Most of us (liberals) think you're smart enough, but in any case ...

D O N ' T T A K E T H E B A I T

McCain wants you to "suspend" your campaign right along with him. It's a trap. Keep registering voters, and for the love of God, make sure they check their registration. Keep running ads. Keep making speeches. Keep touring. It's the 4th quarter with 10 minutes left to go and McCain wants to suspend the game. Not because it's raining, but because you have the ball and are up by 10 points.

This, of course, belies the fact that McCain's desire to suspend the campaign is in all likelyhood horseshit.

McCain will continue his campaign, but in a different way. It's a twist on the Karl Rove strategy to turn the enemy's greatest strength into a liability, as the original swiftboaters did with John Kerry's decorated military service as compared to George W. Bush's rich-kid version of draft-dodging.

If Obama is an inspiring speaker, then turn it against him by insinuating that he thinks of himself as a Messiah.

If Obama is popular, then turn it against him by casting him as a Hollywood celebrity.

And now, McCain's strategy appears to turn your superior poll numbers into yet another gambit to turn the tables on you.

Expect this: "While Obama is out politicking and increasing his poll numbers, John McCain is soberly working on our economic crisis like a true leader should."

This would, of course, be a press release and not a statement at a press conference. As is obvious by now, McCain and Palin have been hiding in a bubble because every time they appear in an unscripted venue they make total asses of themselves. And so instead of grabbing some backbone and doing the best he can in the debates, he wants to put them off until, who knows, forever?

Call him out. Say that this is no time to run from responsibilities, and no time to hide from the American people. In other words, insinuate that he is cowering in the face of conflict. That's right, the "war hero" - cowering. His greatest strength nullified. It's an effective strategy I hear, and this time is has the benefit of being true.

I will happily support a candidate who agrees with that statement. I will not support a candidate who doesn't. This is not some specific pet interest or issue, not some spiteful statement by an angry civil libertarian with too much time on my hands. This is my goddamn right, my inalienable right. And it was just alienated by Barack Obama.

Holy fuck, have the last seven years changed our country so much that both mainstream candidates don't believe we have a right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure? Of course, maybe I'm being irrational, maybe it's more complicated than that. Maybe leniency and loopholes from the force of law should be made official by Congress for well-connected corporate criminals.

I've been following the news regarding the candidates more than most Americans, but probably not as much as some people on this board. And one thing I haven't seen or heard yet is the candidates discussing whether or not they will push repeals of the unconstitutional power grabs by the White House such as the Military Commissions Act and the latest surveillance act. Has any of this been addressed?

Thanks.

It would be so fascinating to watch if it weren't so terrifying. Washington is so poisoned now that Congressional votes are based only on the immediate political implications, and not on the real world consequences. They know what their vote means, but it's like watching a child do things he knows he shouldn't do, and yet can't help himself.

Why did you throw that rock?

Um... I don't know.

Our government has just declared the Iranian Army a terrorist organization.

Well, we're in a war on terror, right? How can we not attack them if they're terrorists? You don't want to look weak on terror do you, Mr. Congressman?

Soon, perhaps in a few months, Israel will attack Iran as a supposed response to some kind of threat from that country. Then the money-drenched ties AIPAC has forged with Republicans and Democrats will bear the bitter fruit of an obedient Congress voting to "defend" Israel and launch another war.

And who will we send to fight this war? Iran is roughly three times the size and population of Iraq. How can our government possibly avoid a draft? Are they going to send the soldiers who have already served three tours in Iraq to fight it? Are they going to send in the injured and mentally-destroyed?

I haven't been this afraid for my country since September 11, 2001. But on that day my fear was not of terrorists, but of our own government. I, and millions of others who shared this fear, turned out to be right.

If we invade Iran, then anti-American terror across the globe will explode, whole nations will radicalize in response to our own recklessness, and terrorism might actually become something significant to fear. This is the moment right now when we saw it coming - the war that will propel terrorism through the stratosphere and firmly establish a threat to our nation for generations to come.

Our military will be broken, our national debt like a black hole, our infrastructure in rubble, our economy wrecked, our nation one giant third world country with a tiny elite behind concrete and barbed wire while homemade bombs explode outside. Mark your calendar, this is a red letter day in the history of when our nation turned to shit.

