(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

While Bush has not only refused to condemn the ads of the ironically named "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", he's using them to his advantage wherever possible.

Consider this exchange brought to my attention by a must-read Josh Marshall piece as Bush took this question at an "Ask the President" session in Oregon last week:

In the words of former Congressman Dan Burton in reference to a previous President, what a "scumbag".

Anyway, the SBVT stories are beginning to unravel hard, as reported in this morning's Washington Post. But read Josh's article for a fine summation and analysis of the entire ugly mess that has become become the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign's only pathetic and shameful hope.

(NOTE: This entry guest blogged by Jaime)

George W. Bush, the man who once invented an entire combat history with his quote "I've been to war" in 2002 has now completed into his move into an alternate reality with his decisive mentioning of the Soviet Dinar For those who don't know the dinar is Iraqi currency, not Soviet. That currency is the rouble.

How many times can he say something stupid before people realize, he's not just "bad with words"?

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

What? A tool!

Cheese Wiz!

"Nice gouda, m'am"
Dubya delights the workers! Smiles everyone! Smiles!

The sun sets on the Bush "Presidency"

This article posted on Drudge from Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The NY Post about a woman running an anti-Bruce ad on Rupert Murdoch's "news" station Fox News in a limited area, but hoping to run it more if only she can somehow receive more funds to do so, is, in and of itself, an object lesson in how the Conservative Echo Chamber works. Anyone have a feeling that that 3-pronged pop today alone will get her the funds she's looking for? I haven't been listening to Rush or Sean today, but I have no doubt that both are covering the "story" (since they essentially repeat Drudge and/or Fox all day long, and so it goes), and Sean no doubt will soon be featuring his "exclusive" interview with the woman behind the ad.

The call is to boycott Bruce Springsteen now since he is apparently not in favor of George W. Bush.

Perhaps they've never forgiven Bruce for turning down the Reagan campaign's request in 1984 to use "Born in the U.S.A." as their theme song. Apparently, nobody in the Reagan camp ever bothered to actually listen to the lyrics of the song before making the request. But I digress.

What is it with these Rightwing Whackos (aka The Republican Party)? Apparently supporting their guy is not enough, they've got to attack --- personally, professionally and/or economically --- any American who doesn't support their guy.

I don't see Democrats calling for boycotts of Charlie Daniels or Toby Kieth or Mel Gibson or hell, even the Fox News Channel!

MEMO TO REPUBLICANS: It's America. Some people support one guy, some support the other. It's an election year. In a democracy, people are prone to express their support for one of the (sadly only) two candidates. You may wish to get used to the fact that some Americans may favor someone other than you do. You already own the Media, isn't that enough? Apparently not.

In the meantime, Bush has still failed to condemn, as John McCain has called on him to do, the "dishonest and dishonerable" TV ads of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". But why would he? This is the mother of all smear campaigns afoot. Fasten your seatbelts. I do believe we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cause, baby, he was born to run...

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

The Florida 2000 election was clearly an aberration of our Democracy on more levels than one may care to count. From the elderly Jews "voting" for Pat Buchanan on the butterfly ballot, to the grossly racist and inaccurate corporate purging of "felons" from the voter rolls, to the military absentee ballots postmarked days after the election but left unchallenged by a cowed Gore campaign, to the staged demonstrations of "angry" Republican campaign workers storming the vote counters meant to look like a voter uprising (as seen at Right, and published, without the identifying numbers in that "Liberal" paper the Washington Post - click it for more info!), to the Florida Secretary of State/Bush Campaign Co-Chair "confirming" the count of uncounted ballots, etc. etc. etc.

To put it bluntly, it was a debacle and a blight on our country's record of free, fair, honest and open elections.

And yet, I was prepared to look back at it all it as a one-time anomaly of a bitterly divided country and a virtually tied state run by the brother of the Republican nominee as he was looking to find that one foot in the door to snatch the deciding edge in a nearly evenly divided national electorate.

In other words, it sucked, it was un-American, un-Democratic and un-seemly, but it was over and it could never happen again.

Am I naive, or what?

That "one-time anomaly" was likely nothing of the sort. And it looks like the Bush Bros. may be preparing to do it again. Seeking any and all opportunities to squeeze out just enough votes to put them over again. Or more appropriately perhaps; Squeeze out enough votes to make it look as though they've won yet again.

This column from Bob Herbert in Monday's NY Times may be an ominous sign of who and what is at work in Florida again for this year's crucial Presidential election.

The elderly black vote in Florida is crucial to a Kerry win, and so the piece is particularly ominous and frightening. Since you have to subscribe to the Times (it's free, though!) to read the article, I'll post more of the column here than I usually might. It's a short piece though, and worth subscribing if only to read the whole thing:

Chilled yet?

One woman who was questioned is quoted in the column as asking "Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?"

Joseph Egan, an attorney for one of the 73 year old vote workers being "investigated", speaks of the blanket of fear and intimidation that is beginning to emanate through the community:

If this is the one story that has been picked up by the media about possible chicanery in the Sunshine State, imagine what may be going on that we don't yet know about down there.

When I received an Email last night asking me to join as an "Election Protection Volunteer", it seemed perhaps to be a bit of overkill. This morning however, I'm beginning to think differently. If the people won't step up to ensure a free and fair election this time around, who will? Jeb's thugs? James Baker? The Supreme Court?

And with the margin of victory as close as it could be, how na�ve would we be to make the assumption that BushCo won't do anything and everything again this time to "win" the election once more.

As it's been said..."Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you ... ... ... if ya fool me, ya can't get fooled again."

Pay attention.

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

Still trolling the great Pacific Northwest in search of those elusive "swing voters". And combing the local papers when I came across this in the obit section of The Olympian...

