Rant!

[ProSense]

America’s worse nightmare

A power grab for the presidency in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to award the election to George W. Bush, has turned into America’s worse nightmare.

And through it all, the media and the Republican Party have turned a blind eye to the extremists actions and activities of Bush and his crony administration that continue to erode our democracy.

Bush's disregard for the rule of law has resulted in his latest abuse of power:

Bush’s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

snip...
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

The case for change

In 2004, there was a real case for change that again when underreported by the media and ignored by the largest news organizations. There were visible signs that the desire for change was seeping into the public psyche. As one writer put it:

Published on Friday, September 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why Kerry Will Win
by Caroline Arnold

Today, rather than recite reasons why Bush is worse than Kerry, or analyze the campaign tactics of the candidates, or dissect the motivations of swing voters, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win in Ohio and become the next President. Why?

• Large numbers of Ohioans are beleaguered and angry about increased costs of food, gasoline, prescription drugs, health insurance and college; they are worried about stagnant wages, job security, retirement options for themselves and opportunities for their children; they are want their kids home from Iraq. They are not fooled by a self-appointed "war leader" and will turn out to vote against him.

• Many veterans resent Bush administration cuts to the VA, pay-cuts and equipment shortages for soldiers on active duty, and the use of mercenaries -- "private contractors" -- in Iraq. They don't like the attacks on people like Kerry, McCain and Cleland who served in Vietnam.

• Traditionally marginalized groups -- African-Americans, environmentalists and anti-war activists -- have organized and will vote and get new voters to the polls.

• Ethnic Americans in northeast Ohio have ties to relatives in the Old World, and are concerned about our nation's standing in the world.

• Ohio Republicans are splintered -- they like Bush, but are divided about his policies. Many have doubts about Bush's foreign policy, economic theories, tax and education policies, and Ashcroft.

• The poor folk of Appalachian Ohio haven't seen things get much better under Bush; and they have heard themselves called "trailer trash" by right-wing media.

• Republicans have controlled state government in Ohio so long that suppression of criticism, cutting the minority out of decision-making, and the entrenchment of "Pay-to-play" legislative processes have weakened the party and tarnished its reputation.

• Ohio Republicans lack a charismatic governor or U.S. Senator to fire up the Republican vote. Taft has been realistic about taxes and education and lost support; Voinovich's base is in the north, DeWine's in the south, but neither has statewide appeal.

• Local reports of lawns of Kerry supporters being chemically burned with big letters spelling Bush. Most people recognize that this is plain vandalism under the cover of partisan politics.

Here are some things I think will help Kerry nationally:

• Wide recognition of the brutality and futility of the war on Iraq. It's hard for people to imagine that Kerry would make it worse.

• Internet organizations like MoveOn.org and ACT that are mobilizing people with strong convictions, who will vote.

• Disgust or embarrassment at the more egregious attacks on Democrats by Republicans. Even those who think it's funny to call opponents "girlie men" know that the phrase is a taunt, not an argument.

• For the first time ever a partisan documentary movie has reached the big screen. Michael Moore claims that while 80% of those who go into showings of "Fahrenheit 9/11" support Kerry, 100% of those who come out support Kerry. I think that's real. Seeing a feature-length movie with a crowd of strangers is a different experience from individually watching short swipes on TV. Viewers in a crowd think of the effect on others of what they are seeing, and watch more critically.

• The belated recognition by journalists that they are missing opportunities to promote democracy with honest and courageous reporting, and that the rewards of empowering people who read newspapers and watch TV and participate in democracy will ultimately be greater than the rewards of pleasing corporate bosses who are accountable only to those with power and wealth.
But what do I know? I'm just a "liberal mush-head" (according to one of my faithful readers) still believing that Americans are basically intelligent, sensible, fairminded, decent, kindly people, who are competent and conscientious enough to think critically and vote thoughtfully, and willing to make democracy work..

This fall partisan pundits and political managers are trying feverishly to lead voters in the way they should go, simultaneously bashing them for being ignorant, irrational, biased, suggestible, wimpish, lazy, selfish and short-sighted, and tailoring speeches and events to appeal to exactly those attributes.

Yet I still entertain the notion that we humans are a good bit more resourceful than we give ourselves credit for being. We did, eventually, learn the management of fire and how to count, measure and navigate; we figured out agriculture, repudiated the supernatural, devised some basic rules for survival in groups (Do unto others ...) and developed laws and ideas of justice and liberty, and created democracy -- government by the people. What we haven't achieved is figuring out how to live without war.

The Bush administration has made this election a referendum on war. I am hopeful that for the first time in history people are going to vote against war.

But to be honest, despite my strong convictions against war, what scares me most is the venom and hate of people like Zell Miller, the mean-spiritedness of Bush supporters who booed when he asked for prayers for President Clinton's health, the bitter and dishonest ads against Kerry's war service, and the tacit approval of derision and violence against dissenters, protesters or liberals.
I don't want to live among neighbors like that.

