 |
|||||
|
February 5, 2004 |
|||||
Important Note: Because we can't always determine your intentions, we need to ask a favor of you when you send us email. If you DO NOT WANT YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED in the Mailbag or in the Contributors section, please write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the Subject line or at the top of your email. That way we'll know it's just a comment to BuzzFlash. Additionally, if you submit a mailbag item and DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME associated with your submission, sign your email "A BuzzFlash Reader." If you send email unsigned, we will post your name with your submission, or, if that's not available, your email name (not the full address, just what's on the left side of the email address). Please try and keep your word count under 400. If your letter includes hypertext links, please include the entire URL. We can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
THIS IS PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1. Subj: Dean's Strategy Dear BuzzFlash, I would like to make some comments regarding Gov. Dean's campaign strategy. According to his campaign, he plans on focusing on the number of delegates he receives, rather than major victories here and there. A "slow and steady wins the race" sort of thing, I suppose. While I can see certainly see the benefits to such a strategy (it's certainly feasible to arrive at the convention with more delegates without carrying many states), its fundamental failure is that it is based on the presumption that the president is elected by the national majority. Due to the "winner take all" laws of most states regarding the electoral college, as well as the electoral college system itself, it is possible--as evidenced by the current occupier of the Oval Office-- that one can be put into office with fewer national votes than his opponent. Gov. Dean's strategy is predicated on the "outlandish" idea that the people as a whole actually elect the president, and that coming in second actually means something. If 5,000 people vote for you in the primaries, you receive their proportion of delegates (as long as you make the 15% cutoff in many states); if your opponent receives 5,001 in the nationals he gets his proportion, plus yours. In the primaries, yes, it is beneficial to come in second, or even third; 51% equals 51%. In the national race, 51% equals 100%. So, while it is possible for Gov. Dean to receive more electoral votes than Kerry in the primaries, that doesn't translate at all into being successful nationally against Bush. That will show that he has a wide base of support, but does it mean he can carry any states in the national election? If he can't carry any states when dealing only with Democrats, how does he imagine he will be able to carry those states when Republicans are thrown into the mix? The person to beat President Bush must be able to carry individual states, thereby receiving electoral votes. After all, Gore received half a million more votes nationally than George Bush, but it came down to only 526 votes in Florida. It's extremely undemocratic and needs to be changed, but those are the rules we unfortunately have to play by. The only way to change it would be to amend the Constitution, and that's unlikely to happen. I support Howard Dean; I've put my absentee vote in for him in Virginia. Why? Because I support what he has tried to do with this campaign: he has forced the more established candidates to take notice that they must be strong in their stance against the war and must give the Bush administration no quarter. None of them would have come out as strongly against the war had Dean not been so popular in the polls. But, the Democratic voters have spoken and have shown that they'd prefer to elect John Kerry. We must go with the voters on this one. I can afford to be principled in my vote in the primaries, as the vote will result in a Democrat regardless (so I'm hardly “throwing away”my vote to Dean--Kerry is my second choice anyway), and I will be voting for whomever the voters choose as their candidate against Bush in November. The time for principles ended in the 2000 campaign, now is the time of pragmatism. Andrew
Christian Subj: AWOL Democracy http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=19 Seems to me that pResident Bush has a history of awarding no bid contracts, like the Lottery Commission contract to Ben Barnes' GTECH. Mr. Barnes being the guy that called General Rose to get W that last spot in the National Guard... Marc L.
