Boo Hoo Hoo.

Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
by John Eisenhower

September 30th, 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.

Ashcroft 'to defend' Patriot Act

US Attorney General John Ashcroft says the Justice Department is likely to appeal against a court ruling attacking the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. A US district court ruled on Wednesday that surveillance provisions in the act violated individual rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703676.stm

Pentagon Iraq strategy 'failing'

A key element of the current US strategy in Iraq, the training of Iraqi forces, is still proceeding too slowly, a new report by a US think-tank says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3702676.stm

Moore turns up heat in Hill Auditorium


by Sarah Peterson / Michigan Daily

"Calm down, Republicans," said Michael Moore, setting the tenor for sold-out Hill Auditorium. "They're a little ornery. They only have a few weeks left."

The activist and filmmaker announced that while he respects Republicans, "Bush has got to go" and the only way for the American people to accomplish this is to go out and vote.

The goal of the night was to reach out to college-aged students, one of the largest underrepresented groups at the polls. Moore gave out prizes to people who registered to vote while at the speech, but the majority of the night was an anti-Bush rally.

Moore talked about the catchphrases of the Bush campaign: "Top liberal, flip-flop, you're going to die," chanted Moore. Moore compared the "mantra" to a bad song that gets stuck in your head. He continued on to say that those mantras do get stuck in your head, saying all challenger John Kerry has is "I'm not Bush." Moore then laughed, "This is good enough for me."

The Michigan Student Assembly, who paid for the event using student funds, made a $200 profit and sold out all 3,500 seats in Hill Auditorium, according to Jesse Levine, MSA student general counsel.

Another issue Moore discussed was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that criticize Kerry's Vietnam war record. He commented on how the advertisements complained that Kerry did not bleed, to which, after an impregnated pause, the auditorium erupted into laughter. Moore then offered five ads as a "gift" to the Bush campaign. The ads sported such catch lines as "one limb left equals cowardice," in reference to Max Cleland -- a disabled Vietnam veteran in the U.S. Senate -- and "if Kerry really loved his country, he would have died in Vietnam … vote Bush."

Going back to the issue of mantras, Michael Moore proposed some possible phrases for Kerry to pull out during the debate tonight. Some of the highlights were "Where's Osama," "Two quagmires down, one to go" and "George W. Bush, the ATM machine for the rich."

Moore also made sure to address the issue of Kerry's "flip-flopping." He did not, at first, comment on whether Kerry has flip-flopped on the issues, but instead pointed out the many changes in opinion of Bush's administration on Saddam Hussein. He laughed as he went through his version of United States history with Saddam: first supplying him, then disliking him, then deciding to let him be. Clinton was told to go after him, but refused, and then Bush went to war.

Finally, addressing Kerry's choices over the past years directly, Moore proclaimed that Kerry should answer that he was simply supporting the President. Moore suggests Kerry answer the attacks with, "I believed in you. I supported you, and you let us down."

The atmosphere at Hill took on a more somber tone when Moore started reading some of the e-mails he has received from soldiers in Iraq. He explained how he has received more than 3,000 e-mails from soldiers, and then asked, "When have we heard from soldiers who are dissatisfied with the war?"

Following the soldiers' letters, Moore showed clips from "Fahrenheit 9-11," that put a human face on the Iraqi people. Some clips showed men and women shopping in markets. Other clips showed children playing together at home and in the park, flying kites and enjoying rides at a carnival. Between the letters and the movie clips, Moore humanized the war in Iraq. Those scenes have been criticized, notably by Sen. John McCain (R--Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention, for portraying Iraq under the harsh rule of Saddam as a peaceful place.

"We are hated, we are despised, we are less safe," Moore said, inciting cheers and applause from the audience. "George W. Bush has made us less safe in this world." Moore made it clear that the war on terror, or in his words, "the war on a noun," is not making the world a safer place, but serving as a training ground for more terrorists. "You do not liberate a people with the barrel of a gun," Moore said.

Moore wrapped up the evening with a question and answer session. One of the highlights came when someone asked him what he thought of Ralph Nader. Moore calmly replied that he likes Ralph and thinks he is a good guy, but that people did not want him to run in this election.

For the last question, Moore asked to hear from a Republican. The man who responded asked what disenfranchised Republicans should do when they do not and cannot support Kerry.

After a conversation, the man agreed that he had liberal views on many issues, leading Moore to bring the problem down to the issue of money; "When you have a country where everyone feels included and is included, and has a fair and equal shot at things, you have a better, more productive country that will make more money for people like you."

It's not about stifling Conservative opinions. It is the percentage of time that the conservative opinions are aired on the channel. I would say the split is over 75% conservative to 25% liberal.

Even some who say Fox News gives them a fair shot at expressing their liberal opinions question the network's objectivity. A lion of the Democrats' liberal wing, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, was on the Hannity & Colmes show Tuesday. Afterward, he made no effort to hide his feelings. "I go on Fox because a lot of Democrats won't," Rangel said. "Listen to me, Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party. Do they give me a fair shot when I'm on? Yes, because they need me. I'm red meat for their listeners."

Here's Bill O' Reilly's spin on it..
"If Fox News is a conservative channel -- and I'm going to use the word 'if' -- so what? You've got 50 other media that are blatantly left. Now, I don't think Fox is a conservative channel. I think it's a traditional channel.

Probably you do not watch the "O'Reilly Factor" or the "Hannity & Colmes" and whatever they show on primetime.

