Thanks to Draco over on the threads at Daily Kos for finding this one:

Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.- Why Are These Men Laughing? Esquire, January 2003 by Ron Suskind

So... are we seeing a similar pattern from before in how things in the Plame affair may very well come to light as this unravels? This ending up being Rove, getting dirt from NSC or Cheney's office, on the raw goods on Valerie Plame, to put a huge (though ultimately self-inflicting and possible mortal wounding) shot across the bow to intimidate Wilson and others for the yellowcake exposure and attacking the already broadcast WMD lies in the war run-up.

Rove to Novak, is an already established MO with Rove as is shown in the Esquire piece, and anyone having read Bush's Brain will know that Rove seeking revenge on someone swinging a pick-axe at the clay feet of his handiwork gets this sort of treatment. Rove however seems to have made the mistake in thinking that the CIA are the same category of "target" as Jim Hightower or other past Texas roadkill.

The delicious taste of this is the sweetest thing yet politically for our nation, in what has the makings of gluttonous orgy by hoisting ChimpCo. on it's own petards and reclaiming our country.

Between the CIA handing the outing of Valerie Plame to Justice, and now the GOP led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence trying to pin WMD intelligence failures on the CIA, this is going to blow-up in slow motion.

Of course the utter bullshit factor to all this is, that the "intel failures" the House is trying to pin on Tenet were in reality a self-inflected wound by the administration, due to the cherry-picking being done by Rummy and Co. with their home brew shop within the Pentagon and NOT anything from Langley. I think the war between the CIA and the WH are going to flare up BIG time really soon. And I don't think there are many people with a working set of neurons who would be under the illusion that the CIA can't take these people out politically. They invented the Mighty Wurlitzer after all.

Remember, the WH first tried to pin the 16 words in the State of the Union address on Tenet, and he initially fell on the grenade (for the most part) but chaffed enough that the WH backed off that one. Then the WH outs Plame to discredit critics (Wilson) of the administration for hyping the intel on WMD in Iraq, and the CIA is still trying to asses the damage done on that one. Now the GOP led House Select is trying to pin WMD intelligence failures on the CIA. Get ready for the agency and Tenet to go nuclear (behind the scenes).

This is a clear indication that the Twig's administration is going into full-on melt-down IMHO, like a drowning man who is flailing around so desperately, that the lifeguard trying to swim out to him takes one in the kisser.

This is VERY bad for ChimpCo.

The article at The Arizona Republic yesterday by Jon Kamman is a small data point, but a huge story (or should be). In it, he points to Bush's major collapse in the polls in the state. According to the statewide poll results mentioned in the article, only 34 percent support Bush for re-selection, with 44 percent preferring someone else and 22 percent undecided, and reflects a dramatic plunge in popularity for Bush. In 2000, Bush beat Al Gore in Arizona by a margin of 6 percentage points, or nearly 100,000 votes of 1.5 million cast.

I wish the AR article cited the actual survey itself, and I would like to look at those numbers and how they break down and the sample questions were worded. But this is HUGE news.

If Dean (or whoever gets the nomination for the Democrats) simply gets the same exact states that Gore took in 2000, and Arizona does indeed go against Bush, the electoral college is a lock with it being a 287 blue states v 251 red states. Florida and the south can go entirely to Bush and we would still win by a decent margin.

This does not even consider states like Iowa which are hemorrhaging under Bush and where Dean has built a large grassroots organization, which is still growing within that state. Nor does it address states like West Virginia and Tennessee which, because of Gore being assailed by the NRA, lost those pivotal states. These would be legitimately back in play should Dean get the nomination because the gun issue would be a non-starter for the Twig and the NRA to attack Dean on.

This shift in the polls could be a hole in which Bush would not be able to crawl out of. But we HAVE to get Dean the nomination, which to put states like WV and TN back in play to really drive a steak through the heart of this dreadful misadministration.

