What is your dominant intelligence?

Your Dominant Intelligence is Linguistic Intelligence

http://www.quizdiva.net/bt/linguistic.jpg">>You are excellent with words and language. You explain yourself well.An elegant speaker, you can converse well with anyone on the fly.You are also good at remembering information and convicing someone of your point of view.A master of creative phrasing and unique words, you enjoy expanding your vocabulary. You would make a fantastic poet, journalist, writer, teacher, lawyer, politician, or translator.

Kind of Intelligence Do You Have?

What kind of soul are you?

You Are a Dreaming Soul

Your vivid emotions and imagination takes you awy from this worldSo much so that you tend to live in your head most of the timeYou have great dreams and ambitions that could be the envy of all...But for you, following through with your dreams is a bit difficult You are charming, endearing, and people tend to love you.Forgiving and tolerant, you see the world through rose colored glasses.Underneath it all, you have a ton of passion that you hide from others.Always hopeful, you tend to expect positive outcomes in your life. Souls you are most compatible with: Newborn Soul, Prophet Soul, and Traveler Soul

What Kind of Soul Are You?

I had to read this one through a couple of times before I saw myself in it. How does this test work for you? Let us know.

The first of several holiday links

This email was sent to me today. Along with the radio station that has been playing Christmas music for the past two weeks it is hard to not be in a holiday mood. The question is whether or not I can sustain it for another month. Anyway, enjoy this link.

Thanksgiving reflections

Take a moment to share one thing from the past year that you are thankful for.

A Song for Andy

On Aug. 22, 2004, early in the morning, Andy was tragically killed in an Auto Accident.

I did not know Andy well but was privileged and blessed to share in the experience of celebrating his life with his family.

At that funeral celebration was an odd collection of people that Andy considered his family and friends. You can learn a great deal about someone just by observing the people he holds close. And I wished I could have known Andy better.

At his funeral, one of his teachers (he had graduated just months earlier from high school) read this poem. It was written by Andy for her class. I share it with you now.

Shall I run or hide
and die inside,
Or pretend
that I never even knew you,
even as a friend?

Can I go back in time,
Before your hand was mine,
Or erase the Kiss
that I will forever miss,
or forget your eyes
that seem to hypnotize?

Can my mind erase
the feel of your embrace?
How can I forget all of this
and pretend it doesn't exist?

I want you to know one thing that will never end...
MY LOVE FOR YOU... I LOVE YOU MY FRIEND.

I was thinking of Andy tonight, and of his family. I hope you will think of them too.

I feel like this today. It's kinda cool.

A new Direction

This blog , and this blog host have been acused of being singularly focussed for the past several months. And I suppose that is a fair criticism. But today I am moving in a new direction.

Don't suppose you won't find the occessional rant about the idiot in the white house, but let's be real - we lost.

Today I went out and bought a completely new wardrobe to fit my leaner frame. Imagine the thrill of clearing the xl and xxl out of my closets and replacing them with m-l. Imagine getting rid of the 38-42's and replacing them with 36.

$750 later I must say that buying clothes has not been this fun in a very long time. But that is a serious financial commitment on my part to make sure I don't backslide.

it's all about tomorrow

Time for a fresh outlook. Time to think about the future. Time to stand together for what we believe and to work to make a genuine difference.

Now that the election is over I have a few thoughts.

I have been an "Anybody but Bush" person. I think the reasons are clear. But now that the election is over I have changed my mind. Cheney would be worse.

In 1973, Agnew was forced out of office for reasons having to do with tax fraud - the details are foggy, I was only 12. That opened the door for Ford before Nixon was forced out.

We need to hope that Haliburton brings down Cheney before the secrecy, lies and cover-ups of this administration bring down "W".

So, Who shoud replace Cheney? We haven't much time really. to stick to the time-frame of 1973 it must happen this spring.

Your thoughts?

AAARRRGGHH !!!

Have you voted yet?

4.5 hours left in my time zone. get out there people

Election Night Hit !!!

Play it as Kerry takes each of the major states.

Horse Race!!!

Neck and neck with one lap to go!! Redskins went down in defeat! Bummer Mr President!!
Look for Ohio, but it might come down to Hawaii. I will be up to the end - celebrate with me for Breakfast.

Pro-lifer Alert

Before you vote Bush - think again!!!

In each of eight years of the Clinton Administration the number of abortions performed throughout the US and among all demographics went down compared to the year before and at the end of his term were on par with the numbers at the end of Reagan's 2nd term.

In the two years of activity betweem 2001-2002 ( the most recent numbers available) the number of abortions under GW Bush is on the rise. Most people attribute this increase to poor economic policies which leave fewer choices available to women with difficult choices.

This should give one pause to consider whether the language of pro-lifers that seeks to criminalize abortion actually has reduction in number as their motive.

There's a light...

over at the Frankenstein place.
There's a light-- burning in the fireplace.
There's a bright, bright light
in the darkness of everybody's life.

Life is looking up again - Happy Halloween
bonus points for identifying source of this lyric.

Misleader in Chief

It is not a stretch to call this guy a miserable failure.

Play with his face.

See if you can make him look honest.

What I wish for tonight...

More than any other thing tonight, John Kerry needs to say, in the simplest possible way:

" I ask you to vote for me so that we can take our country back."

CBS and Gallop

Show Kerry and Bush in a statisical dead heat with Kerry getting a very slight edge in one and Bush in the other. In the past 50 years, no incumbent president has ever won re-election from a position of less than 55%. With news like this and only days to go in this election one has to feel good.

I really do! Thanks for these words, Mr Neil Diamond

I believe in new beginnings
Extra innings, brand new starts
Loving hearts that care the way I do
All these things and happy endings too.

Okay, another tie!!

Missed opportunities on both sides made this debate about as boring as they come.

One would have expected either candidate to at least speak to the audience. Kerry made some half-hearted attempts at this but it didn't play well on TV. Both relied too heavily on their sound-bites, so much so that by the end of some answers i had forgotten the questions. The audience echoed this perception at the end of the debate with their sense that their questions were not answered.

Kerry did present himself as being able to stand toe-to-toe with W. but in the process might have missed an opportunity to get his message out.

Round Two Debate Tonight

Can Kerry keep up his momentum from the last debate?

I have been thinking about this a great deal and hope there is an exchange that goes something like this:

W: My opponent wants to apply a "global test" so that the world can decide when we go to war blah blah blah...

Kerry: When I was speaking during the last debate I assumed my audience has an IQ higher than that of the average 6 year old. What I said was that when our country decides to go to war we need to apply a "global test so that our own people and other nations can clearly understand our rational for that war. That is not the same as having others decide if we go to war. Such a test might include, for example, telling the truth.