Maybe a book written by one of your own will convince you (Only if you open your eyes.)

The Republican Noise machine

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=8-1400048753-0&partner_id=28466

Synopsis:
In The Republican Noise Machine, David Brock skillfully documents perhaps the most important but least understood political development of the last thirty years: how the Republican Right has won political power and hijacked public discourse in the United States.

Brock, a former right-wing insider and the author of the New York Times bestseller Blinded by the Right, uses his keen understanding of the strategies, tactics, financing, and personalities of the American right wing to demonstrate how the once-fringe phenomenon of right-wing media has all but subsumed the regular media conversation, shaped the national consciousness, and turned American politics sharply to the right.

Brock documents how in the last several decades the GOP built a powerful media machine--newspapers and magazines, think tanks, talk radio networks, op-ed columnists, the FOX News Channel, Christian Right broadcasting, book publishers, and high-traffic internet sites--to sell conservatism to the public and discredit its opponents. This unabashedly biased multibillion-dollar communications empire disregards journalistic ethics and universal standards of fairness and accuracy, manufacturing "news" that is often bought and paid for by a tight network of corporate-backed foundations and old family fortunes. By dissecting the appeal, techniques, and reach of the booming right-wing media market, Brock demonstrates that it is largely based on bigotry, ignorance, and emotional manipulation closely tied to America's longstanding cultural divisions and the buying power of anti-intellectual traditionalists.

From the disputed 2000 presidential election to the war with Iraq to the political battles of 2004, Brock's penetrating analysis of right-wing media theories and methodology reveals that the Republican Right views the media as an extension of a broader struggle for political power. By tracing the political impact of right-wing media, Brock shows how disproportionate conservative influence in the media is integrally linked to the Republican Right's current domination of all three branches of government, to the propping up of the Bush administration, and to the inability of Democrats to voice their opposition to this political sea change or to compete on an even playing field.

As only an ex-conservative intimately familiar with the imperatives of the American right wing could, David Brock suggests ways in which concerned Americans can begin to redress the conservative ascendancy and cut through the propagandistic fog. Writing with verve and deep insight, he reaches far beyond typical bromides about media bias to produce an invaluable account of the rise of right-wing media and its political consequences. Promising to be the political book of the year, The Republican Noise Machine will transform the raging yet heretofore unsatisfying debate over the politics of the media for years to come.

Review:
"The author, once notorious as a conservative attack-journalist trashing the likes of Anita Hill and the Clintons, repudiated his past in the confessional Blinded by the Right. In this blistering j'accuse, Brock mounts a less gossipy and more systematic assault on the right-wing media juggernaut of think tanks, publishers, talk radio shows, Web sites and cable networks. He treats it as a disciplined political movement, inspired by Communist subversion techniques, bankrolled by a handful of right-wing zillionaires through corporate and foundation spigots, tightly yoked to the Republican policy agenda and masterminded by arch-conservative Grover Norquist at weekly strategy meetings. By Brock's account, it constitutes a seamless propaganda machine conveying dubious scholarship, Republican talking points and antiliberal smear campaigns from think tanks and Internet rumor mills to the FOX News and talk radio echo chambers and thence through a network of conservative pundits into the quality press. Meanwhile, Brock charges, the mainstream media, cowed by spurious charges of 'liberal bias,' have abandoned their role as objective arbiters of truth in favor of an uncritical airing of partisan ideology in the name of 'balance.' The result, he says, is a public discourse in which the line between fact and opinion is blurred, poorly funded liberal voices get shouted down, 'no issue can be honestly debated and no election can be fairly decided.' Brock's critique echoes that of other liberal media critics like Eric Alterman and Al Franken, and cannot be accused of nonpartisanship. He is dismissive of the conservative nostrums whose purveyors he pillories, and his biting takedowns of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk show he hasn't lost his taste for blood. But Brock's incisive, well-supported analysis and his street cred as an apostate from the conservative press make this a spirited challenge to the contemporary mediascape. (May 18)" Publishers Weekly (Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information, Inc.)

'Outfoxed': Looking Beyond the Slogan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42502-2004Aug5.html

Broaden your "narrow" views, man.

Maybe you should start seeing some documentaries. Start with Outfoxed..

http://www.outfoxed.org/OutfoxedSummary.php


Opinion:
The content of OUTFOXED may not come as a surprise to many long-time political activists, but this DVD will absolutely floor many people who tend to take their news for granted. In short, OUTFOXED takes on FOX News the same way Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 takes on the Iraq invasion - and produces some hard-hitting results.

Testimonials and eyewitness accounts from former and current FOX News reporters and employees (some deliberately kept anonymous) help build the case against the channel's perceived right-wing bias and editorial censorship from the top brass at FOX, including owner Rupert Murdoch. Excerpts from FOX memos are also exhibited, but would have packed more of a punch if shown as originally distributed instead. The most damning evidence, however, seems to come from FOX News broadcasts themselves, which are presented in substantial quantity in this documentary.

Although it can be argued that OUTFOXED has its own bias and agenda, the arguments it presents are extremely hard to dismiss. Highly recommended, especially for journalism students.

Here we go again.. Boo

Authorities warn of possible debate threats
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/debate.security/index.html

REDUCE, RE-USE, AND RECYCLE: Who said George bush wasn't an environmentalist?

