"Ethics" man Bennet lies on the Today show.

Dear Today show and Matt Lauer,

Maybe he just misunderstood rather than intentionally lying, but either way, Clinton was not the first to bring up his anti-terrorism efforts in the Fox interview. It was Chris Wallace who first broached the topic, and then seem surprised by the complete response Clinton needed to give, the substance of which has mostly been ignored by the mainstream press, and actively campaigned against by Fox News. Will you commit the sin of omission yet again?

This is the third time I've written to the Today show and as of yet I've received no attempt to directly address my legitimate complaints.

[I just have to admit how much I relish when Bennett was on Meet the Press recently and Andrea Mitchell was hosting the show. I don't have respect for Mitchell's journalism anyway and I watched her totally cross the line and put words in Bennett's mouth (something she usually does for Democrats) while Bennett was sitting right beside her! She said something like, "Well I'm sure that Bill Bennett would say..." He was obviously insulted and flabbergasted and ticked off for the entire roundtable. I enjoyed the whole scene a lot more than a person should.]

Income redistribution or anarchy?

I took Bill O'Reilly's bogus "Cultural Warrior" test and failed it by one, leaving him to label me as leaning heavily "to be an S-P" or Secular Progressive. It's amazing to me already that conservatives go around attacking and labeling people "liberals" because that's considered a bad thing by them, but now this narcissist has to start making up new labels to tear down. Wow--I'm so much more about what people do than who people are.

I am progressive (I can't imagine why a person wouldn't be progressive--any type of growth is progressive, but I digress), but I am religious, so that blows a hole in his ridiculous theory right there.

But question number one is framed so at odds with reality that I had to talk about it here.

1. Do you believe in "income redistribution"--that is, the government taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate in order to fund entitlements to the less well off?

We all believe in income redistribution. If we didn't, we wouldn't pay taxes at all. If we didn't, we wouldn't have local governments, state governments or a federal government.

If we didn't have income redistribution we'd live in an anarchy.

If we didn't have income redistribution we'd all take our big paychecks (G-d knows what the little paycheck people would do) and settle our little plot and dig for water and hire our own mercenaries to keep the other anarchists off our "property." We'd have schools for the affluent, too.

So taxing affluent Americans at a higher proportional rate does not DEFINE income redistribution, it is called a PROGRESSIVE tax system. I'm not necessarily in favor of taxing us this anyway (although I could probably be convinced), let's just take away all the loopholes and pay taxes straight up, corporations, too. O'Reilly, that would still be "income redistribution" you misleading ditto-head.

Framing the debate

The intelligence report says that Iraq has fueled terrorists and made America less safe. Bush's response is that we must be offensive in order to make us more safe. Who's arguing that we do not need to defend ourselves? It's just becoming glaringly obvious that playing offense in Iraq (wait, I thought we were nation building there) isn't working.

Here's my logic: We don't know anything that we didn't know before, the point is that Bush has been saying all along that Iraq and his approach makes us more safe, and that this intelligence report direcctly contradicts their constant BS.

I really don't care that we're more or less safe because of Iraq (I already knew we were less safe, I guess), I just want someone to f**ing get us out of Iraq ASAP and catch the terrorists that really are a threat to us, you know, the "global reach" terrorists that Bush outlined after 9-11 [thanks Vigilante], and let's take aim at the guy who actually planned 9-11 and who is currently flaunting his connections with Afghanistan's Teliban. One day Bush says we're doing everything to catch bin Laden, the next day he's telling Fred Barnes that bin Laden is really not a priority.

We're in this war with an incompetent, bancrupting president who presents one story to the public, and another to his friends.

I know, 1984

I know it's been 1984 for awhile; war is peace, lies are the truth, the truth is ignorance, etc., but I guess I was sleeping when Secretary Rice was doing the lying last time.