Fun with Dick and John!!!

Tonight's the debate of the Vice Presidential Candidates. Hopefully we can get Dick to squirm a bit and even drop one or two "F" bombs. Of course with a delay ala Janet Jackson we wouldn't actually hear them as anything more than a bleep or two.

A massive coronary might bhe a way for Cheney to invoke a kind of sympathy but it could also backfire if others his age start thinking of the healthcare advantages he has over the rest of the world. It would be quite a gamble to take that risk.

Let's all watch and see.

Brief Hiatus

I have enjoyed the recent comment ctivity and believe it makes this a better venue. Keep it up. I will be away from thing possibly until mid October. When I return I hope to bring a fresh approach to things and enlven the debate. Peace All!!!

A reader shared this infrmative link.

This actually represents a balanced look at certain issues. take a look.

Bush buddies up with supporters of Terror!

How can anyone say this guy is our best defense against terror?

Bush fails in hunt for terrorist.

Does anyone smell an October surprise?

Tentative debate dates set

Okay, look at this (lengthy) email from John Kerry

There were photos that didn't come through my security settings but the point is still there. My only question in all of this is: Why is he not sending this clear message at every campaign stop? Why is this simple message so fumbled by the candidate?

Read the message. Take it to heart- share it with your friends. But, if the candidate doesn't act now and get it right on the streets he can start thinking about finishing his last term as a US Senator.

"It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do."

Dear (Citizen),

This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.

But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.

The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American.

Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone.

In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.

Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away.

As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute.

Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies.. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse.

Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer.

It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.

If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands.

But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come. All across this country people ask me what we should do now?

Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late. That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief. Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter. And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency.. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions. At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.

I have a plan to make America stronger. The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do. George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans. If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard.

It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course. I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment.

For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

John Kerry

I've said it before- Rumsfeld should resign.

And if GW Bush had a spine he would fire him. See this article and comment below.

Where is John Kerry?

Is anyone else remembering 1988 about now?

This campaign should have been John Kerry's to lose. We have a president who has failed on the economy and on his choices for use of military. The majority of Americans are begging for a candidate other than George W. but are not satisfied with the choice of Kerry.

He has not articulated his agenda for the issues he claims are of highest import - the war in Iraq, jobs, health care. Why?

There may be some who will not vote for Kerry if he gets suddenly bold and gives us straight talk on these issues. More likely however, the voters who are scandalized by this administrations misuse of power in Iraq and mismanagement of our economy will lock themselves in Kerry's camp.

It may in fact be too late for him to make this move. He needs to find within himsef the same fervor that he displayed following the Republican National Convention. People are asking for Edwards but the man the may elect has to set the tone himself.

The feeling is nagging again, that feeling that every voter of my generation has experienced. I am not enthusiastic about Kerry, frankly I never have been. I am in the "anybody but Bush" camp. But the message of a candidate seeking the office of the president needs to be clear. He owes it to the people he would serve. The campaign of any candidate does in fact show us something about how that candidate would lead. After all, look how poorly the candidate who lost 2000's popular vote has done.

The prospect of 4 more years of the same leadership does not frighten me. What frightens me is what this arogant administration would do if they had four years of leadership opportunity that would be unfettered by accountability to the American people.

So, uness Kerry brings on the campaign he promised, I will likely get in line on November 2, wait my turn, hold my nose and cast my vote in the strongest way possible against G.W. Bush.

Guess which Vice President spent the 90's hawking oil drilling equipment to terrorists?

He also bad-mouthed US sanctions toward Iraq. All this with only one or two heart attacks under his belt.

Consider this an open thread.

I have nothing new to add today but invite youyr input about how I can make "A Page That Aches" a more lively forum. I have seen a few new comment contributors recently and would like to hear more about how I can keep you on board. Your comments below.

another mis-lead

Weekend Warriors - no longer exist.

Last night on MSNBC’s Debra Norville show there was an outstanding report about today’s National Guard. It detailed how these “weekend warriors” are now working full-time in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also detailed how their families are struggling back home because of lost income. National Guard pay, in most cases, is significantly less than these individuals were making before they were called to service.

Contrast this with Bush’s praise of the honorable service of the National Guard. It becomes obvious that he is using these men and women as props in his campaign to make us think that this was the kind of service he did (one clip actually has him reference his own National Guard service, which even if more noble than the news reports suggest was still less of a sacrifice or commitment than today's guard shows).

Someone (Kerry) should call him out for his lack of concern for these military personnel and their families.

What Caligraphy Hand are You? Take the quiz.

I am 'Insular Majuscule'. "You are spiritual and well-rounded. People look to you for advice but sometimes find you difficult to understand."

Yeah, I guess that fits. Share your results.

See Rassmussen Polls !!

George W Bush reached his 'high-water mark" on September 4, 2004 at 49.1 %. Four days later he was at 48.2 and today (ten days from that high point he sits at 47.1%. In spite of what the "liberal" media is saying this guy has gotten all of the support that is his to get.

Kerry was at his lowest point on that same date ten days ago (44.7%) and has climbed over the same time period to 46.5 %. Bush is slipping (2% over ten days) faster than Kerry's support is growing (1.8%) over the same period but the trend frm Bush to Kerry is clear.

Kerry still has work to do but can win this thing if he can secure those who sit on the fence about Bush. The undecided's are largely undecided about Bush, not Kerry. They know Bush and still are reluctant to vote for him.

Kerry must clarify where he is different from Bush on issues that matter to people-
Assault Weapons Ban, Health Care, Stronger Economy and how that strengthens us here and around the world, etc., etc.

He must also take his fight straight to Bush during the debates. He needs to be quick enough on his feet to have a Lloyd Bensonesque moment or two. He needs to come right out to the president and tell him, in front of the whole nation, where his policies have failed America and at the same time tell us what he will do differently.

Too many of us watched Micheal Dukakis go up in flames against daddy to let that happen again.

Please, Mr Kerry, Give us the campaign fight you promised. Run like you want it more than the other guy. The people who believe in you deserve a better campaign than you are fighting.
Try the "It's the Economy, Stupid" slogan again. You can even try a modernized version: "Hey "W", its the economy again!"

Time Magazine, August 6, 2006

For all those dreaming of Bush victory this friendly reminder of Nixon's second term.

This is the kind of mis-step in the Kerry campaign

that will likely lose him the election unless he starts fighting the campaign he promised.

This from the Star Tribune

This race is still closer than the "liberal" media is telling you.

