We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore

John Lum,

Hi. Baby can’t read coz the liberal Democrats left him behind. That’s why he had to become president so no one like him would be left behind.

[WARNING: Long!]

I want to commend everyone here for having maintained such a sharp focus on the line of argument coming from both sides of the political divide.

THE COMING ELECTION

Personally, I find that the choice in November may well be a painful one.  I view both candidates as basically decent men, but with limited vision in one respect or another.

I also find (I may not be alone) that the chief question haunting me, as I contemplate walking into the voting booth, is which man will be more effective at galvanizing all the democracies of the industrialized Free World into a proactive participation in every aspect of the struggle against Al Qaeda—in financial enforcement and prevention, in vigorous intelligence, in military participation, in diplomacy, in international law enforcement.

Some whom I’ve read elsewhere have surmised that Continental Europe views itself today as locked in some fatal, eternal competition with the U.S., economically and strategically etc.—where apparently what advantages the one must always(?) disadvantage the other.  _IF_ that’s true, the choice that U.S. voters face in November is a choice as to which candidate is better at _trumping_, through persuasion, European preoccupations of that kind.

Now, why is it so critical to inspire all other industrialized democracies around the world to see beyond such preoccupations? Because 9/11—IMO—began a World War, a World War in which Al Qaeda is not just declaring war against the United States but against all industrialized, free democracies where religious freedom and even secularism can exist side by side.

Unless the man chosen for President can successfully persuade each and every industrialized democracy that they each have a dog in this fight, Al Qaeda could win this war in only a few decades, IMHO.—At least win it in much of Europe anyway, if most of Europe continues to (effectively) pay lip service only to the gravity of this war. Continental Europe’s strictly pro forma stance, without proactive and close participation of the type I’ve described, ensures that Europe (where much of the 9/11 planning “went down”, after all, not just in Afghanistan) will only be more vulnerable to Al Qaeda than the U.S. would be, sooner rather than later.

Why should the world care about Europe? Because if too much of Europe becomes a de facto, if not literal, satellite of Al Qaeda by 2035 or so, the whole world could be back in (practically) another Cold War. And, lest anyone forget, the Cold War of the 20th century was hardly the bloodless thing its customary title implies. Thousands lost their lives between 1947 and 1989, not to mention the acute psychological cost it exacted of the world’s children.

I don’t necessarily view Europe’s possible fate a few decades from now as a cut-and-dried “conquest” as in the Anschluss of Austria, 1938.  But I do feel there may be certain state powers elsewhere in the world (probably a few in the Middle East to start with) who would be interested in exporting Al Qaeda, either financially or culturally.  And apathy in Continental Europe could result in generational transformations that amount to an alarming acceptance of social intolerance driven by ultra-fundamentalist forces associated with Al Qaeda and fellow travelers with deep pockets and resources.

And, BTW, I’m not unaware of the extent to which something similar might happen in the U.S. driven by ultra-fundamentalists of some altogether different religion.  Or in India, where yet another religion’s fundamentalists might exert a similarly unfortunate influence.

Ironic that the founders of certain religions have introduced the most profoundly other-oriented and selfless ethics known to humanity, yet some of the most thoughtless cruelties in history have been perpetrated by those who thought they were somehow following these selfless founders!

Today, Continental Europe’s _possible_ preoccupations with “besting” the U.S. in “civilian” arenas may or may not be part of the equation here, but if Al Qaeda threatens them even more directly than the U.S. ever would—and I happen to believe it does (though, admittedly, I don’t live there<G>)—only respectful persuasion can show Europe just how directly Al Qaeda threatens her, and show her (in a properly urgent and thoughtful way) _just_ _how_ _much_ Al Qaeda threatens her.

President Bush may have been effective in communicating the urgency of this war. But he’s also been given a chance to convey to other free nations this war’s sheer global reach as well. And in that latter effort, he has not yet succeeded to the same extent as he has in conveying the sheer urgency of the challenge, IMO.

One thing that hurt Bush, again IMO, was his ready (and, I believe, sincere, though careless) acceptance of murky intelligence from both Europe and the U.N. concerning Iraq. That sidetracked the whole globe from the overriding war with Al Qaeda, ultimately bringing the war with Al Qaeda to yet another front, Iraq, where it had not even been before.

Another thing that hurt him were glib remarks from others in his Administration, like the “Old Europe” wisecrack, which only exacerbated certain tendencies of “competition-thinking” that were already simmering inside Continental Europe as it was. Whether or not one agrees with the distinction concerning “Old Europe” (and there may even be a grain of truth in it, IMO), muzzling the wiseacres in Bush’s inner circle was critical at a time when we were cobbling together the most important alliance against tyranny, IMO, in over sixty years! Timing was simply ignored, and we lost our chance of firming up a truly global alliance, thanks to certain functionaries who—candidly—weren’t mature enough to keep their mouths shut.

Yes, the fact that Saddam Hussein, though not a part of the Al Qaeda war, was still snubbing the United Nations and the entire international community remained critical. That was what made it important that he be either scrutinized more intrusively or removed altogether.

Now that it appears Saddam may not have had time to reconstitute the deadly arsenal he used on his own people after all, the return of the inspections (due entirely to Bush, no question) should probably have been allowed freer rein and more time than Washington gave it. Since the international community _did_ finally recognize that they at least had a dog in _that_ fight, their sudden proactive stance on the renewed inspections (and they may have had more direct access to whatever intelligence there was on Saddam than Washington had) should probably have been encouraged rather than ignored by a (what turned out to be) precipitate invasion.

Washington’s failure to hold steady during renewed inspections was the third nail in the coffin that ultimately buried, for the time being, the world’s hopes of a genuinely global effort against Al Qaeda.

When it comes to Iraq, a timely, effective, truly international, and collegially respectful, effort, from around the free world and even from inside certain countries of the Middle East as well, would _probably_, IMO, have resulted in greater stability in a Saddam-free Iraq by now than what we see today.

Moreover, over the long haul, such an effort would have strengthened the global reach of the Free World’s alliance against Al Qaeda rather than weakened it. It would also have strengthened the hand of those engaged in cementing international sanctions against genocide and internationally recognized crimes generally, since Saddam _was_ an international outlaw and his removal _did_ serve as a salutary example to other tyrants elsewhere (vide Qadaffi today and his public abandonment of WMDs).

(Why the U.S. today continues to hang back from an International Court for precisely such crises is beyond me; and it might be worthwhile to expand the court’s reach to cover global maniacs like Osama Bin Laden, whom many of us would dearly like to see publicly in the dock [I happened to be personally acquainted with six of the people who died in New York in the massacre on 9/11].)

Is the situation hopeless today? Not yet, IMO. It could still be that Continental Europe might yet adopt a more proactive stance in the World War with Al Qaeda despite the sidelining of that effort by the premature invasion of Iraq.

But such a proactive stance can probably only be achieved by the most strenuous fence-mending from whoever is in the White House. Could Bush really pull that off by Election Day?

Or might Bush still be vindicated and the entire NATO alliance, and then some, be fully reconstituted, thanks to a last-minute discovery of a cache of brand-new, fully weaponized and assembled WMDs ready to be implemented on 45 minutes notice after all, the way Prime Minister Blair once claimed, and composed of ingredients that are clearly of a very recent vintage?

Any such scenarios or others like it may seem far-fetched to some (BTW, I think the capture of Bin Laden would no longer cement the alliance at this stage, since the alliance would still be put off by the premature invasion of an apparently WMD-less Iraq). Ultimately, if last-minute scenarios of such a kind are far-fetched, then, blunt as this may seem, the voter may have to ruthlessly assess the effectiveness of Bush’s leadership of the most important alliance since World War II (IMO) by how that alliance stands today, not how it may stand a few months from now. In making that assessment, the voter is faced with only two practical choices (IMO): Bush and Kerry.

I’ve taken far too long getting to this point, I realize. But I hope those with the patience to read through have now understood that, gloomy as this is, nothing, in my judgement, is more important to choosing in November than weighing the effectiveness of each candidate’s leadership in the war against Al Qaeda and their (possible) state sponsors—and in weighing the effectiveness with which either man might embolden all the democracies of the industrialized world to address, aggressively and proactively, this growing threat through an application of their strongest resources in all the many arenas, legal, military, civilian, etc., where this effort has to be waged.

I believe it important that a president be able to convey successfully a sense of urgency to all the other industrialized democracies. Much sacrifice may be needed in the coming decades, and everyone around the world will have to develop an honest and thorough understanding of just why the sacrifice is needed.  The president should not talk down to anyone, IMO, nor should s/he sugar-coat the gravity of what we face, IMO.