Desperate to talk about anything but George Bush's Iraq, Team Bush has been out in force talking debate process. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, they're using the same pre-debate talking points they used in 2000 to describe their Democratic opposition's debating style.

On Tuesday, Karen Hughes said John Kerry "tends to be very lecturing, and he prosecutes. He attacks, attacks, attacks." In 2000, she described Gore as "relentless in attacking and pressing a case." Hughes also said that Kerry "has spent a lifetime preparing for debates and engaging in debates." In 2000, Karl Rove described Gore as a "very accomplished debater who spends a lot of time and likes to do these and sort of has carried them to a very high art form and is very good at it."

We could go on and on, but we'll save that for an email to come. The bottom line is that you shouldn't take what the folks in the Bush camp say too seriously. After all, they've spent millions of dollars on ads that exaggerate, distort, mislead, stretch the truth and press the limits on what is fact and what is fiction.

GAS PAINS: Oil hit $50 a barrel and the White House's answer was to keep trying to blame Democrats for blocking its energy bill. The reality is that a diverse group of Republican Senators, including Bush's debate partner Judd Gregg and other GOP notables, helped lead opposition to the Energy Bill. On top of that, Bush's own Energy Information Administration found that the effect of his energy proposal would be "negligible" with respect to production, consumption, imports, and energy prices.

SPIRIT OF '76: Evoking Gerald Ford's 1976 debate line about how "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," George Bush declared this week that the "Taliban is no longer in existence." If only that were true! Either Bush isn't being straight with America about what is going on in the war on terror or he isn't in touch with what is going on in Afghanistan. Or both! But Bush is consistent - He has the same problem describing his Iraq (aka Mission Accomplished).

SENIORS TO ‘SOCK-IT' TO BUSH: 1000 seniors will ditch their socks in Washington, DC's Lafayette Park on Thursday to protest the way Bush has socked it to them with skyrocketing drug costs, record-breaking Medicare premium increases and threats to privatize Social Security. Similar events will be taking place throughout the country.

Bush's Hometown Paper: You Broke Promise, We Endorse Kerry
September 28th, 2004 7:24 pm

The Lone Star Iconoclast

Kerry Will Restore
American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.

Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.


Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It's impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush's answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern's dress. America's reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and "spin" will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.

Kerry also voted against President Bush's $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans' entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling "test" from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton -- companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.

Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans' programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.

Vice President Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process -- an enormous conflict of interest -- plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry's voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

Barriers to Student Voting

New York Times

In the last presidential election, about 37 percent of citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 voted, a sharp decline from 1972, when more than half did. The relatively low participation rate of young people is often attributed to apathy or the distraction of other things in their lives. But a lack of support, and sometimes outright hostility, from elections officials is a significant factor. With issues like the Iraq war and budget deficits that could last for decades in the forefront of the presidential campaign, young people have more reason than ever to fight for their right to vote - and to cast their ballots on Nov. 2.

It is nice to think that elections officials want to do everything they can to help young voters. But the truth is, many cities and towns with colleges and universities regard student voters - who are more transient than the average resident, and whose political views also may be different - as a challenge to the established order. As a result, local elections officials often discourage students from registering and voting from their campus addresses, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that they have the right to do so.

In Texas this year, a county district attorney threatened to prosecute students from Prairie View A&M University if they tried to register. The students had to file a lawsuit before he withdrew the threat and apologized. A student at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., was told that he was not a "permanent resident" and had to vote from his parents' home in another state. And a Fox affiliate in Tucson recently carried a report quoting an elections official who warned, falsely, that University of Arizona students who registered from their dorms might be committing a felony.

Even when they are not actively discouraging young voters, election officials are often unwilling to take steps to make it easier for them to vote. They often resist appeals to put polling places on campus, one of the best ways to make students feel included in the electoral process. And they devote too few resources to registration drives among students, whose rapid turnover makes them a group that requires special attention.

College and university administrators also bear some of the blame. Under the Higher Education Act of 1998, colleges and universities receiving federal funds must make a good-faith effort to distribute voter registration forms to every student, and to make those forms widely available on campus. But a newly released study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics and the Chronicle of Higher Education found that fewer than 17 percent of schools are in full compliance, and one-third are not even making minimal efforts.

An array of public-minded groups, like the New Voters Project, Declare Yourself and Rock the Vote, are working this year to register and mobilize young voters. Their efforts are much needed, and they appear to be paying off. The nonpartisan New Voters Project says it has already registered more than 122,000 young voters in Wisconsin, where the margin of victory in the 2000 presidential race was fewer than 6,000 votes. But these groups are reporting that elections offices in several states have a large backlog of registrations to process. These offices should immediately hire temporary workers, if necessary, to ensure that everyone who met the registration deadline is on the voting rolls by Nov. 2.

Grass-roots efforts like the New Voters Project are important, but reaching out to young voters should not be left to volunteers. Elections officials and institutions of higher education must do more to remove the barriers that still too often stand between young people and the ballot box.

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269

September 27, 2004
Modified:September 27, 2004
Summary



Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context.


Analysis



This ad is the most egregious example so far in the 2004 campaign of using edited quotes in a way that changes their meaning and misleads voters.

Bush-Cheney '04

"Searching:"

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Kerry: It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.

Kerry: I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have.

Kerry: The winning of the war was brilliant.

Kerry: It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Kerry: I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.