Irony

On the same day as the Asault weapons ban is lifted a new report comes out that demonstrates that in spite of a Bush economy the ban has worked. Violent crimes are down in our counntry to the lowest levels since such figures were recorded beginning in 1973 (as reported by MSNBC).

Polls show overwhelmingly that the vast majority of people across our nation want this ban to remain in effect. But yet our Republican leadership will do nothing about it as they try to court every possible NRA and other vote.

Finally, an Archbishop gets it right in a public statement.

I hope he is ready for the attack he will get in all of blogdom (blogdumb). Read his thoughtful article and decide for yourselves. Personally, I am delighted that someone in a position that actually carries the weight of his office is taking the core of our faith away from rightwingers who cynically try to divide the Catholic vote.

Vote Bush or die?

What does Cheney know that we don't?

A thoughtful article

Thanks to Kaye for this one.

A closer look at the wardrobe malfunction

Why is the national Guard thing important- It's all about character.

Join the MOB !!

Are you a senior? How is your health?

Last weekend, while the country was focussed on post Republican convention activity and hurricanes in Florida, W pulled a sneek attack on senior citizens. Medicare premiums were slated to increase by 17.1 %.

Just so that you can get a better perspective on this thing. Social security went up this year between 2 and 3 %. Last December, the Bush administration fought attempts to pass legistlation to reduce costs for prescription drugs for seniors in order to protect their corporate drug interests.

Are there really seniors out there (other than the rich) who still support this guy?

AWOL - You decide!

Lots in the news about this story. Read for yourselves and move on to the important things in this race.

How to create terrorists on our own soil.

Step one: Drive interest rates so low that there is absolutely no value in saving money and bankers need to extend credit to those who would otherwise not qualify in order to make a profit.

Step Two: Let the economy cave in under you and create a job deficit of two million jobs, allow formerly employed to fall off the unemployment rolls and lose basic support.

Step Three: Prop up your own numbers by creating low paying minimum jobs and tell those who are unemployed and underemployed that things are getting better.

Step Four: Favor big Business to such an extent that you cut overtime benefits for full-time workers and allow insurance companies to increase health premiums -while at the same time reduce the liabilities of these insurance companies for actual payouts (maximum benefits, reduced legal recourse for patients).

Step Five: Allow the ban on assault weapons to expire and make weapons that are only good for killing people and opposed by police chiefs throughout the nation readily available.

This five step process is given to you by the national Republican leadership of Tom Delay and GW Bush.

Tom Delay offered to an NBC reporter the excuse that "there are not enough votes on the floor for the bill to pass." He therefore will not allow it to the senate floor for a vote.
He offered no evidence to support his guess that it wouldn't work and told us that, "even if the president asks" he would not allow it to the senate floor.

What the hell is he afraid of? Is he giving the president cover so that the president can avoid asking or is he giving political cover to himself and his neo-con croneys so that they don't have to make such a decision in an election year. Flip a coin.

NBC reports tonight that 68% of all respondents support such a ban be continued. 61% of Republicans and a higher number of indepnedents are among those who support the ban.

It occurs to me as I hear this report that such a weapon would be exactly what one might look for if they were going to ...I don't know... take a school full of children hostage.

Now you can easily spread the word about "A Page That Aches"

The little envelope icon allows you to email a post to a friend. If all five of my readers email their friends we will double our size in no time.

What (Star Trek) Race are You?

I am a Human, according to this. Inquisitive and warm, an explorer at heart. Perhaps a bit Naive. hmmn

If at first you don't mislead...

try, try again.

These people simply can't be trusted.

ENCORE !!! Play it again

My current high score is 94000.

This is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of grammar.

We have two major political parties in the United States. They are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Republican Party holds to those values that strengthen our Republic (strictly speaking, that's the government itself and the nation as a whole). The Democratic Party hold to values that strengthen and promote values to support individual freedom and power in the voice of democracy. It would be overstating the case to say that either party ignores the values of the other party and it is silly to say that these are the only things that each party holds dear. These should be thought of more as founding principles that explain the wya you might expect each party to respond to a problem.

Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans. Members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats. But Fox News, for quite some time, has been distorting our language by incorrectly calling the party of the Democrats "the Democrat Party."

Have we truly entered into such a time in our history where ideology becomes more important the proper grammar? A Democrat party would be a party thrown by a Democrat and where probably he or she invited other Democrats.

I suppose the argument in their favor goes something like- "We don't want to confuse our audience into thinking Republicans are not democratic." They probably know the intelligence of their audience better than I do.

If not a lie, a gross distortion from W.

Last night President Bush called the current tax code "drag on our economy which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes." He told us about the frustration caused for Americans "saddled with 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year" and committed to creating "a simpler, fairer" system.

But the facts contradict that pledge. Bush has pushed through changes to the tax code far more complicated and burdensome for taxpayers. According to official Internal Revenue Service estimates from 2000 to 2003, "the time required for the set of forms associated with the 1040 has increased by 3 hours and 8 minutes."[3] The average taxpayer spent 1 hour and 20 minutes longer filing his or her taxes in 2003 than in 2002. He gave us tax cuts that favored the wealthy but his increase in paperwork was more evenly distributed. Many taxpayers not getting much of a reduction at all have to fill out the same forms that save others millions.

Sources: 1. "Text: President Bush's Acceptance Speech to the Republican National Convention ," The Washington Post, 9/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
2. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
3. "Economic Snapshot," Economic Policy Institute, 9/2/04.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

One of the most stunning inaccuracies of Arnold's Speach

is his crystal clear recollection of the 1968 debate between Nixon and Humphrey for their presidential race. Remarkable that he would have compared Humphrey to the european socialists, but all the more so since the two did not debate.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

And a word from John Ashcroft's depatrment.

Seems they admit he was wrong. I doubt Bush will stand for that!

another daily mislead

All this might be irrelevant. If Kerry holds Pennsylvania and takes Ohio he can lose Wisconsin, Florida and New Mexico and still win the electoral votes needed (270). Colorado is very close and would be a feather in Kerry's cap. Still, this shows that these people are capable of anything and will go to any lengths, just as Cheney told us at the Convention.

The only network to air John Kerry's rally in Ohio at midnight was MSNBC.

The other networks are sly as FOX !!!

John Kerry, " I have finally figured out what RNC stands for... Really Not Compassionate."

"If you believe this country is on the right track, then you go vote for George Bush. But, If you believe like John Edwards and I do, that there is a better way, Then I am asking you to vote for me and help set a new direction for our country. They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure."

