You're No Good

Young voters are deserting Bush in droves.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll which was taken immediately following the Democratic Convention gives Kerry a two to one lead over Bush with voters under the age of 30. In 2000, Gore and Bush essentially split the under 30 vote with 48 to 46 percent, respectively. Ouch:

Bush's problems with younger voters began long before the Democratic convention, Post-ABC polls suggest. The last time Bush and Kerry were tied among the under-30 crowd was in April. In the five surveys since then, Bush has trailed Kerry by an average of 18 percentage points.

Virtually every other major poll conducted in the past month confirms Kerry's popularity with voters under the age of 3o. A poll by the Pew Center for the People & the Press released Thursday reported Kerry still ahead by 18 points among this group.

Taken together, those surveys suggest that if the election were held today, Bush would do about as well among younger voters as GOP presidential candidate Robert J. Dole in 1996. Dole lost to President Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 34 percent among 18-to-29-year-olds. Bush's father split the young vote in 1988 and lost to Clinton by nine points in 1992. The Reagan era marked the recent high-water mark for the GOP with younger voters, who gave the Gipper his biggest victory margin of any age group in 1984.

This is a fairly interesting development. Recently our friends at Centerfield posted here a piece titled, "Young Voters for Bush". Their piece links to a story by Chris Collins of the Seattle Times who tells young people:

"But when we live in this "end justifies the means" political reality — where it doesn't matter, really, what the facts and details are as long as you believe in some grand political vision — it's important to know that on the issues, Bush's track record is mostly supportive of this generation's future.

Apparently young American voters were willing to buy into this line of reasoning when we weren't two years into an unneccesary and unjustified war...and when they could actually get a job that would help them to pay their car insurance and save a little for college.

Funny how those little "details" matter when political reality is trumped by the cold, hard reality of every day life. And to Mr Collins...many young voters (and Americans in general), respectfully disagree.

The official Kerry-Edwards blog (source of the pic) claims 60,000 showed up at the resulting rally yesterday in Portland. The Portland Fire Marshal estimated 50,000. Either way... the Bush rally across town attracted 2,300 by the Bush team's own estimate.

Kerry in Portland:

Close up:

Source

Bush in Portland:

Source

Needless to say the Bush people didn't release any photos that panned the crowd... for obvious reasons.

It should be pointed out that these rallies were held in the Portland Metro area - traditionally Democratic turf. But, the day before, Kerry drew a crowd of 6,000 in Central Point, Oregon. Jackson County (home to Central Point) went heavily for Bush in 2000. Two weeks ago Cheney held a rally in the exact same building and only drew 3,000.

I'm thinking that Kerry's going to win Oregon, with or without Nader.

***Update***
This Jack Ohman political cartoon illustrates the difference between the Bush and Kerry rallies very succinctly. Ohman draws for the Oregonian's OP/ED section.

Hat tip to NegSpin for pointing it out.

A couple days ago the LA Times reported on how the Department of Defense has turned to hiring civilians to guard military bases here in the United States due to the over-extended military being short-handed.

The profound lack of planning on the part of the DOD coupled with President Bush's inability to build an international coalition willing and capable of putting enough boots on the ground to make a difference has led to this dire problem. But that's not the most interesting part of this story.

The civilian guard contracts went to four firms - two of which were no-bid contracts. The contracts are worth as much as $1.24 billion. And this is where it gets interesting... and disturbing.

But the Army's action has drawn criticism on two grounds: that it compromises domestic military security, and that it amounts to abuse of a law intended to aid impoverished Alaska Natives.


Two five-year contracts worth as much as $1 billion went to two small Alaska Native firms with little previous security experience. The firms, which operate under special contracting laws enabling them to avoid competitive bidding, subcontracted part of the work to two of the country's largest security firms: Wackenhut Services Inc. and Vance Federal Security Services.

Now think about this for a second. If Wackenhut Services Inc. and Vance Federal Security Services can put feet on the ground profitably... why in the hell are we paying these two small Alaskan firms to be the middlemen? Ah... but it gets even more interesting here.

