The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Read the BuzzFlash FAQ for info on submitting to the Mailbag.

Subject: Honest Vote Machines -- Dishonest People

Subject: The mentality of this President

This will make y'all proud:

"I'm also proud to be traveling with John McCain,'' Mr. Bush said to applause in Albuquerque, where he appeared with the Republican senator from Arizona after having him as an overnight guest at the presidential ranch. "Nothing better than waking up in the country and getting a cup of coffee and getting in the pickup truck and driving around and looking at the cows. That's what John and I did this morning. It's a good way to clear your mind and keep your perspective.''

Whaaaaaaat?!!!!

~ Cathy

Subject: FL National Guard

Have you noticed that the National Guard is not to be seen in the aftermath of Charley? Could that be because the FL National Guard is on duty in Iraq and unavailable to the citizens of the state of FL?

M Snead
NY

[BuzzFlash Note: We called the Florida National Guard and PFC Walker said of the 12,000 Florida Guard members, about 4600 were called up for Hurricane Charley, 1,000 were on foreign duty and 1,000 were on Federal Duty of a non-foreign and non-Hurricane Charley nature.]

Subject: Cokie Roberts COMPLETE sellout to W Bush

August 16, '04 Morning Edition

Dear Morning:

If Cokie Roberts has taken up a job as a Bush spokesperson, she should at least disclose it and not act as anything near a reporter or objective "analyst." Four (4) items make my case:

ITEM 1: Right out of the gate Roberts plays the same old song about Bush being "for" the $87 billion "for the troops" (most went to 'reconstruction', i.e., contractors) and Kerry being "against" it. Of course Cokie Roberts knows that Bush was for the version of the bill that would borrow the money (or stick the budget with an i.o.u.) and Kerry was for the bill that would pay for the outlay by rolling back some of the Bush Admin's prior tax cuts. But Roberts repeated Bush's "applause line" about how voting "for the troops is not complicated," without explaining what an ingenuous line that is, what with Bush threatening to veto the $87 billion if he didn't get it his way.

ITEM 2: And, in the same vein, Roberts (as mentioned above) talks about Bush's bully "applause line" to . . . who? To rallies of Bush-Only supporters, at Bush-Supporters-Only rallies where dissenters, or even undecided voters are not allowed! So, gee Cokie, think that maybe Bush could say just about anything to these sheep and get a rousing applause? Of course, the point is that Roberts refused to report that this great "applause line" was (a) a false statement of the facts (see Item 1 above: the issue appears to be as " complicated" for Bush as it was for Kerry) and (b) delivered to groups of people who will applaud for virtually anything Bush says or mis-says.

ITEM 3: Roberts, a woman touted as a "news analyst" seemed positively stumped and baffled by Kerry's position (ahead of Bush) in current polls. Roberts, having provided NPR listeners a little lecture on how great Bush is compared to Kerry, noted that "somehow," or "for some reason," Kerry is, indeed, ahead of Bush in the polls. Just utterly uncanny! Of course, this "news analyst" waxed clueless over this mysterious state of affairs, all the while refusing to analyze the candidates respective positions as such do or don't line up with voter sentiments; she likewise refused to analyze the myriad polls and studies re: Americans' view of whether the country's going in the right, or wrong, direction / whether bankruptcies are or are not at record highs in the U.S. / whether people feel uneasy about their bills, debts, jobs / whether citizens feel ousting Saddam was, and continues to be, worth the money and soldier deaths and causalities in Iraq / Kerry's and Bush's positive-negative numbers . . . Perhaps if Roberts actually bothered to look at and analyze this information, the bizarre situation (as she seems to see it) of Bush being so great and Kerry being so awful, yet Kerry leading in most polls(!) would be cleared up.

ITEM 4: Roberts repeated the RNC talking point that John Kerry is "all over the map" on Iraq. And she and her fellow NPR mike-mate wondered allowed over whether this made Kerry a "flip-flopper" (haw, haw, haw). Of course, Kerry's position is that he would have voted for Presidential authorization to go to war, and would have either (a) used that as a stick to keep Saddam in check, or (b), prosecute the war in a manner that would not have had so many American lives at risk -- he would have built a true coalition like Bush 41 did for Gulf War I. Jeepers, that's just such a mind-bending position! I am certainly sympathetic to Ms. Roberts' head spinning 'round over that "all over the map" position of Kerry's!