Dean's populist appeal, his centrist record, his rural policy positions and his ability to put attack issues like the gun-control out of reach is something that puts Dean as THE only candidate to really be able to slaughter Bush.

The question is can the fucking idiots at the DLC wake-up and see the writing on the wall and stop with the Donner Party plan and stop desperate hack attacks setting the party into a circular firing squad?

Well watched the debate replays last night and took some time to digest what I saw.

I think Dean did well, his handling of the Gep/Newt attack was handled well, though I think he could have driven the point home about how he was supportive of improving the administrative aspect of medicare, based on his years of experience as an actual healthcare provider would have been a little more substantive and perhaps made it through the media sound-bite filter a bit more.

I agree with some of the bloggers here, that his revisiting that exchange explicitly later on, allowed Kerry to try and hit back by trying to defend Gephardt by trying to pin Dean on the position and not the rhetoric Gephardt luridly try to use to frame the attack.

I see why Howard tried to go there, to try and reframe it as "we need to attack the GOP and not each other by calling each other GOP" tack, but given Dean calling most of the other candidates "Bush-lite" on numerous occasion, his front-runner position in the polls, and the real threat he poses to the status quo/split the difference mind set of the establishment candidate (wilderness Joe, Kerry, Gephardt, etc.) I think that approach fell on deaf ears for the most part. It also does (wether we like to admit it or not) leave Dean open to criticism that he can dish it out but can't take it. That said, I do agree that the Newt comparison in particular is way off-the-mark and would certainly get my back up, but coupling the quick and furious slap back, with clearly articulating why that attack is disingenuous is more important than simply declaring such smears (because we all dislike Newt and the radical-right) as insulting.

You always have to make it painfully clear why (i.e. how that does not accurately reflect your position or policy view) not just that it is insulting.

More troubling to me, though I have not heard the media pick up and run with it, was the extremely despicable LIE that Kerry got away with throwing out there that Dean supported cutting vet benefits.

This was as the debate was going into commercial break, and Dean was not given a change to rebut this flat out LIE by Kerry, and the exchange was dropped as they moved on to a new round of questions to different candidates.

What the media of course was keying on and is hyping is Clark.

Now, while I think Wesley Clark was fairly light on substance for the most part, I do think that most of the bloggers were underrating Clark's performance. While a little circuitous in his replies, Clark did answer a few of the questions many here on the blog painted as a dodge and which the media played up as his failing to fully answer. Specifically I am referring to the much touted and replayed exchange in the media about privatizing SS, which Clark DID in fact answer, though perhaps a little to circumspect for the moderator who was asking the question. When he first tried to answer by saying "I'm a believer in Social Security. I think you need to protect that system, I think you need to put the resources into it, I think you need to assure that it's solvent. " That is a very circuitious answer, which is extremely vague, but is saying that you have to fund SS fully to keep it solvent.

I think that Clark on this, and a few other questions put too him, was over-thinking the answer and thus the easy read answer was not how he worded it. If he had put his second portion of the answers, "I think it's great if individuals invest in the stock market, but not as a substitute for ensuring the solvency of Social Security. We're going to get Social Security right first. And then, we're going to put in place the measures so that individuals can save and invest on top of Social Security." on that one FIRST, he would have slam-dunked it.

Notice how Edwards handled the same question. "No, I don't believe it can. I think we have to do a number of things... "

That is how you answer the questions, the simple short answer up front, then the exposition after to drive it home and explain the WHY aspect of your position.

The clearest answer would have been "No I do not support privatizing SS, but I do support allowing private investment on top of a fully funded SS core system" which is what Clark was driving at, but could not effectively say it in those words.

Distilling the position into a very easy to follow answer and train of thought is crucial. Of all the people on stage last night, I think Al Sharpton was best and clearly articulating and properly reframing the questions and clarifying how many of the presumptions of the issues and questions out in the general psyche are mis-framed. He is also great at reframing it in simple to follow terms.

