9/12 Teabaggers: Hypocrisy In Action

So, the Million Moron March went off without a hitch?

Oh joy.

You’ll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm because, well, it’s really hard to see past all the hypocrisy and discern what, exactly, these people are protesting. I just have to ask, if they’re so hell-bent on “defending” principles of American Democracy, where were they for the past eight years?

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? The Teabaggers get their name from the idea that they’re “Taxed Enough Already.” Ok, fine, I’ll grant them the fact that even though they want a strong military, they don’t want to pay for it, but are they protesting the tax cut they’re getting under Obama’s plan? Or are they protesting the 4% tax increase that their CEO might get?

Do you really want to go there, lady??

Yea, well I don't want Bush's either. How 'bout you take it, m'kay?

Then there’s the deficit issue (DEFECITS R EIVL!!! OMGLOLWTF!!?!??!1111). They burden future generations with debt that can never be repaid. Uh, yup. This is what “libruls” were saying about the years of deficit spending to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were the teabaggers then? The national debt more than doubled under W and they were cheering his war efforts on (but, it’s not like the troops saw the benefits).

At least, that's what Glenn Beck tells me...

While we’re here, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. If the teabaggers wanted an opportunity to demand Presidential truth-telling, the lead-up to the war in Iraq was a prime opportunity. Bush and Co told almost 1000 documented lies about starting a war with Iraq. And, where were the teabaggers? Unfortunately, they’re in the group that still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (which is absurd considering even Cheney admitted it’s not true).

You lost one election. Get a fucking grip...

This person should definitely be in therapy (covered by private insurance, of course)

Speaking of Cheney, let’s talk about freedoms. Apparently, Obama is going to take the teabaggers’ freedom (which one(s), they don’t say), but Cheney (along with Bush) succeeded in actually demolishing the Constitution (you know, that piece of paper). Freedoms like the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, the right to be free from unlawful punishment and the right to know why you’re being detained. The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act were two of the greatest affronts to American freedoms and the teabaggers wholeheartedly supported their enactment (Remember "if you're not a terrorist, you don't have to worry?") . And, teabaggers today continue to work against the freedoms of individual choice that truly define America.

So, they don’t really understand taxes, don’t truly care about deficits, aren’t actually concerned with the truth, definitely not interested in freedom. Oh, yea, this was supposed to be about health care ("supposed to" being the key phrase). There was surprisingly little mention of health care. It was mostly an after thought:

I wonder what poignant thought could possibly be on the front of this sign.

They’re concerned that somehow the government is going to take over health care by proposing a competitive alternative to private insurance, and simultaneously be so ineffective as to cause long waits and poor care, yet also be so effective as to cause private insurance to go out of business? Is something like that even possible? But, I guess it makes sense to people who believe Obama can be both a socialist and fascist at the same time...

Call this kid's World History/Civics teacher. Retroactive FAIL.

Yea, I'm trying to add that all up and it comes out to, um...you're a dumbass

Maybe they’re concerned about the cost. But, were they concerned about the cost of Medicare Part D, which will probably be more expensive as comprehensive health insurance reform (ten year cost estimated at $1.2 trillion), yet all taxpayer dollars go directly to PhARMA? No, no they weren’t.

Ah, nothing like people on Medicare protesting government health care:

I understand that people may be wary of so much government action, but eight years of improper, unjustifiable and sometimes illegal action cheered on by these teabaggers have brought America to the breaking point. The fact is, all these people are complicit in the real destruction that has been wrought.

So, here is my message to all the sometimes-patriots out there: You lost an election because of the failure of your leaders. You are intellectually and politically bankrupt, and generally have no legs to stand on in this debate. You didn’t show up when it mattered most, instead choosing to cheer on heinous and extreme behavior. Everyone noticed and said “No More.” If you want to have a legitimate, policy-based debate, we’re here to listen. But know this: your demagoguery of villainous characters is actually what is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. Your hateful ways will be your undoing.