Roberts and whoever produced that piece should be FIRED.

Richard Newton
Birmingham, Alabama

Subject: Bush De-Reg. Pt. II

I know industry de-regulation isn’t the sexiest issue (unless Julia Roberts is on the prosecutorial team), but the Post printed part two of a brilliant in-depth series today that reveals the depth of this admin’s evil, aversely affecting every creature that eats, drinks or breathes. It’s so quiet (who ever heard of the industry-written Data Quality Act?) but I found myself gasping in horror over and over. Please read the whole thing and make it available on your sites.

Keep up the good work,

Tom Fry
Sedona, AZ

Quote to Keep:

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences." - General Wesley Clark

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: A nice little article

"Undaunted, Kerry decides to stay, play in Oregon"

I especially like "As he spoke Friday to 45,000 people in Portland, his largest crowd of the campaign (though characterized on KIRO/7 in Seattle as "hundreds of his supporters"), " about half way down. And " Bush seems at times to forget what he does. "Give me a chance to be your president, and America will be safer and stronger and better," he told a Marquette, Mich., rally in July" a little bit further.

Cheers!

Jerry

Subject: The Angry Liberal 8/16/04 Post re: Authorization to go to War

Excellent post today on the Kerry/Bush interpretation of the joint war resolution. One thing I wanted to draw your attention to, if you haven't heard it already, is that your call for Bush to provide his Presidential Determination was actually already provided by Bush on March 18, 2003.

As John Dean noted in Worse Than Watergate, the determination was "closer to a blatant fraud than to fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." and "Its content can be accurately analogized to male bovine droppings"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

As you can tell, it's insulting that the president offered essentially a verbatim recitation of the resolution language to fulfill his duties under the resolution.

Lance

Subject: Venezuela!

Time to update your site about the Hugo Chavez landslide in the US-backed recall election in Venezuela, and don't make the egregious mistake that US media is making of reporting the Chavez victory, then immediately saying that the opposition is claiming "fraud" before checking with the Carter Center and the OAS, which have been working in Venezuela for a year and say that the election was fair and square. US media stinks on Venezuela/Chavez issues. You don't see words like "landslide" in the US media (58% vs. 42%). You see words like "Castro" and "Cuba" and "leftist demagogue."

Mary

Subject: President Bush's new job program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Fort Hood, TX, August 2004 President Bush today unveiled his new jobs plan. In a surprise move, President Bush said that 2 million new jobs will be created by election day.

"As the war in Iraq has been accomplished several times over since May of 2003, I thought it might be a good idea to make sure once and for all that we accomplish our goals again in Iraq. Therefore, I am going to solve our economy problems, help train our troops for the war at the same time and give all anti-war peacemongers a creative venue for venting their anger at me and my administration."

It is expected that 2 million unhappy liberal Americans can be hired very quickly to be used as "stand in" Iraqi's at military training sties around the country. The best part about this plan is that it pays more than minimum wage, and virtually no training is required.

Please see Fox News for more details:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128862,00.html

Ted Fitch, Seattle, WA

Subject: Casualties

According to icasualties.org, the number of Americans killed in Iraq will easily pass 1,000 this month. Take a look at the number of American contractors killed to date...44. Add that to our troop total and we stand at 987 today. Spouses and families of contractors (whether Halliburton or not) are just as devastated by their loss as are soldier's families.

Keith Frohreich
Anaheim, CA

Subject: CNN Pours it on

CNN is pouring on the rethuglican line. One of wolf's reporters admits that the disaster monkey's words were from a GOP-funded VFW rally but still reports it as news and makes no mention of audience screening. If those that enter are being screened, what has the media signed or pledged to?

Paul

Subject: Tell Bush to Condemn Kerry Slander Ad

Dear friend,

Last week, a group of far-right Bush allies released an ugly and outrageous swing-state ad which claims that John Kerry faked his injuries, betrayed his troops, and "dishonored his country" in Vietnam. The ad features people who falsely say they served with John Kerry and who make numerous provably false accusations about Kerry's war record.

The "Swift Boat" ad is so far beyond the pale that even Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, spoke out about it, calling it "dishonest and dishonorable." Yet despite Senator McCain's request that President Bush " specifically condemn" the ad, Bush refuses to say anything about it.