Caroline Arnold served 12 years on the staff of Senator John Glenn and is now active in civic and environmental affairs in Kent, Ohio. This column will appear in the Kent-Ravenna Record Courier on Sunday September 12, 2004

But media complicity and Republican cronyism and corruption returned Bush to the White House.

[ProSense]

1. Rant! Part II

No accounting for the machine errors

It’s impossible to determine how these irregularities affected the election results, which makes it frustrating to deal with the unsubstantiated charges being levied against Kerry’s presidential campaign efforts by disappointed Democrats, misguided pundits, an unapologetic media and gloating Republicans.

Even with no widespread media coverage of the issue, 10% (more than 12 million voters) of voters were doubtful that their vote was accurately counted and another 17% were only somewhat confident. That's 27% (about 32.6 million) of the electorate expressing a lack of confidence in the system.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_mindset-bush-kerry-supporters_%2001-05_pr.pdf

Separate reports by Michigan Congressman John Conyers and the Government Accountability Office show that the questions surrounding election fraud are based in fact—everything from unusual incidence of machine error to voter intimidation.

From Conyers’ report:

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people's trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf#search='What%20went%20wrong%20in%20Ohio%20Conyers'

In its conclusion the GAO report stated:

Electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of the elections process, and many are in use across the country today. The American public needs to feel confident using these systems—namely, that the systems are secure enough and reliable enough to trust with their votes. However, this is not always the case. Numerous recent studies and reports have highlighted problems with the security and reliability of electronic voting systems. While these reports often focused on problems with specific systems or jurisdictions, the concerns they raise have the potential to affect election outcomes. The numerous examples of systems with poor security controls point to a situation in which vendors may not be uniformly building security and reliability into their voting systems, and election officials may not always rigorously ensure the security and reliability of their systems when they acquire, test, operate, and manage them.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf#search='GAO%20election%20report'

The machine’s vulnerability to hackers was further revealed in this recent article:

Voting machines won't be retested, state officials say
State elections officials aren't ready to re-examine electronic voting machines -- even after a supervisor reported hackers could rig votes on some machines.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/13418976.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_politics

The choice came down to fear vs. hope and fear it seems is what Americans chose, at least on the surface.

Senator Kerry received nine million more votes than Vice President Gore; more than any other presidential candidate in the history of our country, except Bush, who despite a growing disdain for his policies, somehow neutralized Kerry’s gains. This was in part attributed to the fact that no candidate has ever unseated a war-time president, the fear factor raised by frequent terror alerts and Osama bin Laden’s appearance in the days leading up to the election. The following pre-election article sums up a lot of what is now known to be fact:

Published on Monday, October 4, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
Divided Against Itself
If Americans Choose Bush over Kerry, It Will Be from Fear, A Lack of Choice - and a Preference for Power over Safety

By Gary Younge
If you're interested in who's going to be the next US president then forget the precedents. If history is anything to go by, both John Kerry and George Bush will win. No candidate who lost the popular vote but won the presidency (John Quincy Adams, 1824; Rutherford B Hayes 1876; Benjamin Harrison, 1888; George Bush, 2000) has ever been re-elected. But then no president has failed to be re-elected during a major war.

Since 1964, every incumbent with approval ratings below 50% in the spring of the year when they are running for re-election, which would include Bush, has lost. But then every incumbent who has had an approval rating above 50% at this stage, which would include Bush, has won. The truth is that nobody can predict the outcome of the presidential election. The polls are too volatile, the margins too close and the context in which they are being conducted too precarious. Anything from a large mortar attack in Iraq that kills several US soldiers (Iraqi casualties appear to have little impact on US public opinion) to a plant closure in Ohio could tip the balance either way.

Kerry has started to bounce back, helped in part by a strong debate performance. But for now, Bush is the narrow favourite. That forces the rest of us to wrestle with the prospect of four more years of the most rightwing administration most can remember. What should the world make of America and Americans if Bush wins?

In 2000, such a prospect was unpleasant but far less alarming. If anything, the world was more concerned by his unilateral withdrawal from the global arena (reneging on treaties like Kyoto) than his unilateral intervention into it. Moreover, the manner in which Bush assumed power - selected by judges rather than elected by people - denied him absolute legitimacy in the world's eyes and helped us differentiate him from the people he claimed to represent.

This time things are different. Since September 11 2001, Americans have been forced to take a closer look at the world around them. Over the past two years they have seen their government prosecute an illegal war in a nation where they are unwelcome occupiers and flout the will of the UN, and their soldiers torture Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison. In short, they have seen loathing for their country grow around the globe - even among those they once counted as allies - and more than a thousand of their countrymen killed in combat. If they lost their innocence on September 11 - never a particularly convincing assertion - then they cannot have it back now.

