(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!)

(Blogged by Brad on the road...)

I may have spent the last week in the woods, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

So here's a bunch of items of note from the past week that I've either been pondering or have only recently come to my attention in the last 12 hours or so...Forgive me if some of this has already been covered or is otherwise old news by now, but I'm catching up on a few things that I've missed while being away from all media at my campsite for the last week (save for some occassional Rightwing Talk Radio as we could pick it up in the woods with our crankable Grundig radio.)

I think it's a fair bet that much of this was not covered on Fox News. And likely in the rest of the lazy Mainstream Media that is supposed to be looking out for you. But isn't.

• Another record for the Bush Administration!
Having celebrated the good news for their record Budget Deficit last week, the gold medals just keep rolling in for the Bush Administration! The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office announced yesterday that last month's Trade Deficit has also passed a milestone! It was another record for the Bushies as the trade gap was announced as "hitting a record $55.8 billion on the biggest drop in exports in nearly three years and record imports, the government said on Friday." The US Dollar, of course, has plummeted in the wake of this terrific news! Who said those tax cuts didn't come just in time?!

• "Sensitivity" and Desperation
When John Kerry said "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror" he was, of course, speaking of being more sensitive to the needs and requirements of our allies, so that they might be more cooperative in the effort, joining us in the fight, and leading to fewer American Deaths and other such "campaign issues".

Not unlike when George W. Bush, said in March of 2001 aboard the USS Ronald Reagan that "we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence".

The desperation revealed by the Bush Campaign to spin Kerry's "sensitive" comment into one of being "sensitive" to our enemies, as Cheney and the Attack Monkeys tried to spin it this week, speaks volumes for itself. But just in case you're still buying that nonsense, here's a boatload of other quotes describing the "sensitive" Bush-Cheney doctrine from such macho toughies as Don Rumsfeld, Gen. Myers, Paul Wolfowitz and more. Courtesy of the Center for American Progress.

The spin may not stop on Fox or O'Reilly, but we do our best to stop it here.

• Kerry Takes Leads in Florida, but Charley may have other ideas...
Speaking of desperation...Team Bush is no doubt celebrating the death and devastation in Florida this week as it'll give the Bush Bros. a much needed chance to shine! And they need it a lot apparently! According to the latest Quinnipiac Poll released this week Kerry has now taken a 47% to 41% lead over Dubya in Florida! Without Nader in the mix, the lead goes to 49% to 42%.

It's the battlegrounds, stupid. But I'm sure Fox and CNN and MSNBC have already explained that to you.

• John O'Neill "Not a Republican"
And speaking of Fox...I understand that John O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command", --- the story of Kerry's "lies" about Vietnam and his swiftboat days --- the anti-Kerry dirty-trickster for the Nixon Administration and clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist in 1990 said on the "Hannity and Colmes" show this week that he's "not a Republican". He also said on Crossfire that "I've had no serious involvement in politics of any kind in over 32 years."

But I also understand that neither Fox, Hannity, Colmes or CNN has bothered to challenge that ridiculous idea by pointing out that O'Neill has given some $15,000 to Republican candidates and causes over the past decade. He has given $0, apparently, to Democrat causes or candidacies during that same period.

Jaime did some fine guest blogging here previously describing the other author, Jerome Corsi's record on FreeRepublic.com in the past of posting things like "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters" and describing Kerry as "John F*ing Commie Kerry" prior to Jew Baiting him in the same post.

That's your Republican Party. And there's some real Fair and Balanced for ya.

(P.S. Did anyone see George and Laura on "Larry King" where George explained that he couldn't comment on, much less condemn, as Sen. John McCain has called on him to do, the outrageous commercial put out by the Swiftboat Vets because he "hadn't seen it"? I guess Larry was unable to forego 30 seconds of sychophantic softballs to simply show the spot to the "Commander-in-Chief" then and there to get his opinion on it. By the way, Hannity told you yesterday that Bush has condemned the ad. He hasn't. Hannity lied to you.)