In weighing the effectiveness of the two candidates, I’m not much happier with Kerry than I am with Bush. True, Bush conveys the proper sense of urgency in this war. Kerry, so far, has not. OTOH, Kerry hasn’t shown such an unfortunate propensity for “blowing off” the rest of the industrialized Free World as Bush has, IMO. A wash?

Ultimately, each of us have to make our own personal judgement as to how sound the global effort against Al Qaeda is today. My own personal feeling is that the global effort is extremely rickety, thanks to the fissures among industrialized democracies today brought about by Bush’s carelessness, IMO. Because of that, I’m taking a very hard look at Kerry right now. He may be more intelligent in certain ways than Bush is. But is he also more effective? Sometimes the two things don’t go together. A measured approach may be welcome after some of the ill-considered things I imagine (IMHO) I have seen coming from Bush. But can a measured approach also encompass the sense of urgency that I feel should be intrinsic to any global coalition against Al Qaeda?

Right now, I find myself faulting Bush for not being sufficiently persuasive in rallying all the globe’s industrialized democracies around pluralism and freedom against the philosophical and cultural straight jacket that Al Qaeda represents.

But I also fault Kerry for _apparently_ lacking (he may have it in his gut, just not be good at conveying it) a sense of urgency generally, even though he may be better in the long term at rallying the entire Free World against Al Qaeda.

One could simply decide that Bush has had his chance to rouse the world against this overriding threat, and he’s only succeeded at antagonizing many, though bringing a small number abroad. Since I hardly view that as success, is it unwise to take a gamble on things being any different in a second Bush term? Perhaps that wouldn’t be too wise.  Who knows?

At the same time, I’d sure feel more comfortable with choosing Kerry (whom I admit I’m leaning slightly toward right now) if only he would be a little more willing to state head-on and state more often that the goals of Al Qaeda cripple the human spirit and are simply _wrong_, that the fight for freedom in World War II continues today at Bali, at Riyadh, at Madrid, in hallowed ground in Pennsylvania, at the Pentagon, at a gouged-out “killing field” where two towers stood....... Also, a forthright statement that the U.S. in the past has stood for freedom, religious and philosophical and political and social freedom, and that she is not so much free because she is great but great today because she has been free. That is what has made her a beacon in the past. She must rise to that level today in facing Al Qaeda. Something of that kind.

I would also want him to say flat-out that this War against Al Qaeda is the chief obligation of government today and that it is the world’s fight, not just Washington’s. Nothing is more important in the President’s job description today than galvanizing the entire Free World around the effort to overcome Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers’ joint threat to freedom of thought.

One point in the foregoing (concerning the fact that this is the _world’s_ fight) _is_ something I can imagine him saying, yes. But the rest? I wonder.

(It would also be great, IMHO, if he might say that Saddam’s atrocities were also the world’s business, not just Washington’s, and that it was therefore wrong not to wait out the inspections and ensure that any eventual invasion of Iraq would be unequivocally ratified by the entire Free World; yes, he’s _almost_ said something like that, but he’s never flat-out said that he regrets personally giving Bush the green light _before_ rather than _after_ the Free World climbed aboard.)

In this election, IMO, we are faced with a choice between two decent enough individuals, but neither appear to have both the inspirational capacities and the intellectual strengths of a Churchill or a Roosevelt. A shame. One candidate may incline somewhat more to the inspirational and the other more to the intellectual. But one needs both to lead the whole world freely. And, like it or not, that’s precisely what the President’s job description will be in the coming decades until (and unless) this war is won.

Dissatisfied as I may be in the flaws of each candidate, though, I agree with some that not voting at all is irresponsible.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

I simply feel that bringing Continental Europe on board—and proactively so—is key to the freedom of the world’s children and all our grandchildren and great grandchildren throughout this still-young century. Whatever preoccupations some may (correctly?) perceive in Europe’s attitude to any “strong” American leaders (a sense of competition rather than cooperation?), that in itself is no reason to simply ignore the serious obligations of a mutually respectful relationship altogether. That mutually respectful relationship may be all that stands between ultimate victory over Al Qaeda in the coming decades or a fatal standoff of a century or more, thanks to Europe’s possibly oblivious caving in.

I’m not naive enough to think that such “competition-thinking” in Continental Europe can be wished away with the wave of a wand, nor even to think that such “competition-thinking” may not be (partially) based on a realistic assessment of current relationships(!); but considerations of self-defense on the part of Continental Europe can be awakened effectively enough to counter such “competition-thinking” _if_ the right man in the White House is talking thoughtfully and urgently and persuasively enough at the right time to all of Europe and to the entire Free World.

So, who is that man who can “talk their language”? Right now, it looks to me like it _may_ be Kerry, even though there’s a very slight chance that dynamic could still shift by November.

I simply no longer feel that this war can be pursued effectively with the very few powers currently at our disposal in Iraq. Instead, all the democracies of the Free World, including all the democracies of Europe, need to be completely engaged, no exceptions, or this entire young century is lost.

Right now, all these democracies are _not_ engaged, and it is no exaggeration, IMO, to say that that stark fact is a tragedy.

Frankly, I still see a wholeheartedly engaged Europe as being key to any eventual victory over Al Qaeda.  IMO, unless _all_ of Europe’s democracies are 100% reconciled to the United States, I just don’t see Al Qaeda as ever being overcome in any decisive way.  I could be wrong in my perception.  I could be right.  Who knows?

This raises a number of interrelated questions:

1) Is it possible to successfully “win” the war against Al Qaeda without all of Europe proactively engaged at the same time in a way that it isn’t today, and without the U.S. and Europe working together in the closest and most amicable manner?

2) Is a President who can sober up Europe and be genuinely trusted by them the only way by which such a close working relationship, a serious one, can be generated?

3) If, for the sake of argument, a wholeheartedly engaged Europe isn’t key, after all, to a “victory” against Al Qaeda, what specific alternate scenario can we come up with instead by which this global threat (and I do believe it is a global one) can be overcome around the industrialized Free World?

4) If, OTOH, Continental Europe is key to “victory” after all, is there any other specific way, other than through a president whom Europe entirely trusts, by which Europe can become more enthusiastically proactive in the effort against this threat than they are today?

I know, to quote the comedian Gilda Radner, “You ask a lot of questions, Mister”;-).  But I’d be keenly interested in knowing how these articulate posters on both sides of the political divide might address this vexing tangle?  Please take it as a compliment to the shrewd remarks already posted here by others that they helped galvanize me into exploring so many of my own concerns in such depth.

And no, I don’t pretend to have any ready answers to these questions myself.

Ultimately, one essential question above all remains: _if_ Continental Europe’s wholehearted engagement in the effort against Al Qaeda is indeed key to overcoming the Al Qaeda threat after all, how then can Europe be persuaded of the urgency of proactively addressing this gathering threat _before_ it grows any worse, to forestall some even more horrible atrocity down the road?

That to me remains the most urgent concern of all.

Geoff

Truth, did I call you Brooks? Why yes, I did! So very sorry! Thanks for correcting me! So what did you think of last night’s speeches? Personally, having read some of the transcripts, I can see the appeal. To the gut anyway. There’s a lot of fear and confusion out there in America, and it’s pretty hard to get your arms around it when you’re working your ass off to support your family. This does not excuse leaders who fan the flames of fear in the populace, so don’t all the liberals pile on me. My point is that we need to try to understand the appeal here so we can speak with people about George Bush without making them feel even more insecure than they already do.

The article puts into words so eloquently the reality of what has happened under this administration.  The initials GOP stand for greed, graft, outsourcing, outlawing, power, politics, poisoning!  I believe that Abe Lincoln is spinning in his grave at what this country has become under the “republicans”!

Fear, Joanne.  The left stinks of it.  And well they should.  It is their vision with its neck on the chopping block.  Who are the terrorists anyway?  Totalitarians.  Who have American leftists supported for more than a century?  Totalitarians. 

The cells organized against us in the war on terror are the flag bearers of the left’s last hope.  They are what the left’s revolution has degenerated to in elemental form: murdering thugs without a shred of political legitimacy. 

With their dictatorial reach shrunk, they became more concentrated, more brutal, and more desperate.  The moderates left the movement for more rational pursuits.  Without their moderate veneer, the remaining hardcore of the movement gives us nothing but crazy fear-filled rhetoric.

But their xenophobic ranting doesn’t work so well out in the free fresh air of rational debate, not as well as it did in the cloistered cult halls where it would hold the faithful in check.  Now, it’s just pathetic paranoia spouted by narcissistic has beens.

