ok, 2 months to go until the midterm elections.
some reminders:

a-traditional republicans are not bad. the republican party has some good goals.
small government. fiscal responsibility. enlightened foreign policy. etc.

b-the current crop of republicans are a complete waste of time and space.
they’ve created the biggest federal government in the history of the u.s.
they started a war in iraq based on lies and deception and hubris.
they’ve left the u.s vulnerable to terrorist attack by overextending u.s troops
overseas.
they’ve alienated our allies.
they’ve lied about the cost of their medicaire bill.
they’ve cut homeland security budgets while spending $1billion PER WEEK in iraq.
they’ve created a climate of partisan corruption and deceit(delay, lott, frist, rove, libby, rumsfeld, etc).

c: the democrats aren’t great, but they’re certainly a lot better than the current crop of lying, arrogant, inept republicans.

so: vote democrat, at least until the republicans get their act together and stop being insane, inept, bible-belt, corrupt, deceitful, cronyistic, misguided, dimwits.

i’m not partisan.
i’m just sane.
support of the republicans in 2006 means that you oppose stem-cell research that could save millions of lives. that you support a war in iraq that was based on lies and has resulted in iraqii civil war. that you support pork-barrel crony-ism like the bridge to nowhere in alaska. that you’re insane(see rick santorum). that you’re a racist(see george allen). that you believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. that you’d rather ban flag burning than take care of homeland security. and so on.

the best thing that republicans could do is to vote democrat. this would encourage the republican party to stop pandering to the insane right wing fringe and start governing from a position of sanity and reason.
moby

ok, i haven’t written about politics in a while.
and this isn’t really political, but did you know that donald rumsfeld has been using an ‘auto-pen’ machine to sign his condolence letters to the families of soldiers who’ve died in iraq?
and that george bush hasn’t attended a single funeral of a soldier who’s died in iraq?
yes, donald rumsfeld plays squash a few times a week.
and george bush plays golf fairly regularly.
so they have the time to play squash and golf but they don’t have the time to sign condolence letters and attend funerals.
sorry, i know i’m avoiding political journal entries, but this really offended me and i wanted to tell you about it.
-moby

let’s look at this election objectively, ok?

1-george w. bush was warned about terrorists attacking the u.s with airplanes. he was warned in august, 2001. he ignored these warnings. 3-george bush decided not to pursue osama bin laden in afghanistan, but rather to remove troops and attack iraq, which had no involvement in 9-11. osama bin laden is still at large.
4-the war in iraq has cost over $200 billion dollars, 1,000 american lives, and 100,000 iraqi lives. and there’s no end in sight to this disastrous war and no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
5-george bush has created the largest federal deficit in the history of the u.s
6-george bush has created the largest federal government in the history of the u.s
7-george bush has presided over a net loss of 1.5 million jobs.
8-george bush passed a tax cut of which 85% went to the richest 1% of americans.
9-5 million americans have lost health care while george bush has been president
10-2 million americans have entered the poverty level while george bush has been president
11-george bush’s ‘no child left behind’ program has been underfunded to the point where it is irrelevant.

and so on…
come on, george bush has been an unmitigated disaster of a president.
regardless of party politics i think that we can all agree that it’s time to make a change.
there might be great republican presidents and legislators in the future.
george bush is an aberration(i hope). he’s not even a good republican(unless you count fiscal irresponsiblity and alienating our allies as good republican politics…).
i endorsed john kerry 18 months ago.
my endorsement still stands.
john kerry is bright. experienced. principled. and wise.
he will make a great president, assuming that america wakes up and looks at gw bush’s presidency with a modicum of objectivity.
thanks,
moby

goood news!
‘the economist’ has endorsed john kerry for president!
that’s right, the financially responsible, usually conservative economist has endorsed john kerry!
4 years ago they endorsed gw bush, and they don’t often endorse democrats.
and here’s something germaine and funny…
moby

things you have to believe to be a republican today:

saddam was a good guy when reagan armed him, a bad guy when bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when cheney did business with him and a bad guy when bush needed a “”we can’t find bin laden”” diversion.

trade with cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with china and vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

a woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and hillary clinton.

the best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

if condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

providing health care to all iraqis is sound policy, yet providing health care to all americans is socialism.

hmos and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

a president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, however a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

government should limit itself to the powers named in the constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the internet.

the public has a right to know about hillary’s cattle trades, but george bush’s cocaine conviction is none of our business.

being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

you support states’ rights, which means attorney general john ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

what bill clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

feel free to pass this on. ãŠif you don’t send it to at least 10 other people, we’re likely to be stuck with bush for 4 more years.

“”being lectured by president bush about fiscal responsibility is like tony soprano talking to me about law and order.”” ã?john kerry

hey,
wouldn’t it be funny if bush won the popular vote and kerry won the electoral vote?
that would be great.
cos then when all of the crazy republicans say, ‘kerry didn’t win the popular vote!’
we could say, ‘now you know how it feels, you jerks’.
but kerry will win both and we will be happier and safer and more prosperous.
but if kerry won the electoral vote and not the popular vote then maybe we could finally once and for all do away with the worthless, piece of shit electoral college which is profoundly un-democratic.
-moby

i’m sorry, i said i wouldn’t write about politics for a while, but this nonsense about veterans criticizing kerry’s vietnam record is so offensive that i need to address it. why is it offensive?

a-george bush didn’t serve in vietnam, and neither did dick cheney.
dick cheney said, ‘i had better things to do’ than serve in the military.
and george bush went awol from his national guard service(protecting alabama from enemy attack…).

