Screaming Deafness

Okay - so the folks were over this past weekend.. We all gathered around and watched Fahrenheit 9/11.. I half-way anticipated that there would be some sort of conflict afterwards.. What I didn't expect is the phenomenon better known as "screaming deafness" or "glaring blindness.."

So once the movie had concluded my dad piped up and said "now you know we've had these discussions before about history and how it's really impossible to know what was going on unless you were there personally...." Fine.. I can accept that to a point.. But we have an instance where we actually show Bush, his cabinet, and all of the politicians who construct the world we live in --- on TV shows, doing interviews, making jokes, statements or quips while thousands of people have been sent overseas knowing that they may end up dying as a result of the service for their country..

So to say that "we don't know what really happened" was completely mindboggling to me.. It's as though we can watch the same event, record it, preserve it, and still be considered a "perspective of the truth.." Huh?? So if I get it right: no matter if what I think is the truth, even if I hear it from their mouth I can assume it's not true.......

hmm..

Because it's something you can discern from what was actually said.. It's something that anyone can go and verify if they choose to.. It's something that could be debated as long as there was a clear, logical explanation exchange..

No..

It's not quite that simple..

Instead, the folks were entrenched in their beliefs.. The hour and forty five minutes that were spent watching the movie would've better been served watching paint flake off the wall.. It wasn't as though I was expecting them to change their opinion of Bush or reach some sort of epiphany of what happened before, during and after 9/11.. I guess I was hoping at the very least to stir a moment of pause..

Um.. That didn't happen..

What happened though clearly illustrated the idea that the blinders are put on some people and regardless of how much you smack them with a 2x4 - they simply will not get it.. It illustrated that the more hostility the left liberal machine generates it clearly polarized families and people across the nation..

It illustrated that even though things brought out in the movie which have been documented, confirmed and otherwise verified - the nation is more concerned with the fact that "Gore wouldn't have done any better" or "Kerry would only lead us the wrong direction.." Arguments like this only fuel the ineptitude of some folks who want to fly blindly on faith without substance or fact..

Indeed my folks are flying blindly and remain steadfast in support of Bush despite the facts, statements, interviews, and supporting documentation used to verify the numerous premises the movie points out.. To them, the movie is clearly a work of fiction, a false-hood, a dream, a spinner, a politically motivated piece of propaganda without truth, without substance and contrived to be nothing more than a lie..

Christopher recently left the comment:

Re Moore: We have to stop talking at them, and start talking with them. There is no dialog. We are all talking so loud and in such an intense way that the people we want to convince just shut down.

Overload.

Step back. Take a deep breath. Ask them what direction they want our country to go in.



The problem arises when one attempt to establish dialog in the face of blindness or have the factual basis of truth fall upon deaf ears.. Even if Moore's movie further polarized the population the documentary was founded on the basis of verifiable fact.. If we're grown as a society that only wants rose-colored news reports..

It's not a simple issue of dialog..

It's a matter of grasping for a reality-check.. When the masses of people are controlled by a select conglomerate of media outlets - who can manhandle, subvert and otherwise emasculate the basis of fact and truth to paint whatever picture those few in control dictate ....

.... what does that say for us as a society???

What happened to questioning authority??

What happened to verifying the facts or presenting more than just one biased side of a story??

What happened to social responsibility when we avoid the truth only to replace it with some mangled version of an event??

My folks are an excellent barometer of what's happening out there.. They claim not to be affiliated with any single party.. They don't like Bush, but they hated Kerry more.. They didn't vote and if my dad had his way, there would be an option in the voting booth for "none of the above.." They are sponges for mainstream media and television and depict what these resources have done.. They read the newspaper, do not have access to the internet and watch TV news programs up the wazoo.. They are the product of people subjected to the rose-colored tint in their daily paper, on their television set, on their radio.. They are products of media subversion.. They are products of the slant and bias which has otherwise skewed their perception of truth and reality..