(Graphic: How can John Kerry protect us . . .when he doesn't even know where he stands?)

"Right Decision"

Kerry is shown saying it was "the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein." What's left out is that he prefaced that by saying Bush should have made greater use of diplomacy to accomplish that.

The quote is from May 3, 2003, at the first debate among Democratic presidential contenders, barely three weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The question was from ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

(Note: We have added the emphasis in these and the following quotes to draw attention to the context left out by the Bush ad.)

"As he should have"

The full "right decision" quote is actually quite consistent with the next Kerry quote, "I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have," which is from an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" program Jan. 6, 2004:

Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

Q: Let me...

Kerry: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.

"Winning of the war was brilliant"

When Kerry said "the winning of the war was brilliant" he wasn't praising Bush for waging the war, he was praising the military for the way they accomplished the mission. He also repeated his criticism of Bush for failing to better plan for what came next. This was also on "Hardball," May 19:

Q: All this terrorism. If you were president, how would you stop it?

Kerry: Well, it's going to take some time to stop it, Chris, but we have an enormous amount of cooperation to build one other countries. I think the administration is not done enough of the hard work of diplomacy, reaching out to nations, building the kind of support network.

I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

"Wrong war, wrong place"

When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq. He criticized Bush for what he called a "phony coalition" of allies:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Earlier that same day at another campaign appearance he repeated pretty much what he's said all along:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq. I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace ."

We May Find WMD's

Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:

The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.


The $87 Billion

The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.

Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."

But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing.


Sources



"Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Sponsored by ABC News," Federal News Service, 3 May 2003.

"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 6 Jan 2004.

"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 19 May 2004.

Lois Romano and Paul Farhi, "Kerry Attacks Bush on Handling of Iraq," The Washington Post 7 Sep 2004: A8.

Calvin Woodward, "Kerry Slams 'Wrong War in the Wrong Place,'" The Associated Press , 6 Sep 2004.

Fox News Sunday, "Interview with John Kerry," 14 December 2003.

Adam Nagourney and Diane Cardwell, "Democrats in Debate Clash Over Iraq War," New York Times, 27 Oct 2003: A1.

Joe Klein, "Profiles in Convenience," Time magazine, 19 Oct 2003.

Carter fears Florida vote troubles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3693354.stm

An Un-American Way to Campaign

New York Times
September 25, 2004

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."

This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.

It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.

We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

Statement from Senator John Kerry on President Bush and Iraq
Madison, WI - Senator John Kerry made the following statement today upon arrival in Wisconsin:

"This month, as many of you know, we passed a very cruel milestone in the war in Iraq, over 1,000 of our sons and daughters have died in Iraq and we've lost 70 in September alone, more than 1,100 were wounded in August. This is more in each month than the preceding month - more in June, more in July, and more in September already than in August.

"My friends, entire regions in Iraq are controlled by terrorists. American forces ceded to the terrorist areas of control, yet President Bush keeps insisting that the situation in improving, keeps insisting that freedom is the horizon, keeps insisting the country is going back and it unbelievable that just this morning that the President has said that he would do it all over again, and dress up in a flight suit and land on an aircraft and say "mission accomplished" again.

"My friends, when the President landed on that aircraft carrier, 150 of our sons and daughters had given their lives. Since then, tragically, since he said ‘missions accomplished,' tragically, over 900 more have died. And, leading senators in his own party, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, has said, ‘we're in trouble there, this policy is trouble.' Senator John McCain and Senator Dick Lugar have said it, that the President continues to live in a fantasy land of spin. George Bush owes the American people the truth and he owes the troops the truth.

"Let me make it clear to America, I have a plan to go after, hunt out, and kill the terrorists and I have a plan to succeed in Iraq.

"But I'll tell you this - we will find the terrorists, we will make America safer, but I will never be a President who just says, ‘Mission accomplished,' I'll get the mission accomplished. That's the difference, thank you."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Statement from Senator John Edwards on Iraq
Washington, DC - Senator John Edwards released the following statement today:

"The administration's credibility on Iraq collapsed today. Over the past 24 hours, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of State have all contradicted each other on elections in Iraq.

"For a President who is fond of saying we should not send mixed messages - you need a scorecard today to keep up with all the different and contradictory statements from the White House.

"The President also talked about the need to support Prime Minister Allawi. The best lesson for any fledgling democracy is that leaders should tell the truth, to always be straight with the people. Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States was filled with all the wrong lessons, lessons from an administration that just can't seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq."


BUSH SAYS IRAQ WILL HOLD ELECTIONS IN JANUARY

"They're going to have elections in January in Iraq. When America gives its word, America will keep its word. We'll stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq." [9/22/04, Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally , Latrobe, Pennsylvania]

CHENEY SAYS IRAQIS WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO HOLD ELECTIONS

"First of all, I'll be happy to pass along the message. I will see Mr. Allawi, as I mentioned, on Thursday -- both in the Congress, and then he'll come to the White House for a meeting with the President and myself. He has indicated repeatedly that he wants to keep that January deadline. We agree wholeheartedly. It's important to remember this is an Iraqi decision." [Dick Cheney, Lansing, Michigan, 9/21/04]

RUMSFELD SAYS ELECTIONS CAN BE OPEN TO ¾ OR 4/5 OF IRAQ

"Let's pretend hypothetically that you get to election time in January and lets pretend that its roughly like it is, or a little worse, which it could be, because you've got to expect it to continue. They're not happy the way its going. They don't want a government elected in that country…badly, they don't want that. And let's say you try to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. So be it. Nothing is perfect in life. So you have election that's not quite perfect." [Donald Rumsfeld, Senate testimony 9/23/04]

DICK ARMITAGE SAYS ELECTIONS ARE OPEN TO ALL

"We're going to have an election that is free and open and that has to be open to all citizens. It's got to be our best effort to get it into troubled areas as well," [Dick Armitage, House testimony, 9/24/04]

Fantasyland

George W. Bush seems intent to prove that he is totally out of touch with what's going on in Iraq. In a TV interview scheduled to air this week, Bush said that he would do his notorious Mission Accomplished event all over again.

