February 1, 2006
The BuzzFlash Mailbag
The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. More reader opinion is at "Contributors." You can write to Mailbag at http://www.BuzzFlash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18.
Subject: After Bush Reads Aloud...
The GOP faithful have a strange way of experiencing reality. They forget crimes after the criminal comes on TV and says something.
They pretend things don't happen the very second it is over.
I predict the GOP faithful (media ESPECIALLY) will demand that everyone 'stop living in the past' and 'move forward' to 'make America great.'
This SOTU will give them the opportunity to ignore every trial featuring one of their own.
But we can steer the public discourse toward where this country is headed without forgetting what happened to get us where we are.
Pretty words on TV followed by applause from paid supporters will not erase the reality of soldiers returning without an arm or a leg.
Empty promises cannot help Americans who have lost their jobs due to corrupt GOP bosses.
One speech does not cover-up the screams for help from American citizens in New Orleans.
'Stayin' the course' is not the same as accountability.
Appearing strong is not the same as BEING strong.
Cheating is not winning.
Torture is not an American value.
There are many laws the GOP have broken; one speech will not change that.
Don't let them forget.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Differences Between Communism and Compassionate Conservatism
I was born and raised in Poland, under Soviet occupation. The regime there was socialist, heavily leaning towards communism. Since I was an adult when I left Poland, I remember well all the marks of commies. Now, living in the USA since 1983, I saw the great country sliding at first slowly, then faster and faster, toward - well, not exactly communism, but a system so similar to it that it got me nauseated.
Let's see: a) one party system, even though there is some loyal opposition. b) Police state. c) Citizen gathering and/or protests strongly discouraged. d) Fear, fear, fear. e) People arrested without warrant, held without access to a lawyer. f) People vanishing without trace? Already or not yet? g) Spying by citizens on fellow citizen strongly encouraged. h) Spying on citizens by the authorities is actually a norm. Nobody questions it anymore.
What IS that system?
OK, if it was communism, I would have to add: i) full (if fake) employment j) access to health care for everyone k) prayers to ANY deity prohibited, or at least strongly discouraged.
As it is, I have to pick up at: i) high unemployment while corporations are making a killing j) health care accessible only by above the average wealthy citizens k) prayers to a xtian deity enforced.
Considering i), j) and k), communism offered a better bargain...
Anyway, the i), j) and k) are the only significant differences between the two systems, as I see it. Because I do expect shortages of gasoline and food in the near future, and I do expect shortages of everything else (whatever's made in China) right after shortages of food appear. Because the whole U.S. of A. is being carried in a Chinese pocket, and when the bushites, renowned for their magical diplomacy, tick them off, the Chinese will stop the shipments...
I was beside myself when I found out that there will be no filibuster. I spent hours on the phone, I wrote huge number of e-mails, letters and faxes. I could have shouted at a wall, I would have gotten an echo. Because obviously I did not get even an echo from dishonorable Salazar of CO. I wonder whose pocket is he inhabiting now? Because it won't be mine.
Today I actually went to the court house and changed my party affiliation. To Unaffiliated. I cannot stand being in the same party with someone like Salazar, Lieberman, Byrd, Obama, etc.
Now, that they got their bushit, they can eat it, too, all by themselves.
Bitter in CO
Subject: State of the Union
My take on the President's SOTU speech:
1. Well, it looks like one of the winners tonight is the word "freedom," which was used approximately 17 times.
2. The President sounded combative, and for all his rhetoric about "reaching out" (I guess the one 40-minute meeting he had with former secretaries of state and defense allowed him to say that), he failed to convince me that he would.
3. Phrases from the "I have the right to wiretap Americans" portion will be repeated over and over, as they were or are now talking points issued to all Republican members of Congress. And if that Hoo-Hah outburst by Republicans wasn't staged after his "I intend to keep on spying" bit, then my name is Harriet Myers.
4. He just can't lose that smirk.
5. He didn't mention Hurricane Katrina by name, or New Orleans, or bin Laden.
6. He wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent. BUT, health care needs fixing, social security needs fixing, and we are involved in a war on terror, and will stay involved until complete victory is achieved. AND he will cut the deficit in half by, oh, what did he say, 2009? YOU tell ME how that works.
7. Oh, yeah, NOW the Dems get feisty!!!
8. A lot of his statistics didn't jive with what I've been reading. Hope Fact Check does its thing.
9. Funny, he didn't mention Jack Abramoff by name, either. But there was some kind of outburst when he made a cautious reference to corruption in government. Makes me wonder if they confiscated all the cameras afterwards and destroyed the film.