What will history say of the legacy of George Dubya Bush and his Presidency?? How will history remember him?? Am I the victim of deceit with the slander and propaganda of Michael Moore?? Or am I a vigilant crusader who is correct in the facts spelled out in the documentary, the corresponding investigations, and ultimate resolution to this incredibly life-altering change in American History??

Will I find out in my life time??

Does the fight matter or am I supposed to put on the rose-colored glass and fall in line with the masses??

September 8th, 2006

I was on snopes.com the other day -- pulled up some interesting factoids and myths about 9/11.. One of them was the rumor that the Madrid Train bombings happened exactly 911 days from 9/11.. It turns out that March 11th, 2004 is exactly 911 days from September 11th, 2001..

So, I thought: "hm, when would the next 911 days be after March 11th??"



That date is September 8th, 2006..


Okay, so being a numbers guy I sometimes am (okay, I cheated and used this calculator to figure it out...) I decided to go back into history, during or around the time of March 15th, 1999..

Some interesting tidbits of March 15th, 1999:

The Taliban and Afghan groups announce a "lasting peace.."

Bush announces an exploratory committee into his Presidential ambitions..


Time Magazine already considers Bush to be the "man to beat" in 2000...


But then there was this little nugget that made me shift around in my chair this morning.. In the Congressional Report: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 On page 168 of the text (page 220 of the pdf file) states: "In a written response, the FBI took issue with the contention that the FBI was not treating Al-Qa'ida as a serious threat in San Diego, citing an internal document dated March 15, 1999 which identified: Usama Bin Ladin as the number one priority of the US Intelligence Community."

Want to go back further?? 911 days previously: September 15, 1996.. "On September 15, 1999, former US Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman appeared at the National Press Club in Washington DC to present "New World Coming" the first of three reports on the outlook for US national security during the next quarter century."

On that same day the Downing Report was released was given to President Clinton and Congress regarding the Protection of US Forces Deployed Abroad in lieu of the attack of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.. (The USS Cole was later attacked October 12, 2000..)

I realize that virtually every fact, number, instance can be interpreted any number of different ways.. I further realize it all could be a matter of incredible coincidence..

I just find it interesting..

It's Begun....

The Republicans have officially taken control of the country...

Odds -n- Ends

The Monday Night Football fiasco: I am so sick of hearing about who's boob or ass is showing up on MINIFY or whatever other football event.. Along with the Saving Private Ryan debate - the MINIFY pre-game coverage (or maybe the lack thereof *grins*) is bringing the whole premise of what the role of the FCC should be..

But what happened in the Indiana Pacers/Detroit Pistons game this week ranks up there with the real "class acts" of sports.. The 5-minute melee that led to four permanent suspensions demonstrated that regardless of whatever decisions the FCC imposes on the media -- the REALITY of the world still comes into our living rooms.. Even if you missed the fight (as we did), ISBN continues to cover it, showing replay after replay, Fox Sports doing the same thing ...... and yet I'm sure the FCC isn't going to step in..

What gives??

The Pacers/Pistons game illustrates (according to the FCC) that depictions are inappropriate, but showing a 5-minute riot is somehow acceptable.. The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with because if we're going to start censoring that which you can or can't say, show or present - then why not call it what it is: a State-Controlled media outlet like what they have in Russia, China and Cuba..

I personally don't care if it's nudity, language or violence.. It doesn't bother me -- but if it bothers a family change the channel or GET RID OF THE TELEVISION SET!!! Once again we're inviting, no we're begging, not asking, we're otherwise telling the government how to raise our families and to safely govern the airwaves so that we don't fall into some morality abyss!!

It's ridiculous considering the state of the world today, the daily violence in Iraq and other places overseas.. The fear of the Iranians getting Uranium, North Korea's nuclear project and oh yeah, the war on terrorism.. Should we filter all of this crap out too because it's too violent, too suggestive and morally corrupting our children?? What about the hate filled airwaves of both sides of the microphone.. Is this how you want your children to be??

