The BuzzFlash Mailbag
December 16, 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). Please try and keep your word count under 500. We can only post a small percentage of what is sent to us. The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Thanks again for your email and your patience.
Mr. Rove is behind the push to have Lott resign from his Majority Leader position.
I think that he will be pushing for Sen. Frist to take that slot.
A BuzzFlash Reader
How can The NYT praise Bush for "his commitment to a multi-racial America, after so many African Americans were disenfranchised in his brother's state of Florida in the 2000 election? There is just as much hypocrisy with George Bush, as there is with Trent Lott. The difference is that Bush has Karl Rove programing his words and staging photo-ops to give the appearance that he is not a racist because he needs the black vote.
The Repubs will not be able to restrain Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas when they make their devastating decision concerning Affirmative Action. They will cavalierly do away with any program that weighs race into the equation for college admissions.
This decision is more important than anything Helmet Head says. All this "outrage" is another smokescreen / diversion that takes the heat off this bunch of goons in power. "We're not racist we sniveled about Hairboys Nightrider comments but the courts are the law. We dont control the courts."
The Repubs want it both ways and the majority of White Americans will support this duplicity.
We need to seriously address that decision coming in June if not sooner.
The Democrats are struggling to find a common cause to unite them. The flap over Trent Lott is not it. I would suggest they use the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 as a rallying point.
It happened on Bush's watch. Cheney told Congress NOT to investigate. Bush opposed an independent commission until the pressure was too much for him to bear. He also appointed Henry Kissinger (what a slap in the face that was) and they are blocking Senator Rudman.
It is painfully obvious that the administration has something to hide concerning 9/11. Their "incompetence" (intentional?) and continued obstruction to finding the truth are tell-tale signs.
The democrats should all pull together and DEMAND the independent commission be allowed to proceed and that Kissinger be replaced. The White House didnt want the 5 democrats to be able to issue subpoenas because they might use it as a political "fishing" expedition. What about the 5 republicans all refusing to be the sixth vote for a subpoena in order to protect the administration?
President Bill Clinton was persecuted and impeached because of a sexual indiscretion that harmed no one. The White House was at the very least extremely incompetent, at worst complicit, in the worst tragedy in our history. And yet Bush and his cronies are doing EVERYTHING to hide the truth. WHY? The American people deserve and should demand the truth. The Democrats, if they are truly the party of the people, will pick up the ball and run all the way to the end zone.
If Bush is found to be incompetent in the 9/11 tragedy he should be impeached and removed from office. If he, or anyone in his administration is found to be complicit, they should be tried, convicted and executed as traitors.
Subj: Bush's Cabinet
With all of this talk about Lott and his views on segregation, I grew curious. I read Bush's denouncing statements about Lott and his views, so I decided to check on Bush and a possible insight into his views. I think the web page speaks for itself. Bush has only one African-American on his cabinet. I this just a coincidence??
Subj: Bush Blackmailing Lott?
Dear BuzzFlash and Readers,
I just read an interesting summary of events surrounding the "Independent investigation of 911" from the Chicago Tribune.
The story, along with other current events surrounding Senator Trent Lott, leads me to wondering if by condemning Lott's racist remarks while not offering vocal support for Lott remaining Senate Leader, is a subtle threat from the White House to Lott.
It is reported that Lott is in the middle of a dispute between GOP Senators McCain, and Shelby, Lott, and the White House regarding the appointment of former Sen. Rudman, considered a badly needed experienced independent voice on the new committee.
McCain and Shelby maintain that a deal was made with Lott to allow them to select a committee member in exchange for certain concessions the White House wanted, when McCain and Shelby picked Rudman for the job, Lott waffled claiming his deal with the two Senators wasn't an agreement.
Although the White House claims the decision is Lott's alone, it is widely known the White does not want Rudman on the committee.
Could the White House be sending out talking points to conservative media, pressuring Lott, and sending Lott the reminder that this White House will ruin any body who does not play ball, they way they think ball should be played?
Subj: Re: Who is Behind the Right Wing Columns Against Lott? Part 2
Excellent analysis--also, why would Democrats want Lott to step down?
The alternative is Nickles, who may be worse.
And as lightning rods, Lott and DeLay raise millions of dollars for Democrats and money talks.
A BuzzFlash Reader
The question for the Republican Party is: Why has the Republican Party done the nudge, nudge, wink, wink routine about their racist, segregationist members for so long? ANSWER: because the Republican Party cannot win southern elections without the vote of the bigots, racists and segregationists. Period.
Ronald Reagan knew it, and exploited it. When he campaigned in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered a few years earlier for trying to enroll blacks to vote, Reagan expressed support for "states' rights," code word for SEGREGATION.
Richard Nixon knew the code and exploited it in order to win southern racist support away from the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party represents only rich, white powerful guys; without the support of bigots, racists and segregationists, they are a very small minority party. They cannot win without their racist supporters.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Get Lott
I read the piece about Lott stepping down to protect the suburban female vote. That is part of it. However, a lot of red meat GOPs are pissed that Helmet Hair did not do more to Get Clinton during the Senate trial. Conservatives blame Lott for "cutting deals" and would be happy to have McConnell or Nickles replace Lott. This flap is too far out to have much impact on 2004 but it may make discussion of some judicial nominees painful.
BTW- pfaw.org is collecting signatures for a drop Lott petition
Subj: Your Assessment of the fake opposition party: Democrats
I do find your articles valuable. There is one consistent theme that bothers me however. You consistently state such things as the Democrats are afraid to confront the Fascist Bush Junta. That they are "cowed" by Bush's popularity etc. into not talking about Horrific crimes of the fascist cabal.
