Updating a previous item on the Bush-Cheney campaign requiring a signed pledge of loyalty to George W. Bush before allowing voters to attend a Dick Cheney campaign event...

Drudge is finally running a piece on this now that it's being suggested that "some Democrats" were required to sign loyalty oaths.

Am I just a pinko, commie, terrorist Freedom Hater if I think that shouldn't really make any damn difference...here in America?! The story doesn't exactly inform us how campaign officials knew who were Democrats and who weren't, and even goes on to say that "Some Democrats who are Bush supporters were welcomed without signing anything."

The story also does not explain how the Bush campaign would know which Democrats were Bush supporters and which weren't.

But read on...

PLEASE, is there any conservative out there who can explain to me how this is what you are looking for in a "conservative" nominee for President of the United States (of America!)??

Once again...here is what the "pledge" says. The one you must sign to see your Vice-President speak during a Presidential Campaign:

Dan Foley, of the Bush Campaign, explains...

Oh, well that's a relief!

Anyway, the story is now linked on Drudge, so it should be reported by the Mainstream Media shortly. As long as it hasn't been taken it down by Monday.

UPDATE: A follow-up piece from the Albuquerque Journal would seem to defy the "some Democrats" report which claimed that it was just people who called from "a line that self-identified as ACT, America Coming Together, an activist group that supports Kerry."

As well, it quotes a Republican National Committee spokesperson, Yier Shi, explaining the policy for restricting the event --- at a public school gymnasium! --- only to the loyal ones:

Got that distinction?

This is a campaign in big --- very big --- trouble.

It's odd, but since the DNC Convention has ended, I just can't wait for the next one! The big RNC Convention starts in a few weeks, so I was reading up on it at the official RNC Convention website!

Given the previous two items about signed loyalty oaths being required to attend a Dick Cheney rally, and the Bush-Cheney campaign's requirement for journalists to provide their race to the Bush Cheney campaign before getting security clearance, I thought I'd go and learn a little more about this Dick Cheney fellow!

I went straight to "presumptive nominee" Dick Cheney's official biography page at the site! Very impressive! Lots of interesting information! (Did you know his real name is "Richard"?! He certainly doesn't look like a Richard!)

He has a very impressive resume though! Reaching all the way back to the 60's as both a business man and public servant! But, there seems to be a gap in his resume on that page! It says nothing about what Dick Cheney was doing since he left his post as Sec. of Defense in 1993 until the time he became Vice-President in 2000.

Was he just taking a sabbatical or something during that time? Working for the Peace Corp, perhaps? (Though you'd think they would list that if he was). Spending time with his family? Writing a book? Or what? There's nothing mentioned about the years 1994 to 2001 at all!

On "presumptive nominee" George W. Bush's official biography page at the site, they speak in detail of his career in "the energy business" and as "managing general partner of the Texas Rangers" during that period. But for Cheney, during those same years, there seems to be nothing! I wonder if they forgot that part of his biography or something? Wierd.

Yesterday, I posted about the Cheney camp requiring signed oaths of loyalty for anyone hoping to come to a campaign rally in New Mexico. I also implored Bush Supporters who may read this Blog to wake the fuck up to what is happening in your country under your Administration.

I wish that was the end of the story. But it gets still worse. (And thanks again to Atrios for pointing this one out as well.)

The Arizona Daily Star is reporting that the Bush Campaign is requiring that journalists (a photo journalist, in this case) supply their race before receiving security clearance to photograph the Vice-President!

Here's the first few amazing grafs:

Name and Social Security number I suppose I could understand. And both were supplied to the campaign according to the rest of the story.

But race?? What the hell does the photographer's race have to do with receiving clearance? If she had been of "Arabic" race would they have denied her credentials based on that alone?

As I said before: Bush Supporters, wake the fuck up! I don't care how much you (inexplicably) like the man, or hope for Republicans to stay in power...if you can't see what's going on here, I can only imagine what sort of designs you have for this country and it's Constitution.

We seem to be well beyond the looking glass at this point, folks. And there's still three more months to go! Fasten your seatbelts.

Sorry...one more too unbelievable not to post...

This report is from the Albuquerque Journal, incredibly enough (no, it's not from The Onion!)

What will it take for you Dubya Fans to see what has become of your country?!

The latest Zogby numbers are in. (A refresher for those just joining us; Zogby is the only polling organization to get it almost exactly right in both 2000 and 1996. We keep an eye on them.)

It looks like more bad news for the Bushies with a 5 point lead for Kerry-Edwards before the Convention was even over. It's been a rough day for the Bushies (see the previous couple of items.) But at least it's a Friday!

Worse than the newly opened 5 point lead, is the rest of the story. Atrios' summary of the report will suffice at this late hour:

Bush is leading only by 2 points in the Red states?!

