The BuzzFlash Mailbag
November 18, 2002
The BuzzFlash Mailbag
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). Thank you.
The BuzzFlash Mailbag is updated on an ongoing basis, with the newest material and comments on top. Again, we can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are the not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
You Can't Mourn a Liberal, etc.
This was a really, really great editorial -- thank you. Watching the Wellstone memorial, for the first time in a long, long time I felt hope. A truly wonderful man had died, however his death would inspire many others to take up his cause. When I heard people from our own party, falling into lockstep and actually apologizing, it jolted me back to reality. The death of Senator Wellstone became even more painful because I realized he had died in vane. I felt wrecked -- how could they?
Of course nothing was made of the Sonny Perdue incident, no matter how revolting. He's a Republican... We know our biggest enemy is the Corporate owned media, who bought and paid for Bush and will do everything in their power to keep him and his kind well protected. The "liberal" media however, was anything but protective of President Clinton. We know the story, we know the problem, however what can we do about it? The last couple of years, many times when a Democrat did show up on Inside Politics, Hardball, etc., what did we hear? Praise, nothing but praise for George Bush! They were the Republican's best campaigners for election 2002.
Well, today I listened to Senator Byrd on the Senate floor and he was truly amazing. Let's hope and pray some of our other duly elected representatives will represent this country as Senator Wellstone did, as Senator Byrd does and the likes of the Perdues will disappear. The ball is squarely in the Democrats court -- they better start using it. Time really does appear to be running out.
But you won't hear Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Schieffer, Stephanopoulos, Russert, Koppel, Limbaugh, etc., bring THIS up about the man in charge: "Adm. Poindexter . . . was convicted in 1990 on five felonies including lying to Congress and destroying evidence."
A BuzzFlash Reader
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: A supersnoop's dream
Below is a link to a Washington Times article that we hope you find of interest:
'A supersnoop's dream'
Subj: The Great Pelosi Scare of 2002
Reading and listening to so many reports on the Great Pelosi Scare has pretty much cemented my opinion that the Republicans and their conservative cheering section are very concerned that the Tree-huggin', Gay Lovin' Needle Swappin' San Francisco Liberal will galvanize her party and offer some formidable competition for the next 2 years, and possibly beyond.
Suppose the Republicans are correct, that Rep. Pelosi with her long-standing lefty bona fides will do great harm to the Democratic Party, and assure the GOP of gains in the '04 races and easy reelection of President Bush.
Do the Ditto Heads really consider that such a bad thing?
Why would they mount such a strong campaign against her assumption of the Democratic Party's leadership, if having her in that post would be of such great benefit to the GOP's desire to maintain control of the entire Federal Government?
If I was a Republican political strategist, I would instruct all in the GOP fold to be relentless in their campaign to frighten the Dems into choosing someone more to the conservatives' liking, someone who would "go along to get along" and guarantee repeats of the 2002 election, in perpetuity.
Re: Homeland Security Bill
The Senate is being forced...again... this time to vote on a Homeland Security Bill without thoroughly reviewing it. What a surprise!
I have reviewed some of the Homeland Security Bill. It is a voluminous bill which is approximately 500 pages and contains much technical information that is not understood by the average person, average congressman or Senator for that matter. It is not possible for all these Senators to understand everything in this bill. It is ludicrous to ramrod this bill through for a vote without understanding the content and repercussions it could pose. This requires more than 30 hours to review. It is scheduled for a vote on Monday. The Senate needs to debate the content. Senator Byrd has stated that they just received the bill on Wed. morning. How can anyone review this content and references and not have questions.
This is supposed to be an improvement on security? How does anyone know if they don't know what is in it.
Senator Byrd and others, but Senator Byrd is of course leading the charge and is outspoken to challenge the administration. Can the republican Senators and those who voted to invoke cloture tell their constituents that they know exactly what they are voting for or are they burned out and want to get out of there or do they think that "w" has a mandate to do anything he wants.
Everyone be like Senator Byrd. Fight it!... because fighters are few and far between. Everyone tell their Senators, not to vote on the Homeland Security Bill until they review, debate and understand completely. They are remiss if they do not. This action planned for Monday has the propensity to place the American people at even greater risk than before. This is typical "W" strategy.....ramrod this through at the last minute. Planned? What do you think?
It is negligence if they do not take the time to review and understand what they are voting for. Take a look at how your congressman/woman voted and ask them how long it took them to review it and if they are familiar with everything that is in it.