But, let's be honest, hate is the real reason you came to Washington.

And they say it's not about race...

Just because?

I'm sure whoever made this sign is absolutely gorgeous

But, really, it's not about race

Make no mistake, tomorrow is not the end. It is the beginning.

I would just like to start out an say that I am so proud of the Democrats this year. We always knew we could run a better campaign, that we didn't need Karl Rove and fear tactics to win. We haven't won yet. I'm not counting those chickens. But, we are on the offensive, fighting Republicans on "their" turf. We are going into this ahead, in the best position we've seen in years.

And, thank you, all of those that have volunteered these past 20 months. Not just to those that have volunteered for Obama. Personally, I began this political season in the Edwards camp. But, from the beginning, we have been charged up. We have been ready to put our hearts and souls into electing a Democrat. We have put our divisions behind us and come together around Senators Obama and Biden.

When the votes are counted tomorrow (or next week), we will have our next president, and I believe we will have President Obama.

But, please, don't think the fight is over tomorrow.

This election is round one. The next four years will see an organized, vocal and aggressive Republican minority. They will push back against every plan we have for fixing America. They will not yield to our majority as so many Democrats yielded to them.

Make no mistake, tomorrow is just the beginning. We will need all of our strength, all of our grassroots networks to continue to be mobilized. We need to continue to speak out and support everything we have worked so hard for. After tomorrow, we will have the chance to see our dreams become reality. Fox and Rush and Bill-O will be feeding the fires of their followers. We must continue to outshine them. We must drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. They will hate it and us for it, but it is the only way to fix America.

Barack Obama could not have gotten this far without us. He will not get any further without us. Please, celebrate tomorrow, relax on Wednesday and come back ready for round two on Thursday.

Objection! Leading the Voter: How the GOP Stifles American Political Debate

I know I’ve said it before, but I just can’t resist it: These people are scared S**tless. What people, you might ask? Well, the GOP, of course. And why are they scared? Because they lose on every issue that is important to Americans today.

It’s unfortunate that the GOP is so scared of true debate. Why must they always ignore the facts, spin the truth, and point fingers at their opponents? It’s tiring, and more importantly, it’s hurting America. The GOP’s smoke and mirrors act is hindering effective debate on important issues and keeps America from making true progress for all.

Maybe you were lucky enough to see the RNC 2008 Critical Issues Survey. If not, it’s definitely worth a peek. And, it shows exactly who has critical “issues” in this campaign (hint: the makes of this ridiculous poll). How ridiculous? Well, let’s preview some of these “fair and balanced” questions:

Shall we start with the economy?

1. Do you think Congress should respond to the economic slowdown with a plan of tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Hahaha, yeah. OK. Since they sunk a robust and growing economy, I’m sure they’d do wonders for a recession.

2. Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes?

Honestly, where to start with this one? Regardless of what one believes, supply-side economics don’t work.

4. Which of the following factors do you feel is most adversely affecting the economy in your area?
Burdensome Taxes
Severe Government Regulations
Unstable Real Estate Market
Growth of Government Spending
Threat of Terrorism
Unpredictable Fluctuating Fuel Prices
Other

Oh geez! Terrorism? Yes, I’m afraid of being the victim of a suicide bomber at the market. Oh wait. I’m in America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Gotta get that fear mongering in…

10. Should “pork-barrel” spending be completely eliminated?

Like the word “lobbyist,” “pork-barrel” and “ear marks” are getting a bad rap. And from the Republicans of all people. The most irresponsible party lampooning their own failures. Ugh. Let’s talk about the reality of ear-marked money and the abuses that the Republicans have committed.

Enough with that, let’s move to something cooler: (dun dun dun) National Security!

2. Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East?

Surrender? Who’s surrendering? Republicans are war-mongering, plain and simple. Nothing like stifling the debate over each candidate’s plan (well, Obama’s at least. McCain doesn’t have a coherent idea of what to do in Iraq…or Afghanistan).

