October 5th, 2004
If one is really offended about the contemporary notion/misconception that devout Christians are somehow aligned with the “conservative right-wing” and with the Republican party, then, one should direct one’s ire against the leadership of the Republican party and its public mouth pieces (i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the 700 club, the Christian Coalition, and others).
Unfortunately, the Republican party has mounted a blatant and concerted effort to court born-again Evangelical Christians, and have thereby equated being “Christian” with being aligned with the Republican party (and, rightly or wrongly, with the conservative right-wing). By way of example, about a month ago the Republican National Committee (RNC) urged Evangelical pastors to actively recruit members of their congregation for the Republican party and, too, the RNC requested that pastors forward to the party contact information on their congregation. By making such a self-serving request, the RNC actually placed the churches that responded in jeopardy; because those churches could’ve have lost their (557) tax-exempt status with the IRS — whereby non-profit, including religious organizations, receive certain tax benefits as long as they don’t directly advocate for a political party.
Again, if there’s anyone that should rightfully be the recipient of one’s ire for exploiting and mischaracterizing people of the Christian faith, its the Republican party and its cohorts. In the first presidential debate, for example, Mr. Bush resorted to his religious crutch once again. In his closing statement Mr. Bush clearly invoked biblical imagery when he uttered:
Bush: We’ve climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it’s a valley of peace.
Once again, if there’s anyone to blame for the contemporary notion that devout “Christians” are somehow aligned with a particular party, it’s the Republican party and those that do not stand up for their faith’s core values: tolerance, love of neighbor, charity and forgiveness.
October 4th, 2004
Faux News just can’t help it self. The Republican bias of Faux News is so blatant that its reporters almost trip over themselves trying to tow the Republican party line. This is precisely the reason why Faux News has had to apologize for the second time this week for going public with what were clearly bogus anti-Kerry items.
The “Communist for Kerry” group first came to my attention when several bloggers noted that a news item on the Faux News website mentioned the parody group as a legitimate organization supporting the Democratic candidate. Of course, by now the news item has been rectified to reflect that the organization is bogus, and the following was added to the online article:
Editor’s Note:
In a version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry group was portrayed as an organization that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com’s reporter asked the group’s representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. The Communists for Kerry group is, in fact, a parody organization.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134268,00.html
October 4th, 2004
Here are just two glaring examples of Republican dirty tricks by two self-described Republican organizations:
1. Some have desperately tried to make the link between “communists” and Mr. Bush’s opponent. Hmmm, I wonder where such ridiculous and caricaturist allegations could’ve sprung from? Oh, let me guess, how about from the minds of Republicans:
The group behind “Communists for Kerry” ( http://www.communistsforkerry.com/ ) is a Republican organization called the Hellgate Republican Club. Incredibly enough, the Hellgate Republican Club ( http://www.hellgate.org/disclaimer/ ) has the gall to call itself a “non-partisan” organization.
2. Clearly Mr. Nader was a factor in the 2000 election. Not daring to leave anything to chance in 2004, Mr. Bush’s supporters want to give their candidate every possible advantage — given how little faith many of them actually have on Mr. Bush. Accordingly, just as Republican organizations have done elsewhere, the Michigan Republican Party worked to get Mr. Nader 40,000 signatures to try to place him that state’s ballot:
“The Michigan Republican Party submitted more than 40,000 signatures last week in a bid to get independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the state’s November ballot.” [ July 19, 2004 ]
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jul18.html
These are just two examples. I wonder what else our good friends at the GOP have in stored for the American public — an “October Surprise,” perhaps!?
Let the guessing games begin… perhaps Osama Bin Ladin will emerge from his hiding place in the caves of Tora Bora… or from the mountain ranges of Pakistan… who knows.
October 4th, 2004
As noted earlier, though Mr. Bush singled Poland as a member of the coalition that’s now in Iraq, it appears that Poland is a reluctant member of that coalition. Again, as noted earlier, Poland’s president, Alexander Kwasniewski, has been quoted as saying: “They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.”
And now, Mr. Kwasniewski is making it clear that the Polish force will begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq as early as January, with the hopes of full withdrawal by the end of 2005:
“Polish troops will start to withdraw from Iraq in the New Year and all will be out by the end of 2005, the country’s president has promised.” [ Oct. 4, 2004 ]
October 1st, 2004
Mr. Bush’s entire platform can be condensed to these bumper sticker slogans: “strong,” “steadfast,” “resolute,” “keeping our word,” “never waver,” “stay on the offensive,” “lead,” “we cannot send mixed messages.” Yet, aside from the immediate and superficial impact of these slogans, Mr. Bush’s rhetoric is completely empty.
However, when asked to go beyond the five second sound-bytes, Mr. Bush cannot even begin to outline why we’re in Iraq (First it was WMDs; then it was, Saddam is a bad man; this then became, We’re bringing freedom to the Iraqi people; and now, Mr. Bush simply says, We can’t leave because we have to be resolute.); Mr. Bush can’t even begin to outline why we cannot afford the security measures we so desperately need (i.e., shipment container security, more FBI personnel, etc.), simply because he squandered the largest surpluses our nation had seen when his massive tax-giveaways were enacted. I ask, when in history has a nation passed tax-giveaways when at war? War, after all, is precisely the time when a nation must rely on the treasury to finance the war effort. (I’m speaking of an actual “hot” war, as this president reminds us by anointing himself a “war time president.”)
Last night’s presidential debate crystallized John Eisenhower’s, son of President Eisenhower (Republican), endorsement of Mr. Kerry for me. Here’s what Mr. Eisenhower wrote in his endorsement:
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
[...]
“The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar.”
[...]
“In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.”
—————————————
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