That's why I'm signing MoveOn PAC's petition to President Bush. Together, we can send President Bush a clear message from hundreds of thousands of Americans that we won't stand for these smear tactics, and we expect him to repudiate and reject them. The petition will be delivered to Bush on the campaign trail.

Will you join me? Sign the petition now at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/falseadvertising/

Thank you.

Walter

Subject: No Funds for Superfund

Budget shortfall? Gee, where could that money have gone? That’s OK, because it’s just that “cleanup managers are likely to fall behind in clearing toxic residue like lead particles, cyanide and arsenic in soil or groundwater.”I swear, I have an atomic clock counting down the milliseconds until these demons are removed from Washington.

Tom Fry
Sedona, AZ

Subject: Slime Works

Buzz,

CrisisPapers.org is running articles and letters on DeserterDuhhbya A few letters posted on Monday, August 16th give cause for concern as they show that slime works:

"I will never vote for Bush, though I don't think I will vote for Kerry either after seeing what I have of his file and the statements of the "Swift Vet people".

And:

" ... you got this AWOL story, and they will wash it with Kerry's fake purple heart, the first one." [CrisisPapers responded, "So we have here a reluctant Kerry vote from someone who's bought the "Fast Boat" lie that Kerry's purple heart was a fake."]

Keep in mind that these are comments from people who, although they have followed the DeserterDuhhbya story and agree it should be told, still buy the lies. What effect, therefore, must this slime have on the average American who hasn't studied this issue?

T Quigly

Subject: Evelyn Pringle

Please advise Ms. Pringle that Bush is not a Texan. He was not born here. He was born in Connecticut. Moreover, his parents were not born here. He is nothing more than a carpet bagger. As far as I am concerned, he is masquerading as a Texan. That gives my State a bad name, and just provides more evidence that he is a liar, a phony, among other things of that nature.

Crash

Subject: Liberal Media

If the mainstream media is supposedly run by liberals, why is it that they are not criticizing Bush's policies in the press? The media has basically gagged themselves when it comes to any real scrutiny of the Bush administration. This makes no sense if mainstream media is truly "liberal".

The only place to find scrutiny of Bush and his policies is in the free press.

This fact should be thrown in the faces of all those right wingers yelling media bias by the liberal press!

BuzzFlash needs to do articles on this.

V. Holmes
Minnesota

[BuzzFlash Note: Bartcop aptly covers this issue here: "The Myth of the 'liberal' media"]

Subject: Where have all the f***ups gone?

Hey BuzzFlash,

With apologies to Pete Seger, "Where have all the f*ckups gone, long time passing?"

Has ANYBODY wondered where Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and company have been? Why have they been so silent...since June? The media certainly isn't going out of its way to find them.

Did Rove muzzle them to take the pressure of the presidency? Maybe they just went on vacation. After all, there's nothing major going on right now, is there and that's what their boss does when the going gets tough?

BTW, lots of new job openings in the military caused by outsourcing overseas. Maybe that's what dubya means by sending jobs out of the country is good for American Business.\

Don't wait. Sign up now. Be all you can be. Cause it's "One, two three, what are we fightin' for....next stop is desert sand...."

lensman

Subject: Fraud/Dr.Evil

Is it me or are those the same people I keep seeing at various Bush campaign events?

Michael Barry
Reston, VA.

Subject: New Stryker Armored Vehicle too Heavy to effectively Transport

I thought this 20 ton turkey had been canceled??? Plus no mention of the cost or Carlyle Group owned manufacturer United Defense...

CP

* * *

Weight an Issue for New Armored Vehicle

Aug 15, 10:59 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The weight of the Army's new armored vehicle significantly restricts the flight range of the C-130 cargo aircraft that transport it, say congressional investigators.

In fact, under certain conditions the investigators said the weight of the Stryker vehicle makes it impossible for the military cargo planes to take off.

Subject: stuff, nonsense, and crap

Mostly, that means drivel, which in turn, means the Bush Administration. Would you believe, that every time I go out to my car (it is exposed to the most right wing republican street)..I check the back bumper, just to see if it has been torn off. Paranoid, aren't I. But, life in the past four years, has taught me to be leery of Republicans.....in fact, as you well know, they scare the hell out of me!

Thank you Dave Ullman....I had in the meantime, in my fury, looked and looked, even to calling the paper and getting their e-mail address. The one you gave me, which is the only one I had, is their website, but if you go there, you can get their e-mail address....and I did! And, since then, I have been bombarding them with hate mail. Hey...they do it, why not us?

