October 31, 2006 by mugsy.

Okay, maybe I’m just missing something. If that’s the case, please let me know by posting a reply. (NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

The Houston media is suddenly reporting a possible “stunning upset” in the race to fill the spot vacated by the disgraced and indicted former Speaker of the House “Hot tub” Tom DeLay. The 9-term Congressman tried to wiggle out of running again this year and suffer an embarrasing defeat, by packing up his belongings and moving to Virginia. But you can’t raise money for re-election and then not run. And while Ol’ Rubber Face never had a problem with skirting the law before, even this law was too clear-cut for DeLay to violate with impunity. He had to find someone to replace him, and found former Houston city councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs… a relative political novice… so green she’s apparently unaware that it is illegal to campaign inside a polling station… to oppose 5-term Representative Nick Lampson. But since they missed the ballot deadline, Gibbs must run as a “write-in” candidate. No “write-in” candidate has ever won high political office in the state of Texas, so a Lampson victory was all but assured.

But suddenly, the local media is reporting “a strong possibility” of a Sekula-Gibbs upset victory. Here is their basis for claiming a possible upset:

62% of likely voters in District-22 say they are AWARE that there is a viable write-in candidate in the D22 race (and only 61% say they even know how to vote for a write-in candidate using the eSlate voting system.)

Of that 62%, 36% say they will be voting for Lampson, 4% for the Libatarian Bob Smither and 35% say they’d vote for a write-in candidate. (Remember that Gibbs’ name does not appear anywhere on the ballot, so 100% of her votes must come as “write-ins”. No so with Lampson.)

Got that? Lampson not only has a higher percentage of those who say they know there is a write-in candidate available, he also will draw votes from the 38% of voters that AREN’T aware there is a write-in candidate. While Gibbs draws 35% of just the 62% who are.

Wait! Scratch that! “35% say they’d vote for “A” write-in candidate”, not Gibbs specifically. So Gibbs will be sharing that 35% with “Mickey Mouse” and “Al Koholic”. Suddenly, this doesn’t sound like such a close race afterall. Hmmm.

Now, as I noted in the beginning, maybe I’m just missing something. But nowhere in that do I see even the suggestion of “upset victory”. That’s what they’re saying though. I guess anything is possible in the land that voted for Tom DeLay nine times. Might they be “preping us” for a miraculous come-from-behind victory for Gibbs, so that when they steal the election and she wins by two or three percent, no one will scream FOUL because we were all warned that such an upset was possible? Let’s hope nothing so sinister is at hand.

Maybe we should ask San Diego?

To be continued…?

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 29, 2006 by mugsy.

I’ve been YouTube‘ing quite a bit in recent months.

For you old fogies still unfamiliar with the term, “YouTube” is a website where anyone can upload short “homemade” videos for the world to see. I put “homemade” in quotes because MANY users (like myself) skirt the rules a bit and upload videos containing content that might be considered copywritten (and many are downright recorded straight from the TV and uploaded unedited). And members that view your videos can rate them (1 to 5 stars) and even leave comments.

My personal mainstay has been politically themed video clips exposing the lies, hypocrisy and often outright crimes perpetrated by The Bush Administration and Conservatives in general.

In any case, whenever someone posts a comment about one of my videos, I’m alerted by e-mail, and as you might imagine, some of the comments I get from The Hitler Youth out there are real doozies. I’m pleased to say it is a very small minority of YouTubers, and in general, if you browse the political videos on the site, you’ll notice a very definite Anti-Bush majority out there (I’d estimate upwards 80%-90%). If YouTuber’s are the future, the future looks bright.

Comments posted by hardcore NeoCon’s are typically poorly worded, dripping with profanity and heavy in denial. I’ve actually tried engaging some of these Plebians in a rational discussion, but it always becomes immediately apparent that if these people were rational, they wouldn’t be spouting their nonsense in the first place. I find far too frequently that the people spewing this hatred are too young to have any mature memories of life under the Clinton Administration. Their formative years spent dining on a steady diet of hate, violence and red-state rascism. The world is “out to get them”, and facts are open to debate. And of course, Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right, as far as these junior fascists are concerned. After all, they are “The Party of Lincoln”, what could be more nobel than that?