"George Bush told you tonight that he has a plan for your future, but he told you that four years ago. This president is quite proud of the fact that even failure will not make him change course."

" I will not have my ability to serve be questioned by those who failed to serve when they could have and misled us into a war with Iraq. Misleading our nation into war with Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing to create new Jobs makes you unfit to run our country. Doing nothing for the families without healthcare makes you unfit to run our country. Letting the Saudi royal family set oil prices for America makes you unfit to run our country. "

"How can you leap into a convention and make a bunch of promises when you haven't kept the promises you made before?"

"We need a president who will fight just as hard for your job as he does to keep his own job."

"Healthcare, tuition and gas prices are up, wages are down. We are going to make America's work place fair again."

" In the last four years five million Americans have lost their health care."

"George Bush has made us more dependent, not less dependent on foreign oil. We are going to liberate ourselves and free our selves from dependence on others for energy."

" I pledge to you: I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Our soldiers are doing a remarkable job. Our soldiers are amasing but they deserve leadership that allows them to do the job right. We need to get this war out of our pockets and get the targets off the backs of the American soldier"

This is the fight John Kerry promised us. Let's hope he keeps up the steam and that tghe press pays attention.

And Finally... W

after a sappy 9-11 milking introduction.

Chant with me... "Four more Months!!!"

What is a chairaman?

But what is this vision that he kept promising?

These are his declaratives about the future. In order. I skip the accolades he gives him self for what he thinks he has already done. Many of these end with "and nothing will hold us back." but he is telling us what he will continue to do or do differently.

We will build a safer America and nothing will hold us back. (6 minutes in to speach.)
I am running with a clear and positive plan to build a safer America.
I will provide clear and steady leareship ( 11 minutes) paraphrased.
There is a new commitment to "compassionate conservativism".
We will extend the frontiers of freedom. (scary based on their past)
Many of our most fundamental systems were created for the world of yesterday. We will transform them to meet the needs of tomorrow. (yikes)
To create new jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business-
I will reduce government spending and make tax relief permanent.
We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy- we will protect small business against law suits.
I will transform the tax code- simpler fairer pro-growth system. In a new term I will lead a bi-partisan effort to simplify the federal tax code.. I will help workers find better and higher and paying jobs - I will increase funding to community colleges ( I wonder if the increase will replace the cuts those colleges have faced because of his policies).

I will improve availability of health insurance and I will establish health savings accounts.

We will provide better access to health care for poorer Americans. I will provide "to every poor community" available health clinics.

We must pass medical liability reform.

We will change outdated labor laws. " Our laws must never stand in the way of a family friendly workplace."

7 million new affordable homes (affordable to who?).

health care plan ownership, social security privitization,

Another promise to leave no child behind.
Another promise for health care.

This guy sounds good,

But ... "fool me once... shame on you... fool me... er... you can't get fooled again."

Pataki Speaks

He thanks allof the various state delegations for the many good efforts people extended to New York. He talks about the sacrifices workers in New York did in the aftermath of September 11. I am waiting for him to make a connection that would dare imply that it was the conservatgives who did these things.

Instead, he falls into the same rhetoric we have heard for three days.

He said he'd do it, and he did, on and on!!

What about...
He said he would fund No Child Left behind... (no response?)
He said he would create jobs with a tax cut... ( no response?)
He said he would be a uniter, not a divider... ( no response?)
He said he would not create higher deficits with his tax cuts... (no response?)
He said that they would find WMD in Iraq... (no response?)
He gave us a "Blue Skies Initiative" to improve air quality... (no response?)
He promised to keep Nevada free of Nuclear waste... (no response?)
He said when he ran in 2000 that Gay marriage is an issue best left to the states..(no response?)

I could go on and on.

Here is another guy who thanks God GW Bush was president on September 11.

How he wishes the Clinton Administration had moved to protect us whe Al Queda first attacked us, and he names the events. How I wish that Clinton didn't have to work with a Republican Congress who apposed his attempts to do just that. How things might have been, and much sooner for the people of Afghanistan.

He tells us how we need to go after those who have attacked us before they can attack again. And I agree. But where is Osama? Where are the Taliban?

Instead we attacked the mayor of Bahgdad and are stuck in a quagmire that leaves our troops vulnerable abroad and our homeland less secure.

Although the networks didn't cover this

Michael W. Smith performed a song tonight which notinues Bush's theme wonderfully. It seems to be about the flag, but it is clear that the message is about safety. Your safety. The only thing it didn't do is come right out and say, like all the speakers here have said, "We are not safe if we don;t have George W. Bush as our president."

You need to watch this!!!

It's about three minutes but worth seeing. Kudos to the Daily Show for this one.

Don't make the mistake of writing this guy off as stupid.

Thank you Linda S for this link.

Ladies and gentleman, Dick Cheney, children cover your ears. This guy is a potty mouth.

"I will give this Campaign all that I have" not " I intend to serve faithfully for the next four years."

His "How do you think I got the Job" question must be rhetorical since those of us in the know are aware that he was in charge of the group that recommended his own name to Bush as a running mate.

Dick points out that GW Bush passed "No Child Left Behind" a bill Kerry voted for. He fails to point out that Bush and he failed to fund that initiative.

Dick tells us that "The Bush tax cuts are working" and that health care is more affordable and more accessible to more Americans. He is proving that we really do live in two Americas. And I don't know where the one he is talking about is.

We hear about his new Grandson in order to remind us that we need Bush to keep us safe.

"We are in a war we did not start but have no choice but to win." He must be talking about terror, not Iraq. So I guess the war on terror is winnable, but don't tell George.

Nothing in this is new.

There is an old joke. How do you know when Dick Cheney is lying? but I can't help but notice that this guys lips don't move.

Zel Miller makes it clear

what the Republicans are trying to do.

"My family is safer if GW Bush is president."

That is the same message we heard from Laura Bush, from Rudy Giuliani and from Armold Scharzenegger.

Put daddy in charge and stop asking so many stupid questions. Ronald Reagan said it best. "Facts are stupid things."

I still have to believe that Americans are smart enough to not buy it.

And by the way Zel, It was the wisdom of our founding fathers that gave us the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful assembly (not protest as you stated it). The soldier plays an honorable role when they have to. The obligation of the Commander in Chief is to make sure that we only use them when we have to use them. In that regard George W Bush has failed.

Kerry did not blame the military for the failings of Vietnam. He blamed that administration. Kerry does not blame our military today. He blames this administration.