If Bush wins fair and square on November 2, then what conclusions can we draw about a nation that consciously decides this is the course it wants to take? We might start by ruling out a few. First, it will not mean that Americans are stupid. They aren't. Compared with the rest of the world, they are pretty well educated and certainly no more stupid than Britons, French or Portuguese were when they had an empire. Nor will it mean they have been duped. They haven't. They have been lied to constantly and their mainstream media has served them poorly, particularly over weapons of mass destruction, the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East.

[ProSense]

2. Rant! Part III

Media complicity

On Social Security:

Kerry warns of surprise on Social Security
Senator accuses Bush of plan to privatize retirement system
Jim VandeHei, Chris L. Jenkins, Washington Post

Monday, October 18, 2004

Columbus, Ohio -- Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush of a secret, second-term plan to privatize Social Security starting next January, telling a church audience Sunday that the idea is "a disaster for America's middle class."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/18/MNG3S9BISL1.DTL

The reality eight days post November 2:

Posted 11/10/2004 9:14 PM

Bush moves to privatize Social Security
WASHINGTON (AP) — Fresh from re-election, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious proposal to overhaul Social Security, a controversial idea that had been shelved because of politics and the administration's focus on tax cuts and terrorism.

Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts similar to 401(k) plans.

A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 that would divert 2% of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2% — and the Social Security taxes employers pay — would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves a shortfall of at least $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for those current retirees.

Bush said his commission, headed by the late Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York, provided "a good blueprint." The commission had been asked to come up with a plan for establishing personal investment accounts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-10-social-security_x.htm

On the cost of war:

Often cited as the last word by CNN and Republicans—including Dick Cheney, who cited the URL during the debates, albeit incorrectly—here's what factcheck.org stated about Kerry's $200 billion price tag on the war:

Kerry Exaggerates Cost of War in Iraq
He claims Iraq has cost "$200 billion and counting." Not yet, it hasn't.

September 13, 2004
Modified:September 23, 2004
Summary

Kerry is using an exaggerated figure for the cost of the Iraq war in his latest line of attack against Bush, claiming in the latest version of his standard stump speech that the war in Iraq has cost "$200 billion and counting." The Democratic National Committee uses an identical phrase in a TV ad. But that's too high.

There's little question that the Iraq war will eventually cost a total of $200 billion, and possibly even double that figure, depending on how many US troops remain there and for how long. The CBO produced three hypothetical "scenarios" for the future, and their ten-year price tag. A pullout starting next year and leaving no US forces in Iraq by October of 2008 would still add $52 billion to the total cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not counting costs of reconstruction or "undistributed" costs shared among Iraq and other operations. Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=253#

Less than six month later the reality was:

Posted 4/23/2005 10:27 AM Updated 4/24/2005 6:58 AM

Bush seeks funding for Iraq, Afghanistan
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush is pushing Congress to provide more money for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan — funds the Pentagon says it needs by the first week of May.
"I applaud the House and Senate for their strong support of my supplemental funding request for our troops serving on the front lines," Bush said Saturday in his radio address.

"This funding will help provide the weapons, ammunition, spare parts and equipment that our troops need to do their job," he said. "I urge Congress to come together to resolve their remaining differences, and send me a bill quickly."

House and Senate negotiators are expected to act soon to sort out differences between their versions of the $81 billion spending bill. Both versions would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-23-bush-iraq_x.htm

It’s obvious the media played a big role in distorting the Kerry’s message by painting much of what he said as exaggerations, while they weighed in as credible the lies of George W. Bush. The media playing field was in no way level. The media is culpable for creating the perception among those who turned to it for objectivity that Kerry was nearly but not quite truthful. Within that false realm of uncertainty, Bush had room to back his statements, which were mostly false, not exaggerated, but false.

Four years of Bush left the country angry and divided. Given Bush’s poll numbers in the months preceding the election (polling reports), I believe most of the country was unhappy with his policies. Within a few months of the election and the country grew even more angry and divided.

Across the country, Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—from the filibuster (savethefilibuster.org) to Terri Schiavo; from Budget cuts to Social Security—were in disbelief. Bush’s actions continue to spark public outrage: http://www.republicansforhumility.com/

Americans are increasingly expressing disapproval (poll numbers as low as 33%) of Bush and his policies, but with the media it’s business as usual. The public is crying out and our elected Democrats are fighting their hearts out, but typical of Bush’s reign, no one is able to discern the level of outrage by watching any of the major broadcast or cable news programs.

