Emboldened by their Election Day successes, some Christian conservatives around the country are trying to put more Christ into Christmas this season.

In Terrebonne Parish, La., an organization is petitioning to add "Merry Christmas" to the red-lighted "Season's Greetings" sign on the main government building and is selling yard signs that read, "We believe in God. Merry Christmas." And a Raleigh, N.C., church recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting "Merry Christmas" in ads and displays.

"There is a revival taking place in our nation that is causing Christian and right-minded people to say, 'Wait a minute. We've gone too far,'" says the Rev. Patrick Wooden Sr., pastor of the Raleigh church. "We're not going to allow the country to continue this downward spiral to the left."

In California, a group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas is boycotting Macy's and its corporate parent, Federated Department Stores (FD), accusing them of replacing "Merry Christmas" signs with ones wishing shoppers "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." The organization cites "the recent presidential election showing political correctness is offending millions of Americans."

(Federated, for its part, says that is has no ban on such greetings and that its store divisions can advertise as they see fit and store clerks are free to wish any customer "Merry Christmas." Macy's says its ads commonly use the phrase.)

If Democratic leadership keeps moving toward the center, they just might find themselves to be leaders without a party behind them.  Consider the case as presented by David Sirota:

As the Democratic Party goes through its quadrennial self-flagellation process, the same tired old consultants and insiders are once again complaining that Democratic elected officials have no national agenda and no message.

Yet encrypted within the 2004 election map is a clear national economic platform to build a lasting majority. You don't need Fibonacci's sequence, a decoder ring, or 3-D glasses to see it. You just need to start asking the right questions.

Where, for instance, does a Democrat get off using a progressive message to become governor of Montana? How does an economic populist Democrat keep winning a congressional seat in what is arguably America's most Republican district? Why do culturally conservative rural Wisconsin voters keep sending a Vietnam-era anti-war Democrat back to Congress? What does a self-described socialist do to win support from conservative working-class voters in northern New England?

The answers to these and other questions are the Democrats' very own Da Vinci Code – a road map to political divinity. It is the path Karl Rove fears. He knows his GOP is vulnerable to Democrats who finally follow leaders who have translated a populist economic agenda into powerful cultural and values messages. It also threatens groups like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which has pushed the Democratic Party to give up on its working-class roots and embrace big business' agenda. These New Democrats, backed by huge corporate contributions, say that the party must reduce corporate regulation and embrace a free-trade policy that is wiping out local economies throughout the heartland. They have the nerve to call this agenda "centrist" even though poll after poll shows it is far out of the mainstream. Yet these centrists get slaughtered at the ballot box, and their counterparts – the progressive economic populists – are racking up wins and relegating the DLC argument to the scrap heap.

I've been meaning to do a piece on how some Democrat leaders have been touting moving further to the right as the means to victory in '06 and '08.  God knows why they would, since it's the same strategy that's gotten their asses kicked (narrowly kicked, but kicked nonetheless) in '00, '02, and '04.  Every time the Democrats move rightward, it only manages to muddle their message and allows the GOP to negatively define the opposition before the Dems can positively frame their candidate.  While I'm sure the strategy keeps the big-money donors happy, it alienates the Democrats' traditional working class base.  That's a piper that's sure to be paid come Election Day.  It doesn't work, but certain Democrats keep at it, hoping each time for different results from the same repeated actions (the definition of insanity, btw).

So thank God, once again, for Howard Dean, who's once again showing the DNC the path to reclaiming their spines.  Here's today's speech reprinted word-for-word:

Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.

Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi

...and Alabama

...and Idaho

...and South Carolina.

Four years ago, the President won 49 percent of the vote. The Republican Party treated it like it was a mandate, and we let them get away with it.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Our challenge today is not to re-hash what has happened, but to look forward, to make the Democratic Party a 50-state party again, and, most importantly, to win.

To win the White House and a majority in Congress, yes. But also to do the real work that will make these victories possible -- to put Democratic ideas and Democratic candidates in every office -- whether it be Secretary of State, supervisor of elections, county commissioner or school board member.

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

There are some practical elements to the destination.

