SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (32378)10/27/2004 7:07:45 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 173976
 
Al Qaeda will be giving snaps if Bush wins.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (32378)10/27/2004 7:48:35 PM
From: James Calladine  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 173976
 
Clueless People Love Bush
Studies show Bush supporters are misled on Bush policies and the news

by Molly Ivins


Editors note: Last month, workingforchange ran a piece by comedian Will Durst entitled Stupid people love Bush. Unlike that piece -- which was satirical -- this piece is factual.

Oh, you sweet, innocent, carefree citizens in non-swing states. You have no idea how much fun and slime you are missing.

In the swingers, wolves stalk us mercilessly (as the pro-wolf lobby points out indignantly, no one has ever been killed by wolves on U.S. soil, but try arguing that in the face of the relentless new TV ad campaign). Breaking news everywhere -- 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq left unattended, stock market down to year's low, leading economic indicators down, more tragedy in Iraq, the Swift Boat Liars are back, more Halliburton scandal, George Tenet says the war in Iraq is "wrong" -- it feels like you're dodging meteorites here in the Final Days.

Actually, the best evidence suggests we need to slow way down and go way back, because far from being able to take in anything new, it turns out many of our fellow citizens, especially Bush supporters, are stuck like bugs in amber in some early misperceptions that have never been cleared up.

It seems the majority of Bush supporters, according to recent polls, still believe Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and even to 9-11, and that the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of you are asking how that could possibly be, since everybody knows...

But everybody doesn't know. There it is. And if you are wondering why everybody doesn't know, you can either blame it on the media, always a shrewd move, or take notice that the administration is STILL spreading this same misinformation.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have publicly acknowledged there is no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, as Dick Cheney campaigns, a standard part of his stump speech is the accusation that Saddam Hussein "had a relationship" with Al Qaeda or "has long-established ties to Al Qaeda." He makes this claim up to the present day. The 9-11 Commission, however, found that there was "no collaborative relationship" between the two.

Cheney, of course, also has never given up his touching faith that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, recently referring to a "nuclear" program that had in fact been abandoned shortly after the first Gulf War. Bush and Cheney misled the country into war using these two false premises, and it turns out an enormous number of our fellow citizens still believe both of them to be true. It's not because they're stupid, but because an administration they trust is still telling them both phony propositions are true.

Normally, when you get a situation like that -- where people are simply not acknowledging reality -- it is considered a cult, a form of groupthink based on irrational beliefs propagated by what is normally a charismatic leader. So those Kerry volunteers earnestly engaging Bush supporters on the latest outrage are way off base. They need to go all the way back to the Two Great Lies that got us into this: Many American soldiers marching into Iraq believed it was "payback for 9-11."

A third slightly blinding fact (to me) is that more people now think Kerry behaved shamefully in regards to Vietnam than did W. Bush. Incredible what brazen lying will do, isn't it?

A friend of Bush's dad got him into the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, a unit packed with the sons of the privileged trying to stay out of Vietnam, and he failed to complete his service there. Kerry is a genuine, bona fide war hero. The men who served on his boat are supporting him for president, but those who didn't serve with him, who weren't there, who don't know what happened, have been given more credence. Wolves will get you!

In further unhappy evidence of how ill-informed the American people are (blame the media), the Program on International Policy Attitudes found Bush supporters consistently ill-informed about Bush's stands on the issues (Kerry-ans, by contrast, are overwhelmingly right about his positions). Eighty-seven percent of Bush supporters think he favors putting labor and environmental standards into international trade agreements. Eighty percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning landmines. Seventy-six percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. Sixty-two percent believe Bush would participate in the International Criminal Court. Sixty-one percent believe Bush wants to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Fifty-three percent does not believe Bush is building a missile defense system, a.k.a. "Star Wars."

The only two Bush stands the majority of his supporters got right were on increasing defense spending and who should write the new Iraqi constitution.

