Saturday, December 22, 2007

Biggest FL LOSER of the Year: MEL MARTINEZ!

The results are in.

Lot's of close calls this year. I'll start at the bottom.

5. Rep. Tom Feeney always makes my list because he is corrupt and a creep, but he did nothing this year (And I really do mean NOTHING--voting against poor kid's health care, voting against changing course in an endless war, etc.) So he's just on the bottom.

4. Rep. Ric Keller, who promised a term-limit of six years which would have ended in January. This means that we would not have had to put up with his pandering and bad judgment this year. The good news--he will be beaten next year. Maybe he can get a job mowing lawns in Iraq.

3. Rep. John Mica, (my own Congressman), who can always be counted on to tow the line for Bush no matter what, justified Bush's support for corrupt militia leaders in Iraq who have tortured and killed to --wait for it--wait for it---Bill Clinton. That's right, Bill Clinton also had scandals, including an "impeachment"; therefore, he is just as bad. Though what really irritated me this year was that he personally told me that Rush Limbaugh was taken out of context, and it was really Harry Reid's fault for making noise about it. I emailed him the full transcript and asked him to tell me exactly how Rush was taken out of context. That was October--still waiting for a response.

2. Fl. State Rep. Bob Allen, our own "Larry Craig", who actually offered a blow job to an undercover officer in a public park men's room. (As is typical, Allen received an almost perfect score from the Christian Coalition of Florida for his family-values opposition to abortion, gays, and pornography.) And as is typical with a GOP politician, why not make a very bad situation a HELL of a lot worse? First, he tried to play the "I'm a legislator" hand, which never works. Then, he decided to add racism to the mix--saying he only offered himself for sex because he was terrified of the big black man. He would be number one, but he really is a minor player, and at least he had the decency to resign when he realized he had dug himself a hole and it was hopeless. (More than I can say for Craig, or the prez for that matter).

1. MEL MARTINEZ. What a bonehead. What a LOSER. He was picked by Bush to head the GOP because of his skin color to win over the coveted Hispanic vote, and perhaps to stop the blood-loss caused by the most incompetent, corrupt administration in history. As point man for the GOP, Martinez felt the need to support EVERYTHING Bush wanted to do. Two problems:
  • Not a smart strategic move for a politician to tie yourself to a sinking ship. His formerly high approval ratings are now down with Bush's. Rightfully so.

  • It let the people of Florida know that Bush came first, NOT the citizens who put him in office. Not smart.

I knew he had problems when the relatively conservative Orlando Sentinel printed blistering rebukes calling out his lies after he wrote an article repeating Bush's talking points on S-CHIP. But the real problem was when he tried to corral support for Bush's immigration bill. He lost a lot of GOP support on that. And with no support from Dems or Independents--who was left? Mel bolted after just 10 months--the Bush curse sealing his fate for the next election. MEL MARTINEZ, who had a promising career, decided like many before him to sacrifice himself at the altar of BUSH. Bush has ruined a lot of careers, but no one's anchor was more firmly tied to Bush then Martinez. He should be glad that he's not up for re-election this time, but it won't matter. He will be gone.

Mel Martinez, biggest Florida loser of the 2007. Congratulations.

Monday, December 10, 2007

What is "Seminole"?

Taking a short break from politics for this week. I'll return next week. In the meantime, I will tout a store in our own county that is unique, fun, and people from all political stripes should visit. (PS-I'm not getting paid for this. But I do want to give my support to a local Seminole business owner)

I drove past this store many times and finally decided to go in. I wanted an antique map of Florida to hang in my office and figured this would be the place. I dragged my wife to the Map and Globe Store, located in Sanford, FL. Although she didn't want to go, she was glad she did. The owner of the store has visited every continent and virtually every country. She is a cartographer who publishes many official maps for the state; but she collects antique maps and globes as a hobby. Her unique globes are all around the store--some are exquisite; others are funny (such as the one with Disney characters from their native lands); and then there is the 70s globe that becomes a bar. It has other interesting items:

  • There is a wooden map of the world, where each nation is made out of wood indigenous to that country (with the exception of Antarctica).

  • There is the United States Map made out of state licesnse plates.

  • There is the map of Florida where each city is a fun drawing of something unique (it even has UCF's new football stadium)

  • There is a collection of different world maps that each attempt to accurately capture the spherical globe. (The most common is the "Good God Greenland map", which shows Greenland on par with Africa. The most accurate is the Peters map, which scrunch up the continents)

  • OLD, VERY OLD Florida maps. Interestingly, the maps of the 1800s are sealed in plastic, but the VERY old ones, such as one from the 1600s, you can touch as much as you want. The reason? The very old maps were printed on parchment, made from animal skin--not paper.
It made me want to learn some more about where I live.

Quick question: How many counties does Florida currently have?

If you said two, you would have been right 150 years ago. Florida was divided into just two counties in 1845: St. John's on the right and Escambia on the left. Today, it has 67.

St. John's County was divided up several more times, which includes a giant county that streched from Central to South Florida called Mosquito County: (in yellow):

When Florida became a state, Mosquito County was renamed Orange County (better for tourists), and was further cut up into Volusia, Brevard, and Osceola County.

Orange was still pretty populated. It was getting too big--so on April 25, 1913, the top portion split into Seminole County. It was named after the tribe of Indians native to Florida. (There is talk today of Orange breaking again into the western portion, but the map today is pretty set.)

By the way, the Seminole County museum is also located in Sanford. It's free admission if you'd like to check it out some time. Sanford is the county seat of government. The historic area is featured on the top right of this blog's title bar; and the newer portion (to include the new courthouse) is seen on the top left.

Well, that's the Seminole portion of the Seminole Democrat (Republican). Hope you learned something. Visit the museum and the store for more info.

Next week, I'll return to focusing on the rest of the title....

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Who the Running Mates WILL Be...(and other certainties)

Quick post here. I know who will win the primaries, what the ticket will be on both sides, and who will win...

1. Hillary and Rudy. There. It's official. You can take that to the bank. Look over my analysis, but it's pretty much set.

2. Rudy will pick Huckabee to be his veep. It's pretty much already decided. No other contender comes close to what he needs to make a package palatable for a disenfranchised base. (He actually wants McCain, but he knows that's stupid.) Heart Huckabee. Take that to the bank.

Hillary is tougher, but I am 98% certain she is going to pick Ted Strickland. Popular governor of Ohio who took over from the most corrupt GOP governor in that state's history. That seals the deal--since FL will probably go red again (it will be close), Hillary needs Ohio and Pennsylvania. She has PA sewn up, and this will ensure an Ohio victory. It's already leaning her way, but she won't take chances. She is too smart.

The only way I am hedging is because she WANTS to pick her friend Wes Clark. That would be a good choice since he's likable and gives strong military credentials. But she won't.


Hillary/Strickland will beat Rudy/Huckabee. It will be a lot closer than people realize, but it will happen.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

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?

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

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.


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

Friday, November 16, 2007

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...

Friday, November 09, 2007

You Capitulating Bastards!

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

Glenn Greenwood (

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.


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.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

the seminole democrat is now the seminole REPUBLICAN?


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.....

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

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.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

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 bloggers and Code Pink protesters."

Because of clueless overload, I can put aside your ignorance that there is no such thing as a 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".


