Bush's Compassion - After the Election

Bush is the compassionate conservative, remember? At least that is what he says, however I have not seen one policy or action I can point to that I would call compassionate. The closest would be the no child left behind act, but the fact that he has failed to fully fund the program, leads me to believe he is not fully committed to it.

Well it is only going to get worse.

The Washington Post is reporting that the Bush Whitehouse has started notifying government agencies that their budgets will be significantly slashed soon. When do you ask? Well after the election of course.

The Post is reporting that the warnings have gone out to the departments of education, homeland security, a nutrition program for infants and children, head start, homeownership programs, job training, medical research and science programs all face cuts. Not only these, but also the Environmental Protection Agency, The National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department and the Social Security Administration are all facing cuts as well.

The biggest cuts go to the neediest. WIC (the women's, infant's and children's nutrition program) is getting its budget cut by 122 million dollars. Head start loses 177 million.

The absolute worst part of it is that Bush is currently touting increases in many of these programs, as part of his re-election campaign. For example a Home Ownership program that is getting an increase in funding this year (and a corresponding taking of credit by Bush) is then being cut back even further in 2006. So he is using these programs and claiming his support for them, while backhandedly removing funding in future budgets. Just par for the course for this administration.

Why are they doing this? Well it is all part of the plan. The huge deficits we are currently seeing were planned for under the conservative plan to come close to bankrupting the country, and then being forced to cut programs. American's will only stand for cuts in their social programs if they have no choice, and the Bush Tax cuts, and the resulting deficits, were designed to bring us to that point. It is all part of the plan.

So now how do you feel? Tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by cutting services to the neediest Americans. Makes me feel great to be alive.

Bush - Anything Like Churchill?

Newsweek has an excellent article (linked here) that discusses the parallels and distinctions between Churchill, Roosevelt and Bush. It is a very interesting read, and I would recommend it.

One quote from Churchill really struck me:

"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy. But they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."

This is the lesson that Bush truly needs to learn. Bush seems to think that if he is eternally optimistic, things will simply work out the way he wants, and if they don't, then the American people will at least be fooled into sharing his optimism. The problem is that we are not children, and at least some of us can think for ourselves.

Anyway, it is an interesting article.

Limbaugh is outclassed

A few posts ago I posted some of Rush Limbaugh's reactions to the prisoner abuse scandal. I didn't think it could get any worse than that, but I was wrong. Michael Savage, of Savage Nation, celebrated best selling author, host of the third most popular radio show in America, and right wing celebrity, has managed to exceed even Limbaugh. I will let him speak for himself, since I don't really know what to say:

"I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour[s] -- a trial and executed. I think they need to be shown that we are not going to roll over to them ... Instead of putting joysticks, I would have liked to have seen dynamite put in their orifices and they should be dropped from airplanes ... They should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail."

Remember, these are the same prisoners that the Red Cross estimates 70 to 90% of them were innocent and later released.

Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion ... The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one...

"I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.

I'm going to give you one further example from my background as an anthropologist just so that you -- I'm trying to put context on this because you can go crazy if you don't have the context on this, because I'm going to lead up to something of what we must do to these primitives. Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally ... Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people."

What a wonderful human being.

It doesn't stop there. He recently appeared in a live performance called Savage Uncensored in San Francisco. There he said:

- He claimed that the abuse was nothing, and that he suffered worse under his father when he was 16.

- He exclaimed that Lynndie England (the smoking, smiling, pointing guard) should be the poster girl for America's war on terror. She was having fun over there, and shows how kicking "Muslim Ass" can be fun.

- Claimed that we should kill Iraqi women, because if we don't our women will be next. He said they deserved it because our women were killed in 9/11 (obviously he drank the coolaid on the whole "Iraq was behind 9/11" insanity)

- Claimed that his greatest fantasy was to hear bombers flying overhead on their way to kill Iraqis, and that it was better than an orgasm.

Like I said with Limbaugh, it doesn't surprise me that someone thinks this way. There are crackpots and extremists on every side of the spectrum. However this guy also has 6 million listeners a week, he is a best selling author, and he has millions of people who hang on his every word for confirmation of their own beliefs. One crackpot extremist is not a problem, but when they simply represent a large portion of our country, that is what gets me worried. That is what makes me worried for the future of our country.

It sickens and saddens me. Savage in the past claimed he was the original compassionate conservative. Now I fully understand the horror that lurks behind that label.

If you want to read more, click here.