3. Do you agree with Democrats who believe national defense spending should be slashed in order to fund domestic programs?

What Dems are doing this? As far as I can tell, they give Bush everything he wants on Defense spending…including no oversight. C’mon people, actions speak louder than words. Let’s talk about what people are actually doing.

5. Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field?

“Even if it undermines our troops in the field?” Well, when you put it like that, I guess not. But, considering that Bush has done more to undermine our troops and our efforts, AND the Iraqis have asked for a withdrawl timeline, I would say, yes, I support the timeline.

These are some bad fucking questions. It makes me sad looking at them because it’s like watching a democracy die. But, we still have two more sections to conquer.

Now, on to Other Issues.

1. Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench?

“Liberal activists,” like who? You and me? We are talking about judges, right? Ok, just wanted to clear that up. Now, the SCOTUS isn’t my area of expertise, but I can see very clearly that the GOP only has intentions of politicizing the bench and not actually appointing people who are independent thinkers. Way to obfuscate the question, GOP! Gold star!!

2. Is it critical for the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy and find new supplies of oil in order to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable?

Huh? How many questions are you trying to ask here? And, even if I say yes, it doesn’t mean I’ll agree with your plans. I think most people would say yes, but there’s nothing in here about “how.”

3. Do you think we should work to give parents with children trapped in failing schools more choices to help their children have a better future?

Trapped? Really?! No way of escaping? Wow, that does sound pretty serious. Well, I guess I agree, but one question, why not work to improve these schools? I think the last thing the GOP came up with was NCLB, so I’m going to say that their education “solutions” are nothing of the sort.

6. Do you think that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients?

Wow, this is a pretty serious statement. Too bad that’s not what Obama is talking about. Of course, reality doesn’t matter to the GOP. But, I wonder how the uninsured would feel about this. My guess? They’d love to have some guaranteed insurance. Just a guess, though.

And now the final section (and the one question that reveals their fear): Campaign Strategy.

3. Are you concerned about the vast sums of campaign funds being stockpiled by the Democrats and their liberal allies?

Haha, yup. The GOP doesn’t know what to do now that they’re losing the money race. They all hate their candidate, so even his best month pales in comparison to the Democrats. And they are crapping their pants. McCain even has to compete in his home state. They are on the defensive and they know they’re going to face huge losses.


So, of course, why not stifle the debate and twist the facts? Honestly, I’m surprised there were no race questions in this poll. But, there are many more gems available, if you can stomach it.

If McCain Wins, America Loses

If we elect John McCain, America will demonstrate how socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept it has truly become. Maybe Republicans want us to vote on who is more patriotic, which is completely subjective. I say that a flag lapel pin doesn’t make a patriot if that person is willing to send hundreds of thousands to death in a false war and simultaneously tear down the very laws that make us free. But, that’s just my opinion. Maybe they want us to vote on who would have the ability to provide cheap (and crappy) beer to America. Keep us drunk to keep our minds off the misery that is Bush’s reality. I guess McCain would win that contest, but as for the actual election, there is too much at stake to waste a vote on John McCain.

First, on the issues of the economy, McCain has continually demonstrated that he does not, in fact, know anything about how our economy actually works. Though he has shown that he is willing to accept how corporate lobbyists want our economy to work. I think this is the most important fact when it comes to McCain’s economy: McCain’s economic plan does not budget for the war in Iraq. Does not even mention it. Does not believe in accounting for the single greatest expenditure in American history. Hello?! For the man who is an ardent supporter of this war, wants to be in the country for, well, ever, and wants to go to war with Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, and probably Venezuela, this budget is a joke. All it does is fling money at wealthy individuals and corporations without acknowledging the reality of our current situation.

So, if that doesn’t scare you, here’s more. We all know that McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts. Why? Because they don’t give enough to the 99.9% of people that actually make up America. Now, he’s for them. Hm, sounds like someone sold out to the ridiculous neo-con perspective (I’ve got mine, screw everyone else) to get the Republican nomination.