But Bush's comment, echoed by Dan Bartlett again later in the day, puts him at odds with his senior adviser, Karl Rove. A few months ago, Rove, in a rare moment of candor, said that he thought it was a mistake to do that event and mislead the American people. Over 900 Americans have died since Bush declared an end to major combat operations and a host of lawmakers from both parties have criticized Bush's Iraq policies.

If America wants a President who lives in a world of fantasy spin, and does "mission accomplished" events, they should vote for George Bush. But if they want a President who will actually get the mission accomplished, they should vote for John Kerry.

Here are some other highlights from the weekend and some things to look out for on Monday:

MILKING VOTES: Although Bush likes to tout his commitment to dairy farmers when he visits states like Wisconsin, his Administration apparently has a secret plan to abandon America's dairy farmers after the election. New documents reveal that Federal officials are cynically working with the Bush campaign to maximize votes in dairy states like Wisconsin by keeping mum on whether the White House will renew a dairy price support program called MILC. The White House owes it to dairy farmers to be straight about its opposition to MILC and shouldn't play an election year game of political dodge. It's also been reported that Bush may raise taxes on small dairy farmers if he gets a second term. You'll be hearing about this issue on Monday.

FLORIDA RULES: It looks like the Bush administration is applying Florida rules to the Iraq elections. Asked about Rumsfeld's comments last week, General John Abizaid said that he doesn't "think Iraq will have a perfect election. And if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either."

REALITY BITES: Colin Powell continues in his role as the only Bush official in touch with reality. When asked if things were getting worse in Iraq, Powell broke from the White House talking points and said "yes, it's getting worse and the reason it is getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election. They do not want the Iraqi people to vote for their own leaders in a free, democratic election. And because it's getting worse, we will have to increase our efforts to defeat it, not walk away and pray and hope for something else to happen." But Bush insists that freedom is on the march. Which is it?

REBUKING CHENEY: Senator Lindsey Graham rebuked Dick Cheney's frequent assertion that Al Qaeda is rooting for John Kerry. Appearing on a Sunday talk show, Graham said: "This idea that somebody said that Al Qaeda prefers Kerry over Bush, that's way over the top."

Rumsfeld mixes up Saddam and Osama

WASHINGTON, Sept 11: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mixed up Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein twice in a speech on Friday about the "war against terrorism".

Critics accuse the Bush administration of having concentrated on going after Saddam Hussein at the expense of the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

In a speech to the National Press Club on the eve of the third anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks, Mr Rumsfeld began by saying the world just before the attacks was not as serene as some people now suggest.

"The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Masood, lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein, by Osama bin Laden, Taliban's co-conspirator," Mr Rumsfeld said.

He was referring to Ahmad Shah Masood, who was in opposition to the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan and was killed allegedly by Al Qaeda two days before the Sept 11 attacks.

Later in response to a question, Mr Rumsfeld again confused Saddam and Osama in a discourse about how U.S. actions had made it more difficult for "terrorists" to operate.

"It's harder for them to travel between countries, it's harder for them to communicate with each other, it's harder for them to raise money, it's harder for them to transfer money, it's harder for them to buy weapons, it's harder for them to do everything," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"Now, he's got to be busy. Why is he busy? It's because of the pressure that's being put on him," he added.

The moderator later asked Mr Rumsfeld if he had meant Osama, and the defence secretary replied: "I did. I meant we haven't seen Osama bin Laden."-Reuters

Michael Moore brings pre-election speaking tour to Michigan

by John Flesher / Associated Press

ELK RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- Filmmaker Michael Moore on Sunday implored "slackers" who usually don't vote to head to the polls this year, saying they could make the difference in the presidential race.

"If there ever were a time it was important to get involved in your country, this is the time," said Moore, an outspoken critic of President Bush.

The director of "Fahrenheit 9/11," a documentary that attacks Bush's handling of the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq, spoke in this northern Michigan town on the first leg of a 60-city pre-election tour.

He praised U.S. Sen. John Kerry for taking a more combative approach in recent days and argued that most Americans agree with the Democratic nominee on the issues despite polls showing Bush in the lead.

"In the last couple of weeks, (Kerry) has stopped listening to the wrong people and he's listening to himself and he's being himself," Moore said at a news conference before a rally. "I don't think he's going to tolerate these attacks any longer."

Moore offered Kerry some advice for the presidential debates, the first of which is Thursday. If Bush accuses him of flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, Moore said, Kerry should reply, "I had only one position: I believed you and you let us down."

Antiwar liberals should resist the temptation to vote for Ralph Nader out of anger with Kerry for voting to authorize military action, said Moore, who backed Nader in 2000.