No Exit Strategy For Iraq

Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and told them that it was impossible to determine how long the U.S. troops would need to stay in Iraq after the hand over of power. This was probably not what many Americans wanted to hear. He stated that the next year, year and a half will be critical, and that the troops will be there at least that long.

The problem is, he may be right. I would rather see the U.S. troops pull back and be replaced by an international force under U.N. control, however I see little chance of that happening in the current climate. So unless we see a change in international opinion about this, we will have to stay for the long term, because we owe the Iraqi people that much.

As I stated in an earlier post, this could also simply inflame Iraqi sentiments against us more and more every day we are there, but I don't like the alternative. It is a nasty situation.

The thing we HAVE to remember though, is that we didn't have to be in this situation at all. This was a fully optional war. We were not under immediate threat of attack from Saddam, no matter what the Neocons want you to think. They had no current WMD production. They had no ties to Al Qaida. They were not a threat anymore to their neighbors. They were deterred sufficiently by the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors. All of these things have proven to be true.

So the only reason to go to war after all those, is to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. That is it. While that is a worthy goal, it has to be considered with the costs in mind. If the costs include 5 years of U.S. occupation, spending trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, only to leave at the end with an Iraq only marginally better off than it was before, the question becomes was it worth it? If the American people had been given this cost benefit analysis before the war, they would not have supported it. They only supported it because they were lied to. That is the shame of this situation.

We didn't need to be in Iraq, and we chose to go. Those who made those choices, will now be accountable for the lives lost, the money spent, and the consequences of those choices. It simply infuriates me.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5004488/

Torture Evidence not Admissible?

Slate has an interesting article right now, one that covers a side of the whole torture and abuse debate that I hadn't thought of before.

Not only is the abuse and torture of prisoners inhumane, sadistic, destroying our international relations, making us hypocrites, endangering our soldiers, increasing the appeal of terrorists etc etc etc, but it also makes the evidence gained through these techniques inadmissible as evidence in any trials.

All evidence gained through torture and abuse will likely be thrown out of any future trial, not only for the individual tortured, but also for any trial of anyone he incriminates. So all this evidence is pretty much useless if your goal is to get convictions.

Of course the counterargument might be that we don't care about convictions, as long as we are able to stop future terrorist attacks. There is some validity to that point, especially since it seems that we are not planning on bringing many of these guys to trial anyway. Most likely they will be held for the rest of their lives without trial or legal review, since that is our current Administration's policy. If we do want to try them in the future though, we will be in the difficult position of having lots of evidence against them, but being unable to use it. It is likely we will have these guys winning their trials because we were unable to find enough admissible evidence.

What a disaster.

Rumsfeld gives me a laugh

This whole abuse scandal has been sobering and sickening, but Rumsfeld gave me a laugh today. He is in the middle of a surprise visit to Iraq, and the Abu Ghraib prison. He was asked by reporters if the Pentagon would be releasing the latest round of abuse photos. He told the reporters that if he had his way, he would release all of the photos.

Then, here comes the funny part, he said that government lawyers were advising that they didn't release the photos because it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, because it could be considered further degradation to the prisoners.

So NOW he is concerned about the Geneva Convention? They are willing to sexually abuse, rape, torture and absolutely humiliate prisoners, but releasing photos is a line they won't cross!!! I love the selective respect for the law.

I agree that the photos should not be released. We all know what went on there now, and it would provide additional humiliation for the prisoners. Also it would likely further inflame passions against the U.S. However the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld is galling.

Here is the link to the article

What can I say

The story of the abuse in Iraq just gets more sickening and disgusting. Not just because we are getting more information about what went on there, which is sickening in itself, but also because of the way certain groups are reacting to the information.

The Pentagon, the military, and the President are all passing the buck. No-one seems to be responsible for what happened. The privates who are being tried are all claiming that they were following orders. Those who would have given those orders all claim that the privates were working on their own. Rumsfeld says he is disgusted, even though the guidelines he approved for interrogations often cross the line into being illegal, and outside the Geneva convention. Bush says he is disgusted, but that Rumsfeld is doing a wonderful job.

One of the worst I have heard so far, was this quote from the Los Angeles Times this morning. It was by Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, who said that:

he has not been convinced that the accusations against military intelligence personnel are very serious.

"I still don't know that there is a significant issue here," Cambone told the committee.

