BUSH McCAIN MAKE BAD LAW: (see Link)
It seems that Bush is truly uncoordinated. The charge being bandied about it that there is some coordination between 527s and the presidential campaigns.
While he used to put down lawyers and harp on their undeserved fees, now he sees value in them by needing them to take his own laws (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Finance Act) to court. In particular to avoid having to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth he prefers to blame the process McCain sponsored and Bush signed into law. This is after two Bush campaign workers (one a lawyer) are connected to the SBVT and the Kerry campaign has sought legal action themselves.
If the media did their job there would be no call for groups having to spend money to get issues out and straighten out the truth. Meanwhile if restrictions can be made on advertising for political speech, it will likely have to apply to corporations; they have rights and responsibilities too.
Speaking of the corporate being that Bush and Nader have trouble distinguishing there is a further tie, the media may need to fit into this concern for rights and responsibility. Free speech is one thing, but unfortunately money is often needed to get out the message. If control or limits are warranted as to the money that can flow to lawyers and media it would be only right to include the corporate spending (only free speech) as well as earnings (limiting fees) if that is their concern.
And lastly for those who support the death penalty, just where does that fit in? There may be a sense of flip-flop in this flow, but don't count on a new law to be the last flop.
Bumper sticker not seen yet:
FLIP/FLOP
or FLOP PERIOD.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Correction to Rehashing Avoidance Issues
This post is to note that I have had to make a correction for the first time(other than grammatical and format changes) to a post. GO DOWN TWO POSTS to REHASHING AVOIDANCE ISSUES changes will be in [bold brackets].
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Preemptive Prior Post
The previous post was written prior to finding these items.
These charges are false
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml
Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Y.shtml
That does not excuse my not providing better links at the time.
The only issue I disagree with is that candidates should control what others are saying. If these 527 groups were to change their policy it would seem the charge of coordination could be made. But candidates can separate themselves from the charges they make. Kerry has made the effort, though the ads are valid, Bush has refused, though the ads mislead. This should tell us a lot about the candidates, indeed may explain the only seemingly flip-flopping of Kerry and highlight Bush's insistence to stay the course of confusion and flopping.
These charges are false
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml
Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Y.shtml
That does not excuse my not providing better links at the time.
The only issue I disagree with is that candidates should control what others are saying. If these 527 groups were to change their policy it would seem the charge of coordination could be made. But candidates can separate themselves from the charges they make. Kerry has made the effort, though the ads are valid, Bush has refused, though the ads mislead. This should tell us a lot about the candidates, indeed may explain the only seemingly flip-flopping of Kerry and highlight Bush's insistence to stay the course of confusion and flopping.
Rehashing Avoidance Issues
Recently Senator Dole has pleaded for us to MOVE ON over the issue of Kerry's military record while not resisting throwing in a few more jabs pulling us back by suggesting that Kerry apologize for his words more than 30 years ago. He tries to step above the fray by kicking up more dirt. To top it off, the childishness is obvious in the final claim that Kerry started it.
Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.
Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.
But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.
Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.
Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.
But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.
Fear And Smear
Printed 12-05-03 (see link)
BUSH
Watch what happens next
Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.
But skepticism should not be abandoned until he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since Sept. 11 is questionable as long as we are fighting for ``liberty, democracy and tolerance'' (the president's words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.
Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent upfront about it and their critics' patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them ``gloom and doom'' Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of ``fear and smear.''
It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership, but let's be honest about it.
BUSH
Watch what happens next
Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.
But skepticism should not be abandoned until he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since Sept. 11 is questionable as long as we are fighting for ``liberty, democracy and tolerance'' (the president's words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.
Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent upfront about it and their critics' patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them ``gloom and doom'' Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of ``fear and smear.''
It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership, but let's be honest about it.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL
His Liberty University will open its law school next month and AP http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-falwell18.html quoted him as saying "We’ll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left".It has been in the works for some time, http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/15_Falwell.html and here is an example of the style of debate that will be their focus http://www.nljonline.com/fc/comp_homo.html .
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Monday, August 09, 2004
Media Likely To Be Blamed
Media is likely to be blamed. It is hard to sort out the facts, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080804W.shtml (Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder-Experts) but with this administration it is a given. However the attention that the release of another intelligence asset will likely be played down or completely clouded before the end of the Republican convention.
The raised terror alert and other attempts to take a Democratic bounce out of the picture are seen in a different light given the results of the release of too much information. The need to explain the terror alert given the natural mistrust for the administration contradicts the campaign mantra that results count. The placing of politics above security and intelligence may have come back to bite them again.
Also see below link, Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
The raised terror alert and other attempts to take a Democratic bounce out of the picture are seen in a different light given the results of the release of too much information. The need to explain the terror alert given the natural mistrust for the administration contradicts the campaign mantra that results count. The placing of politics above security and intelligence may have come back to bite them again.
Also see below link, Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
Friday, August 06, 2004
NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted)
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
NEXUS REVIEW
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience?