Powell: Christopher asked if I was supporting the recently departed Colin Powell.. In a short answer: if the choice was between him and Bush -- Powell wins everytime.. Does he win over Kerry though if the choice was offered?? I can't really answer that not knowing where he comes out on certain issues.. Clearly there was disagreement between Bush and Powell as it pertains to foreign policy, but what I do not know is what those differences were..

Would I like Powell to be a bit more liberal?? Surely!! If he ran in 2008, would I vote for him?? I can't rule him out like I would other candidates.. (apologies for the non-answer...) ;)

Condoleeza: I've heard from a lot of Op Ed folks lately that say that Condy is thought of as being more of a "yes girl" that Bush wanted at the helm of the Secretary of State.. If she is in fact a "yes girl" then why didn't Bush just appoint himself and save the paperwork?? Oh wait - that would call upon him to give up some of his vacation time at the ranch -- nevermind..

Michael Moore's 9/11 1/2 project: I'm concerned to be honest.. Maybe concerned is the wrong word.. I really felt that his first installment would wake up America to what Dubya was doing.. From what a lot of people are saying now - he did more harm than good.. Even though Bush can't run again in 2008, I'm asking the larger question of whether or not another Michael Moore project will only setback the liberal machine more than it has already..

Election depression & analysis

I had election depression big time..

I didn't realize how diverse the populous was regarding the election.. Moreover, I was almost certain that there was a more significant segment of the populous that wanted a change in the big seat.. I'll admit it: I was wrong..

It's not about the "black boxes" or charges of voter irregularity.. We had enough of that in 2000.. And let's face it, the margin this time around was a lot greater than in 2000.. I've already cited my own conspiracy theories when it comes to the election of 2004, so there's not much else to report here.. Bottom line: the Democrats got their butt kicked and we're not the "majority" as a lot of people would like to think we are.. We do live in a country divided and that's a lot tougher to take than accepting the fact that "Bush stole another one.."

So, we have Bush for another 4 years.. It's time to roll up the sleeves and batton down the hatches because it looks like stormy seas coming up.. Dubya's cleaning house -- or rather everyone is jumping off the ship while it's still at port.. Regardless, it's been an interesting couple of weeks.. I expected Ashcroft to resign, but Powell was a little surprising.. I say that knowing that there was a significant amount of strife between them - but Powell gave Bush's foreign policy creedence and strength.. It's not that I believe Condoleeza will do a worse job than Colin, but it's hard when you're a visible General in a military campaign who is very easy to notice and recognize..

One thought I had about Powell: 2008..

It would be difficult if not impossible for him to run in a Presidental election if he were still Secretary of State.. The time between now and 2008 could be spent with family, friends and strategists as they conceive a plan to keep control of the White House once Dubya's out..

Of course the other half of my mind is saying that there were fundamental differences in how to conduct their foreign policy.. Rice seems much more obliged to give "Yes, Sir" type of responses when Powell seems more to be of the type who will go: "I think we need to discuss this further, Sir.." Of course the perception is that once Bush makes up his mind, it's all overwith..

Hence the differences of belief..

I liked Colin, even though I realize he's conservative minded - he has a statesman-way about him.. He is strong, compassionate and intelligent..

And let's face it: we need that and more at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....

Michael Moore is making a sequel

Michael Moore apparently intends to keep the heat on...

One thing that I'm a little concerned about is how confident Weinstein and Moore are that the proposed Fahrenheit 9/11-1/2 will become another serious competitor for an Academy Award..

Not to sound presumptuous; but that sounds very presumptuous...

I do however, credit the man for keeping this administration's feet to the fire and respect that, support that and will say that it's again - what the nation needs..

London is having a bit too much fun....

(from the Register) The "Evening Standard" reports that Total Film magazine awarded Villain of the Year to......



not Dr. Octopus from SpiderMan 2.....




not Elle Driver from Kill Bill......




not even Gollum from Lord of the Rings trilogy.........




Even LeatherFace from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was no match for.............







Ladies and gentlemen .... this year's Villain of the Year goes to .........



...




...




...




...




