Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
Politically, I’m very liberal — about as far left as one can go without sliding into Libertarianism.
Well, it looks like the US is finally starting to wake up to the fact that the Bush administration hasn’t exactly been entirely truthful with the American Public. About damn time.
Rather than post link after link after link, tempting though it may be, I’d advise checking out a few key sites and going through the past few posts. There’s some really good stuff out there right now.
Recommended reading:
If you ever want to know a bit more about me, talk to my dad for a while. Not necessarily about me — just talk to him. He’s a cool guy.
Dad and I are a lot alike, and I realize that more all the time. That certainly had its fair share of disadvantages growing up (saying that we butted heads on a regular basis might be something of an understatement), but once I got old enough that we could handle approaching things as two adults rather than as a father and son perpetually at loggerheads, things evened out. I’m glad they did, too. Dad is, quite honestly, one of the most intelligent and well-rounded people I’ve met. You should see the library at my folks’ house — heavy on philosophy, psychology, religion, and penguins (all good subjects to be heavy in, I’d say), but by no means limited to those subjects. Dad and I both have a tendency to investigate any little thing that peaks our interest, and it shows.
In the midst of all our various conversations (well, okay, arguments when I was younger, discussions as I matured), I picked up two very important lessons. Firstly, that having been gifted with a working intellect, it’d be a shame to let it go to waste. Secondly, that a good sense of humor is a priceless treasure (though, admittedly, whether or not dad and I share a “good” sense of humor may be a matter of opinion, given as we are to absurdities, wordplay, and bad puns).
Given the political slant many of my posts here and at The Long Letter, it would be understandable (though somewhat regrettable) if I gave the impression that I was uniformly anti-military. However, nothing could be further from the truth. While I never decided that the military was a direction I wanted to take my life in, I am a “military brat”. Dad served in the United States Air Force for ten years, and spent another eleven and a half years in the Air National Guard. Something I’ll be eternally grateful for, though, is that even growing up in a military family, I was never force-fed the steady diet of über-patriotism and “my country, right or wrong” (which many people, unfortunately, do not realize is only half of the full quote) attitude that so many other military children are.
Rather, I grew up realizing that the military, and our country, like any other large organization (all the way from corporate entities to religious movements) does some things that are very good — and some things that are very bad. The good things should be recognized and celebrated, but the bad things should also be recognized; not to be celebrated, but to be studied, learned from, and prevented in the future. Dad was very instrumental in keeping me grounded in my political views — grounded in a very liberal/democratic mindset, but grounded none the less — neither falling into an ultra-right wing “the military is always right” stance, nor an ultra-left wing “the military is always wrong” stance.
Which brings me around to what prompted this (hopefully not over-saccharine) missive. Dad just posted a wonderfully written post in response to someone being so uncouth as to drag out the old “baby killer” epithet when they found out about his military service on a mailing list he participates in. Rather than rising to the bait and indulging in a flame war, his response is beautifully stated, and well worth reading.
It does matter, Dad. I’m glad it matters to you; I’m glad that, thanks to you, it matters to me — and I’m glad that, even with all our disagreements, you’re my dad.
Len posted a report on the NOW Presidential Forum in Washington D.C. that he found in the comments somewhere on Blog for America. It’s an excellent summary, and well worth perusing — so I’m shamelessly snagging a copy of it. ;)
Since the NOW forum was mentioned by Kate in this thread, I guess this is the best place to post my thoughts. I was lucky enough to attend the NOW presidential forum Friday evening near my home in Arlington, VA. Joining Governor Dean were Carol Moseley-Braun, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton (who was fashionably late hahaha ). When Rev. Sharpton came in during Gov. Dean’s opening statement, Dean joked, “I hope that doesn’t take away from my time.” ;-) John Kerry sent his apologies for not being able to attend. John Edwards sent his apologies and his wife. No word on the whereabouts of Gephardt, Lieberman or Graham.