The destination of the Democratic Party requires that it be financially viable, able to raise money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were pioneered in my campaign -- like blogs, and meetups, and streaming video -- are just a start. We must use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with the state parties, and to influence media coverage.

The most practical destination is winning elective office. And we must do that at every level of government. The way we will rebuild the Democratic Party is not from consultants down, but from the ground up.

We have some successes to build on. We raised more money than the RNC, and we did so by attracting thousands of new small donors. This is the first time in my memory that the DNC is not coming out of a national campaign in debt. We trained tens of thousands of new activists. We put together the most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation our Party has ever had. We registered millions of new voters, including a record number of minority and young voters. And we saw those new voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Now we need to build on our successes while transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots organization that can win in 50 states.

I have seen all the doomsday predictions that the Democratic Party could shrink to become a regional Party. A Party of the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest.

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

As many of the candidates supported by my organization Democracy for America showed -- people in places that we've too long ignored are hungry for an alternative; they're hungry for new ideas and new candidates, and they're willing to elect Democrats.

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.

We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade.

There are no red states or blue states, just American states. And if we can compete at all levels and in the most conservative parts of the country, we can win ... at any level and anywhere.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Alabama, and Utah if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we believe.

There is another destination beyond strong finances, outreach, and campaigns.

That destination is a better, stronger, smarter, safer, healthier America.

An America where we don't turn our back on our own people.

That's the America we can only build with conviction.

When some people say we should change direction, in essence they are arguing that our basic or guiding principles can be altered or modified.

They can't.

On issue after issue, we are where the majority of the American people are.

What I want to know is at what point did it become a radical notion to stand up for what we believe?

Over fifty years ago, Harry Truman said, "We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it."

Yet here we are still making the same mistakes.

Let me tell you something: there's only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left -- and that's for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom. They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

And they are willing to use any means to get there.

In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.

In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.

In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.

In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.

In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.

And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

And we believe every person in America should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens.

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools. I have nothing against private schools, parochial schools and home schooling. Parents with the means and inclination should choose whatever they believe is best for their children. But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education.

We believe that if you put in a lifetime of work, you have earned a retirement of dignity -- not one that is put at risk by your government or unethical business practices.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. I did it every year as Governor. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power everyday. And it most certainly must be heard on Election Day. Democracies around the world look to us as a model. How can we be worthy of their aspirations when we have done enough to guarantee accurate elections for our own citizens.

We believe in a strong and secure America... And we believe we will be stronger by having a moral foreign policy.

We need to embrace real political reform -- because only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long.

The pundits have said that this election was decided on the issue of moral values. I don't believe that. It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. Honesty is a moral value.

If this election had been decided on moral values, Democrats would have won.

It is time for the Democratic Party to start framing the debate.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes.

We have to set the agenda.

We should not hesitate to call for reform -- reform in elections, reform in health care and education, reforms that promote ethical business practices. And, yes, we need to talk about some internal reform in the Democratic Party as well, and I'll be discussing that more specifically in the days ahead.

Reform is the hallmark of a strong Democratic Party.

Those who stand in the way of reform cannot be the focus of our attention for only four months out of every four years.

Reform is a daily battle.

And we must pursue those reforms with conviction -- every day, at all levels, in 50 states.

A little while back, at a fundraiser, a woman came up to me. She identified herself as an evangelical Christian from Texas. I asked her what you are all wondering -- why was she supporting me. She said there were two reasons. The first was that she had a child who had poly-cystic kidney disease, and what that illness made it impossible for their family to get health care.

The second thing she said was, "The other reason we're with you is because evangelical Christians are people of deep conviction, and you're a person of deep conviction. I may not agree with you on everything, but what we want more than anything else from our government is that when something happens to our family or something happens to our country -- it's that the people in office have deep conviction."

We are what we believe. And the American people know it.

And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Before the Puritans take over the airwaves and Howard Stern, Nicolette Sheridan, Private Ryan, and Janet Jackson's breast are all declared to be the new Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you might want to take a gander at this little tidbit from The Economist:

Hang on a moment. It is perfectly true that one of America's most overtly religious presidents of recent times has been re-elected with an increased majority. It is also true that 13 states this year passed state referendums banning gay marriage—in most cases by larger majorities than Mr Bush managed—and that a plurality of American voters put “moral values” at the top of their list of concerns.

