Log in

No account? Create an account
Left Wing News

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> Left Wing News dot ORG
> profile

Friday, December 24th, 2004
1:53 am

What happens when one of the premier conservative weblogs decides to stem the tide of images of American soldiers dying in Iraq? Hilarity!

Let's see if we can't conjure up a nice jiggly gut laugh at that one, folks.

And Brash, we could probably use a little...I don't know, dusting off? This place is about as useful as a box of condoms for a priest.

(comment on this)

Tuesday, July 6th, 2004
10:33 am - It's Not Fuckin' Vilsack!

John Kerry today announced that his presidential running mate would be former rival John Edwards.

...I can't wait to see the Edwards/Cheney debates.

Get used to saying this everybody: "Vice President Edwards"

(2 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, June 30th, 2004
1:47 pm

So I was sitting in my favorite Fair Trade coffee shop, reading a New Yorker (forgot the ice blue Ipod at home), drinking a cappucino and smoking clove cigarettes, when I thought, "Hey, the world is in trouble! Conservatism is such a bad thing, I just don't know what I would do if that Bush-fellow got relected. I would just positively throw a fit!"

Then I started to read an article about street performers who make statues out of their own feces and sort of forgot about it.

Because I am a fucking liberal.

(1 comment | comment on this)

Tuesday, June 29th, 2004
2:03 pm

Expect some sort of earth-shattering, life-affirming, and probably not particularly politically oriented rant shortly. Because I don't care, but I hate you all just enough to bother.

(comment on this)

Wednesday, June 9th, 2004
12:14 pm - Republicans Politicize Reagan's Death

Okay, I knew it would happen. We all did, didn't we? So, I've already talked about how I'm from Minnesota, and Wellstone's death significantly touched me. Hell, every Minnesota liberal was touched by his sudden death. But when he died, and the eulogies at his memorial got a bit roudy, the Right branded the memorial as a sham, and declared it a conspiracy organized by the DNC. Of course, if by "DNC" they really meant "David Wellstone", then they were right on the button. In David Wellstone's own (paraphrased) words, the irony is that we were rushing this so much, we didn't even consider the political implications of the memorial, and that is what hurt us. The Right lamblasted the Minnesota Left, calling us ghouls for "politicizing" the death of a Senator. It lost us the election.

But now Reagan, who was to conservatives in this nation as Wellstone was to liberals in Minnesota, is dead. You'd think that the Right would, after roasting the Left over their supposed ghoulishness, would take care to not politicize Reagan's death and try to use it to their advantage.

They are.

I reference this article, published by the Boston Globe, which calls attention to the ghoulishness of the Republicans. And the worst part is that it's only begun:

Campaigns seize on Reagan's legacyCollapse )

(1 comment | comment on this)

8:49 am - Republican Survivor

I've been surfing around the internet, as I usually do, when I found this interesting site. DTripTV.org. I was intrigued. It's a cartoon Republican survivor. Based on popular internet "flash cartoons", it potrays Republicans George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Katherine Harris, Tom DeLay and Ann Coulter in a Survivor style web cartoon. After each episode, someone needs to be voted off (last "webisode", it was either Ann Coulter or John Ashcroft... Ashcroft got the boot), and then they go onto the next episode. It's pure genius, and funny.

But if you'll notice, the title bar reads "DCCC". I'm not sure if you know what that means, because at first I didn't. So I read the disclaimer at the bottem, hoping it would elaborate on the confusing acronym. It reads:

Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee, 430 South Capitol Street, SE Washington, DC 20003, 202-863-1500. www.dccc.org




So the DEMOCRATS made this cartoon? The Democrats, the losers, the ones who let themselves be kicked around by the Republicans? The Democrats, the ones who practically HANDED Bush the 2000 election? The Democrats, the ones who nominated John "My face is made of wood" Kerry for president? THOSE Democrats? How is this possible? How did they do this? How did they get the balls?

Apparently, the Democrats are really gearing up. The Democrats, having won in South Dakota (now having an all Democratic delegation in a supposedly "red state") and in a few other key states (detailed in a previous post), are really gearing up. This anger over Bush has reached fever pitch, and Democrats are not letting the Republicans go on this one. They're going to fight with everything they have, everything from hard-fought campaigns to subsersive propoganda in the form of cartoons. I mean, this kind of raunchy anti-Bush flash stuff is usually made by those who are not professionally involved. But now, apparently, the Democrats are starting to realize that you can't win by playing nice. Hell, this still is nice compared to what the Republicans have been doing. But maybe this is a clean version of the Republican tricks that came to full fruitation in the 1992 election. Maybe the Democrats think they can win by instead of being nasty and dirty, be hilarious and truthful.

Oh, and at least the DCCC was up front about making this Flash cartoon. I'm sure if the RNC were to do the same thing, they'd create a series of shell organizations and PACs to hide their trail... not because they necessarily have anything to hide, but because they're SO FUCKING USED TO IT.

(comment on this)

Monday, June 7th, 2004
12:30 pm - Kerry in the polls...