Democrats, watchdog groups and independent contracting experts said that the Army's contracting arrangement with the Alaska Native firms amounted to a back-door deal to send taxpayer dollars to Wackenhut and Vance, which lost out the only time they faced open competition against other companies for the security contracts.


"It's a total abuse of the intent of the law," said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Program on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. "The law was designed to benefit companies that need a special boost. At the end of the day, if Wackenhut is benefiting, it's just a blatant abuse of the system."

Now, if Wackenhut and Vance lost out on previous contracts, that means that they were high bidders. Right? So we've got Rumsfeld bypassing the free-market system to funnel money to corporate welfare queens who couldn't make it on their own.

A quick search on Political Money Line reveals that Wackenhut gives extensively and almost exclusively to Republicans. Vance Federal Security Services is actually part of Vance International. Political Money Line didn't have much on them. But OpenSecrets.org did and here again we see the profile of a corporation giving extensively to Republicans. Coincidence? How about the two Native Alaskan firms, Alutiiq and Chenega? Well golly... Alutiiq gives heavily and virtually exclusively to Republicans. Chenega doesn't give much from what I could find. But, more than half of what they do give goes to... Republicans.

Oh... and those two beneficiaries of the law which is intended to help Native Alaskan businesses? Alutiiq is based in Virginia, and Chenega is based in Florida.

...is give peace a chance.

MSNBC is reporting that peace talks in Najaf have collapsed:

Al-Rubaie, who had headed the negotiations on behalf of the government, said he had proposed firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia be disbanded and become a political movement.

"We have been talking and discussing these matters for three days but reached no positive conclusion," he said. "After three days, my government thought there was no use in continuing."

We are knee deep in the Briar Patch...and headed for neck deep.

I just added two new blogs to our blogroll. ThatColoredFellasweblog and Random Thoughts: Unfair and Unbalanced.

With few exceptions we usually just post reciprocal links when someone else has linked to us. But, that's not a hard and fast rule. These two really intrigued me when I first ran across them. Each stood out from the crowd in interesting ways. So... here they are.

I've also recently added Pajama Pundit, Jeff's Red Hair & Black Leather and Bohemian Mama (Voice of a Veteran's daughter). All three were added over the last several weeks.

Inspiration

The Star Tribune has an outstanding editorial piece on Republicans using Congressional investigative powers to demonize Democrats and to shelter their friends (registration required).

The piece cites the scandal du jour for Halliburton. The SEC is reporting that Halliburton changed it's accounting practices in 1998 to make it appear that they were making a lot more money than they actually were. Who was CEO of Halliburton in 1998? Cheney, of course. Congressional interest in the matter? None.

Another example is the revelation last week about Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala)leaking classified information to the media while he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Justice investigated the matter for the last two years and concluded that Shelby was indeed the leaker. Congressional interest in going after Shelby? Zero.

Then consider the case of Sandy Berger. Berger was Clinton's National Security Advisor and accused of illegally taking photocopies of classified documents from the National Archives. According to the editorial:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay declared a national security "crisis," and operatives for the Bush campaign accused Berger of everything short of treason. The notorious House Government Reform Committee promptly launched an investigation of Berger's conduct, even though an investigation by the Justice Department has not been concluded, and the 9/11 commission reported it had lost no original documents nor suffered damage to its work.

The piece wraps up:

We are most definitely not suggesting that Shelby and Cheney get the same noxious treatment that Bill Clinton and Berger received. But the American people would surely be better served if Congress ended its highly selective use of investigative power to protect friends and demonize enemies. Whitewater may have needed a quick look-see from Congress -- but if so, then Cheney's role at Halliburton certainly requires at least the same. Berger's bumbled handling of classified photocopies arguably was less worrisome for national security than Shelby's deliberate leak to the media, but has stirred much more congressional scrutiny and outrage. The double standard is obvious, obnoxious and feeds the American people's cynicism about what they can expect from their federal government. It should stop.

This is the result of the Republicans having full control of the legislature and the White House. While most certainly the Democrats have (until recently...thanks, Howard) been spineless when it comes to going after the Republicans..it's magnified when the Dems have the minority in both chambers.

