On The Issues
Topic: Misc.
Just in case either of the Presidential candidates attempts to distort their opposition's record, I've posted links to both John Kerry's and George Bush's "on the issues" record on the bottom left hand side of this blog.

Now you can have an unbiased look at how the candidates have acted. Enjoy!

Vision Of Victory
Topic: State Of The Union
In a blogging first (hey we're breaking ground here!) The Independent Voice is calling tonight's debate for John Kerry, the next President of the United States. Who cares that the debate hasn't taken place yet? That is but a minor fact, and let's face it, the facts have never stopped the present administration.

Let's take a minute to imagine what the United States in the next 4 years under John Kerry will look like:

* No longer will minority corporate interests create policy

* No more unnecessary pre-emptive wars

* Upon turning on the Television to watch the State of the Union address we observe something that's been lacking over the past 4 years, an articulate, respectable and intellectual President

* Strong, but prudent responses to foreign threats

* Money for scientific innovations and cures for disease will flood our research institutions

* Leadership, not intimidation and contempt

* Corporate accountability

* Average people will be able to afford healthcare

* Our allies will return to the table

* Finally a plan and a vision for energy independence

* No more public statements that attempt to compensate for small genitalia, like "bring it on"

* An end to blind stubborness

* An administration that is open and levels with the public

* An administration that makes corporations responsible for the environment that they willfully pollute

* A return to the conservative value of balanced budgets

* A economic policy that promotes job growth from the ground up, not the top down

* A return to the values and ideals that this country was founded upon

While the presidency of John Kerry won't be a utopia by any stretch of the imagination and many campaign promises will not be kept (remember that the Republicans still control Congress) the new administration will be a breathe of fresh air for all peace loving, patriotic Americans.

As for the rest of America that doesn't appreciate these values: you can all go to hell. Just kiddin' that is the present administration's motto.

P.S. When John Kerry is President we all are going to need to stay vigilant so that he upholds his end of the bargain. We all need to stay informed and religously question his statements and actions.

We also need to make sure that the Republican controlled congress doesn't try to waste large amounts of our tax dollars trying to indict Kerry on charges that he didn't put the seat down or other trivialities.

The most important reason why this country needs Kerry is because he's not:

Stubborn And Stumbling

... He's Cool And Smooth

WATCH THE DEBATE!!!

Sacrifice
Topic: State Of The Union
Ask yourself 1 question:

What have you sacrificed for your country while it is at war with Afghanistan and Iraq?

At no time in the history of this country has the citizenry been asked to sacrifice so little while the country is waging not 1 but 2 wars.

We were asked to go shopping. We were told that the "war on terrorism" would be a war unlike the world has ever seen. We were told to be steadfast, resolute and patient. We then hastily attacked a small country of 25 million people that posed no direct threat. We waged the war conventionally, with a conventional fighting force. We conveniently forgot that the weapons we destroyed back in '91 were antiquated even for the standards 12 years ago. Some of us even acted surprised when multiple people appointed by this administration came back with the same answers; there are no WMD, there was no connection to Al-Queda.

I submit to you that the sacrifice you can provide to your country, in lieu of the leadership asking you to make any, is to become a seeker of the truth. Democracy relies upon the enlightenment and liberality of it's citizens. When our government leaders make statements, demand that our press ask truth seeking questions. If they don't, it is your patriotic duty to ask the questions yourself. Demand that your journalist stop waving the flag around and stop pinning it to their vests. Tell them to save their patriotism for when they're a citizen because when they're a journalist their duty is for objectivity in search of the truth. They're journalists first and citizens when the camera shuts off.

It is your duty as a citizen to sacrifice your own self-interest for the greater good. Tell your government that you are willing to endure hardships so that our policies can stand up for the ideals that this country was founded upon. Tell your government to stop supporting tyrannical kingdoms and dictatorships that oppress and torture their people because it's making us richer. Tell the government to stop talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Tell your government to stop spending your tax dollars to make the tools of war. Tell your government that you are willing to sacrifice to make these things happen.

Democracy depends on the sacrifices of it's citizens. If your not making any what do you think the future of this nation is going to look like?


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington




"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"After crosses and losses, men grow humbler and wiser."