But they hardly formed a moral majority. Look at the figures: the moralists' share of the electorate was only 22%, just two points more than the share of those who cited the economy, and three points more than those who nominated terrorism as the top priority. A few points difference (and the exit polls are, after all, not entirely reliable) and everyone would have been saying the election was about jobs or Iraq.

Moreover, that 22% share is much lower than it was in the two previous presidential elections, in 2000 and 1996. Then, 35% and 40%, respectively, put moral or ethical issues top, and a further 14% and 9% put abortion first, an option that was not given in 2004. Thus, in those two elections, about half the electorate said they voted on moral matters; this time, only a fifth did.

Of course, in those previous elections there was no war on terrorism, nor had there just been a recession. So one could argue that it was remarkable that even a fifth of voters were still concerned about moral matters when so many other big issues were at stake. Maybe, but all that this means is that the war on terrorism has not fundamentally altered, or made irrelevant, the cultural, moral and religious divisions that have polarised America for so long.

A couple of points here: One, how depressing is it that we have to turn to a British journal to get any responsible analysis of American election results?  Lazy and complacent U.S. media outlets just seem to nod and accept whatever's press-released to them, with no analysis done whatsoever.

Two, a smaller percentage of voters cited "moral values" as their top concern than in the two previous elections, making the Right's new battle call for the imposition of their values upon those of us who don't subscribe to them just another right-wing spin job aimed at taking away our rights.

A little food for thought for the next time you see Michael Powell on CNBC bemoaning the state of popular culture.

A little chicken soup for the liberal soul, courtesy of Thomas Jefferson:

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

Of course, organizing and taking the fight to the bastards in the '06 midterm elections won't hurt, either...

Quote brought to my attention by The Amazing Randi.

I'm a big booster of better living through science (our average life expectancy in the West didn't get longer through prayer and wearing crystals, dear reader).  So when I read this item on Yahoo it got me pretty stoked:

JERUSALEM (AFP) - An Israeli university has succeeded in genetically-engineering a form of spider's web almost identical to natural webs which could be developed for commercial use.

Created out of genes from the bodies of the spiders themselves, the webs are much stronger than silk and could be used in the manufacture of bullet-proof vests, surgical threat and fishing rods, the Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday.

What's the big deal, you ask?  Well, unless the science films they made me watch in school were completely off base, an inch-thick strand of spiderweb is stronger than a steel chain, and none of that potentially messy "one weak link" business.  This could potentially revolutionize any number of industries.

I gotta tell ya, it rocks to be reality-based.

I kinda figured Rumsfeld for a gadget guy, but this steps beyond all reason:

And now, apparently, Rumsfeld’s obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who’ve both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.

    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   

When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld’s flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, “Rumsfeld signs the letters himself.”

    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   

I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels’ accusations and said they’d noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son’s letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.

    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   

Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received “from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn’t.”

    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   

Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: “My son wasn’t a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren’t interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature – it’s a slap in the face, don’t you think?”

    & nbsp;   &n bsp;   

Probably. I have devoted so much of my later life crusading to save soldiers from uncaring generals and politicians and bureaucrats, who tend so easily to view these kids – who are rarely their own flesh and blood – as abstract pawns in a virtual game of chess, because I was there.

"Support the troops", indeed.

From Mother Jones:

MIKE HOFFMAN would not be the guy his buddies would expect to see leading a protest movement. The son of a steelworker and a high school janitor from Allentown, Pennsylvania, he enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1999 as an artilleryman to “blow things up.” His transformation into an activist came the hard way—on the streets of Baghdad.

When Hoffman arrived in Kuwait in February 2003, his unit’s highest-ranking enlisted man laid out the mission in stark terms. “You’re not going to make Iraq safe for democracy,” the sergeant said. “You are going for one reason alone: oil. But you’re still going to go, because you signed a contract. And you’re going to go to bring your friends home.” Hoffman, who had his own doubts about the war, was relieved—he’d never expected to hear such a candid assessment from a superior. But it was only when he had been in Iraq for several months that the full meaning of the sergeant’s words began to sink in.