10. Republicans are so terrified of Karl Rove, that if Bush offered up a Healthy S**t Initiative, they would applaud. Pardon my, yeah that's right, French.
The whole speech sounded like a shouted lecture. Oh, yeah, and he did that little thing he does with his jaw -- you know, sliding his jaw left and right.
And what happened to Cindy Sheehan who was supposed to be an invited guest, but got arrested? I want to know what that was all about.
And that's my take on it.
Subject: The Alito Cloture Vote Was the Last Straw for Me
The 19 Democrats who voted to end debate on the Alito confirmation debate are traitors; they are Democrats in Name Only (DINOs). A traitor is worse than an enemy and in this sense they are worse than George W. Bush. It is long past time to purge the DINOs from the U.S. Congress. What point is there to the Democrats regaining the House or Senate in 2006 if their ranks are infested with Quislings? I will be looking for Democrats, Greens and Independents to support who are running against any of the Alito 19 in the 2006 primary and general elections.
In my home state of Wisconsin Rae Vogeler is a Green who will challenge the traitor Herb Kohl:
And here's a link to a Lieberman primary challenger I found in BuzzFlash:
I recently moved from Reno, Nevada to the beautiful forests of Northern California, which means I have to register to vote here. After a lifetime of being a Democrat and never voting for a Republican (it all started for me with Nixon) I have decided to register as an Independent.
The inability of the Democrats to launch a filibuster of Alito was the last straw. I no longer give a rat's patootie if they sink or swim because it simply doesn't matter. I get it now. Big time. They're complicit and rely on the stupidity of the masses and largesse of corporate donors just as much as Republicans do. There is no longer an opposition party in America. There's Republican and Republican-lite.
Reading today's Mailbag assured me that many others are doing the same thing. They're "getting it." Maybe, in time, a truly powerful progressive party will emerge but not until this current band of robber barons and flat out jerks burns to the ground. Perhaps, like the Phoenix, a party of ideas, ideals and true compassion will rise from the ashes of the sorry mess we're in. We can hope! History will tell that tale.
I'm letting Dianne Feinstein know she's lost a potential vote, and I'm letting "give 'em what they want Harry" Reid know he lost a good man, too.
Subject: An Open Letter to Chairman Dean
Dear Governor Dean:
I'm tired of hearing the lies from the Main$tream Media alleging that the Democrats are divided and impotent. I'm tired of hearing that liar, Chris Matthews, say that only "far-left kooks" oppose the illegally-installed thief who sits in the Oval Office. I'm tired of paid off PRE$$TITUTE$ like Tim Russert repeatedly spinning off right-wing talking points handed to them by the Republican National Committee.
Governor Dean, I ask you to challenge these people by organizing an election in which ALL Democrats can elect a LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION who will then name a Shadow Cabinet, which is already the customary procedure in other democratic countries. Governor, asking for all of us to come together to elect a single spokesman for the Party and designated spokesmen for various departments would go a long way to counterattack the GOP slime machine.
If we elect John Kerry to be the Leader of the Opposition, he could then go head to head with Bu$h. Imagine John Murtha as shadow Defense Secretary, General Clark as Shadow Secretary of State, Dennis Kucinich as Shadow Secretary of Health & Human Services, Antonio Villaraigosa as Shadow Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, Russ Feingold as Shadow Attorney General, John Dingell as Shadow Treasury Secretary.
If we can stand together and have a single spokesman propose constructive challenges to the Busheviks, it would go a long way to taking the wind out of the GOP Slime Machine.
Governor Dean, nobody has done this before. Now is the time to show bold leadership by proposing this. I can't wait to see Chris and Timmy foam at the mouth!
Subject: Bye Bye Democratic Party
After so many repeated disappointments by the Washington democrats in the past, it was with only the tiniest shred of hope that they would start showing some spine that I remained a registered democrat for this long. I've almost left the party more than once in the last couple of years, but the Alito cloture vote was the final straw. That's it! I've had all I can stand of these do-nothing sell-outs!
Tomorrow, I'm changing my registration from democrat to INDEPENDENT, and I hope that tens of thousands of others across the nation do the same. And, I'm not simply going to refrain from voting for these sell-outs anymore, I'm going to support any and all efforts to replace the sell-outs who voted yes on cloture with true progressive candidates. It'll be a rainy day in hell before I vote for another democrat, again, in a national election. As far as I'm concerned, they shit in their own nest for the last time. They've just proven beyond all doubt that they are compromised and are only interested in their own political careers, the Republic and the Constitution be damned.