So he is happy with the abuse that was occuring? He doesn't see a significant issue in breaking the Geneva Convention? This is a perfect example of the arrogance, lack of foresight and lack of humanity that we are seeing in the military and intelligence communities. If we treat prisoners in this way, then our prisoners are free game, and that is a major problem. That is why we are signatories to the Geneva Convention, and we participated to protect our troops. That is the "significant issue" he is missing, let alone the fact that most Americans do not feel comfortable with this kind of abuse being done in our name.

Who else? A letter to the editor yesterday in the Seattle Times, the person writing basically said he didn't understand why it is such a big deal, and he wondered if all Americans had forgotten 9/11. Well, the only problem with that argument is these are Iraqi prisoners, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no matter how much Bush would want you to think so.

Now for the worst of the worst. Rush Limbaugh, the talking ass from the right, had this to say in an interview with the New Republic:

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?"

I simply don't know what to say to that. The soldiers were just having a good time blowing off some steam? I am speechless.

So not only am I disgusted by what happened in the prisons, I am disgusted by the reaction to the issue on the right and in the military. I just don't know what to say anymore.

Rethinking Iraq. It is happening a lot.

Are you rethinking Iraq at all? If you are like most Americans, the recent month or so has probably changed at least some of your ideas about what is happening there.

Take the U.S. Military. Yesterday's Seattle Times (quoting the Washington Post) had this to say:

Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States is facing the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its stated goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.

Click here for link

According to the article, more and more top-level military thinkers are starting to voice their opinion that we are winning the battles, but losing the war in Iraq.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it — and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

These kinds of statements are very telling coming from the Pentagon. The interesting thing is not so much what they are saying, since many top-level military brass have been unhappy with the prosecution of the war, but the fact that they are speaking this candidly at all. That betrays a deep concern and division, which is getting wider and wider, the fact that they are willing to speak out so boldly speaks volumes.

It basically comes down to the fact that beating up Iraqis on a daily basis is easy. We always have at least a 10 to 1 casualty count, and we handle them mostly without problems. The issue is that we cannot win the "war" by doing this. Every Iraqi we kill spawns more anti American sentiment, and the further we get from a pro-American friendly democracy. What the generals are finally feeling comfortable saying is that the plan is not working; in fact there is no plan. No one in the military or the Pentagon civilian staff has any idea how to get us out of Iraq. The only question now is how do we minimize the damage when we do leave.

I have been rethinking Iraq too. I have been a staunch supporter of the "we broke it, we own it" line of thinking. I am horrified that we ever invaded Iraq, and we should never have gone in. However, since we did, we have an obligation to make sure that the Iraqis are at least no worse off when we do finally leave. Pulling out too early would only leave chaos, deprivation and likely civil war in our wake. Invading in the first place was a crime, leaving too early would simply compound the problem.

At least that is how I have been thinking, but I am starting to wonder if "this way madness lies". The more troops we send in, the more resentment we create, the more destabilized the situation becomes, and the more likely we are to have more and more Americans coming home in body bags, and more and more Iraqis dying as well. I am still convinced we cannot just simply leave tomorrow. That would be unconscionable. However I think we rapidly need to develop a real withdrawal plan, and start the process. We are likely going to have to lower the bar on what an acceptable outcome for Iraq is, and we will have to make some very tough choices.

The withdrawal plan must be a full turnover to the U.N. We need to go hat in hand, and apologize for our invasion of Iraq. Obviously this will not happen with Bush, which makes it even more imperative that we get him out of office. We need to take responsibility for our actions, approach the world, and say our mea culpas. The problem with this is that it is far from certain that the U.N. will take the responsibility. There is a good chance they will simply tell us we made the mess and we need to live with it. However I think it is reasonably likely that cooler heads will prevail, and the welfare of the Iraqi people will bring the U.N. around.

Then, we need to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. They are tainted for the Iraqi people now, especially after the recent abuse scandals. We need to allow the U.N. to replace the U.S. troops with soldiers with far less baggage, from countries that can be seen as honest brokers. This will irk the U.S. elites to no end, as they will lose all control over Iraq, however it is likely the best thing we can do for both Iraqi's and American soldiers. We will also probably need to pay reparations, and possibly also pay the way for at least some of those replacement troops. Our children will be paying for the Iraq fiasco years from now.

Once the U.S. troops are out, then the hope would be that Iraqis would no longer have such a personal issue with the troops. The best scenario for them would be a feeling of vindication, that they were successful in ousting the U.S. That way they would be more likely to accept the new arrangement. This will be a very bitter pill for the U.S. to swallow, but it is a better one than the alternative.

