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?

Sure.

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.

Nobody.

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.

Bravo.

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: http://ga6.org/campaign/webbhagel, 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

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 mike@michaelmoore.com 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.

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.

Fired.

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?

Gone.

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.

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 MoveOn.org 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 Moveon.org 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?

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.

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.

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 MoveOn.org, 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...

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 www.clintcurtis.com to take back FL-24.

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...

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).

To DNC:
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.

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.

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.

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:

• Contact AG Jerry Brown and have him declare it unconstitutional: http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/contact.php
• Supporting counter initiatives, such as one that can be identical but adds the phrase: "but will not take effect until a majority of states have adopted a proportional system"
• Text networks to spread the word at places gathering signatures for the opposition
• Supporting http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
• Contact the CA Dems, the CA Representatives, organizations like MoveON.org

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.

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: insight@orlandosentinel.com (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.

Check out this picture of Nitwit Mitt

First, Mitt embraces Ann Coulter when she made a slur about John Edwards. Plays it off. Now, we have this gem. Check it out.

His spokesman is in spin mode: "The governor stopped briefly for a picture with a supporter who just happened to be holding their own sign with an alliterative play on words"--which explains him holding the sign HIMSELF in the 2nd picture.

Well, we bought all the shifting explanations for why we went to Iraq, I guess they think we'll buy anything...

Amnesty for Libby

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.

UPDATE: This blog was featured in the Orlando Sentinel July 5 2007

Fred Thompson Praises Libby Pardon

Taken from Drudge:

"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

Any credibility the GOP had on terror should be washed away permanently with this decision. This president has given fewer pardons than any other in history, and he gave it to a man was prosecuted by a Republican and sentenced by a Republican judge to a man who compromised our national security to cover for a corrupt administration.

And he is now a hero to the conservative cause. Anytime this president spits in the face of America, the 28% seem to cheer.

And Fred Thompson wants to lead our country?

Sad, sad, sad

London Attacked: Non-election Year Terror Threat Level Remains Same

Yesterday, Scotland's Glasgow International Airport was attacked. This came a day after two cars filled with explosives were found in London. England raised its terror alert level to the highest level.

The terror threat level will not change here, however. It’s not an election year and no GOP member will get a boost. No, I can’t prove it. That’ s the thing--—you can’t. The facts are always kept secret. But here is what I can prove:

1. This administration is not above putting partisan politics above national security. Valerie Plame, among other scandals, proves that point. No one in the administration gave a damn about any information, any leads, or any contacts that could have been compromised by exposing her cover to punish her husband for telling the truth. Same can be said of putting incompetent people in high, critical positions at Justice, Homeland Security, DoD, and FEMA, (to name just a few), because loyalty always trumps safety. Hell, this president would rather send thousands to their deaths moderating a futile civil war than admit a mistake---can you tell me that he would have a moral problem manipulating color levels?
   
   
2. Past history. For the 2004 election season, we were literally barraged with warnings of terror attacks on the debates, the conventions, and the election itself. We were also treated to several alert level color changes. The alert level was raised over the 2003 Xmas season accompanied by the obligatory terrifying press conference.

John Kerry got a bump in the polls when he picked John Edwards as his veep. Two days later, the alert level was again raised. Then we had a successful Democratic Convention that also gave a bump to Mr. Kerry in the polls. Coincidentally, the terror level was raised just three days after. And in case anyone was too stupid to get the point, Dick Cheney spelled it out when he made the announcement that picking the wrong choice would mean we would be "hit again".



After the election, silence. The London bombing of 2005 was pretty much it for terror alert raises here. Not even these recent attacks have raised the color level.

I’m wondering if that would be the case if this was 2008. Just call me cynical.