Please read this.  I know it's the LIBERAL MEDIA, but just read the article.

The Pentagon's Troubling Role

I am not above saying that I think the Republicans are trying to rig this election.  I'm not.  All pretense is off.  You've got the president of Diebold saying, publically, mind you, that they're going to "come through" in Ohio.  Few of the Florida problems have been remedied.  I think the Republicans rigged the elections in Georgia and Minnesota last time with voting machines.  Look at the swing in the actual vote count and polling done days before the election.  Notice that exit polling data system....just happened to not work during the 2002 election.  What, you're going to tell me they *wouldn't* do that?  The science of electronic voting is in dispute to the point that many scientists in the field are outraged that electronic voting is going to be such a wide part of this election.  Republican-donor companies DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE THE VOTING MACHINES.  And it goes on and on.  The son of the House's fourth ranking Republican just happens to count the votes in Missouri, one of the most key swing states, and he just so happens to be running for governor.  Do you realize what sort of shit-fit the Republican machine would stir in the public consciousness if the scenario were reversed?  Are we a damn banana republic or are we the Show-Me State?  SHOW ME THE CERTIFIED PAPER BALLOTS, MATT!

I'm sick of trying to be impartial.  I'm sick of trying to be "fair."  These people are corrupt to the core.  They will do anything for power, anything to win, and that's why they do.  I feel like the Manchurian Candidate.  But you know what?  McCarthy *was* a corrupt messiah, and I think these people are too.  And they can get away with it because there's no public outrage.  And whatever "outrage" there is, is simply passed off as "liberal elitist anger" or whatever.  I've tried to hold in check because I think that moveon.org and their manipulation of facts and quotes are part of the problem, not the solution.  It's still not, and I don't like listening to whining either.  But I've had enough of this.  It was wrong when Democratic machines rigged elections in Chicago and Kansas City, and it's wrong now that the Republicans are doing it.

I am outraged.  I'm outraged to the point I'm about ready to type right through my keyboard.  I'm convinced that this election is about far more than whether John Kerry or George W. Bush is more qualified to lead a war on terror.  Allowing the Republicans to win this time will threaten the Democracy.  Don't tell me that's too melodramatic.  Will you just look at what has happened in just the four years since these guys took control?  I can't even start or I won't stop.  Democracy is not about winning; it's about seeking justice and truth.  They don't want to be fair and let the best man win.  They want to gerrymander all but the most Kucinichian Democrats out of office and create a Republican caliphate.  Yes, I know, Democrats are guilty too.  But weigh Democratic crimes in this regard in the last decade, and then compare that to Tom Delay carving five honestly elected Democrats out of office in Texas.  My fear is that Missouri may become the next Texas. 

These guys are classic literary figures, drunk on their own power, messianic in their conviction beyond all reason.  At this point, it's beyond the mechanics of health care policy, education policy, foreign policy, and any other kind of policy you can think of.  It's hard for me to think of living in a world dominated by George W. Bush for another four years.  They have to lose this time.  Just one time, they have to lose, for the good of the country.  He hangs in my mind like a fog, where you read that that it's obvious they're trying to rig the election, and yet, you look out the window at the American people and the sun is still shining.  To borrow from Pope, as seems the custom these days, it's the eternal sunshine of spotless minds.

----shimes

After watching Sen. John Kerry on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. His first person-to-person since the DNC, Kerry seemed loose and willing to make fun of himself. Since the advant of Presidential candidates going on comedy shows to play the dancing monkey for the masses, Kerry ranked a five. He didn't match the ten hit by Richard Nixon's "Sock it to me"? on Laugh-In or Bill Clinton playing the sax on The Arsenio Hall Show. But it wasn't close to the one suffered by...John Kerry when he drove his motorcycle onto the Tonight Show set at the low-point of his primary race. But this morning, everyone from Slate to The Washington Post to CNN lambasted Kerry for being "stiff" to "humorless". For a second, I thought they were talking about Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn that directly followed. But no, they cited Stewart's "powder-puff" questions that Kerry "failed to even make an attempt to be humorous in response." They cited the moment when Stewart asked if Kerry made a nickel everytime someone used katsup. "Would that if it were", in that flat Bostonian sort of a way. But, in order to make Kerry look "stiff" and "humorless", they fail to mention the follow-up when Kerry grabs Stewart's arm and says, "Seriously, use as much as that stuff as you can." As to say, "I mortgaged my house for this damn campaign. Keep eating katsup"! When they cited  his ho-hum response to the Swift Boat Veterans claims, he also said, "I'm trying to figure out if I were in Vietnam, too."

