Needed: the single best anti-Bush and/or pro-Kerry article

[justinfielding]

I'm a comedian/moviemaker in Boston.

While in the midst of making a tribute song to local baseball hero Curt Schilling, I heard his horrifying endorsement of Bush.

Soon, I'll be posting the song on www.schillin.com and www.committeeofclosers.com.

Right now, you can check out a preview at www.bushfocusgroup.com/closers, which is on the site reserved for our hastily-made but caustic short movie, Bush Focus Group.

As you can see, on the page with the song, I'm pointing to a page promoting Bill Press's Bush Must Go book. Is there a better single document I can point to that sums up for the proverbial swing voter why friends don't let friends vote for Bush?

Thanks in advance for your help! And, Go Sox!

[AIJ Alom]

1. Too many things you can use. You need to do a cut and past job.

Here's a good source and something I like to shut up the Bush supporters.

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/video/index.html

[Jack from Charlotte]

18. Gen John Eisenhower's endorsement of Kerry is eloquent and simple

He not only endorse Kerry at age 82 he's changed his life long party affiliation from Republican to Independent.

John Eisenhower:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary


EDITORS NOTE: This commentary was originally published Sept. 9, 2004.

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.


As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[ciaobox]

2. Why not post the link to "Mosh" while your at it?

http://gnn.tv/content/eminem_mosh.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Here's a couple good ones

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage4.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28friedman.html?oref=login&hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Especially the latter

[justinfielding]

12. Thanks. I particularly liked the Observer piece...

However, I think the ideal piece will have one of those litanies that Bush complains about. Of course, if I had done so many terrible things, I'd be afraid of litanies, too.

I chose the Bill Press list as a respectable short-list, but I'm searching for something a little heftier than that, but shorter (of course) than Press's whole book, which I thought was pretty good.

[George_S]

22. One of the most powerful

Harper's the real reason or the war

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

4. give them the 10 commandments... eom

[Roland99]

5. See the link in my sig

:D

[bettyellen]

6. WITHOUT A DOUBT

Without a Doubt

October 17, 2004
By RON SUSKIND
NY TIMES MAGAZINE

AN EXERPT, BUT PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING... THERES A WHOLE LOT MORE AND IT'S VERY SCARY AND VERY EFFECTIVE IT LEAVES EM DUMBFOUNDED!




The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying
to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been
an extra
The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying
to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been
an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability,
opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.


The
Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top
deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill,
Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals
fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they
requested explanations for many of the president's
decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with
accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on
his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state,
and then he ''prayed over it.''ordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability,
opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.

The
Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top
deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill,
Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals
fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they
requested explanations for many of the president's
decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with
accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on
his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state,
and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro Bartlett, a
deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune
that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to
trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President
George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the
energetic ''base'' that may well usher Bush to victory --
believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in
the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the
discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time,
the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry
put it, that ''you can be certain and be wrong.''

What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in
the temporal realm of informed consent?

[hnsez]

7. another way to convince them R's are evil

get them to dress up their kids like this (tell thim its a scarecrow outfit):



They will quickly learn from the reactions they get, how ugly the Bush supporters are and will want to distance themselves.

[txindy]

11. Lost, aren't you?

Thought so.

:hi:

[justinfielding]

14. That *is* disturbing, for sure. n/t

[Bundbuster]

8. See my website - 1500 links, 1000 pics

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bushbusting_ammo/

[oscar111]

