You should. It's wonderful here. I'm trying to get more of "us" to move to Vancouver - we need to make it to 1% of the population one of these days! :D

For those looking for facts and not just something to boost their own viewpoint:

Bush Piloted Guard Trainers Before He Quit

Friday, September 10, 2004



WASHINGTON — George W. Bush (search) began flying a two-seat training jet more frequently and twice required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter in the weeks just before he quit flying for the Texas Air National Guard (search) in 1972, his pilot logs show.

The logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 trainers in February and March 1972, including eight times in one week and four of those only as a co-pilot. Bush, then a first lieutenant, flew in T-33s only twice in the previous six months and three times in the year ending July 31, 1971.

The records also show Bush required two passes to land an F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot was on April 16.

Meanwhile, questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of Bush's commanders in 1972 and 1973. The memos, which were publicized by CBS News on its "60 Minutes" program, say Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

The network defended the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian (search).

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

The Defense Department released Bush's pilot logs this week under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press. The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Thursday said he had no information on the reasons behind the multiple-approach landings or the surge in training-jet flights.

"He did his training and was honorably discharged," Duffy said.

Read rest here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131961,00.html

Am I to understand that this article does not boost your viewpoint? :rolleyes:

The article is full of OPINIONS on whether or not the memos are authentic. Or are there some facts to prove that he did not ignore a direct order from a superior officer and lose his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam? Because I think I missed the facts in this one. Words like 'doubt' and phrases like 'virtually certain' do not constitute fact, or do they? :confused:

No, what you are to understand is that its not only about looking at 1 side of an issue which is what many people do. Its not my viewpoint I didnt serve in the National Guard or Vietnam...but the point is there are always 2 sides to an issue..and its ignorant to only seek out things that line up with what you believe in. I'm not singling you out..just speaking generally...

If you read the article you'd see that its likely that the documents written in 1972 were written using Microsoft programs..because typewriters back then could not type in superscript. Its likely a forgery.

I read the article already. But I've not seen the memo. Ramsey Lines could say whatever she wants, it doesn't prove anything as fact. How do I know that there is a superscript in the memo? The fact is we don't know what's true and what's not based on what we're fed by the media. We don't know that the 60 Minutes story is any more false than this story that you posted. All any of us know is what someone else chooses to tell us and then we choose what to believe. None of this stuff is 'fact.' Ask Jayson Blair.

Because the memo was shown on TV during the broadcast and its posted on the Internet.

My point is and has been that people should be more concerned with all vantage points of an issue instead of quickly feeding into what they want to believe the truth to be...or some convenient conspiracy theory...

The assumption is that I first learned of this from either the broadcast or the internet? Some of us read the newspaper, which unfortunately did not provide a copy of this memo. Can you please post the link for the memo?

Doesn't everyone post things that quickly feed into what they want to believe or "convenient conspiracy theories?" :rolleyes: I'm trying to remember when anyone has ever posted something that supported the opposite of what they believed. :confused: The assumption that since they don't they must not take into account all vantage points is a fallacy. What it translates to me is if someone believes a certain thing, they couldn't have possibly considered all sides. That's just a crock.

After I look at this memo, I'm sure I'll believe that everything in that last article is true. Otherwise, once again, I'll just be flying on the coattails of my "convenient conspiracy theories."

so folks looking for facts should consult Fox News, a clearly right-leaning media outlet? i'll have to remember that next time...
seriously:p anyone looking for the facts should look at BOTH sides before forming an opinion. it helps to be informed and i'm just doing my part to help the general public. it's my community service, shall we say:D

great point!

The truth comes out..
 

Just as I suggested..the documents were fake...just decided to let folk know :cool:

PS - Had this been FOX news..people would be up in arms saying the President needed to be impeached..

WASHINGTON - CBS News and its venerable anchor Dan Rather have suffered a major blow to their credibility, admitting they were duped by the source of a story purporting to show George W. Bush was given favoured treatment in avoiding the Vietnam War in the 1970s.

Rather apologized to viewers last night on his network newscast after airing an interview with the source, West Texas rancher Bill Burkett, a former Guard officer with a history of trying to discredit Bush.

Burkett admitted he lied to CBS about the origin of documents, which were said to have been written by the young Bush's unit commander, Lt.-Col. Jerry Killian.

"The failure to properly scrutinize the documents and its source led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so," Rather said.

"I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry.

"This was an error made in good faith as we tried to carry on the CBS News tradition of asking tough questions and investigative reports. But it was a mistake."

The original report, which aired Sept. 8, relied on four memos the network said it had obtained showing Killian felt under pressure to "sugar coat" the young pilot's military record, and that Bush had refused an order to take a physical exam.

In a statement from CBS earlier in the day, the network that pioneered the television newsmagazine did not concede the documents were forgeries, as alleged by a number of experts and Killian's former secretary.

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report," said CBS News president Andrew Heyward.