"There was never a good war or a bad peace."

Benjamin Franklin

Just The Facts
Topic: Satire
The FACTS are always a good thing at any time of the year but especially when you have a seriously misleading and completely wrong President on a number of different issues:

Hey Cheney, it's factcheck.ORG

... not factcheck.COM

P.S. Just notice (clicking on factcheck.org above) that Kerry does get some things wrong but they're typically not materially incorrect. For instance, Kerry said that the President has presided over the loss of 1.6 million jobs. Kerry would be correct if he had added that the President has presided over the loss of 1.6 million "private sector" jobs. I'm sure he's very sorry for that misstatement. Overall the President has presided over the loss of 821,000 total jobs, when you include governmental employes the number is cutting in half but a loss, is a loss, is a loss.

P.P.S. George Bush is so out-of-touch he doesn't remember that he does in fact own a Timber-growing company. He also doesn't know his customers and disclosures well enough to know that John Kerry not only knows that he owns this type of business but he also knows his customers better, like the 1 customer who paid out $84 to Bush's company.

Style V. Substance
Topic: Personal


"People want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty; they drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

The Independent Voice obviously has a bias but I've tried to look at the debate last night through the lens of objectivity. Even through this lens John Kerry still won hands down. The reason that he so easily won is because George W. Bush never answers a question he doesn't like, and W. doesn't like questions.

John Kerry won because his arguments are substantive and are backed up by either facts or a plan. Kerry's arguments appeal to reason while Bush's appeal to emotion, the darker side of human emotion. John Kerry won in my mind because I look to a President to appeal to the logical part of my brain not the emotional.

Listen John Kerry, it's not that you didn't win in the debate last night but you didn't win as decisively as you should have because you allowed Bush's style to upstage you. You need to pre-empt W.'s simple minded and emotional arguments. Try some of these tips:

- First, you need to say something like:

"My fellow Americans, I have an apology to make. I haven't made clear that I am not trying to debate or compare George Bush on matters of personality. This is not the same type of election that we had in 2000. The world is a much different place. No longer should your decision be based on who you would rather have a beer with. You need a commander-in-chief that understands the issues. You need a commander-in-chief that faces reality. You need a commander-in-chief who has good judgement.

So please forgive me for not trying to pander to your emotional side. That is not in my makeup and I don't believe that the most powerful leader in the world should resort to appealing to your most powerful negative emotions but should rather appeal to your strengths: your mind, your will and your spirit."

Secondly, you need to rephrase some of your arguments so that you're not using the same sound bites that you've been using. Additionally, you need to add new statements that Bush isn't going to expect. George Bush did well last night because every single question that was asked was completely predictable and he was prepared by his handlers, for every single one. George W. Bush, contrary to public opinion, is NOT a decisive leader. He doens't know how to think spontaneously to solve problems. He needs to be thrown off balance so that we can see the Bush we saw in the first debate and the Bush we saw on 9/11 when he sat in his chair in the nations ultimate time of crisis. Regurgitating the same sound bites that you've used over and over again in your public statements isn't going to work.

Try something like this:

"Mr. President, you like throwing around labels. You've called me a liberal, and while that's not true, I think that your trying to insinuate that liberals raise taxes. I'm wondering how can you possibly refrain from raising taxes with the tax cut that you provided to the rich, never vetoeing any spending bill's that's come across your desk, the costly war of choice, and the spending that needs to take place in our homeland to make us safer?

All of these things are going to lead to even greater record budget deficits. Mr. President, you are spending money that we don't have. I cannot see a way that you can keep from raising our taxes and if you say that you can, you're pandering. So I ask you Mr. President, not as a Senator or your opponent, but as a citizen, can you either tell me your plan for not raising taxes on the middle class or can you promise us that you won't?"

Third, you need to continue to plug away at this administrations inability to face reality. Try this:

"Mr. President, you've attempted to tell us that Iraq is getting better and that creating 96,000 jobs is good enough. Mr. President, you're wrong. And you've been wrong. We can do better. We need a leader who will lead us to times of prosperity by leveling with us in the tough times. We do not need a leader who sugar coats hard realities because he refuses to admit mistakes or will not face them because he's afraid of the political backlash. Leaders face their problems Mr. President, and you have not."