And now McCain is pushing a suspension of the federal gas tax, saying it would ease gas prices by 20% (in reality, it’s only 5%, but we know McCain no longer operates in reality). What does he think people are going to do when gas is $3.32 vice $3.50? Yea, I’m not planning that road trip yet, and neither is the rest of America. A suspension does absolutely nothing to address the true cause of these inflated oil prices, corporate greed. Additionally, the federal gas tax goes to support and repair our highways, which are in dire need of maintenance. Not to sound morbid, but maybe McCain should ask the victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse if they support taking money from highway repair. He would be putting even more Americans at risk of such a tragedy.

In case we weren’t convinced of the utter failure of supply-side economics, there is the sticky little problem of the current economic downturn being “rescued” be demand side policies. Give the people money and they will spend it. Of course, that will only happen if they aren’t in debt already. But, thanks to Bush’s economic policies, we all are. Tax cuts won’t solve it. Deficit spending won’t increase consumer confidence. People will spend money if they feel secure, but right now, we are barely keeping our heads above water trying to cover the basics, not to mention retirement and/or higher education for the future generations. We need a government that will implement policies that help us, and McCain’s policies do anything but.

But, maybe the economy isn’t you’re thing. Maybe you’re more of a rule of law kind of person. Well then, McCain isn’t your guy because he definitely does not support the rule of law, the bedrock of American principles. Foremost is his support for the war in Iraq, which we know was started over lies. However, that doesn’t matter to him. What matters to him is that Americans keep fighting, regardless of whether or not we have a goal or a reason.

Then there’s the troublesome fact that McCain continues to support Bush in all his efforts to restrict the freedoms that make us Americans (those same freedoms that people are fighting and dying for, I assume). And the most important of these would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus, otherwise known as, the ability for anyone who is jailed to appear before a judge and learn why. Now the Constitution says that this cornerstone of freedom may only be suspended in times of “rebellion or invasion,” but Bush just wanted to get rid of it all together. And, thanks to the Republican Congress of 2006, it’s gone. Why worry about the limits of the law when you can just change the laws? Needless to say, I’m more than a little concerned about the serious neutering of the Constitution that has taken place under Bush and that McCain promises to continue.

However, I doubt that these issues will be brought to the attention of the general public. Why would we want to talk about things like economic security and truly protecting freedom (as well as health care, education, the environment, corporate graft, political corruption, the real war on terror, social security, civil rights, I could go on and on)? Why would we want to discuss the issues when we can talk about flag lapel pins and who staffs more lobbyists? Well, probably because the media, following the lead of the Republican Party, is socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept. They will focus on God, guns and gays; they will focus on fear and on trivial non-issues to keep us from seeing how truly pathetic American politics has become. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough Americans will figure it out on their own to keep McCain out of the White House. After Wednesday night’s debate, I saw how the media is going to hand the election to McCain, I just can’t figure out why. If John McCain wins, America will lose.

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

John McCain claims that he is a proud to be a Republican in the tradition of “Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” Knowing what I do about Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, I am more than skeptical of McCain’s claim (except for the Reagan part). And, knowing what I do about McCain’s general level of knowledge (low), I am assuming that if someone were to ask him to compare himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, he would have no clue where to start. And, just a note for his speech writers: before you write something for your candidate, make sure he can back it up when you’re not there.

Since this is kind of long, I’m going to have to do it in two parts. I’ve decided to leave Reagan out because we can all remember his policies, and Reagan was no Lincoln or Roosevelt either. I’ve highlighted some governing philosophies of Lincoln, and we’ll see if McCain is following his “tradition.”

It’s important to note that Lincoln was a Washington outsider. Lincoln spent only two years in the House of Representatives and took a ten year hiatus before he ran for President. Lincoln also had no military experience. Abraham Lincoln highlights:

• In 1846, he spoke out against the Mexican-American, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory."
• Lincoln did not support war for personal gain or presidential legacy. McCain has solidly supported Bush’s war and delusions of military glory.