There are not two realities, not two versions of truth, not in the aggregate anyway.  One political party raises itself up to meet head on the set of challenges presented by the new reality.  The other talks about fear, trepidation, pulling back, stepping lightly, closing up, and limiting contacts.  The left would have us not living up to our potential, but rather, living down to it. 

How dare they define down our expectations!  That’s just not a message I could give to a child, in good conscience.

Thank you, Garrison.  I have enjoyed your insight into the human mind and heart for years and continue to do so in this article.  You say the things many are afraid to say because of the amazing and deadly rancour of those in power and their brazen supporters.  It is not easy saying the truth, but God bless you for mind and your voice.

Reference to an earlier post--I don’t believe it’s possible to tell people what they need to know about Bush without worrying them.

Ref the long post--Saddam Hussein spent millions of the Iraqi treasury disposing of the WMD’s after 1991, as Scott Ritter, the CIA (twice), and other inspectors tried to tell us again and again on national tv and in essays.

Weeks before the war, which he knew he wouldn’t survive, the devilish dictator invited George Bush and the UN to send in PERMANENT, full-time inspectors. 

“Gee, I never heard that Saddam offered that.  It can’t possibly be true.” But it is.  Wonder why the corporations that control tour media were able to keep it off all but a couple of newscasts.

MSNBC, when it realized before the war that its hand-picked conservative weapons expert Butler was changing his stance, dropped him from on-air discussions. And one by one, the truth-telling voices (Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Benfield etc. disappeared from our television sets.

Pick up or order Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 about a country that filters information and distracts them with giant tv’s as it fights an unending war.  You’ll be startled at page after page of predictions that have come to pass in our country.

And the amazing thing is that Bradbury (still ticking) has many very conservative beliefs.  You’ll miss the predictions and his genius if you just rent the movie.  The book’s really short, and you’ll want to order a half dozen to share!

FAHRENHEIT 451

What does Garrison Keillor mean when he says: “This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics”? I thought he was a Republican.

Joanne - Actually, my wife and I just turned off the cable (why pay $60 a month for a bunch of JUNK?) and I didn’t do my marital duty and hook up the antennae in time.  I guess there’s always radio, huh? 

Anyway, I did read the text of Zell’s speech and I will say that I think it was a hell of a speech, and you are right, it did appeal to the gut.  And to be frank, I act on my gut more than I do “fact” because I just don’t trust ANY media outlets anymore.

I will depart from you on the whole “fanning the flames of fear” issue.  I just don’t feel like that has been the case.  I certainly haven’t been truly afraid (of terrorist attacks) since around December of 01.  Could the “terror alert system” be used as a manipulative tool of persuastion?  Absolutely - if it sounded all the time at Code Red.  But I don’t see that happening.

I do believe that (1) there is still a tremendous amount of danger with regard to terrorist threat and (2) that the pro-activeness of the current adminstration on the home front and abroad has kept us clear of at least some of that potential harm.

In response to Hussein’s offer of a PERMANENT FULL-TIME UN-monitored weapons inspector in Iraq, our President said it was “Too late.” I recall that was in December, about THREE MONTHS before the war.  Some of our ships had moved toward the Middle East, but it was far from too late.

How many good people who’ve lost a child in Iraq know how our President failed them?  “I don’t like to go to war,” he says. 

Riiight.

Okay, I’ve read most of the comments today and I’m still perplexed.  The nice puff piece Brooks wrote doesn’t explain how Bush is good for the US.  No, I don’t want some angry white man’s woes on how the so-called liberals ruined whatever they are accused of ruining - I’m tired of all the Republican cry baby antics and am immune to their ravings unless there is some logic presented.  Really, without name calling, if that is possible, explain why Bush should be re-elected?

L.C.
in K.C.

RE:  Really, without name calling, if that is possible, explain why Bush should be re-elected?

I have not a shadow of doubt that Bush’s first loyalty is to the best interests of America as measured by his devotion to the continuity of our culture, to our American values, and to our creative potential.  His leadership and administration have been instrumental in carrying us this far through one of the most difficult periods in our national history.  Though many denigrate him, he has taken hold of this fight that we are in and he is not going to rest until our enemies are vanquished.  It’s difficult to imagine what more one could reasonably expect of a man in his circumstances. 

On the other hand Kerry has run the gamut of loyalties.  He answers to a higher vision that sometimes puts America first, sometimes doesn’t.  It’s debatable whether that is OK for a senator, but there’s no doubt that uncertain loyalties would be a disaster for a wartime commander in chief.

Another indicator for me is the volume of anti-American rhetoric emanating from the left.  Beyond just hating Bush, they hate a whole gamut of our cultural features including themselves in many cases.  Fortunately, a majority of Americans will probably never give themselves over to the left’s nihilistic elitism.  While I encourage the left to exercise their free will and provide us with an abject example of how not to thrive if that’s what turns them on, I wouldn’t wish the syndrome upon anyone.

Apparently, truth no longer resides solely in Illinois (where I was born). It’s at least branched out to Minnesota.  Thank you, GK.  I agree completely. And thank you for writing this for the people

This is a dangerous time.  Four more years of this...and who knows—America as we knew it...as our WWII grandparents BUILT it...is over. This country was built by the people, and this is the election year to take it back.

And if Bush steals this election, too...from the people...I fear this great Republic may, too, perish from the Earth.

Thank you, Garrison. You say what you say so well! I so fear for Democracy, our Constitution, our American way of life, if this administration should have another four years tearing down what has stood strong for so many years. They are screwing us all, except their chosen few, without taking their pants off. I feel sadly violated, often, these days and have been fighting back by talking to folks, writing letters, signing petitions, making phone calls, and urging others to register to VOTE. What I think and feel, counts, and so will my vote if they don’t figure out some way to “Floridize” Oregon mail-in voting…

Re:Brooks

What you said is nicely put in the abstract but it remains unpersuasive because it contains no meat (no facts just assumptions) it is like reading a vegan version of a ham sandwich.  I am sure you can agree that American interests are multifaceted.  To say Bush’s first loyalty is “the best interests of America as measured by his devotion to the continuity of our culture, to our American values, and to our creative potential” is long winded and fine, but I must ask who’s America are you speaking of?  Surely his rhinestone cowboy way of doing things has alienated our business interest overseas, has weaken our trade, and isolated us in ways that date back prior to the Woodrow Wilson administration.  As someone who seems to think that America’s interests aren’t affected by a trillion dollar (and growing) deficit I would beg to differ - especially considering the overseas banks that are funding our debt.  The combination of large tax cuts and large governmental expenditures must be keeping Greenspan up late many a night.

You further state that he isn’t “going to rest until our enemies are vanquished.” Okay, that’s nice.  We can all agree that Bin Laden and associates do not hold America or Americans in high regard, but my question to you is why invade Iraq?  Afghanistan...yes, the regime prior to the U.S. lead invasion was harboring terrorists and their human rights record, particularly toward women, made Iraq look like Sweden.  But what do we, the majority of Americans, gain from invading Iraq?  Dead soldiers?  A huge deficit?  The evidence seems clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no immediate threat.  Was Saddam atroctous?  Yes.  Was he an immdiate threat to the U.S.?  No.  Are there countries that are currently harboring and/or funding terrorists groups whose goals are a 9-11 sequel.  You know the answer already.  And if I may add some of these nations control part of the American debt.  The ramifications of Iraq are that we have a major sinkhole in our military budget and resources; resources and money that we may very well need in the near future.  Not a good move for the our current President Select.

My philosophical concern about the so-called American right is how left winged they really are.  They seem fine about spending billions of dollars on Iraq in an almost altruistic way (Let’s build a democracy!) while allowing the American infrastructure to crumble.  The truth is, for me at least, is that I think it would be in America’s best interest to invest in the development of an alternative fuel (maybe something corn based? - that’s the Midwestern in me talking).  If we did that than we could say adios to the cares and concerns that make the Middle East such a fun place to invade!  Of course we would have to do this soon or too much of our economy will be controlled by oil based foreign interests (I’m not trying to be a Negative Nelly, but it might already be too late).

Why is it always assumed that the anti-Bush rhetoric comes from the left?  Hello buddy, I’m middle of the road!  The comment “nihilistic elitism” sounds very elitist (someone’s been to college) but it demonstrates what’s wrong with the right (I hope you don’t mind if I refer to the “American right” as the “American wrong” it just makes more sense) the American wrong Bogart American symbols as if originated with the John Birch society, whereas the American left seem to value more the defintions that give these symbols meaning. 

As for Kerry as a wartime Commander in Chief, all I can say is that he went to Vietnam and by going to Vietnam he definitely earned the right to question our presence there.  Nothing irates me more than to have war wimps like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and the rest of the “deferment brigade” talk about war when they themselves have never answered the call to duty.