Lippincott Subj: shams likely to appear faster than weapons Dear BuzzFlash: I loved mike signorile's article today (http://www.nypress.com/17/5/news&columns/signorile.cfm) about shams materializing faster than weapons. Is it just me, or do you feel as though the very act of participating in a commission to investigate the intelligence on Iraq, is a little like questioning whether the guys killed at the valentine's day massacre might have been gunned down by Elliot ness and his untouchables? If one of bush's own cabinet members has admitted that invading Iraq was second (only to cutting taxes for the rich) on the shrub's wish list of priorities after his appointment as president, why do we need an investigation to figure out what happened? The only intelligence failure worth looking at is the one that put these criminals in the white house in the first place. We should be having an impeachment hearing, not an investigation. He lied in his state of the union speech. They are all lying. In fact, they haven't even disputed what O'Neill revealed about having had their minds made up on Iraq by January 2001! No denial of that; they just questioned his use of a secret document. Colin Powell is the worst liar i have ever watched. In February 2003, for him to reverse his position 180 degrees on the Iraq threat in less than a year, blaming "specific, credible evidence" to support this invasion and occupation was simply incredible even at that time. Now that it's been proven he was wrong, all he can mutter is that he is "still sure we did the right thing." Ok, I hear that. What is there to investigate? The people who are willing to believe what they see, already know what happened. What should be investigated is why our national media haven't been straight with the American people. There should be an investigation into the profound ignorance of the electorate. Can any objective observer truly question what the problem was with our nation's immoral, illegal, and irrational decision to go to war? It's what these greedy people in the shrub administration have wanted all along. They've had a website online for years that sets out their entire agenda, planned in the mid 1990's: to invade Iraq, based on an excuse if need be, for "geo political" purposes. The WMD's were an "excuse", a little "white lie". Despite the fact that no one told Cheney the truth is now out, everyone who pays careful attention knows this already. (The American media has abrogated any responsibility for informing everyone else.) Why would any objective person participate in an investigation that is simply intended to co opt the debate by making it appear as though the obvious problem isn't plain to see. The Emperor has no clothes. Why sit there on a commission acting like he's dressed just swell? An "investigation" is NOT the way to enlighten the public on this issue; it is counter to the truth that the problem is ALREADY very clear and there for all to see. Those who have a problem with the idea of hyping facts to go to war will see where this problem lies if they look carefully. Those who don't share this reservation about the clarity of purpose that should be associated with killing other human beings won't see a problem no matter how many more good and honest people swear to what happened at the risk to their own careers and physical well-being. Ask Valerie Plame or David Kelly about how worthwhile a shrub run investigation is likely to be. Let's skip the next investigation; use the taxpayers money instead to give the White House a new coat of paint in a last symbolic gesture about the entire incident; and hope the drooling idiots in the electorate wake up prior to November. Sincerely yours, Chris McFarland Dear Buzz, Finally, some mainstream corporate media has come out and questioned the truthfulness of the present administration with regard to Iraq (see the latest issue of Newsweek magazine). The Bush Cartel has earned the United States international opprobrium by violating International Law and the US Constitution and effectively committing murder (now that Kay and Powell have admitted that the Bush Cartel seemed to know all along that there was no imminent threat from Iraq). We need to collectively and aggressively communicate our outrage to our “representatives”in Washington. Those representatives who voted to send our young men and women into Iraq must be held accountable for abrogating their responsibilities to the rule of law under the provisions of the US Constitution. Here is a copy of a letter that I sent to my representatives in New York earlier today (Senators Schumer and Clinton and Representative John Sweeney):
I am urging everyone to let your feelings be known. Don’t simply tolerate this abhorrent behavior. Stand up and be counted amongst those who are mad as hell and unwilling to take it any longer! Austin Moran Buzz: Why haven't the news services picked up on the fact that Bush refused to take his flight physical and was essentially grounded? That is, I believe, an incontrovertible and essential element in his failure to complete his obligation. It's just not being discussed. Now the Repuglicans are trying a new tactic: "You've got Bush who's already commander in chief, and has deployed military forces in a successful way, and has proven what he's willing to do," said Bill Dal Col, a Republican political consultant. "And you've got somebody who was in the military 30 years ago, different time, different era. What he did in Vietnam does not play out to what he has to do on the world stage now." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/politics/campaign/04MILI.html Clearly, the issue of Dubya's National Guard record is a prickly subject for Rove and company. What with only 26 percent of the military solidly behind the "Commander-in-Chief" we need to beat the AWOL episode to death! I love watching them whiiiinnneee. Sharon Andrews Subj: Joe Lieberman Exit Dear Buzz, Am I glad Lieberman is out of the race? Yes. Was it appropriate that he sounded like Don Rumsfeld in his announcement? Most definitely. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: ricin covert search opportunity? Just a thought, guys. But if you wanted uninterrupted access to all senators' offices and computers, wouldn't it be convenient to close their buildings while you "cleanse" the offices of ricin? Who would do such a thing in THIS political atmosphere? Robert Cochran Subj: "...he did not let us in." Bush's "Saddam didn't let us in" statement last summer wasn't a gaff as Dana Milbank of the WP said. He said it again on Jan 27. This should be your top story; no one else has reported this. White House transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html Conason's Journal: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/01/27/bush_wmd/print.html Thanks - GD Subj: National Priorities Hey Buzz, Let’s see if I’ve got this right:
It’s good to know that our leaders have their priorities in order. Mark Schueler Subj: Pining for a Mudbath Last night while listening to CNN's troika of talking heads, Greenfield, Woodruff and Blitzer, expound on their analysis of the primary election results, there was a most revealing moment. Ms. Woodruff expressed what seemed to be her frustration with the current trend of the Democratic campaign when she somewhat petulantly asked:
The other two members of the troika of course rapidly nodded their heads in vigorous assent to Ms. Woodruff's apparent disappointment in the lack of sufficient vitriol on the part of Mr. Kerry's opponents and the fact that they were "still running a positive campaign." What this exchange showed me is that the members of the "media intelligentsia" (cough) were much, much happier when the Democratic candidates were seemingly focused on attacking each other rather than being focused on the abysmal failure that is the Bush Administration. While the Democratic candidates appeared to be divided and squabbling during the runup to the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Bush's disastrous record was escaping serious public inquisition. However, during the New Hampshire campaign the candidates clearly began to focus their attention relentlessly on the enormous catalog of misdeeds which this maladministration has compiled, and the candidates each began to stress their individual visions of hope and renewal. This newfound focus by the candidates on the numerous fiascoes of governance committed by this maladministration, and their articulation of positive messages of change continued through the runup to yesterday's primaries It is clear that once the voters in New Hampshire and yesterday's primary states heard the candidates' scathing critique of the failures of this maladministration and their own plans for the rebirth and renewal of American democracy, they responded enthusiastically and resoundingly. They showed uniformly that they are hungry for a change from the horrendous course which Mr. Bush has set for the ship of state. However, importantly, once the Democratic candidates positive messages finally began to be heard by the nation at large, Mr. Bush's job approval ratings began to plummet and new polling data suggests that at least four of the Democratic contenders would beat Mr. Bush in a head to head match up. The Democratic bench suddenly looks very strong and deep indeed. This of course apparently causes the media talking heads great distress. They thought they had their scripted story line all figured out. For months they had been pushing the notion of a deeply divided and antagonistic group of Democratic candidates more concerned with bloodying their opponents then fighting Mr. Bush. The mythos they chanted as a mantra was that these candidates would tear each other apart and leave the party weakened and divided while Mr. Bush would " look presidential" and coast to an easy victory. However recent events have showed that, as usual, this "conventional wisdom" was conventional only in insular media circles, and it most assuredly was not wisdom. What recent events have shown is that the Democrat candidates are in fact quite united. Though they may have slight disagreements on specific policy details they are united in their singular desire to deliver the American people's democracy from the ruinous policies of this group of neoconservative extremists which five members of the Supreme Court appointed three years ago. Thus, the candidates should absolutely not fall into a "mud trap" and resort to negative, scurrilous attacks on one another no matter what so called "media analysts" may think. While this stratagem might serve the talking head's desire for a good political bloodletting, it most certainly in the long run would only serve Mr. Bush, who is banking on an obeisant corporate controlled media to again gloss over his horrendous record and focus the public's attention on inane trivialities such as "likeability" and clothing as they did in the 2000 race. Television talking heads have shown that they will not talk seriously about Mr. Bush's lengthy record of abject policy failures, so the Democratic candidates must. They are the only ones at present capable of breaking through the scripted media facade. Dan Delisio Subj: Black Box Voting As to the election stealing opportunities, this year there will be many more with the advent of 'black box voting'. Touch screen voting opens the way for mistakes of all kinds (have heard that 13% inaccuracy is about the norm) and the fact that many of these machines leave no paper trail, no way of recounting or actually counting initially. The votes can be attributed to whatever candidate those in the backroom who are in control want elected. Be aware. Write. Don't listen to those who are complacent about the fairness and accuracy of this voting system. Demand a paper trail. Make sure your election officials remain honest. This is the way 'they' will 'steal' the '04 election. Rooth Subj: Did the Village Voice article on Sharpton freak anybody else out? If just half of this is true, then even I, a complete cynic, have underestimated just how low the Republicans are going to elect GW. As a yellow dog Democrat, I've attributed a lot of evil to the GOP over the years, but these assholes make Watergate look like a college prank.