So, as it happens, I had a couple of these numbnuts criticizing me for criticizing President Bush, and both of them used the phrase “Party of Lincoln” to defend themselves. Then I read about GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman DESPERATELY trying to woo back African-American voters on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, using the phrase “Party of Lincoln” again to remind black voters that the GOP is their long lost home.

Folks, this “Party of Lincoln” nonsense has been a pet peeve of mine for years now, and I’ll tell you why:

Emancipation is about the most socially Liberal, anti-business policy ever handed down by a President of either Party. If Lincoln were a Republican today, he’d be arguing that freeing the slaves would be “a hardship, thrusting millions into unemployment, and devistate business unable to compete in the world market due to increased labor costs.”

It strikes me odd that Conservative Republicans today that proudly use the phrase “Party of Lincoln” are proud of something so antithetical to their own beliefs. They aren’t saying “Party of Lincoln” because of Lincoln’s tax policies. They aren’t saying “Party of Lincoln” because of Lincoln’s fiscal responsibility. They aren’t saying “Party of Lincoln” because of Lincoln’s dedication to smaller government, anti-abortion or institution of religious doctrine into government. No. when they say “Party of Lincoln”, they are boasting about one thing and one thing only: Emancipation… freeing the slaves… the most socially Liberal, anti-big business proclamation EVER handed down by Washington. A proclamation so Liberal it makes FDR look like Rush Limbaugh.

Despite what most people have come to falsely believe, the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) was NOT over slavery. President Lincoln, a long-time abolitionist, was against slavery, but we were more than a year and a half into the Civil War before Lincoln finally issued the “Emancipation Proclamation” (January 1, 1863) as a military strategy to throw the South into chaos in an attempt to win the war. The South relied heavily on slave labor to keep its war machine running. The cotton they picked was used to make uniforms, provide tents, stitch bandages, not to mention provide a revenue stream to fund the war effort.

While Lincoln may have always wanted to free the slaves, it was only under the guise of “military strategy” that he could convince his Party to support it. Had it of not been for the Civil War and the South’s heavy dependency upon slave labor, we might very well still have slavery today. So even when Republicans try to PROUDLY stake claim to the most socially Liberal and anti-big business proclamation in history, even their reasons for doing so 144 years ago is circumspect.

So the next time you hear a Republican proudly proclaim that they are of “The Party of Lincoln”, ask them what it is exactly that they are so proud of, and then remind them of just how Liberal and anti-big business that act they so proudly lay claim to really is.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 26, 2006 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

Just a side note: I will not be continuing the “Presidential Platform for John Smith” feature due to a lack of response.

We need HITS, and LOTS OF THEM!

Invite everyone you know to view our “Flashback” video on YouTube… even if they’ve already seen it… to get the number of hits up. Remind them to tell others to pass it on as well. Let’s see if we can’t get this video featured on the YouTube homepage and get people to the polls!

Just getting a large number of hits in one day will help get the video featured on the “Most Viewed Today” page, which should get those hits up in a hurry!

Thanks for all your help, and remember to vote on November 7th! -*- Mugsy of BI30 -*-

YouTube video:
FLASHBACK: Bush’s 2000 RNC Convention hypocrisy (updated)

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 21, 2006 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

In Part 1 of John Smith’s campaign platform, we discussed “Terrorism”, “Energy independence”, and “Decriminallizing and Regulating marijuana and prostitution” as a means of removing the criminal element that makes these enterprises so dangerous, destructive and profitable.

In Part 2, we’ll discuss “Illegal Immigration” and “Healthcare”, two growing problems in this country unnecessarilly costing American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars each year. (Before I start, I should probably note that I am not of Mexican decent, nor do I or anyone in my family work in the heathcare industry, so… just as in Part One… I have no personal stake in the outcome or personal agenda behind my reasoning. I’m a white male, third-generation ‘Mericun (that’s “American” to those not from the South) of Italian decent.

