Replies to post #110328 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[gtober]

Here, Here. I second that motion. All those in favor, please say "YEEEAAARGH!!!"

"we are all in the same sinking boat"

Geez, that was the most cogent thing you have said in months. I didn't think you still had it in you. It was certainly more thought provoking than your continued Freudian slips of masturbation on the other thread.

[Fred Langford]

Maine,

Dean is last years news. The media made a joke of him and it will stick.
The Dems need a new bright star. At this point, there is no one.
However, that doesn't mean the Repubs won't lose many seats in the mid-terms.
Folks who want freedom to make their own decisions, not the decisions of the extreme right, should concentrate on taking back the legislative branch. With the right owning the judicial and executive, the only chance this country has for keeping its' freedom is the Legislative.
I'm expecting a big surprise for Rush and friends in 2008.

Fred

[Alex G]

Bushevik Mafia and the Cowering Media

June 7, 2005

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Many liberals -- and certainly the Democratic Party (excluding Howard Dean) -- have repeatedly made the mistake of viewing the Busheviks and right wingers as a political party that plays by the process of a Constitutional democracy. It has been a lethal error.

As we have noted (and carried a book of the same title): "Take Them at Their Words." They believe that any tactic, even if illegal, is justified in wresting the control of government from the "evil" secularists. David Horowitz, the academic Himmler for the Bush Brown Shirts, wrote, " “[y]ou cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin’s injunction: ‘In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.’” As noted in a recent article, the top right wing direct mail guru, Richard Viguerie told Bill Moyers, “I just wish he [Bush] could have done a little bit more [against Kerry]. I thought it was just great. And we’re not gonna play, Bill, by the liberal establishment’s rules. They say, ‘This is acceptable and this is not acceptable.’ Those days are gone and gone forever.”

During the impeachment effort against Bill Clinton, a Tom DeLay aide said (and we are paraphrasing here): "You don't just beat an opponent, you kick them until they are down, and then roll them up in a carpet and toss them over the cliff."

In regards to the recently revealed "Deep Throat," W. Mark Felt, Alexander Haig said to Nixon, who was suspicious that Felt might be "leaking" on him, "We've got to be careful as to when to cut his nuts off."

So as the GOP "enforcers" gouge out the eyes of the Dems and kick them in the groin, it does little good for Joe Biden to wave around a copy of Robert's Rules of Order.

If the Democrats are still playing by the rules of democracy, the Republicans long ago abandoned such quaint political give-and-take to play by the rules of Al Capone: fear, intimidation, dirty tricks and illegal activity.

It's simply a fantasy of pro-democracy advocates to believe that decency and patriotism will triumph over the demagogues and thugs of the Republican Party. The parties are playing by two different sets of rules, and the mob has won out over Constitutional process.

Which brings us to the issues of "Rathergate" and "Koran Flushgate." The "disputed" stories by both CBS and Newsweek were virtually entirely accurate in terms of substance. If we look at "Koran Flushgate," for example, this past weekend's revelations confirm that whether our soldiers urinated on a Koran or flushed it down the toilet is a distinction without a difference.

But Newsweek's fellow Mainstream Media jumped all over the story blaming, even as recently as a few days ago in the New York Times, Newsweek for causing the rioting by followers of Islam. Oh, the White House would have the media believe that torture at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the unrest, that the humiliation of Islamic men in violation of their beliefs had nothing to do with it, that the deaths of Islamic men under "harsh" interrogation had nothing to do with it -- and that the desecration of the Koran in a number of ways had nothing to do with it. To believe this, you would have to think that Islamic believers would say to themselves, "Oh, we can stop rioting now, because we know that the Koran was urinated on, kicked at and desecrated in other ways by American soldiers, but not flushed down the toilet. Newsweek should stop misleading us. We can go home now. Everything's A-Okay!"

Besides which, it is clear from the pattern of even Pentagon reports that have emerged that a key objective in interrogating Islamic believers was humiliating their religious beliefs, such as rubbing menstrual blood on the men. These things don't just happen in the military. They are part of a condoned pattern of humiliation that came from the top at the Pentagon: Donald Rumsfeld.