There are good counter arguments to my statements above. The first is that it will hurt us in future conflicts, because once again it will have been shown that you can't beat the U.S. in an open fight, but you can if you simply wear them down over time. There is validity to this, and it is a concern of mine. Another good argument is my own previous position, that we have a responsibility to fix our mistakes, and why should be ask other country's soldiers to die in our place for our mistakes.

Both these arguments must be compared with the alternative however. If we stay, with increasing troop force levels, and the current cycle of violence and revenge, we could be there for another 5 years, and then finally leave with nothing better than we started with. What a waste of life. Quoting John Kerry, “How can you ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake?” As for the Iraqis, they will suffer because of what we have done, and there is a possibility that civil war may result. However if we stay it is likely that there will be years more of violence, and that is not good either.

We are in a situation where there are no good choices. Anything we do will likely have disastrous consequences. George Bush and his neocon friends have put the world and us in an awful situation, and now we have to deal with it. Whatever choices we make will be bad, we simply have to figure out what is the best of these bad choices. I am still not convinced that it is to pull out, but I am seriously thinking about it.

Rumsfeld out?

Rumsfeld is in trouble. He is appearing in front of Congress tomorrow, and he will be grilled about his response to the allegations of abuse in Iraqi prisons under his command. There are a number of Republicans and Democrats who have already called for his resignation, and I am sure it will come up tomorrow.

However even worse than that, it is reported that Bush is furious at Rumsfeld. Bush is claiming that he didn't find out the extent of the abuse until he saw it in the media. He is saying that Rumsfeld should have let him know about it a long time before, and that he was blindsided. Well, maybe that is true, but again you have to remember that this is a President who admits he never reads the paper. Either way however it is not good news for Rumsfeld, and it looks like it is possible that he will be the sacrifice.

So Rumsfeld maybe out! Add to the list Powell. GQ magazine recently reported that Powell is tired of the marginalized positon he has had in the Administration, and is planning on retiring before Bush's second term. So Bush's cabinet is falling apart. Other than Rumsfeld and Powell, we have Cheney, who has also been rumored might not join Bush in a second term, and it gets even more interesting. Add in the fact that hte majority of the rest of his cabinet is made of of Neo-cons who have lost their credibility in their disastrous predictions about Iraq, and you end up in a second term for Bush with only Rice left. What a couple.

This meltdown is amazing to watch, and will be a fun drama for the election season. Far be it for me to wish ill on others, but these guys deserve little else, since they have destroyed the country and ruined many lives while causing us to be in more danger in the future. I have very little sympathy.

Saved from the memory hole.

How many of you remember back to last March, when the war in Iraq was in full swing. A number of U.S. prisoners of war had just been paraded around on Iraqi television, and the U.S. Administration was livid. Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair were all quoted saying that the airing of this footage was a violation of the Geneva convention, because the convention forbids humiliating prisoners. Here is a quote from Rumsfeld:

Quote:
"We do know that the Geneva Convention makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be shown and pictured and humiliated. And it's something that the United States does not do."


They also called for the prisoners to be treated humanely, as we would treat them, and that we would hold any who fail to do so accountable as war criminals. Here is Bush:

Quote:
"We expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."


So, according to Rumsfeld, showing pictures on TV of captured POW's is humiliating, and therefore a violation of the Geneva Convention. According to Bush those who don't treat prisoners humanely are guilty of war crimes.

Well I can tell you right now, I would rather be shown on enemy TV captured, than I would be one of the Iraqi pows in U.S. custody. I think it is a little more humiliating to be stripped naked and put in a pile, or forced to wear women's underwear, or placed in similated sex acts, or be forced to masturbate in front of others, or to be sodomized. I am waiting for the war crimes tribunals to commence!

Abuse in Iraqi Prisons

Former Iraqi Prisoner: Americans are as bad as "10 Saddams!"

This quote sums up the main problem caused by the abuse that occurred in Iraqi prisons under American control. As the abuse probe widens, and more information about what happened in the prisons gets out, the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people will suffer a major setback. The abuse of prisoners is horrific, and unpardonable. Not only have these American soldiers violated international law and standards, but they have also likely caused the deaths of many more of their fellow soldiers, as more Iraqis are moved to resist the occupation.

Personally, I find it hard to stomach what the Americans did. Here is a list of some of the things that were included in an internal U.S. Military report, that was buried and apparently was never read at the top of the chain of command, until the whole issue escaped.