I have e-mailed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and will e-mail Sen. Gramm for whatever it's worth. Thank goodness for Senator Byrd, he has more endurance and desire in his little finger to get it right that the majority of those Senators. And thanks for BuzzFlash.
Nancelm (San Antonio, TX)
Subj: So, Where's Bill Clinton When You Need Him?
This explains, finally, why the US economy fell apart after Clinton left the White House and George Bush got in. From today's Yahoo website:
Subj: Truman 1948 Posting
Thanks for posting Truman's 1948 campaign speech for the Democrats. If our Democrat representatives had run on that platform this year they would have won all across the country. Hell, even if they had lost (as they did anyway) it would have been a satisfying experience. There is an old saying that goes something like "you might as well be hanged for a wolf instead of a sheep."
Subj: This really sucks, big time
Seniors and disabled get screwed again.
I don't know if anyone noticed in yesterday's papers, but the Senate voted themselves a 3.1% salary hike for 2003. The item was microscopic in it's size, no big headlines. This comes after last month's announcement of the 1.3% COLA increase for S.S. recipients in the coming year. The COLA is based on the CPI, a basketful of 14 to 16 items, which does not include the rise in energy and healthcare costs. The CPI for October was released today, read on.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Propaganda Backdrops
As discussed here, Bush is always in front of some backdrop which relates to his message. At the economic summit, these were strategically placed such that one was behind Bush regardless of the camera angle and in each of the several "forum" rooms. These damn things look expensive. I want to know who makes them and how much they cost. Are they put out to competitive bid or produced by some Bush crony? Obviously, I care too much about this issue.
A Buzz Flash Reader
This, again, is a comment, not an article.
The overstuffed and overpaid media poobahs are committing crimes against humanity. Every time they egg on the Republicans and media's pet Bush and every time they side with them, they are pronouncing a death sentence or a potential death sentence against innocent Americans and innocent people in the other nations of the world.
Not only should the media poobahs step down from their pedestals, give up their overstuffed and overprivileged lives, but they should also give up their paychecks or else face consequences at the ICC for aiding and abetting the terrible tyranny that we are now forced and will be forced to live under and perhaps die under.
Subj: Election Machines
Just one question.
How do you recount the votes on an electronic voting machine?
I mean how do you KNOW that the tallies are correct?
Subj: Iraqi Antiaircraft
I am curious to know. With all the sophisticated equipment that the Iraqi possess and are available to them,which includes antiaircraft weapons---why with all the times they fired on our allied planes haven't they shot any down. Are they poor users of the sophisticated equipment---or are they poor shooters. Maybe the stories we are told are fabricated.
Read the 2002 Texas GOP Platform very, very carefully (attached .pdf file)...After reading it, one realizes there really are two, distinct ideological blocks in the U.S...The Democratic Party and all rational, tolerant, and open-minded people (including independents and moderate republicans) need to both expose these neo-confederate troglodytes for whom they are and to make the public at-large more aware of the major differences between the two parties' ideologies...It's hard for me to believe that the majority of mainstream Americans think like this and want the country to go in this direction...But then again, perhaps I'm wrong, especially when lots of money, TV ad campaigns, and only 20% of registered voters can elect a candidate to represent the other 80%...Now that the election is over, it's back to the business of war...
Rick (Bowie, MD)
Subj: Prognostication for 11-17 LANDRIEU Debate on MTP
Profilers and pundits have been shown in recent weeks not worth their own hot air. But here is a sure thing: NOT a prediction as to "the winner" of the senatorial debate between Senator LANDRIEU and the Republican------------no, something more certain.
We will see G.E. RUSSERT's trademarked performance of false "moderating,"------soft questions to the Republican, no follow-ups on fudged responses by the Republican, and other forms of favoritism towards the Republican----AND----the opposite of all this with respect to Senator LANDRIEU. We saw the same performance in the Senator CLINTON debate, the McBRIDE debate, and many more before and after.
GE RUSSERT became a wingnut around 5 to 10 years after he took notice of LIMBAUGH's huge success in rehabilitating what had been a dormant, fringe, discredited wingnutism. He pioneered what might be called the Exodus of the post-JFK Democrats, hosting multiple full hour interviews with LIMBAUGH and IMUS. He realized where the career moves had to lead and has not looked back ever since. He mentored Chris MATTHEWS into the same career path, but GE RUSSERT has fully crossed over and gained the TRUST of the wingnuts, while the wingnuts are only willing to USE MATTHEWS as a TOOL while NOT trusting him. In the recent election, he even sponsored LIMBAUGH as a commentator onto the stodgy network news department with the sure bet that the ratings edge would come from the fanatical dittoheads.