Furthermore, almost all progressive commentators qualified their criticisms of the Busheviks about "Koran Flushgate" by agreeing that Newsweek did not follow proper journalistic practice. Say what? They ran their item by two officials in the Pentagon who did not dispute that a Koran was flushed down a toilet. And the anonymous source was likely told to change his or her story or face a permanent roadblock in his or her military career.

Newsweek's alleged sin (and we take no pleasure in defending Michael Isikoff) was that it didn't have two "on record" sources to confirm the flushing of a Koran down the toilet. That is ludicrous on several fronts. First, the real issue here is the desecration of the Koran as part of a pattern of interrogation to humiliate the religious beliefs of Muslim detainees, just as the real issue of "Rathergate" was the substance of Bush's failure to fulfill his national guard duties, not who wrote the memo.

Secondly, most Mainstream Media today is built upon the Pentagon -- let's say, for example -- proclaiming a lie, and then a reporter for a television station gets the lie "confirmed" by someone else in the Pentagon and runs with a story that is nothing more than propaganda. But this is considered professional journalism because two sources have confirmed a story, even though it's a lie.

In the Newsweek case, they had the "Koran Flushgate" story confirmed by one source and approved by two other sources in the Pentagon, which makes three sources by our count, one more than most Mainstream Media reporters use to confirm lies instead of the truth. (Not to mention that the Administration daily uses anonymous sources to achieve its propaganda goals with the media, but they wouldn't be Busheviks if they weren't brazen hypocrites.) So either Newsweek did its journalistic due diligence or it was a Karl Rove set-up from the get go.

But, remember, the purpose of "Rathergate" and "Koran Flushgate" was to discombobulate and intimidate the media into not printing or televising anything overtly critical of the Bush regime. Rove cleverly knows how to use the media to cannibalize itself. All he has to do is toss them some red herring and they are off like jackals, devouring each other, while the crimes of the White House go unnoticed and unreported. Furthermore, reporters, editors and publishers become even MORE intimidated about printing or airing a story critical of the Bush Administration.

It is a technique worthy of the mob reigning supreme over the modern technological media, in combination with the fear that the media barons have of offending their corporate benefactors in the White House, Republican Congress and GOP judiciary.

The Mainstream Media seems to have abandoned all common sense.

Newsweek didn't cause any riots; the Christian Crusade against the "Infidel" led by Bush is what caused the riots. The record of humiliating, brutalizing, torturing and killing Muslims is as clear as the barbaric photos that came out of Abu Ghraib (and there are others, apparently even more malicious, that the Bush Administration won't release to the public).

The thugs in the White House know how to throw the press into a hysterical fit of irrelevance. But the truth is that Karl Rove could just gently blow and the White House Press Corpse, with the exception of Helen Thomas, would fall over.

The Busheviks don't need to beat up too heavily on the D.C. press. Most of them just want to transcribe the latest propaganda pronouncement and get to lunch.

The White House is saving the domestic mob enforcers for the rest of us.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/06/edi05051.html

[PegnVA]

Running as an IND won't do it, IMO. Dean does not seem to have the personality to be the Dem's Nat'l Chairman - he is not raising the funds needed to wage upcoming nation-wide races.

I, personally, have always liked Dean and although I don't believe he makes a good Nat'l Chairman, I do not want to see him leave the Dem party - Dems have room for a variety of voices, unlike the Reps.

[simple]

Fundraisers jilt Dean

June 7, 2005
By Alexander Bolton
© 2005 The Hill

<EXCERPT>

Three top fundraisers at the Democratic National Committee have resigned at a time when its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has come under fire from fellow Democrats for controversial comments and his Republican counterpart has raised more than twice as much money.

Democratic sources link the resignations to Dean’s decision to focus on raising money in small increments through the Internet, as he did during his 2004 presidential bid, and building up the party’s grassroots infrastructure while paying little attention to major Democratic donors.

But other Democrats say the first several months after a party’s losing presidential campaign are naturally a time of transition and it will take time for committee officials to get their “sea legs.”
Dean’s defenders also note that DNC fundraising is ahead of where it was at this point after the last presidential election, when Democrats could still raise unlimited amounts of soft money.