Outlets like Air America as well as bloggers in search of the truth can really make a difference here. We can get the word out. We can vote and encourage everyone we know to vote. We can contact our legislators (both GOP and Democrat) and push them hard to go after guys like Shelby and DeLay. In my opinion it's crucial. The Republic depends upon it.

This afternoon after returning from my jaunt to the Kerry Rally...I viewed my ti-voe'd Daily Show from last evening. Stewart took a jab at Cheney (a target rich enviornment, to be sure) regarding a speech Cheney recently gave in Dayton Ohio. From the news report on Cheney's speech:

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney said in Dayton. "President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more."

Cheney went on to say:

“A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans.... The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity,”



Here's the excerpt from Kerry's speech that Cheney was hustling:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

As Stewart pointed out...it's simply unbelievable that the Bush administration would dishonestly take a point out of context to make political hay. But apparently the folks at the Bush Campaign aren't watching the speechwriters for W too closely:

"We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength." (Bush Remarks at USS Regan Ceremony, 3/4/01)

"Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that." (Bush Delivers Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6/04)

So as Stewart so glibly remarked...hey George..I think the Vice President is calling you a p***y.

This morning at 7AM the troops and I got up, had a quickie breakfast and set off for downtown Portland to attend the John Kerry rally at Waterfront Park.

When we arrived downtown we followed the throngs down to the Park. At first things seemed really disorganized. We couldn't figure out where the gate was to get in. Then when we thought we'd figured it out...we were in the wrong line. This apparently happened to a lot of folks as there appeared to be some confusion for many. But the Kerry organizers eventually got out among the crowd and started getting people headed in the right direction.

The only other poorly thought out part of the rally was the spotlights. They'd placed spotlights on the stage that faced out toward the middle of the stage. One of the lights was really blinding and made it tough to see the performers and the speakers. Besides, why in the world do they need spotlights at noon on one of the hottest days of the Summer?

That said, given the size of the crowd (20-30k) things went pretty well. The campaign seemed well prepared for the heat, passing out free bottles of water quite generously. They also had tons of free tshirts, US flags and signs.

Just before noon, some of Oregon's elected representatives gave short speeches. Then Leonardo DeCaprio gave a short speech...and then Bon Jovi performed. There were rumors that we would see Springsteen but he wasn't there. But we had Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora. They were excellent.

Finally, Kerry's buses arrived. First to speak was Teresa Heinz Kerry. She spoke powerfully in her heavily accented and forcefull manner. The most moving part of her speech was her references to growing up in areas of the world where people weren't allowed the democratic process. She was very good. Next, Jim Rassmann (the Oregon man Kerry saved in Vietnam) made some brief remarks. And Kerry was up.

He does give a good speech. It was blazing hot out with the sun reflecting off of the Willamette River. But Kerry held the crowd easily...discussing everything from his service, to protesting, to his 225 page plan to put America back on course.

In contrast to the Kerry event today, Bush was also in the Portland area. This is Bush's fourth stop in Oregon but to my knowledge he has yet to hold a public rally in the Portland area. Today's Bush event was an "invite only" at one of the high schools on the west side. This is Kerry's second event in the Portland region. Both have been free and open to the public.

And I didn't even have to sign a loyalty oath.


Update: According to KATU News in Portland, the fire marshall shut down the entrance gates at Waterfront Park when the crowd reached 25,000. The fire department estimated that there were an additional 25,000 in the streets surrounding the park and on the Hawthorne Bridge.

50,000 people thirsting for leadership. Amazing.

In a revelation sure to send shock waves throughout the political landscape, the Congressional Budget Office is reporting the Bush tax cuts of the last three years have gone to the top one percent of income.

It's a good thing that the CBO is on the case. We'd never have known (unless you count what Kerry has been saying his entire campaign). But just to make sure they can appear "unbiased", the Times gets a dig in:

Those are also the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes.