The same people out in blogdom who would criticize Kerry as he claims himself to be a Catholic yet has views that differ with the church on abortion rights will now stand side by side with this nutbag as he claims to be a Democrat yet apparently holds none of the positions of the democratic party.

And now its Arnold's turn

what can I say, no one listened to me when I warned them based on our results with Jesse. So I doubt anyone will listen about anything I say about this guy.

But for him of all people, the guy who is stuck with fixing the mess caused in California by GW Bushes failures of energy policy, to talk about how the GW recession was inherited- that's just to stupid.

Governor Pawlenty coins a new term.

At least it is new to me.

"Opportunity Conservative"

I tried to figure out what he was talking about. it certainly doesn't seem that he means what GW Bush meant when he talked about "Compassionate Conservativism."

Part of the conversation was about his understanding of why Minnesota , a traditionally liberal state, is now a swing state. In that conversation with Chris Matthews the governor - who stepped aside from his senatorial ambitions to please the current Republican administration and chose instead to run for his current office- said that these opportunity conservatives one in MN because of the failed excesses of liberalism.

He seems to forget that prior to Paul Wellstone's death he and our fluffy senator were on their way to losing their respective elections. It had nothing to do with failed excesses. It had everything to do with incredibly bad luck ( for the state).

I think that Governor Pawlenty is suffering from a Bushism. What he means to say is Opportunistic Concervatives. He and Coleman allowed Bush and Cheney to dictate from on high how Minnesota politics should be played out and accepted tons of out-of-state money for doing so. But for Wellstone's death that gamble would have failed.

It is nauseating for him now to to act as if this was a victory of ideology.

I have been thinking

about this all night.

As Mayor of New York City on Sept 11, 2001 Rudy Giuliani is telling us that he actually paused for all of the chaos going on around him, wrapped his arm around his police chief and said, "Thank God George Bush is our president." Isn't that more than a bit like saying, "Thank God daddy is here to take care of us."?

He did this before it as confirmed who we were dealing with. He did this while we were still assessing the carnage. He did this in spite of the fact that this president ( pre September 11) opposed increases to federal funding for New York City's first responders.

Then, he tells us that his feeling is exactly the same today. Even though this president has now cut funding for New York City's first responders to less than pre-September 11 levels, Even though this president (presumably at the same time Giuliani was singing his praises in the ear of his police chief) sat like a stunned rat about to be eaten by a snake for crucial moments after the attack, even though this president has squandered the good will and respect and sympathy that the world held for us post September 11, Giuliani would have us believe that he "thanks God for George W Bush."

Then Giuliani went into a rant about John Kerry's "flip-flops".

What about the GW Bush who ran on a platform of Compassionate Conservativism?

What about the GW Bush who told americans we need to hold our place of power in the world with humility?

What about the GW Bush who ram-rodded US power and might through Afghanistan and Irag after issuing ultimatums and now tells us that in the case of North Korea "you can't issue ultimatums to dictators?

What about the GW Bush who told us that he would "smoke out" Osama Bin Laden where ever he is and that we would take him out "dead or alive" but six short months later tells us that he doesn't think much about where Osama is and doesn't consider it a high priority to find him?

It goes on and on, I have only illustrated the problem regarding issues conservatives should genuinely care about. It would be pointless to argue with them about his changes in attitude about gay rights, no child left behind, jobs, the economy. These things are not really issues for them.

At the Minnesota State Fair yesterday I was asked to choose between five issues as to which is most important in the up-coming presidential election: Health Care, The Economy, Terrorism, The War in Iraq and Education. Given the status of each, how does one really choose?

Is This Shameful or What?

Admittedly, I haven't watched the whole of the GOP Convention this night. Who can blame me? But the few times I have tuned in it has been a shameful exploitation of September 11. Here we have Guliani recounting his memories of the morning of September 11, 2001, gruesome details of watching people jump out of the towers, and telling us that on that morning his thoughts were "thank God George Bush is our president."

They should have mailed out barf bags to every household before they subjected us to this.

So, some might ask, "What will John Kerry do to fight terrorism?"

this article is long but it is a worthwhile read

Yep, It's still the economy STUPID!!!

Number of unemployed is highest in three years, there is still a deficit of over 1 million jobs compared to the number of jobs that existed when W took office, more families than ever before are living under the poverty level and fewer families have health care than did three years ago.

We in Minnesota are doing better than the rest of the nation in most of these categories and for the first time since Richard Nixon there is the remotest possibility that we are an actual swing state in a presidential election.

The most recent polls show Bush closing the gap or even in the lead in most cases but CNN reports that we could still be looking at an electoral victory for Kerry.

It has been an odd week in the news going into the GOP lie fest ( and before anyone claims that to be an unfair comment define the terms "veterans for truth", "no child left behind" and "clear sky initiative". Look for more of the same. Join in Al Franken's "I'm mad as hell" initiative and demand fact checks from our media. If you do, it will make for a busy week.

I like this article. It says a lot.

The Rambo Coalition August 24, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly,bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply.

President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.

But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.

One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr.Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft(seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Clelandand now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo.

He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.

As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands.

Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills. It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam. All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism.

Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself an heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.

The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude."

Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"

Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib. Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ex=1094382560&ei=1&

Just wait folks- we supported Saddam once too!

(this from CNN.COM)
Iraqi forces are prepared to raid a Najaf mosque where Shiite Muslim militiamen are holed up, Iraqi officials said today. Iraq "will not stand with arms folded," said a statement issued by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Earlier, a member of an Iraqi government peace mission said he hoped that stalled peace talks would restart.

Remember all thse voices, including my own, that spoke of the termoil that would be stirred if we went in to Iraq without a long-term plan. Remember those who warned of civil strife and possible civil war.

I pray it doesn't, but fear it will, go very badly with this story in weeks to come. I watched several stories on various channels about this "breaking news". The word "sensitively" and "sensitive" are suddenly being thrown around by people on both sides of the aisle.

Imagine if this same event were happening in the Basillica of St. Peter in Rome. Would the US response, or lack there of, be different?

Protesters and terrorists cynically linked

Thanks to Kaye for this article. Comment below and share your thoughts.

Mommy, who do you love more?

Okay, I just don't get it!! I just saw an ad for GW Bush for president. It is one of these smarmy things where the camera is cocked at a goofy angle showing he and Laura together (reminiscent of Dockers ads of the early 90's).

One of his lines, which makes no sense at all : "I can't imagine what it must have been like for a parent on September 11th to choose which child to pick up first."

"What the hell was that? " I thought as I heard him say it. Am I now supposed to recall in my mind how I would make such a choice? I can almost imagine kids asking, "why did you pick up Billy first?"