The American media is now controlled by powerful corporations obviously determined to protect their interests. It’s curious why yet another Bush scandal, payola, went unreported until after the election:

Posted 1/7/2005 12:17 AM Updated 1/7/2005 11:16 AM
Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

Bush payola scandal deepens as third columnist admits being paid
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday January 29, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1401211,00.html

The recent revelation by The New York Times that Bush has engage in spying on Americans is amplifying the anger. One can only hold out hope that the end to Bush’s reign draws near.

[ProSense]

3. Rant! Part IV

The Media and Character Assassination

On the SBVT:

Senator Kerry should have responded to the Swift Boat Veterans more urgently and vigorously. I remember the tremendous free coverage the media allotted these character assassins. By having them appear with the frequency they did, the media in its biased way created the perception that these were credible people who deserved a response. To be fair, They could have ignored the Swift Boat Veterans. They do it all the time:

CBS REJECTS ANTI-BUSH SUPER BOWL COMMERCIAL

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- Viacom's CBS today rejected a request from liberal group MoveOn to air a 30-second anti-President Bush ad during the Super Bowl, saying the spot violated the network's policy against running issue advocacy advertising.

http://www.adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/login?newsId=39590&auth=

CBS, NBC refuse to run church ad welcoming all
Appealing to gays violates 'hot button' policy, networks say
Steven Winn, Chronicle Arts and Culture Critic

Thursday, December 2, 2004

A new national television commercial promoting the United Church of Christ says that "Jesus didn't turn people away," but two major networks have turned away the ad itself, saying it violates their policy of airing commercials on hot button topics -- such as tolerance toward gays and lesbians.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/02/MNG80A523F1.DTL

But with the SBVT ads, Bush and the advertisers appeared to be in charge of policy decisions at networks:

Posted 8/31/2004 10:23 PM Updated 9/1/2004 4:55 PM

Swift Boat group ignores Bush's plea, airs new TV ad
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
The Vietnam War veterans who have attacked Sen. John Kerry's account of his military record and his actions as an anti-war protester in the early 1970s released a third television ad Tuesday — and said more are coming.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-31-swift-boat-ad_x.htm

Kerry camp calls new ad 'junkyard politics'
Swift Boat Veterans rip visits with N. Vietnamese, Viet Cong
From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN New York Bureau
Thursday, September 23, 2004 Posted: 10:07 PM EDT (0207 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Vietnam veterans group behind a series of commercials attacking Sen. John Kerry's military record has released a new ad comparing him to Jane Fonda for meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong officials during the Vietnam War.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/swiftboat.ad/

Inappropriate alliances:

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad
Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign
Monday, August 23, 2004 Posted: 10:49 AM EDT (1449 GMT)
ROANOKE, Virginia (CNN) -- A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.

As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an election campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/

Bush lawyer who aided boat-ad group resigns
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Washington -- President Bush's top election lawyer resigned from the campaign Wednesday after it was revealed that he also was advising Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group airing TV ads attacking John Kerry's war record and anti- war activism.

In a resignation letter, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top outside counsel for the Bush campaign, said his dual role violated no campaign laws, and he accused the media of a "stunning double standard" for not focusing on lawyers and advisers to Kerry and the Democratic Party who are working for outside groups attacking Bush.

Independent election-law experts said Ginsberg could have violated new rules that bar individuals with a federal campaign or a political party from working with outside groups, known as 527s, if he shared information between the groups. Ginsberg has denied that he shared any information.

Democrats already have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the veterans group. But Bush's aides repeatedly have said they had no connection to the group.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/26/MNG088EKHC1.DTL

Connecting with voters:

The fallacy that Senator Kerry didn’t connect with voters, now rings hollow. First the descriptions of him as aloof with no substantive proof drove a lot of media reports. Well, the only way to demonstrate the exact opposite is with tangible evidence, including Kerry’s much coveted e-mail lists (which has grown significantly since the election):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E10FC39580C758CDDA80994DC404482

Mr. Kerry's confidants pointed to his e-mail list of 2.6 million supporters - which helped him raise more than $249 million, a record for a presidential challenger - as a major asset that Mr. Kerry could harness to project his influence well beyond the Senate chamber, and not just in financial terms. They said one option would be to set up a new organization the way Howard Dean did with his political action group, Democracy for America, after his defeat in the Democratic primaries.

And this:




Oh, and some veterans:

07/31/2004
Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush
BY CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY / STAFF WRITER

It was a day for diehards.

Whether they were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, determined protesters or curiosity seekers who simply wanted to witness history, the estimated 17,000 people who turned out to see presidential nominee John Kerry in Scranton on Friday all shared one common trait.
Stamina.

Brutal humidity, a savage sun and scarce water ended the day early for some. Those who managed to stick around until the end, however, said it was worth every sweaty, sticky second.

The crowd was thick with veterans, a sign of the rich history of military service in the region and the strong connection Mr. Kerry has established with veterans. Many had high praise for the candidate's service in Vietnam. Most offered harsh criticism of President Bush, who faces lingering questions about his National Guard service.