Lastly, I would like to ask; What do Republicans have against McCain?

I’ll probably have to check out of this, as interesting as it is.  I think a lot of folks must have quite a bit more time at their disposal than I do!  One of the reasons is that I am a teacher (I was at school today from 8 a.m. till 8 p.m., in fact) so, Brooks, I definitely understand what it’s like.  But I am careful about laying too much of the blame for the state of public education on the federal gov’t.  It’s complicated, as I’m sure you know.

Joanne, I will certainly try to locate the video you and Barbara have talked about and will view it with an open mind.  Perhaps something will be revealed as it goes on that isn’t evident in the first moments after Mr. Bush has been informed, which is all I’ve seen.  To me, he looked exactly like someone who was stunned but wasn’t going to lose it and start running around like a chicken with his head cut off in front of a bunch of little kids.  But, I’ll be interested to see it.

As I said, I am a teacher.  (I also write a regular opinion column for the Wilmington (NC) “Star-News,” a NY Times subsidiary.  Some of those columns can be found at www.starnewsonline.com after clicking on “columnists” at the left side of the page, then scrolling down to my name--Shonosky)

Anyway, I teach U.S. History in high school, and I can safely say I am managing to discuss all of this with my students without trying to influence them.  We’ve been in school for almost 3 weeks now, and they keep asking me if I’m Republican or Democrat, if I’m supporting Bush or Kerry.  Obviously, they can’t tell. 

I merely challenge each opinion, make them do some research and have a reason, then explain to them what someone on the opposite side of the fence would respond with, so they have to think about things from both angles.

I also encourage them to pay attention to what people actually say--I am amazed by how often people imbue another’s comments with what they think that person “really” means, instead of paying close attention.  A minor example of this, Barbara, is your responding to my initial post and saying (to me) “You hate that people don’t [acknowledge that Bush has done at least something right].  I have no doubt it was unintentional, probably even unconscious, but to characterize anything I expressed with the word “hate” ends up being misleading.  It implies a level of emotion or antagonism that wasn’t there. 

If you go back and read the post, you’ll see it said that my reaction to the above was simply that I was “not too keen to support a party that seems to operate on emotion...” Nothing anywhere about hate.

This may seem like a minor thing, but it’s one of the reasons people who disagree end up finding it hard to have a dialogue.  Brooks, you needed to tell me that none of the programs you believe are valuable were started or aided by Bush.  That led me to think (and perhaps _I’m_ misinterpreting here) that you took my comment that it’s unreasonable to believe (as many Bush-haters seem to) that he hasn’t done even one single good thing, as a statement that he’s done _lots_ of good things!

All I’ve said, and I’m still saying it, is that blaming him for things that have been brewing for decades, through the administrations of both Republican and Democratic presidents, reflects either naive or uninformed thinking.  That doesn’t constitute a ringing endorsement.  As I said in my first post, there a lots of things about this administration I don’t like.

Directly related to that is my other point--that if people who want Kerry to be elected are serious about reaching undecided voters, they’d be smart to control the bile a bit.  Quite frankly, the people who hate Bush so passionately, who work themselves up to an almost rabid frenzy, seem pretty unbalanced.  I know every Kerry supporter isn’t like that, but a lot of the more visible ones are.  It’s a real turn-off to any message that might be there.

The protesters at the RNC make the Democratic Party look bad.  As I said in that initial post--their arrogance is mind-boggling, and I think it makes all the references to Bush’s and America’s “arrogance” look pretty darn hypocritical.

Got to go and settle in for Mr. Bush’s speech.  I made the decision (don’t know if it was good or bad) to completely boycott all convention proceedings (both R and D) and watch only the candidates’ speeches.

How great it would be if every single one of us made a commitment to be civil--no matter what choice anyone else made.  We should remember that no matter who wins, we’re in this together.

Peggy

Brooks, you really are off into the melodrama tonight. So intense, so like a prologue to a script for a movie about the Apocalypse. Ron Silver is available to star in your epic! But now, perhaps I’ll indulge a bit myself...so cathartic!

Look, I’ll grant you that on the face of it, based on a selective view of events of the past three years, you can legitimately say that Bush got dealt a poor hand. He came in on the heels of the technology bust in the markets, which started the tanking of the economy. He got the worst terrorist attack on our soil in history, which had a host of negative impacts on the economy. No reasonabe person does not recognize these major factors and the myriad of minor ones that every president has to deal with on a daily basis.

Once again: hard cheese. I’m not going to repeat all the solid information provided in many well thought out and clearly expressed posts herein that have expounded at length on the failures of this president to deal with the hand he was dealt. He has failed to seriously address ‘homeland’ security. He failed to even try to provide an honest rationale for the invasion of Iraq, and continues to lie to this day about the reasons for this unnecessary carnage. He has incompetent people working for him whom he fails to hold accountable for their inept job performance. He and his minions consider themselves above the law and civic decency, going so far as to mock those whose sense of duty and loyalty to country place them in the path of the Bush juggernaut. How many former administration officials have to tell you that the behavior of these people at the very least borders on criminality?

Bush talks a great line - I’ll give you that. He’s very passionate about compassion, but it’s just talk, no action. He doesn’t give a damn about the average American. He’s driving us into poverty in record numbers during a year when he’s trying to get elected! How do you think he’ll behave when he’s a lame duck? His brazen lying is taken for confusion or excused as ‘misspeaking’ or misinterpretation on the part of the audience. Nonsense. Look hard at Bush. He’s a man who has never taken a real risk in his life. At every single turn he’s been coddled and cosseted and bailed out of every jam he ever got himself into. In what sense is he decent? Kind? Compassionate?

Tell you what. If you really believe that nobody in the world is combatting terrorism more effectively than George Bush, you should vote for him. If you think the Europeans are a bunch of pussies, tell me how they stamped out the Bader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades. They know how to do this, but Bush dismisses them with a wave of his hand. He doesn’t need anybody, and he always knows better because God told him so. If you’re falling for that line you’re so far down I can’t begin to reach you.

Bush has people in this country so damn scared, and no it’s not the liberals who are wetting their pants. It’s the Republicans. The moderate wing is having sleepless nights worrying about the ballooning debts being run up by blank-check Dick and his Halliburton no-bidders, and they know perfectly well that we don’t even have proper airport security THREE YEARS after 9-11. They know their fearless leader is a fraud. The radical right wing Christians are quaking with excitement over all this because they believe this is the end times, that the Rapture is coming just as soon as they can get Bush to get Sharon to rebuild the temple so Christ can come back. I almost hope they’re right because my credit card bills are piling up.

Liberals are sad and angry about the erosion of civil rights, the supremacy of the liars and fakes in the media, and yes, they are afraid of Bush. They’re not afraid of Republicans, nor are they afraid to roll up their sleeves and clean up after them AGAIN. They fear the insanity of this rogue element that has comandeered our country. Normal, hard-working people are asking each other, what next? They’re looking ahead and seeing that America is being hijacked by a small group of very determined people with a very dark image of the world, other nations, and the future. And they’re getting mad. Which is, on the whole, a good thing.

In the immortal words of Pogo: We have seen the enemy, and it is us.

Vote. And take the advice of Republicans and vote with an absentee ballot. Volunteer to be a poll watcher or do exit polls. Guard this precious right with everything you have. Don’t let the hijackers take over. Remember, it was only 19 men with box cutters on 9/11. Don’t you think if the passengers on those planes could have seen or imagined their fate, they would all have done whatever it took to turn them away from New York? One group knew and they acted effectively to prevent a larger tragedy than their own deaths.  You’re not being asked to put your life on the line here. You’re being asked to read, discuss and think hard about your choices. If you can’t be bothered, or you’ve already made up your mind to vote for George Bush...well, that’s a shame in more ways than one.

Peggy--This NC teacher--elementary, high school, and university--didn’t recommend a video.  It was a book:

“Fahrenheit 451” by
Ray Bradbury

It’s being filmed for the third time, but if you see only a movie, you’ll miss the uncanny predictions and genius of Bradbury.  And if you have a bit of conservatism, as I do, you’ll enjoy the conservative ideas underlying the story.

You can order it by phone from the Waldenbooks in your town if they’ve run out of copies.  Regardless of any party affiliation, you’ll want to pass copies on to friends. 

An important read for history teachers, this book would kick off any number of discussions among your students.  You may be afraid that parents could confuse this book with Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It could happen; I guess only you can guage your ability to handle such a mistake.  For what it’s worth, Bradbury considered a lawsuit for the use of his title.  But a continuing belief in its message as well as book sales and the new movie contract put the kibbutz on that.

