Republicans, remains static. Further, according to the authors, America's transition from an industrial to a postindustrial economy is also producing voters who trend strongly Democratic."

And...

"Don't let the results of the past election fool you! The on-going changes in American society that are laid out in this book all point toward great opportunities for Democrats. The book shows with clear examples and stats to back it up why a Democratic Majority really is emerging."

And...

"With a great deal of insight and nearly zero partisan rhetoric, Judis and Teixeira (how DO you pronounce that?) offer an easy to read political primer about how social and economic cycles fit in with political cycles... I found myself convinced that the authors know what is going to happen next in American politics..the conclusion: the Democratic party will emerge as a new majority by the end of the decade."

Bush Commissions Study To Measure Porn's Effects on Female Sexual Arousal!

From The Washington Times:

"A federally funded study has paid women as much as $75 to watch pornographic videos to determine "what types of audiovisual erotica women find sexually arousing...

Women participating in the $147,000 study at Northwestern University — funded through the federal National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) — were paid to "watch a series of commercially available film clips, some of which will be sexually explicit, while we monitor your body's sexual arousal," according to a flyer seeking volunteers for the study...

The two-year study began in September 2001 and is intended to "assess the subjective and genital arousal of 180 lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women as they watch erotic video clips of lesbian, gay, or heterosexual interactions," primary researcher J. Michael Bailey explained in a description of the project..."

See? It started in 2001! Who was President in 2001? Could it be...hmmmm...George W. Bush? He is such a pervert! My GOD! The threat to famiy values this man poses is unbelievable! He...he...hey, wait a minute! I know Bush had nothing to do with this. But if this had been done during Clinton's term, the Howler Monkey Ditto Head Dumbasses would have been screaming for Clinton's head on a platter! See, there is another difference between liberals and conservatives. If a dog shit in their yard between 1993 and 2001 they blame Clinton for it.

Besides, I think it's a pretty cool study. I wish I could be there to watch. See? There's another differnce between liberals and conservatives. Our sexuality isn't supressed!

By the way, I'm conducting a similar study at my house...

Bush Is NOT Time's Person Of The Year! And the Howler Monkey Ditto Head Dumbasses are PISSED!

I don't know what the conservatives are more upset about - that Bush didn't win or that three women did! Cynthia Cooper, Coleen Rowley and Sherron Watkins took huge professional and personal risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at WorldCom, Enron and Bush's FBI. Interesting that all three helped put black marks on Bush's administration. Now Bush has to prove what big balls he has (plus he has to help the public forget Enron, Worldcom, and his failings on 9/11) by making war on Iraq.

Oh well, 2004 can't get here soon enough, can it?

The Republicans are desparate, THAT'S for sure!

So Trent Lott is a racist. OK, we'll make sure he no longer speaks for the racist Republican senate majority. He'll now just speak for the republican redneck racists from Mississippi. But we'll get you politically correct liberals! Yesiree! We'll get ya! We'll find something to embarass you, too! Hmmm....how about this... Democrat Patty Murry says the reason so many Islamic countries love Usama Bin Laden is because he helps the poor people of those countries and If we did that, they'd love us, too! See! Look! She's unpatriotic! She's a...a...a MUSLIM LOVER! No wait...that doesn't really have a bite, does it? Hmmm....Uh oh! How about this! Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is a former KKK member! And get this! He is playing a confederate general in a new movie! See? See? Democrats are racists, too! What? Everyone already knew Byrd was a former KKK member who renounced that organization years ago? What? Playing a something in a movie doesn't make you that something? You mean Tim Allen isn't really Santa Clause? Well, damn...I guess we'll have to find something else to get you slippery liberals on...but you just wait...

The GOP should be GOD - Grand Old Dumbasses!

So, anyway, I'm having this ongoing debate with a monkey howler. Here is his latest:

You are a total reprobate and a waste of time.
Like I said earlier you constantly lie. Do you even know the difference between the truth and your lies or are you pathological?

I have enjoyed my studies for the last 3 months as a result of our dialog. I will bet you haven't once cracked a Bible nor studied anything about Christianity. Too bad it is your loss. Although it is typical of lawyers they know all. Get down on your knees and pray that you will be pulled out of your reverie. However, I think that you are a goner and your heart has been hardened and sealed off.

Hey dumbass - did the facts get in your way when you were presenting your case? All I want is for you to give me one fact. NOT an opinion. NOT a scripture. A documented fact. C'mon. Pleeeeeze!

Debating with conservatives is entertaining and downright funny!

I get LOTS of e-mail from well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) conservatives who's mission in life is to put me in my place. Consider the following exchanges:

Dumbass: Since we started our lovely communication I have been hard at work reading and studying politics. What I find hilarious about the 2000 election is that even though the Supreme Court of this country is terribly liberal, they still sided against Gore. No matter how you cut it that has to bother you.

Slayer: Ha ha. Now THAT'S FUNNY! 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans including three by Ronald Reagan and two by Bush the first. You cracked me up by calling them liberal. Plus, only five sided against Gore - four did not. You must think they're "terribly liberal" because they won't hear 2nd amendment cases nor overturn roe v. wade.

watch how he evades his statement about the Supreme court being liberal then really steps in it. What a dumbass!

Dumbass: Ronald Reagan was a former democrat!

Slayer: Yes, he bolted the Democratic party when they became the party of civil rights. Into the racist arms of the Republicans!

Dumbass: Bush was too liberal for my liking so what is your point?