You wouldn't want to betray a dead patriot and Mariners fan's "final wishes" now would you?! I didn't think so.

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

The RNC thought they had a winner when they came up with the Bush/Cheney "Sloganator" on their official website.

Bush supporters were invited to enter a slogan for the Bush/Cheney campaign, which would be added to the top of a Bush/Cheney '04 poster that the user could then print out and display proudly...wherever someone might wish to display such a thing.

Funny thing is, the opposition found out about it, and started leaving slogans that were...shall we say...somewhat less than supportive of Bush/Cheney for others to chance upon as the previous slogan was left for the next user to view.

They tried to fix it (as if it was an election, perhaps) by disallowing words such as "Dictator" and "War", etc., but somehow those pesky lovers of free speech (and those with vocabularies larger than the average Republican Webmaster) were able to work around even those restrictions.

Eventually, they gave up, and the Sloganator was finally put out to pasture. But not before some clever folks were able to capture some of the favorites.

I was recently reminded of this when confused "conservative" BRAD BLOG commentor Ed recently emailed me the graphic one the right.

And so, for your enjoyment, I link you to the touching sites and sounds of the Bush/Cheney '04 Sloganator Memorial. (NOTE: Most moving with sound turned up!)

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

Naked Ladies, The Bush Record, and one great visual metaphor at the end!

Warning! Nudity! Enjoy!

(NOTE: Guest blogged by johnhp)

As a serious leftist there are few politicians in this country one can look to for inspiration. Many of them, long dead, have been forgotten as we pursue dreams of milk and honey. One of these politicians is Bob LaFollette of Wisconsin. As one of the 56 members of congress who voted against entry into the First World War, Senator LaFollette, like many of the radical left, was villified during the time of war fever and red baiting. Speaking not only for himself but for the average person who resisted the war, and knowing full well of the graves of the nameless to be filled, Bob LaFollette adressed the Senate in the following words:

This statement is as poignant today as it was 87 years ago.

Still roaming around the Pacific Northwest, and will continue to do so for the next few weeks, but delightfully tethered to broadband access for the next few days atleast.

Thanks again to Guest Bloggers Johnhp, Jaime and Bryan for covering things here over the last couple of weeks when I was unplugged. No doubt they will be returning shortly to cover things again when I next find myself outside of net range...Until then, I'm back on the job for the next few days...albeit in more limited than usual capacity (so Guest Bloggers, please feel free to plug in anything you like!)

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

Despite the postive poll numbers that I spoke about in the previous item, the Kerry Camp needs to get their act together when it comes to responding to the scumballs in Team BushCo.

Last week's "Sensitivity" issue is a very good example (I touched on it previously here as well).

The Kerry response to the Bush/Cheney smarminess, as pointed out by Atrios, needs to be much sharper and much better. They are up against professional smear merchants, so unfortunately (for the country) they've got to be just as agile in spinning the spin back towards the truth.

The fact that this is the Vice-President of the United States purposely misleading the country about what Kerry actually said is particularly disgusting, but the Kerry folks better get used to it, and figure out how to counter such skuzzy tactics.

For the record, here's the general exchange (as summarized by AMERICAblog):

So the VEEP doesn't mind twisting Kerry's words to an entirely new meaning and politicizing the War on Tara itself if it gives them a better chance of retaining power. He's willing to make a laugh of it, and the Corporate Media is happy to echo the bullshit.

Never mind in the meanwhile, all the previous --- almost identical --- references to "sensitivity" from all sorts of Adminstration Hawks.

But here is Cheney himself last Thursday on Hugh Hewitt's show (again courtesy of Atrios):

What a tool. Anything to win.

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

Interesting numbers from the latest Zogby poll (Zogby being the "Official Pollster" for the BRAD BLOG seeing as how they were the only polling organization to get the last two Presidential elections almost exactly right.)

Currently, they've got Kerry over Bush in the head to heads 50% to 43%. When all the other nominees (Nader, Libertarians, Greens, etc.) are factored in, Kerry's lead is 47% to 43%.

Those are national numbers, but as I've pointed out before, it's the Battlegrounds that actually matter. Zogby's previous battleground numbers showed Kerry leading in 13 out of 16 states.

There are a bunch of interesting numbers in the poll's internals, so I suggest you check out the page linked above. Here's a couple items of note that caught my eye:

I think it's notable that voters without Passports prefer Bush. As you'll recall, Bush had never spent a single day overseas until after becoming "President". So it seems to make some sense that those who have no idea what the rest of the world is like would end up supporting Bush. As well, those in rural areas, who are similarly insular in the way they live their lives, also end up supporting the former Governor of Texas.

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

BONUS TOM TOMORROW PANEL!
From his "The very nice Democratic convention" toon. I just liked this panel in particular...

(Blogged by Brad from the road...)

From last week's UNITY 2004 Convention of minority journalists when Dubya was asked what he thought "tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century"...

His response, in and of itself, is funny and a classic Bushism.

But being the stupid white guy that I am, I was too busy laughing to even realize the insensitivity and utter ignorance of his response itself until coming across this article. It seems that the soon-to-be-former "President" has managed to alienate yet another sliver of the electorate in the Indian communities due to his brain-dead use of the word "given" in the above quote.

Otherwise, for more swell fresh Bushisms, see today's Doonesbury! (I'd have reposted it here as a 'Sunday Toon of the Moment', but the reduction in size to fit the format here made a few of the best quotes unintelligible --- not that they already aren't...but for different reasons!)

UPDATE: Thanks to alert BB commenter Corey, here's the video of the "sovereignty" quote described above. And he's right, it's even more troubling watching it than reading it! (And funnier too!)