For a busy lady, it’s a very short read.

Cheers for yor efforts to be air in the classroom.  May your good angels smile on you.

Recently, I was discussing the current situation in the US with a German friend in Hamburg. Both of us, the same age, are children of WWII veterans. We both have great fears that what happened in Germany will happen in America. The seeds are here and were planted long before George W. Bush became president.
There is a growing meanness, hatefulness, arrogance in a large portion of the American public that has put Bush, et al, in a position of power. The fault lies in ourselves. We’ve allowed this to happen.
Garrison, thank you for speaking for us with your marvelous eloquence. We need you. Don’t ever stop.

Jesus people, you all realize that it doesn’t matter how much you type and bitch, u can’t change a single thing that is going on.  Quit blaming, quit bitching, and quit looking 30 years in the past which doesn’t have a damn thing to do with how they should be perceived as a candidate.  Between marriages, kerry slept in his car for christ sakes.  Then of course, he married a ketchup bottle.

It just sucks to see everyone bashing on each other.  I just hope the rumors of another big attack arent true.  I’ve heard al-gay-da has purchased a few nuclear briefcase’s from the Russian Mofia.  Scary.

I’m too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt, so sexy it hurts!

Yes I’m still here, practicing my theme song with my underwear on my head (sorry Joanna, it’s like I can’t stop!), celebrating a convention that blew the DNC’s out of the water.  Heard word that there’s already 2-4 points out of it.  Rrepeating my prediction:  10-15 point bounce on a full-tilt boogie for freedom and justice!

I wish everybody could have the faith in humanity I do.  We’re going to be okay no matter who wins.

Truth:  You haven’t seen me in a while, I’ve really let myself go.  Think Elvis after the 1968 Vegas comeback and before he started wearing the rhinestone suits, somewhere in there.

There’s no shame in voting for the current administration or in letting go of the fear from the left.  Good grief.  The country is being run by people who are preparing us for the rapture???  Take a break from your talking points and get some fresh air.  Consider going back on your meds or getting off them as the case may be.  You lefties really need to reconnect with objective reality and come back to our side of the looking glass. 

Let go of the fears, the conspiracies, the economics-is-the-root-of-all-causes thinking, your certainty about the future, of determinism, nihilism, self-loathing, self-cultural-loathing, and let go of your preconceptions about economic and political subjects.

Let ‘em all go.  You’ve got these things all catawampus and you’re going to need to reboot the system and start over, get your heads into the moment, into the here and now, and focus on just perceiving things accurately for awhile before working back up to advanced concepts. 

Going off half-cocked was never intended to be a lifestyle. The adage, “when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging” applies.  So quit digging already.  Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.  You’ll find a whole world of people waiting for you when you decide to take control and stop the madness.

Brooks, why do you keep talking when your aren’t saying anything?  Your last post was so full of hatred and name calling that by the time you got around to your point, no one cared.

I had no idea who Grover Norquist was until I read Keillor’s fine prose.  So, in cometh Google, producing the following easy-read pro- and con- articles about him.

Thanks for the forum.

http://www.atr.org/aboutatr/ggnbio.html
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/grover_norquist.htm

The official platform of the Texas Republican party, 2004. This is Bush’s compassionate conservativsm at its best…

Christian Nation – The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history. Our nation was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. The Party affirms freedom of religion, and rejects efforts of courts and secular activists who seek to remove and deny such a rich heritage from our public lives.

Religious Institutions – The Party acknowledges that the church is a God–ordained institution with a sphere of authority separate from that of civil government; thus, churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including home Bible study groups, seminaries and similar institutions should not be regulated, controlled, or taxed by any level of civil government, including the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from governmental interference.

U.S. Department of Education – The Federal Government has no constitutional jurisdiction over education. We call for the abolition of the U. S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency.

Federal Tax Reform – Federal tax reform is required and any reform should support free enterprise, economic growth, be simple and fair and support job retention in the United States. The Internal Revenue Service is unacceptable to U. S. taxpayers! The Party urges that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed. We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated.

Minimum Wage – The Party believes the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market.

Government Services – The Party supports privatization of most government services. Public funds should not be used to fund or implement any private projects such as high–speed rail, sports stadiums or space exploration.

Faith-Based Charities – The Party opposes any restrictions by the IRS or any other government rules on taxpayer contributions to faith-based charities. The Party supports new incentives to encourage more faith-based charitable contributions from all U.S. taxpayers, corporate and individual.

Support of the Domestic Energy Industry – Recognizing the importance of energy to the national security of the United States of America, the foundation of our National Energy Strategy must be a competitive domestic oil and gas industry. Federal tax and regulatory policies are destroying the independent sector of this industry. Regulation and rulemaking must be done on a cooperative, rather than an adversarial basis, preserving jobs and the economy while promoting environmental preservation. The Party encourages the Congress to: 1. repeal all provisions of the alternative minimum tax that treat intangible drilling costs as a tax preference item; 2. repeal the crude oil and gas severance and production taxes to help stimulate the Texas economy and enhance Texas production; 3. stop the promulgation of unnecessary environmental legislation or regulation that causes domestic oil production to be economically not feasible or disrespects private property rights; 4. support technological development of environmentally safe uses of coal and biomass for our national energy needs; and 5. promote all forms of domestic energy.

United Nations – The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations. We will:
1. support legislation similar to “The American Sovereignty Preservation Act”, which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the UN;
2. demand that Congress ratify no more, and rescind any existing treaties that compromise the United States Constitution;
3. support immediate recall of our military forces from UN initiated engagements, and restore them to their traditional mission of defending the liberty and freedom of the people of the United States of America;
4. support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating, “a treaty that conflicts with any provisions of the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect”;
5. urge our Texas Senators to unalterably oppose any agreement or treaty that seeks to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), make the United States a participatory party to such a court; recognize the jurisdiction of such a court within the United States or upon any native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and
6. demand a full audit and disclosure of the Iraqi Food for Oil program.

We oppose:
1. UN control of any United States land or natural resources;
2. the use of Presidential Executive Orders to implement UN treaties, thereby circumventing our elected Congress;
3. any attempt by the federal government, or the UN, to directly or indirectly tax United States citizens for UN support;
4. a UN resolution that would force the United States to adopt gun control measures by treaty;
5. the placement of the UN flag and emblem on public property or in government facilities;
6. payment of any debt allegedly owed to the UN;
7. Any attempt to grant veto power over the sovereignty of the United States to set national defense priorities, wage effective war, and negotiate peace in terms favorable to our vital interests; and
8. Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation.

http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf

It’s very early in the morning and I don’t remember who said don’t worry so much about what happened 30 years ago,look to the now or the future.I paraphrased that. It is a truism that if you forget history you are bound to repeat your mistakes. Ed P.

I write like this while taking my shower every morning.

Fat Ant’ny:  You haven’t seen me in a while either.  I’ve been taking too many people out to lunch and wife has been making too many pies and cookies.  I think it’s a ploy by her to keep women away from me.  As long as she keeps me 60 pounds overweight, no woman will be attracted to me.

How about W’s speech?!  I have to admit that when he began, I had a little bit of trepidation, but he just nailed it.  I have faith in humanity too, FT.  That goes for Joanne and even Bernie Mac.

Franks: B-.
Williams: A.  good solid stuff.
Martinez: B. he kinda lost steam
Pataki: A.  infintely better than expected
Bush: A.  very proud of him.

Barbara is *definitely* hotter than Jenna.

Now on to the issues....oh, screw the issues.  I’m not going to change anyone’s mind.  Four more years!

Thanks for the article Garrison.  I might even listen to your show again someday.  But I still think your monologues sound like you’re trying to grunt out a big turd in the Pope’s bathroom.

Just a couple of thoughts...First, no one graduates with an MBA from Harvard without being somewhat “bookish.” I would think with your literary talent you would recognize that.  As far as the Southern Baptist thing goes, I guess if I was Muslim or some other religious group out of mainstream America (which I’m totally for religious freedom for ALL Americans), the ACLU would have jumped on that comment and come to my rescue. Isn’t it interesting that mainstream Christians are NEVER defended by the ACLU?  Finally, God is not a Republican or a Democrat. But use your head, folks.  How in the world could anyone with a conscience be in favor of ANY party that condones abortion.  You can’t keep your head in the sand on that one.  It’s barbaric.  Even if I didn’t believe in God, I would be opposed to that grizzly practice.  So, no, I don’t understand how anybody could be a Democrat with the present party platform. And the Democrats of earlier generations would roll over in their graves if they knew what their party had become.