These critics also failed to cite the funniest moment, when Kerry marveled at people who wanted to shake his hand in the men's room. Or after Stewart lobbed an accusation about his voting record, Kerry leans in with a Three Stooges-type sound effect. What's the deal, liberal media? Stewart fed him "puff ball" questions? Yes, but he's on Comedy Central. His show is supposed to be a joke. It shows how far Stewart has wandered into the political conscience when he not only lands the Democratic nominee, but gets accused of being soft on him. Certainly The Daily Show is in the tank for Kerry and the Dems. Their show has become a funny version of www.spinsanity.com; where Stewart rolls out a Bush clip and then proceeds with another Bush clip that totally contridicts the recent statement. He's got an agenda, but he's funny and self-effacing enough where no one really takes it too seriously. But outfits like The Post and CNN have already established their story line that Kerry is a bore who can't relate to the general electorate. These cherry-picked lines not placed Kerry back in that fuddy-duddy mode, but he was a fuddy-duddy on Comedy Central. It's like any moment where Bush says something goofy or when Howard Dean got too excited at that rally. It's fits with the media's preconceived notion and makes their half-assed job all the easier.  It's also possible the mainstream wanted  Stewart's interview to be a dud. The Daily Show finds it easier and easier to score important guests. Even Ted Koppel stated he was "concerned and disturbed" by the rising popularity of Stewart's format.  Bill Clinton was on just last week. Ed Gillespie appeared tonight. Kerry even reminded Stewart that John Edwards formally announced his candidacy back in January. "But he lost," Stewart retorted. "No", beamed Kerry. "He's about to win big time."

And, more significantly, they failed to notice Kerry bringing out his A-material. In response to being called a flip-flopper, Kerry went into a long diatribe about this President who "makes a wrong decision yet stubbornly refuses to accept it." He repeated the word "stubborn" over and over again. It's a good term that's the perfect response to the Bush campaign's assertions. And Kerry finally talked about his environmental record. A record he seems to dodge in the mainstream. "Instead of invading our way out of the oil crisis, we need to invent our way of  the oil crisis." Good line. It should be on a bumper sticker or something. Kerry's not a bad candidate, he's just been poorly handled. And the media has bought it. Could it be fatal. Jon Stewart doesn't seem to think so. In these tense and terse times, perhaps this little comedy show turns out to be the light at the end of the tunnel.

---Jimmy O

It's been an unusually cool August in Southwest Missouri, but that cannot be the only explanation for the flurry of political activity that has occurred in the region home to John Ashcroft, Brad Pitt, and bastardized Chinese Cashew Chicken. You see, President Bush has visited the area three times in the past six months. Vice-President Cheney has been here twice, 
yet he visited both regional "hubs" (I use quotations for the term since Springfield's 160,000 and Joplin's 35,000 population may not qualify as a hub per se) With an electorate that generally votes 55 - 45 Republican in close races, why is the Bush re-election campaign giving so much lip service to this seemingly solidified portion of a key battleground state? The answer seems to be found in looking at Bush's last visit to Springfield on July 30th and Democratic Veep John Edward's two-day stop earlier 
this week. The events suggest an awakened and angry donkey 
in a thinning pachyderm herd.

When President Bush came to Springfield right after the Democratic National Convention ended, he was greeted by over 9,000 people at the newly constructed Hammons Field in Jordan Valley Park. A good turnout, until you factor Hammons Field's capacity of 11,000 seats. Add that 
then to over 200 protestors outside the facility who could audibly be heard over the President's speech and one paints a picture rarely seen in these here parts. The Republican President of the United States not only failed to fill a venue in a stronghold territory but was faced with nasty yet peaceful 
and law-abiding opposition. Now, compare this to Senator John Edward's visit. On Sunday night, I drove over the Southwest Missouri State University for a chance to see the guy I hoped would be the next Vice-President. I assumed the Quad-rangle portion of campus -where the speech was to take place - would be mildly filled and buzzing with anticipation. This was hardly the case. The area was completely filled and hesitant evaluations of the crowd estimated 8,500 people. More liberal - ho ho- estimates hovered over 10,000. And these people stirred and hollered like teenaged girls waiting for an Usher concert to start. I had never really seen anything like this, either. 