My overall impressions from seeing these four candidates “up-close-and-personal” for the very first time:
Ambassador Moseley-Braun: She’s a good woman with good intentions and good positions — and she will make an excellent cabinet member for President Dean. ;-) At the beginning of the NOW forum, she was clearly (and naturally), the crowd favorite. Following a raucous NOW response to Moseley-Braun’s opening statement, Dean said, “I’m living every politician’s nightmare: following Carol Moseley-Braun at a NOW convention.” ;-) The crowd loved it and it served as the perfect ice-breaker, showing he had a sense of humor and a sense of his audience. As the forum progressed, she had a few nice things to say in reference to Governor Dean and as the two of them sat side-by-side in alphabetical order, they seemed VERY chummy. At one point during a particularly long-winded reply by Kucinich, Dean leaned over and watched Braun discreetly scribble something on her note pad, he whispered something in her ear, and then the two of them shared a giggly laugh — I’d give anything to see what she wrote. ;-)
Representative Kucinich: I was surprised how much I disliked the fellow. I’m a bleeding-heart liberal from way back — and hems way too liberal even for me. He also took a few swipes at Governor Dean, so I think he can forget getting any position in the Dean administration. ;-) I was turned off by his attitude more than anything else — he is interested in pushing his agenda and doesn’t really care whether or not he could actually make anything concrete happen. For example, his idea of a Department of Peace is a very laudable goal and one day, I’d love to see it become a reality. But if the man can’t see that in the current environment talking about the Department of Peace is enough to give Karl Rove wet-dreams, then hems completely lost it. After the forum, I overheard some NOW members dissing Kucinich for the flip-flop he did on abortion just before announcing his candidacy — those ladies said Kucinich can’t be trusted to truly defend a womanms right to choose and that “he’s a liar”. (They also said Dr. Dean looked very handsome with his short haircut and tan. haha)
Reverend Al Sharpton: The preacher did what a preacher should — had the audience nodding in agreement, had them clapping and laughing, and even brought them to their feet once. He and Gov. Dean had the most applause and laugh lines of the evening. (I was actually very surprised at how relaxed and easy-going and affable Dr. Dean seemed on the panel. So much for all those critics who say he is “too angry” and “not likeable” enough. I was very relieved to see he has a good — and quick! — sense of humor. I can’t wait to see him debate Dubya. Hahahaha .) One of the most surprising parts of the evening was after Sharpton sharply criticized the DLC for being too far to the right (basically he said we need to tell the DLC to shove it), Dr. Dean actually came to the DLC’s defense (in a way). Paraphrasing, Dean said he disagreed with Sharpton that we could write off the DLC (again, so much for Dean being “volatile” and “combative”. haha ). He said we’re going to need to bring the DLC along, we’re going to need to bring the unions along, we’re going to need to bring the gay and lesbian community along, etc — because we’re all in this together and together we can beat George Bush.
Governor Howard Dean: of course, I am already committed to him for my own reasons, so I was actually more interested in gauging the audience’s response. Although they were (slightly) cool to him at the beginning, he really warmed them up as the evening went on — the substantial contingent of we Dean supporters in the audience certainly helped ;-). I got the feeling a lot of the NOW audience didn’t know much about him — one woman sitting near me let out a pleasantly surprised “Oh really?” when he announced he was a physician. ;-) At several points, he relayed his accomplishments in Vermont and it seemed like much of the audience liked what they heard. The answer which struck me most had to do with domestic violence. Governor Dean gave a very impassioned discussion of this issue. He described how Vermont offers in-home visits to new mothers — regardless of whether they are poor or rich mothers — and if the families need help, Vermont provides them with job training, parenting classes, etc. He concluded that during his decade-plus as governor, these efforts to strengthen families have helped dramatically decrease physical and sexual abuse of children in Vermont. The NOW audience was VERY impressed by Dean’s sincere interest in this issue and gave him a hearty round of applause.
During closing statements, Kucinich cemented my unfavorable opinion of him and Dean made perhaps his biggest brownie points of the evening. Mimicking the line Dean has borrowed from the late Paul Wellstone, Kucinich’s closing statement consisted of him droning, “I’m from the universal health care wing of the Democratic Party. I’m from the universal day care wing of the Democratic Party. I’m from the abortion litmus test for judges wing of the Democratic Party. I’m from the Department of Peace wing of the Democratic Party.” And so on and so on. He listed about ten things and as Dr. Dean sat next to him listening to this, you could see the wheels turning in his head about how he would respond. Then Kucinich (I’m sorry, I know we’re supposed to remain positive but this REALLY ticked me off) had the audacity to steal Dr. Dean’s “Take our country back” line, followed by a round of (in my opinion) polite applause.
Then Dr. Dean got going. He got right on Kucinich’s case (rhetorically of course haha ), standing up and poking his finger in the air: “And I’m from the Beat George Bush wing of the Democratic Party!!” The crowd went wild…and I don’t believe I’m exaggerating. ;-) Then he went into his “you have the power” speech. Even though I’ve heard him give this similar spiel several times by now, I still get goose bumps and (I don’t mind admitting) I actually had to fight back a tear as he talked about how George Bush has divided our country and how WE have the power to take it back — I really felt like he was talking directly to me.