The falsehood that Illegal Immigrants are responsible for an increase in crime is flat false. A recent study by the United States Federal Reserve in Dallas (video) made some starteling discoveries: they found NO evidence crime increased as a result of illegal immigration. In fact, they actually found that in places with high illegal immigrant population, crime actually DECREASED. The most obvious reason being that if an illegal immigrant gets picked up by the police, they know they’re going to be deported. So the incentive is to keep their noses clean and stay out of trouble.

Do some illegals commit crimes? Of course, but LESS than the general population… with one caveat though:

While violent crime was also shown to decrease in these same populations, the reduction was not as great as it was for NON-violent crime. The reason: smugglers. Once called guides, the very act of ever-increasing criminalization of crossing the US/Mexican border illegally has turned it into a major criminal enterprise with well armed smugglers willing to kill to transport their cargo.

Another criminal side effect: smugglers often force their “customers” to carry drugs with them across the border into the United States, giving the immigrant added incentive not to get caught and providing the smugglers with a cheap and easy means of smuggeling drugs into the U.S.. Just as with in the criminalization of marijuna and prostitution mentioned in Part-1, the very act of criminalizing something only helps foster crime, making it more of a problem, causing more sorrow and destruction, and costing an enormous amount of money to try (and fail) to maintain the illusion of control over it.

While the strident call of late has been for MORE and TIGHTER security with the Mexican border, it is those very methodologies that make the problem worse. Consider that, since crossing the border is so difficult and risky, a Mexican immigrant is more likely to STAY in the U.S. once they get here BECAUSE they can not cross the border easily. And they are more likly to bring their families with them for that very same reason. We should actually make the US/Mexican border EASIER to cross, not more difficult, if we are to cut down on illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it.

This brings up the issue of “terrorism”. But consider the US/Canadian border. No one is talking about building a wall between the U.S. and Canada to keep terrorists from crossing over into our country. The reason we don’t have tighter restrictions on the U.S./Canadian border is because of more equal income levels and standards of living between our two countries… because Canadian Hosers aren’t flooding across our border “to take all our good jobs”. Well, neither are Mexican immigrants… most of whom end up as migrant farm workers or other low wage manual labor jobs, due to lack of education.

For 2006, Canada budgeted only $1.4 Billion over two years for border security.
The United States has budgeted $1.7 Billion for 2007 alone. If Osama bin Laden wanted to cross over into the United States, he’s not going to do it from Mexico, he’s going to do it through Canada. The argument that we can have more lax security with Canada because they pick up the slack, is demonstrably false. In fact, the cost of the much ballyhooed “700 mile fence” along the 2,000 mile US/Mexican border that Congress approved last week, is going to cost us $1.2 billion dollars… TO START. That is MORE than Canada is spending on border security. So the amount of money Mexico is able to dedicate to border security isn’t an issue either.

The solution is to provide a secure method of identification for those who wish to cross. A “passport” or “work visa”… something that requires a background check and application through the government to get. But once obtained, permits free travel (through checkpoints) over a period of months or even years. Limit the number of places for legal border crossing, but with fewer restrictions on travel, thereby removing the need to cross the border illegally at obscure locations. Border security will still be required to stop “terrorists”, drugs or contriband, but the cost of border security would plummet as resources once spent trying to stem the tide of immigrants is put to better use. Trying to contain illegal immigration by squeezing tighter and tighter is like trying to keep sand in your hands by squeezing tighter and tighter.

Bringing Healthcare costs under control.

The United States is the only industrialized nation on the face of the Earth that does not offer free healthcare to all its citizens. The Republican arguments against any sort of “National Healthcare” is that it smacks of “Socialized Medicine”, with lower quality care for more money. Of course, it should come as no surprise that this is complete nonsense. If our healthcare system were the greatest in the world, we should also have the longest lifespans and lowest rates of disease in the world. In fact, the Japanese enjoy the longest average lifespans in the industrialized world (men: 79, women: 86) Japan uses a combination of National and Employer based insurance coverage. The unemployed and those who own or work for small busineses recieve National coverage. Mid to large sized businesses cover the rest, and the more money you make, the higher your premiums. You get to choose your own doctor, but you must pay 30% of the costs yourself (20% if you are hospitalized).