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.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

The Most Insecure Superpower Ever

Bill Maher makes sense:

In his new ad Mitt Romney warns us that Islamic terrorists are the worse threat we've ever faced. More then the Nazis? The Russians? The Red Coats?

He warns us that they want to establish an Islamic nation, to cover the whole world, including America. Well I want to be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

And you thought that people that were scared of gays and Mexicans were paranoid. Islamic terrorist taking over America, they can barely get across the monkey bars. Our defense budget is $600 billion a year. They're using guns they took off a dead Soviet in 1981. I think we can hold Charleston....

We are the largest and most powerful nation on the earth. The largest economy and the largest military. And we are made to act the fool by a few thousand cave dwellers who still put out their videos on VHS.

And that is the problem. Because of the incompetence that goes by the name George Bush we have become the most insecure superpower ever. We can't get anything right anymore. We can't take care of our own citizens after a hurricane, or plan for a war, or maintain our infrastructure, and our celebrity rehab facilities need some work.

As a species we are failing at survival trick number one. Prioritize the threats.

Environmental ruin is going to visit all of us in the coming decades in one way or another and when it does, I hope people like .... I don't know Lou Dobbs says to himself maybe if I was going to spend my whole career obsessing about one issue it should have been ... I don't know, global warming. My skin just fell off my face and what do you know, it really wasn't the fault of a Mexican.

Maybe Bush and his followers think we must be so frightened of terrorists that we need to shred our Constitution and surrender our freedoms---I don't

Monday, October 15, 2007

Daily Show Does Skit for Seminole Democrat!

I post under the name SemDem on DailyKos. I have gotten several recommended diaries this year, which is very humbling because they are read by thousands and read by prominent people. The last diary that was recommended caused a controversy because I entitled it Lynne Cheney Storms Off Daily Show. My thoughtful rebuttals of Lynne's arguments on the show were lost because everyone was focused on the title - (now I know how MoveOn felt).

It was plainly obvious to me that she stormed out. However, many people thought that I "smeared" Lynne Cheney and insisted that she did not storm off at the end. Since the majority thought I was wrong, I changed the title.

This caused heated arguments over the threads.

I still contend that she stormed off, and I felt vindicated by a skit on the Daily Show the very next day. Jon Stewart not only addressed it--he had a funny skit of where Lynne went on the commercial break.

HA! I said. VINDICATION! Some of the readers were unconvinced, however, and told me that the Daily Show probably did that skit because of my recommended diary. RIGHT! Like Jon Stewart or his writers would ever read one of my freakin' diaries!! YOU LOST< I WON, DEAL WITH IT!

Then I noticed these emails in my inbox. Just now.

A representative from the Daily Show contributed links the day I posted the diary that were meant for me to post in order for viewers to draw their own conclusions.

Then, the next day, Michelle Shildkret of 360i "on behalf of Comedy Central" forwarded me a skit the MOMENT it aired on the Daily Show:


I wrote you yesterday, sending over the interview vids from Lynne Cheney’s appearance.

Due to the controversy surrounding her departure, The Daily Show has just released footage of what happened during the commercial break:

I hope that clears everything up for you and your readers. Indecision 2008 always aims to set the record straight. Please let me know if I can send over anything else.

Thanks so much!


Michelle Shildkret

360i on behalf of Comedy Central

OKAY, the writers did notice the diary--and apparently decided to do a skit about it.

Wow. I need to learn to check my email more often.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

WESH News Declares GOP Victor Before Election!

WESH News, our NBC affiliate, had Gail Pascal Brown for the noon news segment give the results of the republican primary. For the record, right-wing Dorsworth beat the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Allen Roosa by a hair. (51%-48%) Which should make the choice for the election clear--Steve Bacallao.

However, Gail Pascal Brown of WESH instead decided to declare the race over. She said that Chris Dorworth was the new State representative for District 34.

To be fair, some good Democrats called and complained. But according to one of the callers:
I called and pointed out their error and was told that someone else had called too. Then their retraction later in the news was very lame...Even when she did the retraction she failed to mention that he now has to run in the general election against Stephen Bacallao [Democratic Candidate], and two NPs.

Great. They made the mistake that hurt Steve, and now they answer by giving his opponent more advertising. Dorworth just spent over 100 grand to win the primary, he can afford to get his own ads. No mention of Steve anywhere, not on the air, not on their website.

I wouldn't cut up if that was the only complaint. After all, our local NPR did the same thing, this morning--saying Chris Dorsworth will face three "opponents" this November.

But I do think that if you declare the race for the other guy when the election hasn't even started yet, you owe the Democratic candidate a name mention.

If you think this is unfair, or that Gail should probably learn what a primary is, contact them:
The local news doesn't need to give any help to the GOP in deep red Seminole county.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Stop Bush Radical: Support Bacallao for FL 34!

I met and greatly respect Stephen Bacallao for FL 34. I especially like his views on growth management, something we are lacking here in Seminole County. (Currently, the philosophy is leave the abandoned, rundown shopping centers alone, but tear down the green forest in between them to build a new one.)

He is tough on crime, and smart on education and healthcare.

What our legislature DOES NOT need is Bacallao's opponent, another radical Bushie:

The rest of the country is moving away from these nuts--it's time we joined them. Even the Orlando Sentinel is endorsing the less partisan opponent for the GOP primary.

Democrats, we need to unite and win this. Bacallao won 40% of the vote last time in 2004, but lots of Dems didn't even bother to vote. Our legislature is not only overwhelmingly republican, it is filled with radicals that don't have our interests at heart.

It's pointless to fight if you don't even bother to vote.

Let's win it this time.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

GOP Candidates Support Bush VETO on Health Care for Millions of Poor Children

You have to wonder what planet the rethug candidates are on.

How else can they be on the polar-opposite side of America (86 percent to be exact) and Congress on such an important issue.

Do you know how hard it is to override a veto?? But already, the Democrats have enough to do just that with the Senate and are a few votes shy in the House.

That speaks VOLUMES.

I expect insanity from Bush. He wants no money for health benefits for children, the troops, or life-saving research. (The money he says is "too much" is only a percentage, however, of what is given to shady contracters like Halliburton and Blackwater.)

What I didn't expect is that the Republican candidates for president support his veto. My question is, who do they think they are pandering to?

The fiscal conservatives? No Dice. First of all, 12 billion a week in Iraq is not sound fiscal policy. But Bush is hardly fiscally responsible. As Kerry put it:
This is the same guy who never met a Republican spending bill he couldn’t sign. Not one. $300 million bridge to nowhere? Pass the pork. Half-trillion dollars on the road to quagmire in Iraq? Bring it on. But a few billion a year for health care for millions of kids? Forget it.

Families? Nope, they support it. Doctors? Hospitals? Nope, they support it as well. GOP Governors? Nope, they strongly support it!! Insurance companies? No, they support it to!

Think about it. Only a very "unique" person can justify spending hundreds of thousands a minute in Iraq while saying you have to deny millions of children doctors' visits or medicine they desperately need at a minimal cost.

As a doctor, I've seen our country's health care crisis first-hand.
I've seen parents that have to wait for their kids to get dangerously sick before they could take them to a doctor. I've seen parents struggle over important medical care decisions because they didn't know how to pay for it. And I've seen parents left in poverty because they had no other choice.