Watch your backs, Buzzers. It's ugly out there. Lynne Keeley anyone have the feeling daddy bush was on the phone with paula zahn telling her to do something quick to save juniors behind on this awol stuff? :):):):) by the way, i see kerry has been hanging with his old military buddies, has bush been getting together with his? oh, never mind, i forgot, no one can remember him! :):):):):) karen massey Subj: If Only the Government Was Run Like a Business Growing up, I often heard my father say “If only this government was run like a business…” Government-as-a-Business was my father’s Holy Grail of governance. In his dream, America was run with well-oiled efficiency by a legion of freshly-scrubbed, white-shirted businessmen. Citizens would be obedient and cheerful. They would dedicate themselves to long hours of work, follow the boss’s rules without question, and never ask for raises. With everyone in their proper place, the country would efficiently march towards the bottom line. Competitors would be effortlessly squashed, profits bloom, and the leaders would be richly rewarded. My father, a businessman and sturdy Republican, passed away a number years ago. I used to recall his harmless, idiosyncratic dream with amusement. Now I remember it with horror. Thanks to George W. Bush, we now know what America will look like when government is run like a business. Christopher
Alan Subj: Open Letter To George W. Bush: Tell America The Truth Dear Mr. George W. Bush, It would be helpful for the American people to know the truth, and nothing but the truth about: * Your Military Record. Did you drop out of the Air National Guard? Some say AWOL, some say Deserter....can you please give us the information we need as a voting public, to make an informed decision about the truth of this matter. * What really happen and why on 9/11 and who was responsible for it? Did you know about it in advance? Will you stop blocking this investigation? * Valerie Plame outing by a member of your Administration. Can't you find out who in the White House did this? What is taking so long? * The reasons why we went to WAR based on lies, that was manufactured by The Office Of Special Plans. Did you know these were lies and were you complicit in creating them? Can we have a truly independent investigation? These are just a few issues that we as Americans should know before the up coming election in Nov. Being President of the United States is not a job for one to merely sit in a high chair, with a bib around the neck, getting fed pabulum by your advisers. You said you don't read newspapers, or other news sources. Yes, from the lack of intellectual wisdom and knowledge you have shown of the world and her diverse cultures, I certainly believe that. But I expect more from the "leader of my country" and the free world. If you are not able or capable of informing yourself about the true nature of what is going on in your White House, Administration nor the world, I would ask that you resign yourself from such an important office and go back to buying baseball teams, and oil companies so you can do what you do best, insider trading, and corporate malfeasance. Mr. Bush the world can not survive four more years of you negligence, your ineptitude, your detachment from reality nor your penchants for going to WAR to kill helpless people due to you failing to inform yourself of the TRUTH or your willingness to do it for other than honorable reasons. So resign NOW, effective immediately. Sincerely, Esther,
An American Citizen Subj: "Cakewalk", "greeted as liberators", "huge..Iraqi welcome", "short conflict" quotes -
A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Dean's Big Mistake Dear Buzz: I've always loved Howard Dean and have been a big supporter of his courage and toughness. He did make one fatal mistake, however, and it has proved his downfall. During one of his debates he denounced corporate media saying, if President, he would break up the conglomerate it has become. Noble sentiment, to be sure. Who wouldn't want that, but I remember thinking at the time, oh oh. Be careful, Howard. You're sending up too many red flags. Sure enough, over the past few weeks, the corporate media has instead been breaking up Howard. I find it heartbreaking to watch all his hard work and frontrunner position eroding as the steady drumbeat of "unelectable" pounds on. Kerry was barely in the race a few weeks ago, but now he's "electable"? Kerry has never been my favorite. For all his war veteran machismo, he has caved in to the neocons too many times -- voting for the war in Iraq, repeating how capturing Saddam made us all safer, voting in whatever budget this administration wanted. I feel almost cheated by this man coming to power over Howard Dean, who's real sin was in telling the truth. Still, what choice is there but to back the one deemed most "electable?" I guess November will really decide. Laurie Subj: CENSURE BUSH/CHENEY FOR LYING More than 528 American soldiers have now died in Bush's ongoing Iraqi war. Untold thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have also died. Why? Because, Bush said, Saddam Hussein is a nasty guy who possessed horrible weapons that posed a "mortal threat" to the U.S. Bush and his top lieutenants screeched in unison that it was imperative to invade Iraq now and "pre-empt" the fiendish dictator before, as George so starkly put it, "mushroom clouds" rise over our country. The Bushites were absolute in their dire warnings that we had to go to war: George Bush: There is "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Dick Cheney: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are." Colin Powell: "Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option." They lied. Let that soak in. Our top national