One issue raised by opponents on any kind of National coverage is that it is the “profit motive” in our healthcare that encourages medical breakthroughs in medicines, treatments and surgical techniques. If that were true, the United States would be the only country in the world seeking cures to all the worlds diseases. Instead, we see the industry’s research dollars being poured into the next great “boner drug” or “diet pill”. And America’s Conservative Christian lobby is going to ensure that the next great advance in stemcell research isn’t going to be developed in the United States.

The compromise is to ensure free BASIC healthcare to every American… checkups, doctor visits for minor ailments and the like… by fully funding and expanding medicare. Treating people BEFORE they get sick will dramatically reduce the number of people that end up in Emergency Rooms because they ignore a minor problem until it grows into something major, costing taxpayers ten times as much treating someone for an illness that might have been avoided with a free flu shot or minor out-patient proceedure early on. Businesses suffer Billions in lost productivity every year as people work through illness until they can work no more.

Placing the burden of healthcare on our Corporations is crippling our businesses and destroying our competitiveness in the world market. IBM estimates that “the cost of health insurance adds “$1500 to the price of every car GM makes”. So to cut their costs, many manufacturers most their plants across the border into Mexico, where they are free of the burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Higher healthcare costs are passed on to the consumer, both here and abroad, putting our products at a cost disadvantage, resulting in fewer sales, which means more employees will lose their jobs… AND employer paid healthcare.

By ensuring BASIC healthcare, the “profit motive” for developing more “advanced treatments” remains. Employers now needing to cover only the less frequent “serious” ailments should see their healthcare costs go down. For extraordinarilly serious injury or prolonged treatment, Medicare already covers those cases and should continue to do so.

Of course, this requires shoring up Medicare. While President Bush continues to rail on about the need to “Save Social Security”… a program that is solvent until 2042… Medicare is in serious trouble, with “Part-A” coverage expected to start spending more than it takes in by 2015.

That’s enough to digest for now. In Part-3, We will discuss “a role for the UN in International Security” and “Global Warming”.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 17, 2006 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

Hello, my name is Johnathan Q. Smith and I’m running for President in 2008.

Our nation is in an extraorinarilly sad state today. Driven by reactionary idiology, common-sense solutions that sometimes offend our sensabilitites as “bad” have sometimes proven to be the wisest course of action. The policies I want to enact may sound radical, BUT THEY WORK, with a proven track record of success, saving lives and money. I believe the only way to rescue our fragile Democracy from the catastrophic policies controlling our country today, forced upon us by radical religious ideologues, corporate raiders, and the politicians that cater to them in the name of the next big campaign donation, is to set ideology aside and consider options many of us have previously been unwilling to consider because it offended someone’s irrational logic. Here is my platform. Would you support a candidate that proposes:

Terrorism against the United States stems from our direct involvement and interference in their societies. - The standard bloviating attack line here is that anyone that dare suggest America share in any of the blame for what the terrorists do to us is a “terrorist sympathizer that would surrender our country to the terrorists like a Frenchman surrendering to a bowl of Jell-O. But as a wise person once said, “If you are unwilling to examine the reasons for terrorism, you’re never going to end it.” Osama bin Laden claimed that the justification for the Islamic reign of terror against the United States… stretching back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1978… were all in response to the U.S.’s involvement in Muslim government affairs, installing and supporting brutal dictators:

It is time the United States get out of the Middle East and stop meddling in their affairs. The first step on this road is “redeployment” of our troops out of Iraq and into the surrounding border states, allowing the Iraqi’s to resume control of their own country. It was one year ago next month that U.S. Representative (and former Marine drill sergeant) John Murtha first proposed redeploying our troops out of Iraq and into neighboring countries, providing only support to Iraq in their own efforts to regain control of their country. And for this, Democrats were labeled as “cowards” wanting to “Cut & Run” when things got tough. Well now, eleven months and several hundred troop deaths and a growing, spiraling out-of control civil war later, Even Republicans are starting to see the wisdom in Murtha’s proposal. Of course, they dare not compare their own calls for redeployment to that of Congressman Murtha’s nearly a year ago. It’s a shame that so many must die before they finally see the light, all in the name of playing partisan politics.