From now on, I'll only vote for a third party candidate, and if there are none, I'll sit the election out. I'm sure the bogus democrats in the beltway are counting on all of us to cool off and forget about their betrayal after a few days or weeks when the media moves on to other stories. They believe that, come election time, despite all the complaints and fury, we'll still vote for them in order to oppose the republicans. But, as for myself, I won't forget their betrayal, and they just lost my vote permanently. They've just proven that supporting them does in no way whatsoever equate to opposing republicans or their corruption. It only equates to perpetuating the betrayal and freezing out hope for the beginning of a viable, progressive third party.
The beltway democrats always manage to fail, with only the faces of the sell-outs changing to keep us from seeing what's going on, and it's more than just coincidence. They're just taking turns caving. They are either infiltrated or compromised or both, and that equates to "useless and in the way" to the progressive and liberal agenda.
I no longer look upon supporting a third party candidate such as Nader as "throwing away my vote." No sir! Voting for a democrat from this time forward is the very definition of throwing away my vote. I'm all for the formation of a third party where all of the progressives and liberals can go who are fed up with the sellout republican-lites in Washington. It may take a few election cycles to gain traction, but the completion of any great journey always begins with the first step. The republican-lite democrats in the beltway only want to perpetuate their own careers and prevent that first step from taking place.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: A Letter to the DNC from an Angry Supporter
The following is an e-mail I sent to Howard Dean after today's vote. I urge all that are angry/disappointed in the current Democratic leadership do the same.
Subject: Questions for My Doctor
It is true that it is very frightening to think that pharmacists, doctors and other healthcare providers can deny you treatment if they have 'religious issues'. But what is more frightening is how this policy will play out in the next 10 to 15 years.
What will we do when the religious right actively recruits high school students to enter the medical profession, paying their scholarships in return for fidelity to their dogma? Otherwise bright and talented students will be finding it more and more difficult to attain a bachelor's degree, much less the advanced education required for the medical professions due to the current cuts in student aid to pay for the tax cuts for the rich. The percentage of dogmatists vs. realists will start to skew in favor of the dogmatists. That will be bad.
What is worse is that we are currently living in a healthcare morass that makes it nearly impossible to choose your own healthcare practitioner. My family's insurance plan comes from another state and most approved physicians are over an hour away. Yet we live 5 minutes from one of the best medical facilities in the nation.
What if your insurance company picks your doctors and all your doctors have religious issues? How does one go about interviewing potential doctors and then switching to a more palatable physician if need be? I have a hard enough time finding a good doctor that my insurance company will let me visit without also trying to figure out what questions best comprise the religious litmus test.
When my ob-gyn fitted my IUD he joked that if he put it in wrong it would still be good for his business. I am afraid that in the future, for another doctor, not my own, that might not be so far from the truth.
Subject: What? Not One Gasp?
I'm listening to Bush right now justify his illegal wiretapping and NOT ONE DEMOCRAT HISSED OR BOOHED HIM!
It is an outrage that the minority are so cuckolded that they don't even realize they're giving away their own power and credibility. Like they said at the height of the AIDS crisis, "Silence=Death."
We the people, have no representation in Washington.
[BuzzFlash Note: There was a moment, regarding Social Security, when the Democrats made some noise.]
Subject: Jesus, is Matthews doing drugs?
I was just changing channels to The Daily Show and went by MSNBC. I was stunned. :):)
That Matthews guy was going on about Hillary Clinton chewing gum! :):)
All the problems in this country and Chris is concerned and seemed very upset about her chewing. I couldn't stick around, as I watch The Daily Show.
Is Matthews doing drugs or drinking?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: Is It True?
A friend who tuned into NBC early for the State of the Union Address told me that NBC reported that Cindy Sheehan was arrested as she was entering the Capitol Building for tonight’s speech. It is my understanding that Ms. Sheehan was a guest of a Democratic Congresswoman from California. At this time I am unclear as to who arrested her, and why she was arrested. I am also uninformed as to where she was taken, and if she is still being held.
As you can well imagine this disturbs me greatly and I am both concerned for our country, and Ms. Sheehan. I would appreciate more information regarding this matter. If this is indeed true, I also hope that public awareness and advocacy on her behalf will bring action regarding the protection of the civil rights of all of us and particularly Ms. Sheehan to the forefront.