This is ridiculous. We receive only an approved script. Since the Repuglican (corporate tyranny) agenda has nothing to offer to the Middle class and poor (90% of us) the Democrats can not tell what is truly going on and of the crimes and the hypocrisy of the Repug-Fascist Corporate Party. The Corporate owned government is not run that way.
The Democrats are just part of the Good Cop-Bad Cop soap opera to SELL THE CORPORATE PRE-SET AGENDA to Americans. They are not cowed or afraid, they are doing their job for their masters (Corporate Plutocrats that Own them), just as the repugs do as the opposition party. Dems are what is known as "fake opposition." Were they not they could have exposed crimes to put Terrorist Bush I & II behind Bars as well as most of the Senate and Congress.
Read The F-Word: American Fascism and the Politics of Illusion by David McGowan.
Your simplistic explanations of "fear" "cowardly behavior" etc. do not explain observable reality.
Thank you for providing valuable media analysis in a time when most other outfits have caved to the "either you're with us or against us" mentality.
EXCUSE ME........MR. BRAVE? ANYONE WHO WAS BORN BEFORE 1972 HAS HAD THAT VACCINATION. SO TAKING IT WITH THE MILITARY DOES NOT MAKE HIM MR. BRAVE. HE IS NOT IN THE RISK CATEGORY AT ALL, SO THERE IS NO RISK FOR HIM!
Subj: Bush's Conservatism Without The Compassion
Bush describes himself as a "compassionate conservative". There is no "compassion" with George W. Bush. It's all about conservatism! He just said "Merry Christmas and f--k you" to millions of Americans. I just got my social security notice about the increase for 2003. As a 64 yr. old widow, I collect the benefits from my deceased husband. Instead of a 3% cost of living increase, there was a 1 1/2% increase, which raised my check from $650 to $659. Where the hell is $9 going to go these days? He just cut $300 million from heating aid to needy people. If you cannot afford to pay your heating bills, freeze to death! I don't really give a damn about poor people is the message Bush just sent. And what about the 800,000 people whose unemployment benefits expire 2 days before Christmas and Bush won't extend them? Merry Christmas to you, too! But yet, he hands out big bonuses to all of his political cronies in the White House. He hands out billions to all of the nations he is trying to bribe to follow him in his war of revenge for Saddam Hussein trying to kill "dear old Dad". Not to mention, he and his oil buddies get control of all of Saddam's oil. They're drooling and rubbing their hands in glee and greed over that, for sure. There's billions to raise the military budget to astounding numbers. But Dubya has to pay for all of this out of somewhere, so the best place to cutback on is to the people that need it the worst. Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush!!!!!
Subj: Re: Today's BuzzFlash News Analysis
Regarding the BuzzFlash news analysis of December 13, 2002, "More on Why Karl Rove is Conducting a Behind-the-Scenes Campaign To Get Trent Lott to Step Down as Majority Leader." In that piece, the writer states: "All they [the Dems] need is three electoral votes from any of the red states that Bush took in 2000."
Unfortunately, not exactly. The reapportionment following the 2000 census will change the 2004 Electoral College votes allotted to the various states. I believe that the new total needed by the Democratic candidate -- if he or she won all of the Gore states from 2000 -- is seven votes, because some of those "blue" Gore states lost Congressional seats and hence electoral college votes. Some, but not all, of those seats were picked up by "red" states. [The exceptions I believe are California and New Mexico.] So, we're going to need more than just New Hampshire the next time around.
Of course, if all Florida voters were allowed to (a) vote and (b) have their votes counted, this point might then be moot.
Just wanted to let you know about this.
Keep up the GREAT work,
Re: New York Times editorial calling for firing of Lott:
That last paragraph of the article blew my mind also. The fact is, no one in the mainstream media, and I mean NO ONE can criticize the Bush administration in any way without throwing in a sentence (or paragraph) of praise of the idiot. It's either "although he's done a great job on the war on terrorism" or "even though he has the support of the majority of the American people", or some such crap. Thus, the Times could not bring themselves to criticize the administration without throwing in some prevarication about Bush's stunning efforts and contributions to civil rights. Now that we got them criticizing, will they ever be able to do it without the accompanying praise?
By the way, I agree with Bob Herbert of the NY Times. I think Lott should stay. It can only help the democrats. It's the repugs' overconfidence after the election and their delirium over their "sweeping mandate" that makes someone like Lott feel comfortable enough to say what he said. Everyone said after the election that repugs will go too far. And so it begins. It'll happen again. Can't hurt us.
Barbara in NYC
Subj: Bush White House sends mixed signals on segregation, lynching
The 1948 Dixiecrat campaign recently endorsed by Trent Lott was not "segregationist". The Dixiecrats were for segregation plus poll-taxes plus LYNCHING!
After one week of contemplation, Bush said, "Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong"
However, the same day, White House spokesman Fleischer told reporters, "The president does not think that Trent Lott should resign."
Subj: Progressive Talk Radio IS POSSIBLE !!
This is an absolutely OUTSTANDING piece on talk radio.
If you haven't already linked to this, I encourage you and all faithful BuzzFlash readers to read the attached piece entitled "Talking back to talk radio - Fairness, Democracy, and Profits," by Thom Hartmann, an Online Journal Contributing Writer.
I have never seen this topic explained any better. He even gives my favorite, Mike Malloy and the i.e. America Network, a plug.
Check it out, and keep up the good fight!
Subj: Response to BuzzFlash mailbag question
I saw this note in the BuzzFlash mail bag, and then found the TIME CANADA (linked at bottom of my email) regarding Diana Bennett's involvement with a casino that is taking advantage of the rights granted Native Americans.
Although this is an important issue (the TIME CANADA article dated 12/16/02 is linked below), the reader, I believe has the William Bennets confused.