Being able to properly frame, and distill down into easy to follow language is crucial, and on many of the issues where Dean is correct on calling the Twig on it.

This is of course what Howard has always tried to do, particularly on issues like the tax shift, which Sharpton much more clearly and with a great and simple turn of phrase drove home.

"Tax Shift" is EXACTLY what the issue is, and is also what Dean has rightly called the wig for with his reckless tax "cuts" and Dean HAS to pick up that sort of simple clarity way of describing it like Sharpton did.

Brother Howard really needs to follow Brother Sharpton's language on that one. It certainly is not co-opting the issue, since Dean was out there from the beginning on it, but Sharpton's gift is truly being able to simplify the language of it, and in essence say "no, THIS is what it really is called." I think if Dean leads with that tack, then follows it up with a more robust and substantive "and here's why" sort of policy exposition, it would be vastly more effective.

I think Sharpton really drove Dean's point and message home for him on that one, but Howard has to really take up that ability to call it clearly for what it is like Al did to reach the more disengaged person in the population.

I also think that Dean would do himself a great favor by speaking out and clarifying how a single-payer healthcare system would be better in the abstract, but that his plan is a workable and pragmatic. That his plan would deliver more realistic chances of covering a great number of the uninsured, and that it would be a bridge to a more universal coverage solution down the road like single-payer.

Think of the current insurance/medical delivery system we have as flawed designed behemoth, ala the Titanic. Is simply cannot be turned on a dime, and thus any argument that we can switch to a single-payer system overnight or in a singular shift is simply not feasible.

I think CMB brought up a valid point, that the Clinton plan tried to permanently reconcile and maintain a two approach system that is irreconcilable, however an overnight shift to a single-payer system will simply never be passed in congress, and would cause a MASSIVE upheaval in a vast sector of the economy.

I think an incremental shift, with an eventual migration of the system into a single-payer universal system should be the ultimate goal, and I can see how Howard's healthcare proposals could be a conduit to that larger goal.

More to come on this later.

Well, started the Gore4Dean online store up on Cafepress, so that people can purchase swag that has Gore4Dean designs on them.

So far only have items available with the Sleepless Summer Tour rally poster image and a singular item with a "Re-Select Bu$h" piece (the salmon one) but should in short time have the rest of the designs up.

Being a long-time vet of the NY Times forums, I have always held Paul Krugman in high-esteem.



The Guardian's interview with him from Friday is a crucial read. It points to why this election is vital, and why Bush HAS to go.

The most telling grafs, ones we all should really let sink in on what we are really facing are these, where the article discusses a passage in his current book (also a must read) about something that struck him before it was finished:

just as he was about to send his manuscript to the publishers, he chanced upon a passage in an old history book from the 1950s, about 19th-century diplomacy, that seemed to pinpoint, with eerie accuracy, what is happening in the US now. Eerie, but also perhaps a little embarrassing, really, given the identity of the author. Because it's Henry Kissinger.

"The first three pages of Kissinger's book sent chills down my spine," Krugman writes of A World Restored, the 1957 tome by the man who would later become the unacceptable face of cynical realpolitik. Kissinger, using Napoleon as a case study - but also, Krugman believes, implicitly addressing the rise of fascism in the 1930s - describes what happens when a stable political system is confronted with a "revolutionary power": a radical group that rejects the legitimacy of the system itself.

This, Krugman believes, is precisely the situation in the US today (though he is at pains to point out that he isn't comparing Bush to Hitler in moral terms). The "revolutionary power", in Kissinger's theory, rejects fundamental elements of the system it seeks to control, arguing that they are wrong in principle. For the Bush administration, according to Krugman, that includes social security; the idea of pursuing foreign policy through international institutions; and perhaps even the basic notion that political legitimacy comes from democratic elections - as opposed to, say, from God.

