How Stupid Are Fox Viewers?

Robert Greenwald:

I remember very clearly the daily fearmongering led by FOX as they cheered for war with Iraq. The 24/7 images, sound effects, yelling and threatening were an ever-present drumbeat for war. We had to invade, and we had to invade now.. anyone who didn't see that was a traitor. They viciously attacked those of us who worked to get out the truth.

And it worked well..

CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

"My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News."

This footage blew my mind...




Amnesia is prominent in my new party. Many who watch Fox have forgotten they've been led down this road before. Let's remind the folks at the "liberal" networks that this time, they actually do their job--OK?

http://foxattacks.com/iran

We Republicans Are Sneaky, huh? Dirty Tricks Caught on Video

If you have to misrepresent or lie to support an issue, then perhaps you should think whether it's a valid issue to begin with.

There is a real crime going on in California. My relatives there tell me they are being harassed by petitioners to "help children with cancer"--and that they must sign the forms in triplicate. The last form, ALWAYS covered by a stack of others and big rubber band, is the so-called "Fair Elections" act, which will gar-un-tee 22 electoral votes to the Republican Party. That initiative is always either poorly explained, not mentioned at all, or out and out lied about. Each is a violation of state election code. I am hearing the same thing over and over.

See it here.

Join http://www.nodirtytricks.com/

JUST ONCE, I would like a fair election where my party doesn't try to steal the White House...

Analysis of the Presidential Race

First the Dems. It's go-time for Obama and Edwards. They are within the margin of error or close to it of Clinton's lead in Iowa. If Obama or Edwards win Iowa, they can carry the momentum into N.H., and it will also ruin her aura of inevitability. If Clinton wins Iowa, it will be near impossible to stop her train. My money is still on Clinton, but it is not the sure thing it was two weeks ago.

By the way, it's a three-way race. The others (Biden, Gravel, Kooky, even Richardson) are already done for.

The GOP race is far, far more interesting. There is essentially a five-way race happening. The latest polls in Iowa show Romney and Huckabee. Rudy leads nationally, including the big states and the swing states, but none of the early states. Folks, this is a big deal. No prez has lost all three early states (IA, NH, and SC) and gone on to win the primary. What happens here effects the other states. This time in 2003, Dean was the sure thing. In California, he was leading in double-digits over his rivals. Kerry was under 5%.

But after New Hampshire, the numbers pratically reversed in Kerry's favor.

If Rudy loses the first three, I can promise you it will change the dynamic of the race. This is what Romney is counting on.

If not Rudy, who? I don't think Romney will be able to pull it off. He has poured tons of money (most of it, his own) into Iowa and New Hampshire, but he can't buy his way into this. For the rest of the nation: he trails badly. Yes, the Mormon question is somewhat of an issue, which is unfortunate. (You think conservatives would give a break to a religion that is completely American.) However, it is much more the fact that he flip-flopped on every major issue: gay rights, stem cells, guns, and abortion. People can't stand a panderer--Rudy was wise not to follow his footsteps on that matter.

Thompson is a dud. He is rejected by Dobson and many cultural conservatives--and if he doesn't have them, then what's the point? That's why he entered the race! Anyways, he is sinking fast. He waited too long to get in, and he certainly hasn't impressed anyone.

I was willing to write off McCain, but is actually rising. He is now leading in South Carolina and rising in New Hampshire. You could argue he retooled his campaign, but frankly, this is more a dissatisfaction with Rudy/Romney than anything else. I predicted long ago he would win because he is the establishment candidate. He was supposed to take the path of Bob Dole: Prove yourself electable, then prove yourself loyal. There were more worthy opponents of Bill Clinton in 1996, but it was Bob Dole's turn. So he got the nod in 1996.

McCain proved himself in the 2000 election, then became loyal (to a fault) to W. It was his turn, and Bush turned over the key to his apparatus. The problem is that McCain was originally liked because of his independent streak, and now he is seen as Bush's lapdog. He was the biggest cheerleader for Bush, the war, the surge, and immigration reform. None have proved popular.

The darkhorse in the GOP race is Huckabee. He is leading in Iowa or coming in second depending on the poll. He was a popular Southern governor, and a Baptist minister. He would be palatable for most social, religious, and economic conservatives.

The problem is he can't catch a break.

First, Robertson endorsed Rudy to the chagrin of Huck supporters. How a thrice-divorced, gay supporting, taxpayer-funded abortion proponent got the nod is more of a desperate attempt by Robertson to stay relevant than anything else. (Didn't he agree with Falwell that people like that caused 9/11??)