I also, over the weekend, watched a 1971 debate on Dick Cavett's show, between Kerry and O'Neill....well, it was almost....as in every debate between a republican and a democrat...the republican yells about 75% of the time..taking up the sense that the dem, just might have made...although, Cavett at one time, told O'Neill, "I am going to finish this sentence"! And the audience roared.

Another horrid thing I watched, was Bill O'reilly and Paul Krugman, and Bill was his usual offensive self. Apparently, Krugman had quoted something from the Movie F 9/11..and O'Reilly went nuts. Bill O'Reilly has gotten worse, if that is possible, I quit watching the letch after Clinton left office, because he was so sickening...but, he is worse, folks. I am telling you....and of course, Russert never stopped him from telling any kind of lies....I felt for poor Paul...he is not the O'Reilly type...you know, the kind, the sneering jerk, with the name-calling, etc??

I do not even want to see that again....but, would love to get in his face and tell him a thing or two. You know, Bill , if he can find a lie in the Movie Fahrenheit 9/11, after 12 lawyers fact checked it before release.....and a 10 thousand dollar reward on the table from Moore himself.....he could likely use it. But, it ain't gonna happen...he just loves to browbeat anyone. He has always done it and he always will.

Everyone, even republicans, although they would never admit it, wonder why George sat in that classroom...there have been rumors...maybe he was waiting for a change of clothes...har! (Whomever came up with that, thanks, I will use it!!)

The fact likely is that he is thinking, are they going to carry it out like they were supposed to? And, more than likely, they did...right down to the Anthrax deaths... and all the dead chemists ... strangely disappeared or died...It is not paranoia folks, it is plain fright. These people working and getting paid dearly by us....are taking us all to the cleaners and worse!

I have been ashamed twice during the Iraqi war...even with a granddaughter there -- she was working for the man!! I did not feel at all good about the statue being torn down...Soldiers are taught ...brainwashed, if you will! I now, feel a great sadness for the town of Najaf...I only know, that they feel it is their holy city...and no matter what anyone thinks of Muslims....they have their idea of God and so do we and neither of us has a right to tell the others how to believe!!

Do you all love Bush's political ad....where he has that half cocky smile and Laura is looking adoringly, with a slight frown at him...so "Stepford"....and He says, "I cannot imagine what a parent goes through, during 911, when they do not know which child to pick up first??" IF you parse that, it means I am gonna use 911 for my entire campaign....it is mine, and I will use it! And, sadly, the idiot is proud of it!!

But, me... I am proud of my bumper sticker...and my offer to volunteer for Kerry, and the fact that they had the largest crowd ever recorded in Portland....how great is that...? And they do not put the "others" in a pen...!

And, I am so proud of BuzzFlash...900 and some thousand hits in one week?? I didn't doubt it for a minute...I remember when I first heard about you...and went directly to your site...how very lucky we are!!

Smoochies!!...........Shirley St. Louis

I enjoy your work. This is a small point, but in a close election there's no reason to alienate anyone unless it makes political sense. You might ask BuzzFlash to modify your recent post, so it refers to Texas RIGHT-WINGERS instead of all "Texans". (There are decent folks in Austin, and a smattering elsewhere, and lots of voters even in Texas who consider themselves moderates.)

Currently it reads: "I can't help but wonder if it comes natural for Texans to lie about whatever, whenever. They seem to have no shame." http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contributors/04/08/con04335.html

I know what you mean; but how is a moderate Texan likely to react to this characterization? Your "Citizens For Honest Fighter Pilots" already has 90 Google hits, so it's being picked up and relayed to more than the BuzzFlash choir (in which I sing).

Keep up the great work!

Best regards,

Dale

Re: "Even the Lapdog Press Corps is Exposing the Potemkin Village of the Bush House of Illusion," August 16, 2004.

To be sure, NOT Fox News! They're still the 24/7 Bush campaign ad station they've been all along. And Republicans worry about what the Democrats have made of 527 groups? Hey, when you've got your own cable news network, you've got quite an advantage.