I was reading George W. Bush's site, and an article claimed that Kerry had suffered "deterioration" in nearly every aspect of the polls. And then they went on to quote random statistics, with statistical comparison that would make my Stats Professor's head spin. But as I looked at the information presented, I noticed the aspects weren't policy issues, it was character issues. Also, they were comparing stats from March to May, which is interesting, because that was back when the media was so focused on the Democratic primaries, that one might have started to think that the only people running were Democrats. Now, with Bush attack ads airing non-stop, how can Kerry help but to have suffered in the character polls?

But what's character? Psh, it means nothing. How about the issues, though? Regardless of how little the Republicans would like you to think about the issues, they do remain fairly important I looked up a recent CNN poll, and this is what I found...

Which candidate - George W. Bush or John Kerry - do you think would do a better job on the following...

Not Sure
Handling the war on terrorism 49 42 9
Moral values 46 42 12
Handling foreign policy 44 46 10
Handling the situation in Iraq 43 46 11
Taxes 41 47 12
Gay marriage 39 39 22
Handling the economy 38 51 11
Reducing unemployment 36 52 12
Reducing the deficit 34 52 14
Health care 33 52 15
Protecting the environment 33 55 12

Time/CNN Poll conducted May 12-13, 2004 of 1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

So it looks like that Kerry in fact leads Bush in almost everything, and is being beaten by Bush in only two issues, which is within 7 percentage points (at most). Who's "deteriorating" now, Bush?

(3 comments | comment on this)

7:11 am - Poor ol' Dead Reagan

He's dead now. Not like I care. I got zero sympathy from conservatives when Wellstone died, and in fact was ridiculed, along with the man who just passed away. In an attempt to make fun of the man whose banner read, "WELLSTONE!", I still see bumper stickers that read, "TOMBSTONE!" The right has no decency. Now, I don't like Reagan. In fact, I'm pretty sure he was what's wrong with America in the 1980's. I also don't like how he took credit for "defeating communism." He didn't defeat communism, totalitarianism in Russia just crumbled on its own because as history will show, all totalitarian regimes will fall, regardless of their economic theories that they employ. Reagan put on a show for America, and America bought it. Now that he's dead, people are crying.

Not me. I have no soul, remember? I'm a bastard left wing conspiracy theorist commie pinko scumbag. Feelings and emotion are a mystery to me. That's why I do things like this:

Do the Reagan Dance!

My condolences.

(1 comment | comment on this)

Friday, June 4th, 2004
9:23 am - Renegade Bishops

Okay, now, being born into an Irish Catholic family, I have felt a particular connection to this whole fiasco about whether or not Kerry, a devout Catholic, should receive communion. This came about when Archbishop O'Malley of Boston told Kerry and other catholic pro-choice lawmakers in his diocese, that they should not try to receive communion, however, he did not ban priests from doing so. This is not uncommon, because for years, O'Malley has held this stance, and so did his predecessor. But what was mere posturing became much more when Archbishop Raymond "Shithead" Burke made comments MONTHS after O'Malley made those statements, declaring that HE would refuse Kerry communion if he were to attend mass in St. Louis, and that "Kerry should obey his archbishop and not receive communion" Of course, Archbishop O'Malley did not tell Kerry he couldn't have communion - just that Kerry should reconsider doing so. Burke had issued a ban in his own diocese, saying, "Universal church law provides that such persons are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." Which is bullshit. You can only be denying communion if you're a heretic, excommunicated or not Catholic (the last one I don't agree with, but whatever).

Burke declares that not only pro-choice lawmakers are affected by this ban, but those who support euthanasia, stem-cell research and other absurdities. However, one thing he convienently did not mention: execution. Mind you, the Catholic church STRONGLY opposes the death penalty. Whenever a head of state is going to authorize an execution, the Catholic Church knows about it, and the pope himself calls up that official and pleads with them. I would like to note that George W Bush had a strong working relationship with the Pope as Governor of Texas. But apparently it's okay to give communion to those support killing a grown man, but not a man who supports a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

And might I add that there is no precedent in Church law for denying a lay Catholic who party of the church communion. This is all baseless. And retarded.

I do not blame the Catholic Church, as many have been doing for this. The Church itself is quite clear in what it stands for. It's these renegade bishops who are jumping into the political spectrum, who violate their OWN church's teachings by supporting the death penalty. These bishops need to be put into line. The Pope needs to put in a few calls.

(comment on this)

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004
7:24 pm - A Five-Year Plan

For this to work, we have to strip the power the oil tycoons have from them, which is not easily done. Once that happens, though, my plan can be put into action. Here is my plan:

Over the next five years, we phase out the importation of oil from the Middle East, and balance it with an increase in importation of oil from Russia and Mexico (which can be done, they have it, and boat loads of it). However, Russia and Mexico are bound to come up short when it comes to satisfying the American consumer's insatiable appetite for oil, so we supplement the difference with good ol' made-in-the-USA Ethanol.