 And I had never really seen anything like Edwards. Arms stretched out with two thumbs jutting in the air, he played the crowd like a pro. His speech is the same one you've heard everywhere- "We live in two America", "Hope is on the way", "This country deserves better" - but his style and attitude were the attributes to watch. He had a command and presence that did not suggest the condescension of Kerry or the blatant pandering of Bush. When he talked about people joining the National Guard in order to get through college, you know he knew these people at North Carolina State. When he talks about a neighbor needing to mortgage her house again to get by, you know he's probably lived by this woman at some point. He was good. He was very good. I had to see this guy up close. I rushed the area where he shook hands nearly getting crushed by women twice my age. Senator Edwards looked at me, I jutted out my hands, and as he shook my sweaty palms all I could muster to say was, "Rock and roll, Senator!" Rock and roll, Senator. That's it. Faced with the guy who could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency in a matter of months, I totally choked and could only muster a response worthy of a Ted Nugent concert. He smiled and shook his head as to say, "Who is this crazy, inbred bastard? But hey, you're kinda funny so vote for me anyway." Worse than 
Shimes' call for General Wesley Clark to "give 'em hell", I may be the biggest jack-ass (figuratively and literally) in SW Missouri. I did get to shake hands with him properly later thanks to some political wrangling, but that's rather 
un-important to my point. My point is this: Edwards is a political rock star, only close is competing with the Elvis aura of Bill Clinton.

And there were protestors. About a dozen of them. I was a little underwhelmed by their presence. They began a chant for "Four More Years" but Edwards quickly deflected them by giving them a chance to yell since "they'll be awful quiet after November." With the media being the media in Springfield, this Baker's twelve got the bulk of the coverage. But who 
can blame them when the ringleader of the political opponents 
was dressed like a big waffle. I mean this guy was wearing a waffle suit. I don't know where you can rent a waffle suit so I have to assume he designed this himself. I was honestly impressed. But I was more amused by the fact the guy didn't stitch out a place for his face. So, as he explained that he was protesting a Catholic Kerry's pro-choice stance, all the listener could hear was this voice coming out of a waffle suit. But the waffle suit was the most visible and forceful aspect of the Republican's response to the Democratic VP candidate's presence in Springfield. What was going on here?

Well, it's not good news for the reining Administration. Both sides of 
the political fray shows that Bush-Cheney only has a fifty-fifty approval rating in Springfield. Their Golden Boy from the area - Congressional Majority Whip Roy Blunt - has made some missteps in the past two years and now faces the most formidable oppositio n he's ever seen in local lawyer Jim Newberry. Talk to moderates or even staunch Republicans in the area and they voice concern about Iraq, investments in the stock market, and "crookedness" perceived in dealings with oil companies and defense contractors. All of the political capital Bush-Cheney gained from 9-11 has ceased and now looks to be damaging the core of their base. The Republicans know they must win Missouri to win the Presidency. And they can't win St. Louis or Kansas City where most of the voters reside. So they have to gamble BIG on the Springfield-Branson region. And they've got the 
numbers to show that the bet may not pay off the way they need it to. And people are certainly dissatisfied with Bush. But a Republican district won't sway unless voters have a real, legitimate choice. And I don't think moderates and conservatives flock to Kerry's legislative career and East coast roots as the alternative. But there's something comforting to these 
voters about Edwards that resonates. The charisma, the stature, the well-versed oratory. But more importantly, the sincerity. This guy knows and this guy cares. When Democrats are at their best, this sincerity is on display and people respond with votes. At their worst, they look like snake-oil salesman and people generally stay home. Sincerity is a lost virtue in 
politics. The guy in the waffle suit has sincerity to a point and I grudgingly yet whole-heartedly respect him. But so does Edwards. Unlike the waffle guy, Edwards is willing to show his sincere face somewhere that's not perceived as friendly to his message. And that's the difference. In a race between  the pro-Bush waffle suit guy and VP candidate John Edwards, 
I know how my vote will be cast.

---Jimmy O