William G. Bennett, spent more than 30 years in the gaming industry, and former owner of Circus Circus.
William L. Bennett served as Secretary of Education and Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities during the Reagan Administration. He also served as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush. Currently Dr. Bennett is Co-Director of Empower America, a Washington-based organization whose mission is to ensure that government actions foster growth, economic well-being, freedom and individual responsibility. Dr. Bennett also co-chairs, with former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, the National Commission on Civic Renewal and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America with former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. William J. Bennett is one of the prime movers of the new right wing movement.
But the BuzzFlash reader's question is about the daughter of gaming executive William G. Bennett, Diana Bennett. TIME CANADA article is linked below.
- A BuzzFlash admirer
The following is an email I sent to Trent Lott. If anyone wants to give Senator Lott a taste of the harassment he so loves to hand out to Democrats please send him an email to <email@example.com>
CNN just had a transcript of a Clinton Speech where he used Lott's exact words, except for the name ...... Bill once said that about "Bobby Kennedy"....
Trent stole the speech and inserted Strom Thurmond. How low can one possibly go.
as a democrat i do not want trent lott to leave. we want him right where he is at in 2004. :):):):):):):) the party with the racist leader. :):):) and bush did not ask that he step down as leader. :):):)
I was listening to NPR tonight on my way home and NPR Forum was on. Two guests were discussing the Trent Lott ordeal, and one of the participants in the discussion (E.J. from the Washington Post?) referred to BuzzFlash.com as a "cheeky, liberal website", when discussing Lott and all the things that happened this week involving him and the information that was floating around. I wish I had caught all the details, but was glad to hear the mention of my favorite site. Go Buzzzzz!!
A loyal reader.
It looks like the arrogance and sense of invincibility of another republican has led him to reveal his inner thoughts. Not that he hasn't done so in the past on multiple occasions, showing his bigoted beliefs, but on this occasion it's different because of the position he's about to inherit. What this country doesn't need at all is a "dixiecrat" racist with white supremacist views heading the Senate.
Lott proved that not only is he not fit to be the Senate Majority Leader but that he is not fit to represent the voters in Washington at all. All the mealy-mouthed, insincere apologies in the world will not undo the harm that his words have done, and he no longer deserves the people's trust or support. Lott must go.
But getting him to give up his new position will be about like trying to take the bottle away from Otis Campbell of Mayberry during the weekend. Lott is intoxicated and giddy with glee at the prospect of wielding the stick, and he isn't capable of doing the right thing and stepping down. That would take a sense of honor and duty to the public he serves.
And for some reason, the democrats in Congress want to keep him, even after he's back peddled on his word that he would remove the despicable republican campaign donor payback provisions that the House inserted just before it high tailed it out of Dodge and left crippled, vaccine injured children without a voice.
Washington D.C. proves over and over again that the cream of the crop in leadership doesn't rise to the top where politics is concerned, the puss does -- and eats away at the body politic and the heart of the nation like a disease.
Subj: States' Rights: a code word for segregation
I think some of the funniest lines I have heard in the past few days over the Trent Lott comments have been right-wingers trying to make the case that it was the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party, that freed the slaves, etc. That's all true; the only problem with making that case is that the current Republican Party leadership is made up of southern bigots, racists and segregationists who turned Republican for un-Lincoln-like reasons.
The southern Republicans are the same folks who would still be what were called "Dixie Democrats" in the first half of the 20th century, and as such were a problem for the Democratic Party. These southern Republicans left the Democratic party because Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey passed a Civil Rights plank in the Democrats' 1948 platform. Led by Strom Thurmond, the southern or "Dixie" Democrats stormed out of the 1948 Democratic convention and formed their own party. They said they were for States' Rights, and states' rights became a code phrase for segregation and racist thinking. Strom ran for president as a states' rights candidate, meaning: if we want segregation, we'll have segregation.
So any mention of Abraham Lincoln is poison at the social gatherings of these latter-day Republicans.
Subj: Not a Little but A Lott too Late!
At first I wanted Lott to get the boot, out the door and out of sight.
Now I am rethinking that. Why? Because of the ludicrous speech of a belated realization of indignation by pRes.GWB. What seems clear, to me, is that the pres has been given the word by Rove to toss out the Lott when his Strom Thurmond praise talk went bad, along with the half-ars apology also went bad.
What also seems clear, to me, is that Lott's praise talk was a calculated bit--(like GWB's choice of a favorite 'philosopher' was a hint, hint to his religious right that the candidate GWB is one of them)--yes calculated, he has been at this for too many years, to be another hint, hint pass to the bigot bunch that he (the about to be majority leader) is one of them.
Sure a few folks might fume and fuss at his words but the GOPhers own the Congress and the White House and the Media. Like the pRes he, the about to be majority leader, would not have to answer to anybody. Recall that the pRes, via a spokesman, at first backed up Heir Lott by stating that Lott did issue an apology and that was going to be the last word.
A great miscalculation. When Al Gore stated he felt Lott's words were unacceptable and it was soon followed by others the equation unraveled.
A great misuncalculation it was, indeed.
So I now feel there is a Bush v Lott feud brewing and the shut away slimy truths are pouring out. Lott's past is on the table, it is only fair to put Bush's past out there too ! Come on Media do your job.
Maybe we should just let these two chicken cockies fight it out.
Despite BuzzFlash's protests, I think that Trent Lott staying on is the best news I have heard for Democrats in a very long time. I am not at all surprised that the Democrats are being very quiet in calling for his resignation as Majority Leader. What could be better than two years of having the obviously racist Majority Leader Lott on television to remind voters of all regions that a group of Southern Good Ol' Boys are in charge of the Republican Party?