This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD* to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
* UPDATE:
MAD (Officially a defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction) or what Bush seemed to be just to bluff. Which I thought was a good strategy if it was a bluff, but unfortunately it was not a bluff in more ways than one.
NEXUS REVIEW
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience?
This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD* to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
* UPDATE:
MAD (Officially a defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction) or what Bush seemed to be just to bluff. Which I thought was a good strategy if it was a bluff, but unfortunately it was not a bluff in more ways than one.
Cutting Through the BUSH
They Knew by David Sirota and Christy Harvey does a great job of cutting through the Bush.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080604E.shtml
Its companion piece http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
serves as review of the evidence that substantiates much of what I have been filtering.
To cut to the root, if the British intelligence was the excuse for the 16 words that should not have been, why was the following ignored?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country was helping build the case for war, admitted, "What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of [Iraq-al Qaeda connections]. And the answer is: 'I haven't.' "
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080604E.shtml
Its companion piece http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
serves as review of the evidence that substantiates much of what I have been filtering.
To cut to the root, if the British intelligence was the excuse for the 16 words that should not have been, why was the following ignored?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country was helping build the case for war, admitted, "What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of [Iraq-al Qaeda connections]. And the answer is: 'I haven't.' "
Thursday, August 05, 2004
NADER WAS RIGHT!
Nader was right, speaking of the corporate bodies in the White House.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080504W.shtml
Kerry Denounces Special Corporate Favor
Kerry’s promise:
"My vice president of the United States will never meet secretly with polluters who want to rewrite the environmental laws," the presidential nominee told a cheering crowd packed into a hockey arena Tuesday.
Their rebuttal:
Responding to Kerry's remarks, the Bush-Cheney campaign said the comments on corporations was a personal attack on Cheney. "This is part of his bizarre, personal diatribe that he issued at the convention during his acceptance speech," said spokesman Terry Holt.
The only conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney campaign makes no distinction between corporations and their persons. And there was no report of any argument with the charge.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080504W.shtml
Kerry Denounces Special Corporate Favor
Kerry’s promise:
"My vice president of the United States will never meet secretly with polluters who want to rewrite the environmental laws," the presidential nominee told a cheering crowd packed into a hockey arena Tuesday.
Their rebuttal:
Responding to Kerry's remarks, the Bush-Cheney campaign said the comments on corporations was a personal attack on Cheney. "This is part of his bizarre, personal diatribe that he issued at the convention during his acceptance speech," said spokesman Terry Holt.
The only conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney campaign makes no distinction between corporations and their persons. And there was no report of any argument with the charge.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Up The Filter
Cheney almost got in real trouble when he suggested that he had more intelligence than the 9-11 commission, meaning he must have withheld something. However now I can’t blame him, because even I had more evidence than the 9-11 commission at least mentioned in their report.
Much of it is noted in http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sins_of_commission.php Sins of Commission. I’ve only read up to flaw four in it.
Summary: more information was available than was considered by intelligence or the committee.
I'm sure some of it may yank some chains, but it is why our enemies ended up yanking ours.
What was supposed to empower a bluff, played into their hand. A poker term that I saw through earlier in this analysis.
Much of it is noted in http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sins_of_commission.php Sins of Commission. I’ve only read up to flaw four in it.
Summary: more information was available than was considered by intelligence or the committee.
I'm sure some of it may yank some chains, but it is why our enemies ended up yanking ours.
What was supposed to empower a bluff, played into their hand. A poker term that I saw through earlier in this analysis.
Bicameral Brain
Bush is right about one thing. The new office of intelligence should not be in the White House. It is the congress that needs a new intelligence level. Given that partisanship is hard to get over, the solution should be to have a bicameral authority responsible to the congress. This office would then be responsible for coordinating the supervision of intelligence with the CIA Director.
Does this seem too unwieldy? What is the alternative to having two ways of looking at evidence?
The reality is that intelligence information may have been adequate and it was the intelligence in how you look at it that counts. Acting on the advice of intelligence or commissions is next in importance and it seems we have a long way to go in agreeing on that.
Either way the election in November should not be the end of it and we will be lucky if it is really a beginning.
Does this seem too unwieldy? What is the alternative to having two ways of looking at evidence?
The reality is that intelligence information may have been adequate and it was the intelligence in how you look at it that counts. Acting on the advice of intelligence or commissions is next in importance and it seems we have a long way to go in agreeing on that.
Either way the election in November should not be the end of it and we will be lucky if it is really a beginning.
Intelligence For Commission
…on the topic of not reading something fully before speaking up, I've done it again. Actually the following 9/11 Commission Chimera is right on that topic, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/911_commission_chimera.php
(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)
Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.
See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.
This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.
My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238
* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.
See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html
(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)
Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.
See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.
This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.
My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238
* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.