"But worse still, Kissinger continued, nobody can quite bring themselves to believe that the revolutionary power really means to do what it claims. "Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent," he wrote, "they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework." Exactly, says Krugman, who recalls the response to his column about Tom DeLay, the anti-evolutionist Republican leader of the House of Representatives, who claimed, bafflingly, that "nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes".

"My liberal friends said, 'I'm not interested in what some crazy guy in Congress has to say'," Krugman recalls. "But this is not some crazy guy! This guy runs Congress! There's this fundamental unwillingness to acknowledge the radicalism of the threat we're facing." But those who point out what is happening, Kissinger had already noted long ago, "are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane." ("Those who take the hard-line rightists now in power at their word are usually accused of being 'shrill', of going over the top," Krugman writes, and he has become well used to such accusations.)

Re-read that if need be. Realy let it sink in.

We HAVE to do everything we can, because we HAVE to win this.

p.s. it was also very encouraging that someone of Krugman's caliber (and certinaly not a "lefty" on most matters given his impeccable creds as a economic and international affairs expert) hint's at our man Dean when in the article it states:

Krugman doesn't make the nebulous argument that there is something inherently objectionable about the US and its role in the world. He claims only that a fundamentally benign system has been taken over by a bunch of extremists - and so his alarming analysis leaves room for optimism, because they can be removed. "One of the Democratic candidates - who I'm not endorsing, because I'm not allowed to endorse - has as his slogan, 'I want my country back'," Krugman says, referring to the campaigning motto of Howard Dean. "I think that's about right."

info@dickgephardt2004.com

Dear sir,

I am writing you to express the OUTRAGE I feel at the efforts of your campaign to ATTACK other Democratic candidates, with distortions and misleading statements on Howard Dean. Statements that are highly-misleading and are worthy of the likes of Karl Rove and the lies perpetrated by the far-right attack dogs. That you, a supposed leader of the party, would do this is beyond the pale.

You sir, and your campaign are the reason we (and there is an ever growing army of us) back Dean 100% and WILL change this party.

Your "welcome letter" on your site stating that if a supporter were to "Send $270 to offset Howard Dean's support for cutting Medicare and I will send you a certificate joining me as a Charter Member of the Dick Gephardt Real Democrat Club!" is tantamount to a bald-face lie.

Dean has never advocated cutting Medicare, and your slippery, out-of-context distortion of Dean's position in the early 90s on the matter, is wholly misleading and for all intents and purpose a down-right lie. You might want to listen to what Bill Clinton had to say just last week (at the Iowa Steak-Fry) when he said that when it came to health care issues, Dean is hands down the best in the field.

If this (gross distortions and misleading attacks against Dean) is how your think you will engender support among the party faithful, you are SORELY mistaken. You are doing nothing but Karl Rove's dirty work to get Bush re-selected and destroying the party. I for one will not support your candidacy as a result, even if you manage to maneuver around enough to grab the party nomination with your deceitful tactics.

When the piece by Steve Murphy on your campaign's front page asked the disingenuous question "And where was Howard Dean? (in the early 90s)"...

...it might do you well to recall that during that time he (Dean) was balancing Vermont's budget, bringing healthcare to every child in the state and everyone who is at 150% of the poverty line and below, and to put it bluntly, doing his job. Unlike some members of Congress we could name who have an absenteeism rate of 90%, and who misses crucial votes on Over-Time Regulation bills which end up hurting the working class, just in this past month.

You sir have sunk to a new and desperate low, with your website and campaign strategy, which has all the merit and sophistication of desperate hack.

I would have expected much better from you sir, and I can not in good conscience back you now, our in the future unless you publicly retract these unwarranted and desperate political gambits to try secure your own career goals. You will have to shift your "strategy" away from the baseless, hollow, and shrill ploys to bamboozle voters into picking you by falsely painted Howard Dean as a bogeyman.