• No Imminent Terror Operations! (Plus, blown intelligence!)
Did Fox or CNN also remember to point out this article? The one where a White House official said "the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings"?

On Thursday, the official speaking to "nearly a dozen news organizations...on condition of anonymity" said that he has "not seen an indication of an imminent operation."

That despite Tom Ridge and the rest of the clan having decided that last week was a good time to induce some fresh fear into the electorate just after a very successful DNC Convention.

I have a feeling the bulk of the media may not have covered it.

Nor did they much cover the fact that leaking the identity of our first big "informant" in the War on Terror, has pissed off our allies in both the British and Pakistani Intelligence services since it blew a bigger sting operation that was in progress at the time. Perhaps we should be more "sensitive" to such things in the future.

Oh, well. Better to let Americans think we're fighting a brilliant "War on Terror" rather than actually go about the business of winning it.

•I'll presume they signed the Loyalty Oath before the entrees were served...
While John Kerry drew over 20 thousand folks to an open and public event in Portland, Oregon yesterday (and we were stuck in the traffic leaving Portland to prove it!), George W. was also in town. But his event, which drew about a thousand supporters, was closed to all but Campaign Insiders and Business Folks for some odd reason.

Later that night, Bush raised some $2.4 Million for his campaign at a dinner party at the private lakefront home of former Simpson Timber Chairman Gary Reed here in Washington (where we now are). He made no public appearances here.

No worries though. Bush is now down by a full 9 points here in Washington state, (another one of the "battlegrounds") according to the latest poll here.

By the way, the public hearing period is still ongoing in regards to Bush's latest giveaway to allow Timber Companies like Reed's to raid our National Forest. Please take a moment to click here and send your public comment about this new policy. It's all done auto-magically for you! So click it! I'm sure they're paying close attention to your opinions!

• Michael Moore does it again!
In an interview with Bush nominee for CIA Director, Republican Congressman Porter Goss, Michael Moore once again gets the story that the Media fails to get for you.

Said Goss to Moore's people in an interview during the filming of Fahrenheit 9/11: "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified...I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably...And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

And so, that man has been nominated by George W. Bush to head the same CIA that his House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was criticized for failing to have overseen properly prior to 9/11. He was the Committee's chairman at the time.

If it wasn't all unbelievably real, it might be hysterical.

• And Finally...Enough with the Singing Republicans!
First it was Ashcroft singing on camera...and now it's "carpet-bagging", Maryland resident and nominee for the US Senate seat from Illinois, Alan Keyes. "Why, oh, why can't I?"...indeed. (You may need to turn off Pop-Up Blockers to watch the video.)

Phew...That oughta get me caught up for an hour or two!

(NOTE: This entry guest blogged by Bryan)

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court voted 5-2 to void the almost 4,000 same-sex marriages peformed in San Francisco earlier this year. The findings affirmed that Mayor Gavin Newsom had acted outside his legal bounds, which could provide an example for more local officials to begin creating their own legislation, disregarding state and/or federal laws. As a result, the marriages performed between February 12 and March 11 are now considered invalid.

This should come as no surprise to anyone, Newsom included. He was well aware of what laws he was sidestepping in the name of progress and equality, and this action is merely another major step in the fight to secure marital rights for all gay Americans. In the Supreme Court trial back in May, Newsom's attorney Therese M. Stewart chided the state laws as "separate but equal." Defending her client's arguably brave act, she explained, "All public officials owe their allegiance first to the constitution. He did not want to enforce a statute he found unconstitutional, sometimes local officials need to act."