...GEORGE W. BUSH in his scary portrayal YET AS President of the United States in Fahrenheit 9/11!!!!!



*woot* *woooo*

Prime Example....

The FCC is unwilling to grant temporary waivers to television stations who want to show the epic: Saving Private Ryan because the movie uses the "F word" among other obscenities.. Stations can be fined in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars should someone come and complain..

ABC wants to put SPR out unedited for everyone, much like how someone put Schindler's List on one of the alphabet channels recently.. I personally don't have a problem with it because how all of this is used in the film is REAL (imagine that..) If I'm being shot at by a sniper at 300 yards, I doubt I'm going to say "darn.." No, I'm going to be cussing my ass off because I simply don't like playing the target game at carnivals with LIVE AMMUNITION!!!!

Now - anyone who knows what SPR is about knows that it's a very strong, powerful film that many argue comes as close as one can to accurately portray the landing at Normandy; the decisive military battle that showed the first active military initiative by the American government in World War II..

And -- Thursday, today -- is Veteran's Day.. Seems only fitting to provide some sort of tribute in the form of realism for those that have fought in our wars so that we can understand what sacrifice really is.. If we're going to start sugar-coating history as this administration is doing in Iraq and around the world - then what basis and foundation are we laying for us in 4 years?? We can't be stuck with rose-colored glasses on our heads when the *REALITY* says that things aren't always going to be "Leave it to Beaver.."

Now I noticed something rather strange.. The stations in question that are pulling the plug on Steven Spielberg's movie are almost all red states: Iowa, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, and only one semi-blue state of New Hampshire.. I say it's strange because these states showed overwhelming support of our President in Iraq and yet - there's a rather strange departure if the F-bomb were ever to be used.. Exactly how preposterous is this?? Does the FCC really believe that our troops in Iraq are saying "darn," "mother-trucker" and "shoot??"

Now, I realize that the administration doesn't want to start to pick what may or may not be appropriate -- after all this administration is rock solid when it comes to consistency..... *rolls eyes*

So here's my rant for the day: the FCC should forget about it.. I don't care if Janet Jackson's boob comes popping out, or whether Howard Stern is having sex on the air.. I simply don't believe in govermental controls over what can and can't be shown.. Does the FCC really think that a 14 year old can't try and find a way in to see Saving Private Ryan in a movie theater if they really want to?? They have, and they will.. (Unless the FCC is actually considering what movies should or shouldn't be shown on our theaters.. *shudders*)

So once again it comes back down to the parents.. Why parents don't have the control to turn the channel, educate their sons and daughters, and otherwise BE PARENTS to them.. Reality is a good thing once in awhile.. I'm appalled that we're allowing the government to basically raise our children in a nice, sterile environment that maybe suitable for the posh country clubs of Maryland, but really don't have the same meaning in South Central..

Exactly when does the FCC think we should "educate" the children of the nation that "sometimes people say bad things, but that's only because they are being shot at or otherwise under great duress??" Why does the FCC care so greatly?? FUCK is a word that defines this generation and many others; as it is a colorful metaphor at its worst, aptly defined as: "Used in the imperative as a signal of angry dismissal.." That's why they make a big deal of it on HBO - because they can use the word while other cable outlets can't..

It's ironic that for $10.99 a month, one can hear the word fuck and yet for only $3.99 one can order an adult pay per view and see it in action.. :)

I digress..

Are we protecting children because we want to preserve some level of innocence and purity for as long as we can; because ultimately every parent knows it's impossible to keep children in glass jars on a shelf forever........

Or is the government afraid that if children have a voice, a conscience, an otherwise barometer in the world - that they will become liberals because they are allowed to see the violence, react to it, and possibly try and do something about it??

Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda??

Think again, people..


Edited post script From the parentstv.com website: "Context is everything. We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of Schindler's List on television was not indecent and we feel that Saving Private Ryan is in the same category. In both films, the content is not meant to shock, nor is it gratuitous. We applaud ABC for letting viewers know ahead of time about the graphic nature of the film and that the film would be uncut. Saving Private Ryan airs tonight at 8:00pm EST. It is rated TV-MA.

ahem..