Take action: Bush is no longer accountable, but Congress still is. Put in your zip code (for Winter Springs, its 32708-5312) and let the GOP obstructionists know that if if they can't even do the right thing on something almost everyone agrees on, then they need to step aside.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Mel Martinez Lied in the Orlando Sentinel Today

Senator Mel Martinez wrote the Sentinel to try and excuse why he and Bush are fighting the bi-partisan S-CHIP bill, which would allow health coverage to 3.8 million low-income uninsured children. Mel parroted Bush's claim that the bill provides health care for families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But according to, under current law and this proposed legislation, the president retains the authority to set the ceiling. No state has close to $83,000--and by the way, Florida's ceiling is set at $41,300 for a family of 4.

Mel, one major illness could wipe out a family's finances. I think if we can find $12 billion a week for Iraq, then we can find the money to save our own children.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

So Bush Put the "Smack Down" on Rush?


Our Commander in Chief does NOT tolerate anyone smearing the military. Say what you will about his lack of intelligence, character, courage, or common sense--he will stick up for the soldier if he feels you are attacked. Check this out:

This was his attack on MoveOn: (from CBSNews)

At a White House news conference earlier Thursday, Mr. Bush denounced the ad as "disgusting" and said he was disappointed that more Democrats did not condemn it.

"I felt like the ad was an attack not only on Gen. Petraeus but on the U.S. military, and I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that ad," he said.

Mr. Bush said that led him to conclude that "most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military!

OUCH!! Take THAT, Bitches!!

Now, here is his attack on Rush, from his mouthpiece Dana Perino: (from TPM)

Perino said: "The President believes that if you are serving in the military that you have the rights that every American has which is you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are some that oppose the war, and that's okay."

Pressed specifically about Rush's "phony soldiers" phrase, she added: "It's not what the President would have used, no."

DAMN!! Take THAT, RUSH! That wasn't a cyst on your ass that got you out of the draft, my friend. THAT was Bush's BOOT in your ass!!

The gloves are OFF my friends!

Our Commander in Chief, fighting and standing up for the troops!--well, not literally fighting unless it's just playing dress-up on an aircraft carrier.

And not really standing up since he doesn't support body armor, va benefits, or troop rest...or changing failed strategies...

And actually, it's okay to smear some veterans, as long as they are "running for office" --as Democrats--or don't support the war--or ....

Aw hell. I feel sorry for the spinmeisters. They got their work cut out for this one.

PS--If you want to see some awesome pictures from the frontline from one of those Phony soldiers: Click Here

Friday, September 28, 2007

Where's the Outrage? Rush calls Active Duty Soldiers "PHONY"

Senator Coryn of Texas was outraged that MoveOn "smeared" a General by calling him a name. (General Betray Us). When an alternate resolution was introduced that condemned the Swift Boat lie smearing John Kerry--and the GOP commercial showing triple-amputee Max Cleland morphing into Saddam and Osama---the good Senator explained that it was OK because they were running for political office.

Smearing war heroes are OK--as long as they decide to run for office. True Story.

OK Senator. Let's say I accept your typical flawed logic. Now explain why you aren't condemning Rush Limbaugh. On his radio show, he just called those soldiers who don't support the war "PHONY SOLDIERS".

Since the majority of soldiers DON'T support the current fiasco, Rush is calling the majority of our troops phony. And guess what--they aren't running for office.

Representative (and Senate candidate) Mark Udall is introducing a resolution this Monday to condemn Rush Limbaugh's obscene attack on "the integrity and patriotism" of those men and women serving honorably in Iraq.

If the GOP is serious that they don't stand for any smear attacks on our troops, then I will support this resolution in the strongest terms as they did the MoveOn resolution.

They won't, of course. All prominent Rs have appeared on Rush Limbaugh, including Bush and Cheney. They can't disassociate him the way the Dems can MoveOn.

Also, the GOP has voted against body armor, VA benefits, and even troop rest (the DAY before the voted to condemn a NY Times ad). They also are not above smearing active duty soldiers who aren't GOP--from war heroes like Cleland to Generals like Casey and Abizaid.

But still, I can't wait to see how they try to tap dance around this one.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why Did Harry Reid Allow Vote Condemning MoveOn??

Who the hell is running this CONGRESS? The Webb amendment to provide troop rest for our overextended military FAILED yesterday by a GOP filibuster.

So why the hell did Harry Reid allow a vote on the damn MoveOn AD??


A Senate GOP amendment to repudiate the ad passed Thursday 72-25 as Republicans tried to force Democrats to distance themselves, on the record, from the controversy.

Among Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut voted against the resolution. Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois didn't vote.

Typical Republicans--it's not OK to tell the truth about a General carrying Bush's water, but it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to attack war heroes:

From same article:

In a 51-46 vote, Democrats failed in a bid to condemn "personal attacks" on then-Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002 and Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 party presidential nominee. Sixty votes were needed to proceed.

The Democratic amendment about Cleland and Kerry also included language condemning the "unwarranted personal attack" on Petraeus

Let me get this straight. The GOP made fun of Kerry, although he didn't weasel out of service like Bush/Cheney and wound up actually saving a Green Beret's life. Max Cleland is a triple amputee who served honorably in Vietnam--but it was perfectly OK for Karl Rove to morph him into Osama Bin Laden during the Senate campaign because he dared to stand up to Bush. It's also OK to smear Generals Shinseki, Abazaid, and Casey as weak and terrorist supporters because they spoke their mind--but not Petraues.

MY anger today, however, is at the DC Senate Democrats. Particularly, Senate Majority Harry Reid.

As Kangro X pointed out on the post below, not one Democratic Senator forced the GOP to actually fillibuster the Webb amendment--end result: it's nowhere on the mainstream media (MSM).

An amendment that ACTUALLY supports the troops, stopped by the GOP--gone. Yesterday's news.

The MOVEON ad controversy, however, has new life thanks to the Democratic capitulation. Next Sunday, on MSM,we will have to hear how much the GOP really stands up and "supports the troops" because they boldly stood up to a newspaper ad by a left-wing group.

Once again, the GOP will get a FREE pass. They won't have to actually be seen defending their indefensible position of refusing an abysmal 1:1 ratio for rest. (Even the DoD's goal states 2:1!!)

Once again, they can pretend they care about the troops and are standing up for them against the "military-hating" Democrats--even though the Rethugs consistently spit in their face: (no body armor, shoddy medical care, cutting VA benefits,etc.)

What the hell was Harry Reid thinking?

Why didn't he demand the GOP go through with its threat and actually FILLIBUSTER rest for our troops?

Why couldn't he at least have had the kohanas to tell the GOP that if they weren't going to do anything meaningful, then they can't vote on a GODDAMNED newspaper ad--which was only designed to embarrass the Dem candidates?

Am I missing something here?

Try fighting for us for a change, Harry. Quit letting the MINORITY PARTY CALL ALL THE SHOTS!!!!! You are weak!!

If you agree with me, let him know: Click here. It's time we had a leader with some backbone.

GOP Once Again Fails the Troops: Spineless Dems Silent

I'm sorry for taking this directly from Dkos, but KangroX's post is something that needs wide attention:

Senator Jim Webb's "dwell time" amendment failed yesterday by a vote of 56-44.