"We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188854

Skip Gates on how the GOP lost AfAms
 

Food for thought. This was originally posted in CC, but of course, name-calling got it locked. Here, we should have more insightful discussion, I hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/op...rint&position=

September 19, 2004
GUEST COLUMNIST
Swallowing the Elephant
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.

The moment when the Republican Party lost black America can be given a date: Oct. 26, 1960. Martin Luther King Jr., arrested in Georgia during a sit-in, had been transferred to a maximum-security prison and sentenced to four months on the chain gang, without bail. As The Times reported, John F. Kennedy called Coretta King, expressing his concern. Richard Nixon didn't.

"It took courage to call my daughter-in-law at a time like this," King's father said about Kennedy at a church rally. "I've got all my votes and I've got a suitcase, and I'm going to take them up there and dump them in his lap." In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower had received nearly 40 percent of the black vote. (I myself sported an "I Like Ike" button in first grade.) In 1960, Nixon received 32 percent. A few years later, as the civil-rights era heated up and the G.O.P. pursued its "Southern strategy," blacks effectively became a one-party constituency.

But at what cost? Speaking to a National Urban League audience in July, President Bush quoted an Illinois legislator's piquant remark that "blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant," and went on to pose a series of questions that black people themselves have been asking: "Does the Democrat party take African-American voters for granted? Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?"

Of course, such questions have an unspoken corollary: Why support a party that has written you off?

Some black Republicans will tell you that however important the legal reforms of the civil-rights era had been 40 years ago, blacks today will be well served by the party of school reform and faith-based programs, the party of the so-called ownership society. "These are going to be the pillars of the black community," Condoleezza Rice told me. "In my little community in Birmingham, Alabama, in the 50's and 60's, there were black-owned businesses everywhere, and everybody owned their own homes. That made our community strong. We've got to get back to that."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, says the Republicans' low levels of black support are unhealthy for the party - once the party of Lincoln, after all - and for the African-American community. Part of what's gone wrong, he told me, is that Republicans don't advertise in black media markets. "If the conversation in the community is predominantly Democrat, and we don't make the argument on urban radio and we don't pay attention to the African-American newspapers, and if we don't campaign in the community, then why are we surprised when people don't hear our arguments and don't vote for our candidates?"

What's more, many blacks are evangelical Protestants, and tend to be more conservative than their white counterparts on "social" issues like gay rights and capital punishment. "The Democratic Party is not 90 percent more black friendly than we are," Rove exclaims.

Why, then, are blacks such down-the-line Democrats? My Harvard colleague Michael Dawson, a descendant of a black Democratic congressman from Chicago, agrees with Rove that black people are socially conservative. But the issues they vote on are racial and, especially, economic.

When it comes to race, he points out, parties have multilevel strategies. Republicans can appeal to white moderates by signaling a measure of compassion about problems of race. "On the other hand," Dawson observes, "you can go into places such as Florida and try systematically to disenfranchise poor black votes."

The real watershed, in his view, was the 1980 election. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford tried to build up, and win over, a black middle class; the Reagan team figured they could do better by shutting out the black political establishment and mobilizing white conservatives. "Black elites were shocked to find out that with Reagan and his advisers, there were no longer 'good Negroes' and 'bad Negroes,' " Dawson says.

What the big-tent rhetoric ignores is that a more "black friendly" G.O.P. might pay a price in white support. "The Republicans would lose more white votes than they would gain black votes," Dawson says. And so blacks, as a one-party constituency in a two-party system, get sidelined.

It isn't that the candidates won't call. It's just that they're calling collect.


Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a guest columnist through September. Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave.

Great article..
 

Thanks for re-posting this. Here is my response from CC.

I think there are plenty of reasons my race votes Democratic... Democrats appeal to the emotions of black people, and alot of times black folks go for that... This isn't singling out blacks, because most people are not well informed about politics..but if you always have a party pushing the victim mentality..i.e. "them" against "us" and you can convince them that "the powers that be" in AmeriKKKa are responsible for all their problems...well you get lots of votes. The Republican party isn't going to pacify the black community. The Democrats waive entitlements and all types of social programs in front of the black community, and its "easier" to listen to someone that is promising to give you the world..rather than someone who's telling you...you can have the world..but you must work hard to get it.

I believe there are more blacks than ever before that are starting to realize not only that the Democratic Party takes our votes for granted, but that the Democrats method of giving us "handouts" isn't improving our community. It also doesn't help that many black pastors are so deeply imbedded in the Democrat party, and regardless of how much they agree with the Republicans on social issues, they are not willing to give up whatever kickbacks they may be getting from the Democrats. Many Black folks really value the what their Pastors tell them above any political official,..and they get the Democrats agenda pushed on them all day long in their churches...(not all..but quite a few..)

IF anyone ever wanted to know why black folks get called Uncle Toms etc.... its because of the type of stuff I just stated...Quite a few of my friends want to vote for Bush..but are scared to because of what their peers will say. It takes a strong person to "buck" the system and go against the grain..But I will say that I'd rather be called an uncle tom than a blind follower of a political party that hasn't done JACK for my community. ;) :o

I think it's incorrect to assume that the only reason African Americans vote Democratic is because we are 1)uninformed, 2)"emotional", or 3)listen to our Pastors. I do not fit in either of those categories, and I am a Democrat. Personally, I'm am a little partial to voting for an INTELLIGENT candidate.

