Finally a bright spot for the democrats!!

Howard Dean is running for Chairman of the Democratic Party! Right the fuck on.

...He said that the Democrats must become the party of reform.

"The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions," he said. "We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it."
Dean's bid was expected, as he has been campaigning for the post for the past two months....



I came to the realization this morning that George W. Bush might have invaded Iraq soley to be a "War President". That it never had anything to do with terrorism or WMD's. And that it was all at the direction of Karl Rove to have something to run on.

Think about it: Bush's whole re-election campaign was about being a war president. He didn't have anything to hang his hat on before invading Iraq. Could Karl Rove be evil enough to invade Iraq soley to have a re-election issue to run on? It frightens me to even suggest it.

While you are chewing on that thought of the day, here is something lighter:

The I love Karl Rove website. Just save the link as a favorite now.


Karl Rove won the Election

Since 11-02 I have been argueing with anyone who will listen about what went wrong in November and what the Democratic Party should do as a response. I am tired of people claiming that America is becoming more conservative, and that the Demcratic party needs to move to the right in response. I am sick of all this crap about God, Guns and Gays. Maybe that had a little to do with it, but it really isn't the main reason. Basically, Americans are not intellectually curious. Karl Rove figured this out. Then he spoon feed us what we wanted to hear in plain, American, yanky, talk.

Kerry lost because he was trying to fight the dirty tricks of Karl Rove by being honest, and over explaining the issues. It turns out Americans don't want to know what the issues are, they just want to know who we should hate. Like the Gays or the French. Don't make me read, that gives me a headache...I don't want to think. Just tell me who the good guyis so I can hate the other guy.

This is a must read about Rove.

....Bush entered office promising to be a "uniter, not a divider." But Rovism is not about uniting. What Rove quickly grasped is that it's easier and more efficacious to exploit the cultural and social divide than to look for common ground. No recent administration has as eagerly played wedge issues — gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives — to keep the nation roiling, in the pure Rovian belief that the president's conservative supporters will always be angrier and more energized than his opponents. Division, then, is not a side effect of policy; in Rovism, it is the purpose of policy.....

Here is another good read about how Rove stole the election:

...Obviously, he needed a mechanism to execute his strategy. These are worrisome times, Rove reasoned, and people are seeking certainty. Regardless of how impossible it might be to deliver such goods, Rove's candidate assured the trembling masses that he was just the man to protect them from the evildoers of Islam.
Being Karl Rove also required that he provide iconography; suddenly, 30-something mothers, holding their infants, began appearing on network newscasts and expressing their beliefs that they trusted George W. Bush to make safe the lives of their babies. The mythological "security mom" was seduced by the Texas warrior king. Bush's share of the female vote went up 4 points over 2000 to 47 percent...

Basically, you sound a terror alert every week, get a group called s'wift boats for the truth' blasting Kerry's war record and tell your man to start name calling Kerry. How many times did we hear : 'Massachusetts Liberal' and a' flip flopper' in 2004? Then make some fake papers he gave to Dan Rather .. And let's not forget getting Gay marrage as a national topic. Hell, by the time Rove started rolling- we forgot that Bush had lied about the WMD's.


What stinks around here?

Do you know which one really stinks?
The fact that Rumsfled is not the one on trial for the Abu Ghraib trial?
On trial is Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., of Uniontown, Pa., who is charged with of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, assault and committing indecent acts in a series of abuses against Iraqi prisoners depicted in digital photographs.

Or the fact that Bush is not the one on trial for the Abu Ghraib trial?
How I love these consiperacy theories... Could you imagine if there was a shred of truth in this article?

During confirmation hearings on Alberto Gonzales’ nomination as Attorney General, senators should question him about a recently uncovered memo that George W. Bush “ordered” the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other military prisons around the world, several human rights groups suggested last month.

My vote is for the latter. Eddie (the dog above) is with me. His opinion can be swayed by anyone who feeds him.

This also stinks:

The Bush administration paid a prominent black journalist to promote President Bush's education law and give Education Secretary Rod Paige media time, records show.