In California, a Republican law firm with deep pockets and all the right friends in state government are set to smash California's winner-take-all system of electoral votes into a system whereby the state's 55 electoral votes are divided per election results in each of the congressional districts.

Personally, I think the winner-take-all system needs to go for all states, but if it is changed only selectively it tips the scales in favor of one side, in this case it would give the Republicans a HUGE advantage and handicap the Democrats in extreme fashion. More than any other vote tricks we know about, this is the one that could put them in the White House more than any other.

This is being done very quietly and would all but guarantee a Republican victory in 2008. What did Thomas Jefferson say about "eternal vigilance?" Like most vote-related initiatives by the Republican Party, they will steal your democracy with legal tricks, not tanks and secret police.

Read the article here

Remind me again why you idiotic mouth-breathers voted for this Bush-Republican.

Current events offer a rather interesting scenario about the state of our democracy. Previously, if a president was found to be overstepping his bounds and/or acting illegally, Congress was able to perform their role to check the power of the Executive and, if needed, initiate proceedings to remove the president from office. In all previous cases, this system, with hiccups to be sure, worked. Presidents responded by submitting themselves to Congressional authority where the Constitution grants it, and in the case of Nixon he removed himself when it appeared that impeachment was unavoidable. This is because we are a nation of laws. This is what has given us such stability in circumstances that would drive many nations to revolution and internal violence.

For example, when George W. Bush stole the election of 2000 from the will of the American people, we did not revolt. Why? Because the Supreme Court (the law) approved his election. We hated it, but accepted it as something we had to live with until the next election. In other words, we submitted ourselves to the rule of law even though we disagreed with it.

But this president is different. Like the American people in 2000, presidents submit themselves to law because the USA is a nation of laws, not rulers. President Bush on the other hand, acts as if he is a dictator with no limits to his authority. He has violated the Constitution at his pleasure without apology and frequently with open pride. The only role our founding document plays in his regime is as an annoying obstacle requiring legal and linguistic gymnastics to justify his unconstitutional acts. As far as the judiciary, his agents have declared repeatedly, albeit indirectly, that President Bush is not subject to judicial review for anything he deems beyond the judiciary's oversight, which is pretty much anything he desires. And Congress? It might as well not even exist. For President Bush, Congress is little more than a body that provides suggestions for laws to be passed as he changes them however he likes before approving them, a gross violation of his office.

In short, President Bush is acting like a dictator. And since he is still in office, and continues to do as he pleases without regard to the law and so far without consequences, he IS a dictator. The sad fact is, we are currently being ruled by a dictator. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it's a fucking duck.

If Congress were to impeach President Bush, his current behavior suggests that he would simply ignore the proceedings and stay in the White House with his hands on the powers of the presidency. He may even decide that the state of the nation requires him to remain "president" after 2008, y'know, for our own good in this time of national crisis.

The only possible conclusions to be drawn from this president are the following: President George W. Bush will continue to be the dictator of the United States until he is removed or until he decides to remove himself. He has already demonstrated that he is not subject to the law, and so impeachment would be as useless as a non-binding Congressional resolution. More and more, I am convinced that the only way this administration will be removed from power is by physically being forced from their offices.

Nice going, John. Just when we thought George W. Bush was the king of photo-ops, what do we get to see when one of our favorite presidential hopefuls announces his run? You, wearing blue jeans and shoveling dirt with some - surprise! - young black guys. Note to John: The tough workin' man look would have been more effective if you weren't wearing your blackberry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the unfortunate fact that in product advertising, images are frequently more important than words (you being the product). But your campaign team doesn't seem to know the difference between effective stage decorations and a blatantly fake photo-op. You see, this is the kind of thing we liberals (your potential base) are so sick of seeing for the past six years. For us, such crafted images like these are indicative of a politician who puts image before substance and who thinks his target audience are a bunch of morons.

We're not morons. When we saw George W. Bush get out of a freakin' navy jet in a flight suit, we hurled. When we saw him trimming brush on his fantasy camp ranch and practically tripping over his own cowboy boots, we laughed our asses off. And when he commandeered a group a firefighters for the sole purpose of posing with them with his sleeves rolled up after Katrina, we got pissed - really pissed.