The next step is energy independence. - Most people would be surprised to learn that less than 20% of our oil imports come from the Middle East. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil a mere 20% through both increased use of home-grown Ethanol and higher CAFE (fuel economy) standards, we wouldn’t need to import a single drop of Middle Eastern oil. This is an EXTREMELY obtainable goal that could be achieved in less than four years. For those worried about “economic collapse in the Middle East inciting yet more violence”, fear not as the rest of the world is more than ready to take up the slack… most notably China.

Take the criminal element out of Marijuana sales and prostitution by legalizing them. - It is the very act of making these things illegal that contributes to the destruction they contribute to society. We tried making alcohol illegal once in this country and the result was violence and an exploding crime rate as mobsters like Al Capone become notorious for their brutality. It was the repeal of Prohibition that took away the profit and criminality of selling and distributing alcohol illegally, even removing life-treatening risk from drinking “bathtub gin”, and once again made it a regulated substance.

Marijuana is the most tame of illegal drugs. It’s diliatarious effects on par with alcohol (unless it is adultrated with other, more addictive or deadly substances… again, a result of it’s illegality). The American government will spend over $20 BILLION dollars fighting the “War on Drugs“, which has been about as successful as George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”… more rampant, violent and criminally profitable than ever before.

Legalizing and regulating marijuana usage would protect lives, take the criminal element out of its sale and distribution, free up our courts, our jails, and law enforcement so that they can concentrate on more serious matters.

It is the illegality of prostitution that results in “sex slavery”, pimps, “crack-whores” and the spread of life threatening, even deadly, diseases like AIDS and Syphilis. Legalizing protestitution allows it to be regulated. The health and well-being of women is protected. Neighborhoods that have seen their street-corners turned into meeting places for “Johns” to pickup prostitutes in full view of their children as women sell their bodies and put their lives at risk, will see the problem quickly disappear as legal bordellos licenced and regulated by the Board of Health replace them.

In Part 2 of my platform, I’ll be discussing “Protecting our borders” and Healthcare. Thank you for keeping an open mind and thank you for your support.

(PS: If it makes you feel any better, I do not drink, have EVER done drugs, or solicited a prostitute, so none of my positions on these issues stem from personal experience on the wrong-end of the law.)

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 12, 2006 by mugsy.

There have been a couple of “accidental disasters” this past week.

First, a chemical waste disposal plant exploded in Apex, NC last Friday (10/6) that forced 17,000 (more than half the towns’ population) to flee for their lives in the middle of the night. It wasn’t terrorism, but the actual cause is still unknown. However, many residents of the tiny town of Apex didn’t even know there was a hazardous chemical plant IN the middle of town storing toxic substances that could have been more deadly had the explosion been large enough.

Consider the governments’ response. Did Apex have chemical cleanup crews paid for with homeland security dollars? No. The burden of cleanup is being left to the plant’s owners… whom you know will be as “diligent” as “financially feesible”. Tell me, who do you trust to decide how much is too much chemical waste in the air you breath and the water you drink? Did Apex have anymore firetrucks than before? More firemen? Special training, chemical suits, waste containment units? No. And the plant, did it have beefed up security following 9/11? I find no evidence that they did. The fire and resulting cleanup was handled in much the same way as would have happened pre-9/11. And is it safe for people to return? It wasn’t terrorism, but you know the residents were every bit as scared.

Critics of the Bush Administration point to their pathetic funding for “Homeland Security” items such as “chemical plants”, “nuclear reactors”, “trains carrying hazardous waste through cities”, “inspecting ship-port cargo” and “checked luggage” as being next to non-existant. Approximately $40 Billion dollars (the CBO claims that the “actual” number is higher, but classified) has been appropriated by Congress to pay for all these things. Where is it? Where did it all go?

Yesterday/Wednesday, we once again turn on the mid-day news to discover a small plane crashed into an apartment building in Manhattan’s upper East side. It too wasn’t terrorism, but being New York, miltary fighter jets were scrambled following the incident. But the question of what a plane was doing crusing over NYC at such a low altitude with no one raising an eyebrow has many asking questions.

You may remember in January of 2002, a mere three months after 9/11, a disturbed kid in Florida committed suicide by crashing the training plane he was learning to fly in, seeking to “continue the mission” of the 9/11 hijackers, intentionally dive-bombing a Miami office building. Questions about air-space security in the wake of 9/11 was now on everybody’s radar screens.