Who is going to decide the context of things?? Considering the Janet Jackson thing was accidental, what is the context of that?? Why is there an apparent selective standard??

Bush doesn't look happy....

When you look at his face, it's almost as though "why did I pick you" comes to mind....

or

"Don't make me look bad!!"

or

"Don't I have to be somewhere else??"

or

"This is how you wave to all the fine people...


How does one feel when the Boss doesn't exactly seem thrilled to have hired you for a very important position in his administration??

Being galvanized...

It's the second time I heard the same comment within the span of an hour tonight:

"The premise being that the likes of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, myself and others actually facilitated the success and re-election for George Bush.. That somehow we galvanized the 59 million who voted red this time because our viewpoints, opinions and actions caused a divisive wedge between Republicans and Democrats in the 2004 election.."

That struck me the second time I heard it because the question I ask myself is whether or not we may actually did galvanize the nation to one extreme or the other.. If the suggestion is being made that Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Myself, Susan Sarrandon, Darby, or anyone else who has a blog or offered an opinion, a viewpoint - somehow contributed to making people make a choice this election; then okay, I guess we did..

But I cringe everytime I think about why people voted the way they did.. If in fact Moore, Maher, et. al. galvanized the 59 million - what specifically galvanized them?? Kerry's war record?? The fact he "flip flops" like any other politician out of water?? Was it Theresa?? Guns?? Iraq?? The Economy?? What issue(s) galvanized 59 million people to vote for Bush??

And when start to think about why people vote to begin with, I cringe.. When I hear stories about how churches told their congregation to vote for Kerry meant that he was going to legalize gay/lesbian weddings.. Aside from the fact that their belief is false, it caused many folks to rise up and say "no to Kerry because he wants to legalize gay/lesbian marriages.."

If that was their singular issue.. If it's the only reason why they voted for Kerry, then I feel sad for those people.. This is an election that had so many different facets, so many different issues, so many different opinions in terms of what the complexion of the nation was going to be like -- and to have it hinge on a falsified lie to send the masses to the polls to preserve a sense of moral value is stupid..

When Bush won in 2000, I wasn't happy about it, but he made a lot of statements during that election that was going to have a profound impact in life in America.. He was right - there is a profound impact to be found, but I can't say that it was a very favorable one for the nation or the world.. No one can deny that the events of 9/11 changed everything.. And no one can say what, if any difference would've happened if Gore would've been President..

What I don't know, I can't change, so therefore it's fruitless to consider "What would've Gore done differently??" Move ahead please..

While I didn't agree with Bush's policies, the one major thing that caused me to forever disavow this President was: (no big surprise) Iraq.. There are countless reasons why the Iraq approach was not a good idea.. Once the WMD were never found, the ongoing instability issues throughout the reason, and this very disturbing isolationism that comforts this administration were the major preliminary reasons why I could no longer even consider Bush to be even in the running for 2004.. My blog aptly chronicles all of the reasons as they appeared..

So in my search for the perfect candidate for 2004, the only viable options I could pick from came from the Democrat party.. Keep in mind that while I can say that I'm liberal - I'll still vote for who I think is the best person.. When I began looking at the various democratic candidates, I tried to look at the totality of the person.. I thought Dean was a little too animate in his delivery.. I was bored with Libermann, I thought Kerry could drink more of Dean's coffee to liven him up, I believed General Clark was too focused in specific areas, I liked Edwards because I thought on a totality level - he fit the ideals that I thought were important for the nation as a whole.. He became my horse of sorts..

There wasn't a singular issue that I was rooted on.. Basing the election of a candidate solely based on a platform is completely unrealistic in my opinion because as time goes on, a candidate's platform shifts, moves, takes on water, sinks, swims, and otherwise changes in the 4 years they're in office.. A platform merely serves a purpose of outlining their ideological compass direction in what they want to do for you..