Kerry supporters, by contrast, know their man on seven out of eight issues, with only 43 percent understanding he wants to keep defense spending the same but change how the money is spent, and 57 percent believing he wants to up it.

So what's going on here? I do not think Kerry people are smarter than Bush people, so why are they better-informed? Maybe a small percentage of ideological right-wingers don't believe anything the Establishment media say, but I don't think this is a matter of not believing what they hear, but of not hearing what's factual.

The great triumph of the political right in this country has been the creation of a network of alternative media. There are people who listen to Rush Limbaugh for more hours every day than the Branch Davidians listened to David Koresh. Watch Fox News, read The Washington Times -- hey, that's what the Bush administration does, according to its own words.

But it's not just the right-wing media purveying lies -- they are quoting the administration. These misimpressions come directly from the Bush administration, still, over and over.

commondreams.org



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (32378)10/27/2004 8:03:59 PM
From: James Calladine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Time's Up for Tom DeLay
By Evan Derkacz, AlterNet
Posted on October 27, 2004, Printed on October 27, 2004
alternet.org

"I am the federal government."

– Tom DeLay, responding to a government employee who tried to prevent him from smoking on government property. The New York Times, June 13, 2003

Think of Tom DeLay as that snotty, privileged kid on the playground. He's already gotten at least four strikes, blames the ump, threatens those who suggest he sit down, and then tells his friends that he hit a home run. Oh, and he's got all the candy.

Now imagine that kid as the House Majority Leader and head of a political action committee that distributes money and assistance to Republican incumbents and candidates – 241 out of 246 Republicans in the House to be exact.

The 10th term Republican from Sugarland, Texas – known as "The Hammer" for his vindictive politics – was served a subpoena last week and faces a forehead-slapping fourth letter of admonition next week from the bipartisan House Ethics Committee.

The latest has the committee investigating whether or not he illegally funneled corporate money into Texas statehouse races through TRMPAC, his political action committee. It just may be the one that sticks since, according to the Center for American Progress, "criminal indictments for alleged illegal fundraising have (already) been issued by a Texas grand jury against three of DeLay's cronies." One faces 99 years in the pokey.

You might expect a man with such a soiled record to be headed for certain defeat in his bid for an 11th term. But the powerful Texas Republican appeared to be coasting into the November 2 election – until recently.

Once, Twice, Three times a Defendant

DeLay's special relationship with congressional codes of conduct, and ethics in general, goes back quite a way. In a 1997 letter, the House Ethics Committee wrote that his actions "create(d) the impression that official access or action are linked with campaign contributions...."

Since that time the accumulated scandals, lawsuits, and rebukes have prompted even the typically staid press to make these rather forceful comments:

"He has used his power for self-aggrandizement... he has scoffed at the law, House rules and simple propriety. DeLay has abused his position and embarrassed the House." -Austin American-Statesman, 10/10/04

"(T)he man's got a problem.... It smacks of a pattern of abuse. Worse, it reveals a contempt for how the House should work." -Dallas Morning News, 10/12/04

Even the Chicago Tribune, fresh from endorsing Bush for president, wrote:

"[DeLay's] angry reaction to being admonished by his peers shows that DeLay is too arrogant to mend his ways." -Chicago Tribune, 10/11/04

If these critiques sound extreme, they can't touch his resume. DeLay recently had a banner week during which he received two letters of admonishment from the House Ethics Committee.

The first showcased his trademark contempt for the American political process. In order to ensure that he had enough votes to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, DeLay offered to endorse Republican Nick Smith's son in his race for Congress in exchange for the senior Smith's vote.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Like the head of a crime family, DeLay had others do his dirty work. In Smith's own words: "And they (Republicans in Congress) said, well, if you don't change your vote – this takes place at about 4 am on a Saturday morning – then some of us are going to work to make sure your son doesn't get to Congress." After he voted no and even though the bill did get enough "votes," the Chicago Sun-Times reported: "(Rep.) Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat." Unsurprisingly, his son went on to lose his bid for Congress.