I grew up in Texas, and have lived most recently in Louisiana and North Florida, so I don't believe that a Southern accent makes you a racist. But, Mr. Lott has obviously shown himself to be of another era. I, for one, hope that the Administration has to keep explaining him away for the next two years. Each year when the statistics on poor educational levels (or whatever) come out, the folks in Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama have a saying, "Thank god for Mississippi!!" Which means: We may be 47th or 48th in poverty, teen pregnancy, etc., but thank god for Mississippi, which is usually 50th.
Personally, I think we Democrats should adopt that motto and hope Trent goes on apologizing for a long time.
A BuzzFlash Reader from North Florida
Re: Trent Lott's Hypocrisy and the Wellstone Memorial
After listening to Sen. Lott apologize ad nauseum, am wondering whether it's possible to find those folks that booed Sen. Lott at the Wellstone Memorial and publicly congratulate them for being wiser about this man's background than we were at the time.
Subj: Now its OUR fault!
Been watching the Trent Lott crap on T.V. This is too much! Everyone including Trent Lott's daughter is out saying that his words were interpreted the wrong way and he doesn't deserve this!
So, I guess it's our fault. Lott never made racist remarks, we just interpreted them to be racist!
You buy that?
Nancy Lynn Nagy (TN)
Subj: Lott - a Dis-Armed Bully?
I quote from a December 13, 2002 Washington Post article by Thomas B. Edsall and Darryl Fears, "Lot Has Moved Little on Civil Rights Issues":
"According to a 1997 Time magazine account of events that day, "a small band of white students publicly called for peaceful integration of the campus, but Lott was not among them. Nor was he among the rioters. He concentrated on keeping his frat brothers away from the violence, and he succeeded."
Lott told Time: "Yes, you could say that I favored segregation then. I don't now . . . The main thing was, I felt the federal government had no business sending in troops to tell the state what to do."
William Doyle, who wrote a book about events at the University of Mississippi in 1962, "An American Insurrection," said in an interview that the 716th Military Police Battalion, acting on a tip, raided the house of the Sigma Nu fraternity, of which Lott was president, and removed 21 shotguns, a .30-caliber rifle and a .22-caliber Colt pistol. Lott, according to Doyle, declined to be interviewed for the book."
Based on this quote, should we assume that Lott "concentrated on keeping his frat brothers away from the violence" BEFORE, or only AFTER the 716th Military Police Battalion raided the frat house and removed all the weapons they had at their disposal? When did this raid occur? I'd bet it was BEFORE the September, 1962 riots started, so that with no weapons left with which to attack, Lott, luckily enough for his later political posterity, came out looking like he'd discouraged violence, when maybe he was just lacking the ammo to promote it. Bullies don't usually attack unless they've got an unfair advantage.
Subj: On why Lott must go. (And why I don't want him to.)
Now there's a problem for the GHP! Lott says he won't go! Hasn't Karl talked to him yet, or is this just the next case of a White House blackball?
Anyway, while your suggestion that the White House wants someone a little (lot?) more of a lapdog as Senate majority leader has some merit, I think you've missed an even more compelling reason why they want Lott out. (http://www.geocities.com/dearbenedict/atLarge/articles/021212ben.html).
Place yourself two years in the future, and it's now election 2004. Everyone running against a GOP incumbent makes big play of the following question: "Why didn't you say anything when Trent Lott endorsed Jim Crow?" Across the nation, every challenger asks the same question. Even with GW's latest statement (you're a bad boy, Trent), the play of this is an immediate backlash among black voters. They are voting Democrat, and they are coming out in droves. The GHP can't allow this to happen, because once it gets started, the GHP goes down in flames.
No, they must reduce him to a mere Senator, thereby making him only the problem of the voters from his state.
My opinion? Let the racist stay where he is. That way, I'll just be having so much fun in 2004.
It may not look like I'm doing much, but actually at a cellular level I'm quite busy.
Regarding your statement on the Trent Lott fiasco:
"Meanwhile, the Democrats don't understand any of this -- so Bush will get the credit for condemning Trent Lott, because none of the Congressional leadership attacked him as vigorously."
True, except for Al Gore (admittedly not a current member of Congress but nonetheless probably the most powerful and influential Democrat today, next to Bill Clinton) who came out loud and clear in his denouncement of Lott's blatant racism, before the tepid and timid pronouncements of same contempt by both Daschle and Kerry.
Subj: To Hell with Posse Comitatus
All this attention to a small pox outbreak may not be just an attempt to enrich the drug industry contributors to Bush. They are going to need an excuse to impose martial law. What's a few thousand lives to people like Bush and his cabal.
Subj: Oh Mr. Grissom, your Freudian slip is showing
I followed your link to the Views page of the Council of Conservative Citizens, where an editorial by Michael Andrew Grissom lamented Sen. Lott's repudiation of segregation. I found it amusing that he correctly described the integrity level of the Republican party as quite minimal, as the following quote reveals:
I can only add that I believe that the integrity of most Republicans is already in the sewer.
WE NOTICED SOMETHING NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE CAUGHT. LAST NIGHT ON CROSSFIRE BAY BUCHANAN SAID AND WE QUOTE "HE (TRENT LOTT) HAS MADE THAT SAME STATEMENT MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS." REALLY? WE ONLY KNOW OF TWICE, SOMEONE SHOULD ASK BAY WHERE HE SAID THE SAME THINGS OVER THE YEARS. WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTIES?
sixty of us old but not brain dead in fl.
I think that the obvious has been somewhat overlooked in the Lott scandal.
This cliché truly sums his life and feelings about segregation and race, and is representative of his career.
Actions speak louder than words.
Unfortunately, it can be applied with vigor to the current debate about Lott's "apology".