So when I voted this past week, I voted for what I thought was right for America.. Obviously 59 million other people disagreed with that assertion.. But when the results were coming in, I was amazed and in disbelief..

I wondered how 59 million people voted for a candidate whose track record included: not getting the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, going into Iraq on false information, and unable to provide a provable link between 9/11, Al Queda and Iraq..

Moreover, I cannot understand how people can walk out of a polling booth and say that they believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that he has WMD when it has been proven otherwise.. What's even more puzzling is how if majority of voters felt that Bush represented a higher sense of moral values than Kerry, I urge the following be recited:

* He is Pro-life, yet he's in favor of the death penalty.
* His tax-breaks for the upper 1% was exceedingly more than the $600 tax refund most families got a couple of years ago.. So he hasn't done much in the way of helping the poor - which is a traditional moral Christian value.
* In addition to the tax breaks he's supported and otherwise done nothing to assist American families whose jobs have gone overseas in the form of outsourcing.
* He is liberating a country that from all indications did not want to be liberated at all. We can't compare our revolution by that which is happening in Iraq - apples and oranges.
* His keen sense of moral values otherwise dismisses how over 1,100 of our troops have been killed along with the 14,000 dead Iraqi citizens. If we blame Bin Laden of being a mass murderer of 2,900 people - what does this make our moral value leader, President Bush??
* Bush's views on gays and lesbians only further promote the moral values of those who are less tolerant and otherwise hateful towards gays and lesbians. 11 states now lead the ban on same sex marriages or civil unions. This ranks in the same moral value system that once believed that slavery was a "God-given right.."
* Then there's the moral value of trying to instill a democracy in an dissolved dictatorship. Moreover, there are those that believe that democracy and Islam simply cannot mix. So is it a higher moral value to impose one's belief system on another??

So I hesitate to believe the premise that Bush's moral values are somehow a good selling point.. Not that any politician alive has values worth a hill of beans, but still..

So yeah, I'm disappointed.. I'm disheartened.. and I'm outnumbered by 59 million people that feel that Bush was right.. I don't agree.. I don't like it.. But the fight has to continue..

Yes, it is a fight..

I'd like to heal..
I'd like to reconcile..
I'd like to say "Okay, I'll support you Mr. President.."

But I can't.. Not when the olive branches are full of thorns.. Not when the Republicans are partying and when the President believes he finally has a mandate..

Guess what folks - from day one, 2000 - Bush ALWAYS believed he had a mandate.. He's going to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants.. This hasn't changed, but it makes him feel easier when he sleeps in his jammies.. It makes him be able to say that he has the mandate of the people, where as before the floundering was excused away for one reason or another..

Mandate will now become his new explanation and excuse for the things he does.. 59 million people helped him secure it..

... and for those that support Bush's moral values, I hope you rest easier knowing that 14,000 innocent civilians died for weapons that did not exist or for a non-existent connection between a leader and the attack on our soil all the meanwhile the one true leader remains free and dedicated in his pursuit to tarnish our world-wide respectability ...

... at least you don't have to worry about gays and lesbians having rights; afterall, that's more terrifying than someone who committed the murder of 2,900 American citizens in 2001 ...

Real smooth, America..

Real smooth..

The day(s) after....

Oh man.. What an .... Interesting situation this past Tuesday.. I am also in a little bit of disbelief this morning.. No one likes their horse coming in second - in a two horse contest, but we'll have to try and make do with what we have, ya' know??

I don't have to describe how I'm feeling this morning, because any other Democrat or Liberal probably feels the same way.. And while we can't really change how people felt on November 1st, we're living in reality November 4th: we have the same President as we have had for the last 4 years.. Yes, that stirs a lot of emotions inside and while I'm trying to process exactly what happened..

While I'm going to avoid much of the conspiracy talk that I've been hearing from Air America and other places, I'm finding some oddities about what the Democrats have been thinking since earlier in the year.. I won't say that I've come to any short conclusion, but I will say that unlike the 2000 election, Bush didn't steal this one.. Furthermore, I believe that it was the DNC themselves that crippled the election for John Kerry..