leaders flat out lied to We the People in order to put our young men and women into their deadly war. Early this year, with no White House comment, Bush & Company quietly withdrew the 400-member weapons inspection team that they had put in Iraq to scour the country to find the weapons of horror that were the rationale for Bush's invasion. No weapons or evidence of an active weapons program were turned up. Also, a January report from the Army's own War College scathingly concludes that Saddam posed no threat to the U.S. and that the invasion "was a war-of-choice," not of necessity. This was promptly reinforced by a scholarly study from the Carnegie Endowment that found that Saddam had no weapons program that could "pose an immediate threat," and that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat." This is no matter of innocent little lies. Their lies are stained with blood. Brian BuzzFlash, What is with this Apology business that I see going around the net. This is a letter I sent to Working for Change when they ask me to sign a letter asking Bush to apologize for his leading us into a war:
********** How simple it is to ask for an apology from a mass murderer. How many murderers got that kind of treatment from Bush when they were executed while he was governor of Texas, eh? Just a thought . . . oh, and a . . . my dander's up . . . Thanks Buzz Shirley Smith Subj: This website Every day, I read every one of the e-mails...and every article on this site...and I marvel at how much we all think alike!!! We are true democrats and true Patriots!! Love you all.............Shirley........St. Louis Subj: Signs of Democracy Driving home from work today, I decided to pull of on the side of the road. There planted firmly in the ground, I saw only two signs. One said Dean. The other said Clark04. I took a moment to quiet down and wipe the shrill corporate media images from my ears and eyes. These two signs represented the hard grassroots efforts that will not go away. The signs were firmly planted in the grass and I thought it is a wonderful expression of people's hopes and desires and dreams and a wonderful expression of their grassroots struggles which will in time bring forth flowering democracy. I wondered how many voices could be heard in the history of the movements that brought those signs into being. I wondered about the passions and the pain in the people who were inspired to bring about those two grassroots movements. Thanks to all those people. They are the voices democracy. A BuzzFlash Reader Subj: Halliburton Meals? Dear BuzzFlash, Can anyone explain to me why Halliburton was handing out meals to our servicemen in the first place? Aren't servicemen supposed to be fed by the military itself through our tax dollars? What is going on here? Rob Moitoza [BuzzFlash Note: One word: privatization. We'd rather eat an old dehydrated beef patty MRE than one spoonful of anything served by Halliburton.] Subj: Screams But, one more thing I am right about. The 'Scream'. Yes, the famous Howard Dean 'Scream". When I saw that I thought what a pile of nothing. I thought of Edvard Munch's painting---the guy, alone on a bridge and all around him was as he perceived was chaos, all he had left was to hold his head---and "Scream". No words in the painting but one hears loudly "The Scream". gwb lies and lies, his whole mob lies, and the "Media" carry forth the lies and fabrications and often corrects the words but never challenges the lies. Where is our 'Scream'? Why are we not on our rooftops 'Screaming'? Hi Buzz Yes the now famous Dean 'Scream'. The loudest 'Scream' is the one we do not hear. The 'Media' baits us with wave after wave of pictures and footage and wordage of unpresidential, lost it, crazy??? From what? A campaign speech? What, the same 'Media' that unabashedly repeats the gwb mob lies without challenge or even trivial investigation now dismembers the Dean campaign and we are to believe them? Where are the screams!!!?? Recall the 2000 election and the mob 'Screaming' and banging on the wall -- Stop Counting!? Crazy? Of course. Did the 'Media' call it Crazy and show the footage over and over? Where were the screams? These bloated overpaid bags of propaganda for their corporate owners are telling us who should be our candidate and we let them? Where are the 'Screams'? How I wished that Howard Dean would have turned the Sawyer interview back at her. A good offense is often the better defense. As Sawyer leaned forward with her 'I know your pain' expression begging Dean and his wife to disclose in utmost confidence his 'anger', "Tell me you have anger (Please, please--we need this, our producer needs this, our ratings need this) and we can all feel so much better and have cake (maybe some cake from Africa), and Judith if you tell me of Howard's anger, I have an apple for you (cackle, cackle)". Dean could have said, "Dianne, this administration tells us lies, they tell you lies and they take us to war based on lies and fabrications, and you just repeat them like words from the mount, does that not make you - just a bit angry?" We should all 'Scream'. I will say it again--the "Media" reacts as one giant amoeba bent on advancing the agenda of the politico-corporate ownership. They are as secret a secret society as is the "Skull and Bones" and their intentions are not to bring about the benefits of Freedom and Democracy. Scream now, it may be our last chance. I do not know if Howard Dean should be the Democratic Candidate but I sure as Hell do not want the f---ing 'Media' to direct my decision. Pardon me, I think I will have a quiet word outside. Best Cole... |
|||||
 |
||||
| DAILY BUZZ | ||||
| INTERVIEWS | ||||
| ANALYSIS | ||||
| MEDIA LINKS | ||||
|
Unless
otherwise noted, all original |
 |
|||