I went to bed last night and for the first time in over two years, I actually had a sense of peacefulness and hopefulness that America could return to the country I remember and the country I was taught to believe in. Thank you, Governor Dean, for giving me a little peace and a reason to hope again.
It was interesting for me to see that both Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton were there, until this point I’ve heard next to nothing about either of them. Unfortunately, no matter what their platform is, I’m under the direct impression that they’re essentiall non-candidates — even if they weren’t so far down on the political radar, I’m afraid that this country isn’t anywhere near ready to elect a black man or a woman of any color to the Presidential Office.
The bit on Kucinich was very interesting too. I don’t know much about him, yet his name keeps popping up, and he was my top match in the candidate poll I took. Unfortunately, he doesn’t sound at all interesting after this writeup — which, while it was written by a Dean supporter, still feels to me like he gave a fairly accurate rundown of each candidate’s appearance. Suffice to say, at this point unless Kucinich does far better in other reports, he’s not going to be pulling me away from the Dean camp.
In the end — Dean still looks to be a winner to me.
Larry Lessig, one of the top copyright lawyers in the nation (I believe), and a well-known personality in the blogosphere is going on vacation next week, and his replacement “guest blogger” is going to be none other than Howard Dean!
This is, I believe, the first time a presidential candidate has been a guest blogger. But it is an obvious extension of blogs and the process of becoming President. Campaigns are all about meeting different groups and talking about ideas. Where better than a blog?
It’ll be very interesting to see how this works out, and how much will be coming straight from Howard Dean, and how much will be coming from the Dean campaign. Either way, it’s a fascinating step for a presidential campaign to take.
To protect against any confusion about whether Governor Dean himself is writing the blog entries, he will crosspost everything that he posts on Lessig’s blog on this blog.
Looks like that should clear up any Dean/campaign staffer confusion — nicely done!
(via Escapable Logic, Jackie, Jeremy, cedar, Heiko, and Ken — okay, so I was one of the last to know…)
There’s a wonderful clip from Jon Stewart’s ‘Daily Show’ online right now — a debate betwen President George W. Bush and Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush — that is flat-out hilarious (RealPlayer video file).
(via halfast)
Jon Stewart: Since the beginning of all this “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, “regime change”, “pockets of resistance”, “targets of opportunity” business, it’s been difficult to have an honest discussion about the direction President Bush is taking this country. In fact, when you combine the new madate that criticising the Commander in Chief is off limits in wartime with last year’s official disbanding of the Democratic Party, well, we’re left at an all-time low in the “good old-fashioned honest debate” category. Now, I know you’re thinking, “But Jon, every time I want to have a calm, honest discussion about these kinds of issues, I’m shouted down and harassed by the Dixie Chicks and their ilk.” Well, tonight, it all changes. We’re going to have an open, honest debate between the President of the United States and the one man we believe has the insight and the cojones to stand up to him. So first, joining us tonight, George W. Bush, 43^rd^ President of the United States. Welcome, Mr. President.
President George W. Bush: Good evening, I’m pleased to take your questions tonight.
JS: Well, thank you very much sir, I’m pleased to ask them. Taking the other side, joining us from the year 2000, Texas Governor and Presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
Governor George W. Bush: Good evening.
JS: Thank you, Governor. Mr. President, you won the coin toss, the first question will go to you. Why is the United States of America using it’s power to change governments in foreign countries?
PGWB: We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights, and for the hopes of mankind. The United States of America will make that stand.
JS: Well, certainly that represents a bold new doctrine in foreign policy, Mr. President. Governor Bush, do you agree with that?
GGWB: Yeah, I, I, I, I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, “this is the way it’s gotta be.”
JS: All right, well that’s interesting. Ah, well that’s a, that’s a difference of opinion, and certainly that’s what this country is about, differences of opinion — Mr. President, let me just get specific. Why are we in Iraq?
PGWB: We, we will be, um, changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people.
JS: Governor, then I’d like to hear your response on that.
GGWB: If we’re an arrogant nation they’ll, they’ll resent us. I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the “ugly American” is for us to go around the world saying, “we do it this way, so should you.”
JS: Well that’s, that’s an excellent point. Um, I don’t think you can argue with that. Ah, Mr. President, is the idea to just build a new country that we like better?
PGWB: We will tear down the apparatus of terror. And we will help you to build a new Iraq, that is prosperous, and free.
GGWB: I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called “nation building.”
JS: Well that’s fair enough Governor, I mean certainly that’s, that’s, you’re entitled to that. But then, Governor, answer this — how do you propose we nation build? Would you use diplomacy?
GGWB: Lemme say this to you, I wouldn’t use force, I wouldn’t use force.