I suppose it is an attempt to make us feel as we did that dreadful morning and make us think that we can't let that happen again. Fair enough. But it doesn't do that for me. It makes me wonder, "what the hell is he talking about?" and "who scripted this?"

If you are not paying attention this could be thought of as a "positive ad' and in fact it looks quite pleasant. But the reality is that this add, however ineffective, is intended to instill fear.

A great Kerry counter ad would be to show Bush dujring those "7 minutes". A voice-over could be added ala Michael Moore: "Which twin should I pick up first? Hmmn, tough call."

See this picture, comment, play game below

This is the simplest and best message.

We all know that in today's world 3 months of one direct on point message would not be enough but the fact is that this is the single best reason to vote for John Kerry.

Hear from Republicans

Prez tracking poll

has nine states it considers up for grabs with 113 electoral votes. Kerry is ahead in the polls in 7 of 9 of these states. This is going to be a close race to be sure but if these leads hold Kerry will achieve an easy electoral victory. See the results in each state.

Two Guys, a truck, and lawyers.

truth in advertising - the video you must see

Join if you want, but see how the cookie crumbles.

It really is the Economy Stupid, and I mean it!

Here we go again.

On a serious note-

Here's one from the Education President

Great Game

Hint to success, favor your right hook!
Call this the feelgood hit of the year.
You have to practice. It's hillarious!

Here is a case of accidental honesty.

WASHINGTON Aug. 5, 2004 — President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people." Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

There is a video clip that was featured on the tonight show. I would love to have a copy here for posterity if anyone knows of a link.

My Respect once held for John McCain is gone.

Yet another politician chooses partisanship over integrity. I Had truly hoped for better. It was just a short time ago when McCain spoke publicly of his friend who he had served with honorably in the senate for years. The Arizona Senator challenged the president, his parties candidate for re-election, not to smear Kerry with falsehoods about his war record.

Just last week, when a private group who supports the President released the sleaziest campaign ad to date in the current race, John McCain called forth for the president to denounce this group and the falsehoods contained in the add. He also called for this group to discontinue the add and told people they should not buy the book that espouses the same point and asked Bush to do the same.

The white house offered no such denouncement in the week that has past and the add is still running in battleground states. Yet McCain hit the campaign trail this week with gusto in support of President Bush.

What good does it do to ask for honor and dignity from our candidates if we are not willing to stand by our words.

This is interesting

and the first time I have linked to another blog. Enjoy and comment.

Everyone should have one.

Life is easy when you don't worry about tomorrow.

30 years ago

was a tragic event in our history. Richard M Nixon was forced to resign as President of the US. He had currupted an election, abused his power and lied to the people. A congress that had not experienced the impeachment process was willing to take that necessary step to remove this man and restore dignity to the presidency.

Congress today, along with the nation, has a bad taste in its mouth about impeachment, having seen it used as an historic abuse of power toward Clinton. So, they sit idly by and watch this current administration make many of the same abuses that Nixon made - and then some if you read John Dean's book.

1974 was two years in to Nixons second term. What do you want our government to be focussing on in 2006?

Let someone tell this guy he doesn't love America

but make him stand with him in a locked room when he says it.

I can't see a damn thing!!

some things you just got to see to believe.

My black man is bigger than your black man.

Back when he was running for president Alan Keyes was no star in the Republican party. He barely got noticed. He has failed in previous bids for senate and for the white house.

But threatened with the possibility of a young black rising star in the Democratic party running unopposed in the Illinois senate race the R's will fly in Alan Keyes, who himself has spoken against "parachuting in to run for senate", to run against Obama. Look for his former opponents to fly in to Illinois and tout what a wonderful conservative he is and how he shares their... er, I mean "Illinois" values. It could work. After all, if the 2% of the electorate who supported Alan Keyes in his failed bid for the white house all live in this one state, he could do very well indeed.

Watch this one get ugly folks. The R's have formed a very successful team of power brokers who have no problem stepping into states and hand-picking their guys to run for office. They choose their and back heavily their candidates for congress and senate andf now will even transplant a candidate if they want a certain feature (in this case black).

It is up to us to make sure that this tactic doesn't work.

What is the best way to demonstrate that you stand for nothing?

You start by asking the standard bearer for your party to denounce a very sleazy negative campaign targeting the honorable service of his opponent. Then you turn around in the very next week and go on the campaign trail with your candidate even without the denouncement you asked for.

What happened to the spine of Senator McCain? Now he still has time to withdraw from the planned campaign stumping scheduled for Tuesday. Should the president not denounce the flat out negative and false attack, I would expect the senator to show us that there was something other than camera seeking on his mind when he made Friday's proclamation.

Let's watch and see.

It's the Economy Stupid... Again !!!

Wow, who would have thought that targeted tax breaks toward the people who actually need the money to live would be better fuel for a weak economy? Wait, I guess that's part of what had been so successful in the nineties.

Finally !!!

Below I gave you an article which outlines the flip-flops of our prsesident. This clip provided by Jon Stewart is a dramatic debate which makes this point more clearly. See for yourself and comment below

We're Back!!!!!

Comments were down for a while so you deserve an open thread- comment on whatever you want today -

More information on Terrorism alert level

We don't want to violate today's theme but this is a worthwhile read.

He has reason to celebrate.

Okay gang, be creative. Today we can only say positive things about W.
I will start. W. will make an excellent former president. Now you try it.

Not just red or blue anymore

We are not two-dimensional. Depending on the issue there are several colors we can be divided into. Check outthis map.

Cynical attempts to split Catholics

This link points to a fairly complete assessment of catholic positions on many of todays political issues.

flippety-floppety

the term gets thrown around a great deal by conservatives attacking people who have a track record that is developed and nuanced over several years. Articles like this however cause one to ponder whether the term means anything at all when coming from their mouths.

Tippy Canoe and They Knew

no surprise here!!!

More on the mayor of St Paul

This article raises new possibilities I hadn't considered.
Kelly for Governor in 2006, clears the way for Pawlenty for senate in 2006. Afterall, didn't Pawlenty step aside for the Coleman in '02?

Is it a point of concern that Washington seems to be getting more and more involved in our state level and now even city level politics? There will be a few who will say "we don't know that" but the ties of Coleman to out-of state interests are obvious. His fingerprints on this maneuver, even if Dick Cheney or Karl Rove is controling the strings, are also apparent.

They made a major blunder, however. It would have been more perfect if they would have included St Paul in the terror alert and told us all to go shopping. Your thoughts?

What "Lord of the Rings" Character are you?

