Category: Political

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I wanted to get that out of the way, to establish a tone if you will. I mistakenly signed up for something on a Kucinich site a long time ago and have been spammed consistently ever since with fund raising pleas and other support noises for this particular Democratic candidate.

I respected Kucinich for being one of the few congress people to vote against the war in Iraq, but the more I hear from him the less my respect grows because he wasn’t against the war in Iraq specifically – he was following a leftist agenda that’s as old, and yes, as stale, as a moth-eaten pair of bell bottom Navy jeans.

I have news: Kucinich hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination. Even if he did, I wouldn’t vote for him, as he believes we should just pull out of Iraq, right now, leaving the country to disintegrate as it will. Oh yes, under the UN, and I imagine we’ll leave some money on the dressar as we go, but by gol, we’ll bring out imperialist butt home and promise to be good.

We started this war. We didn’t want it, but we got it. We can’t just leave right now and have someone else clean things up. Kucinich is so two-dimensionally liberal, why bother listening to him speak? Just create a “Leftist” Ken doll with a string that when pulled, plays:

“Hi, I’m Dennis Kucinich. Want to be my friend?”

Oh I know he’s a good man, and he cares. I admire his putting the links to the Diebol tapes up on his Congressional web site. I admire him advocating that voting machine code should be open source and available to one and all, just like the code controlling the comments to this weblog. Howver, this essay isn’t about Kucinich, title notwithstanding. Or only about Kucinich. This is about assumptions and stereotypes, cookie cutter liberals and molded conservatives.

Just when you make assumptions about the American people, any people really, they have a tea party and you know you’re in trouble.

I’ve noticed with Kucinich supporters that they have an assumption that those who disagree with them are either right wing conservatives, usually with a lot of money, poorly educated racist whites in southern states, or Democrats selling out for power. Otherwise, you wouldn’t disagree. How could you? The man’s voice rings out so clear on all these issues. You know exactly where he’ll stand on any of them without even having to ask him. What’s not to love about the perfect ideologically left candidate?

Recently Jeff Alworth at Open Source Politics wrote a story about gay marriage and courage based on the recent Massachusetts high court ruling. Extracting key exerpts from Jeff’s writing (and yes, out of context – go read the whole thing if you want to double-check my use of the quotes):

The Democrats have had a fairly easy go in ‘03. Bush’s policies are corrupt, unjust, or incompetently-executed; Republicans in the House and Senate have been so partisan they’ve done everything but call the cops on the Dems. Oh, sorry, they’ve even done that. So staking out territory hasn’t been fraught with much in the way of ideological confusion.
…
At Open Source Politics we’re doing our best to be Democratically impartial. But this is one of those issues where the rubber meets the road for me. If candidates do the math before taking a stand on an unpopular issue, I think we have to call them on it – particularly if it’s a failure to protect the civil rights of a small minority.
…
What we need in response is someone with the courage to stand up for the rights of all Americans, however few, and also to stand up to Republicans who play the game of wedge politics. This election’s going to be about courage. We should be happy Massachusetts ruled on this; it gave us a chance to see into the hearts of the candidates. Lions or lambs – you be the judge.

Leaving aside the outrageous assumption that we Democrats or Liberals or what have you have not had to face some pretty serious ideological dilemmas this year, Jay boils this race down into the most simplistic of terms – we expect our candidates to demonstrate courage, and if they don’t, we’ll call ‘em on this. More, in comments to the post, Natalie Davis writes:

Do you think it is right and just to deny equality – LEGAL EQUALITY – to anyone for politics or any other reason? Do you feel OK with asking people to table their fight for equality – to continue to do without the basic equality too many hets take for granted each and every day – for the sake of elections or politics or expediency or the superiority (ha) of the Democratic Party or for any other reason? If so, all I can say is … wow. And weep.

Bottom line: I will not vote for any candidate who does not support my legal equality. Period. Any candidate who does not support the equality of all her or his potential constituents is, IMO, not fit to serve in a land that claims (mendaciously, alas) that everyone is equal. If that makes me a one-issue voter, so be it. This one issue happens to be so damned massive that it dwarfs all others.

Herein lies the heart of those dilemmas that Jay blithly assumes we’ve only just now had to face. Herein is when one person’s courage is another’s cowardice, and when stereotypes are going to bust apart into little bits and my greatest fear is that the only one left standing at the end will be George W Bush.