Slayer: Well, my first point now is that it doesn't matter whether he was too liberal for YOUR liking, does it? He was backed by the Christian Coalition and appointed two of the Supreme Court's most conservative judges. When YOU become the judge of who is too liberal in this country I'm sure we'll all shake in our boots! HA HA!

Whatta DUMBASS!

I'm sure I'll hear from him again. They just don't give up. They'll continue to change the subject until they find something they can declare some manner of victory on. It usually goes something like this...

Bush is a member of the NRA. The NRA has hunters in it. It takes great skill to be a hunter just like it does to be president. So Bush is a great President!

Brightboy, what about the 6% unemployment rate (inlcuding 11% among blacks) - the highest since your daddy's time? SILENCE...
Dumbass, let's talk about the new homeless figures which puts the homeless rates at the Reagan-era levels... SILENCE...

Then..the great conservative speaks..."Well Clinton got a blowjob!"

Dumbass. YOU could use a blowjob!

So Frist is the choice to replace Lott?

If the ReTHUGlicans are looking for one of their own (and I mean that in the unkindest of ways) they couldn't have done better than Bill Frist.

Frist is a surgeon and, from what I understand, a fine one. In fact, he has spent portions of his congressional vacations performing free surgeries all over Africa, sometimes under flashlights. Someone better not tell him that that is a very liberal thing he is doing lest he stop.

Despite his liberal practices as a doctor, Frist possesses many qualities that Republicans look for in their political leadership positions.

For example, Frist engineered the Republican's recapture of the Senate last month by raising more than $100 million, portions of which were used on a racially tinged ad campaign against Southern Democrats and their opposition to the display of the Confederate flag. RACISM!

His father, Thomas Frist Sr., was a cardiologist and founder of the Hospital Corp. of America, now known as HCA, the nation's largest chain of for-profit hospitals. His Senate financial disclosure forms indicate that he, his wife and children hold millions of dollars in HCA stock. After a lengthy federal investigation in 2000, HCA was found guilty of large-scale Medicare fraud, and agreed to pay more than $880 million in fines and restitution. CORPORATE SCANDAL!

Did I mention the hospitals perform abortions on demand? HYPOCRISY!

And during his time in the Senate he has accepted more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from health care and related industries, yet refuses to recuse himself from health care legislation.

But wait! It gets better! He adopted stray cats from Boston-area shelters -- and then dissected them. Frist later confessed that it had been "a heinous and dishonest thing to do."

With a consistent conservative voting record, Frist been mentioned as a possible secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security, a future party leader in the Senate, even Bush's running mate in 2004. It is looking like Frist is Bush's hand-picked replacement for lot.

A dumbass picked by a dumbass for a dumbass political party.

See ya!

OK! I'm new to this blog thing. People kept pressuring me to get one so here it is. I hope you find it useful in your dealings with right wing loons you encounter in your daily life!

Trent Lott's Potential Replacement Profits From Abortions!

Oh my! Being pro-choice myself, I don't see the big deal. But here is a few quotes from an article:

Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), reportedly the White House choice to succeed Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) as Senate majority leader, is a major shareholder in HCA, a for-profit hospital chain founded by his father and brother. HCA reportedly provides abortions to its customers.

So now Republicans face this question: If it is disqualifying for their Senate leader to make offensive remarks interpreted as endorsing an immoral policy that denied African-Americans equal rights, is it also disqualifying for their Senate leader to make money from a hospital chain that denies unborn babies the right to life?



The hypocrisy of the Republican party is astounding, no? I took a trip over to freeperville (a quaint little pulpit for raving conservative loons) just to see their spin on this.
The Old Hoosier had this to say: "My next door neighbor has a sister that knew a girl who had an abortion. I guess I shouldn't hope to be majority leader either."

Old Hoosier, you shouldn't hope to be majority leader because you're a dumbass! You're not making money from the next door neighbor who has a sister that knew a girl who had an abortion while claiming to be anti-choice. And did I mention you're a dumbass?

...and speaking of Trent Lott, let's make one thing perfectly clear...he' s a racist. Don't fool yourself into thinking he's not. Though I feel what Lott said was dead wrong, why is there no similar uproar over one of the GOP's biggest racist, Ronald Reagan?

Reagan, taking cues from Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, perfected the technique of using racial code messages to attract blue collar and Southern white voters to the Republican party. He was an expert at exploiting white anger and resentment.

Among other notable examples, who can forget Reagan's attempt to reverse a policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University?

How do we repay Saint Reagan? We name an aircraft carrier after him!

...BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...

Quick question before I wrap up for the day. Does everyone know what I mean by my reference to BIG BROTHER? If you don't, either you or your highschool English teachers are dumbasses!

Check out this from the Washington Times:

" The Metropolitan Police Department will activate surveillance cameras next month along city streets for the first time since city officials passed new legislation. Department officials made the announcement yesterday on their Web site, stating they would activate the network of 14 cameras and install more to monitor the International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, or ANSWER, march from Jan. 17 to 19 and the D.C. March for Life on Jan. 22."

So, lemme get this straight. Washington, DC - one of the most crime ridden cities in America - has these super snooper public cameras to watch folks on the street with. Have they used them in the evenings to perhaps stop a few muggings, car jackings, rapes, or murders? Nooooooo... they're going to use them to monitor peaceful protests against war and racism. Does George W. Bush and John ASScroft get a live feed in the white house? Just asking...