• After declaring "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just," Lincoln became a political liability and chose not to run for re-election.
• Lincoln spoke out against injustice, regardless of the consequences. McCain used to speak out, but now he only says what the party tells him to say.



• However, in 1854, Lincoln returned to politics in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's extent as determined by the Missouri Compromise.
• Lincoln was involved in politics to promote justice and the ideas of the founders, not for personal gain. McCain does not support equal rights for all Americans.



• Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class.
• When Lincoln had to fight a war, he had sound principles. He did not fight war based on personal feelings or philosophy. Again, McCain supports endless crusades based on the mistaken ideas of a few.



• In 1863, when Lincoln saw support for his war wavering, and people were disturbed by the draft, he knew he had to make a statement to win back the people. Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to highly resolve that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the Copperhead peace democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" will have done so for no reason at all. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was proposing this question: what would these men who died for this cause want us to do--quit now or finish the job? How the country answered this question would determine the 1864 election.
• Public support in a time of war is always hard to maintain in the face of high casualties. And, we’ve heard Bush say that the soldiers who’ve died in Iraq will not die in vain. And that giving into calls for peace would make the whole effort in vain. So what’s the difference? Well, for starters, Lincoln was fighting a war to protect the integrity of American, and it had a clear definition of success: The southern states return to the United States of America. In Bush’s war and with McCain’s support, the Global War on Terrorism has become a quagmire with no clear goals or definition of success. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so all those that have died have died in vain because Bush and McCain have chosen not to pursue the real terrorists who harmed America.



• Even before the war ended, Lincoln was actively pursuing a reconstruction strategy. Determined to find a course that would reunite the nation and not alienate the South, Lincoln urged that speedy elections under generous terms be held throughout the war in areas behind Union lines. His Amnesty Proclamation of December 8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office, had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
• Lincoln understands that a solid strategy needs to be in place if the region is going to rebuild. He did not tear down the system of government and replace it with partisans. He allowed the people to continue to govern themselves. McCain has supported the complete destruction of Iraq and the installation of Bush partisans, which has not helped the reconstruction effort.



• Besides the war, Lincoln took a hands-off approach to legislation, where he allowed Congress to write the legislation and he vetoed only those bills that threatened his war powers. Thus, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural universities in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Other important legislation involved economic matters, including the first income tax and higher tariffs. Also included was the creation of the system of national banks by the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system. Congress created and Lincoln approved the Department of Agriculture in 1862, although that institution would not become a Cabinet-level department until 1889.
• In his legislation, Lincoln showed that he supported a strong government. He supported the first income tax and higher tariffs. I don’t know if McCain could be more of a polar opposite on this issue. Lincoln also supported government grants for education, and large federal projects for infrastructure. McCain, like Bush, supports only private, for-profit industry. Additionally, Lincoln supported a growing federal government, but supported by the higher taxes and tariffs. This is where I believe McCain is more like Reagan; he says he supports small government, so he reduces taxes, but continues to expand the federal government without the necessary funds. Lastly, Lincoln did not meddle in legislative affairs or veto based on his personal beliefs. McCain has promised more Bush leadership: Approve only what he personally believes in, make no compromises or attempts to see an issue from the majority’s point of view. From what McCain has promised, he could not be more opposed to Lincoln’s governing style.



• Lincoln largely relied on the Calvinistic "doctrine of necessity" and not organized religion to guide his beliefs. Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. Consistent with the common practice of the Whig party, Lincoln would often use the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies.
• This may be the most important point because it talks to governing and leadership style. Lately, the Republicans have come to be dominated by the Christian Fundamentalists, but this was not what the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln intended. Lincoln based his beliefs on Enlightenment-era philosophies, not religion. The Declaration of Independence was his guiding document. Lincoln believed that America’s destiny was to be shaped by the principles of its founding, not by the Bible. McCain has promised to turn this nation over to the Christian Extremists, which is not something Lincoln would ever do.
  
