Editorial Archives
Four More Years of Darkness: Election Theft 2004
November 3, 2004
On December 12, 2000 the United States of America went into the proverbial toilet when George W. Bush—by way of massive voter fraud and an illegal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court—stole the presidential election from the rightful winner, Vice President Al Gore. On November 3, 2004 somebody flushed that toilet.
The concession of Democratic opponent John Kerry in the most closely contested race since that awful day nearly four years ago marks the beginning of America’s death throes. In four years, Bush has slashed taxes for the super-wealthy and increased government waste spending creating record deficits; overseen the loss of millions of jobs to foreign countries; ignored security threats, leading to the worst terrorist attack on American soil in this nation’s history; failed to capture or kill the man chiefly responsible for planning and financing said attack and in fact allowed him to escape; used the attacks of September 11, 2001 as a political tool to pursue a war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq—a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11; bungled the occupation of Iraq to the point where civil war there now seems imminent, by under funding and under manning the operation; allowed Medicare and Social Security to be plundered to pay for the massive tax giveaway to the rich; under funded his own education initiatives; rolled back environmental regulations; rolled back checks on food safety; ignored the Israel/Palestinian war and essentially given a green light to Ariel Sharon to wage an unchecked war of aggression against Palestinians. The list goes on for miles in every direction.
And the worst is yet to come. Because Bush failed to pursue Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader has been allowed to rebuild his terrorist organization in the three years since the invasion of Afghanistan—another failure that one, for the country which harbored bin Laden and his henchmen was never really secured and the Bush-installed puppet government wields little power outside the capital city of Kabul. Opium and heroin production, for decades the chief produce and export of Afghan warlords, is at its highest levels thanks to the Bush “administration’s” failure to deal with that problem. Two invaded, occupied and completely failed states are now breeding grounds for terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment. All in three short years.
When, not if, the next terrorist attack occurs on Bush's watch, neocons will have no one to blame but themselves and George W. No Bill Clinton on whom to place blame, only this sick and evil regime called the Bush "administration." And mark my words; there will be another attack on America. Bush has done absolutely nothing to secure our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, cargo holds or borders in the last three years since 9/11/01. And there is nothing to indicate that he'll do it in the next four. No, all Bush is focused on is plundering Iraq of its oil—and push his agenda to rape and murder America through an all too willing, Republican-controlled Congress.
Bush will let another attack happen on his watch. Whether it comes from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which he allowed to get away scott-free, or from the next disillusioned Iraq war veteran, it will happen. And the aftermath will be devastating. The U.S. went into the crapper on that dark day in December 2000. This week, Bush & Co. flushed the toilet. And as always happens whenever George W. gets his grubby, thieving little cloven hooves on something—destroying it utterly—it will be left to the rest of us, the true patriots, to clean up the mess.
This is no longer the America I grew up in. It stopped being our country four years ago and now the final shreds of illusion, the last vestiges of self-delusion that we are not an empire, not a plutocracy, shall be stripped away. We the People must not take this lying down. More to come in the following weeks and months.
November 6, 2004
Even as the exit polls were showing John Kerry winning the 2004 election among young voters, women and minorities, evidence of voter disenfranchisement was already becoming sickeningly apparent. After the massive voter fraud committed by the Bush campaign in 2000 which stole the election from the rightful winner, Vice President Al Gore, it was a given that the same scenario would be played out once more in key battleground states.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11504.pdf
A number of Congresspeople have urged the Government Accountability Office to look into instances of voter disenfranchisement at the polls on election night. According to the PDF link shown above this is what occurred:
- In Columbus, Ohio, an electronic voting system gave [George W.] Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes. "Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes" Associated Press, November 5
- An electronic tally of a South Florida gambling ballot initiative failed to record thousands of votes. "South Florida OKs Slot Machines Proposal," Id
- In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots could hold more data than it did. "Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes" Id
- In San Francisco, a glitch occurred with voting machines software that resulted in some votes being left uncounted. Id
- In Florida, there was a substantial drop off in Democratic votes in proportion to voter registration in counties utilizing optical scan machines that was apparently not present in counties using other mechanisms. http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm
- The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has received numerous reports from Youngstown, Ohio that voters who attempted to cast a vote for John Kerry on electronic voting machines saw that their votes were instead recorded as votes for George W. Bush. In South Florida, Congressman Wexler's staff received numerous reports from voters in Palm Beach, Broward and Dade Counties that they attempted to select John Kerry but George Bush appeared on the screen. CNN has reported that a dozen voters in six states, particularly Democrats in Florida, reported similar problems. This was among over one thousand other such problems recorded. "Touchscreen Voting Problems Reported," Associated Press, November 5.