That you would do so on issues of Medicare and healthcare issues, given Dean's first hand, front-line experiences AS a healthcare provider, is further indication as to just how absurd and outright pathetic your attacks are.

Shame on you.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Gore

I have heard some speculate on the official blog and elsewhere about Dean's imagined inability to connect with "Soccer Moms."

Needless to say I find the assertion that Howard Dean can't attract the legendary "soccer mom" a bit straining, in the credulity dept. From his statements on abuse of women, to reproductive choice, to advoctaing programs that reduce or prevent social problems rather than waiting for the victims (such as early intervention with children at risk). Dean has a VERY pro-woman platform.

While admittedly anecdotal, every female I have had occasion to discuss anything about politics with, has been VERY receptive to Dean's message.

In fact my significant other's boss, who is a GOP through and through, is looking into backing Dean because his wife (the prototypical "soccer mom" if there ever was one) is a Dean supporter and working on him to back Dean as well.

Needless to say, I find the tendency for people to hand-wring over who they think Dean might not be able to appeal too, somewhat self-defeating and usually off-the-mark 99% of the time.

Dean is pulling across party lines into his campaign, and people into the process who usually stay home on election day or previously had zero interest in either candidates or the proccess.

This is something which most media "pundits" fail to grok it seems, and this will be a rude awakening (for them) when the tsunami hits.

Janeane Garofalo was in attendance and part of the festivities for the Howard Dean event at the Avalon in NYC last night.

While I like Janeane as a person (from what I know of her), and would LOVE to hang out with her and all, she is a sitting duck for the Fright-Wingers.

All they have to do is cite things like the article "Don't Tread On Janeane," written by Trish Deitch Rohrer for the now defunct Buzz Magazine, where she says:

"Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.' That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."

While I agree with some of the underlying sentiments above, her over-the-top comments about being "insulted" by the American flag, and being "choked up with pride" by flag burning, are a stupefyingly ignorant way of expressing a valid point of view about the less than exemplary aspects of or national and cultural lineage.

It is stupid ways of articulating things like the above valid critique of our slave-owning, white upper-class dominated history which serves up meatballs for the ditto-head squad to slam us all with.

She's of course free to support Dean and other Dems as much as she wants, and again I like her as a person, but it would be a big mistake to have her visible front and center, and noticably tied to the campaign.

Just my 2/100th of a dollar.

Just added downloadable files for printing up customizable CD and DVD labels. These PDFs are designed to be used with the Avery CD Labels, numbers 8931, 8692, 8699, 8942, 6692, 5692, 5931, 5698, and 8691.



If you have other label media formats, please email with margins and postioning on page and will get a custom PDF out to you and posted up on the pages.

The recounted interview with Herman Goering below is worth remembering in context of the mendacity of, and conflicted arguments coming from the Twig's administration, particularly that of Tricky Dick Cheney, who has been the flag-waving leader of the "Go-to-War-with-Iraq-at-all-Costs Pep Squad."

How Russert can try and pick gnat shit out of pepper about the ultimately ACCURATE statements when interviewing Gov. Dean about the minutia of troops strengths, etc. which led to the downright droll cacophony in the echo chamber of idiot pundits trying to make hay out of Dean's answers when Dean appeared on Meet the Press back in June, yet neither he nor the mainstream media seems to even press Cheney in his outright culpability for the public being so duped by the very statements HE made (and continues to make) about links between Iraq and al-Queda.

Return now the setting on the way back machine for the relevant historical frame:

"We (Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail and Hermann Goering) got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

"'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

"'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"

Is we learning yet?

Just added some flyer downloads to the download section to use and promote local events for Dean Visibility Day, which is this Saturday.

There are both English language and Spanish language versions of these flyers. They are both available in color and black & white iterations. The artwork is slightly different between the two as well, since most people in America whose first language is spanish, realize that football in most of the world is actually played with the foot (i.e. Soccer), as opposed to American Football.