Then in May of ‘05, a small plane wandered into the “Washington Prohibited Zone” and was forced to land, but not before a mass evacuation of Congress and other nearby government buildings.

Questions about security at small airports has again been raised. If a terrorist WANTED to commandere a small Cessna, load it with explosives or nuclear waste, what’s to stop them? Beefed up security at many of the nations’ busiest small airports? No. None of those $40 Billion in DHS funds went there either. Alert systems to warn authorities of suspicious activity like a low-altitude plane flying around the Statue of Liberty and into Manhattan at a height lower than rooftop level? No, not there either. Hell, the issue of all Emergency Crew radios not all operating on the same frequency… which many suggest may have cost the lives of many firement and police on 9/11 because they didn’t get the call to retreat… STILL has yet to be done.

Had terrorists of wanted to commit these acts, what was there to stop them? On the evening news, the reaction afterwards is typically to ask, “How could this happen after 9/11?” and “Are we safer?” Well, the terrorists may not have committed these acts, but you can bet your ass they’re taking notes on just how prepared we are to stop it from happening, what kind of damage can be inflicted, and our response afterwards.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 8, 2006 by mugsy.

(Note: Register and receive email notification whenever this Blog is updated!)

In a week where a Republican sex scandal has bumped appalling revelations about the Bush Administrations “State of Denial” in Bob Woodward’s latest book to Page 2 (hehe: a story about “Pages” bumps a page-1 story), this has not been a good week for the GOP (boo hoo!), four weeks before a potentially control-shifting election in both the House and Senate. And while most analysts (even Conservative ones) tend to agree that Democrats will probably pick up the 15 seats needed to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives, regaining control of the Senate has, up to now, been described as an uphill climb, with Democrats needing to win 6 of the 8 seats up for grabs this November (or hold on to NJ and win five others)… a feat compared to being dealt “an inside straight” in poker. But then someone loaded the deck with a bunch of jokers… Hastert, Boehner and Reynolds… and an almost “Keystonian” (if I may make up a word here) PR blitz by Conservative pundits running around looking for ways to blame Democrats and/or the victims (Limbaugh: “Scandal breaks just before the election? I smell a Democratic October surprise!”; Drudge: “These kids are not innocent. They set him up”, etc) is curdeling like sour milk in the stomaches of most “values voters”.

(When questions arose last week about conflicting stories of “who knew what and when” regarding the Foley/Page sex scandal, Conservative newspaper “The Hill” called for Boehner and Hastert to “get on the same page“. I kid you not.)

These same Republicans, blaming the kids and defending the coverup, are the ones that painted Monica Lewinski as a “victim” preyed upon by “Sexual Preditor” Bill Clinton. “Hot Tub Tom” Delay even poked his head out of his spider-hole to defend Speaker Hastert and the GOP (which is earning their new moniker “Grand Old Perverts”).

Then we have Bob Woodward’s aptly titled new book revealing that CIA Director Tenet was so concerned about an impending terrorist attack in July of 2001 that he begged for a meeting with National Security Advisor Condi Rice, fearing what he called “the Big One”. Her response was to do *nothing*.

The war in Iraq, incredibly bad before, is now headed into such a death-spiral that even neocon hawk and Chairman of the Armed Services Commitee Sen John Warner has reversed course and now says that “if things don’t substantially improve in Iraq in the next couple of months, we need to completely rexamine our strategy”, adding “I wouldn’t take [any idea] off the table.”

Saturday (10/7) was the fifth anniversary of that other war… the forgotten war… Afghanistan. People talk about how, after three years, can this Administration get us out of Iraq. Hell, we’ve been in Afghanistan for FIVE years now, with no end in sight. Violence there has only gotten worse (video: “Attacks in Afghanistan have DOUBLED every year”). We have FAR greater International support in Afghanistan (the second largest force in Afghanistan isn’t the British, it’s the French), but they aren’t there combing the hills looking for Osama bin Laden, they’re in firefights with the resurging Taliban, which seeks to regain control of the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went on tour this past week to show off his newly chromed ‘Nads by listing examples of progress in Afghanistan on this fifth anniversary… among those acheivements: “The Afghanistan economy has TRIPLED [since the overthrow of the Taliban]”. Of course, Rummy won’t tell you that the largest cash crop in that country today is Heroin. Afghanistan is once again the leading supplier of the deadly narcotic on the planet, accounting for some “92% of the world’s Opium market“. Way to go, Rummy! USA! USA!