"I'd like to know where (President) Bush was when he was supposed to be serving," said Neal Shubert, 59, of Bear Creek. The Vietnam veteran and Purple Heart recipient said it was time for a change.

"I know where John Kerry was," Mr. Shubert said. "I want to know where Bush was. I think I've earned the right to know. I think all of us have earned the right to know."

U.S. Navy veteran Jerry Shilan, 65, of Lehman, said he was outraged by the president's appearance in a flight suit as he declared "major combat operations" in Iraq were over last May.

"When I saw that I was so angry," said Mr. Shilan, who said he doubts Mr. Bush completed his required service time in the Guard.

"If he did, why can't he prove it?" Mr. Shilan asked. "They say they inadvertently destroyed his pay records. Please."

There were many first-time voters in the crowd, including Adam Hill, 18, of Eynon. Mr. Hill said his brother, Sgt. Dylan Hill, 25, had recently returned from Iraq after a tour with the army's 101st Airborne Division.

"My brother's going to vote for John Kerry, and so am I," Mr. Hill said.

The crowd, which flowed the length of Washington Avenue between Spruce and Mulberry streets, erupted as a caravan of SUVs and two buses pulled into place behind the stage to speakers blaring Bruce Springsteen's "Land of Hope and Dreams."

They roared for actor Ben Affleck and a host of local, state and national Democrats, including Gov. Ed Rendell. They cheered for Mr. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and for Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of vice-presidential nominee, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

But the most raucous applause came when Mr. Kerry took the stage, visibly amazed at the size of the crowd on such a wilting afternoon.

"No wonder they call Scranton 'The Electric City,'" Mr. Kerry said, bringing a roar that would be repeated again and again as he highlighted his plans for what he termed, "taking back America."

After his speech, Mr. Kerry joined Mr. Edwards in shaking hands and signing autographs at the edge of the crowd. Both signed banners for Kathleen Bressi, a Kerry volunteer and kindergarten teacher from Old Forge. It was the pinnacle of what she said was a long, hot day.

"It was absolutely worth it," she said. "I think these guys are going to make it. We need our industry to come home, we need our troops to come home, we need better education. That's why need them."


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

[ProSense]

4. Rant! Part V

The Message

The other fallacy is that Senator Kerry’s message didn’t resonate with the electorate. Again, 59 million people heeded Senator Kerry’s message. My contention is those who did had to rely on the Internet, alternative media and grassroots efforts for an accurate account of Senator Kerry’s message.

Many people did relied on the so called “trusted” mainstream media for objective analysis and coverage of the candidates, but that did not exists.

Here are the messages Senator Kerry repeatedly put forth (and even Republicans agree they hit home)

Frank Luntz Republican Playbook -- Searchable Text-Version:
PART IX "AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE 2lst CENTURY"
By Tom Ball
03/06/05

1) Make it about Energy Self-Sufficiency and Independence. The energy debate is ripe for partisan picking and the Democrats were smart to use it during their convention. Americans want to hear about solutions to foreign energy dependency and are desperate for big ideas and bold solutions. Energy policy is now a public priority and Democrats put themselves on the side of the future. Americans loathe the idea of being reliant on the Middle East for our energy needs and they were waiting for someone to tell them so. This was John Kerry’s single best line at the convention, and it continues to resonate even today:

PAGE 133 ---

DEMOCRAT WORDS THAT WORK

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Americans are evenly and bitterly divided about an assortment of political issues, but nearly all of them agree that our nation s’ current energy policy is behind-the-times and needs a new, 21st Century approach. Right now, the Democrats are exhibiting perfect pitch when it comes to their energy message. They understand that if you play on American fears towards OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, while also appealing to American ideals of invention and innovation, they will have a compelling message. But fortunately for Republicans, the Democratic message does not match their policy. If the GOP wants to gain the advantage you need to match the optimism of the Democrats message -- and that begins with a clear statement that the status quo is unacceptable.


http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001207.php#1207

The pundits respond to Kerry’s speech:

The pundits on Kerry: He nailed it
The same mainstream talking heads who trashed Gore give Kerry strong notices, and even right-wingers hold their tongues.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
July 29, 2004 | If Sen. John Kerry's acceptance speech were the opening night of a Broadway production, it would be doing robust box office business Friday morning. The same talking heads who seemed openly skeptical of the Democratic presidential nominee for much of this week gave his speech strongly positive notices.

On a scale of 1 to 10, ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave Kerry's speech an 8 "as written," and a "7.5 as delivered."

"Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer said Kerry had "done about as well as he could do to set the stage for what's ahead."