The committee’s finance directors for the two biggest hubs of Democratic fundraising have quit. Bridget Siegel, finance director for New York and the surrounding area, resigned last week, and Lori Kreloff, finance director for California, left the committee last month.

A third top DNC fundraiser, Nancy Eiring, the director of grassroots fundraising, has also resigned, citing strategic differences with aides to Dean, according to a report yesterday in ABC News’ “The Note.”
Siegel told The Hill that she remained at the DNC for the first few months of the year only to help with the transition to leadership under a new chairman and that “Dean is moving the party in a great direction.” Siegel will raise money for Andrew Cuomo’s race for New York attorney general.

<STORY LINK>

[CoalTrain]

Dean is a Hawk and supports the occupation.

He had his chance to run as an independent in the last election. Why did he not? Dean is a sell out like Kerry. THIS time if he runs as an independent it will be because the thug is getting something under the table to help split the vote.

You the think the Democratic party is afraid of Dean LOL!Until the public wakes up and realize things as simple as the fact that Kerry and Dean are hawks like Bush The Democratic party has everyones dick in their back pocket.


We're There and We Can't Get Out"
Howard Dean, Leader of the Other Pro-War Party, Backs the Occupation
By KEVIN ZEESE

It didn't take long, the former anti-war presidential candidate has now become the pro-occupation leader of the Democratic Party. Just when a majority of the public is saying the Iraq War is not worth it, Howard Dean the new leader of the Democratic Party is saying: "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out."

Like the good partisan he is Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund. Of the President Dean said: "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
Chairman Dean does not seem to understand that the illegal occupation of Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In fact, the many fears he expresses regarding pulling out of Iraq are made more likely by the US occupation of Iraq.

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

From his comments, it is evident that Chairman Dean only believes in democracy if the voters support the kind of government the U.S. wants. U.S. officials find a puppet government led by U.S sympathizers preferable to what Iraqis want. Indeed, we find autocratic governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt preferable to democratic governments that are likely to oppose U.S. interests.

The fears expressed by Chairman Dean indicate that we really don't want a democracy in Iraq. We want a government that will continue to keep Paul Bremer's decrees as law, decrees that make Iraq very friendly to U.S. corporate interests. The decrees allow complete foreign ownership of Iraqi industry, very low tax rates that allow profit to be funneled out of Iraq, no trade unions to be organized by workers and no lawsuits against U.S. contractors. And, where through our puppets we get a seat at the OPEC table and first dibs on Iraqi oil. And for our military interests, a government that allows the U.S. to build 14 permanent military basis so Iraq becomes the center of U.S. military dominance over the region.

If we wanted a democracy in Iraq we would have announced an exit timetable. Iraqis have shown in many ways that they want the U.S. to leave. Author Naomi Klien summarized the evidence for this proposition on Democracy Now! on April 20:

"A majority of Iraqis voted in the election for a political party, the United Iraqi Alliance. The second plank of their platform was calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Then you have all the people who boycotted the elections because they believed that a clear statement about withdrawal was the prerequisite for having elections, that you couldn't have elections before you had that commitment. So immediately after Iraqis have expressed this through opinion polls, through protests, through their votes . . ."
Add to her list the growing insurgency that seems to be primarily made up by Iraqis, religious leaders from both the Shiite and Sunni community calling on the U.S. to leave and recent protests involving hundreds of thousands and it is impossible to deny the obvious - Iraqis want the United States to leave. If we wanted majority rule in Iraq we would be announcing a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

A responsible withdrawal plan will minimize the risks that Dean fears by stopping mainstream Iraqis from supporting the resistance to U.S. occupation. If Iraqis know they will be getting back their country and that there will be a dual withdrawal of U.S. troops and corporate interests in the near future the resistance will lose support. Our presence empowers anti-US views in Iraq - our exit will make the U.S. invasion truly into a liberation of Iraq from Saddam. Our continued presence makes clear this was not a war of liberation but a war of occupation and dominance of the region.
Democracy Rising has put forward a three step exit strategy that includes real elections under international, not U.S., supervision; an international peace keeping force from neutral countries, preferably in the region; and continued humanitarian aid to help rebuild Iraq. See: www.DemocracyRising.US for details on this exit plan.