"You've just got to give Kerry a break," Moore said, adding that he had urged Nader not to run this year. He said his one-time ally wanted to get even with the Democrats for excluding him from the presidential debates.

"Now it's just a campaign of revenge, with no concern whatsoever for what the people want, and the people want George W. Bush out of the White House," Moore said.

The election outcome will hinge on which side does better at turning out the vote, Moore said. His tour will include numerous stops on college campuses in 20 swing states, and will target apathetic students.

During each program, habitual nonvoters will be invited on stage to pledge to vote for Kerry, he said. First-time student voters will be offered gag prizes such as clean underwear.

"We're asking the slackers to come forward and lead this revolt," he said.

Moore said he also is reaching out to poor and disenfranchised people who have given up on politics.

"Many of them feel a tremendous sense of despair," he said. "They've just thrown their hands up and said, "What's the use?' This tour will be my attempt to convince them otherwise."

Despite having made three recent appearances in New York and New Jersey, Moore described his speech Sunday as the kickoff of this tour. It was a fund-raiser on behalf of the Democratic candidates for sheriff and state representative in rural Antrim County, where he lives part time.

The Flint native has drawn criticism from conservatives for including in "Fahrenheit 9/11" footage of happy children and other scenes of normalcy in prewar Iraq. He defended the material Sunday, saying it was meant to show that the war had hurt innocent civilians.

The crowd, which roared its approval as Moore verbally jabbed Bush, grew silent as additional scenes were shown on a large screen, including a warning from one Iraqi man that "if the Americans attack, Iraq would be their cemetery."

A capacity crowd of more than 500 people attended Moore's program at Elk Rapids High School. Several dozen Bush supporters shouted "four more years" and waved banners in the parking lot.

"Moore is a socialist. He doesn't really like our country," said Dick Sharkey, 71, of Elk Rapids. "He's not a very truthful man."

A group of Kerry backers held their own signs nearby. Kirk McBride, 60, said he was a Moore fan.

"He speaks the truth and he's not afraid to get in your face," said McBride, of Beaver Island.



Michael Moore On Tour; Slackers of the World, Unite!


9/25/04

Dear Friends,

Tomorrow I begin a little 20-state, 60-city tour to try and convince the fed-up, the burned-out, and the Nader-impaired to leave the house for just a half-hour on November 2nd and mark an "X" in a box (or punch a chad or touch a screen) so that America and the world can be saved. (I don't mean "saved" as in all workers will henceforth control the means of production. That's, um, going to take a few more years.)

What I'm asking is that our fellow Americans, as the collective landlord of a public housing project at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., take just a few minutes to evict the tenant who is currently wrecking the place (not to mention what he's doing to the rest of the neighborhood). After all, isn't this one of the coolest things about a democracy, getting to give some payback to those in power? "YOU'RE FIRED!" Oooh, that feels good -- especially if the recipient of the pink slip is someone who wants to send your kid off to war.

So, having nothing better to do for the next month (and eager to visit such swinging states as Iowa! Ohio! Arkansas!), I have decided to go to every battleground state in the country and do whatever it takes to get out the vote. I will do your laundry, I will clean your house, I will give you a year's supply of beer nuts if you will commit to me to go to the polls on Tuesday, November 2.

I'm calling it "The Slacker Uprising Tour", a coast-to-coast effort to bring the non-voting majority out of hibernation and kick some political butt. My goal is to get as many of the 100 million non-voters in America as I can to give voting a try -- just this once. I want at least 56% of all eligible voters to vote and thus set a modern-day turnout record.

I'm putting out the red alert call to slackers everywhere to help me lead this revolt. I want everyone in their teens and twenties who exist from one packet of Ramen noodles to the next bag of Tostitos to take your fully-justified cynicism and toss it like a Molotov right into the middle of this election. As "non-voters" you have been written off. But if only a few thousand of you vote, it could make all the difference. You literally hold all the power in your hands. That's even cooler than holding a TV remote.

I, the original slacker -- I, who have endured all sorts of attacks for my slacker demeanor -- yes I am coming to an arena or stadium just outside your dorm room (or that little space off the furnace room where your parents still let you stay, rent-free). Why arenas and stadiums? Because there are so many of us -- AND they serve beer and chips. From the Sun Dome to the Key Arena, from the Patriot Center to the Del Mar Race Track, I will be there and I will bring prizes and presents and clean underwear for all in need.

Before I arrive, I have arranged for free screenings of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in each city. When I get there I will have with me dozens of voter registrars who will register new (or recently transplanted) voters (please check here for voter registration deadlines -- they are fast approaching in most states in the next 10 days!). Absentee ballot applications will also be available. And the good people of Move-On, ACT and other groups will be present at each of my appearances to sign up volunteers to get out the vote on election day.

Details of where I will be appearing will be available in your local media. Many venues, due to advance word already out there, have "sold out" (at most stops, students get in for free and community people pay a nominal fee -- usually $5 -- to cover costs). Again, check your local media to find out the times and dates and how to get advance tickets.

A partial list of the cities I'm visiting includes: Seattle, Big Rapids (MI), Mt. Pleasant (MI), Tucson, Dearborn, Phoenix, East Lansing, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Albuquerque, Toledo, Columbus (OH), Ames (IA), Cleveland, Fairmont (WV), Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Bethlehem (PA), Fairfax (VA), Carlyle (PA), State College (PA), Minneapolis, Gainesville, Nashville, Miami, Memphis, Orlando, Salem (OR), Jacksonville, Tampa, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Madison, Green Bay, Las Vegas, Reno, Denver, and, of course, Tallahassee, Florida. Others will be posted later.