NBC's Tim Russert credited Kerry for opening himself up during the address. "He gave more of himself than I've ever seen before." He added that Democratic delegates "have seen a candidate who's willing to take the battle to George Bush. Democrats heard what they needed to hear; it's on, full charge ahead."

Time magazine's Joe Klein told CNN Kerry "nailed it" and that he'd "never seen the man speak so well."

Meanwhile, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, appearing on MSNBC, said Kerry "has established the point he's a fighter, a war hero and a real guy. Now it's up to Bush to tear him down."

Some observers might suggest all those pundits have Democratic leanings to begin with, so their praise doesn't mean much. But they were precisely the type of commentators who routinely ridiculed Al Gore's campaign throughout the 2000 race, so the shift is worth noting.

The post-speech analysis got off to a comical start on CNN, when the news channel inadvertently broadcast frantic comments from a Democratic producer in a rage that more balloons were not dropping from the ceiling of the Fleet Center: ""More balloons! We need all of them coming down! All balloons! Balloons? What's happening, balloons? There's not enough coming down. All balloons! Where the hell -- there's nothing falling! What the fuck are you guys doing up there?"

No word yet if any FCC action will be taken against CNN.
Over at MSNBC, Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of 24 voters and found four who voted for Bush in 2000 and, after seeing Kerry, said they would vote for the Democrat in the fall. Luntz suggested Kerry would not see as big a post-convention bounce as Gore did in 2000, and thanks to the convention's relentless focus on military toughness, insisted that "national security is now a positive for this Democratic candidate." (Over on CNN, Washington Post reporter Terry Neal mentioned that a Zogby poll taken right before Kerry's speech indicated Kerry had already picked up a five-point bounce from the week's activities.)

Conservative pundits were notably restrained in critiquing Kerry's address. MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough critiqued Kerry's style, saying his speech had the "best text" of the week, but not the best presentation. Scarborough suggested Kerry stepped on too many of his applause lines: "If John Kerry had delivered that 'Mission Accomplished' line and stepped away from the microphone the crowd would still be cheering. He blew through the best applause lines in a way Bill Clinton never would have."

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes weakly told Fox News viewers that Kerry's "salute wasn't very good." The magazine's editor, Bill Kristol, conceded that Kerry "gave a good speech," adding that it was a "bold and interesting" move to try to "retake patriotism for Democrats."

Some of the right's hesitation to trash Kerry's speech may have stemmed from the fact that immediately following Gore's 2000 convention speech, many conservatives denounced it as a failure. Robert Novak labeled the speech "a flop" and erroneously predicted Gore would come out of the convention facing a six-point deficit in the polls. And the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan wrote, "Al Gore's acceptance speech was a rhetorical failure and, in my view, a strategic blunder of significant proportions."

The conservative pundits ended up with egg on their faces, as the public deemed it a hit and Gore enjoyed a robust and sustained post-convention bounce in the polls.

Kerry's right-wing critics may be holding their tongues, not wanting to pan what could turn out to be another Democratic hit.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/29/pundits/

The Debates

This was followed by a stellar performance to win all three presidential debates where Kerry again nailed it in his closing statements:

September 30, 2004

The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate


KERRY: Thank you, Jim, very much.

Thank you very much to the university, again.

Thank you, Mr. President.

My fellow Americans, as I've said at the very beginning of this debate, both President Bush and I love this country very much. There's no doubt, I think, about that.

But we have a different set of convictions about how we make our country stronger here at home and respected again in the world.

I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know who's the person who could be a commander in chief who could get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace.

And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about their kids going to the school or anywhere else in the world, what kind of world they're going to grow up in, let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States.

But I have a difference with this president. I believe when we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances.

I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side.

I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland security, strengthening our military, cutting our finances, reaching out to the world, again building strong alliances.

I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear.

That's the country that I'm going to fight for. And I ask you to give me the opportunity to make you proud. I ask you to give me the opportunity to lead this great nation, so that we can be stronger here at home, respected again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we deserve.

Thank you. And God bless America.

October 8, 2004

The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate


KERRY: Thank you, all of you, for taking part.

Thanks for your questions tonight, very, very much.

Obviously the president and I both have very strong convictions. I respect him for that. But we have a very different view about how to make America stronger and safer.

I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity -- not a nation, not a country, not an institution.

But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. And that's the way Eisenhower and Reagan and Kennedy and others did it.

We are not doing that today. We need to.

I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists.

And I will not stop in our efforts to hunt down and kill the terrorists.

But I'll also have a better plan of how we're going to deal with Iraq: training the Iraqi forces more rapidly, getting our allies back to the table with a fresh start, with new credibility, with a president whose judgment the rest of the world trusts.

In addition to that, I believe we have a crisis here at home, a crisis of the middle class that is increasingly squeezed, health-care costs going up.

I have a plan to provide health care to all Americans.