Earth to the NYT: They are the top one percent and they hold the vast majority of the wealth. Is it not feasible that they have a "disproportionate" share of the nation's wealth?

The Washington Post has this take:

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

First of all, the top one percent are paying LESS percentage than those averaging $182,700? That's nuts. Second, the top one percent holds the vast majority of the amount of the wealth (something like ninety percent). The tax burden at the local level is already shouldered by the middle class as well. So now we've shifted the federal AND the local burdens to the middle class.

Anyone who's income is below $182,700 is screwing themselves by voting for Bush.

Digby has a hilarious piece on the "riveting" entertainers who will be entertaining the GOPers at their convention:


Bill Harris, chief executive of the Republican National Convention, described the group as the first to join the convention. Republicans say they will announce more performers in the coming days.

The performers to be officially announced Thursday include:

-Michael W. Smith, one of the top stars in contemporary Christian music who has occasionally crossed over to the pop charts.

-The Gatlin Brothers, who have been performing for four decades in country music and had a string of hits in the 1970s and 1980s. They cut back on nationwide touring in 1992.

-Daniel Rodriguez, a former New York City policeman and tenor who became well known singing a capella versions of "God Bless America" and the national anthem after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

-Sara Evans, one of the promising young performers in country music who has had a number of hits on the country charts. In 1998, she had a hit album "No Place That Far" and the title song on the album became her first No. 1 hit.

Other entertainers at the convention include Dana Glover, a young performer, who sang on the soundtrack for the movie "Shrek," veteran actor Ron Silver, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, co-host of daytime talk show "The View" and surfer-turned-singer Daize Shayne.

Man, just think of the electricity in Madison Square Garden when that much star power comes together in one place. Wow.

That post makes me almost feel sorry for the poor GOPers. Almost.

What's worse for them? I'll be basking in the sunshine in downtown Portland tomorrow at the Kerry rally...with Jon Bon Jovi..and reportedly...the Boss.

It really sucks to be a Republican. :)

No Doubt

It would appear that the Washington Post has done a self audit, and it doesn't like what it sees.

The Post is now admitting that it mishandled stories about Iraq in the lead up to the Iraq invastion:

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

Gee, ya think?

The US military is currently engaged in heavy fighting in Iraq's holy city of Najaf. The fighting is an attempt to squash the insurgency headed by Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Today's Christian Science Monitor has a piece about the possibility of Al Sadr's possible martyrdom, should he be killed by US or Iraqi government forces.

It's definitely a dilemma that the US faces in dealing with any of the Islamic fundamentalist leaders engaged in fighting the US. It's certainly not something I know the answer to.

Is it better to incarcerate them when/if they're caught? Or is death better in the long run? Or should we be turning them over to another government who is less concerned about the martyr aspect and let them handle it?

It makes my brain hurt to ponder it.

I'm sure we've all see the headlines: Florida on alert with two tropical storms on the way. Which begs the question of what did Florida do this time to piss God off? After all, the whack job former GOP Presidential contender and founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson has established that when Floridians do bad things... God smites them by sending massive storms and other natural disasters.

So what was it this time, Pat? The fraud that Jeb Bush promised his brother Dubya that he'd deliver in 2000? Or could it be the Diebold scam that Jeb Bush is trying to use to engineer a repeat of 2000 for his older brother? Or perhaps God is displeased by your repeated suggestions that it'd be a good idea to detonate a friggin' nuclear device under the Department of State in Washington DC.

Note: I actually do believe that God could use a natural disaster to express displeasure with humans. I don't mean to mock that concept. I want to be crystal clear here... I'm mocking Pat Robertson. He's a deranged lunatic who poses some danger to America if for no other reason than his obvious enthusiasm at the mere hint of nuking a specific part of America. Hell, we've toppled foreign governments, with no small loss of life, in the last two years for significantly less provocation than nuking the State Department building.

From misleader.org:

Bush Ignores His Own Letter from 1992 on Smear Ads


With one of his top donors airing a dishonest and discredited attack ad against Sen. John Kerry's military record, President George W. Bush is refusing to denounce the tactics. Not only is Bush ignoring calls from his own top Republicans to intervene, he is directly contradicting his own demands during the 1992 presidential campaign.