She recently directly contradicted Bill Clinton's historical analysis and the 9-11 report and totally mischaracterized her administration's approach to terrorism prior to 9-11. Here are the details from Media Matters, the 9-11 report and Richard Clark's book:

Links to 9-11 report

A fighter and quick thinker

Sherrod Brown took on a room of disgruntled liberals tonight at pricey fundraiser that I attended as a guest of an organizer. He is a bright, capable, energetic leader and detailed the ways that Democrats are going to reverse the results of 2004 in Ohio this year. He's honest and a fighter, he's progressive and realizes that so are most people if you frame the argument in simple terms. My husband asked him how he responds to "cut and run" criticism and he said something like, "Republicans are asking us for a plan when all their mistaken 'plans' have led us to this, and they cut and run in Afghanistan!" I told him that I wish I could hear Democrats saying something like this to voters in regard to Iraq, "If you vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, any Democratic plan, we'll start moving in the right direction to get us out of Iraq; if you vote Republican we'll be staying the chaos." I asked him how he was going to take on the ever-present tool of Republicans, "We won't raise your taxes," B.S. He said that he won't raise taxes on the middle class (I know, it's such a crappy situation). As my dinner pal said to me, "How do people expect to cover $2 billion a week in spending without taxes? It's just a bill we keep building."

Good question. Bush and Dewine are walking around saying, "This expensive war will be continued indefinitely, and we'll make those wealthy tax cuts permanent!" Huh? Bombs and butter, bombs and butter, bombs and butter....

A lot of people were talking about Clinton on Meet the Press and on Fox Morning. Most were happy with what Clinton said, he's brilliant of course, and my husband and I were saying how Fox News' chattering ditto-heads [thanks, Vigilante] are trying to pull a "Howard Dean" on Clinton, trying to make him look like a lunatic because he got mad. If someone suggested I didn't do all I could when I did, I'd get mad, too--and heck, Bush looks like a raving mad man most of the time lately, any conservatives noticing that? Fox isn't showing any of the footage of Clinton's substantive responses to Wallace's question--they don't show how Clinton won the debate, of course. They certainly aren't questioning Bush or Cheney (the guys that still haven't caught bin Laden and who are in the position to do so) with the same question! Heck, I'd follow Clinton's people into Pakistan to catch bin Laden, I know my way around an AK-47, give us clearance King George (okay, maybe I wouldn't now, but I would have before I got married/kids, etc.).

Oh, I just have to add that a relative of mine the other day said, "Bush isn't a friend of the Saudi's!" What planet do these people live on? I didn't even try to argue with that, and I'd been arguing all night--it was just like a switch clicked on in my mind that said, "Don't bother." I hate that thought.

Peace.

A vision for a better future

Tonight my husband and I went to a fundraiser for Joe Sestak of PA. He was phenomenal!! He is the kind of leadership we are looking for as a nation. He is a compassionate Navy guy who is absolutely on the ball with Middle East challenges. He delivered a passionate, articulate, moving, and strong speech about who he was and why he cares about our country and its people. He started running for election because his then toddler daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer--she had terrific healthcare, but he witnessed other children with cancer in this country who didn't have adequate health insurance. 6 million people more have become uninsured since Bush/Cheney. So much for our abundance...

My question for Sestak was how he envisioned our military presence in the Middle East in the future. He was well versed in the intracacies of Iraq's cultural problems and basically said that we'd have a small presence there, in a couple small countries possibly (he didn't list Iraq), to secure those countries and lend stability to our allies, but we shouldn't leave a big footprint. We need leaders like him in Congress.

John Murtha was there also. It is stunning to me that this conservative, ethical Marine has been treated so poorly by the adminstration (Cheney called Murtha dishonest among other nasty implications).

Webb in Virginia starts winning and the press starts spinning

Dear AP,

Just because Allen wasn't pulled aside and offered the explanation that body armor is included in the description "protection equipment" and "tactical equipment" doesn't mean he didn't vote against protecting the National Guard with updated protective equipment, including "body armor." Why are you helping him spin his poor judgement by making excuses for him?

[In "analyzing" an ad that Webb ran against Allen criticizing Allen for voting down body armor, the AP offered the lame excuse that no one specifically mentioned "body armor" when describing the bill on the House floor. I guess our representatives aren't expected to draw thoughtful conclusions from broad concepts. Factcheck.org is on this "spell it out for Allen" bandwagon, also.]