Friday, September 17, 2004

Posted here Friday, September 17, 2004 at 12:37:19 PM     Another good morale booster Analysis: Kerry attack machine bashes Bush By Martin Sieff Published 2/17/2004 6:30 PM http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040217-061854-2353r WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- Something has happened the likes of which have never before been seen during this residency: George W. Bush and Karl Rove are on the defensive against the lean and hungry new John Kerry attack machine, and they do not know what to do about it. ********

	Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:07:55 PM     This is good enough to post whole, since it is hard to get impressions of Kerry. That he elicts this kind of response is itself telling. June 22, 2004 Dear friends, A group of us traveled to Denver last night and had the opportunity to stand and listen, close up, to Presidential candidate, John Kerry.  I witnessed a humble public servant who has dedicated his entire life to on the job training, through long years of hands on experience learning and practicing the arts and skills of governing, of policy making, of coalition building and of implementation.  I witnessed a man of true vision for the possible, who understands that true leadership arises from the marriage of heart and head and from the willingness to dream what may be possible and then figure out how to make that dream palpable and real. Kerry spoke unabashedly about the need for an ecologically sustainable world, which is also economically productive.  He spoke of the need for putting money towards programs in which our disenfranchised youth are mentored with understanding and compassion and educated with skills rather than thrown into prisons which eat resources and further destroys these precious young lives. As Kerry spoke of forging and repairing friendship and partnership around the world, the crowd sighed in relief.  Those of us in the room understand how building cooperative and mutually respectful relationship has to be a major component to any prayer of future national security. He spoke in depth about how we would lower the cost of health care while creating an economic motivation for quality of care and delivery. He spoke returning the the 90's when we systematically paid off the deficit and balancing the national buget.  He covered a lot of turf, and covered it well. We were listening to a highly intelligent and thoughtful man who understands the issues, understands how things get done and has shown the patience and the skill to do them.  Kerry is not afraid of economic competition but he is clearly a man who will foster a fair and just and ecologically sustainable competition, both here and abroad. Lat night, John Kerry said "Under my presidency America will only go to war because we have to, not because we want to.  And we would only do so with full and accurate disclosure to the American people." I found myself held by the crowd and leaning back into my husband's arms with tears of hope welling in my eyes. I was not alone. Kerry is real human being.  Kerry is a man of integrity and of solid vision and values.  Kerry is also giving his life for us. As he moved among us to shake our hands, I found myself saying to him "Please take us there." He said simply, "I'll try." When my friend, Margo behind me called out, "Bless you - we're with you" He smiled broadly and said a heartfelt "Thank you!" John Kerry is Presidential. I am much more inspired after seeing him than I was before, when I was in the "well it's what we've got" camp. And I believe Kerry would be a fine president in terms of policy, implementation and in providing the solid, steady kind of leadership which will be required to turn the great ship of this country back on course.  But Kerry does not appear to be a crowd -pleasing, energy raising show-man, which, although just fine with me, unfortunately, is often what wins the votes of the un-decided. Traveling back to Boulder on the bus, the conversations were hushed and serious. How can we really take this country back?  How can we win? He's got the content.  He's got the know how.  He actually is what we want in a President.  He is not perfect. But he is perfectly human. To get Kerry elected, more of us need to not only give money (very important) but many more of us need to work in all ways make to make this happen.  Those of us who know how to give inspiring speeches should be doing so wherever we can find to give them. We need to register voters, drive to the polls and figure out anything and everything we can to create success. If each of us committed to regime change at home, pledged to personally find five people to vote for Kerry who would not otherwise have voted, and personally committed to get them to the polls on election day, we could win this electon.  And in the process of filling this commitment, we would be serving a larger vision.  We would be reaching out beyond the people we may already know.  We would be educating ourselves and others.  We would be making a difference. If each of us committed to regime change at home, dug deeper, and offered more money that we think we have, we could make the difference.s Kerry acknowledged, and the group present agreed, "This is the most important election of our lifetimes."  We need to, as Margo said, bless him every day.  And we cannot expect him to be other than he is.  If more passion is needed, well then it is up to us to provide it.  If more money is needed, well, then it is up to us.  He and Terry have stepped forward and offered their lives.  Let's not let this be a futile sacrifice.  Let's get this man in office with all the support, encouragement, hard work and blessings it takes to make it happen.  This is not a one-man job.  This is not the job of the inner circle or the experts.  This is not the job of the already dedicated political activists. Getting Kerry elected is our job.  And as he so eloquently said last night, "We are in this for the children."  For the children, for the grandchildren, for ourselves, for the world.  Please give in any way that you can. Judith Ansara Gass Co-Director of the Peacemaker Institute.  Boulder Colorado. ********

	Thursday, May 13, 2004

Posted here Thursday, May 13, 2004 at 11:16:59 AM     Could Kerry make a major point - around the flip flop issue - by saying "Sometimes it is important to change one's mind. Changing our mind about Iraq is the responsible thing to do. It requires a president who reads the newspapers and follows the details, looks at options, discusses the issues with his cabinet and many others,  and makes the best choice possible. I pledge as president to do that, and I pledge that, when circumstances shift and we are building our brings to the wrong future, I'll change my mind, and tell you my thinking, and implement those changes after a vital public discussion."   ********