See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html
Friday, July 30, 2004
LOB
Now begins a little log of Bush (LOB) claims as presented by MSNBC.
Bush slams Kerry for few ‘achievements’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5559688/
"We have turned the corner, and we’re not turning back."
We must ask, does this mean continuing to turn to the Right or just bring on the wrong?
"My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results," "Results matter"
I thought that’s what came out of the convention.
There was mention of Bush’s results, need they more?
Bush slams Kerry for few ‘achievements’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5559688/
"We have turned the corner, and we’re not turning back."
We must ask, does this mean continuing to turn to the Right or just bring on the wrong?
"My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results," "Results matter"
I thought that’s what came out of the convention.
There was mention of Bush’s results, need they more?
More Preemptive Insights
The previous posts were preemptive of the following link. Not only did Kerry seem to borrow some of my words, but those of his competitors.
In "The Composite Candidate" Chris Suellentrop does not miss the uniting of words and Democrats, though he may throw in a cheap shot at the end.It would be ironic to think that Kerry need adopt the mantle of "Compassionate Conservatism" when Bush has done such a poor job anyway.
But the dangers that Kerry would face from renewed diversity would be safer than Bush ignoring the lid on Pandora’s box not to mention what was left inside.
In "The Composite Candidate" Chris Suellentrop does not miss the uniting of words and Democrats, though he may throw in a cheap shot at the end.It would be ironic to think that Kerry need adopt the mantle of "Compassionate Conservatism" when Bush has done such a poor job anyway.
But the dangers that Kerry would face from renewed diversity would be safer than Bush ignoring the lid on Pandora’s box not to mention what was left inside.
REPORTING FOR DUTY
John Kerry struck the right tone in his most important speech to date. Foreign policy is an important area that must be addressed. I especially appreciated the tone given the use of rhetoric that will come back to haunt the current administration. Bush is a war president. He wants to be a peace president. Is that a flip-flop? In the context of these segments it may be unfair to accuse such a thing but it must be addressed.
Things are black and white.
Repeat: Things are black AND white.
A key word or emphasis may be important for those less skilled in the English language, and I am no expert. But to head off claims that we are at war and a change is unwarranted we much look at the record of words. When Kerry says we should not be opening fire houses in Iraq AND closing them here, it does not preclude opening firehouses in Iraq as long as we are not neglecting our own concerns for security and defense.
For more reasons Kerry hit the right tone see my archives in particular the link below, especially on war, patriotism and democracy.
Reporting for duty is what we all must do, paying attention on a daily basis but especially on Election Day.
Things are black and white.
Repeat: Things are black AND white.
A key word or emphasis may be important for those less skilled in the English language, and I am no expert. But to head off claims that we are at war and a change is unwarranted we much look at the record of words. When Kerry says we should not be opening fire houses in Iraq AND closing them here, it does not preclude opening firehouses in Iraq as long as we are not neglecting our own concerns for security and defense.
For more reasons Kerry hit the right tone see my archives in particular the link below, especially on war, patriotism and democracy.
Reporting for duty is what we all must do, paying attention on a daily basis but especially on Election Day.
IRONY PRESIDENT
Just to repeat, if I said it already. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan was the Teflon President and Bush is the Irony President. Meaning his own words are the best rhetoric against him. What did not stick to Reagan could splash back at Bush.
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
Thursday, July 22, 2004
I Don't Want To Be Right.
A Republican State Representative in Michigan has worked his way into hot water, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072304A.shtml and doesn’t know he has turned up the heat.
"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."
A good message gets the vote down
or not voting is a good message?
Either way Republican campaigning seems to make sense now.
Not that it is Right.
"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."
A good message gets the vote down
or not voting is a good message?
Either way Republican campaigning seems to make sense now.
Not that it is Right.
If Politics Is Wrong?
If politics is wrong, what are the other options?
If politics is wrong, who will not use it?
If these questions seem difficult, image trying to change things.
If a dictator seems easier, maybe politics and questions need to get tough.
If failure is not an option, it is because it is a result.
If politics is wrong, who will not use it?
If these questions seem difficult, image trying to change things.
If a dictator seems easier, maybe politics and questions need to get tough.
If failure is not an option, it is because it is a result.
UNITY IN PRINCIPLE
Having only seen portions of the 9-11 Commission presentations, it is clear something must be done to improve the structure of government. Good people must not be hindered by it, but the key to change is not sacrificing our principles while taking a careful look at the process. People must not be placed above the law but the process does need work.
The hope that we can be united in this is admirable but to expect politics to be absent is as foolish as the expectation that the solution to terrorism is just war. There may be a few major changes that we can agree must happen, but the devil is in the details. It is not evil to discuss them and even words like unity must be used carefully.
The hope that we can be united in this is admirable but to expect politics to be absent is as foolish as the expectation that the solution to terrorism is just war. There may be a few major changes that we can agree must happen, but the devil is in the details. It is not evil to discuss them and even words like unity must be used carefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)