It is not much of a mystery as to why a NON-journalist (GE RUSSERT) would be GIVEN a program all to himself that for most of its history focused on a PANEL of practicing JOURNALISTS: He was bought and paid-for and has been sterling about delivering what the buyer wanted.
Subj: re "where do Democrats go from here..?" duh...
Reading today's DU site, I have seen yet another iteration of the "where do Dems. go from here" question.
#1. You round up some of those thousands who lost their pensions to Enron, Halliburton (when Drexler industries was bought up by Halliburton), World Com, Tyco, etc., and get some high-power Democrats (sorry - that's an oxymoron) to get their opinions as to whether all those scandals should be swept under the rug, as Iraq-gate was (bush I and reagan arming Iraq with nuke, bio, and chem wmd technology and "agricultural credits" financing) OR MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND SOMEONE PUNISHED.
#2. You defend liberalism. remember those Hitler-Goebbel's quotes "if you REPEAT a lie often enough, people will believe it"? WELL... IF you REPEAT the truth enough - that the American people LOVE social security, that it has worked for generations, that according to Paul Krugman and other economists, it WAS healthy before the bush-gop started slicing it up like Christmas turkey -
#3. You DEFEND your own supporters. The Dem "leaders" - congressional representatives (incorrectly known as "congressmen"), Senators, Governors, etc should VOLUNTEER to violate the "FREE SPEECH" aka mini-concentration-camp zones.
It is quite disgraceful that a full centuries worth of civil rights advances can be so easily undone because gwd and his god-awful minions let 15 rag-head terrorists kill 3,000 American citizens. For christ's sake, Mohammed Atta made a DRY RUN, and WAS REPORTED by some well known celebrity, who made a fuss stating that it WAS a dry run!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus, I could go on and on and on... but joe lieberman letting the Enron investigation lapse so easily; and al gore doing next to nothing to fight for a campaign recount (he shouldn't have let bush get within a mile of that election, and he certainly shouldn't have lost Tennessee), and the Dems. NOT siding strongly, forcefully, and vocally with 9-11 spouses and survivors demanding an INDEPENDENT investigation - oh, and how about the anthrax NON-investigation..."
For christ'sake, the dems are guilty of more fraud and incompetence than the bushies!
Oh, I know.. everyone is afraid of being the big ground-zero target for the repub/r-w smear machine. In which case, "LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE" no longer applies to dems....
Subj: Fwd: Letter to Barbara Walters re: Interview with Al Gore
Dear Ms. Walters,
I just read The Note on the ABCNews.com webpage, and I am really wondering why you did not (or whomever makes the decision) choose to air the portion of your interview where the Gore family discuss the harassment they received at their home during the vote counting. I happened to find this important, for several reasons. This truly points to the low-down and dirty behavior that goes on during elections and shows that it is more than just mudslinging on election commercials. This is behavior that should not be tolerated from any group they were tormenting the entire family, including his children. The media should point this out and give it the scrutiny it deserves. However, given the blatant conservative bias that is in the media, it doesnt surprise me that it was not aired. I cant help but believe that if the Bush family had been interviewed and shared a similar story, it would have gotten attention and the Democrats would have been flambéed for their actions. So far, we have seen a draft-dodging Republican call a Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs unpatriotic, we have seen disgust from the Republicans over mourning of Sen. Wellstone, and now we hear of this harassment of the Gore family. Why arent the Republicans being called onto the carpet for their actions? I mean, honestly, the media has wasted a ton of time on less important and uninteresting things when it comes our politicians, so why not this? Wheres the unbiased vigilant spirit of journalism? Why arent we really seeing whats going on behind the scenes?
I mean, just think our Vice Presidents home was surrounded by a crowd of yelling, sign-waving people, and thats not newsworthy?
Erin R. Lawrence
Subj: John Kerry: A Time To Fight
<<We must reach out to the politically homeless and give them a home again in their own democracy. People don¹t want a war of words; they want a contest of ideas with action and results.>>
John Kerry: A time to fight.
Well Mr. Kerry, I hate to disillusion you but this American wants a war of words. I want to see Democrats fight and fight hard, not cower in fear. I want to see the people who represent us leave Orrin Hatch, and Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell, Jerry Falwell, Hannity and Bennett and all the Republican loudmouths speechless. I want someone with the guts to call them the hypocrites that they are to their faces.