And despite all this, Democratic Senatorial Candidates are either tied or lead only by slim margins in five of the six closest races they need to win back for control, with that one trail coming in one of the highest profile races in the country, that of George “Macaca” Allen (R-Va), still clinging to a more than 5% lead over his Democratic rival, former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb, a man once decorated and honored by Republican messiah Ronald Reagan, himself. Apparently, being a racist jerk in Virgina isn’t necessarilly a bad thing. Maybe Webb needs to ranting about “Mex’cuns crossing our borders illegally” in order to boost his poll numbers.

Last week, I heard the best description of a modern Conservative that I’ve ever heard in my life:

“They justify their hypocrisy with the belief; if it’s a Conservative doing it, it must not be so bad.“

How true. What does it take for a Democrat to win in this country? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Democrats are in SERIOUS need of a major PR campaign to undo the brainwashing of the past 30 years (since Carter) that Republicans have pounded mercilessly into voters brains until the lie has become the reality, and reality is spun like Straw into election-year gold.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 5, 2006 by mugsy.

(Note: Register to post on this Blog and receive email notification every time it is updated.)

Well, it took only six years for the DJIA (”Dow Jones Industrial Average”) to finally surpass its January 14, 2000 peak of 11,723 under the Clinton Administration to close at 11,850 on October 4, 2006, before Presidential hopeful Texas Governor George W. Bush started to talk the economy into a recession. He knew he couldn’t beat VP Gore on the economy unless he convinced voters that the longest peacetime economic expansion in history wasn’t really as good as people were making it out to be, with the suggestion that if we just put them in charge (”them” being the GOP), the economic boom would have been much better.

And now, six years later, the economy has struggled to overcome the disasterous policies (both “economic” and “foreign”) of the Bush Administration just to make it back to where we were before they took control.

Let’s compare records then:

When President Clinton took office in January of 1993, the DOW was just under 3,500… a level that took 97 years to reach, finally reaching 3,500 that May. Three months later: 3,600, and three months after that: 3,700. Two months more to reach 3,800, and barely three WEEKS after that to hit 3,900. However, it took another year to hit 4,000 (February 1995). Why?

Why, after a series of quick record highs, did the market suddenly stagnate for a full year? Because it was an election year, silly! That was the year of Newt Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” that seized control of both Houses of Congress. Republican candidates went around the country bashing President Clinton and his policies, preparing the American Public for the major governmental shake-up to come.

So, back to 1995.

Once again, the DOW records came in rapid succession. 4,100 one month later in March. 4,200 in April. Less than three weeks to 4,300. Less than TWO weeks to hit 4,400.

Another month to 4,500. Three weeks to 4,600; TWO DAYS to hit 4,700 in July 1995. In 1996, even a Bob “Mr. Excitement” Dole candidacy and the Monica Lewinski Scandal couldn’t slow the market from hitting 13 more record closes in the next 12 months.

Jumping ahead, after fours years in office, the Clinton Economy had DOUBLED the DJIA from 3,500 in 1993 to 7,000 in 1997.

I think you get the point by now. In the five years to follow, the market continued its meteoric climb to a record close of 11,723 in January of 2000… another big election year. Republican candidates all veying for the RNC nomination all downplayed the incredible Clinton economy in order to level the playing field. Every speech became self-fulfilling prophecy, with GOP candidates deriding the economy (”It’s not as good as they’re saying!”, candidate Bush was fond of saying). The closer we came to it looking like George Bush might actually win, the further the market sank.

George W. Bush becomes President of the United States and he is tasked with reversing the DJIA slide that he himself started. By September 7, 2001, the market had lost 19% of its peak value 20 months before to close at 9,606.

Then came 9/11.

