Locomotive Mule

To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless aggression was now considered the courage of a loyal ally; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot sucessfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one’s blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership…

–Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 382

Cheney Softens Comments on Kerry and Terror Threat

“I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack,” Cheney said in an interview with the newspaper during a campaign swing through the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin where he is working to bring swing voters to the Republican side.

The vice president said what he had meant was that if the United States is attacked again, he believed Kerry would fall back on a “pre-9/11 mind-set” on foreign policy instead of the “pre-emptive” doctrine pursued by President Bush.

Preemption against whom? Did the Iraqis really present a ‘clear and present danger’ to this country? I have yet to be shown any evidence of that.
Afghanastan? That was reactionary, nothing preemptive there.

They’re still trying to get us to believe that the Iraqis were an imminent threat to us. I’ll allow that in some long way ’round, convoluted fashion it may be possible but I’m just not buying it.

The only preemptive actions taken by this administration have all been in their own self interests, not in mine. So from here, Cheney is still a slime ball for saying this - it’s dishonest on several levels.

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

I’m left speechless at this - I have no adjectives to describe how heinous, how low, how absolutely slimy this man is. I resolve to use his name as an adjective to describe the lowest of the low, the most evil, slimy, most despicable things. For example: “George Bush? He’s proven himself such a liar that he’s completely cheney. He’s almost as cheney as Ashcroft!”

If you think about George W. Bush as CEO of America, Inc., it becomes clearer why his poll numbers have been so low (low to mid forties) in the run up to the election. No president with those kinds of poll numbers in the spring before the election has ever won.

Bush’s basic characteristic is not steadfastness, as the convention attempted to argue, but rashness. He is a gambler who goes for the big bang. He loses his temper easily, and makes hasty and uninformed decisions about important matters. No corporation would keep on a CEO that took risks the way Bush has, if the gambles so often resulted in huge losses.

Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let’s say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You’re on the Board of Directors and the CEO’s term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That’s what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.

More…

President Bush’s campaign won’t say for sure whether he will agree to the three debates proposed by the independent Commission on Presidential Debates, or if a Republican strategist was right this week when he said the Bush campaign would agree to only two debates.

More…

I was recently thinking that the people deciding who the debate moderators would be, held an unusual amount of influence on this election. The type and content of the questions could make or break either contestant.
But that idea assumes that debates will actually take place.

GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp’s position is that “two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule.”

“Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics,” Reed was quoted as saying.

On Thursday, after Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman visited a breakfast of the Arizona delegation to the Republican National Convention here, he refused to elaborate when asked whether that was the Bush campaign’s position.

“Debates are always very important,” Mehlman said.

But will Bush agree to all three of the commission dates, including the one in Arizona?

“We’ll see,” he said.

“Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world,” Miller said. “In this hour of danger, our president has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.” – Zell Miller, RNC Keynote Speech

But this President does not have the courage to stand behind his party’s keynote speaker:

After gauging the harsh reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike to Sen. Zell Miller’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign — led by the first lady — backed away Thursday from Miller’s savage attack on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, insisting that the estranged Democrat was speaking only for himself.

Read More….