Here's hoping both we and Dean can score a GOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAL! This weekend and really get the word out there.

If you download these flyers, all you have to do is type the info into the "what," "where" and "when" which currently have temporary text in place. This should allow you to customize the flyer for events in your area, and print it in one pass. Of course like all the download files on Gore4Dean, you will need Acrobat Reader which is free from Adobe for most operating systems.

I hope to have 4-up versions posted tomorrow sometime.

For myself I am putting to rest for now the whole Clark run or no/run bit, which seems to be an ongoing meme with the official blog (mea culpa, I speculate in my head as well) and how it impacts the race for Dean.

U.S. Today has a poll yesterday which shows (in poll question 13a) that Clark basically would pull evenly, from all the other candidates should he enter the race. Despite that he would still be below the top-tier candidates (in order on the poll, Gephardt, Dean, "Wilderness Joe", and Kerry).

So whether Clark is in or out, it does not negatively impact Dean's position in the polls vis-á-vis the rest of the pack. Though it would push all the other lower poling candidates further down in the presumed poll rankings going forward.

On the upside (aside from Clark not hurting Dean vs. the rest of the pack) it would presumably strengthen Dean's arguments about Iraq and foreign policy because Clark holds the same basic positions as Dean on them. Thus Clark, with solid military creds, would strengthen that meme (i.e. Dean's position on Iraq) even if indirectly. So where he to enter the race, it would, over a period of time most likely erode all the other top-tier candidates position on Iraq, but not Dean's.

Distinguished military records and being right of course has never really held much truck with the Karl Rove and his slime-machine tactics, as I point out in my entry about Max Cleland (that traitor*).

(*note use of sarcasm)

p.s. I find this gif at Amazon.com bemusing.



Would be more accurate however were that a broken link.

p.s.s. any hard-core hackers who hate the Patriot Act and John "People Prefer Dead People to Me" Ashcroft wanna make that a reality at Amazon? (evil grin)

or Truth blown-up like limbs with a grenade!


Somone yesterday posted on the offical blog:

"And, for some people in the general election, Dean's opposition to the Iraq war may be successfully spun as unwillingness to defend the US. Clark moots that point, plain and simple."

I generally would like to agree with the with the sentiement above (pun noted) but I have three words of reality for everyone, that must be remembered.

Ready for those three words?

Ok.

Max "Fucking" Cleland!

We are staring down the barrel of a slim-machine howitzer folks.

Certainly everyone remembers former Democrat Congressman Max Cleland, who is "soft on homeland defense" and is not interested in protecting and defending America... right?

"When you think of someone who isn't interested in the security of the American people, you think of Max Cleland wheeling his merry way through the marble halls of the Capitol. You see, Max left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off.

"Cleland is a war hero. Conservative Georgians first elected him to the Senate in 1996 on the basis of his unquestionable integrity and selfless loyalty to his country. And yet he lost his bid for re-election in 2002 largely because of attacks on his patriotism.

"Cleland's opponent, Saxby Chambliss, was not a war hero. He got out of Vietnam because of a bad knee. Cleland has never had a bad knee. Before the war, he had two good ones. Afterward, he would never have to worry about his knees for the rest of his life.

"Chambliss ran one of the great attack ads of the 2002 cycle, one that warmed even Karl Rove's icy heart. It featured images of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and... Max Cleland.

"The ad savaged Cleland's votes against the 'President's vital homeland security efforts.' The tag line: 'Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading.'

"To recap quickly. Cleland loses three limbs in Vietnam. Cleland authors the Department of Homeland Security legislation. Bush blocks it. Bush proposes politicized version of the same legislation to trap Democrats into voting away our civil service workers protections*. Cleland stands on principle and votes against it because of the changes.

"Bush says senators "not intertested' in security of American people, Chambliss compares Cleland to Osama and Saddam and attacks Cleland's courage.