Yes, it failed by garnering 12 more yes votes than no votes.

By now, though, most of us are used to seeing this sort of thing. "Everyone knows" that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Because that's how many votes it takes to invoke cloture, and cloture is how you break a filibuster. Right?


But that ain't what's happening.

And it's why you're not seeing headlines today declaring that Senate Republicans cravenly filibustered legislation that would have required that troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan get recovery time at home equal to the time spent in combat.

Such a requirement, by the way, is already a tremendous compromise. The Pentagon brass usually requires twice as much rest as deployment. But Webb's compromise required only half that much rest. Still, Republicans said no. Our troops -- including our "one weekend a month" National Guardsmen -- must be required to spend more time in combat than out. So that the rest of us can all shop, watch TV, cut taxes, or take a "wide stance" if we feel like it.

So why aren't the papers reporting on the Republican intransigence in the Senate? Why aren't they telling everyone how they're ordering troops stressed to the breaking point back into combat while they busy themselves smoothing their pocket squares? Why aren't they publishing screaming headlines about the sheer gall of yesterday's Republican filibuster?

Because there was no Republican filibuster. That's why.

Instead, the reason the Webb amendment failed even though it got 56 votes was that Senators agreed by unanimous consent that the amendment should have to get 60 votes to pass, even without a filibuster.

But why would anyone agree to allow Republicans, who are already on pace to shatter all previous filibuster records, to stop an amendment this important and this sensible without even lifting a finger? And the question here is not just why anyone would allow it, but why everyone did. A single Senator could have put a stop to this simply by saying, "I object" when the unanimous consent request was made. Just one Senator.

Yet none did.

Not Harry Reid. Not Russ Feingold. Not Bernie Sanders.


And so the Webb amendment died quietly yesterday, allowing Republicans to enjoy all the obstructionist benefits of a filibuster, without having to stand up and tell Americans and their fighting men and women in the military exactly what they were doing. And not a moment was "wasted" on the "extended debate" that's supposed to make up a filibuster.

Everyone just politely agreed that 56-44 would be a losing vote for America's sons and daughters wearing the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they did it on national television. And America yawned, hit the snooze button, and slept in.

In the coming days, the Congress will be dealing with the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. President Bush has threatened to veto almost every single one of them, which would leave the United States without any spending authority come October 1. That's ten days from now. The president says he's going to veto everything, and we have ten days to see if he's serious, decide what to do in case he is, and then figure out a way to get funding passed.

But hey, since those veto threats are pending, why not just agree to unanimous consent requests in both the House and the Senate that the appropriations bills will require a 2/3 vote to pass? Since they're going to be vetoed, why not just spare poor President Bush the trouble and the wear and tear on his veto crayon, and agree up front that if a bill doesn't pass with a veto-proof majority, it shouldn't be considered passed at all?

Because that's the logical extension of what happened yesterday. And the truth is, it makes no less sense. We don't know that Bush has the will to veto these bills any more than we knew that Republicans had the will to filibuster the Webb amendment. And I mean really filibuster. Not wait out a one-day cloture petition, beat it, and then break for lunch. But really stand on their feet day in and day out, live on C-SPAN2, and tell America they think our troops should spend more time in combat, and their families should just shut up about it.

Until recently, cloture votes were the easy way out of a filibuster. Forty-one Senators had only to make their protest last long enough to make it to the cloture vote, beat it, and then bask in their victory as the majority pulled the "defeated" legislation from the floor and slunk away. But believe it or not, Senate Democrats have found an easier way to do this, and begin slinking even earlier.


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Support Bi-Partisan Amendment Req. Troop REST

Jim Webb is the Democratic Senator from Virginia. He was formerly appointed by Ronald Reagan as the Secretary of the Navy, and has a son currently serving in Iraq. So he knows a little something about military matters. Chuck Hagel is the Republican Senator from Nebraska. Senator Hagel has been intently focused on the military strategies in Iraq, and he seems to truly be concerned abou the welfare of our strained troops.

These two honorable men are offering an amendment that EVERYONE should support--Both Democrats and Republicans.

It requires our troops to have a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio for active units and members. This amendment is vital to the continued morale and effectiveness of our Armed Forces, which are breaking under the strain of unprecedented long deployments in combat zones.

Unfortunatley, some Dems are opposed because the bill attached to the amendment won't include a timetable (which is IMPOSSIBLE given the makeup of the Senate--you need 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster; and 67 votes to override a Veto. That AIN'T gonna happen folks!!! We have only 51 Dem Senators--and you can count Lieberman out.)

Some Rs are opposed because they don't want to oppose the president. They figure they have followed him lockstep so far, so there has to be a payoff somewhere.

Go right now to this website:, and tell your Senator to SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT!!!

PS--these are the GOP Senators that are currently wavering. If "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" is really what you believe, and not just a magnet on your car, then please--if you have a moment, give them a call:

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
DC: 202-224-6665
Anchorage: 907-271-3735

George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
DC: (202) 224-3353
Cleveland: (216) 522-7095

Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina)
DC: 202-224-6342
Raleigh: 866-420-6083

John Warner (R-Virginia)
DC: (202) 224-2023
Roanoke: (540) 857-2676

Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
DC: 202-224-2541
Louisville: 502-82-6304

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
DC: 202-224-4254
Harrisburg: (717) 782-3951

Saturday, September 15, 2007

John Stossel Smears Victims Featured in SiCKO

I almost had a medical condition watching John Stossel last night crowing about how great our health care system is on 20/20. The purpose was to discredit Michael Moore. (Mike shouldn't have even bothered to show up. When Mike said something, Stossel would cut the program to something else, like a "statistic" without ever once saying "According to...")

This was just two days after he wrote a hit-piece in the Wall Street Journal that smeared the poor people featured in Mike's documentary, SICKO.

First of all, I don't know where to begin with Stossel's "reporting" last night.

Some of the "proof" he offered of how great we have it his by listing a lot of famous rich people who can afford to come the the US and get treated--at one point even talking up how Dick Cheney had FOUR heart attacks and he is still living! He closed the show by saying how Michael Moore got some treatment at an American luxury spa--NOT Cuba!! (Yeah, John, Mike is freakin' rich. Our system works great for those who can AFFORD IT!!)

On the show, he actually compared buying an expensive bottle of wine to receiving chemotherapy. At one point, he compared getting universal health coverage to buying groceries--"Why buy hamburger if you can have steak--someone else is paying for it"? as he dumped a whole bunch of steak into a shoppint cart.

He played the shill for an HMO executive he was "interviewing", which meant he asked snarky questions so the CEO could speak prewritten talking points. Stossel also noted how easy it was for him to get an interview with an HMO executive, unlike Moore claimed. (Gee, I wonder why the suit agreed to talk to you, John?)

He offered his ideas: "bargain-hunting" for health care as the employees do at Whole Foods, or those quicky clinics at Wal-Mart not staffed by doctors who can treat ailments for under $50. (Great--so if my daughter has cancer and I have no insurance, I can get cough medicine).