And this is not even close to being all of it. Most of these instances took place in areas where the population was largely comprised of minorities--who statistically vote Democrat in elections.
It should be clear by now that George W. Bush has stolen yet another presidential election, this time with help from Diebold--the company that made the electronic voting machines and has been a heavy contributor to the Bush campaign. And once again, it appears as though neither the media nor Democrats are willing to challenge any of this. The national media MUST report on this crime, which amounts to treason against the United States of America, and assist Democrats in both houses of Congress in challenging the result and refusing to certify it until a full and proper investigation and recount headed by the U.N. can be performed. No democracy can survive when elections are stolen by those whose sole purpose is to obtain absolute power at any cost.
Forget about partisanship, forget about calling this "sour grapes" or "sore loseritis," this is no longer about partisanship. This is about preserving the most basic and fundamental tenet of our nation--the right to freely choose our government. There is an oath sworn by our military to defend our country "Against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." But this oath does not apply solely to our Armed Forces. It applies to ALL Americans. George W. Bush cannot be allowed to get away with this. Not again. We MUST stand up and prevent him from continuing the destruction of our great democracy.
June 7, 2004
So former president Ronald Reagan has died. Among the policies he will be most remembered for are that he "tripled the national debt to $3 trillion;" "authorized secret arms sales to Iran while seeking Iranian aid to gain release of American hostages held in Lebanon" (and then lied shamelessly about it before Congress), and used the money from those arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras in South America; and cut and run from Lebanon after "a Shiite terrorist drove a truck loaded with explosives into the...U.S. barracks at the Beirut airport." That attack killed 239 Marines.
The Reagan years saw inflation begin its exponential rise due to massive government growth and spending, causing the cost of living to rise. The inflation rate between January 1981 and December 1988 was 38.51%. Compare that with the inflation rate under Bill Clinton, which was 22.02% (January 1993-December 2000). The cost of living is calulated as follows: $35,000 in 1980 translates into $50,248.79 by 1988 when Reagan left office.
As governor of California, Reagan dismantled the state's mental health system, turning many people in desperate need of care out onto the streets to join the ranks of the homeless population. In short, he was the blueprint for modern day Neo-Conservatitism, the epitome of phony "compassionate" conservatism.
Despite his disastrous foreign, domestic and economic policies Reagan is now being mourned as a hero by many, especially in conservative circles. Indeed, he is credited with hastening the fall of the Soviet Union, even though it had already been steadily collapsing under the weight of its own failed policies. But Reagan's actions as president must be held in context, with the truth continuing to be told about his policies and their effects, which we still feel today. Reagan was not a hero in any sense of the word, and history should not remember him as such. That is a harsh truth for some to hear, but then the truth is not usually pleasant.
As Theodore Roosevelt, a truly great man, once said, "Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
We would all do well to remember that, particularly about the likes of Ronald Reagan.
June 16, 2004
The panel investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States has concluded that there were no credible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. As reported by CNN, 'The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.'
The White House nevertheless continued to stand by its assertion that there were credible ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
This latest development in the 9/11 investigation should come as no surprise. Even before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, allegations of links proved to be tenuous at best, as well as allegations of WMDs that threatened the U.S. And the Bush administration's lack of honesty and openness with both Congress and the American people have done little, if anything, to solidify such allegations.
To date, no arsenal of unconventional weapons has been found in Iraq despite administration claims that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed one. Further revelations, such as those by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, have solidified the notion that the administration cherry-picked raw intelligence in its quest to find justification for invading Iraq, ignoring any and all evidence which contradicted the data.
As of now, presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry has yet to fully capitalize on the recent string of scandals plaguing the Bush administration. So far he has not had to, because so far Bush has been running more against himself than his opponent. But sooner or later Kerry will need to address this and other issues related to Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. George W. Bush misled Congress and the American people, and that includes the senator from Massachussetts.
If Kerry fails to take advantage of the 9/11 panel's findings on Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, he will lose a vital opportunity to expose his opponent's dishonesty in leading America into the wrong war at the wrong time.
July 6, 2004
John Kerry has formally announced his running mate for the presidential election in November, and he is John Edwards of North Carolina. Edwards is a wise choice, for Kerry, but not without controversy. Both the Massachussets senator and his running mate voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, and that is bound to anger many anti-war Democrats and Independents. Republicans, eager to further polarize the national political arena, have criticized Edwards as "too liberal" and "a political neophyte," citing his Congressional record as proof. Indeed, Edwards is relatively new to Congress and has a solid history of defending the interests of working Americans, and the current Republican Party make-up is comprised mostly of pro-big business, anti-labor activists.