  
  From these ideas, I can only conclude that Lincoln was a man of great principle. He believed in truth, justice, and enlightenment. When he had to fight, he did it judiciously, and based in solid principle. When he led America, he thought about what was best for the nation, not just for his supporters. Lincoln guided this nation through a time of great turmoil, and while he was not perfect, he was thoughtful. McCain promises to be none of these. McCain is a war monger who will continue the harmful, un-Constitutional policies of President Bush and the Christian extremists. If any candidate in this race is like Abraham Lincoln, it is Barack Obama, which these highlights make very clear. McCain should be ashamed for trying to degrade the memory of a good president for his own political gain!
  
  Coming soon: Is McCain a Roosevelt “Rough Rider?”

The CIA Director Said What?

We all know that this administration has an agenda. The recently released Department of Defense study not linking Iraq and 9/11 has made perfectly clear that war is the lifeblood of the current administration. War at all costs. And, while the war in Iraq is the current battle ground of this election year, I believe that we need to watch what is being said about Iran. We are being set up, and we need to confront these lies before they drag us, and the next president, into another costly war. In December 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate was release that said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet we have been bombarded by administration officials who continue to say otherwise.

On "Meet The Press" this Sunday, the Director of the CIA said that he personally believed that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. He acknowledged the NIE released in December 2007, but he immediately launched into a disqualification of the report, the intelligence, and Iran. And, Hayden isn't the first official to make these same remarks. Last week, Cheney said that Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons. Of course, he could have also said "probably not" or "we have no evidence of," but instead he continue to push his party's agenda of constant, costly war. And, just days after the NIE was released, Bush said "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world." And who could forget Republican presidential candidate John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" during a campaign stump? I've tried, but I can't.

So, let me get this straight, even though 16 US Intelligence agencies concur that Iran is not working to produce a nuclear weapon and has not been working on acquiring a nuclear weapon for more than four years, the Bush administration continues to try and sell us another war based on false evidence? Even though the Intelligence agencies are stacked with Bush supporters, even they couldn't tell him what he so desperately wanted to hear? Even though the evidence is right in front of him, he can casually brush it aside for his "feelings"? No. I will not accept this. I will not accept more lies, and more officials who push the party line over truth. I will not accept a candidate who sings and dances to sell death and destruction. Now is the time for every American to demand that our leadership respect the truth of the world we live in: It may be dangerous, but picking fights won't make anyone safer. The officials who continue to lie to the people about Iran should be ashamed by the way they throw our credibility into the wind. I will not go to war based on their feelings, and neither should any other American.

Republicans Are the REAL Terrorists

Everybody prepare to run to the hills! If Obama wins the nomination, the terrorists will certainly celebrate in the streets by slaughtering thousands!

Please, this is such a line of crap that the GOP has managed to sell. And truly, they are the ones who are terrorizing the world (feigned shock). They have engaged in an illegal war on false pretenses. They’ve caused the death of hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians, millions of refugees, and they knowingly send young Americans to die a horrific death in a foreign land. They have turned an admittedly suppressed nation into a battle ground between god knows how many players. They demand that other people conform to their idea of democracy while they desecrate the democracy of their own country. They spread lies about their opposition and attempt to stifle any free speech and debate.

The thing that makes the least sense in the whole Republican fear mongering machine is that they equate liberals to terrorists. Now, the Islamic extremists that Bush is fighting are religious CONSERVATIVES! They’re conservative! They’re religious nut-bags like Hucakbee, Buchanan, Falwell, Haggard, etc. There is no liberal Islamic terrorist wing! So, for Republicans to imply that liberalism is a threat to world peace takes a complete suspension of reality and facts. But, apparently, they’re very good at that.