Recently, Robert Novak reported that the Bush administration plans to get out of Iraq within a year. Wouldn't is be ironic if while the Democratic leadership - John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Howard Dean - is calling for continued occupation, the Republican leadership announced a withdrawal plan!

[CoalTrain]

Is Dean against Civil liberties?

This sounds like something Bush would say.

What Howard Dean May Bring to the DNC
By JOSHUA FRANK

A year before Howard Dean announced his bid for the presidency; he spoke at a Pittsburg event sponsored by a "smart-card" firm, Wave Systems, which was a sure sign Dean was fast running away from his grassroots support, and right into the arms of the corporate elite. At the conference Dean announced that he hoped to one day implement a national identification card that would discourage online terrorism and identity theft, which would ultimately make Wave Systems a very rich corporation.

"We must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be universally read at vital checkpoints," Dean explained during his speech in March 2002. "Issuing such a card would have little effect on the privacy of Americans." Dean's Star Trek like fantasy went as far as to state that the Federal government should mandate the implementation of ID card readers in all personal computers. The computer could then only be accessed once the system user inserted his or her national ID number into the security login.

"One state's smart-card driver's license must be identifiable by another state's card reader," said Dean. "It must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time-making the Internet safer and more secure."

"On the Internet, this card will confirm all the information required to gain access to a state (government) network-while also barring anyone who isn't legal age from entering an adult chat room, making the Internet safer for our children, or prevent[ing] adults from entering a children's chat room and preying on our kids ... Many new computer systems are being created with card reader technology. Older computers can add this feature for very little money," Dean said.

"In an age where identity and trust are paramount, the fact remains that the only viable form of universal identity in the US today is the state-issued driver's license," Dean added. "Think about it: When you entered the airport or the train station to travel to this conference, how many times did you use your driver's license to prove your identity? Remember-this is the same driver's license that teenagers alter in order to get into a club or buy cigarettes. Terrorists do it all the time. They did it on September 11."

Despite Dean's good intentions, such a card, if implemented, would pry into the private acts of individuals on their home computers. The government would be allowed to track all actions made by citizens via the Internet. Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare-one that Republicans would most certainly be ridiculed by privacy groups for endorsing.

"I'm from Vermont and believe me, government is kept at a respectful but very conscious distance," Dean said. "Reality demands that we understand, first, that the rise of empowered individuals whose single mission is to destroy Americans means that we have to fight them at an INDIVIDUAL level and second-that we have already ceded our private information to faceless credit card companies and direct marketers who then sell it for a profit. Now-I believe that our nation has the technological capacity to protect both our privacy and our way of life."

He touted, "We will not, and should not, tolerate a call to erode privacy even further-far from it. Americans can only be assured that their personal identity and information are safe and protected when they are able to gain more control over this information and its use."

Although Dean may still contend that his ID vision is revolutionary, other civil liberty and privacy activists are skeptical such a system would actually protect privacy. Declan McCullagh quoted Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberties program at the American Civil Liberties Union, as saying, "[Dean's idea] won't even work to protect against terrorism because we know that some of the 9-11 terrorists had phony driver's licenses that they were able to buy on the black market."

In the same January 26, 2004 News.com article, McCullagh quoted Chris Hoofnagle, the associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center: "I know of no other Democratic candidate who has this view on national ID. I hope that [Dean will] reconsider his policy on national ID because it has significant effects on individuals' right to privacy and does not make the country more secure. If you think about it, the implication is that children would have to be issued cards as well. Are we talking about ID cards from birth?"

The only response offered up by the Dean camp on this matter was, "No comment."


***

As Howard Dean planned his race for the White House he must have thumbed through George W. Bush's campaign playbook. Within the first four months of Dean's announcement of his bid for the White House, he had amassed over $110,000 in donations from people with ties to the Fund for a Healthy America, a Vermont utility group.

On February 27, 2002, David Gram of the Associated Press reported: "One donor who gave Dean's PAC the maximum amount allowed- $5,000 is Robert Young a top official at two utility companies that have had a lot of important business before state government during Dean's nearly 11 years in office. Young is chief executive at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and chairman of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp."