But criticism of Edwards' capabilities lies not with his pro-labor politics or his previous position supporting the war in Iraq. It lies in the fact that with the announcement of a Democratic vice presidential candidate, the real campaign for the White House is now under way.
Until now, the recent string of scandals plaguing the Bush administration has allowed Senator Kerry to lay relatively low. George W. Bush has been running a defensive campaign, and has had to run against himself more than he has against his Democratic challenger. And Michael Moore's latest film exposing the financial and political ties between the Bush family and powerful families in the Middle East that ultimately led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq has certainly not allowed for any breathing room for the Republican incumbent.
However, with the Democratic ticket now solidified and the party's platform taking shape, Kerry and Edwards must now prove why they are better suited to lead. No longer can Kerry expect to run on the fact that he is not George W. Bush. If the election were that simple, anyone could run against Bush and win easily. Kerry and Edwards must now work hard to convince voters why their policies are better for the nation and the world, and it won't be an easy task. The Bush administration, vastly experienced in distorting facts and telling outright lies, will use every tool at its disposal to try and smear the opposition. And the political stakes this year have never been higher. Democrats are running to take back not just the White House, but control of Congress as well. With the announcement of the Kerry/Edwards ticket, the gloves are now officially off.
Let the campaign begin.
July 14, 2004
In a move that all but ended George W. Bush's hopes of banning same-sex marriage in this election year, the U.S. Senate voted 50-48 against ammending the Constitution to define marriage strictly as being a union between a man and a woman. The House of Representatives, which will vote on the issue in September, will also likely vote against the proposed ammendment.
Polls have shown that while the majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriages, neither do they favor altering the Constitution to ban them. The general concensus, with which this writer agrees, is that the issue should be decided upon by the individual states.
What is notable is that a number of Republicans, including Senator John McCain, crossed party lines to vote against the measure. Such a division among the Republican Party seems to be a developing pattern, as more and more members grow disenfranchised with the Bush administration and its policies. And both parties have expressed that same-sex marriage is an issue less worthy of debate in the halls of Congress than matters of national security, education and health care.
For now, the issue is probably a dead one. Even if the House votes in favor of Bush's proposed ammendment, the lack of support in the Senate assures that it will not make it to the states for ratification. This is good news for supporters of gay marriage, and bad news for opponents. But the issue is not likely to go away any time soon, and sooner or later Congress will have to address it. Tough choices will have to be made. But this election year, there will be one less controversial yet ultimately irrelevant and distracting topic for Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, to debate on.
August 22, 2004
The latest round of attacks by the Bush administration against opponent John Kerry is nothing short of sickening. I say "by the Bush administration," because that is exactly where the attacks are coming from. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, a 527 group whose top members have close financial and political ties to Bush that are slowly but surely being exposed, launched a vicious attack campaign in an attempt to smear the senator's military record. The group's book, Unfit For Command, is loaded with factual errors, and not one of the members has actually served alongside Kerry himself.
What are the ties between Bush and SVBFT?
Margaret Wilson, who was Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas, and is now deputy counsel at the Dept. of Commerce, is (or was) a partner in John O'Neill's law firm. When Bush was governor of Texas, he named O'Neill's wife at the time (Harriet) to the state court of appeals. Tex Lezar, another law partner of John O'Neill who had worked previously for the attorney general's office under Reagan, is married to SBVFT spokeswoman Merry Spaeth--who represented wealthy Bush campaign supporters as a PR exec. Spaeth happens to be close friends with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is a top client of Karl Rove. Rove, who is Bush's chief political aide, is a longtime associate of SBVFT member Bob J. Perry--who gave $25,000 to the group currently trying to smear Kerry's war record. And Harlan Crow, who is trustee of the foundation for Bush's library, gave $200,000 to SVBFT.
Further revelations dig the group's credibility an even deeper grave. According to a CNN.com article, one volunteer advisor on the Bush election campaign has resigned after appearing in an ad for SVBFT.
As reported in a Knight Ridder article, "[m]ilitary records back John Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam." And "[a]lthough the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all state "I served with John Kerry," none of them served on the same boat with him."
Furthermore, as reported in the Chicago Tribune, one of that newspaper's metropolitan desk editors has come forward in defense of Kerry's service record.
According to the Tribune, "William Rood...said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry."
There is more. "Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue." Rood also says that his recollection is backed by "key military documents." To date, not one of the members of SBVFT has been able to verify actually serving on the same boat with the Democratic presidential candidate. So who is to be believed? People who weren't serving in the same swift boat with John Kerry, and who are tied to George W. Bush's administration? Or the men who were with the senator at the time he fought in Viet Nam?