Lott can run but he can't hide from his documented lifelong racism.
Subj: Bogus Mantras
So Mary Matalin is leaving Cheney and his VP dominion.
I'd like to think that her husband, James Carville, may have gotten through to her... like maybe the repugs, including Cheney are coming down hard and soon. Possibly Carville informed Mary that when Cheney and Bush hit rock bottom, so will Mary. And maybe James told her that when that happens, she will be left with a reputation as bad as Ken Lay's.
Each day now, the faithful are two-stepping it out the door from the Bush administration. While they publicly proclaim mantras as "More time with the family," I'd like to think that their overriding strategy is, "You are known by the company you keep and guilt by association!"
Subj: Good News for a Change....
I just saw something in the paper this morning that filled me with glee. If I have it correct, I interpret this to mean that the The Circuit Court with jurisdiction based in San Francisco ruled that Clinton's prior decision, translated into law, designed to keep the forests free of logging roads was upheld despite the decision by the local court in Idaho. That means that Bush's intent of thinning out the forests was ruled against and that he would have to appeal the findings or change the law in order to proceed with his desire to destroy pristine environments.. This was a win-win for all of the conservation groups involved....and a nice little victory for us.
Along with the resignation of Kissinger and the attacks on Lott for his southern conservative bigotry, it seemed like an overall up week for democrats. Combine that with wins in Louisiana and the west coast and perhaps we are beginning to find our sea legs again.
Let's turn up the heat, gang.
Regards to all for their hard work on these and other issues and for helping to get the truth out.
Subj: Thx for the great link
The CCofC link http://www.cofcc.org/Views.htm was great!
It's definitely a good thing if Lott leaves, and maybe now is when we should refocus on Thomas White?
Kissinger, Lott, Matalin, DiUilio
White would be a great addition to that list.
Just my 2 cents.
Subj: The Racist GOP
King George has given his tacit approval of the RACIST ideology espoused by his chief minister Lott by not demanding his immediate resignation. The GOP is a comfortable home to white racists in this country and any denial of that fact by anyone is laughably absurd on its face. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice should leave the administration immediately and if they do not leave Bush's racist regime then they are entitled to be called token oreos!
Subj: I think BuzzFlash is in control!
Ha! I read this and thought of BuzzFlash:
Conan: "You said they should fire their economic team, soon after they fired their economic team. You said Lott should apologize, hours later Lott apologizes. Are you secretly in control?"
Gore: "Yes, its a secret arrangement. The control actually goes through the news media"
The reason I thought of you is, no sooner did BuzzFlash start the Osama Clock and mention the Anthrax killer, than suddenly Anthrax is back in the news! As if to prove they are still working on it!
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE, BuzzFlash! Good work!
This administration is definitely the Diversion Party. Every single month it is something else. After Trent dies down, it will be something else. It is almost funny...I cannot wait for the next one....hopefully, it will never get any more serious than Trent Lott. Since they took office, except for the bombings and the Anthrax deaths, everything else has been totally fabricated! I am so sick of a party that does nothing but scare the hell out of Americans for their own gain!
I just don't know what to do since Republicans are so lockstep with them, that they think we should listen intently to every thing they say....
I will not...I am revolting...now!
Shirley, St. Louis
Subj: Why not list the sponsors of the HATE TALK SHOWS?
Why not provide a list of all the commercial sponsors of all the Hate TV and Radio shows...many email groups have emailed Red Lobster and refuse to eat there until they quit advertising for Rush Limbaugh. Why not list them all? Hit them where it hurts...Their pocketbooks!!!
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Thurmond's actual words
After reading many instances of Thurmond's vicious remarks from his segregationist campaign in 1948 - I came across one on Bartcop http://www.bartcop.com/ this morning that actually used the word "nigger" - when all previous instances I had read used the less offensive "nigra".
So I thought old Bart was maybe trying to get a little extra mileage out of this thing.
To check for myself I did a search on Google. Most of the dozens of mentions used the milder "nigra" form. A very few used "negro" instead.
But then I came to one link that used "nigger" - and fortunately this one included an audio link. I think your readers may like to step back in time to hear what America was like before the Repugs hired all those PR firms.
This may seem like a small thing - but when you think about - it's huge and says much about our "liberal" media - who, even when condemning blatant racism, lies to us.
Thanks Bart - for the truth.
Subj: Daschle's short leash
"BuzzFlash Note: Our next editorial on Tom Daschle will be entitled, "The Daschle Dilemma." Does the fact that South Dakota voted 60% for Bush and only 38% for Al Gore keep Tom Daschle on a "red state" leash? We'll let you be the judge."
As a local party leader and Democratic activist I'm beginning to see a pattern to the Democratic Party's "ineffective" choices...so much so that it's beginning to look deliberate.
The fact that BuzzFlash even mentions the "red state" leash limiting Daschle's effectiveness as Senate leader begs the question: Why was he elected to the position? Why was Dick Gephardt the leader in the House? In public both of these guys are quiet, dull, self-effacing and can never make a statement without qualifying it to death with insipid adjectives like "sad." They are the perfect unleaders for presenting an unappealing, unchallenging, bland public face to the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi is back pedaling like crazy after being elected. The compromises are already made before the debate begins. If I hear the word "bipartisan" one more time....
Another "ineffective" choice: The Democratic Party has studiously avoided and often actively participated [legislatively speaking] in the Right's takeover of the media. As a result, not only has public opinion actually shifted to the right, especially in the last decade, it's given political cover for the D's to shift policy to the right. Certainly some smart political strategist figured it out years ago; the constant public opinion polling reflects the misinformation the public is constantly being fed by the media...duh.