While on the road, I will try to keep my blog up-to-date and post some pictures we take in each city. The three campuses on the tour which register the most students to vote (or who have the most non-voters committing to me to vote) will receive a special scholarship from us at the end of the tour.

Thanks, in advance, to everyone out there who is working hard during this election. I know it will make a difference.

Let's leave no non-voter behind.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/vote/

P.S. Good news! This current weekend our distributor has added an astounding 600+ new theaters to the list of those still showing "Fahrenheit 9/11." This is highly unusual for a film entering it's fourth month of release, but the demand has been strong to bring it back in many areas and our wonderful distributors have responded. This is a perfect time to either see it again on the big screen or take a friend who hasn't seen it, as it won't be around in theaters for long. The DVD and home video come out October 5!

Bush Upbeat as Iraq Burns

George W. Bush was a supporter of the war in Vietnam. For a while.

As he explained in his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House":

"My inclination was to support the government and the war until proven wrong, and that only came later, as I realized we could not explain the mission, had no exit strategy, and did not seem to be fighting to win."

How is it that he ultimately came to see the fiasco in Vietnam so clearly but remains so blind to the frighteningly similar realities of his own war in Iraq? Mr. Bush cannot explain our mission in Iraq and has nothing resembling an exit strategy, and his troops - hobbled by shortages of personnel and by potentially fatal American and Iraqi political considerations - are certainly not fighting to win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/opinion/24herbert.html

Bush's mixed signals..

For a White House that has spent the past week railing against mixed signals, it's sent at least three of its own in just the last few days.

This week, George Bush declared that elections will go forward in January, Dick Cheney said he hoped elections would be held but that it's up to the Iraqis and Donald Rumsfeld said some places in Iraq might not be able to vote because the "violence [could be] too great. So be it. Nothing is perfect in life. So you have election that's not quite perfect…"

So what is the White House position? Is the President concerned that his mixed signals are sending a bad message to the troops? Is the President wilting in the face of the fact that his rush to war with no plan is failing to secure the situation on the ground in Iraq?

George Bush's catastrophic decision to rush into Iraq alone and without a plan to win the peace has created a haven for terrorists, putting our troops at greater risk, leaving large portions of the country in turmoil and potentially destabilizing the region. When is George Bush going to admit that Iraq has become a hotbed for terrorism because of his rush to war?

Rosy scenarios from the Rose Garden do nothing to stabilize the situation of the ground or train Iraqi security forces or internationalize the effort so that Americans don't have to bear the overwhelming military or financial burden in Iraq. And neither do misleading, false and partisan shots from the stump.

This White House is not being straight with the American people about what's going on in Iraq. It's time to turn the page on Bush's wrong decisions and make a fresh start with a new President who has the credibility, vision and plan to win the peace in Iraq.

Florida: Getting out the votes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3685968.stm

UN criticises Iraq poll warning

Violence is still a regular occurrence in many parts of Iraq
The leader of the UN team organising Iraq's elections has criticised the US defence secretary for suggesting only a limited vote might take place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3687744.stm

Michael Moore Launches 60-City Swing State Tour

College and NBA Arenas in 20 Battleground States to Feature Live, On Stage, Oscar-winning Filmmaker

He Plans to Rally Non-voters and Slackers, "America's Majority"

For Immediate Release -- Thursday, September 23, 2004

Calling it his "Slacker Uprising Tour" in an effort to get millions of traditional non-voters to the polls on November 2, the Oscar-winning filmmaker of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and #1 bestselling author Michael Moore announced today that he will embark on a 60-city tour to the 20 battleground states beginning September 26 in Elk Rapids, Michigan, and ending on Election Day in Tallahassee, Florida.

Moore will be appearing on college campuses in their auditoriums, arenas, stadiums and field houses (Penn State, Univ. of Arizona, Univ. of Florida, among others), NBA arenas (Seattle), and hockey arenas (Toledo). Nearly all venues will hold between 5,000 and 15,000 people, with students -- historically the largest block of non-voters in presidential elections -- admitted for free at most events (at some events, non-students will pay $5 or a nominal charge to cover costs).

Moore's show will consist of his monologue, interaction with the audience, and a few surprise guests. He will read letters he's received from soldiers in Iraq (published in his new book, "Will They Ever Trust Us Again -- Letters from the War Zone"), offer prizes for people who register to vote, and conduct the "world's largest karaoke sing-a-long" to John Ashcroft's "Let the Eagle Soar." At many venues Moore will show as yet-unseen clips from his "Fahrenheit 9/11" DVD (to be released October 5), and give everyone present a chance to win their own "pet goat."

"It should be a lot of fun," said Moore. "Most Americans don't vote, and it's not all that hard to understand why. So, I'd like to offer them some incentives to give it a try, just this once. The 50% who are the non-voters are never called by pollsters and are usually ignored by candidates. Should just a few percentage points of the 100 million non-voters decide to show up on November 2 -- watch out."

Moore said his goal is to see that over 56% of the voting public votes in this election -- something that has not happened since 1968.