Dr. Ken Parker

Nice, Truth.  Do you write e-mails to your mother with that prose?

One more question; why are so many Bush supporters so crude? 

L.C.
in K.C.

Having recently relocated to a Republican stronghold county and battleground state, I have never felt more alone as a liberal Democrat.  Garrison, you help me stay focused on my convictions and remind me that I am - figuratively, not literally - on the “right” side of this political battle.

I’m a 20-year fan and listener of PHC and can’t wait until your show goes live this fall...I can only imagine the depth of your monologues and humor of your skits - in context of the upcoming election.
GARRISON “WEILER” FOR PRESIDENT!

Many thanks to crazyass for putting up the Texas platform. Brooks and his crowd can repudiate that til the cows come home, but Texas is where the Republicans incubate their big ideas. There they are for all to see. They’re proud of this document. Now y’all go read the national party platform and see where we’re being asked to go.

Tony, you have as usual ended your piece with a gem. I too have faith in humanity and the common sense and decency of the majority of people in this country. After all, a slim majority recognized in 2000 that Bush was not qualified for the job. They have not changed their minds about that, and they’re working hard to get those non-voters who now have incontrovertibe proof of that to the polls in November.

This also to Jill - when you get out and volunteer for a candidate (Kerry in my case) you will find that the coffee is on. Bush is losing the support of moderates in my community, which is historically very Republican. Hence his appeal to churches for their directories and other odious campaign practices. If he was confident in his message, his programs, his policies and his past performance it would not be necessary to go to the Vatican and beg the Pope to use his pulpit to support him. Put your fears aside and join the many members of your community who are not afraid to speak out against this insanity and the creeping degradation of our political life. We need you. Join us, please.

Now I’m off to an Edwards rally. My job today is to provide a counterbalance to the Bush-supporting hecklers who show up at every Kerry/Edwards event. Have you seen them? They’re the ones with the red faces and mouths wide open. Unfortunately, brains are not always engaged. Think Zell Miller.

Cheers - and keep on talking!

Having recently relocated to a Republican stronghold county and battleground state, I have never felt more alone as a liberal Democrat. Garrison, you help me stay focused on my convictions and remind me that I am - figuratively, not literally - on the “right” side of this political battle.

I’m a 20-year fan and listener of PHC and can’t wait until your show goes live this fall...I can only imagine the depth of your monologues and humor of your skits - in context of the upcoming election.

GARRISON “WEILER” FOR PRESIDENT!

Maybe we should follow Zell’s answer to public discourse, a duel!
The RNC platform is one scary bitch and the bullying Bush “supporters” aren’t going to change voters minds through fear tactics.
The Democratic ticket is the only option to this republican madness and the democratic party is no bastion of lefties.  The democratic ticket is by far more mainstream.
Good luck people, don’t let anybody intimidate your thinking because the majority is more reasonable than a few twisted loudmouths.

KC LC,

Thanks for asking, but actually I write emails to my mom in rhymed couplets.  Makes it more challenging.  The she can rap them back to me when we see each other, my dad in the background hitting the beat box for her:

“Yo, ma, you read that Prairie Home Guy?
Seem like his humor be a little bit dry.
But, yo, that’s ok, he ain’t always that whack,
It just that when he decide to write, he need to lay off that crack.”

For a 64-year-old man, my dad can really rock that box.

Crude?  I think it has someting to do with the fact that we are evolved from apes.  Did you Democrats evolve from something a little more refined?  Do tell…

it’s a hard rain’s gonna fall indeed if we do not stop this imposition on our rights, lives, and country.  TAKE. IT. ALL. BACK.  take it back from them by booting W--that puppet, that smiling lap dog, of the rich and the reactionary--out of his office.  everyone who reads this is a voter, i would bet, so PLEASE take your voice and a few voter registration forms out to underserved and ignored communities.  when the poor and the punks and the immigrants and the activits vote (hear me now, any of you activits who do not vote: no politician EVER counted meetings and marches like he (or maybe even she) counts votes and money) WE CAN WIN.  we must win, because i cannot think of what i will do if we lose.

OK! Everyone! This is wonderful stuff, but mostly preaching to the choir.  Now it is time to take action!  Get everyone you know to vote!

I watched the Republican “Convention” all week.  I am sickened by their hatefulness, smugness, fear-mongering, deception, deflection, and pandering. 

That said, I think Keillor could have written a similarly-toned tirade against the Democrats for their hatefulness, smugness, fear-mongering, deception, deflection, and pandering.

I worry about November 3rd.

To John sKerry...way to go guy...do you kiss your loved ones (should there be any) with that mouth!?  Don’t for the love of GOD, let intelligence of vocabulary infect your arguments...then we wouldn’t be able to easily sight you as a BUSH SUPPORTER! 

To those who think that a “change”, if it has to be Kerry, might not be that important this year.  Let me give you three words to tremble over:  SUPREME COURT RETIREMENTS.....

The title of the post on the Texas Republican Platform should have read, “5% of the official platform of the Texas Republican Party, 2004.”

The portions of the platform presented explain much more about the party who selected the excerpts than they do about the character of the entire platform.  Below is a list of the rest of the issues that the platform opposes (at least where the language “we oppose” is used) and you can see it that it represents a much broader and more balanced set of issues.  Only 5% of the language in the platform was selected by crazyass to represent the whole.  Moreover, the majority of the platform contains affirmative planks.  One gets an entirely different view of things by reading the entire platform.

It is, sadly, quite typical of the left to extract only the small portion of the whole sufficient to support its preconceived bias.  In many years of observing them I cannot say whether this is due to cognitive dissonance and they only perceive a few trees out of the forest, or if it is due to intentional malice. 

RE:  http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf

[W]e oppose any attempt to introduce direct democracy (Initiative & Referendum) into our state constitution, thereby bypassing the legislative process and the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government

We oppose the creation of a federal identification card for United States citizens or the use of state driver licenses as a national identification card

We oppose any form of blanket or general reparation based upon discriminatory criteria. We support affirmative action as originally defined by the Party as equal opportunity for all citizens.

We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to taxpayers and voters.

We oppose passage of any international treaty that overrides United States sovereignty, including the Kyoto Agreement and the Biodiversity Treaty.

We oppose the vast acquisition of Texas land by government agencies solely for the purpose of protecting endangered species.

We oppose the Endangered Species Act.

We oppose the enforcement of and call for the repeal of Section 5(1) of the Judicial Code of Conduct that has been interpreted as calling for judges to refrain from exercising their freedom of speech, freedom of association, or freedom of religion.

We oppose any amendments to the Administrative Procedures and Texas Register Act or any other laws, regulations, and rules that unreasonably limit ordinary citizen input.

We oppose judges abusing their constitutional authority by usurping jurisdiction organic to the States, assuming for themselves the legislative powers, or basing decisions on jurisprudence emanating from jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution and laws.

We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose the use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.

We oppose Texas prisoners having access to private or confidential information of any citizen of the State of Texas.

[W]e oppose actions of social agencies to classify traditional methods of discipline as child abuse.

We oppose the movement toward the legalization of illicit drugs.

We oppose the availability of entitlement benefits based on addictive behaviors.

We oppose any “needle exchange” or “bleach kit” programs.

We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married.

We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services.

We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped.

We oppose school–based clinics and/or youth impact centers located at, sponsored by, or funded by any state agency or public school district, whether or not they dispense condoms and contraceptives or refer, aid, or advise minors to have abortions.

We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption of children by homosexuals.

[W]e oppose any further legalization, government facilitation, or financial guarantees relating to any type of gambling including casino, riverboat, video lottery terminals (VLTs), slot machine, video keno, eight-liners, multi-state lotteries, and other games of chance.

[W]e oppose any efforts to remove vitamins and other nutritional supplements from public sale.

We oppose the needle exchange and bleach kit programs.

We oppose any medical record computer database or registry that would store personal identifiable records on citizens without their written consent.

We oppose consolidation of local school districts into “super districts.”

We oppose programs that advocate or legitimize pre-marital sexual activity, advocate condoms and birth control use by unmarried minors, advocate abortions, and condone homosexual, bisexual, and transgender acts and/or lifestyles, and elevate minors’ rights to make sexual and health care decisions equivalent to their parents.

We oppose the use of any materials from Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S (SIECUS).

We oppose ideologically enforced political correctness in the institutions of American society that eliminate the free expression of ideas.

We oppose mandatory career training.

We oppose medical clinics located on school property and their provision of healthcare to students without parental consent.

We oppose the abusive use of class action lawsuits.

We oppose lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers whose products or property have been misused.

We oppose the federalization and militarization of local police forces.