Specifically, according to the July 14, 1992 Washington Post, George W. Bush authored a letter to more than 85,000 Republican donors on behalf of his father's presidential campaign urging them to stop funding sleazy and dishonest attacks on Bill Clinton. Now, however, Bush is remaining silent as his top Texas fundraiser Robert Perry bankrolls ads against Kerry, which independent academic institutions have discredited. Even as Sen. John McCain (R) demands the White House issue a statement denouncing the tactics, Bush refuses. Even as one of the veterans' in the ads apologizes for his attacks, the President who talks so much about restoring "civility" has said nothing.

It's interesting to me how the righties have become so virulenty angry when those of us on the left question the leadership of Bush. At first, we were just completely unpatriotic. But then that was shot down when members of the military started agreeing with us...LOL Then it became "lies"...which was also shot down because we pretty much have Bush's record documented. Now they're trying to write us off as "angry"..which is valid, many of us are. But given that the anger has to do with Bush's "leadership" and years of GOP pounding, the anger has some justification.

The question of leadership is definitely a worthwhile one when it comes to picking our Presidents. One of the tenets of leadership, it seems to me, is the ability to make important decisions in a timely manner..and make the correct ones. Or adjust course when things are obviously not going well and will not be going well in the forseeable future.

It's clear to me that having watched Bush as President, he's severely lacking in these leadership qualities. Sitting in the classroom on 9/11 is evidence of a man who cannot take decisive action. "Staying the course" in Iraq despite mounting evidence that it's obviously not going well and will not be going well in the forseeable future is more evidence.

But does Kerry have these qualities? A case can be made that he does based on his past actions:

According to the men who served under Kerry on his boat, Kerry was very good at making important decisions, kept a cool head and saved lives.

Kerry's daughter has testified that Kerry tried to save her pet hamster from drowning...and even tried CPR.

Even a former Republican senator has a testimonial about Kerry's ability to have a cool, decisive head in a crisis:

Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht of Nevada is a staunch Republican, but he thanks his lucky stars for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On July 12, 1988, Hecht was attending a weekly Republican luncheon when a piece of apple lodged firmly in his throat.

Hecht stumbled out of the room, thinking he might vomit but not wanting to do it in front of his colleagues. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., thumped his back, but Hecht quickly passed out in the hallway.

Just then, Kerry stepped off an elevator, rushed to Hecht's side and gave him the Heimlich maneuver -- four times.

The lifesaving incident made international news, and Dr. Henry Heimlich, who invented the maneuver in 1974, called Hecht to say that had Kerry intervened just 30 seconds later Hecht might have been in a vegetative state for life.

"This man gave me my life," the 75-year-old Hecht said Thursday.

Hecht said he was amazed that Kerry acted so quickly -- some people were assuming that he was having a heart attack.

"He knew exactly what to do," he said. "But a lot of people know what to do. They just don't size up the situation immediately."

This appears to me to be a pretty definitive pattern for John Kerry. Despite the bashing of the Bush Campaign/Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"/rightwing spin machine, these actions don't lie.

you'll cry and cry and try to sleep
but sleep won't come the whole night through
your cheating heart will tell on you

Investor's Business Daily has an editorial piece blasting the US State Department for asking an outside group to monitor US elections.

According to IBD the State Department has asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation, a European group, to monitor the 2004 US Presidential elections in November.

Predictably, IBD is livid. Apparently the fact that the previous Presidential election came across as a complete joke to many Americans is lost on these characters. Not to mention their intense whining:

The invitation was extended by -- of course -- the State Department, which for years has been a weak defender of U.S. interests.

Excuse me? A "weak defender of US interests"? So it's bad to want to use diplomacy to solve problems before going in and bombing the living crap out of innocents? It's wrong to want to be absolutely certain that we have correct intelligence before we decide to invade a country that NEVER attacked us? So which government entity is a strong defender of US interests? The Department of Defense? The neocons? Right.