I want Democrats to fight nastiness with nastiness, rudeness with rudeness, passion with passion, and anger with smarter anger. Mr. Kerry, I want pissed off Democrats who refuse to take crap from the Republicans anymore. I want Democrats who realize that this taking the high road bullshit ain't cutting it. You fix these things Mr. Kerry and you will see your base excited and passionate as never before. We are dying for people to believe in.
Mr. Kerry, you'd be shocked to hear that I cannot think of ONE Democratic politician who could go eyeball to eyeball with several Republicans. It's shameful to watch Hatch manhandle Leahey; or Gramm dominate Sarbanes, and Lott & Co. calling Daschle names and no one daring to come to his rescue. Mr. Kerry, IT IS A CHARACTER PROBLEM. The Democrats in congress have no spine, no shame, and they seem to love abuse.
Mr. Kerry, you people are as feeble and as cautious and as timid as Warren Christopher, and Gephardt, and Daschle. Where is George Mitchell when we need him? That Sir, IMO is strength and smarts personified. Instead, we have all these damned wimps who talk about not wanting a war of words.
Finally, Mr. Kerry, I won't tell you what to do with your contest of ideas. In case you did not know, WE ALREADY HAVE THE IDEAS. Solid ideas. What we want is a contest, and men & women with the guts, backbone, the courage to fight it and win it, without always compromising those very sound ideas.
The problem with the Democrats isn't that they lack guts, it is that they are addicted to money. The Republicans have money and the Democrats don't. So when there is a Democratic administration in place the Republicans are free to be as oppositional as can be. The Democrats, however, when there is a Republican administration issue a lot of sweet talk about bipartisanship because they don't want to alienate their funding sources. It is not so different than labor unions. Unions will play ball with corporations at the public's expense as long as the unions are cut in on the deal. The Democrats have played ball with the Republicans big-time ever since the Reagan administration at the public's expense.
The public isn't in the center of political discourse. It is way to the left of it. Political discourse isn't talking about what is real. Political discourse has drifted to the right for decades because the Democrats have not come clean about their addiction to money. The Democrats know they represent the issues the public supports but they won't, as a party, fight for those issues.
The candidates to the left have done quite well in the last election. They are the lean and mean candidates who aren't just posers who say one thing and then do another. There are some politicians, woefully too few, who will stand up for the public. They have to fight not just Republicans, but their fellow Democrats who want to keep a low profile and keep the flow of money coming in. In the meantime, in domestic affairs, civil rights, the economy, in foreign policy, the nation is spinning out of control. We need to keep the money rolling in so we can get reelected. We need to get reelected so we can keep the money rolling in.
The Democrats need to come back to their base. Not to the center of political discourse which is way off center, but to where the public is and the votes waiting to be cast are to be found. In order to do that they will not have to just get meaner, they will have to get leaner as well.
Subj: Sue Bush
It was probably about a week ago, one of your contributors suggested the following:
"Democrats should push private stockholder organizations and labor groups to openly sue Bush. There are literally armies of lawyers who do this kind of thing every day. When almost any company of considerable size misses earnings, somebody sues. When companies re-state earnings, a whole bunch of people sue. Why haven't the Democrats pushed those with legitimate complaints against the oil magnates Bush and Cheney to action?"
What a FANTASTIC idea.
Since I read this I'm all anticipation when I click on "Breaking News." So far nothing. Hey, I would do it if I could. I post the idea again, in the hope that someone who is able to do so, sees this and jumps at the opportunity.
Imagine, Larry Klayman is the one doing the job the Democrats should be doing. What the heck happened to us?
Subj: Makes you go Uhum
Dems announce site for 2004 Democratic Convention.
I think this little known fact got lost in the coverage of the news. The fact that the Dems chose Boston as their city for the upcoming convention is very telling, very telling indeed. I think they are sending a message about the next American revolution.
Let's all hope so. And get prepared.
Subj: Another nail in our coffin with new nuclear weapons work
Funding is provided in the pending Department of Defense authorization act for development of "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons. The language recognizes that testing of such a weapon would violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), so delivery aspects are covered without explosion of a nuclear device. The goal is apparently to enable penetration of some 40 feet of rock. Presumably, this new technology would be "tested" by first use on a country suspected of engaging in development of weapons. At that time, we would learn: 1) whether it works at all, 2) whether the resultant release of radioactive material to the atmosphere would simply crap up the small area where it was used, or would be dispersed onto regional allies or the whole planet, and 3) whether we have unleashed a nuclear dragon that will in turn be used against us.