JS: Well, Mr. President, clearly you’re skeptical of the Governor. Now Governor, you sound categorically against the use of force. In your time in Texas, what have you done to demonstrate your willingness to be tough?
GGWB: Well, I’ve been standing up to big Hollywood, big trial lawyers, um…what was the question, it was about emergencies, wasn’t it?
JS: No, no it wasn’t. Getting back to Iraq, Mr. President, you’re as familiar with the Governor’s record in Texas as anybody. Are you willing, are you willing, Mr. President, to trust Governor Bush with our foreign policy?
PGWB: I’m not willing to take that chance again, Jon.
JS: Strong words, from two very different men. Now, as this debate draws to a close, I need to turn to the subject of money. Much of this discussion on foreign policy is moot if we can’t afford to pay for it. So, we’re running out of time, quickly, both of you, let’s talk numbers.
PGWB: I’m sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of 74.7 billion dollars. To fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict.
JS: 74.7 billion dollars appears to be within the realm of reason. Governor?
GGWB: Obviously tonight we’re going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we oughtta do.
JS: Wow. That’s a little vituperative. Well on that note, I’m going to thank both George W. Bushes for taking part tonight. In keeping with our debate rules, we will end our discussion with a trite and insincere farewell, Mr. President, you are the most powerful man in the world, you go first.
PGWB: Goodnight, and may God continue to bless America.
JS: Wow — incredibly insincere. Governor, can you top that?
GGWB: Thanks, thanks from the bottom of my heart.
JS: Nice. Wow. Now, this has been, I have really enjoyed this meeting of the minds, what a historic evening. It’s really one for the vaults, if only there were a secure place to put the videotape of this for all time. Where could we put it?
Al Gore: I think it should stay in a lockbox.
JS: I’m sorry, where, where should we put it?
AG: Lockbox, lockbox, lockbox.
JS: Well, you don’t have to shout. We’ll be right back…
Too funny!
Another thing I like about the Dean campaign — they’re not afraid to have a sense of humor. Upon learning that Vermont Poet Laureate Grace Paley had lent her support to the Kuchinich campaign, the Dean campain issued this simple response to press querys:
The campaign goes on
We will one vote at a time
Take our country back
…for the Bush/Cheney re-election ticket in 2004:
Re-Elect Pass the Buck and Wag the Dog for President in 2004!
I love this from a Powell briefing in Africa:
But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion.
It’s a non-denial denial!
“…went out of our way” — Who said the Bush administration ever needed to go out of its way to lie?
“…this single sentence…” — Right, the one that implied that Saddam was threatening us with nuclear weapons?
“…for the purpose of deceiving the American people…” — But for some other purpose it would be OK?
“…overdrawn, overblown, overwrought…” — Every “un” but “untrue”!
A good lawyer must have crafted that sentence, eh?
(via Lambert)
Howard Dean’s statment in response to the recent revelations (confirmations?) that the premise for the war in Iraq was based on lies:
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s statement yesterday — that he only found out that the Niger documents were forgeries — “within recent days” was stunning.
What is now clear is that there are those in this administration that misled the President, misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in Iraq.
They know who they are. And they should resign today.
There will be investigations, and the truth will come out — the American people must know the truth — and those in this administration must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war.
But we do not need to wait for the investigations to rid these people from our government — they can resign on their own today.
I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war — as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution.
The CBS report is being linked to all over the ‘net (as well it should be). Dean has set up a petition calling for the resignation of the guilty parties, and both Kuchinich and MoveOn have similar petitions.
(via Mathew Gross, Lambert, and Kos)
U.S. report on 9/11 to be ‘explosive’:
A long-awaited final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will be released in the next two weeks, containing new information about U.S. government mistakes and Saudi financing of terrorists.
Former Rep. Tim Roemer, who served on the House Intelligence Committee and who has read the report, said it will be “highly explosive” when it becomes public.
[…]
The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a “spectacular attack.”
Hill would not discuss details of the report, but said it will contain “new information” about revelations made last year, when the joint House-Senate investigation held nine public hearings and 13 closed sessions.
The final report was completed in December. Since then a working group of Bush administration intelligence officials has “scrubbed” the report, objecting to additional public disclosures.
Could be very, very interesting.
But — keep in mind that no matter what the report contains, it has already been “scrubbed” by the Powers That Be. Who knows what was lost at that point. And, additionally, as Kos points out:
…people are going to play the expectations game. In this case, the administration has an interest in really hyping the report, leaking suggestions that it will be, well, “explosive”. That way the actual report can’t live up to the expectations and the press will think, “oh, it’s really not that bad”.