An already weak market plunged nearly 700 points when it reopened the following Monday, and continued to sink like a stone for the next 13 months (to 7,286… a loss of nearly 4,500 points from its 2000 record high) while the Bush Administration made the case for war with Iraq.

Defense spending and cutting interest rates to the bone (spuring on a Real Estate and Home Re-financing mini-boom) helped the market get back in 2003 to where it was before 9/11.

Between 2003 and the latest record close earlier this week, the market bounced around like an EKG for two and a half years until finally getting back to where it was before the GOP seized all three branches of government (arguably the Supreme Court is included after the 2000 election debacle).

If one were to graph the Clinton economy, it might look very much like a curve heading up into the stratosphere (”1/infinity”) with the only leveling-off periods in election years of heavy GOP rhetoric.

On the other side, a graph of GWB’s economic record might look more like a dinner plate with a dent in the middle. “Pat yourself on the back guys!” you finally broke even!… unless you adjust for inflation… but that’s another story.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

October 2, 2006 by mugsy.

(Note: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this blog is updated.)

Last August, almost tongue-in-cheek, I issued a challange to any Right-winger that could name JUST ONE positive policy success to come out of the Bush Administration in its six years, and win a free DVD paid for by me (out-of-pocket as I have no advertisers).

I posted my contest idea on “Democratic Underground“, which quickly revealed that no one else could think of a sucessful Bush policy, either.

The GOP’s facade of morality and respectability has begun to crumble in recent weeks. Between George Allen’s (R-Va) string of racist feux-pas, starting with telling an East-Indian kid, “Welcome to America” after calling him an obscure name (”Macaca”), to the most recent revelation of him stuffing a severed deer-head in the mailbox of a black family back when he was in college (a story Allen denies but others confirm), it’s been a bad week for Senator George Allen.

And now the revelation that Mark Foley (R-FL) was sending sexually explicit “IM’s” (Instant Messages) to 16-year old male pages. Not only did Foley head up the Republicans “Missing & Exploited Children Caucuss”, but other Republican Leaders (Majority Leader Boehner and Speaker Hastert) knew but didn’t say anything, hoping it would blow over until after the election (that’s right, they’d rather let a pedophile continue to proposition young boys rather than jeopardize his House seat).

Add to all this bad news (for the GOP), Bob Woodward’s latest book, “State of Denial” exposes everything this Administration didn’t do before 9/11 as well as refused to do before and after the invasion of Iraq, and the picture of a GOP more corrupt, devient and incompetent than the worst GOP fantasy dipiction of what the Democratic Party is like, and you SHOULD have the makings of a Democratic landslide this November. Yet, Allen (mentioned above) still leads Democrat Webb in Virginia 49% to 43%! How bad must the GOP get before people think worse of them than Democrats??? Talk about a sucessful GOP smear campaign! The DNC is in SERIOUS need of a PR makeover.

Anyway, as mentioned below, I created a new video highlighting the promises George Bush made in his 2000 RNC acceptance speech. How *anyone* could listen to that speech today and still not find these people completely bereft of any integrity or trustworthyness is beyond me.

So I’ve decided to keep my contest going until the November election. First indisputable answer wins. It has to be a matter of policy. Anyone, even the Bushites, can do ONE good thing in six years, but that doesn’t make it “policy“.

Name JUST ONE sucessful Bush Administration policy and WIN A DVD, your choice:

o “Why We Fight” - a documentary on Republican President Eisenhower’s parting words regarding the growing “military industrial complex” he saw coming in the wake of World War II.

o Syriana - Four intertwining stories revolving around the merger of two fictional oil conglomerates in the United States and their involvement in the Middle East.

o All the Presidents’ Men - The quintessential political docu-drama about Wordward & Bernstein uncovering the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon Administration.

o “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” - Documentary about the most catastrophic corporate meltdown in history.

o “V for Vendetta” - From the creators of The Matrix, the 2006 hit movie set in England about a vigilante that seeks revenge on the fascist dictatorship that destroyed his life and ruined his country.

Post a comment if you have an answer. First irrefutable answer wins. (”success” here is defined as a positive outcome from a positive agenda put forth by the Bush Administration.)

Contest ends election day, November 2, 2006.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »