I'm not a sports fan. Never have been, really. So I'm not as accustomed as some to the experience of loosing. Oh, I've lost before - games, races, contests, etc. - but watching a team you supported loose is something different altogether. Especially in politics.

The feeling is worse than loss. It's closer to rejection. Dealing with that has been difficult for most of us who don't support the current Administration. I still havn't seen a major catharsis in the any-one-but Bush community. It's January, and I think we're still floating free. There is no singular voice of leadership in opposition to the Bush Administration to rally behind. Howard Dean was the closest we came until the pep-rally scream incident was played by the media, the right, and the entrenched left for all it was worth. But Dean might yet have his say.

Here's hoping.

At any rate, analysis is not acceptance. Nor is it particularly constructive at this point. The NeoCons are shaping our future today. That's a fact. Waiting until 2008 for another cheap compromise ticket is not an option I'm particularly looking forward to. And to be honest, ranting and raving at every injustice, inaptitude, and outright deception perpetrated by BushCo just doesn't sit well with me either. To do so would be repeating the mistakes of the past. They are framing the argument everyday, and we are left with nothing but our own tails to chase in the echochamber of our blogs. Hence my prolonged silence here.

Fortunately, things change.

Labels: 2004 election, 2008 Election, bloggers, blogging, neocon

Via FARK.com (vanguard of free speech in America):

Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using BOTH computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80% of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Regardless of the slant of the source on this one, the 2004 election is likely to be every bit as close as the one in 2000. Voter fraud and election tampering are a reality in America. This was true long before Diebold existed. Yet with the nation so evenly divided it has become easier than ever to manipulate the democratic process.

I fear the repercussions of a stolen election in a polarized America.

Labels: 2004 election, Diebold, ESandS

The National Archivist is the custodian of American history. The head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is tasked with preserving “precious and irreplaceable national treasures.” (Things like presidential documents, State Department e-mails, and the 9/11 Commission's research and findings.) Naturally - given the potential that should the archivist be appointed “arbitrarily, or motivated by political considerations, the historical records could be impoverished [or] even distorted” - it is vitally important that the right person be selected for the post.

To that end, since NARA became an independent agency in 1985, the process of nominating a National Archivist has been open for "public discussion and input." Meaning that other archivists, researchers, and historians have done their best to lobby against the selection of archivists who might - for whatever reason - impede access to politically sensitive national records. Fortunately, the American people will no longer needlessly suffer this scourge of transparency in government.

"On April 8 the Bush Administration quietly pushed the current archivist, John Carlin, a Clinton appointee, to step down. To replace him, Bush will nominate Allen Weinstein, a historian who has been criticized for failing to abide by accepted scholarly standards of openness".

People have put forward several theories as to why the Administration has taken this unusual step. One is that the White House is out to protect dad's "legacy" by having their man on the scene to manage access to Bush 41's documents set to be released to the Archive in January 2005. Another theory concerns the Administration's desire to limit access to the records collected and produced by the 9/11 Commission later this year. And then there's my theory.

In addition to being the gatekeeper of the whats, wheres, whens, whys, and whos of our government, the National Archivist has another responsibility. I'll explain.

While you and I are busy making hanging chads in November the REAL voters - those elite few known as the Electoral College - will be...well, they'll probably be sitting on their asses enjoying their inherited lives of wealth and privilege however they damn well please. They won't get together to decide who the 44th President of the United States of America will be until December 13th. We're all taught in civics class that the electors are supposed to vote according to the outcome of the popular vote in their respective states, but "there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law" requiring this.

After the 538 electors vote, the governors of the 50 states (and the mayor of DC) send the Certificates of Ascertainment to NARA...by registered mail. Yup. Registered mail. I won't even bother with that one.

And that’s where Bush's hand-picked National Archivist comes in.

Now if one were to say - oh I don't know - attempt to rig a presidential election, which would be easier: Tampering with the popular vote in thousands of precincts nationwide, or just waiting until 51 Certificates of Ascertainment are in one envelope, on the desk of one man?

Delusional fantasy? Yeah, in a sane world.

Labels: 2004 election, 9/11, bill clinton, George W. Bush, NARA

Via Slashdot:

"Looks like Diebold is in yet more trouble. In this article from Wired.com, an audit of the Diebold E-Voting machines revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. While 14 counties used software that had been qualified by federal authorities but not certified by state authorities, three counties, including Los Angeles, used software that had never been certified by the state or qualified by federal authorities for use in any election. And in this article, Wired.com is reporting that at least five convicted felons secured management positions at a Diebold, including one who served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that 'involved a high degree of sophistication and planning.'"