I found an interesting plea this morning while surfing around (thanks to Christopher who had it in his blog: Get Terry out, Howard Dean in..

What struck me about this article is the fact that there was a LOT of behind-the-scenes action throughout the democrat primaries.. Howard Dean garnered so much support - that was something that baffled me the most: why wasn't he the leading candidate for the Presidency??

While I want to blame the Democrats in general for what happened, I think the list of people to blame is much shorter than that.. Namely starting off with McAuliffe and working your way down the ladder after that..

I've long since maintained that Kerry was not the best choice for the Democrats.. What is troubling to ponder is whether or not Kerry was destined to go this far or do as well as he did.. When one looks at how the Kerry campaign was run, they didn't go out of their way to lambaste Bush as much as what Karl Rove was doing to the democrat hopeful.. If you take a look at the attacks that were coming at Kerry - there was virtually none that were being slung back..

I kept begging Kerry "c'mon boy, get in there!!"

Now one of two things happened.. 1.) The press disavowed anything coming from Kerry or 2.) Kerry's staff floundered in the wake of what Karl Rove's machine was doing.. Bottom line, it made Kerry look weak.. And it's quite possible that we were seeing the true Kerry - however, after watching Diary of a Political Tourist I think I got a glimpse into how Kerry actually is.. The press portrayed him as a stiff, starch shirt that basically drums out the same speech over and over..

Yet when you watch the HBO documentary, especially in the end, I saw a man who really does have warmth, compassion, and the type of statesman that could carry himself.. At that point, I knew that Kerry would do okay..

Except he didn't.. His campaign was focused on the message and ignored the mud-slinging that was going on.. Kerry's approach was mild more than anything.. Finally - towards the end - Kerry started attacking the President more (or at least that was what was being reported in the press..)

Which brings up an interesting point: the press wants to sell newspapers, commercial spots, etc.. It's in their ADVANTAGE to make this as close a race as possible - more subscriptions, more viewing, etc.. Were we victims of a press that was trying to enhance their bottom line, more than reporting accurately and decisively?? Is this why Bush was never challenged on his views and the inepititude his exhibits anytime anyone asks him a question when his "i-pod transceiver" isn't working??

I digress..

Back to Kerry, the DNC and the election.....

Which brings me back to the question: "Why Kerry??" With the initial surge of Howard Dean in the early going, it only seemed realistic that his base was one of the stronger ones out there.. This fact is well documented and observed across the spectrum.. But then some of the wheels came off and the "oo-yeah" screaming chant seemed to derail Dean once and for all.. C'mon, Bush forgets Poland and is reading "My Pet Goat"; what's worse?? No.. Just because you have one excited little utterance shouldn't prevent you from running in a major Presidential race.. But what happened?? Wasn't the DNC interested in getting back the Presidency?? Why was all of this floundering going on??

Maybe there are great powers at the helm of the DNC which allowed this to happen.. Let's think back to the Clinton years.. It's well-documented that the elections in 1992 stirred up the DNC.. The inner workings run by McAuliffe, the Clintons and others were well documented.. McAuliffe would eventually become the DNC chair and the Clintons remained in the picture - even though they are in New York..

Afterall, there's been a great deal of talk in the early part of 2004 suggested that Hillary Clinton was thinking about running for the Presidency.. She opted not to this time and yet she seems poised to jump at the possibility of 2008.. What scared her off in 2004 is something of a mystery.. On one hand, she may not be ready to take the reigns.. On the other, she could've been criticized for quitting her New York senatorship solely on the basis of her own personal gain for the White House.. Someone, somewhere along the line, thought the timing was not right..

But I figure the DNC didn't stop there.. Whether it was McAuliffe or someone else along the way - there was a hatched plan to introduce Hillary as a contender for the 2008 elections.. That plan consisted of picking a decent candidate that may do well enough to motivate the masses, but won't win completely.. Simply put: A Kerry victory would've meant a virtual lock-down for Hillary's chances in 2008 because in the majority of cases, the incumbent will run again for their successive terms..