Another "ineffective" choice: Playing to the pet demographic group du jour: soccer moms, business park dads, white male rednecks....whatever. As long as it's not minorities, the middle class or the poor who are definitely not an attractive demographic and who are falling farther and farther behind.
Another "ineffective" choice: For years the DLC's Al From has served on the American Chamber of Commerce Foundation, a think tank devoted to promoting pro-business policies and getting Republicans elected. Do you think Democratic political strategists can't figure that out?
Another "ineffective" choice: Taking advantage of a catchy phrase by one of our own and carrying it to ridiculous lengths. If I hear the phrase "All politics is local" one more time....for instance local party leaders are supposed to counter the billions invested by the Right in the media takeover by having local people write letters to local newspapers and call into talk radio. Like we're supposed to be brave little David's taking on Goliath. When our elected Democratic officials vote like Republicans in Washington D.C., we're supposed to forget it [if we even become aware of it] and be mollified when they bring home a little pork to the district.
There is an older phrase, not as catchy as "All politics is local." It's "Divide and conquer." By compartmentalizing state committees, local party committees, separating the base from the money masters calling the shots, the base is effectively distracted and cut off from what the party leadership is up to-- inducing a sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisment...disunity, disorganization, disillusionment. If I hear the phrase "centrist" one more time....
Are you beginning to see a pattern?
Subj: DimSon's Almost Accurate Backdrop Slogan
Did anyone notice the slogan on the backdrop behind DimSon the other day? It said "Compassion in Action." My sister observed that if they had only closed up the space between "in" and "action" it would have been the first time one of those little suckers had been true.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Rush was also incorrect in pronouncing Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas untainted by affirmative action. The Dean of the Yale Law School is quoted as saying that Justice Thomas got into Yale Law School on an affirmative action program. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec98/thomas_7-29.html
Furthermore, a Northwestern University biography of Justice Thomas concludes: "Although he has opposed racial preference and affirmative action programs, he nonetheless benefited from them. As a young student, Thomas entered the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit institution in Massachusetts, after the school began a black recruitment program. Thomas was the beneficiary of a similar minority program a few years later at Yale Law School." http://oyez.nwu.edu/justices/justices.cgi?justice_id=106&page=biography or [Files/RvR 2000/ Dec18 Clarence Thomas]
Storehouse of Rush's veracity in doubt quips. http://communicate.msn.com/RushversusReality2000
Perhaps one of the most ignored part of the Bill of Rights is the 3rd Amendment which states: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Think about this one for a second or two. Really, after the revolutionary war and the forced quartering of British troops became a moot point, why would the founders even consider including this obscure amendment in the Bill of Rights? Outside of the fresh humiliation felt by so many, at the time, Colonists when forced to put up the troops sent to quell the native rebellion, what is the point. This amendment has absolutely no relevance to 21st Century America. We can afford to house our troops through the collective action of our government.
So, you ask, why bring this up then? I answer your question with another, who does former Admiral Poindexter work for? The pentagon. Ah, now maybe you can see where this logic is headed. In modern day America, our computers have become an integral and almost essential part of our homes. Isnt the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Office a de facto branch of the armed forces? Isnt using our computers and taking control of our personal information in order to fight an undeclared war against terrorism a form of quartering troops in time of war and peace? Providing the platform to get at information owned by individuals is essentially having a "troop" being quarter by the individual.
Im not a legal scholar but I would guess the great litigators out there might be able to make a far better argument using this logic and actually mount a challenge to this administrations continued abuse of power.
Chris Green, Progressive and Proud in Cleveland, Ohio
Subj: Al Gore on SNL !!
On SNL last night Al Gore dressed up as Trent Lott appearing on HardBall with Chris Matthews and repeated Trent Lott's racist remarks word for word. Unbelievable!
I was totally shocked! Not because I was offended but because Al Gore had the guts to do what nobody else in this country can! I jumped out of my seat and screamed for joy!
I can imagine the Right Wing is outraged and that makes me extremely happy!! The entire SNL show was a satire on Bush, the Pugs and even the wimpy Democrats!
I am so sorry for any BuzzFlash Reader who missed it! Find a friend who made a copy-- it's a MUST SEE!
Nancy Lynn Nagy (TN)
oh my god! i just saw that racist lott tape again, just before he made his racist statement HE LOOKED DOWN AT HIS NOTES! i saw him on something else saying he was winging it! jesus, just stop the lies!!!!
da in fl.
Subj: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
Suddenly the Republicans find themselves in a very difficult position. Oh, it's nothing like a good "Clinton Sex Scandal." No, no this is just a little thing like "what's in the best interest of the country." The sad thing is the Republicans don't seem to know what's in the best interest of the country, and therein lies their problem.
If they keep Trent Lott they are in essence acknowledging their own racist views. Of course they don't seem to realize that they already did that by placing John Ashcroft in the position of Attorney General, and by their judicial nominations. Nonetheless, Trent Lott can be considered blatant and cannot be whitewashed away. Mr. Lott has placed this country's own struggle with racism in our face and the Republicans are trying to decide what to do about it all.
If they come out with a strong stand against Mr. Lott, that will put all their racial judicial nominations in jeopardy. How will they put Pickering up again now, with or without Lott. In fact, on any judicial nomination that even hints of a background of Civil Rights Abuses, all the Democrats or Black Leaders have to do is suggest that the Republicans continue to try and bring racism into the government by any means they can.
If they do what's best for the country and get rid of Mr. Lott, they leave the door wide open for a 50/50 split in Congress and at best have to keep fighting and compromising on some of their most cherished desires to completely control the country.