When is someone going to take one of these items seriously? As I see it Bush has had several impeachable offenses so far:

1-Lying to congress about WMD's
2-Ordering torture of terrorists
3-All of the slimy stuff Karl Rove did to get him elected, (like this last story f/e, or what happened in Florida in 2000).

How many Millions did Ken Starr use to impeach Clinton because he lied about who he slept with? Am I the only one who thinks that lying about who you sleep with is not as bad as lying to start a war?


Gonzales Hearing underway: MORAL VALUE CHECK


This fine, fine man said that the rules of the Geneva convention are quaint, and essentially gave an open door to the interogators of 'suspected' terrorists to be tortured. Instead of being tried as a War criminal, Bush has elected him to his cabinet for such a good job doing his dirty work.

Today the Dems have an opportunaty of questioning his work under Bush.

Maybe they could ask him about his work in texas:

When Alberto Gonzales briefed George W. Bush on the cases of Texas death row inmates up for clemency, his memos were so shabby they seemed intended solely to make it easy for Bush to send prisoners to their deaths. ...Now that conventional wisdom has focused attention on "moral values" as our paramount national concern, it might be worth spending a few minutes considering how President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, dealt with one of those values -- human life -- on 57 occasions.

Now the bad news: Ken Salzar is backing him.

Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, one of the first Hispanics elected to the Senate in more than 20 years and one of only two newly elected Democrats in November, plans to introduce Gonzales at the hearing. Salazar has said he intends to vote for Gonzales.



Tyson, Multi-tasking

I found this picture of my friend Tyson. I just had to post it.

Can the Dems stop the President from reforming our social security? Just Maybe. This is worth a read.

So why would someone want to ask what the definition of Torture is? Maybe because they wanted to get away with torturing someone, and wanted a legal arguement as to why it isn't torture? : "It depends on what the definition of Torture is your honor"..


Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.
Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

But then again, Mr. Bush is restoring dignity to the white house, so he wouldn't ever dream of doing anything that wasn't decent. This must be a made up story by the Liberal Media.



I have read this a few times and it does look like the republicans have actually done the right thing. Tom Delay himself asked the GOP to reverse their decision.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked House Republicans Monday to reverse a December rule change that allows indicted leaders to continue to hold leadership posts in the chamber.

The rank-and-file members agreed to do so without dissent, two House Republican leadership aides who attended the meeting told CNN.

The so-called DeLay Rule had been heavily criticized. At Monday night's meeting, lawmakers praised DeLay for seeking the reversal.

Now is it too much to ask for them to not fuck with our social security?



Mark my words, I will be the first to say it: JEB BUSH is running for president in 2008

Maybe this is just a test run to see how the public respond to him doing something "international", but it sure seems to have Karl Rove's finger prints on it.

So I was thinking that if Hillary ran in 2008, she could pick Bill Clinton to be the Vice President. CLINTON/CLINTON in 2008.?? Personally I think Edwards has the best shot. He looks like an average guy. My latest theory is that the Average Joe Republican bases his vote on a gut feeling about a candidate. If he looks like a nice fellow, he has a good chance of getting elected. As long as he doesn't say anything like Gays should be married, or we are going to ban assualt rifles..he has a real shot at it.

Lifetime detention of people SUSPECTED of being a 'terrorist' even if there is lack of evidence to convict them.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it is unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts, The Washington Post said in a report yesterday that cited intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the report said.

You want to take away more Civil Rights! Yeah thats a good idea. We could round up some of those democrats while we are at it!


Jesus George, do you have any plan to stablized Iraq? Did you honestly think they would welcome us with open arms? Have you ever read a History book?

I'm back from ENGLAND

I'm Back

After spending 10 days in jolly England I have a new hope for our Country. Everyone I met was happy to met "an American" and did not hold me personally responsible for our president and all of the mistakes he has made internationally. The curious thing is, they are equally embarrassed of Tony Blair, who has a strong possiblity of being re-elected. Most everyone thinks that Tony Blair should have lost his job after lying about the WMD's, but they do not see a strong canidate to replace him.

This is the best story I have read in a long time. What it means is Bush is finally starting to admit that when something really important comes up he is now willing to ask someone that is capable of handling it to take control. (Mainly anybody but him).