Once totally on this system of oil production, we will be free from the grip the Middle East has on our nation's balls, and we'll be able to more fairly fight terrorism. Oh, and it will boost the economy of Russia, Mexico, and the US, which helps the world out in general.

Now, I wouldn't be a pinko-lefty if I didn't add in this next bit. This, of course, would just be an interim stage between now and the inevitable hydrogen cell. We can use our boosted economy to help fund that, too.

current mood: optimistic

(4 comments | comment on this)

8:21 am - Victory in South Dakota

Contrary to what conservatives might have you believe, the Democrats are starting to build up steam. And they've been in solid red states (red denotes Republican, for those who are not familiar with the lingo). Bush won in Kentucky by a margin of 17%, yet a Democrat won a House seat. Bush won Louisiana by a margin of 8%, and a Democrat won the Governorship. And now, in a state where Bush won by a whopping margin of 22%, a Democrat has won the state's lone House seat. This shows a distinct trend, with the state electing Tim Johnson to the Senate in 2002 (and the other Senate seat being held by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle), giving this red state an all blue congressional delegation.

But what does really mean? South Dakota, having only three electoral votes and one House seat, means nothing in the race for a majority in the House and in the Presidential election, right? Wrong! It's all about trends. And when supposedly solid red states like South Dakota suddenly starts voting Democrat, that means that something is up. And it doesn't just pertain to the South Dakota or even just the midwest. It means that all over, people who once were Republican are starting to realize that the Grand Old Party is really more radical than they would have us believe. With New Right ideologues like Sanatorum in the Senate, Hassert in the House, and the neocons in the White House, it's suddenly becoming clear that the party that once was considered the guardians of the budget and the party of common sense is becoming the raiders of the budget and the party of no sense. Moderates, who make up a third of the nation, are drifting to the Democratic Party. What do the Republicans do to solve this? Do they become more moderate and tone down the rhetoric? No, that would be the smart thing to do. They're toning up the rhetoric, and pretending that they aren't the party of division and lies. A party of denial is what they've become, denying their own losses, denying their own mistakes, and denying the reality that surrounds them. The Republicans are losing, they have been losing every since the "compassionate conservatives" won.

South Dakota bodes well for the upcoming November election. Let's hope that this trend continues.

(comment on this)

Thursday, May 27th, 2004
11:17 am - Kerry's Money Conundrum

Okay, so usually the Democratic and Republican national conventions are at around the same time, but the RNC decided that this year, they were going to pull a fast one on the DNC. They pushed their convention back to August, which you'd realize, unless you're retarded, that is very late. The DNC, who thought they could have a chance at winning by playing by the rules, kept their convention date at the standard July date. So now the Republicans have truly pulled a fazst one. They get an extra five weeks of raising and spending unlimited money, while Kerry is going to be tied town for five weeks. It is in fact likely that Bush will spend more in those five weeks than Kerry will be able to between his nomination and the election! How is this travesty possible, you ask?

Well, after Watergate, congress pushed through some sweeping election finance reforms. During the primary, each candidate takes federal matching funds, but is limited in their spending of their own money. However, once a candidate is nominated, they are limited in their spending to $75 million, and cannot spend a dime more. Thus once John Kerry is officially nominated by the DNC, he can only spend $75. The same goes for Bush. However, since the Republicans moved their convention to August, Bush won't be limited to $75 million until five weeks after that same restriction is placed upon Kerry.

Outrageous? Sounds as such. And with a warchest of over $200 million (and growing), Bush will have more than enough to quash Kerry in those five vital weeks. If Kerry were to try to merely match Bush's spending over those five weeks, then the day Bush is nominated, he will have more monay than Kerry 2:1. How is this fair campaigning?

The thought of putting off his acceptance of the nomination until the day Bush accepts his nomination was worthy of consideration. However, it would have been dirty enough to be worthy of being in the Republican Campaign Handbook. Republicans, always blind to their own misdeeds, blasted Kerry for playing with the law, and made him look like a cheater (the Republicans already having gotten away with their cheating). And Kerry, understandably, backed down. Any campaign stategist could have predicted that would happen, and it did.

So what does Kerry do now? He's got five weeks of vulnerability. He could just not spend anything for those weeks, but he'd get smothered by Bush. He could try to keep up with Bush, but then he'd be left high and dry right before the election. He could try to pace himself over those five weeks, only doing ads he needs to do, but he'd still be smothered by Bush. Either way, Kerry is screwed.

The only answer here is PACs. For a long time, PACs have been the Democrats' salvation. Although Republicans have fewer donors, each donation is huge. Bush received $142.3 million from donations over $200, while Kerry only received $52.7 million from donations over $200*. The difference is astounding. But that's why liberal PACs exist. They are there to balance out the playing field. And Kerry will have to try to somehow conduit money to PACs, or encourage individual donors to give to PACs. Because they are the only ones who will be able to carry Kerry's torch during those five weeks that Bush stole.

(comment on this)

> top of page