No matter what they do, their stab in the back of John McCain and Campaign Reform and Mr. McCain's refusal to play the "good soldier" anymore, and the Trent Lott situation, the Republicans now have the problem of convincing the American Public of their sincerity. We are finding out what the rest of the world already knows; this administration is not to be trusted to place the best interests of the people, any people before their own.
What to do, what to do. They've already waited too long to be believable no matter what they do and no matter what they do, they are going to have to bite the bullet.
Months ago I wrote an article posted on this website about GWB's leaky faucet, and the amount of drips before it all goes whoosh. What the obscene tax-cut didn't do, and what this administration knew about 9/11 before it happened didn't do, and what all the Enron's and Harkin's and secret energy council and the shredding of the Bill of Rights didn't do, Trent Lott may have done and that is awaken the people to the fact that the faucet is leaking badly. Drip...Drip...Drip...Drip
After reading Jesse Jackson Jr.'s commentary it looks like Trent Lott is still in the Confederacy. So I guess it is time for G. W. Bush to designate him an "enemy combatant" and send him to the brig with Jose Padilla.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: A Lott to be desired ...
Everyone, including Trent himself seems to think it was a light moment in a birthday celebration and he got carried away. But from what I noticed is that he's reading from a PREPARED statement. He either had to write it down or maybe at least would have proofread it. He knew exactly what he was saying. Only this time someone actually called him on it.
ps: Maybe he'll let us see his notes .... hahaha ..
Subj: Judge Bates
Impeachment for Judge Bates? No - how about conspiracy to obstruct justice and the jail time that it might entail. Then impeach him for just cause.
Without a doubt our party has been hijacked by Republicans. Never have I seen a group of more inept people with no political sense in my life. First Tom Daschle carries water for racist Trent Lott like one of his stooges. Then as the Republican Party is imploding under the weight of Trent's hood, the only Democrat to forcefully criticize him takes the heat off him by announcing that he is not running for President. This is utterly sad. I look at the crop of wannabes left, with possibly the exception of Governor Dean and I am truly sick. Dean at this time, unfortunately, doesn't stand a chance. Whichever one of the lackluster Senate candidates is the eventual nominee will, I predict, take our party down to electoral disaster in 2004. All of them have ties to the DLC and whoever the nominee is he will attempt to act Republican. We'll repeat the fiasco of the 2002 midterms. Gore has been the only candidate to date to speak out forcefully about the destruction of civil liberties and the economic recklessness of this administration. Now with his moral voice gone from the campaign the rest of the field will revert to their craven DLC ways. Well I for one believe that we need to do two things 1.) get mad and run for party offices and kick the DLC stooges the hell out of our party and 2.) don't contribute to ANY candidate or the party unless they agree to hew to basic Democratic values. Now with McCain/Feingold they will need all the individual contributions that they can get. We should not give a dime to them UNLESS they agree to represent the interests of working Americans and agree to fight the Bush cartels destruction of the constitution.
Subj: Al Gore
As much as I would like to see Gore as President, I support his decision not to run in 2004. This decision will leave him free to speak as he might wish, free to speak when and where he wishes, and free of the restraints that bind any candidate. Besides, would he not make a great Secretary of State in a new Democratic government?
Sydney Smith (retired)
Subj: What is Henry Hiding?
I've never liked Henry Kissinger. After all, he's a war criminal. And I must admit that I thought it was pretty funny when he was appointed to head the 9/11 probe committee. I had thoughts of foxes, hen houses and the like...
But I am amazed that there has been so little note of Henry the K's lack of commitment to the defense of his country that he would resign over the requirement that he release his client list. Now it's more than likely that his client list might primarily consist of rapacious capitalists, brutal dictators and corrupt politicians. But few eyebrows would be raised; it would merely confirm what we already know.
Given, though, that we've already gotten ourselves into one nasty occupation and are about to get ourselves into another, one would think that a proper patriotic attitude would dictate that he 'fess up and take on the responsibility he has been handed, even if all of the above-noted clients decide to take their business elsewhere.
A BuzzFlash Reader
Subj: Re: Say It Ain't So Al! Gore Won't Run in 2004
Take heart -- there may be a very good reason he has decided (for now) not to run: it frees him from the political traps of ease and appease, the same traps that made his win a slim majority rather than a landslide.
Perhaps Gore realized that staying out of politics is the only way to stay in the game for the right reasons. I wouldn't be too surprised if he changes his mind later -- after his public support, built on his fearless dissent of the wrongs being committed by the bu$h regime, skyrockets.
For now, we have a man who has clearly decided to speak the truth, regardless of personal cost. I find that to be all the more honorable and worthy of respect. Let others suffer the slings and arrows of Realpolitik -- Gore can't afford to get sucked back into that game, and this country needs people like him fighting the good fight, in or out of office.
Subj: Phone number to ask Gore to run in 2004
It is: 703-875-0667.
This number was originally set up by Gore's PAC "Leadership '02" for comments regarding Gore's speeches this Fall. However, it is still up and running. I think we should fill President Gore's answering machine with resounding encouragements to run in 2004. (I just left my message! :)
Distribute this far and wide QUICKLY! Thank you.
"Gore for President" volunteer for 2004
Re: Gore won't run in 2004
Well, now that Al Gore has finally made up his mind not to run for president in 2004, we'll all have to do more hard thinking. I must say that I'm not surprised by his withdrawal.
I had the feeling all along that his "defeat" in 2000, although crooked as it was, was also a traumatic experience for him and hurt him deeply, psychologically. The way the media had turned against him during the campaign, after he'd always played fair with them and thought them his friends, was especially hurtful for him. I doubt he'll ever tell the public these things. He much more "traditionalist" than Bill Clinton ever was and he never had the taste for engaging in dirty politics. Clinton excelled in rising above dirty politics and turning attacks against him to his favor. Al Gore was too much of a gentlemen to fight --- dirty, if necessary.