All of this paled in comparison to what Stossel wrote in the WSJ, entitled Sick Sob Stories. Julie Pierce was the primary target, and she responded on Michael Moore's website. I was just going to link it, but it is powerful and I really wanted you to see it:

Dear John,

My name is Julie Pierce. My husband was Tracy Pierce. I am featured in Michael Moore's documentary 'SiCKO.' In the movie, I share my deceased husband's story — his unsuccessful battle with our insurance company to receive what could have been life-saving treatments for kidney cancer.

I just read your Wall Street Journal article written on Sept. 13, 2007, titled "Sick Sob Stories." You begin by talking about Tracy's role in 'SiCKO,' and claim the bone marrow transplant denied by our insurer would not have saved him. You also accuse me of "sneering" over our situation.

In your 'reporting' of this story, you did not contact me, and you did not contact my husband's doctors. I cannot believe that a publication like the Wall Street Journal would print such an accusation without talking to anyone involved — especially in such a personal matter, which resulted in the death of my 37-year-old husband and the father of my child.

If you had contacted me, I would have told you that bone marrow transplants became a last option, only after our insurer denied many other treatments again and again and again.

I would have shown you a letter from our doctors at the Blood and Marrow Transplant Program at the University of Kansas Hospital, in which they argued strongly for the bone marrow transplant, citing "strong evidence" supporting the past success of that treatment — they wrote that it could "give him a chance to achieve complete remission." In fact, they called the bone marrow transplant "his only chance of survival."

Instead of calling me up and doing real reporting, all you can do is throw around studies from 1999 about the supposed inefficiency of bone marrow transplants for breast cancer patients — even though Tracy didn't have breasts. He had kidney cancer! I understand that you want to try to prove that private insurance in this country really isn't that bad. And I can see that you won't let the facts get in the way.

You go on to claim that Tracy wouldn't have received his transplant in a country with socialized medicine, either. Where is the evidence? Not only are more bone marrow transplants performed every year in Canada, but they invented the technology! So much for your ridiculous claim that "profit is what has created the amazing scientific innovations that the U.S. offers to the world. If government takes over, innovation slows, health care is rationed."

You are simply carrying water for the for-profit insurance industry that killed my husband. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of "sneering" about it. My husband has only been dead since January 18th, 2006. It is still fresh to me and my family, and comments like this are inhumane.

I have since tried to contact you via email, but you have not responded. I don't expect an answer. People like you just write with an agenda, without coming to the source or getting any facts, because your main goal is to try to discredit Michael Moore and universal health care. I understand it's a game — you did it without thinking about how you would hurt a family who have suffered — and are still suffering — such a tragic loss.

My family is not a "Sick Sob Story." We are a normal, American family that has had a significant member die from a horrible cancer that ravaged his body due to repeated denials from a health insurance company. We will never know for sure what would have worked because Tracy was never given a fighting chance. Over 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. I suppose theirs are "sob stories," too.

I don't want a hit-piece. I want answers. Why does our wonderful profit-driven system of medicine kill 18,000 Americans each year? Why do we pay far more for our health system than any other country, but have some of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortality rates in the Western world? Would you discredit the work of your late colleague Peter Jennings who, while suffering with lung cancer, did an excellent report titled "Breakdown: America's Health Insurance Crisis"?

I hope you have answers, but I am not optimistic. I pray that you will never have to go through what we went through — if you did, you wouldn't be so quick to cheerlead the system we were victimized by.

Julie Pierce
Mission, Kansas

If you are outraged by this, contact John Stossel and let him know.

Better yet, contact and ask him to add a feature on his upcoming DVD release featuring the HMO's retaliation--to include Stossel's hit piece. This would at least allow Moore to respond--a chance he wasn't given on the interview last night.

Friday, September 14, 2007

REAL Reason GOP Is Attacking MOVEON

The reason is simple.

Bush has NO CREDIBILITY left with the American people. His whole strategy was to have Gen Petraues sell this lemon to the American people--because the majority of people put the most trust in our military, as opposed to Congress and the president.

(Yes, I am aware of the sad irony that this administration spends more time thinking up political strategies to justify military strategies and policies that just don't work.)

Then the president could say, as he did, that he will listen to our military--personified by Gen. Petraues, and only do what he was recommended to do.

Complete garbage, of course. Bush fires Generals who disagree with him and promotes those who agree. Remember General Shinseki?? Who said we needed hundreds of thousands of troops to not win the war but secure the peace?

Undercut, and Pushed out.

Remember General John Abizaid, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East? He couldn't support the "Surge" because, he argued, we didn't have the troops to spare, and he figured it would only serve to create more targets for the insurgents. He argued that the Iraqis needed to start taking responsibility for their own country and that a political solution was needed.


General Casey? Commander of our forces in Iraq who dared to oppose the surge AND argued the Iraqis should maybe one day take over security?


General Petraeus is not stupid. He knows he has to put on rosy glasses when discussing the surge. If he was foolish enough to say otherwise, he would be smeared the way Casey was for supporting "Retreat without victory", would unceremoniously be shown the door, and our Idiot in Chief would continue the surge anyway.

Petraues did as expected, as he was told. So the President is pretending that he is only interested in what Gen. Petraues, aka "our military", has to say. Then, he can smear the Democrats who must then, in turn, be opposed to the wishes of "our military". The whole idea is that this report sold by Petraues and Bush will turn the tide for the GOP.

MoveOn was smart. They didn't go after the president, who nobody trusts anyway. The advertisement went after how the General will white wash the problems in Iraq and exactly how he will do it.

If the American people don't trust Petraues, then the GOP strategy falls apart. Hence, that is why so much venom was heaped on MoveOn for their ad, and why they DEMANDED that the Democrats discredit them.

  • Despite the fact that everything in the ad was true....

  • Despite the fact that Dems refused to push another honorable General, Colin Powell, who outright lied about WMD to justify the invasion...

  • And despite the fact that the GOP NEVER stood up to what were ACTUAL LIES about military war heroes like Kerry and Cleland...

the Democrats decided to capitulate to their GOP masters.

The Dems joined the bashing of MoveOn to discredit what THEY should have been saying in the first place. MoveOn was a wrench in the works, but the GOP played this masterfully and got the Democrats in Congress to help them out.

Well Done.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Spineless Dems--I WROTE Your Response to the MoveOn Ad!

You are welcome. I am not a professional, but I sure as hell did a better job than you guys.

If you haven't yet seen the ad, click here.

There is NOTHING inaccurate about that ad. And MoveOn put the facts on their website--not that the attacks on it from the GOP have anything to do with it being truthful. They are essentially screaming "How dare you attack our completely honest and distinguished General who would never distort facts for this administration!"

(Where have we heard that before--oh yeah, Dumbass Colin Powell right before he made the case to go into Iraq!)

The GOP played this for maximum distraction:

John Boehner:
Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful.

Mitch McConnell actually said this, without noticing the irony:
I resent the comments of those who have sat comfortably in their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the firefights and the roadside bombs, and tried their Washington best in recent days to impugn the general’s good name

The MSM picked up on this right away--features were on CNN, the networks, and of course FoxNews. All wrote the narrative of how the GOP is drawing a line in the sand and demanding that the Democrats DENOUNCE the ad or accept that they were behind it.

In typical spineless fashion, Dems from the Senate and House joined GOP in slamming the MoveOn ad, hoping to appease them. (C'mon, even you Kerry? How come you weren’t upset that they slammed you as a war hero, but it’s treason to attack a war hawk carrying out the wishes of an insane president?) This plays right into their slimy hands, and instead, EMBOLDENED them to now demand that any DEM candidate who has taken money from MoveOn to return it. And it will keep getting worse.