We oppose relinquishing United States supremacy to any foreign powers on United States soil.

We oppose the unrestrained use of foreign aid.

I used to think Garrison Keillor was a clever writer.  How wrong I was.  If he in fact wrote this, I am sorely disappointed.  The author simply regurgitates the same tired old stereotypes and slander that pass as “thought” among hate-America Liberals.  What a pity.

Facts?  We don’t need to show you no stinkin’ facts!  Why refute an argument with facts when you can call the people you don’t like names?  “[H]airy-backed swamp developers”?  “Newt’s evil spawn”?  “[A] dull and suspicious man”?  “Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians”?  Hey Garrison: you forgot “stinky butt heads!”

I do agree with Keillor on one thing: rich ironies abound.  The party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy has slid so far to the left that Marx, Lennin, and Stalin would feel at home.  Political correctness.  Campus Speech codes.  Hate crime.  The party that was once the home of progressive thinkers is now the party of groupthink and doublethink.  How very sad.

A friend asked me to refute the article but there is nothing to refute.  You can only refute facts.  Keillor’s screed is nothing but a collection of ad hominem attacks strung together.

It is a real pity that someone so talented would put something so petty and hollow out under his name.  Mr. Keillor, it’s time to leave Manhattan and return to your middle-America roots.

It would be funny if the joke wasn’t on us........

Actually JMAC, Lenin, and Stalin would be more at home in the GOP because their tactics used to attack their opposition were and are much the same.  There is a bully element to the “American Wrong” that seems at home using propaganda instead of facts.  Really, if the Democrats were as sophisticated at the more radical elements of the RNC in name-calling then Bush would lose for sure.

P.S.
You can’t refute Keillor’s piece because YOU don’t have the facts.

Shame on you, Garrison!  Back in the 1970’s when we would listen to you daily on early morning MN radio, you were worth listening to.  But, that was before you screwed up your own personal life, made drastic changes in your previously funny, heart-warming, down-to-earth “Prairie Home Companion” and made 180 degree turns into the national personality you are today.  Public figures who think of themselves as journalists have a responsibility to report fair, unbiased facts (something that now ALL of Public Radio has totally abandoned) - you, sir, are taking advantage of your public access to large numbers of people to express your very unfair, very un-funny, misguided ideas.  Again - for shame!

Wow! Clever feller, that Keller. Establish credibility by praising bygone Republicans like Lincoln and Eisenhower (and even Nixon???) and then bang the GOP over the head with Bush, et al. If Kaiser knew anything about history he would be aware that Lincoln was hated and loathed by the Dims and Ike was held in contempt as nothing more that a doting old grandfather type that was elected president as a reward for his military service. Nice try Kingfish, but you hated the GOP then and you hate the GOP now.

On the other hand, I guess it is OK to elect a “cherry picking” Vietnam vet that wants to boast about one semester in Vietnam and ignore all the harm he did to the men suffering and dying when he testified to lies before the Congress............ with “anger”!!

Please Kilroy, tell us about the Democratic Party filled with “anger” that turned their back on the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1958 and 1964 and left it to the Republican Party to see to it that the laws passed.

Tell us about the Democratic Party that took us into a war ("help any friend, oppose any foe") without leadership, that cost 58,000 American dead, and for what????  NOTHING. No human freedoms gained. No dictators removed. Nothing! Natta!

Tell us about the “anger” of a Democratic Party that then turned on itself and brought the nation to the brink of anarchy, and then, abandoning its historical principals, made a hard turn to the left disappearing into the bottomless pit of a European style socialism which has never known anything but “anger”

Yeah, Killer, you know all about “anger”, you article drips with it.

Spvs

Well hi there Dr. Ken Parker.
Democrats ,Republicans whatever!
To paraphrase-The ACLU never defends mainstream christians.I’ve noticed that the ACLU never defends WHITE MALES either(This is not a racist or sexist remark).
I see that you don’t condone abortion.I also notice that your way of dealing with excess population is the old fashioned way ,WAR.You,it would seem don’t care for womens rights.Judging by the fact that you don’t see a point that a woman should have some rights when it comes to her body and health.As for abortion being a grizzly practice.You are confused.Abortion used to be a grizzly practice when women used to have to use blunt trauma,chemical overdoses,and the ever popular coat hook method of abortion. Don’t get all holier than thou doctor when it is ok to walk into a country and kill a few thousand people for perpetuation of power and it is not ok to limit the human population by clinical means.What’s the difference,doctor? Or maybe,you are in favor of limiting the human population by another method of the Bush party, lack of health care,or pollution of air,food,and water sources.Ed P.

Dear Spiver,

Speaking of Vietnam (my memory is a blank) could you please tell me about the participation of Cheney and Bush in that conflict?

L.C.
in K.C.

P.S.
Could you tame your anger a bit too?  Apparently that IKE thing still irks you.

Spiver,

Just a quick note for you to please check your facts before you pen something. You are totally incorrect about the start of Viet Nam as I have already addressed this issue earlier like maybe Sunday so try to read all the posts.

The stated American policy in regards to Viet Nam never once attempted to proclaim a solution to winning the war. It was about the containment of Communisn and you know what? For 25 years it worked. Too bad you missed all those classes on American History and World History in your youth. 

If I remember correctly didn’t Ronnie Regan also pass away a short time ago and if I also am correct wasn’t his name and policies a big part of last nights speeches?

Please also Spiver I am the only one here that you may correctly refer to as Killer and if you will read the earlier posts you may discover why.

If you ask politely I may even tell you what I saw and participate in during my war experience but you will have to figure ou a way to be polite and respectful the way others posting here have been. If you can’t then I suggest we all just ignore your little tirades and the nonsense you spew because you are obiviously too challanged to learn.

Hey Ruth S..If you think that G.K. is a turncoat or is wrong in his article,or wrong to espouse his views in this forum.You are not paying attention to the numbers of people here that by a vast majority agree with what he has said.Ed P.

Spiver you are an idiot. If people like John Kerry had not worked to end the Viet Nam war then maybe by your reckoning there would have been thousands more deaths as the war lingered on because panty waste babies like you would not and did not have the equipment to get up and say stop.
All that shit happened in Nam that Kerry said and much worse. So git yer gun cowboy and git yer ass over to Iraq or shut the fuck up.

I apologise to all my fellow Vets and everyone else for my crude language but I can’t stand to be preached to by the likes of that kind of shallow, narrow-minded, no-nothing.

Actually, L.C., Stalin WAS at home in the Democratic party.  FDR called him “Old Joe” and Truman said that Stalin was a man he could work with.  FDR’s VP Henry Wallace left the Democratic party in 1944 and ran for president in ’48, endorsed by the Communist Party USA.  The Venona papers, declassified in 1995 (by a Democrat), proved that Stalin had paid agents in senior positions in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.  But don’t let me contaminate your little world with “facts” that I don’t have.  It’s called history - look it up some time.

“A bully element to the ‘American Wrong’”?  How droll.  Thank goodness there are no bullies on the “anti-American Left.” If there was they might invent political correctness, campus speech codes, hate crimes, and divisive multiculturalism.  Please remind me: how many protestors snuck into the Democratic Convention to disrupt the speeches?  For a Liberal to condemn Republican “bullies” is stupendous hypocrisy.

“if the Democrats were as sophisticated at the more radical elements of the RNC in name-calling”

Pardon me, but did you actually read Garrison Keillor’s article?  Hairy-backed swamp developers?  Freelance racists?  Tax cheats?  Aggressive dorks?  What were you saying about RNC name calling?  Give me a break!  Please name ONE equivalent to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 coming from the RNC.  This year the Left wins the name-calling prize hands down.

So, with my eyes wide open and in full possession of my faculties all the while suspecting that this is an act of purist optimism, likely futile, I respond:

There are far too many fallacies to detail individually so I’ll pick a few typical examples.

If one was to erase all of the ad hominem attacks, about half of the article is gone.  To wit:

“hairy-backed swamp developers … faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks…” etc.

Pretty much the entire third paragraph.  The only “fact” established by this is that Garrison Keillor is skilled at name-calling.  Ad hominem attacks are a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

“…says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP.” (Norquist is an extremist.  Not unlike Michael Moore or George Soros.  The difference is that Norquist doesn’t make propaganda movies or donate millions to far-Left PACs.  If Keillor damns the entire Republican party because of one extremist, the Democratic party is toast, right?  No?  Double standard anyone?)