What is everybody else feeling after hearing the news?
Subj: We REALLY DO NEEED Al Gore!
Is there any way for people to reach Al Gore to tell him we heavily believe the he should NOT announce that he won't run in 2004?
My Mom and I truly believe that Al Gore is America's best chance to turn our Country around - away from war and to the people interest. Can you guys communicate for ALL of us? Thanks!
Barb Mauz in El Granada - San Mateo County Coastside.
Al Gore not running for President in 2004 is a major slap in the face to Democrats. The ordinary people that is. I think a lot of Democrats will not vote, or will vote for a third party now. They loyalty to Al Gore is not there, so the party that has shown no loyalty to them will just bid a sad farewell and find another party. Maybe even form a new one.
Al Gore has forsaken an almost sure bid as the Democratic nominee for President in order to save the world from the current "American" regime of fascist mafia-like terror.
Al Gore is a hero.
I hope Gore finally tells them all to go to hell. Maybe he is telling them to go to hell. I am not happy that Gore is not running. Why is Gore not running? He is going to give you his reasons. I don't really think that he can allow you to know what he truly is thinking.
Gore's spirit was broken in 2000. It was broken by the stolen election and it was broken by a lazy mean spirited media. Gore has lost faith in the system. He has lost faith in the media. I hope Gore continues to be as outspoken as he has been lately. In order to recover from what has happened to him he needs to remain outspoken. He needs to express his outrage. The media's treatment of Gore was pure and simple verbal abuse. The Republican Party was pure and simple verbally and emotionally abusive towards Gore. They have now run our best man out of politics.
Now, it is time of the Democrats to stand up to the Republicans, the lazy media and the turncoat Democrats. The world needs us to stop the war in Irag. We need to stop it despite what our political parties proposes. The needs us to have more compassion towards the impoverished and hungry of the world. The only true way to beat the war on terrorism.
Gore loves America a hell of a lot more than Bush. And he loves the human race more. He loves the world. His eyes are open. He can no longer fit into a political mode. He cannot lie like Bush. His eyes are way to open to run as a moderate Democrat. He now has truly humility and compassion that can only come from being deeply hurt.
He need to be true to himself and his core beliefs. Gore knows that the media is corrupt and against him. He know that certain factions of the Republican Party will do anything to win. He knows who the perpetrator is. He will stand up to them on his own terms.
I just wanted to say that I am devastated by Al Gore's decision not to run for the Presidency again in 2004. Where is our country going to find another real man and true leader and hero like him? Out of all the potential candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, he was the only one who stood up to Bush on a possible war on Iraq, perhaps the greatest moral issue of our time. And he seemed to be one of the few able to articulate the kind of moral criticisms of the policies of Bush and the Republican party who is a major public figure that the evil, corrupt gang of plutocrats and their stooges who control the major communication structures of America was willing to pay some attention to.
We are indeed living through some of the darkest hours in human history, and we are alone now, without a man that we desperately needed to lead our fight. Our destiny now truly is in our own hands. What Thomas Jefferson once called the "last best hope of [humankind]", the United States of America, is now in the intensive care ward of human history, and it is almost code blue time.
I personally intend to fight on for all that Al Gore and so many others have stood for, but it is now going to be a much more lonely battle.
Re: Say It Ain't So Al! Gore Won't Run in 2004
At this time we should recognize that the country needs Al Gore and Draft him!!
Al Gore is the only candidate who won the 2000 election.
Al Gore is the only one who stands against the agenda of the mindless pResident.
Al Gore will respond to the will of the citizens--I say DRAFT HIM and send the draft dodgers away.
We need a change away from the war minds who are now in power and who are chipping away the freedoms even as they will send the countries youth to defend.
DRAFT Al GORE NOW !
What a great commentary! Wouldn't it be neat if this were circulated all over the nation? Hurrah! Somebody is writing what millions of us feel!
Did you see him folks? This is the true President of the United States. This is what a man looks like when he puts his country above his own personal ambition. This is the kind of person our forefathers envisioned. His main concern is stopping this administration from continuing on the destructive course they have plotted and he believes he can best do that not as a candidate but as a statesman, a very intelligent statesman. He's free to say and do what he wants, express what he wants and no one can accuse him of "politicizing" the situation. I can't imagine what this decision cost him on a personal basis, but I do know that I am proud I voted for him, and I am proud that he is the President, even though he was barred from serving. Thank you Sir, for making America, all of us, the most important. The Rove/Cheney/Bush cartel will have to look over their shoulder for the remainder of their term, because they now not only have Clinton without a personal political agenda, they have Al Gore as well, it could be a very long two years.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please stand as we present the President of the United States of America Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Subj: Can you blame him?
I really can't blame Al Gore for not running for president in 2004.
Gore would have been up against two republicans... Bush and the corporately-owned media. No doubt, Gore would have been able to mount a good campaign against Bush (Lord knows there is plenty of ammunition) but we saw what the media did to him in 2000. Really, the guy won the 2000 election and found himself making a concession rather than an inaugural speech. If that doesn't make a candidate think twice, I don't know what would. I think Gore realizes that the media would be no better friend to him in 2004 than they were in 2000. The media was directly responsible for the crooked defeat of Gore in 2000 and he knows it. Only a fool would think that the media would be nicey-nice to any democratic candidate in the next election. In fact, they will go for the throat of any democrat that runs. Gore isn't willing to expose himself to the unfair media thrashing machine so soon... his wounds have barely healed. Whoever surfaces as the democratic contender might be considered a sacrificial lamb, considering the media tactics in 2000.
The democrats need another Clinton to rise out of nowhere.
otherwise noted, all original