The second was more of a blanket admonishment, encompassing as it did two separate events. Eyebrows were raised after DeLay attended a golf tournament with energy executives shortly after receiving $25,000 from them for "a seat at the table" and shortly before deliberating on an energy bill in which said executives had a vested interest. Sounds an awful lot like that 1997 committee criticism that DeLay gives the "impression" of trading money for influence.

Also included in that single admonishment was the illegal use of the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a group of Texas Democrats who had fled the state to protest DeLay's partisan redistricting plan. FAA officials reported afterward that they were led to believe that this action was ordered on behalf of the Congress as a whole.

In the wake of this round of admonishments the Republican chairman of the ethics committee, Joel Heffley, was threatened by Republican lawmakers. Though he refused to mention them by name, his comments were somewhat less discrete: "I've been attacked; I've been threatened," he told The Hill.

The list goes on. Lou Dubose, who co-authored "The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress," drew up what amounts to a rap sheet in a recent LA Weekly article for those who thrive on the gory details. Suffice it to say that DeLay's three reprimands since 1999 is, according to Dubose, "a distinction no other member of the House not currently in prison can claim."

DeLay's Demise

Given the priority of the presidential race for progressives, it's important to note just how many groups are simultaneously working toward DeLay's demise. Once considered unbeatable, recent polls show that repeated ethics violations, civil lawsuits, and increasingly firm and high profile criticism in the media are taking their toll.

It wasn't too long ago that people like blogger DailyKos, who calls DeLay "an all-around scumbag," were supporting the Majority Leader's dark horse opponent, Richard Morrison, simply as a tactic: "Morrison was a nobody. My hope was to simply force DeLay to campaign more in the district, thus keeping him from campaigning and fundraising for other Republicans. Now Morrison is a serious candidate with a legitimate chance to win."

Buoyed by recent polls, groups like Campaign for America's Future, Campaign Money Watch, and Howard Dean's Democracy for America have joined together to defeat DeLay. The groups are using a number of tactics to get the job done, including powerful TV ads, nationwide fundraising, and even a campaign to shame other Republicans into distancing themselves both politically and financially from the increasingly embattled congressman.

As a result it isn't nearly the long shot it once was. While the broad stroke wasn't especially promising as recently as early October, DeLay led 47% - 33%, it is important to recall that he typically receives around 60% of the vote.

A look at the poll's details further set the stage for an upset, however unlikely.

The most important secondary indicator of a candidate's strength is the favorable/unfavorable rating. Or, in English: Do more people love him or hate him? In this case while roughly 1 in 6 viewed DeLay "very favorably," a full 1 in 4 viewed him "very unfavorably." There were more who vehemently opposed his re-election than vigorously supported it.

But the most interesting statistic of all surrounds his ethics woes. While 34% said that they'd be less likely to vote for him as a result of his violations, this came from a poll that predated his most recent, and highly publicized subpoena. And, at the time of the poll, only half of those respondents supported Morrison – largely due to his lack of name recognition.

While there's little to suggest that Morrison's name is headed for your local marquee, the proliferation of organizations working against DeLay have increased the likelihood of an upset; enough at least to frighten the bejeezus out of the ultra-conservative Club For Growth, who have begun to throw money into pro-DeLay advertising.

Yet despite this last ditch effort to repair DeLay's Hemorrhaging public image it's beginning to look like the combined weight of the scandals and Democracy for America's TV ads are taking their toll. The latest poll shows DeLay's lead has been cut to 42% - 35% (under 50% for an incumbent typically spells doom).

But there's a final note of irony here. Due to the recent redistricting, for which DeLay lobbied so "passionately," and for which he faces a possible conviction, 30% of voters are new to DeLay's district. It's extremely difficult to predict which way they'll vote but if the ethical campaign watchdogs keep throwing strikes they may be sending this snotty kid back to the dugout.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: alternet.org