"Chambliss wins. Republicans take Senate. Bush credits victory to change in tone"

(thanks Al for the above reminder)

So... who around here thinks we need to be soft-selling this?

(looks around room)

Anyone?

Anyone?




(* my addition to explain in a few short words why it was politicized, to attack workers rights)

Just heard that Johnny Cash died.



While not a fan of country music, I have had a vast amount of respect for this man. He was a man of conscience, empathy, talent and courage. A true American.

You will be sorely missed.

Buzzflash has an interview with Paul Krugman, who I always held in very high-regard, which to my mind is a vital "must read." He has just had his newest book, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century" published, which I would highly recommend reading.

One of the stand-out and key grafs is towards the bottom when he is asked about whether or not Clinton's success will hold up as a legacy of his presidency. To which Mr. Krugman replies in part:

"I think that with the looming disasters of the budget on foreign policy -- and the things that really scare me, which I know we're not going to get into but let's just mention the erosion of civil liberties at home -- I think that, in retrospect, this will be seen in terms of how did the country head over this cliff. I hope I'm wrong. If there's regime change in 2004, and the new man actually manages to steer us away from the disasters I see in front of us, then we'll probably be talking a lot about the long boom that was begun during the Clinton years, and how it was resilient, even to an episode of incredibly bad management." (emphasis mine)

This interview, is brief insight into, and a clarion call from one of the sharpest minds in the field about precisely what Dean's campaign is seeking to tackle and exposes the Bush administration for what it is (to use Krugman's words) "My god, these guys are looting the country".

Another key graf really points out the tilt of the media response to the looting of the nation by the current administration and its backers, when Mr. Krugman observes:

The concept that the president of the United States is flat-out lying about the sustainability of his own economic policy -- that's too high a hill for them to climb. And I guess the general public tends to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But there's a definite tilt in the way these things are covered and perceived. I think the average voter in California is feeling outraged about the state's $38 billion deficit, and then you stop and think for a second. You say, wait a second -- first of all, it's not $38 billion. It turns out that was a two-year number, and this year they've closed the books. And it's only $8 billion for next year. And, anyway, that number should be as abstract and remote from the ordinary residents of California as the national budget deficit is from the ordinary American.

But there's a machine that keeps on beating it out, saying Davis is bad; Davis is irresponsible; the deficit -- he lied to us. And the press picks it up, and, in turn, it makes its way to the public. So you have a situation in which mainstream publications continue to report and hammer on Davis' $38 billion deficit, which isn't even remotely true, while Bush, for the most part, gets a free pass on the $500 billion deficit which is absolutely real. (emphasis mine)

This parallels the underlying message in Al Franken's bitingly funny yet substantive satire of the rightward shift and subsequent media distortion of the situation (aka lying by the radical-right), which has successfully sought to re-frame the debate on public policy. Where Mr. Franken puts the lies and methods out there for all to see and properly ridicule, Mr. Krugman adds the larger implications of where it is headed (off a cliff) and why it is vital to change course in THIS upcoming election cycle.

I would use this old snippet to warn of the actions of the Twig and his backers at the helm of the ship of state (and their enablers) which busy themselves re-arranging the deck chairs.

A little update on why things slowed down here on the Gore4Dean site the past week or so. The short of it is we lost power at our house over the labor day weekend (our house was built in 1945) and the 50+ year old electrical meter finally gave out. So we had been without power until late Friday and living out of a hotel, so have not had access to my home computer in the interim, and only now catching up.

As a result, I am just now slogging through all the past email that had built up before, during and after the outage and other pending stuff to get back on track.

On to some hard hitting culture jamming.

I just ran across a brilliant flash animation someone posted a link to on the official Dean blog titled "Grand Theft America" (a riff on the popular yet violent video game Grand Theft Auto) by Eric Blumrich. It's about voter disenfranchisement in Florida and it is VERY well done, hard-hitting and pulls ZERO punches. In my view it is mandatory viewing by everyone in the nation (one can only dream).