How F----- lame!!

As a Democratic Representative, I would have choice words for these hypocritical assholes. Try something like this:

"I will be DAMNED if I will respond to an ultimatum from the minority leader who refused to respond to the will of the American people!"

or maybe:

"I can't BELIEVE this!! The minority party is upset about a newspaper ad but are perfectly Okay ignoring reality that American troops are stuck moderating a civil war and propping up a thankless, corrupt government!!"

or how about:

"I will be happy to address this ad from a partisan organization, just as soon as the minority leader will step up and denounce the actual lies by the ads of right-wing organizations, such as Freedom Watch -- and by the way I noticed NOT ONE member of the GOP, including this president, denounced Ann Coulter when she disparaged a former member of this Senate!"

Speaking of which--Ann Coulter is on Neil Cavato, watch here, denouncing the "despicable" ad. Once again, the irony missed.

or even:

"It's high time the Republicans step off their sanctimonious High-Horse. There is nothing untruthful or immoral about that ad. The GOP has lost all authority for making moral judgment calls, especially given the antics of several of its members."

I wish. Nope. Instead, I was treated to a spineless display-- and I particularly enjoyed Joe Creeperman, ever ready with a lecture to the unpatriotic Democrats.

Letting the rethugs call the shots sickens me, especially since the Dems in Congress NEVER, EVER try to call on the GOP to DENOUNCE Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, any of the lies told by wacko Right-wing groups (Remember Swift Boats?) Freedom Watch actually ties 9/11 to the quagmire, and states the insurgents will follow us here as absolute fact. But they can get away with it.

Who's going to stand up to them?

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Why Florida Dems Should Switch to Republican

I read Orlando Sentinel’s Democratic columnist Scott Maxwell today—and it inspired me to answer his call for me and my fellow Floridians to join the GOP!

That's right. I will soon be the Seminole Republican!

Put down the gun. Maybe I should explain...

First, unless you’ve been living in the cave with Bin Laden, you know that the DNC has voted to take away the votes of all Florida Democrats. 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 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 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 is simple: GO to your election supervisors and switch your party registration for the upcoming GOP 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 Dem candidate. At least you’ll be making a difference. (And spare me lectures on this not being ethical--our system is unethical, and it is VERY unethical to take our votes away. My conscience is clear.)

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

AFTER the primary, switch back to being a Democrat. 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 own party leadership-—especially one that promised they would “count every vote.”

I'm still hoping that the state and national party will work this out. I am also hopeful that ONE brave Dem candidate will step up, stand up the the DNC, and agree to campaign in Florida. If not, I’m switching my affiliation tomorrow, and then back to Dem the day after the primary. If you live in Florida— I invite you to join me.

Friday, September 07, 2007

Why Katie Couric Should Just Shut Up

Journalists should be natural skeptics, especially when they are spoon-fed information from military or government sources. Non-journalists, like Katie Couric, see things differently. On the heels of making this idiotic statement on CBS' Face the Nation this past Sunday:

"And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well. But I think there are definitely areas where the situation is improving."

Katie gave us all the real deal in her objective review from her trip to Iraq:

NOTE: I copied this from the FIXED News website. This is a hard-hitting piece of journalism that was featured after another one bashing the Clintons.

"CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric says she has seen major improvements during her visit to Iraq.

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said on Tuesday's broadcast.

She noted that moderate Sunnis are joining the Iraqi security forces, saying: "The spike in police has really been significant. The incidents in Iraq have gone down dramatically." And she said that Fallujah is, "considered a real role model of something working right in Iraq."

Great job. FAUX News pulled this from a video where two reporters were interviewing the great Couric on Tuesday.

See the video yourself here.

Note the reporter talking to Katie had the gall to ask if average living conditions improved. Even Katie had to admit that they haven't. (Note that Fox News conveniently didn't bother to put that in.)

Answer me this question: What the hell does it mean that "incidents" have gone down dramatically? That can't mean soldier or civilian deaths, because both have spiked.

If you can't answer that, then answer me this: WHY THE HELL IS KATIE PAID ANYTHING?

Real reporting isn't simply parroting government talking points--it's asking tough questions and finding out the truth. It's everything Katie herself is admittedly not.

So why the millions and millions paid to someone to read a script that is given to them?? If that's all they wanted, they could have at least picked a hot model.

They wouldn't have any cred as a journalist, but then again, neither does Katie.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

MAYDAY! Ads Bombarding Us Promoting Surge. We Need a Response!

If you live here in Florida, Georgia, or four other Southern swing states that Bush won in 2004 by a slim margin, then you have been subjected to a high volume of ads put together by Ari Fleicher's new political action group called Freedeom's Watch. They are running HIGHLY DECEPTIVE ADS with a $15 million budget to run through the next five weeks promoting the surge in an effort to retain support among GOP fence-sitters in Congress as they brace for the Petraeus report.

(As Fleicher put it: "The cavalry is on it's way!")

The ads, if you haven't seen them, are disgusting. They exploit soldiers and 9/11 families. As usual, they blur the line between terror and Saddam; and say with certainty that leaving Iraq will lead to more 9/11s:

The veteran ads show images of 9/11 while saying things like "they ATTACKED us!!" and accusing those who support turning security back over to the Iraqis as "wanting to surrender". (The fact that the NIE claimed that Iraq has made us LESS safe, diverted our attention from the real attackers, and HELPED Al Qaeda grow unimpeded is lost on the speakers).

Both 9/11 spokespeople use the same line: "if they switch their votes for political purposes" it will be "unthinkable" and will definitely lead to "more attacks" in the US. (NOTE TO SELF: Tell family members that if I die, and you want to reduce my death for a political talking point, AT LEAST don't make it a talking point that is widely discredited.)

The tag line at the end claims "victory in Iraq" as the only option, Chris Durang, writing about these ads in the Huffington Post, put it best:

What the f--- is victory in Iraq? We pour in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to physically seek out and kill every single insurgent there? (With new ones created every day.) And then we say to the Sunnis and Shiites, even though you have centuries of hatred between you and even though you have bloodlust revenge in your hearts based on those centuries, we want you to "bury the hatchet" and live in peace together. Uh huh.

The problem is we are being drowned by this propoganda. With the wind at our sails, and the fact that we are right, I find it hard to believe that we can't have a political activist group help COUNTER these vicious untruths. The only counter I found was on, and that was an ad specifically targeted at Rep. Baird. (Although the message at the end could be modified to others.)

1. If you get a chance, please donate.
2. DEFINETLY call your Congressman 1-877-222-8001 (to be patched through) or write a letter telling them to bring our troops home!

If anyone else has ideas or knows of an organization that can counter this onslaught, please let me know.

It is not enough to be right and to have the facts on your side. That is why Propaganda works--(see election 2004 for reference). Bush and his cronies are repeating a mantra of "victory in Iraq" at all cost--and never even have to define victory. Instead of admitting this was all a mistake and getting our troops out of there, they cynically have decided that all they have to do is convince a certain number of people that victory is "imminent"--or would have been if those damn Democrats hadn't started with an exit strategy. (The exit strategy WILL have to come from Dems, because the GOP will keep us there indefinitely repeating the mantra...)