“The reasons for war were wrong,” he says. “They were lies. There were no WMDs. Al Qaeda was not there. And it was evident we couldn’t force democracy on people by force of arms.”

When he returned home and got his honorable discharge in August 2003, Hoffman says, he knew what he had to do next. “After being in Iraq and seeing what this war is, I realized that the only way to support our troops is to demand the withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq.” He cofounded a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and soon found himself emerging as one of the most visible members of a small but growing movement of soldiers who openly oppose the war in Iraq.

One thing I keep hearing from the experts is how the Iraq War isn't like the Viet Nam War.  In a way, I agree with that.

It's more like the Viet Nam War on crack with its finger super-glued to the fast-forward button.  How can this not eventually come back and bite us on the ass?

... there's an evil, shitstorm-loaded big fucking cloud.

So who does Bush pick for Ashcroft's replacement?  The guy who basically signed off on Abu Ghraib and dragged our country's name even further into the mud in the eyes of the rest of the world:

Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

The soldiers involved got jail time.  The Bush-crony lawyer who gave them the go-ahead gets a Cabinet position and a possible appointment to the Supreme Court.  Welcome to Bush's America.

And before somebody starts chiming in with how Gonzales hasn't been approved by Congress yet, let me remind you that while it was pretty clear that Ashcroft was the wrong guy for the job in 2000, Congress gave him a slight bollicking in the hearings, gave him the rubber stamp, and sent him along anyway.  And there were still plenty of Democrats in Congress then.

In a sure sign that even the darkest cloud has a silver lining, everybody's favorite trampler of civil rights, Attorney General John Ashcroft, handed in his resignation today.  Let me be one of the first voices among many to say "good riddance".

No word yet on whether the blue shower curtains will be removed from the statue of Justice in the lobby of DoJ HQ, or if the Bush Administration has decided to drop all pretense in its second term and simply channel the ghosts of J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy in Ashcroft's place.

Despite what you may read in this blog, I don't dwell 24/7 on the many faults of the Bush Administration.  I drive a long road during my workday, and many odd thoughts come to mind.

One of them was a question:  If I had to pick a song that best sums up my personality, which one would it be?

After some speculation (aided by the ongoing drone of the umpteenth car dealership radio commercial), I finally picked "Nothing But Flowers" by the Talking Heads.  It's a monologue from after the fall of civilization, when mankind is living in an arboreal paradise.  Our perspective character introduces us to this world, which sounds like the embodiment of every back-to-nature dream ever dreamed by any hippie.

Friend Narrator, voiced by David Byrne, hates every fucking second of it.

He wants "Pizza Huts, snowcones, and Seven-Elevens", capping off the song with a final anguished plea to the listener: "Don't leave me stranded here / I can't get used to this lifestyle."

And that's me one hundred percent.  I'd go nuts without my computer, without this 56kbps link to the world at large.  Put me in Eden and I'll be bashing my head against large rocks inside a week.  Forget putting me on Survivor.  I'll eat grubs and work the challenges all day long, but I can't stand the idea of missing the next PvP strip or the thought of my email piling up.

So I'll throw this one out to any visitors:  What song sums you up best?  And let's us keep it apolitical just this once, hmmm?

... let me remind you of something.

Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote was about 3%.  That's before the counting of thousands of provisional ballots.  In an election campaign, that's a squeaker, no doubt.  In a re-election campaign, it's a narrow escape and small accomplishment for a man who entered office riding the short end of the popular vote.  And in electoral votes, without Ohio in play, Kerry was only two points behind Bush.  If a re-election campaign is an evaluation of the performance of the incumbent (as I've heard tell over the long campaign), then Bush's victory is surely the most lackluster on record.

Oh, he'll take it, I'm sure.  So would I.  Just bear the above in mind when Fox News tries to spin this as another Reagan Landslide.

No, not us.  Hungary.

Coalition of the Willing to Catch the Next Bus Outta Here, I reckon.