Melanie Killinger-Vowell

Subject: Hurricane "photo-op"

Yep, I was right. The moment I saw on television the destruction left in the path of the hurricane in Florida, I said to myself, "Bush is hi-fiving Rove and saying this must be good for a photo-op and a few points in the polls. He'll rush down there to get in front of the cameras and try again to present himself as a 'compassionate leader in times of crisis'". Sure-nuff, there he was on TV, fumbling for words as usual.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Ads

Political ads have annoyed me for many years, but Bush's attempt at smearing Kerry's Vietnam War record has taken it to lower levels. Tearing into Sen McCain in the 2000 Republican primary race, then Sen. Max Cleland's 2002 during his bid for re-election were equally despicable. Now the neo-cowards are attempting to play their Vietnam trump card again.

I have a suggestion for a TV ad that Kerry should use. He need only air this one single ad. It has no audio. It has no bottom-of-the-screen language trailer to read. It is longer then most ads, it runs for seven minutes, but requires no production costs. It contains coinciding 9/11 events, each share half of a split screen. A real-time clock ticks off the seconds of each event as they occurred. On the right you see the aircraft striking the Twin Towers. On the left sits our Commander-In-Chief on a grade schooler's chair, holding a copy of My Pet Goat, while Andy Card approaches him and whispers into his ear. Both images on the screen are absolutely silent for the entire seven minutes.

That's all that needs to be done. It is not a "negative" ad. And, it is neither contrived, nor staged. (As was the Willy Horton ad that deep-sixed Dukakis). The events happened. They happened simultaneously. I can't imagine a more simple, thought provoking ad for the viewer.

Richard P.

Subject: Why Bush is Calling Back Troops

I was at a store today and saw the announcement that Bush is recalling 100,000 troops from Europe and other former hot spots and bringing them home.

In the first second I heard it I knew why.

Gotta have cannon fodder for Iran, Syria and North Korea in Term 2.

Mike Curtis
Greenbrier Ark

Subject: Sending Bush back to Texas

I read your mailbag daily and have noticed a strong sentiment for sending Bush back to Crawford, Texas. While I completely sympathize with this burning desire, ney need, to remove this arrogant, petulant and incompetent boob from power, I personally don't want to see him return to the Lone Star state. We have enough conservative idiots - I mean republicans - and really don't need or want any more. Besides, I believe a much more appropriate retirement community for Mr. Bush (and Cheney) is Elba or St. Helena. I personally favor St. Helena, as it was the final destination for another dictator and proved to be so isolated a spot that he was no longer a danger to the rest of the world.

Kay
Austin, TX (a pearl in a sea of grits)

Subject: "Terrorism fears no longer helping Bush."

Buzz, hope you guys caught this exchange on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"..

-----------------------------------------------------

OLBERMANN: Meantime, there is another one of those coincidences that will have you shaking your head if you support the president about domestic security, and shaking all over if you do not.

If that statement flies in the face of logic, well, just yesterday came news of a study to be presented next month by two political science professors at Michigan State University.

It concludes that the terror/political calculus has changed, that the more voters fear another terrorist attack, the more likely they are to vote for John Kerry.

Details were released in advance to the "Chicago Sun Times." And the authors conclude that the connection between concern over terror and support for the current administration has been severed.

They sampled Michigan residents, statistically weighted, they say, to reflect the national population. It is tough to put it into hard numbers, but here we go.

Asked, who are you voting for in November, 51 percent said Mr. Bush.

They were then asked, how concerned are you about more terrorist attacks? Twenty-four percent said "very," 44 percent said "somewhat," 32 percent said "not at all concerned."

They then calculated support for the president in the groups at the two edges. Very concerned about terrorism -- 38 percent said they'd vote for Bush. Not at all concerned about terrorism -- 76 percent said they'd vote for Bush.

MSNBC political analyst, Craig Crawford, has been good enough to join us tonight, as well. Craig, good evening.

CRAIG CRAWFORD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: I want to talk about those Michigan results and whether or not they're valid in a moment. But first, valid or not.

During the "Chicago Sun Times" yesterday under a big headline...

"Terrorism fears no longer helping Bush."

And the next day...today...the headline is, "Official: No evidence attack is imminent."

The sequence of events here. Is this just a remarkable coincidence?

And do I have to be an unreconstructed paranoid to think otherwise?

CRAWFORD: Well, it does seem that when it turns out it's politically advantageous to them for us not to be scared, suddenly they don't want us to be scared anymore. It is an easy conclusion to draw, but a difficult one to prove.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5722768/

Matthew in Michigan

Subject: Washington Post's sort of mea culpa

Dear Buzz,

I was speechless with outrage and disbelief after reading the Washington Post's "explanations" of their see-no-evil, war-happy journalism in the time before US invasion of Iraq.