This work directly flies in the face of the NPT and encourages countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, India, etc., to regard the NPT as a dead letter. By pursuit of new nuclear weapons, we effectively abrogate this ratified treaty, no matter how much we pretend to dance around the NPT itself, as well as laws passed by Congress on such questions. A new, unrestrained and worldwide nuclear development activity will assure the clandestine delivery of a nuclear device to an American city early in the 21st century.
This new NPT violation by the U.S., like the earlier unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty without any consultation with or consent from the Senate, follows a pattern which includes:
1) misrepresentation of facts, 2) undermining Supreme Law, as defined in the U.S. Constitution through abrogation or violation of Treaties, 3) sacrificing real opportunities for improved safety through international action on the altar of really bad science.
Subj: NewsFlash / Homeland Security Bill - add ons
This homeland "security" bill is getting more & more add ons that have nothing to do with security ... but they all have to do with making corporations not liable for their actions.
BuzzFlash just posted
But I have mail from Kyle Hence who runs www.unansweredquestions.org and works with 9-11 families who want a 9-11 investigation. He just sent news that homeland security bill has a new rider that exempts airlines from any responsibility for actions of inept airline security companies on 9-11.
Can BuzzFlash please follow this homeland security bill and see how many riders attached are corporate give-aways????
Mary Titus, NYC
Could it possibly be that the Democratic leadership's plan WAS to let the Republicans "have it all", so to speak? Perhaps like the old saying, give them lots of rope, and maybe they'll hang themselves with it! After all, now that Bush et al have control of the three branches of government, can they afford to keep sniveling and point fingers at imaginary obstructionists any longer? I think not.
This may be a dangerous strategy over the short term, but with the Republican run corporate media, and a great number of the populace still suffering patriotic blindness as a result of 9/11 and the administration's subsequent dirty tricks, what other course is available?
It's with a shudder that I remember when Pat Robertson said that, now that the religious right had taken over the Republican Party, they were going to try to take over the Democratic Party. I've sometimes wondered if they haven't already done so but are just not letting us know. Like when the Democrats didn't staunchly defend Bill Clinton and didn't fight for Al Gore. And especially during the past two years when most of them seem to have bent over backwards to help baby bush destroy the Constitution. I've decided that from now on I'm not going to donate to the general Democratic fund. I'll only donate directly to candidates who speak and act like true Democrats.
R. M. Johnson
Subj: See What You Started
It's always interesting to watch a new idea or phrase spread. About a week ago, a reader of your site made a post that used the term "Republican Lite." Within hours of reading that post, I saw the term "Republican Lite" used all over various Democratic web sites. So now a week later, I see it's worked it's way into the vocabulary of an elected official. Amazing...
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Wesley Clark
My eyes popped this morning when I saw Time Magazine's story about Wesley Clark considering a run for the White House as a Democrat!!!!! Now,THAT, boys and girls could be very interesting. Consider this: Clark is a retired four-star general, a Rhodes Scholar, he fought in Viet Nam, he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the Commander of NATO in Kosovo. Compare that to the bunch of chickenhawks that surround the AWOL- in- chief presently occupying the "people's house"!! Furthermore, Clark has been clear about his concerns about the handling of al-Qaeda and Iraq and the Bush administration's unilateralism.
As my husband just said, "You don't get to be a four star general by letting anybody push you around." This means that he is someone who can stand up to the Republicans. Since he has been a commentator for CNN, it also means that they and TIME would likely support him. (Imagine any mainstream media for once not supporting the Bushies). Clark is only 57 years old and he comes across as being thoughtful and honest. Plus, he is already a recognizable person to the public.
Think about it! For the first time in ages, I am feeling upbeat. If someone can show the downside to a Clark run, let's hear it! We need someone who is tough enough to give hell to the other side and stand up for ordinary Americans so we can get the country moving ahead towards a positive future.
What do you think?
A loyal reader
Hon Nancy Pelosi
Dear Ms. Pelosi,
I was heartened by your election as minority leader.
I am disheartened by your vote for the Homeland Security Department. Was William Safire wrong when he described it in these terms:
"To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S. citizen,"
If that is an accurate description, how could you support the legislation?
Are you concerned with the fascist police state that the United States has become, where members of political parties and charitable organizations are harassed at air terminals and prevented from flying because their names are on no-fly lists and where a passenger is detained because he remarks that George Bush is "Dumb as a rock", just to mention the latest of a virtual flood of repressive acts and measures?
