Nanny Says Pelosi Admitted Killing and Threatened Her

Wow! Right?

Yeah, wrong Pelosi. This is the story of Daniel Pelosi, on trial for murder in Riverhead, Long Island.

Didn't realize that when I saw the healine in the New York Times, which is the same as the title of this post.

Nearly jumped out of my skin in shock and awe.

Giuliani in 2008

After reading my post below, a few people mentioned that they don’t think Giuliani could run for President because he is too moderate, read pro-choice. The religious right would never go for it and they are the reason George got to stay in office.

Overall, I think my readers are right but I offer two counter points because, well, I have a problem admitting I’m wrong.

First is a column by E. J. Dionne, Moderates, Not Moralists. I like E. J., he's a pretty smart guy (that's why he has a column and I have a blog), so you should take a look.

He argues that it was the moderates that won Bush the election. If Bush can sway moderate voters, just think of the damage Giuliani could do. He was a two-term Republican mayor of New York City. He might not need the religious right to win the election.

Second, Bush really, really, really, needed every constituency he had to come out and vote for him. Sadly, the little bastards did.

If Bush manages not to do anything worse than he already has, if things get even marginally better, a new Republican candidate could have a pretty good chance of winning in 2008.

If Bush manages not to screw the pooch this time out, I think a moderate candidate like Giuliani, who has an incredible national profile and could grab a lot of those moderate swingers, wouldn’t need the religious right as much.

I’m not saying a Giuliani run is going to happen, just that I can conceive of a situation where it is possible.

Ding-Dong the witch is dead

1 down, a bunch more to go.

My joy at Ashcroft’s leaving is severely curtailed by two outstanding issues.

1. Just think of how nice it would have been to watch them all go.

2. Who the hell is Bush going to replace him with?

Working off of issue number 2, I've had one friend say, "dunno, but he was so fucking bad, it may not matter."

Now, considering this is a man who lost an election to a dead guy, she might be right; but come on, this is the Bush administration we're talking about.

So who is going to be the next AG? I wouldn't mind Giuliani. Ok, let me rephrase that. In all my nightmare scenarios Giuliani is the least horrifying. At least he's pro-choice.

In truth though, I don't think it’s going to be him. Homeland Security seems like a much better fit. Not that he has any real background to qualify him for the post, but neither does Tom Ridge. (Except that he was Governor of Pennsylvania, and he did as good a job in bring in Pennsylvannia for Bush as he has done as the head of Homeland Security.)

No, Homeland Security is just a better fit for the whole "Hero of September 11th" story line, which I feel the Republican king makers can't wait to use in a 2008 Presidential run.

Hey, at this point, if all Giuliani did was change the name of the Homeland Security Department, I'd vote for him in 2008. Just hearing that name makes me think of people goose-stepping through the Rose Garden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37503-2004Nov9.html?sub=AR

Pretty pathetic

From the NY Times article, 'President Feels Emboldened, Not Accidental, After Victory.'

"Mr. Bush is reveling in winning the popular vote..."

Talk about C-Plus Augustus. What is considered by most people to be a basic necessity for winning the Presidency is a reason to celebrate for this guy. And he only won by 3% percent!

"Hey, ma I passed my social studies test!"

"That's great honey, what did you get?"

"A D! That's a whole three points above an F."

"Oh well, the world needs it's ditch diggers."

Can we move on to Bush continuing his downward spiral? I'm tired of all his peacocks parading.

Falluja, a continuation of major combat operations

Just one of the many articles out there about Falluja. I only post it here as a reminder so that we don't forget about Iraq and our troops and that our being there is this President's responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/international/08CND_IRAQ.htm

Why is it that I don't see an end to major combat operations happening for quite sometime?

Onward Christian Soldiers...

Interesting story in The Washington Post on how the Christian right mobilized to GOTV for Bush Cheney.

They are definitely looking for a lot of credit for GWB's win last week. Like I said here , lets give them their due.

The article says:

The rallying cry for many social conservatives was opposition to same-sex marriage. But concern about the Supreme Court, abortion, school prayer and pornography also motivated these "values voters." Same-sex marriage, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was "the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."

OK, can you holier than thou motherf*ckers stop using same sex marriage as a scare tactic. I mean Jesus, this is a non-issue, how does someone else's marriage affect yours? (Note: when I said Jesus just before, I was not talking directly to him. I was committing blasphemy to make a point.)

Look, if you think God is against gay people marrying, wouldn't your specific god be against any marriage done outside your church? Shouldn't ya stop all those too?

I know it's been said before, but if you want to defend marriage, go make divorce illegal. Let's see how many people across the country back that one. Let's see what happens when you are not demonizing and taking away the rights of a minority.

Bunch of cowards. WWJD my ass.

Update:
Looks like these religious zealots have called for a sacrifice, Arlen Specter. Checkout Josh, over at TalkingPointsMemo, and Atrios.