What I'm not sure the DNC counted on was the fact that there would be an incredible insurgency that wanted Bush out of office.. When we look at what Bush was doing in the White House, a lot of people were shaking their heads.. This was a GOLDEN TIME for the DNC to take back the White House.. Bush's approval numbers were falling, the war is not going well, his economic plans were causing more pain and grief than were helping: HOW COULD ANYONE SCREW THIS UP??

Find a way - and the DNC did..

There was serious momentum in favor of getting Bush out of the White House, but the DNC did very little to encourage that.. Michael Moore did everything he could to get the attention of people.. Celebrities and other famous folks were coming out against Bush at every turn.. There was a complete concerted effort to get Bush out of office.. Instead of riding the wave and letting Dean command and guide the party - they chose Kerry, a life-long senator who from his appearances is not the strongest candidate to bring forth.. At least his portrayal through the press is that he's weak or ambivalent on many issues.. Kerry is very articulate which got twisted and distorted into a lot of "double talk" and now the infamous: "flip-flop" machine.. Karl Rove ran a masterful campaign against Kerry.. Mary Beth Cahill was no match for the attacks and war the Republicans were bringing to the table.. The Republicans knew they could lose it and they were hungrier than the DNC to win it again this year..

So, again: "why??"

If the braintrust of the DNC sent Kerry out so that they can secure a bid for 2008, I'll add that it's the single most disappointing factor to come from all of this.. In an election that had so much at stake, the DNC failed miserably.. Losing Daschele was one thing, losing so many seats in the Senate and the House is one thing, but giving the Republicans a free pass to determine the complexion of the Supreme Court is simply inexcusable..

Clearly the leadership of the DNC needs to be examined.. Clearly when we abandon the focus of what Democrats stand for, needs to be examined.. When you have the exit polls revealing that a HEALTHY segment of the Democrat party voted in FAVOR of Bush -- that needs to be seriously examined..

This was the BEST opportunity to secure the White House: an inconsistent, myopic, under-educated President that had scores of issues with his first 4-year term and the Democrat party couldn't do squat to unseat him from the Presidency..

There will be no blaming Nader..

There will be no Florida or Ohio to blame..

There will be no challenge for voter fraud..

Nothing..

I put the blame squarely on the DNC.. Just as they failed to put Gore in the White House, they should've, could've, would've learned in 4 years how to do it "right," but they didn't..

Bush believes he now has the mandate of the people - which I strongly disagree with - but who can argue with the man who scored a 3 mil advantage over his competition??

In the land of the "lesser of two evils," clearly America felt it was best to stick with the evil they have grown accustomed to.. When your candidate does not emerge as a compelling, decisive difference to the incumbent President - it's going to be difficult to convince America that a new direction is warranted..

I won't say the best man won because the best man was never on the ticket.. For those pundits who love to say that Bush is the way of the future, I urge you to keep thinking that way when the next plane hits the building in your hometown, or when your son/daughter is called up to fight on behalf of "freedom," or when your neighbors are evicted because they have no job due the fact their job just went to India, or the debt which will be handed down to your children, and their children..

The world is not safer..
The nation is not better off..

What we have is a failure to communicate: to get the *right* person in the office, regardless if they are Republican or Democrat.. Continuing down this precarious path only insures that we're in for another rough 4 years.. If the Democrats really want to do something about this, they better start looking at McAuliffe - and start doing something about it..

In the words of Wil Wheaton:

"It's not over
It's just beginning"

Tucker Carlson is an ass....

While watching one of the election coverage and the fact that one of the Pittsburgh polling places extended their hours, Mr. Carlson had this lovely addition:

"They should've gotten out earlier to vote.."

Duh....

But unlike you -- Mr. Carlson -- some folks have to work for a living, and sometimes those jobs don't stop early so that you can go vote..

What .... an ..... idiot ....