10. Short Zingers:30 top from all over:for speaking in debates r mulling over

This focuses on THE BEST, not overlong reading. Chosen for zappiness when spoken.
===================
{Got this email forward twice. I think it's good.. I added one of my points to it}
--------------------------
  1. Hit bush's strengths:
-war leader
-racism {not mentioned in polls, but his biggest strength}
---WAR LEADER
- On 9/11, Bush was told "we are under attack."   He just sat in fear for 7 minutes. { While second-graders read My Pet Goat out loud.}.
- Bush can't even protect us from the flu - how's he going to stop terrorists? { fails as a manager}.
- {Bush attacks Kerry->}Deserter attacks wounded vet.
- Kerry bled, Bush fled
- Bush will draft
---RACISM - {racists fear competition for jobs from ethnics, so more jobs = less racism. So say this ->}
- "Bush lost a million jobs: Clinton added 22 million".
==============
2. Next, our strong points -
- economy
- healthcare
ECONOMY
- Wages lower than when Reaganomics began {adjusted for inflation}
- Wages fell $1,500 under Bush
- Bush lost a million jobs: Clinton added 22 million.
- Bush gives tax breaks for outsourcing {jobs to India}
- YOUR job can be sent to India.
- Job shortage is 13 million
- Education won't help, because not enough jobs exist.
- Bush cut cops, firefighters, vets - to give the rich $ 300 Billion.
- Bush cut cops, so high crime
- Bush cancelled overtime
- Kerry will lower middle class tax, raise tax on the over-$200,000 crowd. Shifts it off us.
==============
Hit " 9/11 to blame for the economy"
- Most jobs lost BEFORE   9/11.
- Stocks recovered from 9/11, then taxcuts-for-the-rich crippled the economy.
- Bush threw the economy in a hole, and we haven't climbed out YET ! Clinton, it grew from day 1. ================
Hit "Reaganomics taxcuts will spark the economy" {The Reaganomics lie is their greatest strength. "WORK HARD" to end it.}. - Wages lower than when Reaganomics began. {1980}
- Wages fell $ 1,500 under Bush.
- Bush lost a million jobs
- Reaganomics cripples the economy
- Housewives must now work, because of Reaganomics. { 1980 ended most housewives}
- Bush cut cops, firefighters, vets - to give $300 Billion to the rich.
- Reaganomics cut asylums in half, now crime is everywhere.
- 1/3 bridges need repair, potholes are everywhere.
==============
WHY REAGANOMICS FAILED:
- GDP rise never trickles down to you - why would the rich ever want to give you free money? They spend $2 million on birthday parties. {Kozlowski}.
==================
Our way to spark the economy is to spark the PRODUCERS - the middle class:
- by cheaper doctors, cheaper college, end ripoffs by ending deregulation, by adding more jobs, by shifting taxes to the over-$200,000 crowd.
- sparking the middle class by making it healthy, educated, free of ripoffs, always employed, and shifting taxes off of it.
- 1952 was the year with a tax structure the most free of Reaganomics. It was a time of prosperity.
==============
HEALTHCARE - 20 nations outlive us: all have nationalized healthcare: all cheaper.
- The US has rationing. Ration cards are green. Green dollar bills.
- World Health Organization rated our health system quality at # 37.
- Our population's health is # 72. {yes, seventy second !} THE WORLD
HEALTH REPORT - 2000.
-We pay more/person than anyone on earth.
- Bush ignored August warnings on flushots, but England acted - got 7 sources.
- Bush wants to destroy Medicare and social security.
=======
GOOD WEBSITES:
http://www.democrats.org
http://www.airamericaradio.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com great forums
=======
Copy freely, no copywrite. "California" Mary arrdvark sorority 82 chi'go

For longer print style facts, from THE NATION, see DU Thread today. sorry i no have link.. try SEARCH function on Mr. ck.
  "100 Non-Arguable Facts about the Bush Administration"  ck4829  Oct-28-04 12:59 PM  #0 

[flowomo]

9. This week's Sports Illustrated (page 32)....

says former Red Sox greatflake, pitcher Bill Lee, once claimed to have smoked dope with George W. Bush. Might be able to work that in!

[Abelman]

13. Hit 'em with the facts

Here's some economic info:

George W. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to finish his term with a net job loss.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/todayseconomy/jobgrowth.cfm

George Bush has cut taxes. George Bush has cut taxes for the upper 2% while the overall tax burden of the middle class has increased.