I know you Lefties don't want me to jinx ya, and you Righties like to point to the "dead heat" National Polls (and overlook the only ones that matter: The Battleground Polls), but unless Kerry or Edwards screw the pooch between now and November (perfectly possible), or they take Bin Laden out of cold storage (even more possible), I'm starting to smell a Kerry Landslide. I'm just sayin'.

Wall Street Journal reports that Sandy Berger has been cleared of all wrongdoing. Their site is subscription only, so the link to their story "Berger Cleared of Withholding Material From 9/11 Commission" will only work if you have a subscription.

So here's a report instead from KYW NewsRadio:

Where does Mr. Berger go to get his reputation back? I'm sure apologies from Rush, Sean, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Matthews, Fox, CNN, MSNBC and Drudge etc. will be forthcoming. Not.

Congratulations to the fiscal "conservatives" of the Bush Administration!

While it seemed nearly impossible to beat last years record setting $375 Billion defecit, "the party of smaller government" has done it again!

The numbers are in, and this year...It's another record deficit! $445 Billion! The largest in the history of mankind as a matter of fact!

Sadly, the numbers were released today instead of the more tradition July 15th date. Which is a shame, because they really could have embarrased those Democrats at their convention with this terrific news, which came out just one day too late! Darn the luck!

It's also a shame, because it was late on a Friday before the White House was able to release the numbers, and most of the press had already shut down for the weekend! Curses!

Still...it didn't keep the White House from crowing about this terrific news! As reported by AP:

Mr. Bolten didn't explain how this year's record deficit came about when Mr. Bush had previously told Americans in 2001, that if his tax cuts were passed that we'd have a $262 Billion surplus this year instead.

But never mind that! A record is a record!

So congratulations George W. Bush! And to all of you fiscal conservatives who helped put him into office! Your tax cuts and keen grasp of economics is certainly paying off!

Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

Uh, oh. Looks like another bad day in Bushville.

(First one to catch the inevitable "Nancy Reagan has clearly lost her mind since the death of her husband" line from the Attack Monkeys, be sure to let us know!)

A few final thoughts on the DNC Convention after it's close (other thoughts on the week's activities are sprinkled throughout the last 3 or 4 days worth of Blog items below).

John Kerry said all the right things last night in his speech. A little too quickly perhaps, there was so many applause lines that he'd have better served himself to allow them to reverberate a bit more. But he's never been known for his oratory genius. It's what he said that counted most. At least to me.

Still not certain I'll actually be able to cast my own vote for him, paticularly since I live in the "locked" state of California and my vote may be better spent elsewhere (though, obviously not on Bush). If you live in Missouri or Texas or Ohio or Florida, etc., you'd be crazy to vote for anybody else. Which is what the Bushies are counting hoping for, of course!

I was, however, impressed with the speech in general. He said a lot of things that a lot of us Progressives had been wanting to hear from the man who isn't George W. Bush.

The coverage of the speech, which I watched mostly via Fox, though switched over to CNN and others throughout, showed again how even in their choice of camera shots the Foxies are anti-Democrat and Pro-Republican. While earlier in the week they would cut away to bored folks, dark folks, and folks in funny outfits right in the middle of important points in the various speeches (as opposed to waiting for applause lines and then showing cheering Dems) they subtly switched to a new tact last night.

If you watched Kerry's speech on Fox, you'd think he was actually in Hollywood making his speech! Which was clearly no accident of editing by the Fox directors. Almost every cutaway was to one of those "awful Hollywood Liberal Elitists" (I counted shots of Ben Affleck, Leo DiCaprio, two guys from The West Wing, Rob Reiner, John Cusack, Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew Broderick and Steven Spielberg..and oh, yeah, Hillary...all within the first fifteen minutes of the speech!)

There were about five thousand delegates there, 15,000 reporters, scads of Democratic officials, but it was the "Hollywood Liberal Elite" who got the bulk of the camera time. That's Fox for ya. More on them later.

I was a bit mystified by the following comment from Kerry's speech though:

The ideas of building unity and not angry division, and respecting one another, etc., made shrewd sense. But the last part there, about "never misus[ing] for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States" seemed an odd way to end the thought.

I wasn't certain what he was speaking of there, until I saw a Bill Schneider/CNN explanation that he was referring to Bush's cynical and failed "Gay Marriage Amendment". Then it made sense.

Perhaps the most interesting developement of the week was the Dems enormously clever --- and so far very successful --- move to co-opt the "optimistic" tone that Republicans had likely been hoping to seize upon themselves. The Reagan Effect is fully in play suddenly in this year's campaign, and it's the Democrats, ironically, who have successfully taken that legacy (for now) and made it their own. Beating the GOP at their own "we're the party of optimists, they're the party of doom and gloom!" game.

So kudos to whoever came up with that plan!