My local police department sponsored a Golden Gloves program when I was a kid, located on the bottom floor of my former elementary school, then a community center after budget cuts.  I went there every chance I got.  I sucked on the speed bag - no championship belts in my future, alas - but I tell you, there's nothing better for a twelve-year-old boy than to work that heavy bag.  I slammed my fists deep into the heavy canvas, taking out the everyday frustrations of adolescence and driving them deep into the bag with every jab, hook, and uppercut.

To this day, Mike Tyson notwithstanding, I still think of boxing as a builder of character.  Its discipline, its science, and its art help form a core of determination in a person.  I strongly recommend it, in fact, to anyone, male or female, looking to find the sterner stuff hidden in their being (just remember to wear headgear and tape up your wrists, mmmkay?).

And in boxing I came to realize a simple maxim:  Give up or get up.  If you get knocked down, it comes down to that simple choice.  You can give up, roll over onto your back and let the ref count to ten, and that's that.  Fight over.  Shower up and go home, loser.

Or you can decide that you want it too badly.  You roll onto your stomach and gather your legs up under you.  You rise to your feet and raise your gloves.  You get up and get swinging.  If that son of a bitch across from you wants to win it all, he's gotta earn it.

Sure, we got knocked down today.  The neocons are dancing around the ring, thinking they've got it won.  But there are a lot more rounds left in this fight:  Midterm elections in 2006 (to revert Congress from its current likely role as the President's rubber stamp committee), another shot at the Presidency in '08.  All around the country, there are smaller battles taking place on the state and local levels over individual rights and education.  And, lest we forget, there's a war to oppose that won't linger long on page A2 now that the election is over.

I don't know about you, but I've got a lot more fight in me.  And make no bones about it:  I want this fight.  I love my country too much to just roll over and just listen to the ref count me out.  Too much is at stake.

So what'll it be, champ?

Give up or get up?

I cast my vote, along with the rest of the unprecedented 80% estimated number of registered voters in Arizona.  Nothing to do now but wait for the numbers to roll in.

And sleep on it.  Some of us have jobs, y'know.

I just hope that you younger Republi-blog gers are ready for the consequences in the event of a Bush win.  And that you like desert sunsets.

Me, I'm too old to be drafted, barring a "World War II" level of conscription, so self-preservation doesn't enter into the equation for me.

Either way, win or lose, this blog ain't going anywhere.  Whether it's to hammer home the I-told-you-so's as President Bush stumbles into a second term and further out of touch with reality, or to analyze the actions (and mistakes) of President Kerry, along with the inevitable attempts to nuke him by sore-loser Republicans, SDN soldiers on.

Deal.

So the election is tomorrow.  I've found my polling place, and I'm bringing a nice, thick book (Wicked by Gregory Maguire, fresh from the public library) in the event of a long line.

It should be clear by even a cursory scan of my blog which way I'm voting, but I'm feeling a need to sum up.  So here it is, my final analysis of many of the many ways in which Bush has dropped the ball in the last four years:

The "War on Terror" and Iraq:  Three thousand people dying in downtown Manhattan is a President's cue to leave no stone unturned, to move heaven and Earth, to get the bastards responsible.  That's as in, not diverting from the hunt for said bastards in order to settle old scores with somebody else.  Not lying to the American public in order to gain support for said settling.  Not saying we'll get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and then conveniently forgetting all about him to start a misadventure that's so far cost 1,100 American lives (and those of 100,000 Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire, if The Lancet's figures are accurate) with no end in sight.  In a sane world, this massive incompetence alone would rate impeachment.

The Economy:  Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs under his watch.  Also like Hoover, Bush places his faith in the magic of the free market to heal all ills.  Considering that the jobs lost were professional, and the jobs recovered since have been mostly of the "you want fries with those?" variety, it's nigh unto time for Bush to suffer Hoover's fate and be voted out in favor of Northeastern Democrat.

Health Care:  The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a single-payer health care system that provides health care for all of its citizens.  While John Kerry's plan will not address this matter as fully as I'd like, it's miles far and ahead of Bush's plan, which constitutes a "let them eat cake" approach that is the hallmark of a man who's never allowed himself to be among the working class any longer than he's felt that he's had to be.  Are you better off than you were four years ago?