You also need to attack every single time this President makes an incorrect statement. You need not dwell on the details but you need to rebut the incorrect or misleading statements and then you need to go on the offensive- I cannot stress this enough- EVERY SINGLE TIME. Your answer needs to balance respect with defiance.

Mr. Kerry you need to LEAD this national argument back to one of substance versus substance, only then will you win.

"Might" Doesn't Make Might, Right
Topic: Iraq
In the never-ending quagmire that is Iraq, you may have heard that the latest news is that not only was Iraq's WMD program not "gathering" it was withering. In fact, Hussein's only ambitions about creating weapons was for defense against Iran. This coupled with the fact that there was absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al-Queda leaves the President looking for a new excuse for invading and occupying an arab oil-rich country.

One last time, let's just get the facts right:

EVEN if Iraq had a fully capable arsenal of biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry the United States would not have been threatened by Iraq.

Israel would have been in trouble, Saudi Arabia would have been in trouble, Kuwait would have been in trouble, Iran would have been in trouble if Iraq had WMD, but the U.S. would not have been directly threatened by Iraq because they've never had the rocket technology capable of reaching the United States (yes, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the satellites). Without any established connections to terrorists who were directly threatening the U.S., Iraq didn't have any method of delivering a weapon to the U.S. which kind of blows away the latest assertions that "if" the sanctions were removed, Hussein "might" create WMD, that he "might" hand to terrorists, who "might" use them in the U.S. "Might" doesn't make might, right.

The terrorists that Bush/Cheney constantly refer to as Iraq having "harbored", are the same terrorists that the Saudi's (and other muslim nations) aid and harbor. They're responsible for actions in Israel, not the U.S.

There are up to 50 reasons why this war was completely unnecessary but the major reasons are because it has only been successful at recruiting more terrorists, dividing our country and driving a wedge between us and our allies.

P.S. That new Bush/Cheney excuse attempting to justify Iraq, will go something like this:

"Not only was Hussein capable of producing WMD but the out-of-work scientists within Iraq could have sold the secrets of WMD to terrorists harboring nations". I'll add that those nations are the very nations that we should have worried about instead of Iraq.

It's still not too late for all you neo-cons to get on the "right" side of history.

Beware Of Conservative Ignorance
We need to guard the U.S. against conservative terrorists who's weapons of mass destruction are ignorance. They continually promote actions that lead directly to mass stupidity. After being wrong so many times you would think that they would just shutup already.

Case in point: Stop Conservative Terrorists How's this for dumb?

... the smoking gun ...

Halloween
Guess what Mikhail Gorbachev is going to be for Halloween?

An out of touch MADMAN:

Average People
I'm writing this very quickly (no really!). I don't know what debate some TV commentators were watching but John Edwards definitely won tonight's debate and he did so for one reason: he connected with people.

Honestly, I think that Dick Cheney probably is a well-meaning and good-hearted person but in the debate he looked like an out-of-touch, cold war remnant. He tried to inspire fear and Edwards stomped him. He tried to make false and misleading statements and Edwards rebutted him. He said that he just met Edwards for the first time and that's completely not true:

He said that he didn't make statements that Iraq was connected with 9/11 and he either lied or he didn't remember repeatedly making such statements (he said so on Meet The Press with Tim Russert).

Edwards repeatedly turned the debate around to the issues that average people are interested in, (jobs, healthcare, and the economy). Cheney talked about these issues like they were abstract concepts.

The debate was hard fought (as it should have been) and Edwards continually struck the ball back into Cheney's court. We finally heard some talk about how Bush/Cheney lives in a glass house and is throwing stones at Kerry for taking different positions on issues.

Edwards closing remarks were his most powerful. I presume that throughout the debate people watched the annoying timing lights indicator. When Edwards last spoke those lights melted away in his message. When Cheney spoke the 2 minutes dragged on with a incoherent and abstract speech about nothing any average joe would give a crap about.

John Edwards won hands down.

Son Of Republican President Voting Kerry
Topic: Misc.
"Why I will vote for John Kerry for President" - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Union Leader

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 3? 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.