Sunday, September 30, 2007

Mel Martinez Lied in the Orlando Sentinel Today

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

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

Saturday, September 29, 2007

So Bush Put the "Smack Down" on Rush?


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

This was his attack on MoveOn: (from CBSNews)

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

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

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

OUCH!! Take THAT, Bitches!!

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

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

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

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

The gloves are OFF my friends!

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 28, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why Did Harry Reid Allow Vote Condemning MoveOn??

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

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


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

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

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

From same article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell was Harry Reid thinking?

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

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

Am I missing something here?

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

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

GOP Once Again Fails the Troops: Spineless Dems Silent

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

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

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

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


But that ain't what's happening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet none did.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Support Bi-Partisan Amendment Req. Troop REST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, September 15, 2007

John Stossel Smears Victims Featured in SiCKO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie Pierce
Mission, Kansas

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

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

Friday, September 14, 2007

REAL Reason GOP Is Attacking MOVEON

The reason is simple.

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

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

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

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

Undercut, and Pushed out.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Democrats decided to capitulate to their GOP masters.

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

Well Done.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP played this for maximum distraction:

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

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

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

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

How F----- lame!!

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

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

or maybe:

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

or how about:

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

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

or even:

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

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

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

Who's going to stand up to them?

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Why Florida Dems Should Switch to Republican

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution is simple: GO to your election supervisors and switch your party registration for the upcoming GOP primary!

Vote for the GOP candidate you can at least stand, OR, vote for the GOP candidate you think will MOST LIKELY BE DEFEATED by the Dem candidate. At least you’ll be making a difference. (And spare me lectures on this not being ethical--our system is unethical, and it is VERY unethical to take our votes away. My conscience is clear.)

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

AFTER the primary, switch back to being a Democrat. This is not only legal, according to state elections supervisors, this is a movement that they are currently experiencing. You can switch as much as you want.

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

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

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

Friday, September 07, 2007

Why Katie Couric Should Just Shut Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the video yourself here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOMEONE has to look out for the troops...

Monday, September 03, 2007

Let's Knock Feeney Out This Time

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

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

The weather was predictable.

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

America was enjoying the longest period of prosperity in history.

America was safe and secure.

And we were respected in the world.

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

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

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

WE are proud.

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

Simple---paint Curtis as a lunatic.

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

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

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

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

I can't make this stuff up, folks.

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

Visit to take back FL-24.