b-many of these vietnam vets who are now criticizing senator kerry had previously praised him: associate press: “” george elliott, one of the vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in delaware to boston in 1996 to stand up for mr. kerry during a tough re election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won mr. kerry a silver star was “”an act of courage.”” at that same event, adrian l. lonsdale, another vietnam veteran now speaking out against mr. kerry, supported him with a statement about the “”bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the swift boats.””
“”senator kerry was no exception,”” mr. lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the charlestown navy yard. “”he was among the finest of those swift boat drivers.””
mr elliott also had called mr. kerry “”unsurpassed,”” “”beyond reproach”” and “”the acknowledged leader in his peer group.””

c-the funding for this is coming from texas political operatives, friends of the bush family, and right wing conservatives: new york times: “”a series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the bush family, high-profile texas political figures and president bush’s chief political aide, karl rove.
records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family – one a longtime political associate of mr. rove’s, the other a trustee of the foundation for mr. bush’s father’s presidential library. a texas publicist who once helped prepare mr. bush’s father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice.””

see, this is why progressive and independent voters in the united states are so offended by the radical right wing of the republican party. the radical right are the same people who criticized max leland’s war record(max leland lost both legs and one arm while serving in vietnam)and ran ads comparing max leland to osama bin laden and saddam hussein.

bush’s policies have failed. his record is abysmal and he has nothing to run on. so he resorts to lying about the war record of senator kerry, a decorated war hero, to take attention away from the fact that the economy is in terrible shape and the war in iraq is an unmitigated, unnecessary disaster.

i tried to refrain from writing about politics for a while, but when right wing republicans indulge in this sort of disgusting, unethical slander i find it impossible to stay quiet.

-moby

ok, i do go on and on about politics, i know…
but isn’t it odd that none of the major news outlets are covering the fact that the bush administration released the name of a u.s intelligence operative who was working from within al-qaeda?
this is a big deal, as it shows that the bush administration doesn’t care about protecting america and fighting terrorism(releasing this name has infuriated the british and intelligence gathering organizations around the world), but only care about how they appear in the run up to the election.
if bush wins…i don’t know…it means that america is a much sadder and more willfully ignorant place than i ever could’ve imagined.
moby

do you remember september 11th?
when the world trade center was destroyed by terrorists and 3,000 innocent people were killed?
and do you remember how after september 11th the bush administration declared ‘war on terrorism’?
do you know what’s happened since?
see, you would think that in the interest of national security that the bush administration and the republicans wouldn’t screw around with counterterrorism funds for places like nyc.
but they have.
most states in the u.s have received way more money, per capita, for fighting terrorism than new york has. wyoming(population 540,000, and dick cheney’s home state…)has recieved $38 per person to fight terrorism. new york state, on the other hand, has received just over $5 per person to fight terrorism.
and the republicans have the gall to stage their convention here in nyc this summer?
here’s a simple question: why would states like wyoming receive more money per person to fight terrorism than new york?
the answer is simple: the republicans are always looking for ways to get money back to republican legislators, even at the expense of national security.
the bush administration, in the most foul and pernicious way imaginable, have played politics with counter terrorism funding, with the end result being that counter-terrorism in small republican states is absurdly well funded and counter-terrorism in democratic states like new york is absurdly under-funded.
once again, did i mention that dick cheney is from wyoming?
moby

ok, more politics…
i know that my political journal entries are not terribly popular with some people, but politics are important(to me, and to all of us), so i will continue to write about politics insofar as it seems germaine.
has anyone been following the reports regarding paul o’neill, the former bush administration secretary of the treasury?
paul o’neill is basically serving as the first whistle blower from the bush administration(he no longer serves in the white house), saying that there was never any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in iraq(which would leave bush in an impeachable position, having knowingly lied to both houses of congress), and that the bush administration never cared about deficits, and that george bush is basically clueless and unaware(the country essentially being run by the cabal of cheney/rumsfeld/rove/ashcroft).
so, a member of the bush administration saying that bush and cheney and rumsfeld and etc knew that there were never any weapons of mass destruction in iraq.
bush and cheney lied. we’ve known it all along, but this is, to use pulp-fiction parlance, the smoking gun.
i’ve said it before, but it’s an unconscionable(and treasonous and impeachable offense)to lie to both houses of congress and the american people in order to start a war. and bush lied to both houses of congress and to the american people in order to start a war.
george bush is thus guilty of treasonous behavior and should thus be impeached.
i hope that someone in congress has the courage and the will to bring impeachment(and criminal)proceedings against bush and his cabinet.
thanks for listening,
moby

it’s been proven on many occasions that i’m not the brightest guy in the world. but i’m still having a hard time understanding why we’re going to attack iraq but yet we’re leaving north korea alone.
in an ideal world we shouldn’t be attacking anyone, but isn’t it odd that the criteria that’s been employed in determining our pending aggression against iraq has been doubly satisfied by the actions of north korea?
1-iraq may or may not have weapons of mass destruction.
north korea definitely have weapons of mass destruction.
2-iraq most likely does not have nuclear weapons.
north korea most likely does have nuclear weapons.
3-iraq has let un inspectors into their country.
north korea have just kicked the un inspectors out of their country.
4-iraq have been belligerent and violent towards their neighbors.
north korea have been belligerent and violent towards their neighbors.
5-the powers that be in iraq have been involved in the deaths of millions of iraqi’s.
the powers that be in north korea have been involved in the deaths of millions of north koreans.
6-the leadership of iraq is despotic and tyrannical.
the leadership of north korea is despotic and tyrannical.

it’s very bizarre. and i’m surprised that more people in the united states and the united states media aren’t making a bigger deal out of this strange situation.
i know that the bush administration is beholden to the interests of the oil companies, but is that really what’s behind all of this weirdness?
who knows.
moby