The Courts:  Chief Justice Rehnquist's current bout with cancer has brought this matter into sharp focus.  The neoconservative wing of the Republican Party has sharpened its litmus tests for potential court nominees, and nominees for critical seats (federal appeals courts, possibly even the Supreme Court) are very likely to have no caring for the rights of labor, women, minorities, or any view that sharply contrasts with the neocon social agenda.  We're highly unlikely to see the likes of moderates like O'Connor or Ginsburg, or - God forbid! - a liberal like Souder, should Bush be granted a second term.  More likely, we'll get neocon cronies like Thomas, or Dick Cheney's duck-hunting buddy Scalia, both of whom jump when the Bush White House says, the only question offered in reply:  "How high?"  All five of the aforementioned Justices, by the way, were products of the Reagan/Bush I round of nominations, just to give you an idea how far the GOP has drifted into its ideological waters since then.

Global Alliances:  Americans love the image of the lone cowboy riding into town to take out the bad guys.  I'm a big fan of the Clint Eastwood westerns, myself.  But the real world ain't like that.  Anybody who rode off after the Clanton Gang by his lonesome got a massive hot lead infusion for his troubles.  That's why they started up posses.  Our posse happens to be Europe, among others, and most of the citizenry there, even in countries that are taking part in the mostly American "Coalition", are looking at this country like we've all gone crazy.  And maybe, after 9/11, we did, a little.  That's understandable.  But since then, that reservoir of goodwill that 9/11 brought America has been thoroughly flushed thanks to the Administration's rash and high-handed actions, treating long-established alliances with disdain and suspicion.  Bush's Manichean worldview will not allow for nuance or adjustement to any given situation.  His "do things my way or else" approach to our allies smacks more of the preschool sandbox than the Oval Office.  Even our closest allies in the world have begun to hold us at arm's length, as Bush becomes increasingly insecure and impossible to work with.

Attorney General John Ashcroft:  'Nuff said.

The Draft:  Bush insists that he will not re-institute the draft during his second term.  But the numbers, as always, speak against him.  Consider that we've been in Bosnia since 1995.  We're still there, keeping the peace, and Bosnia right now is not nearly the mess that Iraq is.  We've never taken a single casualty in Bosnia.  Contrast that with Iraq, with its near-constant reminders that the force there is undermanned and the US military overstretched.  More bodies are needed, especially if Bush tries to push the neocon vision further into other Middle Eastern countries.  So, unless we start seeing government subsidies for American farmers to start sowing dragon's teeth, where are we to assume that these bodies are coming from?

God knows that Bush has given us a lot more ropes than these with which to hang him (figuratively speaking), but these are my main concerns for the country right now.  I doubt that I've changed any minds with my ramblings, but it beats all hell out of staying quiet.

It's my favorite day of the year.  The jack-o-lanterns are carved, the candy is ready for any small goblins that come by tonight, and I'm generally looking forward to a spook-tacular evening (urgh... sorry about that; I've been listening to too many car dealership ads while on the road).

Also, I suspect that its proximity to Election Day is no coincidence.  A reminder from the Founding Fathers not to take ourselves to seriously, perhaps?

Ahhh, forget it.  Go forth.  Be safe.  Be scary.  Snarf candy.

Why, why, why isn't the fanatical mass-murdering motherfucker who killed 3,000 people either in jail awaiting trial or dead in a ditch outside of Tora Bora?

Why did Bush decide that is was sooooo goddamn important to take out Saddam and his fictional WMD's and let Osama go scot free?

Now the bastard's hale, hearty, making videos, and more than likely plotting some new goddamn atrocity because Bush and his gang of idiots turned away from Afghanistan to settle old scores and leave 9/11 unavenged.

Way to go, Mr. President.  Just the fact that Osama bin Laden is still free as a bird is the biggest indictment of your administration, proving that your talk of "strength and resolve" is just a lot of hot air for the benefit of the crowds at the stump speeches.

Tom Tomorrow rocks.

Today's assignment:  Click here, annnnnd... here.

Oh, and by the way, I'm honored today to bring you a message from the President of the United States, directed to anyone earning less than US$200,000 a year...

