Can the Republicans Buy Votes with New Tax Cuts?

Brian Faler at Bloomberg News is reporting that the Republicans in Congress are considering new tax cut proposals to bolster their chances in the midterm elections. The country "celebrated" the fourth largest budget deficit in 2005-06 ($296 billion) but Republican leaders are hoping that tax cuts can be coupled (after elections) with cuts in medicare and medicaid and other social programs that now consumer 39% of all government revenues.

The Bush administration, seeking to stave off the Democrats in November are having difficulty coming to terms with how little they have to work with to convince voters to return them to Congress. Public opinion is against them on Iraq, Social Security, spending and budget deficits. Republicans such as Tom DeLay and Rob Ney have been indicted and are awaiting trial on corruption charges as well as Scooter Libby for lying to the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case.

Republicans are having a hard time making a "stay the course" campaign work on the national level and some are actually running advertisements bragging about how they have gotten earmarks for their districts which is another way of saying pork in a time of massive deficits and a ballooning national debt.

Republicans used to stand for smaller governments and no deficits and in the 1990's worked with the Clinton administration to achieve surpluses. But this Congress, the "Borrow and Spend" Republicans have tax cut the government into budget chaos in a time when social security and medicare benefits need to have better funding to continue.

But votes and voters are more important than sanity and common sense. Instead of offering solutions, the "go to" plan of trying to buy votes by promising even more of the same philosophy that has gotten us into the quagmire of debt is seen as a sure election winner?! Voters, unsure of the state of the economy as Ford becomes the latest car company to lay off thousands of employees, might want to consider the problems underlying any party that thinks votes can be bought.

Obviously, the Republicans think it can.

Where the Republicans Lost the "Moral Center"

Liberals are often accused (rightly or wrongly or both) of not having a "moral center." That is, "liberals" it is said have no moral basis for decision-making, often espousing principles of government and society based on "whichever way the wind is blowing." Liberals are often considered to be soft on national defense and security, pro-drug, pro-choice, which is characterized as "anti-life" and supporting of an "anything goes philosophy" instead of values which have been considered fundamental since the beginning of time in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But conservatives needed to avoid a demon that has, in the past 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the past 6 in the White House, been stalking them on a daily basis. That demon is powerful and alluring, promising great wealth and power at the expense of all the good that might be done and in the present situation is in all too much control of Washington. They have sadly succumbed to the demon of Hypocrisy.
Republicans stated in their "contract with America" in 1994 that they would, if given political power, establish bipartisanship and openness as the moral cornerstone to their control. When George Bush ran in 2000, he added that he would bring "personal responsibility" to the executive branch and through it, to the country.
But Bush and the Congress have been led away from morality. Hypocrisy has led them away from morality through pandering to business and rich folks. At the same time it also led them to believe that the morality of telling the truth was something that only was enforceable if it could be used as a political slogan in a campaign. Otherwise, "thou shalt not lie" could be conveniently circumvented since it served a more noble purpose, the expansion of political power.
So what if Bush lied about Iraq and our reasons for going to war there? We removed a really bad dictator, isn't that enough? But is that what we said we were doing?
Or did they lie?
So what if Bush used wiretapping of Americans calling internally in the United States without a warrant even though that has been defined as illegal and there is a process for getting warrants that is seldom turned down? Wasn't the White House doing this to keep you safe?
Or did they lie?
So what if Bush had the CIA run torture facilities that he denied existed but now acknowledges? Didn't the government have to find out what Al Qaeda was doing?
Or did they lie?
So what if Bush says he will find and either kill or capture Osama Bin Laden? What if Pakistan is making an agreement to protect Al Qaeda in their country, essentially guarding the most dangerous man alive? Bush said last Friday that they are a sovereign country and we can't interfere?
Or did he lie when he said we would go anywhere to capture Bin Laden?
You see how the demon Hypocrisy works? You can say anything, do anything, as long as you don't mind violating the very moral principles we claim the country is based upon. Once Hypocrisy becomes your personal god there is no limit to what can be justified in the names of the demons of greed and power.
Now we are justifying torture of all prisoners in the name of Hypocrisy. Funny, but we may have reached the point where the Senators whom have rubber stamped so many other abuses are finally drawing a line in the moral sand.
Let’s hope they find solid rock in the voters’ minds or the demons will win again.