Nice. So what is keeping someone from rigging the 2004 election again? "What's the difference?"

Labels: 2004 election, Diebold

I’ve heard some interesting analysis of late concerning the Howard Dean campaign. A common theme permeates the recent media coverage of my favorite candidate: The opinion that anti-Bush voters in America won’t be enough to guarantee the general election for the former Governor of Vermont. Both liberals and conservatives alike have seized upon this idea in an attempt to stop the Dean “Tidal Wave.”

Some seem to believe Dean’s anti-war position is more a liability than an asset. (We’ll see what they think of this platform next November when – averaging a death-a-day between now and then – over 500 American lives will have been lost in Iraq.) They’re doing they’re damnedest to spin anti-war into anti-security. This is where I can see Dean’s opportunity to come in swinging.

Are Americans safer now than they were on September 11th, 2001? Do Americans have more or less confidence in the intelligence being used to protect our national security? Are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney trusted by the American people as competent policy makers?

We’ve seen what a flap was caused by the recent revelation that Colin Powell wouldn’t stay on for another Bush term. When taken with the rest of the Bush cast - to include Ashcroft, Ridge, Wolfowitz, etc. – Powell is generally viewed as the most “likeable” character of the bunch; The rest of them either send chills down people’s spines, or make their skin crawl.

George W. Bush doesn’t secure our nation alone. His group of highly visible, highly recognizable, and highly fallible cronies “help” him. Bush’s approval rating might be holding strength now, but if those same poll respondents were asked to consider Bush Administration as a whole we’d see a very different picture. The personalities of this Administration have polarized the American public far more than any President alone has done in over 100-years. This is a significant factor to consider.

As the Dean is “soft-on-security because he is anti-war” cries grow in number and strength, his campaign may want to consider the following argument: Are George W. Bush and his Administration any better? National security is not only the President’s job. The Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security – and all their respective deputies – also have a large hand to play. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Ridge and Ashcroft are well-known and rightfully mistrusted by the American people. This Administration is not soft-on-security, it’s incompetent-on-security. Dean would do well to emphasize this in his criticisms of the Administration.

While Bush remains “charming” and “well-liked” amongst a significant number of American voters, that popularity will diminish rapidly as those same voters are forced to consider their feelings for the President’s staff, and their advice to the President regarding policy. Can America afford another four years of Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft?

Howard Dean can beat Bush, but he needs to expand his argument to encompass the entire Bush Administration if he wants to take command of the security issue. Security and the economy are the two largest issues in America. They will make or break the winning campaign in 2004. This so-called anti-security spin is exactly the opportunity Dean needs to neutralize his opponents, and take the Oval Office.

Labels: 2004 election, activism, anti-war, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, howard dean

Howard Dean. Former Governor of Vermont. Medical Doctor. You might have heard of him.

This week marks a historic moment in American history. It's a moment when a candidate for the highest office in the land has risen – against the will of Democratic Party “leadership” – from a grassroots campaign to the national media stage.

Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, CNN and others are all abuzz with Howard Dean, once termed “a second-tier candidate destined to be an ‘also-ran.’” This mainstream media attention – while lagging FAR behind independent, internet news and opinion sources – is right on the mark. Dean is, and will continue to be, the candidate to beat in the 2004 Presidential Election.

This goes not only for his fellow “Democrats” (widely considered “Bush-lites”), but also for the President himself. Bush’s approval ratings a sinking lower with each passing week of dismal news both on the “War on Terrorism” front, and on the “It’s the economy, stupid” front. What’s a “rank and file” non-Republican to do?

Well that depends on your news sources. If you read this piece from the New York Times (reg. req.), “Democrats Seeking Labor's Backing Call for More Health Benefits and Less Free Trade,” then you might not have even noticed that Gov. Dean was present at “a 90-minute forum sponsored by the A.F.L.-C.I.O” in Chicago. Howard Dean is barely mentioned until the last paragraph which states:

“For his part, Dr. Dean warned about efforts by the administration to restrict the ability of union workers to organize. "What we have to do is let the American people understand that if you want a strong economy, the right to organize is important because you have to make sure middle-class people have enough money in their pockets," he said.”

Other articles discussed Dean’s views as they were expressed at the forum in more detail. For instance an AP piece run on CNN.com, titled “AFL-CIO forum exposes divisions in Democratic field Cheers for Gephardt, boos for Lieberman,” stated:

“Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, cited the case of Larry Allen, a
Wal-Mart worker in the audience who was fired after he returned from a
United Food and Commercial Workers union convention.
"If you want to protect pensions, the way to do that is to organize," Dean said.
Other candidates weren't so blatant in their effort to court the politically powerful AFL-CIO.”