The terrorists would be more apprehensive of a Democratic administration because they know that the Democrats are interested in catching the actual terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, who is still roaming free somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They know that the moderate Muslims would have a backing in the formation of a new government in Iraq. They know that they will receive welfare from Bush. That forming a new government would actually be up to them and that the US won’t back their civil war. Bush continues to egg them on by being obstinate, pugnacious, and wrong.

Now, McCain, Rove and the rest of the neo-conservatives would be right about one thing. Terrorists would celebrate the end of the fake justice of the military tribunals, Guantanamo, and the secret CIA prisons. Of course, so would most of America and the rest of the civilized world. So, between a return to justice and an end to the hostilities in Iraq, the terrorists would be back to fighting themselves instead of America.

Bush has single-handedly done more to create terrorists and breed hostilities towards Americans than any Islamic extremist could have ever hoped to do. Aside from the lies that got us into Iraq (and that’s a big aside), look at how poorly he continues to handle Afghanistan. The training ground of and host to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11 has largely been ignored. And, surprise, the Taliban are resurgent. But, for some reason, that’s NATO’s problem? I’m not following that logic. And then there’s his bellicose rhetoric on Iran. Even after the NIE determined Iran had stopped enriching uranium years ago, he and his cronies continue to push the idea that Iran is developing weapons to destroy humanity (I suppose Bush thinks that’s his domain, so he’s offended by anyone else who might want to do that). They say, “may be,” when they should really say “probably not” and “we have no evidence of.”

And now we have McCain, who used to be semi-independent. But, he continues to sell the lies that were manufactured by the neo-cons. He continues to champion Republican terrorism, and will continue to make America a target for future terrorist attacks. The best policy for America is one where we help the world, not destroy it.

Fight Fear With Logic

In the words of a great Democrat “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” FDR uttered these words during his first inaugural address in 1933 while America in the midst of the Great Depression and the world was plunging into chaos and war. Imagine that! A president telling the people that our greatest threat is being too afraid to do anything. At a time when there was much to fear, we had a president telling us to face that fear and fight it back.

In my belief, a government should have the best interest of its people in mind (but, hey, that’s just me). And those interests span from health to education to, yes, security. I think that security coverts the daily and internal threats, but sometimes, security includes protecting the people from external threats; the key word being sometimes. Yet, external threats are all this administration can talk about. They would have us believe that there is nothing else to focus on except one threat, and that none of the domestic issues that we actually care about are tied to the external threat.

Unfortunately for us all, the current administration lacks the courage to lead the people. Instead they rely on the politics of fear and keeping the people afraid. For example, the “terror threat rainbow” (I have no idea what it’s really called, so that’s what I call it) is one tool that Bush and Co use to keep the people afraid. If the government were honest with us, it would be blue because, let’s face it, it’s way more dangerous to drive a car, eat a cheeseburger, use a hairdryer, etc. However, as we’ve come to expect, this administration is always less than honest and they’ll do whatever possible to retain their power over the people.

Cheney did it in 2006 and now McCain is doing it. What is it? Telling the people that he “believes” that the terrorists are watching our election cycle and will try sway the results through attacks. On the face, this seems like the Republicans (already) making excuses for losing the election. But, more importantly, it is the use of fear to manipulate the people. The Republicans continue to ignore the bests interests of the people, focus on wedge issues, and try to tell us that everything is going to be ok…as long as we vote for them. Their entire platform revolves around keeping the people scared.

We are at a point now where we need to face this fear mongering head on. This is what we need to say to the cowards who try to keep us afraid: 

"We weren't afraid when we voted for you the first time. A few years later, you told us that we were almost done being afraid, and now your successor wants us to be afraid for the next 100 years. Well, we're sick of being afraid, so we're going to vote for the person who tells us the truth: Life is dangerous, but your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are smaller than your chances of winning the lottery; that, in order to have a friend, you need to be a friend. And that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We're moving on. And, oh by the way, we’re also not voting for you because your party is run by hypocrites and perverts, and has managed to flush the economy, world opinion, our health care system, education and the environment down the toilet. But, we’re not afraid any more either."