It's important to note that yesterday's decision was based solely on whether Newsom's actions were within his authority, and not whether gay marriage was an acceptable union in California. The real story here is that because public consciousness has been raised, civil suits that might have been tied up are going to proceed straight through the courts, with even more swiftness toward an official state resolution. Newsom is no fool. This is an election year, and these marriages have become a public hot-button --- spawning a national counter-amendment (which was beaten easily), and affecting the campaign agenda of Presidential and Senate/House nominees --- all due to the stand taken by Newsom.

Which begs two questions:

1. At what point is civil disobedience morally justified?
Certainly there's no debating he overlooked the law, and Newsom must have rationalized that his actions would be called out, and eventually struck down. Laws aren't arbitrarily created, there is thought and public opinion and a maintenance of civil order involved. Yet in the past fifty years, there have been marches, rallies, sit-ins, non-violent protests all in the name of progress, and it has enabled civil and social issues to be brought into the foreground and dealt with justly. When groups have broken the law they have done so at their peril, but it is these stands which have nudged our great country further toward equality. The Gay and Lesbian movement has made innumerable strides over the last decade, and Newsom's torch-carrying may provoke the state and federal constitutions to legitimize and honor gay lifestyle in the upcoming years.

So when does it become acceptable to overstep the rules? Ever? Only in moral instances of discrimination? There are as many arguments for such action as there are against. Breaking the law should never be a simple act of defiance, but is it our moral responsibility to act rightfully if it is in our power? At what point should concerned citizenship turn into meddling with laws as they stand? Should Newsom be removed from office, or worse, face jail time for this not-so-quiet act of personal defiance? Or, from another point of view, this harsh act of anarchy?

Think carefully before you answer, because a partisan cheering or condemnation of Newsom's behavior could reveal hypocrisy. I could, in almost the same way, ask that very same question of President Bush and the Iraq war.

Now to the second, and perhaps larger, question:

2. Despite the social ramifications, should this even remain a legal battle at all?
Lost in the morality debate, people often neglect what is the real issue here: a traditional yet unconstitutional tie between Church and State. Marriage was, and is, a legally binding contract between a man and a woman to share monies and property. This was its initial purpose centuries ago, a business transaction between families to contain and grow wealth. Yet it's implied that marriage is also something sacred, and its intangible context suggests a spiritual and moral union between partners in love (sometimes under God, depending on your faith). Most people don't want to just believe marriage is the former, to do so would take romance out of it and turn a life of love into a joint bank account. Understanding this, the Church is willing to play into this evenly and steadily. It keeps them right in the thick of the argument, always influencing policy and forwarding their agenda. I don't fault them, but it is worth noting.

While the delineation between the two definitions of marriage is currently unclear, a bird's-eye view reveals that the appropriateness of same-sex marriage shouldn't be a semantic values argument at all, or not for the courts at any rate. It's this word marriage that has tripped us up for the latter half of a decade. In our struggle to define it, our faith in its 'higher purpose' has overshadowed its original practical application. Words like sancitity and tradition have come into play, neglecting that the initial tradition of marriage was far from love-induced. A spiritual debate should ensue to determine whether or not to honor same-sex marriage, hopefully finding for equality, but this discussion belongs in the Church. In the State, it is a non-content issue, a transactional understanding. The word marriage should be removed from legislation altogether to avoid confusion and spare religious zeal.

This simple solution would only require a readjustment of thinking, and a clarification of terms. All current marriages should legally be abolished, and renamed/reinstated as Civil Unions. Then from this point we should set about securing unions for all men and women who wish to be joined together, including women who wish to be joined with women, or men with men. All consenting adults should have equal rights for the sharing of property, monies and livelihood, including health care. Everyone is treated equally because there is no moral quandry --- the religion of marriage is removed from the equation, the union of partnership remaining.

Then the debate can finally end up where it belongs: the Church. Or elsewhere. Save the debates for the Blog world, or the coffee houses, diners and bars of America. Leave them out of the legislation. Those who wish to be joined together before God in marriage should strive for equality where God is the overseer. Having equal rights and equal citizenship, and being noted and respected by the government is a different matter.