The King's Court is Rebelling, The King's Court is Rebelling!!

The Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday passed a bi-partisan effort to define treatment of detainees, including the handling of military tribunals written by John McCain (R)-Arizona which stands in direct opposition to the bill King George Bush wants to see enacted. The Committee, encouraged by a letter from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, rebelled against the administration's attempt to enact a law that would justify the use of methods in interrogation that are considered torture and deny a defendant's rights to see evidence against them.

President Bush said today "If not for this (anti-terror) program, our intelligence community believes al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,"
King Geroge would like us to believe that he and his party are the only ones who can us protect us from terrorism. Time and again the Republicans have supported Bush but recent events suggests that what Republicans in the Senate would like more than anything else is for Bush to go away and stop trying to be a dictator. First, the Senate Committee considering John Bolton's second attempt at confirmation voted not to support the nomination and several Republicans talked about reservations they had aboout Bolton's ability to represent our interests. Next, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued part of their report on Pre-Iraq intelligence that suggested that the administration either "poorly handled" or "were misleading" about that intelligence.

When you consider the support of liberal Republican's Lincoln Chaffee's candidacy for reelection in Rhode Island and you have to wonder if the Republicans really hate America as much as they seem? Don't they know love of America is defined as "Supporting the President in everything he says or does" as noted by prominent Republican Brittney Spears, hating gays, supporting the theocratic leanings of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and keeping America safe by keeping the terrorists "couped up" in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in the produce section of our local supermarkets?

Now, the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have once again thrown down the Al Qaeda gauntlet. Can you imagine that civil rights matter so much that our very society might be sacrificed?

What does the King have to do to regain the loyalty of these unfaithful servants who obviously have been lost to the Al Qaeda philosophy expoused by Ned Lamont (or so we were told by Vice-King Dick Cheney)? Back in the old days of English Kings the executioners would be sharpening their blades while the rack was made ready.

Perhaps marshall law, a dissolving of Parliament, or rather Congress would be in order. If these Republicans don't want to protect us from the hordes of Democrats who would destroy our fundamental freedoms and moral values, maybe the King should find some that will!!

10 Facts to Consider as We Remember the Tragedy

September 11th is a sad memory and every American should take a moment and pray for the lost and their families, those that survived but are forever changed and for the country in which we live. We were changed by the savagery and our lives were forever altered.

5 Years after Pearl Harbor, which was also a sneak attack on the United States (1946) the United States had banded together, fought a war and defeated those whom had attacked us and their allies. Remembrance of what happened on December 7, 1941 has continued to this day as a lesson that we must always be prepared to battle and eliminate those whom would attack us in such a manner, to sacrifice for a cause bigger than politics, bigger than any individual.

So let us consider 10 facts about the world 5 years after the 9/11 attack to answer the question: What has happened in the world since September 11?

Osama Bin Laden, Leader of Al-Qaeda, who was responsible for 9/11 is still free today to plot more attacks.
Even though the terrorist alert system has been raised and lowered periodically, there is no evidence that suggests that the threat of a terrorist attack is any greater or less today.
Only 3 of the 41 recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission have been enacted.
Of the 40,000 people involved in the cleanup of the World Trade Center, which is more than 10 times the number that died, 28,000, or 9 times the number that died have lung disease and breathing complications, despite the fact that the workers were told it was safe to work on site by the EPA.
So-called "Sleeper Cells" in the United States, estimated by the government in 2002 to be over 5,000 are yet to be discovered and only 1 cell, in Tonawanda, New York, involving 6 men has been prosecuted.
The "Taliban," the right wing Islamic government of Afghanistan that was deposed is estimated by NATO to control more territory than NATO in Afghanistan today.
The opium crop in Afghanistan in 2005, controlled mostly by Afghan warlords, Al Qaeda and the Taliban was the largest on record and is the biggest current source of drugs in Europe today.
"Home-grown terrorists" in England and Spain have committed terrorist attacks inspired and aided by Al Qaeda, but no American airline has been successfully attacked since 9/11/01
United States foreign policy has less respect in the world in 2006 than 2001 and George Bush is often cited in foreign countries as more of a threat to the world than Osama Bin Laden.
The national debt in the U.S. has risen to $8,500,000,000,000 (8.5 trillion) since 2001, in part a result of a series of tax cuts that have been enacted during a time of war. This is the first time in American history tax cuts have occurred during a war.

Republican Controlled Committee Says Bush Lied!

[The Committee Report] concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.-MSNBC Article, 09/08/06

Four years in the making, the Republican leadership attempting again and again to stop it's publication, the Republican controlled Intelligence Committee has now officially reported it's findings. Key to the report is the committee's bipartisan conclusion that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and that Joe Wilson's report that Saddam Hussein was not pursuing nuclear materials in North Africa was correct. The report, which points an accusing finger at the CIA as well as Iraqi groups that were opposed to Saddam Hussein for falsifying data and misleading the government must be seen in the context that both Republicans and Democrats together now believe the Bush administration lied to the American people, the United Nations and the world.

It is an important document that should be carefully read by both progressives and conservatives because it is the result of extensive resources available to few others in the United States besides the committee.

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

Who does Senator Roberts refer to when he says "it has long been known"? Certainly not the over 40% of the American public that believes even now that Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11 and had weapons labs and WMD's. Remember, this admission of the failure of the Bush Neocon White House comes from a very conservative Republican who has supported the war effort as well as voting over 90% with the White House on legislation and appointments.

Is this an indictment of the White House? One of the most important parts of the report (which will be released after the midterm elections) are the conclusions of how the intelligence failure was "interpreted" still is being debated by the committee. However, you have to think that the intelligence that was shared with the committee in 2002 was only part of the total and indeed, the committee's findings that that the intelligence wasn't credible certainly could be extended to the White House who used wiretapping and other sources besides what the Senate Intelligence Committee had. The fact that Republicans will not let the final "completed" report be published is a strong indication of what that part of the report will say.

Republicans, already in spin control mode, are saying that there is "nothing new in the report" (White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, for example). The President, who laid out the case for war in the State of the Union address in early 2003 certainly knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda (another conclusion of the report) and had made no serious attempt to create nuclear weapons (i.e. enriching uranium or effective rocket technology).

And that would mean exactly what about the case that Bush laid out before the American people in the State of the Union?

I think you can draw your own conclusion.

The Propoganda War Continues On...

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror" -George Bush 09/06/06



President Bush, in an interview with Katie Couric on CBS Wednesday made the political mistake of telling the American people exactly how he intends to convince the American people of why they should vote Republican this fall. This is often the propogandist's greatest problem that he makes statements that make what he says now obviously not true by confusing propoganda with agenda.



The "War on Terror" was declared shortly after 9/11, the principal target of the war being Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, and the Afghanistan government (the Taliban, led by Mohammed Omar). Afghanistan was invaded, Omar deposed though never captured, and Bin Laden tracked to Tora Bora. The War, on the verge of being won was then, for some reason subverted and Iraq became the new target. Bin Laden and Omar escaped, Al Qaeda was allowed to regroup and the Taliban now controls much of rural Afghanistan, including area within 10 miles of American military bases (as reported by CBS journalist Lara Logan 9/5/06 on the CBS Evening News).



Meanwhile, the reality based community kept asking why Bin Laden and Omar were allowed to escape? Wouldn't their deaths or capture severely wound Al Qaeda (cut off the snake's head, so to speak?). But, from a propogandist's viewpoint this made no sense. A propogandist would immediately understand that once the "enemy" is defined, to destroy them is to lose the tactical advantage he presents.



But then, the problem faced is how to "connect" everything the government does to the original vehicle that is so useful in reminding the public that only your leadership can ensure their safety. Thus, the enemy becomes yours to protect, thus making sure fear is the only emotion people can have when political opponents speak out about policy.



Bush has however, in speeches including those this summer, disconnected Iraq from terrorism, saying that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What can the propogandist do to correct this? Karl Rove, the President's campaign director, has tried to say that the current Iraq situation holds terrorists there, but if the occupation ended the terrorists would "follow us home." However, this did not resonate with the American public because no one believes the insurgents in Iraq are trying to destroy the U.S. by killing American soldiers. American soldiers, who have taken on the role of peacekeepers, are fodder for a civil war that will continue on regardless of whether our troops are in Iraq or not.



Still, the propoganda must be repeated over and over in order to be effective so the President must tell "the big lie" day after day to the public. If we question the validity of the President's statements we are then unpatriotic or identified with the terrorists. This is the political goal or all propogandists like Rove, to group the real enemy (terrorists) with all opponents, thus making it impossible for Democrats to say anything negative because that will make us less safe.



But, is there a connection between Iraq and terrorism? The last several terrorist attacks have been in the world have occurred in Malaysia, Spain and England. The terrorists in all 3 cases were "home grown" with only a loose connection with Al Qaeda. None had any connection to Iraq or the Iraq mission and their targets were within their own countries. None of the terrorists have cited Americans as their target, but rather U.S. policy in the Middle East and against Islam.



Canada's Islamic population has been increasing over the past decade and many people of Middle Eastern heritage have risen to political positions in Canadian government. But Canada has treated the situation as a police matter when it considers possible terrorist threats, including a recent one this summer in Toronto. Canadians do not live in fear nor do they consider terrorism their greatest problem because, while they do have a large part of their army stationed as part of the effort in Afghanistan, they see their role much differently than the U.S. does.



England is in the process of recovering from the 2005 subway bombing but the reaction to Tony Blair's support of American policy has been more and more negative and even the recent arrests of 30 "potential terrorists" has not increased the Labor Party's popularity. They are also not treating terrorism as their biggest problem. Once again, terrorism is considered a police matter and they trust the police to handle it.



The President, however, has nothing else to run on in the fall mid-term elections but terrorism. Why are Americans out of work? Terrorism! Why is education so poor in American schools? Terrorism! Why is inflation such a problem? The high price of oil? The huge number of people without healthcare? The failure of the rebuilding of New Orleans and the gulf coast? Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism!



But when we had Bin Laden cornered? When we "collected" number 2 Al Qaeda leaders and put them in secret CIA torture camps to "extract" information wouldn't Bin Laden's whereabouts be first on the question list?



No, because for propoganda's sake, the enemy must always be safe. Then you, the citizens who elected Bush will always be loyal to the leader, George W. Bush and "everything he does."

Why the Republicans Are Radically Wrong

Darrell Issa (R) Congressman from California's 49th district is considered a "moderate" Republican. Issa is an Arab-American and has viewpoints that many on the right do not like, including his ideas on the Middle East (especially Lebanon and Israel) and stem cell research. A complete list of his voting record over the past several years can be viewed at http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Darrell_Issa.htm and you are encouraged to see just what a "moderate's" voting record looks like.

Issa was a panelist on Bill Maher's "Real Time" (episode 80) as someone designed to provide a "conservative's viewpoint" to America's Katrina response and other issues confronting us in this midterm election year. Issa is a good speaker, thoughtful in his delivery and not an "outburst" politician (such as Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld). He enunciated his positions well and even as a progressive, I could understand why he would be considered moderate.

However, Issa's voting record is not moderate in terms of supporting the Bush administration's neocon agenda. He is rated 0% by NARAL Pro-choice America and has voted for restricting abortion 100% of the time. He voted to make the Patriot Act provisions that were due to expire permanent and has a 20% pro-civil rights voting record according to the ACLU.

So why is a Congressman like Issa considered a moderate? Part of his reputation is because he is willing to listen to the opposition. Remember, this is a House of Representatives in which the leadership (Dennis Hastaert) will not allow a proposed law come to the floor unless it is supported by over 50% of the Republicans in Congress first, regardless of how the Democrats feel about the proposal. If you wonder why bipartisanship is so out of "flavor" in Washington, consider the irrelevance of the Democrats in shaping the law first on the list of factors.

Listening to the opposition is not the same as following, either. What it allows, in terms of bipartisanship, is tempering of laws with reason and caution. It opens the door to the concept that government is for the people's benefit, not the "vast minority" of the rich and the businesses that pay for the Republican Party's election war chest.

This Congress, however, has favored the rich and powerful at every turn. It has given tax breaks and advantaged treatment to drug companies, banks, companies doing business in Iraq and around the world, polluting companies in the energy business (oil, coal, natural gas) as well as subsidizing their profits in a time of record gains. Meanwhile, 90% of all tax breaks (in terms of actual dollars) were given to rich Americans while the rest of us have actually seen tax increases as the burden of medicare and social benefits has been laid on state and local governments.

All of these Congressional acts have been formulated by a Republican leadership that, in conjunction with the White House, is counting on you, the voter, to reelect it's politicians for even more fun and games in the name of "values and moralty." They come now, hat in hand, for the purpose of telling you that to vote against them is to essentially reject their "good works" only some of which were presented above.

It is in your hands that the future of their radical policies rest. When November comes, what will be your answer?

Is CNN Fox-Lite?

Air America has a strong liberal bias. This means that the radio network has personalities and news that emphasize certain stories that detract from conservative beliefs and politics. It also features commentary and interviews with people (both conservatives and liberals) who are against what conservative politicians are doing in government. Those who dislike Air America have a web site (Bore America.com) that points out how liberal it is, although mostly grousing about the network's monetary situation.

FOX-news has a strong conservative bias. This means that news is portrayed in a positive light to conservatives and liberals are treated as enemies of the country, something to be shunned and avoided. President Bush is a hero and Ronald Reagan a saint whose name shall not be taken in vain. Those who dislike FOX (a much longer list than Air America) can go to Media Matters.com, Daily Kos.com, listen to Stephanie Miller (who listens so you don't have to!) or any number of specific sites such as Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly.com which focus on individual on-air FOX personalities.

Then there is a consideration of CNN. CNN is the "junior cable news network" getting about 1/2 the number of viewers as FOX. Historically it was started by Ted Turner but as part of Time-Warner the tone of the network and the on-air personalities started to become more and more conservative beginning in 1998 and today stops short of FOX's outright adoration of "all things conservative" only because it has less news content. The same websites that criticize FOX (see above) note CNN's bias on a regular (almost daily) basis and an even more concentrated does of offenses can be found at CNN Exposed.com.

CNN's bias tends to be more indirect than FOX which tends to confuse the issue. However, if you google CNN and start to look through the resources you quickly see that the slant in the news is evidenced by how news is portrayed as well as choice of guests. A conservative angle story (say the JonBenet Ramsey murder) gets much more airplay than it should for a "news network" and issue coverage (such as the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict) stressed Israeli casualities, the stress on the country and how Israeli was the victim even as Israeli jets were bombing the crap out of apartment buildings in Lebanese cities (called by CNN as "potential Hezbollah sites"). As a matter of fact, the footage used by FOX and CNN was almost always from the same camera angles and perspectives. Is this what you would expect from a liberal or even balanced approach?

CNN interviews tend to the conservative. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and religious leaders on the right always can get an interview on CNN. When you consider this alone, that would not be an issue. What is, however, is that such interviews are never followed up with a response from critics, never looked at in perspective of the countless inaccuracies and deceits of the speakers.

Bill Maher, who isn't a newsman and doesn't portray himself as such has a show "Real Time" on HBO where he talks to celebrities and pundits about news of the day. That does not qualify HBO as a news network. What is interesting is that Maher includes on his "panel" segment conservatives who are given more time to respond to issues than liberals are on CNN. Maher doesn't attack the conservatives but he doesn't coddle them and leave unchallenged outrageous statements, either.

The best way to gain an understanding of bias is, of course, to watch for a while. Then you can judge content and bias for yourself. Watch at different times and programming and you will get a clear picture of what is being broadcast.

Finally, remember, it is faint praise indeed to say what I hear from conservatives..."Well, it's less right than FOX." So is Bill Frist....

The Right Gets Ready to Attack...?!

Now that September is here, the Neocons and their cohorts in the right wing media (FOX, CNN, assorted magazines) are about to launch their election rants about how we are forgetting history and are totally naive if we don't recognize the threats of the "Islamic Fashists." They will try to do this through historical comparison with either Saddam Hussein or Mahmud Ahmadinejad playing the role of Adolph Hitler. They will present the threat as one that will "enslave America" and make your children "islamic slaves." They will suggest that America can ill-afford to allow the weak Democrats to control foreign policy and damage our resolve to fight on the "glorious" war in which we are engaged in the Middle East. Progressive friends: Be Prepared!

First of all, there is no comparison between World War II and the current situation in the Middle East. Hitler was the head of the best equipped and most modern army in Europe in the 1930's and had access to a population that was trying to regain its pride in itself through military conquest. Iran is at best a "backward" country militarily with no ability to fight anyone outside of its own borders. If anyone has pushed Iraq into the arms of Iran politically (especially the southern part) that would be the current 3 year occupation of the country by the United States. Iraq's population, including the Shia, used to be opposed to Iran because of the Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. However, facing an enemy that is more likely to kill them (Us) Iran looks good by comparison as an ally.

Secondly, the real enemy of the United States is not a country or countries but a brand of islamic fundamentalism that is expoused by the few and offers a chance at revenge for acts against them over the last 50 years by the West. Now, some of those acts are imagined and some were real (lack of self-determination, picking "friendly allies" that denied human rights and allowed naval and army bases, discriminatory policies that kept natural resources flowing to the west without developing the countres' infrastructures). These enemies, like Osama Bin Laden present a threat because they can fly under the radar. But terrorism, regardless of pronouncements otherwise, has always existed in the world. Guerilla tactics of staying hidden, striking without warning, and working through back allies is something that small niche groups with a grudge or revenge motives have always advocated. Whether they are called anarchists or terrorists, society will always have losers who aren't willing to wade through the political process to make things better.

But wait?! We had Osama Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora! WE, THE UNITED STATES, let him escape. A 6 foot 6 inch Arab who, just by his height would stand out in any Arab crowd escaped from us! And Bush's response to such stupidity? Attack Iraq? Hmm...don't think he was there, was he? Osama is still around, a symbol of what you can do when you perservere against the U.S. Does anyone question that the Spanish train bombing or the English subway tragedy would have occured if Bin Laden would have been caught at Tora Bora? And the President who let him go? George W. Bush. The President that went into Iraq to find WMD's that didn't exist? George W. Bush. The President that, to this day, continues to mismanage foreign policy so badly that our rating in the world is at an all time low? George W. Bush. The President with the rating IN AMERICA in the low 30's? George W. Bush.

Progressives, stand up to the propoganda. Stand up to the b.s. that Iraq is the test case for civilization and that our "freedom on the march" is good for them and us.

It's time to fight back with reality for their lies.