It’s appears that Garrison Keillor swallowed Michael Moore’s “Full-Of-Hate 911” Kool-Aid by the bucket.  Again, too many to list but here are a few representative samples:

“the single greatest failure of national defense in our history” (So Osama would have been a shiny happy person if Gore had won?  And to whom does this failure belong?  To Bush who was in office for eight months or to Clinton who was in office for eight years before 9/11/01?  As the 9/11 Commission Report shows, Al Qaida was planning 9/11 long before Bush became president.  Leave to a Leftie to act as if time began the day Bush was sworn into office.)

“tax cuts for the well-fixed” (Standard, divisive, Liberal class-warfare.  And false.  Bush’s tax cuts are across the board.  Heaven forbid that those who pay more get a tax cut.  Spend a little time at the IRS’ web site if you want to see who really pays the most in taxes.)

“a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent” (Do you suppose Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya find the U.S. Government “impotent”?  And despite the higher deficit, Congress doesn’t seem to have any trouble finding billions and billions for pork barrel spending.  Visit the CAGW.org web site and see the “Pig Book” for this year’s tabulation of wasteful spending.)

“a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction” (Garrison, please put down Michael Moore’s talking points and think for yourself!  This is getting embarrassing.  The kind of Groupthink you project on Bush is only common among Liberals.  Bush doesn’t have that kind of power.)

“sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation” (Which the entire free world believed when Bill Clinton was in office.  Let’s see.  Clinton is President: Saddam has WMD.  Bush is President: Saddam has no WMD.  I guess war is only right if a Democrat is president.)

“a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth” (There’s that good old class-warfare again.  By the way, has anyone taken a look at Hillary Clinton’s book deal?  Talk about transfer of wealth!  What about Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing?  It is amazing how viciously the Left will accuse people of doing the very things they do.)

“The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few” (Keillor needs to get out of Manhattan and spend some time among the people he claims to love.  The average American is better off today than anyone else on earth.  Home ownership is the US is higher than it’s ever been.  The facts simply do not support his “concentration of wealth” nonsense.  But I all good Socialists are required to parrot the party line.)

“Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever.” (Keillor must have attended the Democratic Convention.)

“It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision.” (A good lie never dies.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court could not arbitrarily ignore federal election law.  To quote the ruling, “Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.” The New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN spent a year looking into the recount and concluded that Bush won by a narrow margin in Florida.  Now will the “Sore Loserman” people please give it up and “Move On”?)

“This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.” (This near the end of a vitriolic diatribe attacking Republicans and their “Etch-A-Sketch president”?  Perhaps Keillor should try taking a little of his own advice.)

“It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.” (Contrast this with earlier references to the 2000 election.  Sorry Garrison.  For Liberals, winning is life.  They will do and say anything to win.  The end justifies the means.)

I could go on but that’s all I care to make time for.  I doubt L.C. or others lined up at the Liberal Kool-Aid tub will be convinced but perhaps someone reasonable might read this and see Garrison Keillor’s mean-spirited and dishonest rant for what it is.

Dr. Parker,
As an adoptee I am particularly thankful that abortion was not legal when I was born.  My adopted sister is too.

Greetings, all you old-timers and new bloggers on this site. It is encouraging to see that this thread continues and that the pace of comments is accelerating. It is also encouraging to find so many new intelligent and tolerant Kerry-supporters checking in to balance to non-stop bile and misplaced arrogance that these “what, me worry” Bushists keep spewing.

Before I chip in with some comments in response to my favorite group of old-time Cro-publicans, I want to apologize to the democracy (and to all right-wing bloggers on this thread) for the two sets of protestors who interrupted Duh-bya’s acceptance speech last night. Those tactics were inappropriate and very counter-productive. And since the Bushist goons have made a practice of showing up and interrupting Kerry’s speeches throughout this campaign, you’ll have to forgive me if I wonder whether those protestors were right-wing frat boys and girls engaging in a little grr-rilla tactics. But if they were really on our side (our “Lick Bush in 2004” contingent is growing by the minute), their behavior was inappropriate and stupid. Stop acting like spoiled children, folks—let’s leave that behavior to our honorable (sic) opponents. 

Now to catch up: Today’s Washington Post was filled with interesting and informative articles that I’m excerpting below. The most important article (for truth-loving Americans who—as Pleasantly Plump Tony has confessed—do not include Repub-libans) is this one (it should be read in its entirety):

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions
By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57627-2004Sep2.html?referrer=emai il

Here are a few excerpts from the rest:

George Bush, No Fastball From the Mound
By Tom Shales: “… The Republicans clearly have the right idea about modernizing and streamlining conventions for 21st-century media. It’s a truism to say the conventions are just infomercials now. The question is which party produces the best infomercial and makes the best use of television. Does an effective presentation automatically involve shading and twisting the truth, or can truth actually be a part of the show?.... Where the Republican convention seemed to fall disgracefully short was in paying proper tribute to Ronald Reagan, whose name is invoked at every opportunity but who seemed to get very little in the way of passionate posthumous tribute. Maybe the Republicans feared that too much homage would only serve to remind viewers that Reagan is gone, and that if it isn’t mentioned, people will be lulled into thinking he’s still around.
Reagan could have beaten John Kerry with one hand tied behind him. George W. Bush will need both hands and lots of additional help besides....”

Bush Tries Again With Financial Proposals
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post: “....President Bush last night promised major changes in American society’s most basic pillars: its health care system, pension plans, tax code and workplaces.... And he offered an idea that had been proposed by Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards: targeted tax breaks for geographical areas hit hard by difficult economic times. But some of Bush’s proposals, including revisions to the Social Security system and new types of ‘lifetime savings accounts,’ have been gathering dust for years. Some daunting barriers stand between the president and what he has dubbed his ‘ownership society,’ including a record budget deficit and rancorous partisanship in Washington.
Revising the Social Security system to give younger Americans the option of investing part of their tax contribution would be the most dramatic piece of his second-term domestic agenda. ‘We must strengthen Social Security by allowing young workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account,’ Bush said in his prepared speech, ‘a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.’ But Bush pledged to seek adoption of that proposal four years ago, and so far it has gone nowhere because of strong political resistance.
Bush’s plan to create personal investment accounts to augment the existing system would require the diversion of some Social Security payroll taxes that otherwise would have gone to existing retirees and other beneficiaries. Given his promise not to cut those benefits, that diversion will have to be made up, probably through borrowing that would only add enormously to the government’s $4.3 trillion public debt.
‘This whole Bush idea of individual accounts may be being sold as a way to move toward solvency, but in and of itself it only hurts Social Security solvency,’ said Kenneth S. Apfel, who served as Social Security commissioner in the Clinton administration. The other controversial piece of the president’s ‘ownership’ agenda is a two-year-old proposal to create lifetime savings accounts, which would allow every American to save as much as $7,500 a year and shield investment returns from that savings from taxation. A family of four could save up to $30,000 a year, a figure out of reach for all but the richest Americans.” (What a surprise!)

Bribery Considered, Halliburton Notes Suggest
By Robert O’Harrow Jr., Washington Post: “An internal Halliburton Co. investigation has uncovered handwritten notes suggesting that former employees considered offering bribes to Nigerian officials a decade ago to secure work in a $5 billion project to build a natural gas liquefaction plant.... Vice President Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive at the time .... The Nigerian bribery probe is one of several investigations being conducted into Halliburton’s global work, including allegations that it overcharged the U.S. government on large logistical contracts in Kuwait and Iraq.” (It looks like Cheney graduated from “bribe and steal” to “borrow and steal” pretty effortlessly, hasn’t he? I guess he learned a lot early in life while he was side-stepping his military obligations, while Kerry was too precoccupied dodging bullets in Vietnam to learn the finer art of engorgement while attaching yourself leech-like to the front tits of governments here and abroad.)

Zell Miller, the GOP’s Grim Speaker
By Mark Leibovich, Washington Post: “....The book-signing (oh, yes, ole Zell has a book!) took place in a part of the Hilton designated the Grand Old Marketplace, an area in which vendors sold, among other things, Bush-Cheney T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, salsas, umbrellas and John Kerry flip-flops (actual rubber shoes). It’s no surprise that the people in line to see Miller loved his speech. Many told him he was a ‘great patriot.’ No one here complained about the tone of Miller’s speech, which some said was too harsh. ‘This man gave a fantastic speech and it’s funny that the Democrats try to portray it as mean,’ says book-buyer Stewart Larra, a convention volunteer from New York. (It wasn’t only Democrats: Sen. John McCain criticized the speech, telling NBC’s Tom Brokaw that he didn’t agree with ‘the assertion that the Democrats are unpatriotic,’ and conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan said Miller’s speech ‘added whole universes to the word crude.’) (Zell Miller, the penultimate flip-flopper and poster boy for the need for serious stem-cell research). 

Now