Some in your campaign team may struggle with the difference between effective imagery and ridiculous photo-ops, and the line between the two isn't exactly crystal clear. But here's my best guess as to one of the basics: When you are actually fabricating events for the sole purpose of having pictures taken of them, you're crossing the line. We all know George W. Bush is not a pilot, he doesn't work on his ranch when cameras aren't present, and he wasn't about to go save people from a burning building after the hurricane.

And yes, we know this shoveling business wasn't for real. It's only for show - everyone knows it and it makes you look stupid. We won't be voting for you for your shoveling technique - we'd be voting for you for your policies designed to prevent another community from being buried in the first place.

We'll tolerate you posing in front of monuments and flags. We won't even mind too much if you find some "Made in the U.S.A." boxes for a backdrop like Bush did, but unless you plan on switching parties and battling McCain for the Republican nomination, don't insult our intelligence. If you want our vote, John, you're going to have to get real, and fast.

Karl Rove Jumps the Shark
We have finally seen the inevitable failure of the Rovian strategy

The words "attack, attack, attack" have been uttered by many to describe the central tenet of Karl Rove's campaign strategy. He never plays defense, no matter what comes his way. If his candidate is attacked, he responds with a stronger attack. If his opponent has an edge on the issues, he never attempts to bolster his candidate's positions, but instead attacks his opponent with personal smears and dirty tricks. This strategy has worked with tremendous success in the past, but has finally met its inevitable fate.

If the game of politics can be described with war metaphors, which it is by pretty much everybody, then a strategy built around "attack, attack, attack" can be equated with constantly moving the front line forward, never retreating or holding position. This "front line" of Rove's has been constantly moving forward for the past six years, and in the literal world means that the Republican Party's political rhetoric has gotten stronger and stronger to the point of finally jumping the shark into the realm of mind-blowingly ludicrous.

A few years ago, Republican politicians would never have gone so far as to suggest that Democrats want the terrorists to win. Such allusions would have been considered highly offensive and way beyond the pale. But Karl Rove and his lieutenants kept moving their front line forward until we finally saw what would eventually rear its ugly ass: Republicans openly and with a straight face practically accusing the Democrats of working in concert with the terrorists to achieve their shared agenda of attacking American values. Orrin Hatch said the terrorists were laying low and hoping for a Democratic victory in order to strike, Donald Rumsfeld said the terrorists in Iraq were increasing their violence in order to help the Democrats win elections, Dick Cheney equated the likely Democratic win to the terrorists successfully breaking the will of the American people, and every Republican from sea to shining sea clung desperately to their Rovian talking points designed to suggest that Democrats are cowards who want to surrender to Al Qaeda.

There is a depressingly large percentage of stupid, gullible voters in this country who will believe every talking point fed to them by Fox News and Clear Channel and obediently given the legitimacy of equal time by the rest of the mainstream media. Karl Rove knows this more than anybody. But his tactics unintentionally caused many of these otherwise stupid people to have moments of clarity. Can't you just picture it: The loyal Sean Hannity fan driving in his car and considering for a moment how ridiculous it is for someone to suggest that the majority of Americans who criticize the war rejoice at the deaths of U.S. soldiers and want nothing more than terrorists to come to the United States and kill innocent people. Maybe this moment of clarity opened up this guy's mind to different opinions, or maybe it simply caused him to skip the long lines on Election Day and go straight home.

The Democrats didn't so much win this election as allow the Republicans to lose. The Republican attack, attack, attack strategy finally became predictable for them, so they simply opened their ranks and allowed the Republican front line to march right on through and then jump over the cliff that always seems to be at the Democratic Party's feet.

Hopefully the Democrats will learn from this. They were smart enough not to defend themselves against the more ridiculous attacks by claiming that they do not in fact chuckle over their lattes whenever a U.S. soldier is killed by a terrorist. They did respond however, as they must no matter how baseless the charge - a lesson they should hold dear after the Great Swiftboating of 2004, but they were most effective when simply pointing out how insane the Republican political messages had become. With their latest national campaign ad, the Republican Party has become the largest distributor of Al Qaeda video propaganda in the United States hoping to accomplish with it what the terrorists do: scare the shit out of as many people as possible with the goal of inhibiting rational thought and bending them to their will. But just like Americans stood up fearless against the terrorists after 9-11, yesterday we stood up fearless against the Republican Party's fear campaign and said, "Fuck you, I am not afraid."