But of course IBD isn't quite finished:

It's clearly an effort to smear the Bush administration and all Republicans as cheaters who stole the election. But it was the Democrats -- with their army of lawyers swooping into Florida, their attempts to recount and recount again in selected Democratic counties until they got the result they wanted, their absurd challenges to legal votes and their attempts to divine voters' intentions from hanging chads -- who tried to rob George W. Bush of a legitimate victory.

Legitimate victory my ass. The Orlando Sentinel, Palm Beach Post and the Chicago Tribune conducted statewide recounts after the election was completed. Their recounts show Gore winning Florida by 1080 votes. And that's after the Republicans in Florida expunged thousands of people off the voting roles that they claimed were "felons". And then of course there were the road blocks. And don't forget about the wealthy areas of Florida having nice, well run computers to do their voting...why the poorer areas had paper roles that weren't always up to date.

They also disregard that the government never found a single person in the state who was intentionally disenfranchised. Or that two media recounts determined that, yes, Bush did win Florida.

"The government"? Would it be "the government" in Florida run by Jeb Bush or the "federal government" run by the GOP and George W Bush that just couldn't find anyone who was intentionally disenfranchised? And what about those "unintentionally disenfranchised"? "Oh gee...I really didn't mean to keep Mr Smith from being able to vote...but we just couldn't let him past the road block." Uh-huh.

And the cherry on the IBD cake:

We're simply saying that the U.S. can handle its own affairs. It's not a banana republic where the outcome of every sham election is known well in advance. It's not a dictatorship that rigs the vote to re-elect a tyrant.


We are the model for representative government and civil conduct in selecting our leaders. Hauling in a squad of international busybodies is needless, if not demeaning.

Tell ya what IBD...you guys quit trying to steal the election by expunging voter roles, rigging voting machines, setting up road blocks and various other stunts. And then outside groups monitoring elections won't be needed. You feel demeaned? Tough. A little humility is nothing in the face of massive fraud and the people of the US having confidence and faith that our elections are above board.

Update: According to this post at MyDD, the OSCE might not exactly have much teeth. The post speculates that OSCE is politically motivated.

Perhaps State jumped at this to keep another, more unbiased organization from doing it?

Thanks to cwkraus4clark over at Kos for the head's up.

As reported yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden is demanding answers from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on why Oregon National Guard soldiers were told to "walk away" from Iraqis being tortured by individuals associated with the new interim government.

In a two page letter to Rumsfeld (warning: PDF file), Wyden asks for an investigation of the incident and protection against retaliation for the Guard officers who reported the incident.

Reportedly, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and Congresswoman Darlene Hooley (both Democrats) are signing on to Wyden's call for an investigation of the matter.

I contacted Senator Gordon Smith's local Portland office and asked for a statement on the matter. I was referred to the DC office and was told that no statement had yet been issued by the Senator. The very nice gentleman on the phone did tell me that he expected a statement "fairly soon" and that he believed they were "still working on it". I have been promised a phone call from the DC office when more is known.

I also contacted Congressman David Wu's Portland office. I was told that Congressman Wu had not yet issued a statement and she wasn't sure when one would be forthcoming.

I'm especially dissapointed that we've heard nothing from Wu on this. He's a moderate Democrat. He should be on board with asking for an investigation. I've been a Wu supporter and will be voting for him again this cycle (cuz his opponent his a major rightwing nutjob)...but frankly if there was a moderate Republican running..I might consider them after talking with Wu's office. This makes me angry.

Democratic candidate Joe Hoeffel is giving Arlen Specter a run for his money for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

As reported by Atrios, Hoeffel is setting off on a two and a half week bus tour which will take him to all of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania. But the real news is, Hoeffel has snagged two endorsements away from Specter.

Both the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)have endorsed Hoeffel. Both have supported Specter in the past. From Robert Eddies of FOP:

Arlen Specter may have been a district attorney three decades
ago, but over the past four years, he's clearly allowed ideology
and politics to get in the way of fulfilling his responsibility
to police in Philadelphia,

Go Joe Go.....