The Bush-Cheney thugs already look pretty pathetic (and un-American in this case), by tearing into Kerry-Edwards in the bargain. Drudge's lead item at this moment, for example, "Bush Derides Kerry as Man of Few Achievements..." will likely ring pretty poorly today for Team Bush amongst the electorate who really does seem to want some hope and optimism in this country for the first time in years! Yes, I know the pols always claim that "American voters are tired of the negativity"! But this time, I sense that it may actually be true!

Thus, I'd predict the more positive candidate this year may also end up winning because of it! Bush may soon figure that out, but his record of years of ugly divisiveness along with a proven inability to be the "uniter, not a divider" he claimed to be, added to his surrogates complete inability to be positive (that's just not what they're made of, and they don't have positive facts on their side to boot) means that Bush finds himself now in an unfortunate corner.

Anybody wanna start laying bets for which day between now and November 2 that Dubya will have his own "Bozos" moment this year? (Surely you all remember when Papa Bush's chances were so bleak back in '92, that the sitting President referred to his opponents as "those two Bozos".) Desperation does funny things to a guy, I guess. Watch for it from Mr. Bush at some point within the next 95 days.

Also, of note this year, was "Fox Up Against It!" They weren't able to pull of their usual all-out unchallenged assault on the Democrat Party this week. Was it because they were surrounded by Dems? Or is the Anti-Fox Movement really beginning to have an effect in the House that Murdoch Built?

More on that later...and meanwhile, where are those fucking balloons? Well done, CNN! You guys are geniuses!

CNN had been posting it's "Pundits Scorecard" each night of the Convention to score the various keynote speakers. Last night, the pundits were asked "How would you rate the Democratic National Convention?" Here's how Tucker Carlson scored it...

Speakers: B+
Themes/Message: A
Kerry's Speech: B+
OVERALL: C-

Hmmm...Average together the B+, A and B+ and come out with a C-! Got it!

(Was Tucker the one responsible for coming up with the bad numbers for Bush's "Prescription Drug Plan" by the way? Or the figures for how much Iraq Reconstruction wouldn't cost the American people? I'm noticing a theme amongst the GOP. Perhaps all Bush Admin Officials should be forced to take the Math Section of their "No Child Left Behind" standardized test! Or at least explain how they can possibly paint the Democrats as the the party of big spenders!!)

Photo once again, by Tom Tomorrow, who seemed to be there for all the Alpha-Dog Moments this week! Well done, Tom! (He also captured the Moore/O'Reilly standoff.)

Does anyone know where I can find a link to an archive of the Franken/Hannity matchup on Air America. Word has it that Hannity was pulled in, unscheduled, and was taken to task (meaning given facts and documentation!) for several of Hannity's continuous on-air lies. For example, he was forces to admit that he'd "misspoke" when he claimed that Howard Dean "told people George W. Bush knew about 9/11 in advance." Apparently, Hannity "misspoke" to that effect about 9 or 10 times.

Anyone have a link to copy of the interview?

UPDATE!: Here's the .MP3! Thanks, Jaime!

Surely I'm not the first to mention this, but it occured to me tonight that if John Kerry wins, we'll have our first African-American First Lady!

And it figures she'd be white.

Today, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning "Doctors without Borders" organization announced they are pulling out of Afghanistan after 24 years there "because of security concerns and frustrations with the U.S. military" as the situation in the war-torn nation continues to deteriorate (since we failed to finish one war before beginning another).

Additionally, here's some War News from just yesterday for ya, courtesy of Today in Iraq:

Suddenly the story I just reported on in the previous item becomes even more relevant!

Just reported by Reuters:

"Compassionate Conservatism" in action.

Not even sure what to make of this one. Following up on a story headlined "Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides" (as pointed to on the BRAD BLOG last month), Capitol Hill Blue, the self-proclaimed "politically agnostic" news site (the oldest one on the WWW) files a report today headlined "Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World".

The lack of named sources in the report is again troubling here, but the "newsworthiness" of a "Commander-in-Chief" being prescribed "powerful anti-depressant drugs" is at least as notable as "WOMAN NAMES BILL CLINTON FATHER OF SON IN SHOCKING VIDEO CONFESSION" as reported by Drudge back in 1999. Not to mention that had this story, anonymous sources or not, been about Kerry instead of Bush, you can bet your boots that not only would it be leading The Drudge Report today (with a SIREN!), but it would be splattered over the entire "Liberal" and Extremist Media.

Such as it's about Bush, however, it's been picked up nowhere else yet that I've seen today. I'm waiting for the White House release of today's Press Gaggle to see if anyone asks about the story. Though I have a feeling the "Liberal" Media may drop that ball as well. What a shock.

Here's the first few grafs. The entire story is worth reading however for those familiar with the "dry alcoholic" syndrome or otherwise interested in some stunning (if true) insider gossip about a White House in disarray:

(Thanks to Jaime for the tip on this story!)