Government has grown by one-third over the past four years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer

The Dow Jones is lower today than it was when George W. Bush took office in 2001.
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
True. It is on the way up, but companies can make money without making jobs.

If Flip-Flopping is really an issue with you, here are Bush's flip-flops to level the playing field.
http://50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html#1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml

November 2nd will be a long long day for me. No matter what happens, I have a long road ahead of me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm

I hate how I have to get so much news from the British. Maybe if our news would stop with it's infotainment, we'd get some real news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A447-2004Oct26.html
The newspapers that switched to support Kerry over Bush.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped124102404oct24,1,5854545.story
The Orlando Sentinel's view. Username: marsepic2 Password: 123456

Here are some articles about how the terrorists (al Qaeda) feel about Bush, and I think at least one of them mentions Kerry.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1068257.htm
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-4-2004_pg3_4
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html
"The statement said it supported US President George W Bush in his re-election campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you , who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom'.

In comments addressed to Mr Bush, the group said 'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation'.

'Because of this we desire you to be elected.' " - ABC News Online

I just thought these were interesting.
http://www.republicansforkerry.org/
http://www.republicansforkerry04.com/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/14/1065917415308.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
Soldier suicide's in Iraq, and mention of their "personal letters."
Civilians dead in Iraq.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm

Bush joking about not being able to find WMDs. Even though that's the reason we went into Iraq. The reason many of our soldiers died.
Bush and Economy
http://www.factcheck.org/article278.html

I wish I could find all the hairy details on the economy and the number of jobs currently available. I do know the unemployment rate is determined by the number of people who are eligable to recieve unemployment benefits from the Government. A lot of them have been out of work for too long.
Kerry and Social Security
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Social_Security.htm

I'll be honest, this isn't as big a concern for me. I think it's important to revere the elders of our society - and they deserve to be taken care of in some way. But I don't understand economics enough to make a good judgement, comparing Bush's privatization plan with Kerry's.
Here is something on Kerry's stance on Iraq --->http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html

I'm sick and tired of the protesting of the war being called negative. We are in a war right now. Right now. Even though the mission was accomplished. We are there, right now, because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who needed to be deposed. We were told at the advent of the invasion that we were going to war because Hussein and his regime posed a viable threat to our national security.

Here is Colin Powell telling the UN (and us, if we were watching) why we needed to attack --->http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
We were also led to believe that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Queda and 9/11.

"Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." - Colin Powell

"seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11." - Colin Powell http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16707-2004Sep12.html

Osama bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Saddam had nothing to do with it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14-debate-fact-check_x.htm Under the heading Osama Bin Laden

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - GWB, March 13, 2003, talking about the main man behind 9/11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Doesn't matter because "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell 24 February, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

But we went to war because of these weapons, as quoted above. Over 1000 US Soldiers are dead. Dead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

Kerry was willing to go to war because he was led to believe Saddam was a threat. He was willing to do this with full support of the United Nations. He does have a tendency to neglect the allies we did have, I will admit that. I read the site, and I don't see any sort of change in his opinion that we needed the UN's full aid to invade Iraq.

Even if he'd supported the war fully, it would have been on false information. What kind of a man doesn't admit that they were wrong? If Kerry had changed his mind, why would that be so bad, when faced with new evidence? But he has maintained what I contend to be a firm opinion on the war.

The problem I have is that people say Kerry supported war with Iraq. That's the end of their story. But he was misled by people he should have been able to trust. I don't know why. Our Soldiers are disciplined, trained amazingly well, and are one of the few groups of people I feel intense pride and dignity for. My father was in the Navy. My best friend was in the Army, and served in Iraq. I didn't know if I'd see him again.

These soldiers are in Iraq fighting for to keep peace in an area that posed no threat to our national security or the surrounding region. It sickens me to see such an elite group of individuals being used for a war that we didn't need to fight.

Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for the innocent people murdered by Osama bin Laden's asshole henchmen on 9/11. There's a long history here behind 9/11, I encourage people to find it out. But Osama bin Laden was the ringleader for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. But, after a while of trying to find him.