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Bob Matsui is calling on recently Dem to GOP convert Rodney Alexander to return $193,000 raised for him by the DCCC.

Matsui says:

"Rodney Alexander owes an apology and he owes a refund to the thousands of honest people who supported him based upon his fraudulent claim that he was going to run for Congress as a Democrat. Louisianans and people all across the country took him at his word and backed his campaign with their hard earned money and with their own time and energy. Because of his calculated and cowardly act of personal advancement on Friday, I am demanding that Mr. Alexander reimburse the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the $193,000 the committee used to help him win this seat in the 2002 general and run-off elections.

"Mr. Alexander carried the 5th District by less than one thousand votes. The support of the DCCC and the Louisiana Democratic Party was a determining factor to his win. The DCCC directed over $736,000 to the Louisiana State Party to help raise awareness on voter issues in the 2002 cycle.


Matsui also blasted Alexander saying that he should return every penny raised this election cycle, including $70,000 that Democratic Members of Congress have given him, "based upon his fraudulent claim that he was a Democrat running for Congress.

Update: According to The Stakeholder, Rodney's entire staff resigned today as well. Thanks to Jugwine on Kos for the info.

Bohemian Mama has an update on her blog that follows up on yesterday's PK story about the Oregon National Guard. As you may remember, Oregon National Guardsmen were kept from saving Iraqis from being tortured by people associated with the new Iraqi interim government.

In her blog...Bohemian Mama notes that Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is on the case.

Wyden is asking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to investigate whether Oregon National Guardsmen were improperly ordered by superior officers to leave a detention area where they intervened to stop Iraqi guards from beating handcuffed prisoners.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulingoski (Democrat) heaped praise on the Oregon Guardsmen:

Meanwhile, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski issued a statement saying he is "extremely proud" of the Oregon National Guard soldiers serving in Iraq.

"I am honored by their professionalism as soldiers, their conviction about what is right and their basic sense of humanity," the governor said.

"I am very sorry that they had to witness these terrible events," Kulongoski said. "While war sometimes brings out the best in us, it also brings out the worst. I'm very grateful as an Oregonian that the soldiers of the Oregon National Guard knew the difference. I would expect nothing less from these courageous Oregonians who are serving our country."

This is all well and good but what I want to know is...where the HELL is Oregon's Republican Senator, Gordon Smith? Why isn't he also pressing for Rumsfeld to look into this..or at the very least to have Rumsfeld/Bush offer an explanation?

It's expected for Wyden to be involved in this. He's part of the opposition party. But it's shameful that Gordon Smith has become Oregon's cypher when it comes to so many of these issues. He should be standing next to Wyden, demanding an explanation.

John Solomon of the AP reports that bureaucrats in the Justice Department hindered federal prosecutors in the nation's first major terror trail, according to internal memos acquired by the AP. At stake was evidence for the prosecution which wasn't presented in the trail.

The department's terrorism unit "provided no help of any kind in this prosecution," the U.S. Attorney's office in Detroit wrote in one of the memos, which detail bitter divisions between front-line prosecutors and their superiors in Washington.

The Bush administration hailed the convictions of the three men who were accused of operating a sleeper cell.

A fourth defendant was acquitted, however, and only two of the four men originally arrested were convicted of terrorism charges. Now the convictions are in jeopardy because of an internal investigation into allegations that defense lawyers were denied evidence that could have helped them.

Oh, but that's only part of the story.

Justice officials declined comment, citing a partial gag order the judge has imposed in the Detroit case. But internal memos show Washington frequently criticized the Detroit prosecutors as "not adequately supervised" and providing "minimal" cooperation.

Not adequately supervised???

Other memos show the chief of the elite organized crime strike force in Detroit, Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Corbett, challenged the judgment of Justice's terrorism chief, Barry Sabin.

"I see no reason to listen to petty bureaucratic complaints by people who will not and could not try the case," Corbett wrote. "Sorry if this response seems impolite, but I have had it with Barry Sabin."

When Washington evaluated the Detroit office as uncooperative after the trial, Detroit responded with a strong retort.