Although Dean's campaign spokesperson Kate O'Conner said it would be absurd for anybody to think donations to the Dean campaign bought access, Dean seemed to believe otherwise. "People who think they're going to buy a contract are mistaken," he stated in 1996 during the campaign reform bill debates. "But they do get access-there's no question about that ... They get me to return their phone calls."

And indeed they did. As Gram wrote, during Dean's transition into the governor's mansion, he called on utility executives to help with the change of office. It's no coincidence that those executives' businesses benefited greatly. Notes Gram:

"-After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean's Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"-The department also agreed to allow the utilities to sell Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania company for a price that was expected to be $23.8 million by the time the deal closed. Shortly before the Public Service Board was to make a final decision on that sale, another company stepped in and offered more than seven times as much. That sale to Entergy Nuclear Corp. is currently before the board

"--After it became clear in the late 1990s that selling Vermont Yankee was a top goal of the utilities, the administration failed to heed warnings for more than two years that the money the nuclear plant was paying for emergency planning was much less than was needed. An administration official said there was concern about interfering with the sale."

When it comes to the matter of campaign contributors, James Dumont, a lawyer for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, seems to have hit the nail on the head, contending: "They [Dean Administration] didn't bite the hand that fed them."

With all this in mind, it is safe to say that if Howard Dean miraculously pulls off a victory and climbs into the throne of DNC chair, we can be certain that Dean will raise money for the Democrats by hob-knobbing with businesses like Wave Systems.

Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in early 2005 by Common Courage Press.

[CoalTrain]

Dean on te Death penalty


Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up
Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free
By JOSH FRANK

As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean openly claimed that the legal system unfairly benefited criminal defendants over prosecutors. He even took measures to cut federal grant money aimed at helping mentally disabled defendants--as well as appointing state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to "quickly convict guilty criminals." He wanted individuals that would deem "common sense more important than legal technicalities." Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials.

Perhaps he was looking to make Vermont more like George Bush's Texas, where defense lawyers are renowned for lacking the resources necessary to provide their clients a fair representation.

Several of Dean's judicial appointments are now awaiting hearings before the United States Second Circuit Court in New York City. The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression (www.tjcenter.org) and two other law firms have filed briefs against these justices. They are being accused of violating a number of federal rights including; the First Amendment, Right to Counsel, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process.

Regarding one case where citizen reporter Scott Huminski was barred from Vermont courts, a DC lawyer stated in an interview with Eugenia Harris from the First Amendment Center that, "the real heart of the issue is whether local government officials can unilaterally silence speech and exert arbitrary power over their citizens." Seems Howard Dean stuck by his word and appointed judges that care little about real "justice." And he thinks he's qualified to appoint justices at the federal level?

These are not the only examples of Howard Dean's intentions to subdue the Bill of Rights. Shortly after the September 11th attacks Dean was quoted in the Rutland Herald claiming that the United States needs a "re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties."

Later when asked if he thought the Bill of Rights needed to be altered he said, "I think it is unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far I think our freedom is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think results from that freedom."

So according to Dean since terrorists are after our sought after freedoms, we might consider scathing back certain liberties in order to decrease the threat of future strikes. John Ashcroft must be pleased.

There is more. On Meet the Press last June, when asked about his support for the death penalty by Tim Russert, Dean replied,

"So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial."

A "technicality" to Dean must be synonymous with "Constitutional hang-up." In the case Dean presented to Russert, a man walked free, but should have been put to death instead of challenging his unconstitutional conviction. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen commented on Dean's statement saying that, "I have never heard a politician admit that he would countenance the death of an innocent person in order to ensure that the guilty die."

Dean's attempts to weaken the Bill of Rights began in the 1990s with his appointments of justices now awaiting hearings in New York for egregious infringements on civil liberties. He then took it a step further after September 11th and indicated the "re-evaluation" of constitutional rights was in order. And now, as Dean steams ahead in his bid for the White House, he's claiming on national television that he would rather have an innocent convict die than have them released on a "technicality."

If elected will Dean attempt to make the United State's a country in which citizens have access to neither a fair trial, nor adequate counsel? A country where constitutional rights are viewed as "technicalities," worthy of death?

Time to start asking some serious questions.