The second blow came from the national Right to Life. It has a large core of grass-roots volunteers who could have really helped Mr. Huck instead of blowing it all on Thompson. Ironically, they actually said "I heart Huckabee" was much better with their core issue, since he opposes all abortion instead of just saying it should be determined by the states like Thompson. Nonetheless, they went with Thompson because he was more "electable".

Yeah, the GOP race is much more fun to watch. I'm taking bets...

You Capitulating Bastards!

I'm GOP now, so I can bash the Democratic Congress:

Glenn Greenwood (salon.com):

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

How, then, can this be explained?

The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.

The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.

The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "registered their displeasure."

This on the heels of Nancy Pelosi FINALLY, one year later, showing a small spine by telling the president no more war funds this year unless he withdraws some soldiers. Of course, it's an empty threat because the war is fully funded throughout the year. But it's a change since she is used to giving in to EVERYTHING he wants.

I told my former Democratic colleagues not to worry, that Nancy will change her mind once Bush starts calling them names. (weak) But I didn't even have to wait for that. Phony Democrats are already worried about taking such a brazen stand of an empty threat and are worried about standing up to the hick 23% of Bush/war supporters--these cowards are expressing doubt on this course. Yes. Better to give our manipulated moron-in-chief a blank check.

Idiots.

I don't have to defend you bastards anymore. And I don't want to hear crap about switching to the opposition party. I may have switched temporarily as a protest; but you bastards are the ones doing our bidding.

You guys disgust me.

the seminole democrat is now the seminole REPUBLICAN?

SAY WHAT?

That's right, folks! I have officially switched my party affiliation to the Grand Old Party. The party of guns and gays (the closeted kind). The party of GOD--well, the one that hates Mexicans, fears Arabs, and loves the superrich. The party of big oil, big business, and big polluters.

I suddenly have an urge to blame foreigners for our problems, take money from the middle-class to give to the wealthy, cut healthcare for our children, cut benefits from our soldiers, surrender our constitutional freedoms, and start a war without thinking.

Speaking of which, one of the big perks in my new affiliation is that I no longer have to think. No matter what reprehensible policy is being pushed; no matter what pro-family legislation is being blocked by my fellow Republicans--all I have to do is repeat the talking points given out to me by the GOP spin meisters. Being a member of the party of no consequences means that we have professionals who spin what we do to you week after week (as opposed to what we are doing FOR you). I may be rusty, but I promise that if I can't defend the indefensible, then I will just use the backup argument:


1. "Why do you hate God?"

2. "Why do you hate America?"


Man, what a sweet gig!

But I guess I should explain WHY I am no longer a Democrat.

First, unless you’ve been living in the cave with Bin Laden, you know that the DNC has voted to take away our delegates--and thus our votes for the primary. Why? Because the GOP-controlled state legislature voted to move the primary from late March to January 29.

(After the Supreme Court took our right to vote away, we Floridians are a tad sensitive about things like that.)

I know Dean is upset that us Dems here think we should have at least as much clout as South Carolina, the most GOP state in the union, and the right, white states of Iowa and NH, but the answer should be a better primary system, like a regional or national primary—-NOT to disenfranchise the voters of an important state by taking ALL of our delegates away.


But Dean didn’t stop there. Dean strong-armed the candidates to agree not to campaign here to really stick it to Florida. AND LEST YOU THINK this is all about principle, the DNC says its perfectly acceptable to take as much campaign money as they want from the state. Nice.

The GOP, seeing the internal strife and backlash, decided to take the more sensible approach and cut their delegates by 50%.

So Floridians are faced with a choice—have our vote count some, or have our vote count for nothing.

The solution was simple: Switch to the GOP for the upcoming primary!

Vote for the GOP candidate you can at least stand, OR, vote for the GOP candidate you think will most likely be defeated by the Democratic candidate. At least you’ll be making a difference.

Since the top-tier Dem candidates agreed to not campaign here but take our money—I’m not too keen on voting for any of them anyway in the Democratic primary.

AFTER the primary, I will probably switch back to being a Democrat. (I really do want my vote to count however, so maybe after the general election?) This is not only legal, according to state elections supervisors, this is a movement that they are currently experiencing. You can switch as much as you want.

If enough Floridians do this, this will make our point, our vote will count for something, and then we can go to work to doing what we should be doing in the first place: Working with the DNC to stop the GOP from winning the state’s 27 electoral votes!!!

If the DNC would wise up and target the GOP instead of their own foot soldiers in a major, swing state , (for the crime of wanting a say in our next leader), we might just pull off 2008. My fellow activists have worked their tail off to require paper ballots for 2008, to get good people to run, and to fight the GOP machine here. I hate having to fight my former party's leadership-—especially one that promised they would "count every vote." But here we are.

And unlike the National DC Dems, I don't back down.