The lone Justice lawyer sent from Washington to help told his Detroit colleagues "he had no intention of participating in the trial" and refused to assist when an urgent issue arose involving a witness and the State Department, the Detroit office wrote.

The Washington lawyer "spent the same 10 (trial) weeks in a hotel at taxpayers' expense when he was not playing basketball in the evenings," the memo stated.

Seriously, folks... We can do better than this! Ashcroft needs to be spending a lot less time worrying about whether sculptures need to be G-Rated with strategically placed bolts of cloth and more time doing his job!

(hat tip to madtptnyc over on Carla's Daily Kos Diary for bringing this story to my attention)

The Mac

Oregon is one of those states often unafraid to take maverick positions on issues. Oregon is generally a leader as opposed to being a follower on the notions of the day. This leadership is partially due, in my opinion, to the willingness of the citizenry to often look beyond punditry and examine issues. From my experience, Oregonians are some of the best critical thinkers in the nation.

In the last several years, I've been concerned that perhaps Oregon has lost a bit of this ability to critically examine issues. With many outside political interests attempting to infiltrate Oregon politics (tax issues, specifically) it seems Oregon voters have been more susceptible to swallowing the rhetoric than in past years.

Then today while reading my Sunday Oregonian newspaper, I came across thispiece by columnist Susan Nielsen. Nielsen discusses the tendency for people to consider judges "activist" because law/rights don't always match public opinion:

Last week, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Also last week, a judge in Washington state ruled that gay marriage should be legal.

These two events look like more proof of the great cultural divide between judges and everyone else; between those wild-eyed judicial activists who seem to find gay rights hidden under their couch cushions, and squeamish voters who say gay marriage is just plain wrong.

But the truth is, the real cultural divide has little to do with judges. The true divide is between people who've had to confront gay marriage legally or personally, and people who haven't.

It seems to me that Ms. Nielsen has put her finger on the problem of many of the social issues of the day: it's tough to judge unless you've walked a mile in their moccasins, so to speak.

That wisdom is timely now more than ever. With the many complex and emotional social issues confronting the American electorate, it's more important than ever for us to think critically and with empathy. The alarming rate at which some Americans allow others (such as political, cultural or religious figures) to tell them what to think or how to vote is a scourge on our nation.

Oregonians are under siege from outside interests. I'm hopeful that we will continue the spirit of our state ancestors and continue to shrug them off...carving our own, maverick path.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

Oregon Army National Guardsmen responded to reports of what appeared to be prisoner abuse June 29, the first day of Iraqi sovereignty, at the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The Guard soldiers disarmed the Iraqi policemen and gave first aid to the detainees. The Oregon guardsmen were later ordered to stand down, handing the prisoners back over to the Iraqi officials. Many of the prisoners had fresh welts and bruises. Soldiers also found metal rods, rubber hoses, unknown chemicals and exposed electrical wires that appeared to have been used to torture the prisoners.

Lt. Col. Daniel Hendrickson of Albany, Ore., the highest ranking American at the scene, radioed for instructions. In a move that frustrated him, he was ordered to return the tortured prisoners and withdraw immediately.

The guardsmen who later gave their account of that day said they wanted Americans to know about the actions they took to protect unresisting prisoners -- and that they were ordered by U.S. military officials to walk away.

"The guys were really upset," said one soldier. Said another who talked to them immediately afterward, "They were really moved by what they'd seen."

Hendrickson referred questions about the episode to Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond of the 1st Cavalry. The story of what happened June 29 "needs to be told," Hammond acknowledged when interviewed by The Oregonian. But he said that, "because of the nature of this issue, it's being handled at a higher level than me."

You can view photos taken by the Guardsmen here. Warning: they are graphic photos.

So why hasn't the allegedly "Liberal" media here in the U.S. covered this story before now? And why did it take them so long to report the story that Irqai Prime Minister Iyad Allawi personally executed six suspected insurgents in a Baghdad police station? Wouldn't you think that if the media were "Liberal" and thus ideologically opposed to the Bush administration that they'd be eager to report on these stories?