Do you buy into the assassination of American citizens and others by remote-controlled aircraft? Their imprisonment without charges? Eavesdropping on conversations with their lawyers? Torture?
Ms. Pelosi, where do you draw the line?
Do you think it suspicious that the Republican control of the Senate arises from the death of two Democratic Senators in plane crashes?
Does the blackout of exit poll information on the November 5th elections cause you concern? Or the tabulation of votes on machines manufactured and maintained by ultra-right wing, private corporations that refuse to make them available for inspection so that the results can be verified?
Ms. Pelosi, will you call for a full, complete, public investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 -- the failure to act on repeated, specific warnings from multiple sources, including heads of state, warning of the attacks?
What can we expect from you respecting these matters Ms. Pelosi? Please let us know.
Subj: Great Editorial now some action we can take::::::::::::::::
Everyone knows that FoxNews aka GOP/TV was responsible in getting out the Conservative vote in November and FoxNews is a subsidiary for the GOP and the White House.......the only reason they have Democrats on the air is to try and make them look foolish, call them Socialists and otherwise ridicule.
Why not start a petition to the House Whip to BOYCOTT FOXNEWS. That is NO Democrat in the House or Senate goes on FoxNews.....period. When all they have to interview is Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Tom De Lay et all then it will truly be what we know to be true......a network for Republicans.
This is the only way to fight back.
I would be willing to help.
Subj: Congratulations on your editorial of 11-17-2002.
Your editorial is straight to the point and very well written. I too have been disappointed and frustrated to the point of anger witnessing the wimpy, cowardly ways of Daschle, Gephardt, and Republican in disguise Lieberman. Anger can be a positive emotion, and when expressed in the right context it can motivate voters. I'm so God Damn sick of watching Daschle and Gephardt be devoid of any emotion or passion. No wonder the voters aren't motivated by them. We Democrats are looking for leaders who will call the Republicans on their lies and hypocrisy. We need leaders who will proudly offer the voters a real alternative to the Republicans policies that benefit only the rich and the corporate elite.
Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire. We need Democrats with anger and passion who will get down in the trenches to fight Rove and the Republicans. We need leaders who will not apologize for representing workers, women, minorities, the environment and the disadvantaged. We need someone like James Carville to unleash a relentless two fisted attack against the lying pond scum Republicans.
Al Gore is certainly getting a lot of press these days. Time magazine talks about the making of a comeback. BuzzFlash even describes him as "on the offensive."
As far as this BuzzFlash fan is concerned, in spite of promising to "just let it rip" Mr. Gore is still very reluctant to offend. Mr. Gore will not be on the offensive until he has the courage to speak the truth.
At some point he has to say words to the effect: "Inasmuch as our presidents are chosen by the people and not by the courts, Bush and the Republicans stole the last election. If every single vote in Florida was counted, I would have been the victor. I know it and they know it. It explains why the Republican appointed justices on the Supreme court made the unprecedented & I think illegal decision to stop counting votes. In time Americans will come to look at that decision with the same revulsion they look at the Dred Scott decision, and other wrong-headed court decisions. Moreover, the media gave their tacit approval to this theft in that their corporate bosses were supporters of the Republicans."
Are...are you saying sir that George Bush is an illegitimate President?
"Because he was selected by a Republican court and not chosen by the American people, YES, that's exactly what I'm saying."
That should start a nice juicy debate around the world. Think Al Gore has the guts to do it? Think ANY Democrat has the guts to do it? If Gore does say it, how many Democrats would PUBLICLY agree with him? It's easier to find an elephant in a refrigerator that to find a Democrat who'll say this, or support these sentiments.
Subj: "They Brazenly Lie..." Editorial
Excellent piece. You've put your finger on one of the many things that bothers me about our increasingly Orwellian government -- the tendency of the Bush Cartel, and those affiliated with it, to flip-flop on any issue as brazenly as they want, without any challenge from the Democrats or media. My case in point: the so-called Supreme Court, which until recently would throw out anything not in keeping with its conception of "strict construction" of the intent of the Founding Fathers. Now realizing that they pretty much have a free hand and can do as they damn well please, the Scalia 5 has started to denounce "historical literalism," i.e., anything that will bar them from remaking our system of justice into one that completely serves their reactionary patrons, even if doing so trashes the intent of the Founding Fathers. Well, keep up the good work, BuzzFlash...
* * *
otherwise noted, all original