"It is not the wealthy and the elite who don't vote," added Moore. "The non-voters are the poor, the disenfranchised, the single moms and young people. I am calling for a non-voter uprising, led by thousands of campus slackers who proudly sleep 'til noon and who believe papers are for rolling, not reading. They are rightfully cynical, but this year their motto will be: "Bush and Kerry Both Suck -- That's Why I'm Voting for John Kerry!"

With a number of venues already sold out, over 600,000 people are expected to show up on his tour. Even more will see his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which will be shown on most campuses before his arrival. In a warm-up to the tour, 10,000 people last night were able to get into to the Carrier Dome in Syracuse for Moore's appearance, with thousands more being turned away due to lack of seats.

Early word of Moore's tour has already sparked protests by campus Republicans and two schools have already caved to pressure to cancel Moore's event.

"I understand why some Bush supporters might be upset," Moore reflected. "I would be, too, if I only had a few weeks left in power."

CITIES MICHAEL MOORE WILL VISIT

Elk Rapids, MI Seattle, WA
Big Rapids, MI
Mt. Pleasant, MI Tucson, AZ
Dearborn, MI Phoenix, AZ
East Lansing, MI Flagstaff, AZ
Detroit, MI
Ann Arbor, MI Albuquerque, NM
Flint, MI Santa Fe, NM
Grand Rapids, MI Las Cruces, NM
Albion, MI
Ames, IA
Toledo, OH Iowa City, IA
Columbus, OH
Cleveland, OH Fairmont, WV
Cincinnati, OH Charleston, WV
Athens, OH
Charlottesville, VA
Pittsburgh, PA Fairfax, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Erie, PA Minneapolis, NN
Bethlehem, PA St. Cloud, MN
Carlyle, PA
State College, PA Nashville, TN
Indiana, PA Memphis, TN

Gainesville, FL Salem, OR
Miami, FL Eugene, OR
Boca Raton, FL Portland, OR
Orlando, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Kansas City, MO
Tallahassee, FL St. Louis, MO
Jacksonville, FL Maryville, MO
Tampa, FL

Milwaukee, WI
Madison, WI
Green Bay, WI
Stevens Point, WI
Stout, WI

Las Vegas, NV
Reno, NV

The liberal spirit in America

http://www.policyreview.org/aug03/berkowitz.html

The Republican Noise Machine
http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/brock/excerpt.html

Here's some Michael moore on THE flip flopper.

Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Iraq: "A flip and a flop and now just a flop."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-22

Hey but as per the guys at the top we are succeeding in Iraq. Thank you everybody. Thank you very much.

Is it ok to be a Yank again?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,1081011,00.html

Amazing how we americans love blood and gore. If the Iraq thing goes on this way with civilian casualties in 10s of thousands and increasing daily, we will soon surpass the number of people that Sadaam killed.

<"We urge all British nationals in Iraq to consider whether their presence in Iraq is essential at this time." >

Wonder whether that includes the 7000 odd British troops stationed in Iraq.

World 'wants Kerry as president'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm

The pope Chides Bush over Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3773545.stm

World leaders mostly critical
Rebukes from Russia, China surprisingly strong
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/mar03/127126.asp

If republicans have their say, 'Nobody' but themselves have credibility.

Apparantly bush haters are everywhere. Can't blame them. Actions always speak louder.

Mugabe slams 'political God Bush'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3682352.stm

Anything to get reelected..

Afghans freed after Karzai request

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/22/gitmo.afghan.reut/index.html

Hello! That's exactly what Kerry is doing, stepping up to the plate. All the responsible americans need to do is to recognize the mess that the current administration has created and boot them out of the office before they can create more mess. So be responsible, root out the source of the problem and Vote for Kerry.

You do not need to be an "expert" to see that this administration screwed up (You do need to take off those blinders though). If they had indeed made a serious effort to catch Osama when there was a chance, rather than obsessing over Iraq and Saddaam, things would have been different. We would at least have had more than 1000 soldiers alive, $140B less deficit and a whole lot of dignity and respect in the eyes of the international community. We just sqandered it all away

Maybe you should try instead of sending others' kids to Iraq. Anyway on a lighter note.

Top Ten Ways To Get Osama Out Of His Cave
- David Letterman

10. Disconnect his cable

9. Send phony recall notice from his turban manufacturer. One of our special forces guys sneaks in and pulls the fire alarm

7. Announce "Mr. Beard" pageant being held down the street

6. CIA puts growth hormone in his food so after a couple days the cave is too small

5. Offer free trial prescription for social anxiety disorder medication Paxil

4. Fake postcard from Mullah Omar in Las Vegas reading "This place is awesome, dude!"

3. Free pie -- I don't care who you are, you're not gonna turn down free pie

2. In local paper, advertise weapons of mass destruction sale at Kabul Wal-Mart

1. Send sexy bearded woman to cave asking directions

U.S. Seeks Cuts in Housing Aid to Urban Poor

Me: Guess we need the money for funding housing in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/nyregion/22housing.html?hp

The Bush administration has proposed reducing the value of subsidized-housing vouchers given to poor residents in New York City next year, with even bigger cuts planned for some urban areas in New England. The proposal is based on a disputed new formula that averages higher rents in big cities with those of suburban areas, which tend to have lower costs.

The proposals could have a "significantly detrimental impact" in some areas by forcing poor families to pay hundreds of extra dollars per month in rent, according to United States Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican. That extra burden could be too much for thousands of tenants, "potentially leaving them homeless," Mr. Shays wrote in a recent letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
<More>