Cindy Sheehan Writes for BuzzFlash About Her Arrest in the Capitol While She was a Guest of a Congresswoman to Hear the State of the Union: What Did My Son Die for If I Can't Exercise My First Amendment Rights in Our Nation's Capitol?
Subject: That Sinking Feeling
When one watches our commander-in-chief do his thing on TV, it forces some of us to switch channels immediately (almost in a panic) rather than suffer through the mix of anger and hopelessness that's so upsetting to the stomach.
This gut response may represent our fear of an impending doom. Other individuals who likewise could elicit said fear response include Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, sometimes even George Bush the elder, as well as many of our modern-day hate and fear mongers. It's in their words, their body language, their mannerisms.
What makes these individuals so good at scaring us is that they truly are dangerous to all living beings, yet there seems to be nothing one can do about it, so there! Switching channels seems to be the only way out, and the sooner, the better. Nothing one can do about it, that is, until we the people change the world.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subject: State of the Union Speech
So, Mr. Bush has made his vision of the 2006 elections clear. (This was, of course, his aim in giving the SOTU address.) This year, three things are true:
(1) Politicians should work in a bipartisan manner;
(2) America cannot be "isolationist"; and
(3) America must "lead" the world.
What is going on here? The point of this speech is to set a rhetorical trap for Democrats. This speech is both offense and defense.
To begin: the rules are set, as usual. There should be no partisan bickering. This is the usual first step of Republican rhetoric. It means that the Democrats cannot harshly criticize the administration, because to do so is somehow un-American. Of course, Bush went on to criticize those who criticize the war in Iraq for mistaking hindsight for wisdom, etc., but Republicans can do this.
Next, the "vision" presented to Americans: We Lead. Democrats don't. Mr. Bush is a great leader, and the world would be worse off if he/we didn't lead.
All of this sounds the same as usual, but there is something new in this speech. ISOLATIONISM. The logical next rhetorical step is to label Democrats in favor of exiting Iraq as isolationists.
If the Democrats parry by saying wrong war, bad policy, etc., Bush will say something like, "It's not perfect, but we're leading the world. Democrats aren't/can't, etc. America is the best country in the world. We must lead. The world needs us."
In other words, the speech is set up to make Republicans the good Americans who lead the world and Democrats the sorry losers afraid of the world and unable to lead it.
This is a dangerous trap, potentially. The Democrats seem to have decided to respond by pointing to the gap between Bush's rhetoric and reality. This is a good first step. I propose an added rhetorical move.
Use the terms ISOLATION and LEADERSHIP. Talk about Bush's decisions isolating us from our allies--longstanding allies who helped us (under Democratic leadership, by the way) win the Second World War, stand up in Korea, etc. Bush has tried to ISOLATE even those in Europe who oppose him, splitting traditional allies into Old and New Europe. What is the result of his "LEADERSHIP"? We are ISOLATED in our work in IRAQ. The coalition of the willing means Americans are almost alone in paying for Iraq, almost entirely alone in doing the hard work in Iraq, and the deaths in Iraq are almost totally ISOLATED to American deaths.
Bad leadership has left us alone in the world. Bush can't lead, because he has the wrong priorities, and the congress cannot be distinguished from Bush because they agree on everything. Not a single veto, ever, from this administration.
Why does BUSH's leadership isolate us on the world stage?
1. Alienating enemies; 2. leaves us alone to fight in Iraq, b/c he couldn't build coalitions in his rush to war; 3. cuts us out of a potential market for new, renewable energy, b/c bush is beholden to oil men.
Anyway, this is just a quick sketch, and I send it to you b/c you can make it or something like it public. The point is that the Democrats must not let ISOLATIONIST labels define their Iraq policy and LEADERSHIP qualities define Bush's. And the only way to handle this is to adopt his rhetoric and turn it against him.
A BuzzFlash Reader
I heard the State of the Onion (not a typo) tonite........It not only STINKS it brings TEARS to your eyes......nuff said!
Subject: Scotty was asked about how we are losing war on terror ...
You were the only one to post ANYTHING on this when it went around last week. I thought it major headline material, but haven't seen any action on this from any of the big blogs, NONE, amazing ... we are LOSING the Global war on terror ...
Anywho, Eric at BTC posted about asking the question of Scotty ... here:
White House "Skyrocketing Terrorism" = "Great Progress"
Here it is from ...
A BuzzFlash Reader
|back to top|