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - GWB, March 13, 2003, talking about the main man behind 9/11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - GWB, March 13, 2003, talking about the main man behind 9/11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - GWB, March 13, 2003, talking about the main man behind 9/11. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

I hate mudslinging, and I don't think the profanity will win any points, but that fucking disgusts me.
http://www.pickyourpresident.com/

Is it true that kerry voted with Clinton to reduce funding to the CIA and FBI? If he did that couldn't have helped prevent 911?
The best way to answer this question: The most I've heard of this is in that silly "wolves" ad that they're running right now.
http://www.factcheck.org/article291.html
There were many ways to prevent 9/11. One way would have been for Bush to listen to the people telling him that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous threat to America. One way would have been if Clinton had take the time to get him before he'd left office. Another way would have been to not piss of the region in the first place
There have been many Republicans (including Cheney) who haven't supported funding for military and intelligence at various times.
I reccomend "Going Upriver", a dvd documentary if you want a clear picture of John Kerry. As for Kerry, he supported going to war with Iraq if the UN would go with us. He did it based on information supplied by the administration that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction, and posed a clear threat to the United States. Both of these have been proven false. http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html
What he did vote for was money to fund the war under the provision that we had a strong multinational coalition, with many other countries. We did indeed enter with a few Allies, and I will say that Iraq is better off without Saddam. But things there are extremely hairy right now.
Should we elect someone who has already insulted the Iraqi prime minister by saying that he lied about Iraq being a better place and progress being made?
Well, judging from the the news, Iraq doesn't seem much better. People are still dying. We've lost a ton of soldiers. It is true that we are making progress, but it is slow and sloggy, as if we're stuck in a quagmire. Oh wait...
But that's mean. The current Prime Minister was given his job by us. So long as we still have our military there, we're still really in control.
What two men have missed the most senate votes?
Well, Cheney's record is here -->http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940 He's not a Senator, but I think the president of the Senate should be there. But, that's borderline mudslinging.
I don't know if it's Kerry or Edwards. Kerry is pretty bad with his intelligence committee meetings http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html. I'll keep trying to find that information from as unbiased a source I can.But (mudsling) Bush has been on vacation more than any other president before him.
It's very hard to find info about it, so I'm fairly sure neither Kerry nor Edwards have stellar attendance records. Here's a few points, take or leave them:
-Many Senate Votes are pretty well figured out before actual voting begins. Why bother to show up if you already know the outcome?
-Have you ever watched C-Span? Yeah, TONS of legislators are in that room, all right. (please read sarcasticallY) That doesnt' make it okay, but it's definitely something.
-Kerry has voted on about fifty laws, measures, and bills. That's not so bad.
What troubles me is that no Representatives or Senators have much accountability when it comes to attendance. Frankly, I think we need to hold all of them to a higher standard of leadership.
Could you tell me what he got his three purple hearts for?
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html
I realize you may not be apt to believe these as they are on John Kerry's website, but he released them way back in April.
He does cite his record in Vietnam quite a bit, but he had a very good one.
I did my best, but I know that these aren't answered very well.
Also, most the links I include are to fact Check.org, the site Cheney almost used in his VP debate. He called it fact check.com, but he meant .org, because .com sent people to a pro-Kerry site. They are a moderate folk, interested only in the truth. I don't think GWB is a good president. I don't think he's a good leader. I think John Kerry will do a much better job as a leader. He won't be a great president, but not too many really are.I just hope you both take the time to figure out what the truth is about each candidate. I don't listen to much of the tripe spouted by the DNC or the RNC. I don't like to listen to the mudslinging. I try to look at facts that affect people. We may not be able to change each other's minds, but I hope to convince you what's true.
I also appreciate the level of civility in the discussion.
I'd also like to say that my impression of each candidate is different. I see Bush attacking more and trying to scare the American people. I see Kerry as trying to inspire a sense of hope. I'd rather vote for the positive message.
Bush like Hitler - http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I also have a site directly comparing Bush to Hitler, but it's got some stupid photoshopping. I do think that the current administration lacks the leadership capability to be able to deal with any sort of disagreement. I would welcome attacks as ways to keep me accountible.