"a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.


(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees."


This list of reported abuses was covered up inside the military, as they tried to avoid the issue coming to light. While it is possible that they covered this up in order to avoid a negative firestorm amongst the Iraqi's and world opinion, it seems more likely that they covered it up because they tentatively approved of what was going on. The soldiers involved suffered no reprimands or any action until the whole thing burst out into the open. If the military was truly disgusted by what went on, then they would have been taken care of before all this was made public.

Why was this abuse going on? The U.S. military and the Bush Administration were desperate to find WMD. Their whole justification for war, the whole basis of their idea of preventative war, was based on the threat that Iraq posed to us through their interaction with Al Qaida and their WMD. When we found evidence of neither, we got desperate, and pulled out all the stops to force these prisoners to speak. I have no doubt that the military intelligence units in these prisons had a very clear mandate. They knew what they had to learn, and they were told to do anything they could to get the information out of these guys.

I know there might be times when you have to step beyond the bounds of propriety in cases where many lives are immediately at stake. I have watched 24. But in this case we were torturing and abusing these guys to try and support faulty reasoning and intelligence on our own part. To cover our backs. And that is unconscionable.

While the military and the Bush Administration want us to believe this is an isolated incident, the truth is that this is symptomatic of their whole attitude in the war on terror. Their approach has been "anything goes" when it comes to fighting terrorism, whether it is removing long held civil rights, ignoring international law, ignoring the U.N. and our allies, invading countries based on hunches about their involvement in terrorism etc. The Bush Administration has set the tone, and that is that when it comes to protecting the American people, we will do anything at all. That lack of restraint is what will cause us to be in more danger in the future. That lack of restraint will be the cause of many more American deaths.

County Democratic Caucus

This last Saturday I went to my regional Democratic caucus as an elected delegate for Edwards. It was my second caucus experience, and it was very interesting. The most obvious thing was that Democrats are not very organized, at least at this level. The event was disorganized and went way over time because of a lack of planning. However as one nice older lady I spoke with for a while said, "The Republicans get all the type A, driven organized types, we get all the free spirited type B's." I guess she had a point.

The second thing that was noteworthy was the number of delegates. Apparently 4 years ago there were only about 50 delegates at this level. The base was obviously not very energized. This year there were approximately 400 people there, and the mood was apparently very different. One thing Bush has done, he has energized the Democratic base, more than they have been for years.

I was an Edwards delegate, which was pretty meaningless, as there were only 12 of us out of over 400 delegates present. In order to pass delegates to the state caucuses, you have to have at least 15% of the total votes. At 12 we were not going to make it. Kerry, Dean and Kucinich all were vying desperately for us to make a move to their camps, which was funny, exasperating, interesting, annoying and exciting all at once. We suffered wave after wave of very sincere individuals doing their best to sway us to their camps. In order to have our vote count, we would need to move to one of the groups with a larger that 15% count, so it was a decision we really needed to make, and they knew it.

The Kerry camp had about 40% of the delegates, the Kucinich and Dean camps about 25% each, and the rest divided amongst that last 10% (Undecided, Clark and Edwards. Sharpton did not register). It might seem strange that Dean and Kucinich were doing so well, but I live in the Pacific Northwest, and this is one of their strongholds, in fact for Kucinich, it is probably his only stronghold. Dean has dropped out of the race, but the goal of the Deaniacs was to still have a presence at the national convention, so they could make their issues heard. The Kucinich camp had the same goal, they knew their candidate would not win, but they wanted to maximize their standing at the convention.

So what did I do?? I ended up in the Dean camp. I agree that it is important to have a voice for his issues at the convention, and I see the Dean camp as the best way to do that. Kucinich had a decent showing of support here, but nationally he is doing very poorly, and no matter how many delegates we send for him from my neck of the woods, he will be pretty insignificant at the end. Not only will Dean still have a reasonable number of delegates, but he still has an army of committed supporters across the country who have moved from his Dean for America campaign to his Democracy for America grass roots organization. I think he will still have an impact at the convention.

All in all it was a good experience. It was fun to have good discussions with committed Democrats who share my ideals. It was fun to meet some very nice people, and it was fun to see the large number of people energized to send George Bush home. Hope we succeed.

Back from the dead?

I have been missing from the blog for a little over a week, sorry to anyone who has been waiting for an update! :) Work has been crazy, so I have been too busy to really think about any of these issues, not that there hasn't been anything important going on. I am back now though, and I appreciate your patience.