Sun Tzu taught that you should never allow your enemy safe ground, hit him where he is most unprepared and appear where you are least expected. Thanks to Howard Dean and his insistence on a fifty-state strategy, we not only know this to be effective politics, but we also know that there are millions of voters everywhere who are begging for an alternative to this garbage and who would cast their vote accordingly if only someone would politely ask for it.

If you like this graphic please spread it around, take it and do with it what you wish.

Below is the Bill of Rights provided with hyperlinks to specific instances in which the Bush administration violated their oath of office for each of the rights described. Please post any that you would add.

The Bill of Rights

After the Congressional Republican version of the Enabling Act last week, our nation is on a downward spiral the likes of which none of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. But cheer up for a bit, and enjoy the following conversation between a Republican and an overly sarcastic liberal.

Response:

Dear National Review,

I am concerned for the perceived relevance of NRO regarding your news organization's retention of the services of Jonah Goldberg. His latest article, Wal-Mart Drives Democrats Batty, is proof of Mr. Goldberg's lack of vigilance in participating in the Republican Party's most current political machinations. Supporting such incompetent leaders requires constant adaptation, and "Bush-haters" is so 2003.

This particular political manipulation certainly had its value. If you can effectively characterize critics of the Bush administration as simply having a mental illness, you can discredit everything they say without offering a rational counter argument. After all, why argue with them? They're crazy!

Nonetheless, this talking point has come and gone, despite Mr. Goldberg's best efforts to assist President Bush, who, if poll numbers are any indication, is apparently a rather lonely sane man living in a nation populated by a majority of crazy people. But Goldberg has also decided to lend this particular method of manipulation to his hero of the poor, Wal-Mart.

Mr. Goldberg is certainly an intelligent man; I doubt NRO would publish his work otherwise. But perhaps a consideration of Wal-Mart beyond a brief perusal of the corporation's own website would assist Mr. Goldberg in understanding why an increasing number of Americans are falling under the influence of "Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome."

If I were under such influence, and hence unable to form rational thought, I might actually wonder how Wal-Mart is able to sell products for such cheap prices. Just in case Mr. Goldberg reads this, I will make the case brief in order not to offend his short attention span (due of course to his highly intelligent and active mind):

Wal-Mart is a colossus of American retail who can use its influence to force producers to sell their products to Wal-Mart at cheaper and cheaper prices. In any business, the highest operating costs are payroll. Therefore Wal-Mart is taking part, albeit indirectly, in the falling American working-class wage. And since Wal-Mart can address nearly all purchasing needs of a community at cheaper prices, local businesses are doomed to fail when Wal-Mart comes to town. When local businesses fold, the profits for doing business no longer stay in the community, but are shipped to Bentonville, Arkansas. As a result, the economies of local communities are depressed as Wal-Mart works to realize its utopia - a nation of small communities in which everyone works at Wal-Mart, earns the small Wal-Mart wage, and can therefore only afford to shop at Wal-Mart.

Mr. Goldberg's unimaginative mind, perhaps stricken with Jonah Goldberg's disease, seems incapable of a train of thought longer than 5 seconds, which can only produce such simple conclusions as: Wal-Mart is cheap, therefore Wal-Mart is good for the poor.

I encourage NRO to more adequately review Mr. Goldberg's work before embarrassing yourselves further.

Yours,


Ian Watson
www.republicandictionary.com

Condi Rice's infamous words on July 21, 2006:



What a strange way to describe such extreme human suffering and violence. Then again, it turns out our Secretary of State isn't the only one to use "birth pangs" in such an interesting way. "Birth pangs" is a common term among End Timers to describe the turmoil that precedes the tribulation and rapture supposedly foretold by biblical prophecy:


From Pastor Ron Graff at Bible-prophecy.com:



From Tribulation Forces, Signs of the times and Bible prophecy:



From Rapture Ready:



And from the Rapture Ready Forums:



From a piece called Eschatology, Different Rapture Views by Greg Rugh:



And finally from Max Blumenthal's piece in The Nation, Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism, but he doesn't mention Rice's statement:



And hits from Google just keep on comin'.

So, now the Bush administration has taken politically coded language to a new low by throwing a big, greasy bone out to the lunatics who are soiling their underwear at the prospect that we are witnessing the end of the world.