Commentary on Harry Reid for Senate Minority Leader

Daniel Kreiss, over at Exegesis has a great post looking at Harry Reid's record. If you want to know a little about Reid, I suggest you go take a look:

http://dkreiss.blogspot.com/2004/11/take-good-look-at-harry-reid.html

Dan is pretty pissed about Reid’s awful voting record (you should really take a look - Dan's right). Below I’ve re-posted the comment I left on Dan’s site.

---------------- Re-posted ----------------
For a moment disregard all his past votes; hell, forget the man all together.

From a strategic point of view, why would you choose a Senator from a heavily Republican state? Do we want to be the first and second party to lose a Senate leader in the last 50 years!

In 1998, Daschle won by 62%. In 2004, Reid only won by 61%. Sure Nevada's a little more Democartic than South Dakota, but it ain't safe.

How is he going to lead a fight, let alone run the filibuster necessary when Bush puts up a fundamentalist, born-again for the Supreme Court? How can he be a strong leader when he has to constantly worry about being taken out in 2010? Even a Senator with six years is always running for reelection.

We need a fucking firebrand. Someone with the courage to point out the emperor has no clothes. Someone who will raise the roof, who will call the President a liar and shove the Republican’s hypocrisy back in their faces. And a Senator who will win, not lose, votes for acting this way.

A lot of people talk about Daschle not being a wartime consigliore. I don’t think Reid is in a position to be one either.

A little more on Language

Ok, the more I think about it, the more I like this Ralph Reed Republican thing.

It's a little subversive. It's not an outright insult. Someone tagged with it either has to own it or reject it. They would have to deny a part of what their party stands for or accept everything that Ralph Reed does. Tag it onto the right Republicans and maybe you can force a little crack in party loyalty.

Anyone got any other ideas?
Suggestions on Republicans who would not appreciate this title or other titles welcome.

Ralph Reed Republicans

Thinking a little more on language (see two posts down) and after reading a post by Tom Schaller over on Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/5/163731/178, I move that we start calling all Republicans, "Ralph Reed Republicans."

Reed, you see, wanted to not merely deliver the social conservatives' "values" votes this year, but to ensure that their pivotal role be made noted and respected -- broadcast and trumpeted, loudly and quite publicly. They didn't want to just win; they want credit and plaudits for scoring the decisive touchdown.

Awesome. The fact that this election - the first post-9/11 election, with a war in Iraq abroad and a changing economic situation at home - will be remembered by the we-need-it-simplified media as the "values" election, is Reed's great gift to us.

Why? Because I suspect that right now that the Wall Street wing, and the small business wing, and the defense industry wing, and the tax reform wings of the party are shuddering at the thought that Americans are being told that Bush got to 51 percent based on "values" voting. Would not the better "take-away" storyline from this election be that Bush won because the nation believes in Republicans' fiscal and defense policies, their steadfastness and leadership abilities? I'm meeting a lot Republicans (both conservatives and moderates) who do not want this election to be framed as the Ralph Reed Rout.

Tom makes a pretty good point; there are probably a group of Republicans who don't want to be associated with this guy or what he symbolizes.

I sure don’t want to be called a “Strom Thurmond Democrat.” Hell, for that matter, I wouldn't want to be known as a “Zell Miller Democrat." Oh wait, that’s pretty much the same thing.

Let’s confront these Republicans who don’t agree with their party’s aggressive turn toward religious fundamentalism by forcing them into being associated with it.

They are reaping the benefits, they are riding the movements coattails while the rest of the country slides back into a repressive, close-minded mindset. Time to own up or shut up.

The Republicans made their bed, now let’s make them sleep in it, and with all the skanky whores they brought with them.

And as a bonus, while it might upset some Republicans (great!), it will probably work much better illuminating to undecideds exactly what/who the Republican Party represents.

So there you have it, they are all, now and forever, Ralph Reed Republicans.

Blue State/Red State a correct visualization

Working off the post below, here is the proper way to visualize the country (and a map I have been looking for ever since this Blue/Red crap started to annoy me after the 2000 election). From http://www.boingboing.net.



http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html

Blue state / Red state misleading oversimplification

Ok, we need to stop all this Blue state/Red state crap. It’s divisive but even worse it is a dangerous lie that we are telling ourselves and a misrepresentation of reality.

Language has pervasive effects. It not only affects those listening to you but over time it affects the way you think as well. Pat phrases like Blue state/Red state are manipulative, oversimplifications that crowd out truth and true understanding. The more you rely on them in your own thinking and daily discourse, the less you think about truth and the further away you are from any real understanding of a situation. The devil is in the details and ignoring the details or forgetting them will only lead to difficultly and defeat.

This is why labeling is such an effective propaganda tool. “Partial Birth Abortion,” “Taxachusetts,” “Flip-flopper,” and 100’s of other phrases reduce discourse to simple, easily digested, misleading sound bites.

The sad part is, it’s not the Republicans pushing this sound bite, it’s ourselves. It started with the media’s Blue/Red electoral map (which is a correct representation) and we latched onto it and started using it to describe the state of play as if it were that black and white (no pun intended).