Unfortunately, this has to mean cutting the funding. This is the ONLY power the Congress has. And many Dems in Congress, including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, seem to be vulnerable to the perception that they are defeatists. This is why this madness has to be countered and countered strongly.

SOMEONE has to look out for the troops...

Monday, September 03, 2007

Let's Knock Feeney Out This Time

Marty, Clint Curtis' campaign manager, put it best at the Curtis Campaign Kickoff last Friday:

In 2000, the average price of gas was $1.63.

The weather was predictable.

Your phone, your bank account, your medical records, and your home were considered private.

America was enjoying the longest period of prosperity in history.

America was safe and secure.

And we were respected in the world.

What is it that changed everything? What force decimated our achievements in 7 short years. I wonder.

We NEED Democrats back in control of our government. We must win the presidency in 2008, and increase our numbers in Congress. Right now, we don't have enough in Congress to stop the GOP.

One of the most vulnerable is our own TOM FEENEY. He was the third most corrupt Congressman, but after Duke Cunningham was thrown in jail for taking bribes, and Tom Delay was run out of office in shame, that leaves Feeney, the man currently holding the FL-24 post, as the most corrupt man in Congress.

WE are proud.

Tom Feeney can't run on his record, and certainly can't use the "moral values" riff, (Doesn't work for criminals anymore than sex fiends), so what can he do??

Simple---paint Curtis as a lunatic.

Clint Curtis is a computer programmer who created major applications for federal agencies, like NASA. Crazy people don't normally hold those kinds of positions.

These are the crazy positions that Clint does hold:
  • Wants to keep jobs in America by requiring balanced trade and business incentives,
  • to revitalize NASA and return America to a position of strength both militarily and scientifically,
  • to bring our troops home from Iraq to guard our borders and make America safer,
  • to provide Universal, no-fault health care and eliminate the cost to business,
  • to protect Social Security from being raided by special interest groups,
  • to achieve energy independence now and reduce fuel costs by 70%.
Those sound like the rants of a lunatic for sure.

Unfortunately, Feeney's hit man, chief strategist Ralph Gonzales, decided that he would smear Curtis as the primary strategy. And it worked, to a point. Even the liberal Orlando Weekly calls his supporters members of the tinfoil hat brigade.

How crazy that the honorable Feeney would ever ask Clint to design software to "control the vote". Never would happen. Clint hired a private investigator, who was subsequently murdered. Nothing strange there. Now we find that Feeney's strategist Ralph Gonzales was killed in some sort of bizarre "murder-suicide".

I can't make this stuff up, folks.

I don't know to what extent the circumstances end and the scandal begins, but I do know that "Crazy" is keeping Tom Feeney.

Visit to take back FL-24.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Losing Florida Delegates--Screw 'Em

Quicknote: This was published on Tuesday in the Orlando Sentinel. It marks the 7th time one of my letters has gotten published, but more importantly, it marks the first time I was published that had nothing to do with the incompetence of Bush or the GOP.

Florida is too big, too diverse, and too politically balanced not to play a larger role in the selection of our presidential nominees. The state parties need to stick by their guns on this. The worst that can happen is losing delegates to the party's convention, which is silly since the nominee is determined months in advance.

I'd rather have a real voice in our leader than sending delegates to a glorified coronation.

Clint Curtis Kick Off Tonight

I post on DailyKos under the name SemDem. Tonight, there will be several Kossacks at the Winter Springs Civic Center to kick off the Clint Curtis campaign, including DarkSyde, who posted this item on the main page of DKos this morning: Click here

I hope you can make it. It's embarrassing to have the perpetually corrupt Feeney represent FL-24. Anyways, it's at 400N Edgemon Drive, Winter Springs, FL at 7pm to 9pm at the Civic Center on Sunshine Park.

It's amazing to me because I saw my street featured on Winter Springs on DKos-and a lot of heavy hitters are showing up tonight. (This event is practically right next to my house.) I'll see you there...

Sunday, August 26, 2007

DNC Plays into GOP Hands in FL Primary Move

I would have preferred that we move our primary date to Febuary 5th or even Feb. 12th. But the GOP-dominated legislature picked Jan. 29. Given a choice between March 2008 , when the primary is all but over, or Jan. 29, I strongly supported the earlier date. Our state, the largest swing state in the nation, is too big and too diverse not to play a larger role. I preached this last January.

SemDem's diary :: ::
Although Democrats outnumber GOPers 2 to 1 in this state, our legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. (Gerrymandering is a real problem in this state). The main reason the GOP moved our primary date from March to January as opposed to February 5 or 12 is because the DNC has a ridiculous rule that bans primaries before Feb. 5 that the RNC doesn't have. The GOP saw this as an opportunity to not only give Floridains a larger voice (good) but to make problems for the Democrats (not good--but typical).

The GOP legislature has NO INCENTIVE to comply with your demand to move the primary. Don't be stupid.

Your other "suggestion" that we hold a caucus AFTER our primary is even more dumb. Why would anyone vote in the primary? It would mean less than when we had our primary in March. This will disenfrancise our voters--another plus for the GOP.

And so now I awaken with headlines that Democrats will have no delegates to the convention; how the GOP faces "less drastic" sanctions; lawsuits that will be filed by our state party; and editorials on how unfair the DNC is being.

This is not good for us, nor our party.

But let's face it. The ONLY thing the DNC has control over anymore is the convention. A glorified coronation that serves a promotional purpose, but certainly not any real purpose in selecting the nominee. This is all about control, not democracy.

I don't think the ruling will stand. But even so, except for the negative publicity this is generating, I COULDN'T CARE LESS if we send delegates or not. The nominee is always selected MONTHS before the convention. Let someone else play that game.

I'd rather have a real voice. The candidates and the nation aren't stupid enough to ignore Florida. The DNC is only going to exploit their impotence.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Questions Rove SHOULD Have Been Asked

I watched the questions given to Rove. He appeared on three Sunday talk shows. All of them threw him underhanded softballs or let things go. Bob Scheifer asked him why he was on all the talk shows, and he responded "I was ordered." (WHAT?) But Bob let that go. On one of his Rove's rants, he blamed the DEMOCRATS for not supporting immigration reform (WHAT??) and then actually said many Democrats told him they "wanted" to support the president, but couldn't because of their base. (Yeah right--name one, Karl) No, he wasn't challenged on that either.

The questions asked were: "Are you a template for the modern GOP?", "How is Hillary flawed?", "Would you apologize to Valerie Plame?", "What are your thoughts on the 2008 election?"

Here's what I would have asked:

SemDem: "What do you mean you were ordered to be here?"

SemDem: "You have said that we can't judge the president now, that history will judge this president. Do you think history will look more favorably on his response to hurricane Katrina?" "How so?"

SemDem: "Do you agree with his decision to appoint a horse-judge as head of FEMA?"
(NO ONE asked about Katrina on any of these shows.)"

SemDem: "After 9/11, our country wanted to unite to fight terrorism. However, you used that tragedy as a tool to demonize your opponents and question their patriotism for disagreeing with the president's policy". (I would have many clips of him to back this up if challenged). "Do you maintain that that was a sensible strategy?"