I have gays who are friends, and I have gay readers who I cherish and respect, so it becomes extremely sorrowful for me to have to say that the Massachusetts ruling this last week on gay marriage was about the worst thing that can happen at this time. I know that I’m going to be universally ostracized from the ranks of the True Liberals for making this statement.

I wrote in comments:

Natalie, I agree that Gays should have all the rights that Straights have. And they’re not going to get them. This Massachusetts ruling will about guarantee it.

I can’t think of any act more likely to get a constitutional amendment passed specifically stating that marriage is for straights only, than seeing two guys or two women walking down the aisle in Mass, getting legally married.

This decision coming at a time when all three seats of government are ruled by conservative, religious, Republicans is about the worst thing that can happen for my gay friends. Just type “constitutional amendment” into Google news and read the story.

Here’s a scenario: Let’s say Dean wins the nomination. Dean supports civil unions, but he won’t come out and support gay marriage. Tell me: if someone like Dean doesn’t support your concept of complete equality, Natalie, and your concept of courage, Jeff, what are you both going to do? Vote the Green Party? Kenneth’s demographics and projections will probably say Yes.

Might as well hand the country to Bush with a bow and say, party down son. We’re sticking with our principles.

I’ve supported full rights for gays for years, but I can’t this year at all costs – not when issues of this nature threaten to tear apart whatever fragile alliance of voters must exist in order to insure Bush is not re-elected. In comments another person, Kenneth, states that elections are not based on issues in this country, but make no mistake – I see the upcoming election as being nothing but an issues-based election. And the more issues such as gay marriage that arise, the more we risk having Bush for four more years.

I have one and only one goal in this upcoming election – to do whatever I can to insure that Bush and his cabinet is not handed an unfettered four more years in office. To me a Bush unconstrained by worries of re-election is a thought too horrible to behold. I will sacrifice anything to achieve his losing the presidency, including the respect of people like Jay or Elaine, with their demanding and finite and constricted ideologies, or worse: the friendships of my gay acquaintenances who are hurt by my words.

So don’t put me into one cookie cutter or another and think that I’ll link hands with my liberal brothers and sisters and sing around the campfires of left goodness, assuming that my decisions are so simple and clear-cut that I don’t struggle with moral delimmas daily in my quest to see Bush dethroned.

And would someone please stop pulling that Kucinich’s doll’s string? It’s beginning to annoy me.

(Thanks to David W for link to Copyfight for link to the links to the memos. I guess Dan Gillmor’s also linked the page that links the pages. A bit surprised, though, that none of you didn’t test the links first before you wrote that they were posted on Kucinich’s server. Too bad we don’t have the semantic web – it would have checked for you.)

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I only show comments on recent posts in my sidebar, but I may change because I’ve been getting a lot of interesting comments on older posts lately. I think the pickup drivers who have a confederate flag in the back of their trucks have discovered weblogging.

For instance, in Ladylike Behavior, a post that talked about Jessica Lynch, among other female warriors, a writer named Erin wrote:

She got caught !!!!!!!!!
What about the men and women that died fighting for their country…..?????????? Where is their movie?? What about their families..She is going home..they aren’t..What’s so special about her ??????
That’s what I’d like to know…………She goes home, writes a book, makes a movie, must be nice.
Let her be the one to let the parents or loved one be told someone has died..Is she brave enough to do that ?? I doubt it !!!!

I don’t think many of us are brave enough to face a mother or husband or daughter and tell them someone they love isn’t coming home because we just had to go to Iraq this year. I mean, if our President and Vice-President and Secretary of Defense can’t face them, how can we?

But look – Jessica did come home after shooting her way past the evil Iraqi and being rescued from the evil Iraqi. Oh wait a sec – wrong script.

Then in Dixie Land, the post about the Confederate Flag pickup driving good ole southern hicks, anonymous writes:

Yeah, Dan that stat about the Klan membership in Connecticut is accurate (in fact, at one point during the peak of the Klan’s power, CT actually had the second highest rate of Klan membership). There is intense division and tension in CT between the urban and the rural areas. Also, in CT there has been a long history and pattern of extremely violent and cowardly black on white crimes. For your continued edification on the matter: most recently a young, white female who was a graduate student at the University of New Haven was dragged out of her car at an intersection one night by four “African-Americans”, whereupon they proceeded to a)kidnap her, b)gang-rape her, c) beat her to the brink of death, and d)leave her bloodied body laying in the woods for dead. Now I know Dan Rather didn’t tell you about that one, and I know there are no MTV sponsored candle-light vigils for the victim (because, hell, she’s only white–it’s not like she’s gay or hispanic or something where we could pin an “ism” on the savage animals), but rest assured, that incident is only one of many, many crimes like that which have been committed in CT by our “African-American” community. As usual, the local news would not call it a hate crime, and in fact, all of the stations except for FOX would not give a description of the savage monkeys for fear of “placing minorities in a bad light.” And as usual, the Democrat machine in CT is silent (as well as the rather effeminate Republicans). Go venture into the farmlands and woodlands of CT however, and into many of the white, working class neighborhoods of the old mill-towns—-you’ll see more rebel flags than if you were in Mississipi, and FOR GOOD REASON. The hate in CT is only increasing, as more and more white youths in CT are beginning to turn their backs to the social indoctrination machine of the public school system and open their eyes to the cold, ugly reality of black America and the absolute moral cowardice of the Eminem worshipping liberal machine. Call me a racist, a Nazi, or whatever witty phrase or term that meets your fancy, but deep down in the guts of your WHITE mind, you know us north-country white wolves are RIGHT. Just go walk through their free housing (what some call “projects”)some time. (And no, I’m not a Klan member)

You think I should hide comments like this? Why? These people are out there – trying to pretend that we’re all one big happy family, that being black in this country is no different than being white, that the hate is restricted to the south, tell me: who is that helping?

Finally, tonight, on the post The Pledge about the phrase …under God, a person who calls themselves a ‘true American’, wrote:

Our constitution is based on the bible as a tool that teaches morality and law because in the 1700’s we had no law enforcement apparatus. The laws taught us by the Bible, and the belief in Jesus Christ, is the very basis of our nations government. Like it or not, you sorry non-believer liberals are wrong, and should move to some country you where you will be accepted. I hear France is accepting imigrants.

Of course, this follows on comments:

Our country was founded on God! People wanted religous freedom. And read the Constitution right, it says seperation of the state from church. meaning the state is not suppose to control the church. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in God. You can’t erase our history. And our country’s foundation is built on God.You can’t change that.

And

You are all so worried that having God in our country is dangerous, but I’d be more afraid of a world without God. That’s probably because without God there would be no world in the first place.

Let’s see, I read this as four votes for Bush, one for the Dems. Dean, Clark, Gephardt, and the rest of you kids – you’re just going to have to do better if you want to be elected next year.

At this point, Lolita and viagra-rx don’t seem all that bad.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

CNN has an article on the efforts made by President Bush’s keepers of the image. Considering the current state of the economy, I was given pause when I read the following:

The White House efforts have been ambitious and costly. For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America’s symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.

The story mentions that during one of the many trips Bush made to St. Louis to speak at a manufacturing plant, his staff covered the “Made in China” words on the genuine boxes in the background and then brought in some fake boxes with “Made in the USA” printed on them. Hard to give a speech on the glowing economy when you’re literally surrounded by the evidence of the increasing, and alarming, offshoring that’s keeping our economy down while companies post record profits.

Of course, this isn’t anything compared to the debacle of Bush’s manufactured photo opportunity aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, including the much shown photo of him in flight suit, strutting across the stage like some form of bantam rooster.

Cockadoodle doo, and here’s my cock, too.

Some may have found Bill Clinton’s escapade with Monica to be an embarrassment to the country, but in my opinion the President playing to soldier in a flight suit beat this hands down. I’m still ashamed every time they show that photo.

Now the focus is on the sign on the ship that read ‘Mission Accomplished”, appearing behind Bush during his speech. Of course, with the increasing number of deaths in Iraq, and the continuing problems in that country, we all knew that the mission was not ‘accomplished’ when the words were first televised. To counter this faux pax, he President and his staff are trying to disavow the sign, with Bush saying I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff – they weren’t that ingenious, by the way. No, this wasn’t the White House’s doing we hear, but even that’s not the truth: supposedly the crew of the ship asked for the sign and the White House was kind enough to provide it.

I keep saying to myself and others, Bush is not America. Bush is not America. We are not like that man and his playing with the media and his deals with his corporate buddies and his My God only religion and his selling America and the World short because he didn’t get to play soldier when he was younger (too busy being AWOL). We are better than that, though it may not seem like this at times. We are more honest than that, though perhaps we’re not as honest with ourselves as we should be.

We are not that gullible I tell people. But then I become afraid that we are.