The below is a letter I sent them on Sunday:

* * *

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to inform you, regrettably, that you've just lost a (thus far faithful) reader.

Your strange 'mea-culpa-but-not-sorry' piece is the proverbial last straw for me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html

I read and re-read it -- and cannot believe my eyes. You've lost whatever shreds of integrity you've appeared to possess by this shirking responsibility for your most important duty: reporting the truth.

You've used up so much space for justifying -- but not apologizing for -- your complicity in starting this illegal and immoral war. And you dare to assert that no apologies are needed. I beg to differ.

As Mr. Woodward stated, you did not want to risk "looking silly" if the absurd claims of the Bush administration about Iraq turned out to be true. So, you are essentially saying you just went along with the blatant political propaganda -- so unbelievable that my school-age children were pointing its absurdity -- in order not to appear "silly"?

Do you realize how this sounds? This is not some junior high groupthink, contrary to your self-absolving reassurances. This is a monumental failure of your duties and a total lapse of your journalistic integrity. If that sounds harsh or exaggerated, then please do not forget that for your desire not to appear "silly" thousands of innocent people have been murdered, to mention just one, most obvious result of your uncritical push for war.

You keep saying that the Bush administration's claims were, if not irrefutable, then at least probable; and that you had no way to verify their truthfulness. And that somehow the booming pro-war voices drowned, in your ears, the whispers of the doubtful (as if that absolved you of your responsibility).

Please.

If you cared to notice, you'd have seen millions of people around the globe -- and in this country as well -- voicing their doubts loud and clear; and you'd have read foreign press giving you the ammunition you supposedly lacked in questioning the war hawks. But you were too busy chasing the elusive inside sources (of the corrupt administration hell-bent on pushing their criminal agenda forward) to notice what was in front of your nose. Even when you did seem to notice, you were more concerned about saving your face than telling the truth.

Shame.

And now you engage in the 'sort-of-mea-culping' that the Times has already subjected us to -- saying "sorry, but no sorry."

Unbelievable. In the face of the overwhelming evidence of your complicity and/or incompetence, all you care about -- again -- is not looking silly.

Well, it's too late for that.

You know, when my kids transgress somehow against against others, I remind them to say "sorry" like they really mean it -- hoping that they would indeed better understand their deed and its effect on the other if they felt the weight of their transgression in their, even reluctant (always reluctant), apology. This effort usually pays off -- a little contrition goes a long way. Unfortunately, this is something the members of our current administration have never learned; and, it seems, neither have you.

I'm sorry to say that I'm dismayed by your cowardly self-indulgence and I no longer consider you a trustworthy newssource. I will no longer visit your webpages or pick up your paper at the newsstand.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Mika.

Subject: Headlines perhaps should be...

I'm surprised you're not running the Chavez Victory as Headlines. This is a substantial blow to the Bush Cartel - Chavez's relationship and favor with Fidel Castro is eating the Bush Crime family up (the State Department today refused to recognize the results of the election (prelude to ours?)).

Anyway, a great victory...

just a thought..

jj

Subject: Old Mold

Things are looking up when Rove has Myrtle Drudge recycle the Clinton haircut story on Kerry. Thanks in particular to BuzzFlash and Media Horse, the "press" seems increasingly reticent to bite on these types of stories this time around.

By the way, the students are starting to arrive for fall classes at the University of Texas, and the bumper stickers are overwhelmingly anti-Bush. Not a lot of Kerry/Edwards stickers yet, just anti-Bush -- very anti. Otherwise, Bush/Cheney stickers are rare as hen's teeth around Austin.

dean glaze
aus/tex

Subject: Contrast

Dear BuzzFlash,

The Washington Post has talked about it. So has the Boston Globe. Even on television, without direct editorial comment, it is obvious. Kerry's campaign is open, welcoming, and inclusive. Bush's campaign is hidden, closed, and invitation-only.

Kerry's campaign stops are so wide open that anyone who wants to can download a rally ticket on the Internet and attend. In fact, even if you don't have a ticket, they'll let you in the gate anyway. Bush's campaign stops, on the other hand, have been indoors, or in controlled areas, under tightest security, and exclusive. The latest news is that they've even gone as far as to require a signed oath of loyalty before a supporter can attend one of the w's invitation-only rallies.