By vets, for vets.  The voice on the ground for the soldier.

Operation Truth

Now that Congress has had its flu shots, maybe they can get back to more important matters.  Like, say, offering their input on the fate of that platoon of Reservists who refused to go on a refueling mission in Iraq, citing lack of armor for their vehicles, among other reasons.

Just don't ask Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky.  It's not that his view of the matter is particularly extreme in one direction or the other.  Rather, it's simply the fact that he's never heard of them.

When reporters told him that the unit's refusal was a national news story and involved a soldier from Louisville, Bunning said, "Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."

Told that Fox News broadcast the report, Bunning said, "Not the times I watched it. So the fact that somebody was from Louisville, I know about that."

Interesting.  It seems that the Republican allergy to information isn't just for Presidents anymore.

Add to that the fact of the administration's official lack of concern over the theft of over 350 tons of explosives from the Al-Qaqaa facility 30 miles south of Baghdad some time after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's regime used Al-Qaqaa as a key part of its effort to build a nuclear bomb. Although the missing materials are conventional explosives known as HMX and RDX, the Vienna-based IAEA became involved because HMX is a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

Both are key components in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex, which are so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just a pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

Insurgents targeting coalition forces in Iraq have made widespread use of plastic explosives in a bloody spate of car bomb attacks. Officials were unable to link the missing explosives directly to the recent car bombings, but the revelations that they could have fallen into enemy hands caused a stir in the last week of the U.S. presidential campaign.

"These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons," senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said in a statement. "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration's first concern was whether the disappearance constituted a nuclear proliferation threat. He said it did not.

But they might have been used by a fledgling insurgency to build car bombs and roadside bombs, mightn't they, Scott?

Consider that terrorists have done a whole helluva lot more damage with conventional explosives over the years than with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and it would suggest that if there were a plan in place, there'd be a lot fewer victims of explosive devices coming home on crutches or in coffins.

Of course, if the Administration was thinking at all, we would have never diverted our attention from Al Qaeda in the first place to undertake this misadventure.

No, no, not me.  Sheesh.

I mean the man himself, the guy who was doing it weblog style when the internet was still the ARPAnet, the Godfather of Gonzo, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

And lo, he comes down from the mountain bearing red meat for you all:

I watch three or four frantic network-news bulletins about Iraq every day, and it is all just fraudulent Pentagon propaganda, the absolute opposite of what it says: u.s. transfers sovereignty to iraqi interim "government." Hot damn! Iraq is finally Free, and just in time for the election! It is a deliberate cowardly lie. We are no more giving power back to the Iraqi people than we are about to stop killing them.

Your neighbor's grandchildren will be fighting this stupid, greed-crazed Bush-family "war" against the whole Islamic world for the rest of their lives, if John Kerry is not elected to be the new President of the United States in November.

The question this year is not whether President Bush is acting more and more like the head of a fascist government but if the American people want it that way. That is what this election is all about. We are down to nut-cutting time, and millions of people are angry. They want a Regime Change.

Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd.

There's much, much more.  You owe it to your children and your children's children to read every last word.

Because I'm such a swell guy, I thought I'd give the other side a chance and give the Bush Administration response to the potentially damning revelation by Rev. Pat Robertson that I covered yesterday.

The response, as I heard it on the news this morning:  "It doesn't sound like something the President would say."

Stinging rebuttal, no?  Guess they can't rev up the Karl Rove Character Assassination Machine on Robertson without watching the election go down the toilet in its final days.  But still, they can mildly - very mildly - imply that Robertson is either a liar or that he simply misunderstood Bush.

But the truth is, smug, simpleminded assurances based on flawed instinct rather than insightful analysis sounds very much like the President.  And I'll prove it.

Here's a pop quiz:

Which one of these phrases sounds like something George W. Bush would not say?

A.  "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

B.  "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

C.  "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

D.  "Oh, my God.  What have I done?  I'm so, so sorry... all of those innocent civilians and brave American soldiers..." (starts sobbing uncontrollably)

Pencils down!  The correct answer was "D."  The rest are actual quotes from this site right here.  Check it out for a good laugh.  Or cry.  Or both.