The divisions within the party mentioned in the title have been discussed a lot lately. Mainly, they come down to this: The Democratic Leadership Council (a.k.a. “Bush-lite”) vs. The-rest-of-us-who-hate-Bush. The point of contention? Does a contender for the Oval Office need to be so moderate and bland that they appeal to everyone, or can a “flinty,” critical candidate inspire a constituency into action vs. an increasingly unpopular president.

The powers that be – and here I’m referring to the 10 unions who've hastily signed-on to the Gephardt campaign – believed that an insider with name recognition had the best chance of unseating the current President. Of course, that was back when that president’s approval ratings were much, much higher. Today, as one recent headline puts it: “Bush's drop in polls forces Democrats to reassess crop of candidates.”

Given Howard Dean’s broad internet appeal, and fundraising momentum, the endorsement of a major labor organization such as the AFL-CIO would all but clinch the Democratic Party nomination for him. Fortunately, his people are quite aware of this fact, as is MSNBC's Tom Curry who offer’s this veiled assessment of Dean’s need for labor:

“The 13 million-member AFL-CIO labor confederation is not likely to
endorse a Democratic contender until October. And due to splits among the
member unions, the labor confederation may not issue an endorsement at all
until after the Democrats select their nominee next summer.
In an age of Internet fund-raising and the Meetup.com Web site that
allows a candidate’s supporters — principally Dean’s — to spontaneously
organize at the grass roots, who needs labor unions?
The answer: any Democrat who hopes to defeat George Bush.”

So who are the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO, what do they want, and who might they support in October?

First-off, we now know they don’t like Lieberman, who – as mentioned above – was booed at the AFL-CIO event in Chicago that drew a crowd of 2,000. Apparently that audience didn’t like the Senator’s school voucher program which is strongly opposed by several unions. Go figure.

Gephardt has a strong lead against his follow candidates in the union-courting race, but that momentum may now be shifting. There’s a strong indication that the so called rank-and-file of the AFL-CIO, and particularly the largest union in that organization, the 1.5 million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), are not so sure about Mr. Gephardt.

Dr. Dean on the other hand is another story. Health insurance and the right to organize are two issues he discussed with the group in Chicago. They loved it. There’s also some sentiment within the organization that the spending of billions of U.S. tax dollars abroad while our economy is hemorrhaging jobs at home might not be the best course of action at present. Dean agrees.

I said this was a historic moment in our nation. I meant it. I honestly believe that Howard Dean can win the support of the AFL-CIO, and with it have a very serious chance at taking the White House in 2004. The question is will the Democratic Leadership Council come to terms with this fact, or will they attempt to thwart the will of the people?

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, howard dean, media

From the Washington Post, via Drudge:

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Democrat Gray Davis will have to fight to keep his job this fall in the nation's first gubernatorial recall election in 82 years, state officials announced Wednesday after tallying the results of a Republican-led petition drive that seemed farfetched just months ago."

So why should the rest of us care about California? Why indeed...

Via GOPUSA.com:

"Republicans have set their sights on the Democrat stronghold of California for 2004, as Democrat Gov. Gray Davis comes one step closer to facing a recall vote.

The Golden State has been solidly Democrat in recent years, but with a popular President and a well-funded campaign, Republicans hope to put the state back into play. With its 55 electoral votes, a Republican victory in California would all but guarantee Bush re-election."

So, get a petition signed and steal the election before a single vote is even cast. Now THAT takes balls.

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, Gray Davis

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has been criticized by some in the media as being big on message, but short on policy. These critics claim that as a Governor, Dean doesn't have the requisite experience to lead the nation through these difficult times. I beg to differ.

Leadership isn’t about having all the answers; It's about knowing who to go to get those answers. We've seen a catastrophic breakdown of this basic truth in the current Administration with the yellowcake fiasco. Had the right people been tapped to provide an accurate, non-biased assessment of the information at hand, the President would not find himself in the position he is now. Howard Dean knows better.

Touted far and wide as the "Internet Candidate," Dean has attracted a wide range of supporters on the web. Myself included. But I confess, I’ve been curious as to where exactly Dean stood on issues such as intellectual property rights, personal privacy on the net, etc. I’ve been pleasantly impressed.

I'm a long time fan of Stanford Law Professor, and founder of the Center for Internet and Society, Lawrence Lessig. Professor Lessig's blog is one of the best on the web (it is listed in my sidebar simply as "Lessig"). If you find yourself on a computer most of your waking hours, then Lessig's blog is a must read. This week Howard Dean is at the helm of that blog.

I hope that this is a sign of things to come: Sanity in national policy with regards to the protection of our individual rights and freedoms on the internet. Howard Dean knows who to tap for answers and analysis. That’s exactly the type of leader this country needs.

Dean for America in 2004.

Labels: 2004 election, howard dean, Lawrence Lessig

It may seem cold, even vicious, but there’s a country at stake damn it. This is an opportunity; maybe the best one we’re going to get. We need to take it.

A few months ago I signed up at Meetup.com for the Howard Dean campaign. I signed up to see what was going on. I wanted to know if the Democrats were going to put up an actual candidate against Bush in 2004. I went to one meeting.

Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to go to more than just one, but life interfered. There was an implied conflict of interest with the campaign and my wife’s profession for one, and my father fell critically ill. Otherwise, I would have been out there in the trenches with Dean’s loyal band of supporters. And I might yet be.

Dick Gephardt, one of “The Party’s” hopefuls, has a chink in his armor. I’ve seen a lot of news the past week or so about the Dean campaign – not to mention a lot of groping by the Democratic Party leadership as to whom they should throw their considerable weight behind – and I’ve been impressed.

Here’s this governor, from Vermont of all places, actually making the folks inside the beltway squirm. Nice.

Sure most of the press was about cash (It felt a bit like a donate to the Dean campaign info-mercial after a while), but even besides that it was almost all positive. And on top of it all, “conservative” taking heads were willing to concede a few points to Dean. Ya just can’t beat good old New England “Get-off-my-land-ism. But now there’s something more tangible than war-chest dollars behind Dean: Actual supporters.

To those of you who sent Dean a check, or authorized a debit to your account in past few weeks, good on ya, but in the immortal words of Han Solo: “Don’t get cocky, kid.” There’s still an election to be won. That’s why I’m writing tonight.

Dick Gephardt is currently ahead of Howard Dean in both “viewer polls” (for all the shit they’re worth” and in campaign contributions, but we have an opportunity to upset that standing.

Gephardt can’t get it up; attendance that is. Contributions aside, Meetup.com meeting attendance has actually become an issue in this primary season. The mainstream press is watching the grassroots for a change.

That is why I will make every effort to be at the next Meetup.com meeting in support of Howard Dean. I believe that there is someone better than George W. Bush capable of running this country without running it into the ground. Of the choices available to me, I believe that Howard Dean is the best candidate for the job of President of the United States of America.

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, howard dean

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

Howard Dean needs us to win the Democratic primaries. Be sure that you are registered to vote. Be sure that your registration indicates Democrat as your party of preference (if necessary in your state). Vote in the primaries. Vote in the general election. Do everything you can to take our country back.

Labels: 2004 election, bloggers, blogging, howard dean, iraq

In managing any addiction, the very first step is to accept that you have a problem. My name is Ernest, and I’m a Political Science junkie.

My computer is on before my coffee pot – it's the last thing I turn off before going to bed (typically right after scanning several news sites just one last time for the night).

Clearly I have a problem.

Quitting is not an option. Political Science has been so much of my life for so long, I don’t know that I can survive without it now. It’s not a love, it’s a necessity. I need it more than food, water, or money.

I struggled for a long time with my addiction; I suppressed it, I denied it. But that time is over. From now on I will control my needs, and I will direct them.

This is no longer a reactive blog. I will not sit here and allow my country to be high jacked and steered into oblivion by neoconservative fanatics. I am an American: A free citizen with a voice and a vote, and I will use them both to hinder, to delay, and to stop the current administration from doing any more irreparable harm to our nation.

I dedicate this blog to change. The first step on the path back to America will be the 2004 Presidential Election. George W. Bush must not “win” that election.

No real alternative to the Bush administration will emerge from the Republican party. Their members have long since been beaten into submission. Not even John McCain can break the administration’s strangle hold on American conservatives – of which I am one.

Third party candidates will have their day, but this is not it. The 2004 election is too important for the long term future of our country to experiment with alternatives. Vote Green, or Reform, or Cool Moose at home – but reserve your presidential vote for someone who can win.

I’ve examined the Democratic field of contenders – it’s not pretty. Even worse, by the time next November rolls around, America is going to be ass deep in shit. Our troops will be engaged in Iraq, the North Korean problem will still persist, and at home our economy will probably be about as vibrant as it is today.

We need change like we’ve never needed it before. The election in November is our last best chance to get it. Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is the candidate who can give us what we need. Expect to see his name more on this blog in the future.

Have no fear, I’ll still be devoting plenty of time and energy to foreign policy and current events (I said I was taking the first step in overcoming this addiction), but I’ll also be paying very close attention to Dr. Dean. I hope you will do the same.

Labels: 2004 election, bloggers, blogging, George W. Bush, howard dean, neocon