To me, this is a striking difference between the party of inclusion and the party of the elite. No dissent is allowed in the Bush camp. No risk that anyone might say something to embarrass the President while he's running for election. Naturally, the Republican's defense for this stark difference is that such tight security is required for the President of the United States; George Bush would love to open the doors and let as many people as possible come hear him speak, but security just won't allow it.

I remember the election of 1972. It's the first election that I do remember. I was six years old. My dad was a Nixon supporter. I remember attending two Nixon rallies as well as being there once when Air Force One landed at March AFB, where my dad was editor of the base newspaper. Of course, the Air Force Base was secure, but I want to talk about the two rallies we went to.

I don't remember any tickets required to attend. I don't remember any metal detectors. I do remember the Secret Service presence. I do remember a big crowd gathered in an open plaza to listen to the President talk about "peace with honor", and I remember the hippies and peace protestors mixed in the crowd. Yes, right there in the crowd. People who were there to support the President were standing right next to, -- right next to -- long-haired, beaded, barefoot hippies with protest signs. I remember the President speaking at a podium to a regular mix of cheers and jeers, all coming from the same crowd. I remember that not a single person tried to kill Nixon.

Yet today we are supposed to swallow that the reason that Bush's events are so tightly controlled, so closely monitored, and so exclusive is for his personal safety and security. In other words, President [sic] George Walker Bush is more paranoid than RICHARD M. NIXON!

The alternative is to admit that it's a blatant and weak excuse for thorough media control. I don't see another option to explain it. Well, maybe it's "a little from column A, a little from column B," to quote Abe Simpson. That I can believe.

Is that what you want in a President? Not me. I want a President with courage, a President who does not screen who gets in to hear him speak based on whether they already agree with him, a President who isn't afraid to answer a difficult question with a difficult answer. I want a President like John Kerry.

Sincerely,

Sean Lewis
A Veteran for Peace in Portland, Oregon

Subject: 100,000 home in 2006?

What's all this talk about redeploying 70,000 U.S. soldiers currently stationed in Europe and promises to bring home 100,000 support personnel, but not until 2006? Could it be a transparent and embarrassingly unimaginative attempt by the Bush/Cheney/Rove campaign to win the military vote by making promises that they'll have to be re-elected to keep?

Note to soldiers based in Europe: be careful what you wish for. You just might get your redeployment, but in the form of an open-ended tour of Iraq. Bush must be counting on the votes he'll gain from support personnel wanting to come home trumping the votes he'll lose from European based U.S. soldiers not wanting to be redeployed to Iraq.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Evening or Morning in America?

There's something deeply troubling about having a pResident who's ego is so fragile that everyone attending his rallies must purchase a ticket and sign a loyalty oath, and peaceful protestors must be corralled away out of sight and earshot so as not to hurt the pResident's poor little ol' feelings. Why oh why in the world would ANYBODY vote for this guy after the front row seat they've had for the last three years watching their country go the way of a creeping dictatorship or fascist state spitting at its friends and neighbors just because it thinks it can?

I'll take an intelligent, thinking, reasoning man like John Kerry any day over someone who is so stubborn and arrogant that he'd rather drive the country over a cliff than admit he screwed up when he betrayed the public trust by dragging the country into an unnecessary war based on lie after discredited lie.

I used to be an independent voter and have voted for both major parties in the past, but after watching for the last couple of years the right-wing republican free-for-all corporate-whoring FUathon, neocon warmongering and moral/ethical decadency wrapped up in the pages of Revelations and the American flag, I will NEVER vote for another republican as long as I live! Not unless the republican party clearly rejects the right-wing bible thumping christian crusaders and war-hooting mohawk neocons as radical reactionaries who aren't fit to command.

I only hope the voters in my state wake up this time and put some democrats in Congress to represent them and the state. The only time this state benefits from the republicans currently serving it in Congress is right around election time, when they miraculously come up with a wad of money for this or that local project, and only to get another term at which point the people of the state are quickly forgotten again for a couple of years while the politicians hobnob for their own benefit and profit. God, why did I ever start to pay attention to politics?! Its so depressing to see so many people constantly fooled by professional liars with deep pockets and friends who own all of the big media in the country.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Bush Troop Redeployment Announcement

Hi folks,

The newest Bush plan seems to be just another page from the neocon playbook.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Read it, again.