Blue state/Red state talk frames the argument as if there are two peoples and two different countries with defined borders. It allows Democrats to waste time and energy (and credibility) talking about “Blue States seceding.” Yes, I understand these people are not serious, but it’s fucking mental masturbation. Fine right after the election, but keep doing it and you’ll go blind.

Blue state/Red state talk allows us to discredit Democrats across the country; 2,659,664 in Ohio (49%), 944,052 in Colorado (47%), 3,534,609 in Florida (47%), 464,157 in Arkansas (45%), 732,764 in Iowa (49%)…should I go on? I could, it feels good. To be honest, it’s goddamn empowering.

(Note: If you are looking for a real good representational map by state, check this: http://eparch.blogspot.com/2004/11/blue-statered-state-correct.html.)

Blue state/Red state is the language of defeatism. It is not East and West Coasts vs. the Midwest and the South; it has nothing to do with location! We are talking ideals, beliefs, and values. There are millions upon millions of people who share our values living in states we just toss away when we label them “Red.”

If we want to win future Presidential elections and take back the House and Senate, it is the Democrats living in the so-called “Red States” that will win it for us. They are the people we need to support, the people who will go out and work important campaigns, the people who need to be empowered to vote, the people who will argue against the Republicans who dominate the discourse in their area, and the people who will tell the party how to win back their neighbors.

Why do we choose to put on mental blinders that stop us from seeing our true potential?

How does this make our party stronger?

With a mandate like that and two bucks, you can ride the subway.

Bush won the presidency by getting 3% more of the popular vote than John Kerry. This is a whole 3.5% better than he did in 2000, when he registered on the boards with a wopping .5% less of the popular vote than Al Gore. Bush's stellar performance in 2000 only beats Rutherford B. Hayes, who wins the prize of “Worst Mandate EVER” by scoring 3% less of the vote than his opponent, Samuel J. Tilden.

So Bush's 3% is suppose to issue him a mandate?

Really?

3% percent?

Come on, you’re shitting me, right?

If you’re like me, you’re thinking 3% doesn’t seem that much. Maybe we don’t know what we're talking about. That’s possible, it’s been the case before. Perhaps drinking vodka tonics out of pint glasses and chasing them with Tequila shooters has addled our collective brains. Or just mine.

Let’s take a look at some history, shall we?

At the bottom of this post you’ll find a list of winners from two-way Presidential races and the percent by which they won the popular vote. (Note: there are a couple of three-ways mixed in, ‘cause, well, everyone loves a three-way and (to a lesser extent) the third party candidate didn’t get much more than a percentage point of the overall vote.)

So, scroll down and take a look. Back? Great, lets continue.

Wow, look at Mr. Harding, he's the big fucking dog with 26%, and Mr. Grant, no slouch himself, kicked some confederate ass and then pulled 25% more of the vote than poor Horatio Seymour. Lots of Presidents with double digits, yes? You’re going to have to look pretty far down on the list to get to the single digit winners. Look, right there, number 13 to be exact, good old FDR with 9.95% percent. (Now he really was a fucking “war time president.” No flight suit for him. No walking either for that matter).

Had another look? Good. Now can someone please tell me how GWB2004, at number 15 out 20, has a goddamn MANDATE! Really, I’m dying to know.

Do we all agree that his -.5% in 2000 is nowhere near a mandate? Yes? Come on, even you Republicans in the back can easily see that. So, if -.5% is pretty much the opposite of a mandate, doing 3.5% better can't possibly be a mandate. Actually, it is a pretty thin fuckin’ margin. If you ask me, Bush should be blowing Carl Rove in gratitude that he is president at all.

So can we drop the W’s got a mandate shit? Because its been three days and I’m already tired of it.

(note: just like Bush needs to be reminded over and over he doesn't have a mandate, we need to remember not to discount all the blue hidden in the red sections of the electoral map! http://eparch.blogspot.com/2004/11/blue-state-red-state-misleading.html)

Past Presidential winners and the percent difference by which they won the popular vote.

Warren G. Harding	26.22%	1920
Ulysses S. Grant	25.46%	1868
Franklin D. Roosevelt	24.26%	1936
Richard M. Nixon	23.16%	1972
Lyndon B. Johnson	22.58%	1964
Ronald Reagan	18.21%	1984
Herbert C. Hoover	17.46%	1928
Franklin D. Roosevelt	17.28%	1932
Dwight D. Eisenhower	15.43%	1956
Ulysses S. Grant	11.80%	1872
Dwight D. Eisenhower	10.75%	1952
Abraham Lincoln	10.06%	1864
Franklin D. Roosevelt	9.95%	1940
George H. W. Bush	7.72%	1988
Franklin D. Roosevelt	7.50%	1944
George W. Bush	3.00%	2004
James E. Carter Jr.	2.06%	1976
John F. Kennedy	0.17%	1960
George W. Bush	-0.51%	2000
Rutherford B. Hayes	-3.01%	1876

(Election data from http://www.ohiokids.org/oe/bbb/21.html)

A good day to start?

Hell, blogging may not save the world, but it will give me something else to think about instead of the nightmare that will be four more years of Bush.

So what are you going to find here? I don't know but stick around, I'll figure something out.