It points in the direction of a very serious issue surrounding vote tabulation, and the pressing concerns about the new electronic voting machines which do not have a paper trail. This is often cited via the short-hand term "black-box voting" and is something I hope leads to serious investigation and thoughtful and comprehensive enactment of safeguards before Rove and team can pull shit in 2004.

I also just put up a new piece of my own as part of the ongoing project for guerrilla marketing (though not directly part of the "re-select Bu$h" campaign) and is a pretty in-your-face one, nailing Bush on the Iraqi uranium-yellowcake purchase lies, in the run-up to the war.

Finally to Zevon, been humming Lawyers, Guns and Money all day (somehow that song pops into my head whenever if see the twig on T.V. "reassuring me" that he has his eye on the ball)... and you will be missed.

Well, our busy little anti-Dean shill Scott Huminski is at it again, and like any of various flies that annoy livestock, our little gadfly just can't help himself from emailing compulsively .

I will respond here so all can see.

In reply to your latest email, the short answer is, frankly I have no time for you Scott.

But I will make a deal with you...

You post in public on all those Indymedia sites, that you flat out lied in a previous email when you asserted that Robert Corn-Revere was not your attorney...

OR

You post to all those Indymedia sites that YOUR friends over at the Freedom Forum or that the Bennington Banner which you holds so much stock in as well as several other publications/sites -- judicialacountability.org, fact.trib.com or the records of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals -- that all these people were "lying" when they say that Mr. Corn-Revere was/is your attorney and you are mulling over whether it is worth your oh so valuable time to sue them for libel, and I will gladly take another look into your claims of Howard Dean's police state mentality. (smirk)

How about it Scott... is it a deal?

Or is it only people who call you on your nonsense that get the "liar" and "libel" silly treatment from you?

Oh... while your at it, you may want to use your Ouija board powers to commune with Joe Trippi (Howard Dean's campaign manager) and inform him and Mr. Dean as to how "high-up" in the "organization" I must be. I say this because last time I checked I was not a part of the official campaign, and simply a private citizen who supports and volunteers his own time and talents in the grass-roots effort to help Mr. Dean oust the real enemy of civil liberties, Bush, Ashcroft and company.

It might be nice if you clue Mr. Trippi and Dean into my "high-up" status -- who knows, they might toss me a paycheck or two.

Of course I may be tempted to donate that money to the state of Vermont which has had to spend thousands of dollars worth of man-hours, cleaning up your mess in the foreclosure of property they are trying to unload, because public loans (i.e. Vermont citizen's money you took and never paid back) which you defaulted on.

Wait... let me guess, you will again claim I am guilty of libel according to your omnipotet sooth-saying, by simply declaring what is or is not libel and that I must be guilty of it because you say so. I guess my making such statements (your defaulting on public loans) based on the Bennington Banner's articles (which you also use as a a legitimate source to back up your nonsense) is "libel"... right?

Is someone feeding me crazy pills?!?



And thank you in advance for informing me and the rest of the world as to why exactly your wife felt compelled to sue the state, on the same "grounds" upon which you agreed to a plea bargain over?

Why exactly did she feel compelled to do that Scott?

I mean, the state was willing to drop the obstruction of justice charges in the civil case that started this whole mess, if you simply agreed to pay $100 to help pick up some of the costs of the court fees you were running up, on the people of Vermont's tab, while defaulting on money they loaned you.

But, if you would rather just let it lay there... I can live with that Scott.

I have more important things to do that waste much more time with your prattle.

Mitch Gore

a.k.a. the "Very High-Up Minion Hand-Puppet of Howard Dean's Campaign" (ROFL)

p.s. when in your email you create your own more flattering spin on what the word gadfly means, you may want to take a gander at what the dictionaries say that word means, which I have already provided a link to in my previous blog entry about your annoying email spam.