Congratulations! You're Aragorn! When I took it a second time I was Sam. Guess what folks, none of these is too flattering.

Do you know your Bushes?

I was frighteningly 10 for ten. I know my Bushes?

World leader Quiz ( 9 questions)

Apparently this is a very accurate test, as far as these thigns go. It says about me: You are a people loving Macedonian dwarf. You are Mother Teresa. You lead with your good works and helpful nature. You just love to give.

This captured my very soul.

personality quiz and obscure referrence all in one.

I am SEJANVS. This is what it says about this character:

You worked as Tiberius' most trusted advisor, but when that lazy coward fled Rome to shack up in his house near the beach, you basically took over as ruler. You are ambitious and righteous, and not above killing to get what you want. But, as with every other leader in Rome, you must keep an eye out for anyone who might thwart your plans. Don't trust anyone, no matter who they might be. You were portrayed by Patrick Stewart.

Cool, I like Patrick Stewart, and like him in this role< I still have most of my hair.

Pop Quiz, What is the most regressive form of personal Tax?

Click link for answer. Don't be surprized that R's think this is a good idea. If you are rich your tax percentage goes way down. If you live paycheck to paycheck your percentage goes way up.
Are they stupid or heartless?

No Bounce for Kerry

Pundits are saying its because of their choice to not go negative. I think its simpler than that. The dems watched their convention and are more motivated than ever. The Republicans didn't watch, why should they listen to such lies, anyway. And the non committed voters don't care and won't care, if they are going to vote at all, until after labor day.

Does anyone agree with me that we should make a legally required number of open forum debates for presidency. These could be all over the nation in front of broad audience bases. Bpth candidates were in Ohio and Pennsylvania this weekend. How much more effort would it hav taken to put them together on one stage? Would this elevate the discourse? Would this focus us on real issues? Does it stand a snowballs chance in an Arizona desert?

Incompetitent mayor follows lead of fluffy senator.

In order to understand this story it is important for people to be aware that Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman spent the mid- nineties polishing his teeth and fluffing his hair as he greedily contemplated a power grab in Minnesota politics. He very soon would make a calculated switch to the Republican Party to gain support from party cronies in a failed bid for Governor.

At the time of this party switch Norm declared that he had no interest in higher office and only wanted to continue as mayor of the capital city. No sooner was he re-elected than he began fist pumping and money grabbing for his race toward the governorship two years later. Upon losing that race the New-York boy with the perpetual grin told Minnesotans (particularly those in St Paul) that he was content to continue as Mayor.

When Norman decided to grab for power once again in 2001, his sights were once again on the governor's office for 2002. But a newly appointed president had different ideas for the shiny young slick politician who reminded him of a stupid Texas governor he once knew. He realized that with the "right' mix of out- of- state money, Norman could be a senator who could displace the pain-in-the ass ( George the first called him a chickensh*t in 1991) whose seat was up for re-election. Thus Norm Coleman, at the bidding of a president and vice president, entered the ugliest and most tragic senate race Minnesota had ever seen.

It was in that year that Coleman supported Kelly to replace him as mayor. So it is really no surprise that Kelly would make this irrelevant statement today. Kelly has probably become interested in a senate seat of his own someday (2006) and is looking for the same out- of- state money to fund his bid. Don't be surprised! In that time frame the messes in Saint Paul may not have blown up yet and it would be his best chance. Look for him to begin making dramtic shifts in his positions on gun control, taxes and welfare. He is coy about his immediate interest in being a poster boy for Bush. Look for that too. These guys do fluff quite well. But he will probably need to get contacts and a hair makeover.

Republicans are arrogant people. They probably think that Pawlenty is good enough as governor to have coattails for that election and that the current junior senator will retread the exact same negativity that he is spewing about Kerry ( most liberal, ineffective, etc.) toward his senior collegue, Mark Dayton.

This is my first blogged prediction. Write down the date. Comment below--

GO HERE!!

Type in "miserable failure". Hit the "I feel lucky" button. You probably won't be surprised.
comments below --

Oprah's book of the month

Terror Alert "High"

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid- but go about your business as if nothing is wrong and remember to vote Republican. Your comments below-

Is it un-Christian to vote for Democrats?

This article sums it up pretty well, although not perfectly. I certainly agree with the perception that the anti-tax (my money) attitude of the Republicans is fundamentally selfish. And it is my personal belief that most Republicans would choose tax reduction over anti-abortion if pressed.

The abortion issue will likely come up again and I will get more opportunity to comment in the future. But show me a Republican that says "reduction of abortions in this country is of the highest priority" and backs that up with legistlative initiatives that provide government funded alternatives for women in crisis pregnancies - even at the expense of tax breaks - and I will revise my position on this issue.

The lip service toward making abortion illegal and the moral proclamations that women need to keep their knees together or fend for themselves are no longer an acceptable public answer to this issue.

That having been said, I long for the Democratic candidate who will allow themselves to even admit that abortion is an evil that should be avoided. Your thoughts below -

The sequel that can't happen!

your random thoughts below

Take the trickster test

I Am Robin Goodfellow
You are that merrie wanderer of the night - outgoing and playful. Like Robin Goodfellow you enjoy a great joke, even when the joke's on you. You're the life of the party - you have a happy disposition and you like to laugh and have a good time. You're mischevious and you enjoy pulling someone's leg, but your jokes are generally good-natured and well meant (unless of course you're dealing with some fool mortal). When it comes right down to it, you'll do what you can to help out a friend.

Take the test and let us know below

Aperfect love story- illegal in 49 states

You kind always knew didn't you?

Chalk up Another One for Minnesota's Fluffy Senator

See below where I say that I miss Paul Wellstone.  Now you know why.  Your thoughts below--

Tonight, Edwards speaks

I'll be listening - open thread here for you comments-

HOW SCARY IS THIS?

YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW

Tuesday at Convention - open thread

A very touching moment midday honoring Democrats who have died since last convention.  this was emotional for me as they recalled Paul Wellstone.   This one man embodied everything that makes me remain a Democrat. 

In all of public life, there is not another who spoke from his very center and believed every word he spoke.  After almost two years, I miss him still.

Monday of Dems Convention (open thread)

any and all comments relating to Dems party in Boston, enter below.

This is kinda fun.

Ask the question:  Who wants to elect a Horny Jerk?  and your answers will very.
It really depends if your other choice is "he grew bogus" or " Uhg, Sewer Bog!" paired up with "Prick's ethic: deny evidence."

Odds get even better when you pair up "Horny Jerk" with "John's Red Wad"

To think we we have three more months of this.  Your thoughts below.