SemDem: "You have said on your three previous shows that Hillary is unelectable because of her high negatives. Bush has higher negatives than Hillary ever had. Are you saying that if Bush was able to run in 2008, there is no way he would win?" (I would love his tap-dancing, especially since he claims not to follow polls)

SemDem: "The latest National Intelligence Estimate claimed that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, and that Iraq served as a distraction. How can you claim that keeping our troops in a country to moderate a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis, spending $10 billion a month, is helpful in the fight against Al Qaeda?"

There are many other questions I would ask about Bush's complacency in the contractor corruption in Iraq, his role in the Valerie Plame and attorney firing scandal, and his political plans in the future.

These questions are just off the top of my head--and weren't asked. Maybe they were happy that he agreed to talk with them and felt obligated not to make him upset. With the exception of a VERY few questions on MTP, we were cheated. If I wanted to hear a commericial for Bush and the GOP, I'll turn to FOX, thank you very much.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Round 2: Curtis v. Feeney

Tom Feeney is now ranked the most corrupt politician (thanks to exodus of Cunningham and Delay). We can do better. Clint Curtis is ready to make another run.

Click the link to help out.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Breaking: We Can't Win in 2008!

Quicknote: This was my fourth recommended post on DailyKos this year. My attached poll showed that thousands were still unaware of this dirty trick, and at least many people made an uproar about this. But to my knowledge, nothing has been organized yet...

Sorry for the dreary title, and sorry to the diarists who posted this earlier, but this needs FAR MORE attention than it's getting. More so than Guiliani's endless pool of past embarrassments, Romney's money, or McCain's self-destruction.

Please help, please spread the word about the California initiative. In the words of Schwarzeneggar's campaign guy, Steve Schmidt, "it would make it impossible for a Democrat to win the White House!" HE IS RIGHT! Which is why need to start organizing NOW!

A right-wing law firm with very deep pockets are working with GOP reps to steal the election by destroying California's winner-take-all system of electoral votes--they would instead be divided per results in each congressional district. This gives the GOP presidential ticket at least 20 electoral votes (because of safe GOP districts) that it wouldn't get UNDER ANY RULES IN ANY OTHER LARGE STATE.

The major swing states would be mandatory for us to win to have a chance. And lest you think this is all for the good of the people in CA to be represented equally--it's not. It's about the GOP winning. Period. Notice that the GOP is not pushing this on any red state. TEXAS, for example, with a GOP governor and GOP legislature, shuns the idea of dividing their votes that might go to the Democratic ticket. No, it's only OK for the people of California. If this was done nationwide, it would be worth discussing. But ONLY California? There's only one reason...

Here is the problem. I Googled this to try to find some organization or some effort to STOP this, and all I found were complaints about it. I didn't find anything organizing to stop it.

Folks, if we are going to beat this, something needs to start NOW! I know, it sucks. Dems have to work to get their candidates elected, guard the election from vote-tampering, and now, stop shady initatives. But that is our lot in life.

I know many people say "wait and see", that it's not worth the effort because its unconstitutional, or they won't collect enough signatures, etc. WRONG!

If you are waiting for the Bush-packed courts, or the Supreme Court, to do the right thing, you will be sorely disappointed. The redistricting in Texas held, as did the shenanigans in the 2000 election. I can tell you the other side has already organized, started fundraising, and will start getting signatures for the ballot. Procrastinating will not make this go away--it will make it worse.

If anyone can tell me of a link to website or group dedicated to stopping this, please let me know.

There were many ideas given, including:

Let's nip this in the bud. Let's not blow our best chance at a presidential election by ignoring the smoke coming in the cracks.

Monday, July 30, 2007

WTF?! What Bush Supporters Have Stooped to...

Quicknote: This was a recommended post on DailyKos under my moniker "SEMDEM", and featured on my favorite local blog FLPolitics last week. If the guy was trying to intimidate me, mission unaccomplished.

Three years ago they were supporters of an administration that had absolute control over our government and kept the American public under its thumb with fear. Now they have to deal with watching the Bush regime collapse before their very eyes with record low approval numbers, the loss of Congress, defections from their own party, and the very real possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. So what's a Bushie to do?

Send hate mail to people who write Letters to the Editor!

Here in Central Florida, we are beseiged with right-wing propaganda. Our radio stations feature every major and minor conservative pundit, FOXNEWS shows in gov't buildings, (the Sem Courthouse is on BUSH Blvd, not far from RONALD REAGAN Ave.), and after the 2004 election, Clear Channel put up a billboard on I-4 featuring a smiling Bush with the caption "OUR LEADER".

The Orlando Sentinel attempts to put some balance in the editorial section--I've written and gotten published 5 times. This year, however, I have received hate mail. Once with a Cal Thomas response, and another with a complaint about the Libby pardon. This time I got a THICK PACKET complete with misspelled rantings. (The cowards never leave a return address or name). Even though it's an old address, the mail lady forwarded it--(which I asked her not to do anymore.)

I know of at least one other person who got published who received hate mail as well.

The goal is to intimidate people who complain about this administration or the GOP into not writing. For some, it has been effective. My friend has said it freaked him out that they looked up his address and won't write again--I won't be intimidated, but I did promise my wife that I would use an alias next time.

This is what I wrote:

Let me get this straight. The GOP vigorously opposes "amnesty" for those who break the law. But they demanded the president give amnesty for someone who compromised national security, leaked intelligence for cheap political gain, and lied to prosecutors and the FBI. I guess they only oppose amnesty if you are poor and Mexican.

P.S. That was nothing compared to what Scott Maxwell wrote (he gets hatemail all the time, though). Bush argued that he did it in the interest of justice--OK, then are we supposed to believe out of the millions of cases out there that only his personal friend was treated unfairly? Only "Scooter" was worthy of a pardon? Isn't this more about helping out a buddy than justice?--He actually got a formerly indignant GOP Rep. Adam Putnam to admit that was wrong...

For my rantings, this is what I received in the mail:

The packet had Ronald Reagan postage, and was stamped "God Bless W" all around it.
  • It had my article scribbled with "Falsely Convicted A-----E!"--odd, since no one, not even Dear Leader, said he was innocent.

  • A letter to a right-wing rag about how if Democrats were in charge in 1945, the bomb never would have been dropped in Japan and we would have lost WWII. --Typical educated Bushie. Harry Truman, Bush's IDOL, dropped the bomb. Wasn't he a Democrat, idiot?

  • A list of favorable quotes for war by Democrats (such as Joe Lieberman) and accusing them of flip-flopping on the war ---I love this, Bush cherry-picked intelligence and lied about WMD, and the DEMS are to blame for being dumb enough to believe him

  • My favorite--a picture of Bush with the caption "It's laundry day on Towelheads, and I'm the MAYTAG Repairman!!--Yeah, I don't get it either, but it inspired the hell out of this inbred hick

There were a few other articles and crap that were scribbled on that aren't even worth mentioning--I refuse to read it all anyway.

Please take time to write a quick editorial to the Orlando Sentinel. Just a few lines-- Bush and the GOP have provided no shortage of scandal to write about.

Just leave a name, city, and phone number in your email: (You can leave an alias if you are worried about hate mail--the editor just calls to verify you wrote it).

These bastards are desperate, let's shine the light on these cockroaches.
Thanks for your help.