I have a plan to provide for our schools so we keep the standards but we help our teachers teach and elevate our schools by funding No Child Left Behind.

I have a plan to protect the environment so that we leave this place in better shape to our children than we were handed it by our parents. That's the test.

I believe America's best days are ahead of us. I'm an optimist, but we have to make the right choices, to be fiscally responsible and to create the new jobs of the future. We can do this.

And I ask you for the privilege of leading our nation to be stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you.

October 13, 2004

The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate


KERRY: My fellow Americans, as you heard from Bob Schieffer a moment ago, America is being tested by division. More than ever, we need to be united as a country.

And, like Franklin Roosevelt, I don't care whether an idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. I just care whether it works for America and whether it's going to make us stronger.

These are dangerous times. I believe I offer tested, strong leadership that can calm the waters of the troubled world. And I believe that we can together do things that are within the grasp of Americans.

We can lift our schools up. We can create jobs that pay more than the jobs we're losing overseas. We can have health care for all Americans. We can further the cause of equality in our nation.

Let me just make it clear: I will never allow any country to have a veto over our security. Just as I fought for our country as a young man, with the same passion I will fight to defend this nation that I love.

And, with faith in God and with conviction in the mission of America, I believe that we can reach higher. I believe we can do better.

I think the greatest possibilities of our country, our dreams and our hopes, are out there just waiting for us to grab onto them. And I ask you to embark on that journey with me.

I ask you for your trust. I ask you for your help. I ask you to allow me the privilege of leading this great nation of ours, of helping us to be stronger here at home and to be respected again in the world and, most of all, to be safer forever.

Thank you. Goodnight. And God bless the United States of America.

[ProSense]

5. Rant! Pat VI

Clueless Journalism

Kerry in fact did connect to voters and even the polls after the debates online and offline indicated that Kerry’s message resonated with many. Still, the media went out of its way to conclude a disconnect when CNN’s political correspondent Candy Crowley stated that Kerry lost the election to "green tea instances.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411160005

CNN's Crowley suggested Kerry's choice of green tea proves he is out of touch with "most of America"

CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, in an attempt to portray Senator John Kerry as out-of-touch, suggested that green tea is a rare and exotic beverage unfamiliar to "most of America."

From an article in the November 16 edition of The Palm Beach Post:

During a luncheon speech Monday to the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches, CNN political correspondent Candy Crowley shared an early memory from the campaign trail that may explain why John Kerry will not be president next year.

In January 2003, when his campaign was still young enough that Kerry would actually sit down with reporters in a relaxed setting, he and Crowley met for breakfast at the Holiday Inn in Dubuque, Iowa. "I'd like to start out with some green tea," Kerry told the waitress, who stared at him for a moment before responding, "We have Lipton's."

Lipton's would be fine, Kerry said, but the memory stayed with Crowley. "There were many green tea instances," she told the sell-out crowd of 450 at the Kravis Center's Cohen Pavilion. "There's a very large disconnect between the Washington politicians and most of America and how they live. Bush was able to bridge that gap, and Kerry was not."

But green tea may not be quite the highbrow delicacy Crowley seems to think. In fact, Lipton itself makes more than a half-dozen different varieties of green tea. Lipton's website even reveals that green tea accounts for 20 percent of all tea produced. And, according to Lipton's product locator, you can buy green tea in Dubuque, Iowa, at that gourmet market known as ... Kmart.

So, who is the real out-of-touch elitist -- John Kerry, for drinking green tea, or Candy Crowley, for assuming that simple Iowa folk couldn't possibly be familiar with the beverage?

[ProSense]

6. Rant! Part VII

Kerry on

I end my rant here because, despite the bleak situation created by the Bush administration and its allies, Senator Kerry is still fighting for Americans:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051222/pl_usnw/after3_year_battle__congress_passes_kerry_legislation_to_help_small_businesses_hurt_by_drought110_xml
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248661
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=236335
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/about/record.html


Bush is a misleader who has circumvented the law, but he cannot subvert the hope that Democrats are providing on several levels:

Social Security – Smacked down Bush and his cabal as they desperately fanned out across the country trying to sell a bad idea.
Result: seeing Santorum squirm when he caught on that the idea wasn’t flying. Best result: watching Santorum's decline in the polls

Schiavo – The wingnuts fought the law and the law won.
Result: watching the wingnuts attack Jeb Bush.
Best result: watching Dr. “go to the videotape” Frist squirm in the senate trying to get his credibility back.

Election 2005 -- Wins across the country.
Result: the Republicans are on notice
Best result: Watching Republicans trying to distance themselves from scandal

Troop withdrawal from Iraq – Forced Bush to forcefully stake out his failed stay the course position.
Result: Exposed the Republicans rubberstamp of that failed policy and forced them to a vote calling on Bush to define an effective strategy.
Best result: watching Rumsfeld running around blurting out tongue twisters about bringing the troops home early next year, but not immediately and without a timetable.