Support our Troops - No Really.

Check out this link for information on how you can provide support to our troops who are caught IN GW Bush's "stop-Loss' policy in Iraq.  Call or email your senator in support of htis amendment.   This is an issue that should easily transcend party lines and politics.   Add your thoughts below.

My turn !!!

so soccer is good for something - your thoughts below

laugh at yourself and the world laughs with you

add your thoughts below

Good enough for me !!!

I'll take the "not bush" please.

Another fun personality test.

Could this be more accurate?  I don't think so.

Wackiness: 60/100Rationality: 70/100Constructiveness: 64/100Leadership: 90/100
You are a WRCL--Wacky Rational Constructive Leader. This makes you a golden god. People gravitate to you, and you make them feel good. You are smart, charismatic, and interesting. You may be too sensitive to others reactions, especially criticism. Your self-opinion and mood depends greatly on those around you.You think fast and have a smart mouth, is a hoot to your friends and razorwire to your enemies. You hold a grudge like a brass ring. You crackle. Although you have a leader's personality, you often choose not to lead, as leaders stray too far from their audience. You probably weren't very popular in high school--the joke's on them!You may be a rock star.

Take the test and let me know  --- below.

Find out more about your favotire musicial artist

or mine.  This is a cool link.  It shows a graphic representation of any musician or group clustered with others according to similarity.   It also provides a discography for your artist that groups each album/cd according to similarity with others by the same artist.  Check it out.   Please comment below on its accuracy according to your taste.  

No wonder people compare him to Reagan

at least W stayed awake.

The picture I have sworn doesn't exist.

I was wrong.   The anecdote is that the girl points his error out to him.  I have expressed my doubt about that too, but even I can be wrong.

Yeah, that's class !!!

Never mind run our country, would you be comfortable turning your back on this guy?

the following words are not my own but I couldn't agree more:

How would you feel about a person who thinks it is okay to grab your shirt and use it to clean their eyeglasses?That's how arrogant our "President" is. During a commercial break on the David Letterman show, producer Maria Pope was on stage and discussing something with Letterman, and while she was standing there in front of Bush, George leaned forward, grabbed the back of her sweater and used it to clean his glasses. Check out the Quicktime video.Regardless of your political party and beliefs, we all know that this administration has raised some serious questions, and has often asked for us to blindly believe in the their drastic actions, all of which are clearly far more serious than this boner on the Letterman show. However, there is not a spin, explanation, or flat out lie that can defend Bush's character in this revealing moment, when he was dumb enough to think that people or cameras were not looking. Even worse scenario is he did know, but just didn't care. We deserve better leadership and representation. If you have any doubts, please vote him out.

Your thoughts encouraged below --

Kerry loyalty test (equal time after all)

Hey folks,  only 5 out of 10.  best thing going for himis he's not GW.  This poll says I am a conflicted media created swing voter.  This poll doesn't take into account the results of my Bush loyalty test.

Click the link, take the test, share your thoughts below.

Hey everybody! Open thread, What's on your minds?

Please use comment line below to comment.

What a hateful Bastard!!!

He sooo obviously liked Spot better!  enter your thoughts below

Welcome to " A page that Aches"

 This original post has moved to the archives page.  I am reposting it here because of the many people who have emailed or asked:  "What the heck does the name mean?"

This title comes from the words of Neil Diamond's song "Be" from the soundtrack for the movie "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" based on the book of the same name by Richard Bach.

Lost,
on a painted sky,
where the clouds are hung
for the poet's eye.
You may find him
if you may find him.
There, on a distant shore,
by the wings of dreams
through an open door.
You may know him,
if you may.

Be
as a page that aches
for a word which speaks
on a themethat is timeless,
while the sun
God will make for your day.

Sing
as a song in search
of a voice that is silent
and the one God
will make for your way.

And we dance
to a whispered voice,
overheard by the soul,
undertook by the heart.
And you may know it
if you may know it.

While the sand
would become the stone
which begat the spark
turned to living bone.

Holy, Holy
Sanctus, Sanctus

Be
as a page that aches 
for a word which speaks 
on a them that is timeless
while the sun 
God will make for your day.
Sing
as a song in search 
of a voice that is silent.
And the one God
will make for your way.

Words by Neil Diamond

These words create an atmosphere that I hope we can live up to. respect for persons with diverse opinions will be expected. Whether weighty or whimsical, I hope the topics found herein will be interesting enough to provoke an occassional response.

Barry Goldsmith died this morning.

trivia question;  Who was this guy?
 responses below

This is fun in case anyone is wondering where I stand.

here is my result to this quiz, where do you stand?

Your score is 0 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been a miserable failure as president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.

I wouldn't say I hate him.  but the rest is accurate.

take the test, responses below

Let the Little boy sing

a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just one more for now

I will give you back your civil liberties for a gazillion dollars!

"My Precious"

nothing to say about this one.

Frodo failed!

One ring to rule them all.  But if this were real wouldn't he be invisable?

I just love this story

Three teens can get this guy so rattled.  You just gotta love the sense of power it gives them.  At the same time,  are we comfortable that this guy gets so easily rattled.  I just wish the photo was better.

They're pyramid protest thing is also somehwat shocking.  glad to know that we have such youth in the world.  Makes me believe their might be hope.

A nation divided

Everyone keeps talking about us and dividing us, not as liberals and conservatives, but according to whether we are part of red america or blue america.  Check out this quiz to see which america you live in.  It tells me that I exist uncomfortably in red america.  I think that is true.   Where do you fit?

I was thinking

that as of today, the media is placing Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin in the toss-up column for this falls elections.   I don't know if they are reading the tea leaves correctly.

I can speak in a most informed way about Minnesota.   My home state has not gone Republican since 1972 when by a fluke it went for Richard Nixon (of all people).  While some have suggested that GW Bush and Richard Nixon have a great deal in common (personally I think Nixon was smarter)  I don't think things look that good for the R's in my backyard.  There are a large number of people disgruntled over the "yes-man" attitude of our junior senator who is in office only because of a fateful plane crash in October of '02 where his beloved opponent was tragically killed along with his wife, daughter and staff members.  His toothy, cocky and smug attitude has even my ultra-conservative brother outraged. 

Add to that that our current governor is a mannequin who found his way into office on the coattails of our fluffy junior senator.  This man has proposed state-wide gambling and attempted balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest of our citizens.  That kind of thinking doesn't sit well in this bastian of liberalism.  Seeing these two buffoons trying to rally troops for Bush/Cheney makes me confident (that if voter turnout is high) we can continue to count MN in the blue column.