The problem is deciding which GOP candidate to vote for. I am really not cynical enough to vote for the weakest candidate---I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul. Yeah, he's a nutcase, but at least he is the only sensible one of the bunch when it comes to pulling our troops out of moderating a civil war for a thankless, corrupt, and inept Iraqi government.

This is the only way I can think of to make my point to the DNC, but not hurt the Democrats in 2008. If you live in Florida— I invite you to join me.

It's so pretty over here. Soooo...very...pretty.....

Well, That Was Fun

Dorworth won. Congratulations to Chris and his family. Please don't bulldoze what's left of our green areas in Seminole--no matter how easy they make it for you.

Good effort, Steve. Outspending an opponent 100-1 does have an effect; but Steve, I implore you next time: Use Netroots!! It is one of the few advantages you can have over a well-funded Republican in a GOP-leaning district.


PS-Registered voters--you suck. NO, NOT for voting GOP--for NOT VOTING!!! The guy in my precinct, which has thousands of people--told me only 101 bothered to show up to vote the entire day. Pathetic. These State Reps really do have a big say your taxes, your schools, your environment, your life--you'd think you could take exactly 4 minutes (I timed it) to vote. Let's do better next time.

DC Dems Sure Aren't Listening to Me, you IDIOT

From CNN:

Bush called on Congress to pass spending bills for the military that include provisions for troops in the war zone, saying they should spend more time listening to the threats of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and "less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."

Because of clueless overload, I can put aside your ignorance that there is no such thing as a MoveOn.org blogger. What I am upset about is how in the hell you or any puppet on the right can honestly say that the Democratic House and Senate leadership are listening to us. If they were, the troops would be home, you would be impeached, and America would have restored faith in their government!

Who would you rather have lead? This bunch has capitulated to everything you have asked for--quaking in their boots of your rabid 23% following...




And the capitulation continues....


Mukasey will most likely be our new AG for having met the high standard of not being Gonzales and the true fact that we could get even worse. You have a knack for always picking the worst candidates to serve, but all you had to do was throw a temper tantrum and actually promise that NO ONE would serve as AG if the Democrats stood up to you.

A real politician with spine would have stood up to you and called your bluff. But not them.

You have been getting a free ride since last November!! Pelosi and Reid immediately took impeachment off the table--after you lied to me to about going to war--(a more impeachable offense I do not know). But I forgave them because I figured they would have their hands full trying to get our troops out of Iraq.

Maybe they foolishly thought you would finally listen to reason after the election; and stop your "strategery" of doing the same thing over and over and over again until we achieve "victory".

Nope.

It soon became clear that the only way to end this tragedy was to cut funding. Buuuuuut Pelosi announced that that is off the table as well. In fact, just two months after the election, you were able to send MORE troops to serve as gun fodder for the Iraqi civil war!

For crying out loud, we couldn't even get the WEBB amendment passed to guarantee that our troops get badly needed rest!! Don't worry, Reid spared your Congressional supporters embarrassment for your party having to defend itself in a fillibuster.

And just ONE DAY later, after screwing over the troops, Reid and Pelosi allowed legislation to condemn a goddamned newspaper ad--giving your ridiculous distraction for the failed surge credibility.


Rep. Jane Harman's recent diary on this summarizes the problem we have. She pretty much said we needed to have a "veto-proof" majority in order to safeguard the Constitution. The thought of standing up to you never even entered her radar.

Sadly, her mentality is prevalent amongst many of our legislators.

Be afraid of Bush. BE VERY AFRAID.

He might call you a name.

His 23% of hick followers might not vote for you.

Best to capitulate--then maybe he will go easy on you.

Let's see how that is working. Here's FAUX News pundit and sometimes
"correspondent" John Gibson:

In a way, the president gave the Dems some cover with the people they most fear. At least he publicly credited them with bowing and scraping before the far, far left. That should keep the far, far left off their back for a little bit, even though the Dems in Congress have failed at every single errand the far, far left has sent them off to do: war hasn't ended; Bush isn't being impeached; Cheney is still in office.

By the way, they were laughing at them last night by releasing the Halloween pictures of Bush's dog dressed as Darth Vader. They always think of Cheney as Darth Vader, and he's not supposed to be able to take a joke.

. That's right. The DC Dems give in to everything you want, and they are still attacked and still blamed for listening to "us".

In fact, Congress' approval rating is the lowest in recorded history right now. (Which you love to bring up.)

Which brings progressives like this "MoveOn" blogger to ask:
WHAT THE HELL is our leadership in Congress getting out of captiulating?? IF they actually listen to us--stand up to you from time to time--and be the "fighting" Dems we were promised, then maybe your rants would be justified.

But don't worry, I won't hold my breath.