Nothing new here.

Respectfully,

Lee Harris

Subject: Great piece by Farrell! But Maher was wrong about something

Dear Buzz,

Thanks for the fantastic article by Maureen Farrell (Why the Republicans Have to Hide Their Agenda) summarizing the fundamentalism that is gripping the White House and that has its claws out for the Middle East--this piece should be required reading by everyone who plans on voting in November, including all the silent-majority MODERATE evangelicals who are regular churchgoers but aren't really aware of certain highly flammable ideas that fundamentalists not only take seriously, but want to help bring about. (WHY?, one has to wonder, since even the most godly born-agains will feel at least a little gloomy as they watch loved ones who are Left Behind fall into the Lake of Fire for eternal torment, etc.)

Moderate evangelicals tend to focus on the beautiful things that Jesus said, but I will admit that we tend to fall asleep when the preacher gets to stomping his feet about all that high-flying, doom-dealing Revelations stuff wherein we'll soon be looking at huge, scary, winged, clawed, funky half-this and half-that critters flying the friendly skies and heralding the return of Jesus. (Funny, how nothing in Revelations sounds anything like the Jesus of the four gospels...)

Anyway, there's one thing that Bill Maher didn't seem to realize (nor Larry King, for that matter), whose exchange Ms. Farrell reported in this piece: At the time of the Rapture/Apocalypse, to which Mr. Bush is trying to look as if he, like buddy James Dobson, is hurrying us (actually, I think that George would rather go golfing), the Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) will not ALL be dead. Rather, 112,000 of those Jews in Israel who CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY will be raptured up to safety. (Some of us actually read our Bibles!)

So, for those who might have gotten worried by that Larry King show vis a vis what is supposed to happen to the actual people in Israel if Mr. Sharon et al. continue to benefit from the allegiance of the fundamentalists who advise Mr. Bush and his foreign policy of unquestioning support for Sharon's government, REST EASY--112,000 of you folks can still ride the Rapture Wave if you'll just convert. (But please do ring the nearest pastor or priest right away--things are coming along a little faster than expected, what with the looming offensive against "insurgents" at the mosque in Najaf.)

Carol P.
Norfolk VA

Subject: Awaiting the Greatest Debates of our Time.

Hi Gang!

Just some FYI for those interested.

First presidential debate - Thursday, September 30
Vice presidential debate - Tuesday, October 5
Second presidential debate - Friday, October 8
Third presidential debate - Wednesday, October 13
Each debate will last for ninety minutes, start at 9:00 p.m. ET, and take place before a live audience.

Formats are as follows:

The candidates will be seated at a table with the moderator in the first and third presidential debates and in the vice presidential debate.

The first presidential debate will focus primarily on domestic policy.
The second presidential debate will use the town meeting format.
The third presidential debate will focus primarily on foreign policy.
The town meeting debate and the vice presidential debate will be open to all topics.

First presidential debate: Fox
Vice presidential debate: ABC
Second presidential debate: NBC

No word on who will carry, if at all, the third presidential debate. It is a virtual given that Shrubya is going to be given all the questions that will be asked him in advance for the first and third debates. Thus, he'll get to study his cheat notes extra hard before his afternoon nap.

What I do really expect to see is Shrubya attempt to take the high road, espousing his "discomplishments." What I expect out of Kerry is to hammer Shrubya left and right, exposing the multitude failures and lies of the Appointed One's administration and precisely explaining what he will do to fix all the damage done.

The most fun will be the look on Shrubya's face when Kerry pummels him incessantly with fact after fact of Shrubya's misleading tendencies, detrimental economic strategies, and disatrous foreign policies. When Shrubya lets the "zingers" fly, you'll know Kerry is really ratcheting the pressure on the Appointed One's juevos.

But most of all, I really want to see the townhall debates. This is where Kerry will excel by connecting in a real and personal way, at the same time showing a serious and genuinely concerned candidate versus Shrubya's superficial "aw shucks, I'm just an average Joe" persona.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes, folks. "Aw shucks," misleading and outright lying are no longer tolerated by the voters who are absolutely and resolutely serious about their choice of leadership this time around.

John Kerry knows this.

It is outrageously laughable that Shrubya simply just doesn't get it.

Jerry Peurala
Westfield, IN