	Monday, April 26, 2004

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 10:35:36 PM     When running for president, doesn't it make sense to think like a president? The role is to set a tone for the country to be democratic and resolve issues, not to be the one who decides. Take the following On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry spoke on several environmental issues in Tampa, Florida, and took questions -- one of which was about offshore oil drilling, a hot-button topic in Florida. This is how The St. Petersburg Times's Adam C. Smith reported Wednesday on what Kerry said about offshore drilling: "While Kerry has consistently opposed oil drilling off Florida, he said he supports drilling where it already has been approved." This sentence came 415 words into Smith's 1,000-word report, accompanied by no further detail or analysis. The Tampa Tribune's William March did not even include Kerry's drilling remarks in his initial story on Kerry's speech. Nor did Kerry's drilling comments make it into The Miami Herald's Wednesday account by reporter Lesley Clark. The next day, Smith of the St. Petersburg Times returned with some vigor -- and with fellow reporter Joni James -- to the subject he had all but kissed off earlier, describing Kerry's remarks on drilling as "imprecise," and among evidence that "Kerry has a knack for ambiguity." Also on Thursday, Clark of the Herald joined the chase, leading with this: "For most Floridians, drilling for oil off the coast is akin to paving the Everglades or mutilating manatees." Clark then describes Kerry as having "on Tuesday endorsed drilling 'in the right places' but left it unclear where he stood on drilling off Florida's coast." And today, March, of the Tribune, also playing catch-up, wrote that "in his speech ... Kerry did give a nuanced answer to a question about one of the most inflammatory issues in Florida." Given that offshore drilling is such a key issue to "most Floridians," shouldn't Clark -- and Smith and March -- have reported in full what Kerry said on the topic in their first stories on the speech -- particularly if Kerry's remarks about drilling were "unclear"? (And then, presumably, sought clarification for their readers?)   Why isn't it good for Kerry to say "this is a crucial issue. we need to let the people decide. I will support a process that lays out the issues so people can make an informed decision." ********

	Thursday, April 08, 2004

Posted here Thursday, April 08, 2004 at 9:49:17 PM     Bill Greider points to issues facing Kerry, like will hsi economic policy be a pro free trade in the business sense, or look to deal with the economic problems of the middle class? http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040426&;s=greider Note, the ; should not be in the url John Kerry is borne aloft by party unity and the overriding imperative of defeating Bush, but the senator has entered a perilous zone where the outcome may depend more on the content of his character. During the next few months, Kerry must somehow fend off the smears and caricatures broadcast by Bush's attack machine and, at the same time, define himself in more convincing terms for the broad audience of voters, many of whom know little or nothing about him. Who is John Kerry? What does he believe about the country? What do people get if they elect him? ********

	Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Republican strategy Posted here Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 8:51:15 AM     On republican campaign issues.. Rove http://billmon.org/archives/001195.html#more ********

	Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Terrirism as dominant issue. (unfortuneately) Posted here Tuesday, March 09, 2004 at 9:10:38 AM     This is the myopia induced by Bush in shifting all national priorities for 911 (except taxes).  A new Gallup poll reports that Americans rank terrorism as the most critical threat to the United States. Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats said terrorism was the No. 1 danger facing America. The Washington Times quotes a Republican strategist (unnamed) saying that Bush will "make the case that Kerry is not the right man to lead the war on terror." And, in the same piece, Will Marshall, the DLC's thinktank man, says it will be the "dominant issue in the presidential campaign."     Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports good news for the Democrats on every issue except the War on Terror. While the poll shows Kerry leading Bush 48-44 percent, with 57 percent of Americans saying "we need to elect a new president who can set the nation in a new direction," the Post adds: "Only the war on terrorism continues to garner [Bush] the support of more than 6 in 10 Americans." ********

The rich and Bush - a novelistic and helpful piece. Posted here Tuesday, March 09, 2004 at 9:01:31 AM     This is worth reading, the kind of reporting not often done, but very important, that takes us inside the thinking of others. In a USA Today opinion piece Web accused Bush of having "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence." Webb then resorted to the older notion of conservatism so as to distinguish himself and his grouping from the neophytes in the White House. "There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves." Indeed, at one DC fete, an influential dowager opined that the Bush boy's invasion of Iraq and his failure to encounter those awful WMDs did not inspire the truly important people with confidence. And why didn't our CIA lads know something after employing all that hi-tech seeing and listening technology that one sees in the movies? Can the affable young man in the White House find the proverbial pimple on his you know what? What will happen if one of the truly dangerous WOGS actually threatens us? This kind of chatter among the idle rich bodes well for the Democrats, who could accuse Bush 43 of having committed the strategic bungle of the decade. He seems to have wanted to go to war and allowed those boorish neo-cons to, what's the term, yank his chain.   ********