Delay's House of Scandal -- the DCCC never let up and did an excellent job connecting the crooks.
Result: Republicans froze like deer in the headlights
Best result: Fitzgerald is behind the wheel

Secret Prison’s – Pressuring the Bush administration to release information. Result: forced the administration into a defensive position
Best result: Kerry’s amendment.

Torture – Holding the Bush administration accountable for their inhumane policy.
Result: McCain had to publicly go against Bush
Best result: watching Cheney caught in lie after lie during interviews.

Patriot Act – unified to block extension in light of Bush’s constant abuse of power.
Result: Frist had to keep voting to uphold the Democratic-led filibuster.
Best result: Bush didn’t get his Christmas present and resorted to accusing the Democrats of aiding the enemy by standing up for American civil liberties.

ANWR – Save ANWR for the grubby hands of oil executives.
Result: exposed Republican hypocrisy in terms of the dirty tactics used to attach ANWR to the defense bill.
Best result: watching Stevens “goodbye cruel world” whiny drama on the Senate floor.

Censure -- Conyers began the process that could ultimately lead to impeachment of both Bush and Cheney
Result: Bush will continue to screw up and 2006 doesn't look any better
Best result: Bush is screwed

Onward to 2006! Republicans who turned a blind eye to Bush be damned!

[MonteLukast]

7. Thank you!

This was all wonderful to read and rest assured, I will keep following Our Senator as he Kerrys On!

Thank you for your in-depth research and hard work.

:applause: :toast:

[ProSense]

9. Thank you. I 'm glad you took the time to read it.

:hi:

[TayTay]

12. That was wonderful!

Nice work! :applause: It will take me a while to go through it all, but it has a lot of good stuff in it. Again, thanks!

[_dynamicdems]

29. Thank you. This was wonderful.

You make a very good case. Great research. I've read your posts and look forward to reading more at the links you provide.

Onward to 2006!

AMEN! And to impeachment after that. And then on to 2008!

[ProSense]

8. Whew!

Finally got a little time off and was able to get this off my chest in time to ring in the New Year.

Hope it's a good one for everyone!

[sandnsea]

10. Incredible!!

Whew. That was some stuff.

:applause:

I agree whole-heartedly.

[ray of light]

16. Beautiful, Pro Sense! And make sure you place these in the

research forum and the empowerment thread. I saved it to my fav's file, myself.

And have a great New Years everyone. Remember, no drinking and driving.

[rox63]

11. Wow!

Thanks for laying it all out there. I'll be reading through everything for a while to come.

[ProSense]

13. Thanks all. Your responses are encouraging. n/t

[karynnj]

15. This is wonderful - you really disprove so many of the smears

that have appeared on the left since last year. This was great to read - several things I had never seen before. (The article on the vets at the PA rally was great.)

[wisteria]

14. Your post shows you put in a lot of hard work. It is wonderful.

Thank you for putting it all together.

[Blaukraut]

17. What an incredible amount of info!

ProSense, this is amazing. I've bookmarked the thread, and copied it for further reference :wow: :applause:

[ProSense]

18. Rant! Replay n/t

[Luftmensch067]

19. I can't see anything you left out!

This is fantastic -- hard-hitting, passionate AND backed up at every turn with credible sources. I love the final part...Best Result! I almost cheered every time I got to one of those. :-)

I think you should run this by a few experts here (not claiming to be one of them) for a final check/editing suggestions and then publish it WIDELY. As well as being a most excellent Rant, it is *also* an impressive, persuasive, powerful piece of writing.

[ProSense]

21. Thanks for the compliment!

:hi:

[kerrygoddess]

20. Post this on the Dem Daily Forum

And I will pin it so everyone knows where to find it. There's a wealth of great stuff there!

Edited to add - if you want to create a login on the Dem Daily Blog you can also post this on the blog - maybe do one a day until you cover each one of these wonderful fact filled rants!

[ProSense]

22. Where should I post it (in which forum)? Thanks. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

23. Good question

Post it in the John Kerry Resources and if you are up for posting twice throw in the main General Discussion too.

[ProSense]

24. OK, it's posted.

I did it in one very long post, though. It's in the JK Resources forum. I also added a link to the DU research forum thread (started by MH1) of responses to the SBVT.

[kerrygoddess]

27. Awesome!

I pinned it in there!

[MH1]

25. How the heck...

did I miss this great post?

I know....sometimes when I am really pissed, the last thing I need is to read an amplifying rant, and I think that's why I skipped this over the weekend!

This is really, really great stuff ProSense. Thanks for posting.

[beachmom]

26. Great juxtapositions, Prosense!! Thanks for posting. n/t

[ProSense]

28. For newbies. n/t