[justinfielding]

15. Wow!

Thanks for an extraordinary group of links. I'm working my way through them.

[justinfielding]

16. Still searching for that "silver bullet"

I appreciate the numerous suggestions so far, but I'm still searching for the best single document.

I think in these home-stretch days, many of us could benefit from finding a single document that sums up why you'd be a fool to vote for anyone but Kerry next Tuesday.

And Sox fans, please share www.schillin.com with your friends.

And Bush haters, do check out www.bushfocusgroup.com

[tomfodw]

17. John Kerry - Superhero (by the Rude Pundit)

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-kerry-superhero-in-vicious-end-of_27.html

John Kerry - Superhero:

In the vicious end of days in this campaign, so much gets lost in the caterwauling of the media. Here's something that's happened in the last couple of days: John Kerry has found the last piece of the puzzle, the final cause to push to the end of the battle. If you've listened to Kerry since the dual revelations of the missing 760,000 pounds of high-powered explosives from a known ammo dump and the coming request for an additional $70 billion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan, Kerry has become the man we've all heard about - the unstoppable crusader for what's right against however powerful the forces of evil may be. Kerry has been tough-guy posturing for most of the campaign, and it's been a ludicrous sight. How many animals must be hunted and killed in order for a Democrat to look strong on defense? As Bradford Whitford said on Bill Maher's show last week, "How many times does a guy have to be shot in the ass running across rice paddies in Vietnam in order to look tougher than the cheerleader from Andover?"

Here's the deal - what's been missing from the entire Kerry campaign is just how tough a motherfucker John Kerry really, actually is, and it's got jackshit to do with hunting geese and killing the Vietcong. Kerry is a superhero, the kind of valiant son of a bitch who doesn't give a rat's ass about his own life in order to make the lives of others better. It's his post-Vietnam life that makes him a superhero. You don't know how much a superhero the man in the cape is by his origins. You know a superhero by his deeds. And if Kerry loses, it'll be because his campaign refused to acknowledge just how kick-ass Kerry has been since his final purple heart (and if Kerry loses, adviser Bob Shrum, who, in essence, said the public was too stupid to understand Kerry's accomplishments, should be strung up by his balls and batted around like a pinata by the Democratic party leadership until he bursts open and showers everyone with his innards).

:::snip:::

Listen closely and tell anyone you know who is still thinking about voting for Bush: has Bush ever, personally, faced down anyone other than with a chant of "Drink, drink, drink"? Has he ever gone against someone who was really, truly powerful in order to place the good of the people above his own good? No. Heroes do that - they don't care what's in their way - they will face down evil, no matter how powerful. And they don't bother with those who are too weak to fight. It's why the latest news from Iraq fanned the fire: those in charge have screwed us over again, and Kerry's ready to bring the superhero costume out. Call him "the Winter Soldier."

Kerry's done a fuck of a lot more than pull a guy out of a river. And the fact that America doesn't know that says a great deal about how we negotiate our desolate political landscape.

[justinfielding]

19. The evil GOP elephant in the room

An odd phrase in recent years has been "the elephant in the room," i.e., the outrageous fact in front peoples' eyes that they somehow ignore.

I agree with your assessment, but Bush supporters and so-called swing voters who secretly love the virulent intolerance that courses through the veins of today's GOP won't hear it. My only solace is that a majority of voters last time voted for Al Gore, and that's before most people really understood what these guys were all about.

The countervailing fact, of course, is that the wounds of 9/11 are easily exploited by the jinoistic chickenhawks that run every branch of government these days.

I can only hope that Kerry pulls through like my beloved Red Sox did....

[KelleyKramer]

20. The George Bush resume ..

I wrote it over a year ago but its still a good example of the Idiots record.

Check it out here...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

[justinfielding]

21. Nice piece of work, thanks! n/t