You decide.
In the meantime, Bush should immediately come clean about SBVFT's ties to him and his campaign, and put the issue of military service records to rest--especially seeing as how his own military service record has become suspect. But the chances of that are extremely low. Bush's record in office is absolutely terrible, he has no answer to Kerry's policy plans, and he can now only hope to win by smearing his opponent. George W. Bush ought to be ashamed of himself.
September 29, 2004
It is 24 hours before the first of the televised presidential debates between incumbent George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry. With the networks balking at the rules set by both candidates as to what questions may be asked, it is clear that Bush and Kerry are less interested in discussing the issues and more interested in having an easy time of it up on stage.
This of course, is absolutely wrong. Both candidates must be honest about their records; lay out their strategies for the next four years in detail; and allow for a true discussion about the merits of each candidate's policies.
So far, the campaign has not truly focused on Iraq, health care, national security, education, the environment, etc.
Instead, it has been focused on whether Kerry earned his medals, and whether documents used by CBS in reporting how Bush received special treatment in the Texas Air National Guard are authentic or not.
Bush has already proven to be nothing but a card-carrying liar whose policies have all but ruined America. We can expect nothing more from him in tomorrow's debate. He will lie, distort, attack when he feels cornered, and avoid answering direct questions.
Kerry, for his part, must answer specific questions on the most important issue of his presidency should he be elected -- what will he do to get the U.N. to help out in Iraq?
If I were a moderator, these are some of the questions I would ask of the Senator from Massachussetts:
A) It is clear that the U.N. will expect certain concessions in return for offering aid in Iraq. If elected, and going before the Security Council would you be willing to
1) Surrender all political control of Iraq to the U.N.?
2) Maintain full responsibility for security in Iraq, at least for the forseeable future, while proposing that the U.N. train Iraqi security forces under the protection of U.S. forces?
3) Terminate all Halliburton contracts and open up the bid process for recontruction to member nations involved in the occupation of Iraq -- especially to any Iraqi firms -- to rebuild devastated areas and restore vital services?
4) Permanently bar Halliburton and all of its subsidiaries from involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan?
5) Turn over all responsibility for overseeing elections in Iraq and Afghanistan over to the U.N. and offer full protection for U.N. personnel?
B) Will you increase funding to border patrol agencies so that we may more firmly secure our nation's borders; increase the number of personnel charged with protecting nuclear facilities, chemical plants and biological laboratories; increase cooperation with international law enforcement agencies to capture or kill terrorists and break up cells; refocus attention on the hunt for Osama bin Laden?
These are some of the questions I would ask of Senator Kerry if I were a moderator. I would also ask them of Bush, and I would also ask why the incumbent has cut funding on anti-terrorism intiatives, why he has refused to increase funding and personnel to protect potential targets in the U.S. such as nuclear plants and chemical plants, and why he has thus far failed to focus any his attention on the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden three years after 9/11/01.
Of course, neither candidate would feel comfortable being put on the spot with such questions. Which is exactly why they have set rules designed to avoid them being asked -- especially Bush. But these questions and more need to be asked, because this campaign has so far not seen them addressed with any real substance.
July 21, 2004
Endorsements
This may be a bit early in the season to endorse candidates for public office this year, but Cleveland Free Press has decided to jump the gun and throw its support behind the following candidates:
President: John Kerry (D) - The Senator from Massachussetts was an unlikely choice for the Democratic nomination, having surprised in the primaries. And he was not the first choice for many including Cleveland Free Press. Still, Kerry has the lock on the Democratic nomination and while he has so far run a subdued campaign--allowing his incumbent opponent to run against his own failings--he has nevertheless presented a steadily solidifying set of policy positions grounded in realism and common sense.
U.S. Senate: Ohio state senator Eric Fingerhut (D) - After a disastrous run as mayor of Cleveland, and a turn as governor of Ohio that presided over the largest downturn in our state's history, incumbent George Voinovich has demonstrated that his loyalty lies not with Ohio citizens' public interest but with the interests of Big Business. Voinovich's play-it-safe politics and corporate-favoring initiatives left the door open for the bankrupting of Ohio under his successor Bob Taft. And his one term as Senator has proven that nothing will ever change as long as George is on the political scene. Therefore, Voinovich must go. Fingerhut is poised to take this important seat in November, and his election can only serve to balance Ohio's representation in the Senate. But the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which for ungodly reasons as yet unfathomable remains ever in love with the Republican incumbent, has yet to even bother covering the race for the state's contested Senate seat this year. One has to wonder if journalism is dead in Cleveland when the sole daily newspaper refuses to cover political races for dubious reasons. Fingerhut is the obvious solution to the problem of George Voinovich.
U.S. House of Representatives 10th Congressional District: Dennis Kucinich (D) - This is a no-brainer to Cleveland Free Press. While his bid for the presidential nomination may have been doomed from the start, none of us who supported the Congressman could fail to understand or fault him for what he has been trying to do--move the Democratic Party back to the left from the woefully inadequate centrist platform it adopted under Ronald Reagan, and has continued to function under during the tenures of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. With Dennis' concerns and predictions regarding the invasion of Iraq having come disastrously true, and his positions on health care, worker's rights and education, the Congressman continued to look out for his constituency on a national level. The 10th District can only benefit from another term under Kucinich. His Republican opponent, Ed Herman, has so far offered only the usual smear attacks against the Congressman and has offered little--if anything--in the way of viable ideas.
Ohio State Senate, Districts 18 & 24: John Hawkins (D) and Robert Matius (D) - Ohio's Republican-controlled legislature has ruined our state. Any Democrat who can win legislative office in the State House can only improve matters for Ohio.
Ohio State Representative, District 14: Dale Miller (D) - His help in the Kucinich presidential campaign has been invaluable, and his Republican opponent, Michael Hoag--like Ed Herman against Dennis, hasn't proven himself to be a viable alternative. Neither has Independent candidate Bill Ritter.
Ohio Supreme Court: C Ellen Connally (D), Nancy A Fuerst (D) and William O'Neill (D) - With George W. Bush working furiously to stack federal benches with right-wing activist judges intent on making law (usurping the power of the legislature), it is imperative that Ohio be able to counter on the state level with fair-minded Democrats who understand and respect their roles as jurists and interpreters of existing laws.
Cuyahoga County Commissioner: Tim Hagan (D) - Having been snubbed by county Democratic chairman Jimmy Dimora in the primary season in favor of Tim McCormick, Hagan pulled a huge upset and is running for his former office. Under McCormick, Cuyahoga's financial situation has deteriorated badly and the election of Hagan--who left the office to run for governor of Ohio in 2002--is sure to return the county to an era where fiscal discipline was recognized as actually being a good thing.
That's it for now in regards to political endorsements. This particular editorial is subject to change before November should any new developments arise.
October 24, 2004
In his October 21rst column, Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton wasted half a page essentially whining about how the newspaper's readers consider it to be biased in favor of the Republican Party. I find this rather interesting, considering that the paper's endorsement of incumbent U.S. senator George Voinovich completely ignored his voting record opposing cheaper prescription drugs for Ohio's citizens.
As pointed out by Democratic challenger Eric Fingerhut in his October 5th letter to the editor, Voinovich "twice voted against lifting the ban on importing drugs from Canada--once as a free standing bill, and once as part of the Medicare prescription drug legislation." This is a matter of public record, which may be verified by going to http://voinovich.senate.gov/seniors/drugs.htm and looking at the last update.
On Voinovich's own website, it basically states that those who cannot afford prescription drugs should apply to drug manufacturers for free samples. Is this the kind of representation Voinovich offers to those who elected him? And yet, the Plain Dealer endorsed him. Not biased in favor of Republicans? Let's explore this defense by Clifton further by pointing to the paper's backhanded endorsement of Dennis Kucinich in his bid for re-election to his 10th Congressional District House seat.
The majority of Plain Dealer writers, with the notable exception of Dick feagler, seem to have spent the Congressman's presidential campaign trash-talking him for no other reason apparently than they simply do not like him. Kucinich's hopes of winning the Democratic nomination may have been in vain, but his accomplishment in getting eleven states' Democratic Party chapters--including Ohio's--to adopt the Department of Peace in their platforms was most certainly not. But where was this in the paper's grudging endorsement? Nowhere that I could see.
There are also the oft-used lies of PNAC member Charles Krauthammer; the columns of conservatives Kevin O'Brien, David Brooks, George F. Will, William Safire, etc. to consider. For the other side of the political spectrum? More often than not it is limited to Maureen Dowd, Eliabeth Sullivan and Dick Feagler.
Lastly, let us not forget the paper's endorsement of George W. Bush for president in 2000 and its endorsement of the Republican incumbent this year despite the editorial staff's 5-2 decision to throw its support to John Kerry; according to sources in Chicago, the newspaper's publisher overruled the editorial staff's decision to endorse the Democratic candidate. If Mr. Clifton wants to complain about perceived bias in favor of Republicans, let him do so. But the facts speak for themselves: there is a distinct tendency to give more print space and editorial praise to Republicans and neoconservatives, while giving less space to Democrats and more attacks on liberals.