Same here, and I'm a registered Independent. I like to vote for pragmatic candidates. I'm rather on the "cold" side myself, except for certain issues.
:p ;)

Well that's my opinion.. ;) and of course you have every right to disagree..and it is indeed arguable whether the Democrat is always the INTELLIGENT candidate.

-It also doesn't help that many black pastors are so deeply imbedded in the Democratic party, and regardless of how much they agree with the Republicans on social issues, they are not willing to give up whatever kickbacks they may be getting from the Democrats.-

what are these "kickbacks" you mentioned? i'm just wondering what you think Black pastors are getting for their stated support.
also, the same could be said for Black pastors who support the GOP. i've heard it said that Black pastors would benefit from faith-based programs (that the GOP are pushing) that they run in their churches which benefit their coffers. for example, those ministers who work to rehabilitate prisoners and other examples i can't recall off the top of my head.
"i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" works on both sides of the aisle, so to speak...

Will you volunteer to go to Florida on 10/29?


This year, just voting is simply not enough! We need to take action. That's why I'm inviting you to please join with other EMILY's List members, friends and supporters in an historic effort to turn out voters in Florida, the state which could decide which party controls the White House and the U.S. Senate.

WANTED: Volunteers who want to make the difference in this election and can commit to working from Friday evening, October 29, through Tuesday evening, November 2. Volunteers will return to DC Wednesday morning, November 3. Air travel, accommodations, and meals will be paid for by EMILY's List. Training will be provided.

WHO: EMILY's List, the nation's premier political network dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women, is seeking volunteers who can commit to knocking on the doors of key voters and urge them to go to the polls.

WHAT: An historic, massive volunteer effort to turn out voters that could determine who controls the White House and the U.S. Senate.

WHEN: Buses will leave downtown Washington, DC en route to BWI late in the day on Friday, October 29, and return the morning of Wednesday, November 3. Please note we are sending people from Washington, DC, only and will not be booking tickets from other locations. However, we’re happy to work with volunteers who want to fly or drive themselves to Washington, DC, or directly to Florida.

WHERE: Volunteers will talk to voters in Florida communities where high Democratic turnout is the key to victory.

HOW: If you haven't registered as a Team EMILY member, click here now and then fill out the volunteer form here. Shortly after, you will be contacted by telephone by an EMILY's List employee. When you fill out a volunteer form, you are committing to work from Friday evening, October 29, through the polls closing on November 2.

If you're unable to join us on the ground as a volunteer, please make a generous contribution today to support this historic effort. Just go online to www.emilyslist.org.

And remember: this year, simply voting is just NOT ENOUGH!

Warmest regards,
Ellen R. Malcolm
www.emilyslist.org
www.teamemily.org

http://www.breakbushoff.com/

At your leisure, visit this site....

Barack Obama crushing Clown Keyes
 

Obama extends reach beyond Illinois race
By Debbie Howlett, USA TODAY
CHICAGO — The disparity between the two campaigns for the U.S. Senate here in Illinois is as clear as the difference in the candidates' dinner plans one recent weekend.

Barack Obama hobnobbed with comic Robin Williams and musician Stevie Wonder at the home of Playboy CEO Christie Hefner during a $2,500-a-plate fundraiser catered by Wolfgang Puck.

Alan Keyes crashed the New Trier Township Republican dinner after organizers refused to invite him to speak. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This could have been a meaningful race. It's the first time two African-Americans have faced off for the Senate; the winner will be only the third to serve since 1881. Instead, it's so one-sided that Obama is spending some of his time campaigning for colleagues out of state.

The half Kenyan, half Kansan Obama was anointed as a future Democratic star, even a possible president, by the media after his speech at the Democratic National Convention in July. (Related story: Kenyan village rallies for favorite U.S. son) Since then, he has become a force in the party, raising more than $14 million, which would be an impressive sum for an incumbent, much less a state legislator in his first run for the Senate. His lead in the polls is eye-popping: 68% to 17%, according to the Chicago Tribune last month.

All of that has allowed Obama to dismiss Keyes — a former long shot Republican presidential candidate from Maryland who was lured into the race by desperate Republicans two months ago — with a pious one-liner in his standard stump speech. "We are not running against somebody," Obama told the Rotary Club here recently. "We are running for something."

That something appears to be more than just a Senate seat.

In the 11 weeks since he delivered the keynote in Boston, Obama has traveled to at least 14 states to raise money and appear with fellow Democrats in close races. He has made appearances from Martha's Vineyard to the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., campaigning for a Democratic majority in Congress.

He has raised $1.2 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and other Senate candidates. He has donated $225,000 from his own campaign cash to the committee and to state Democratic parties in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin, where Democrats are in close Senate races. On Friday, he will be in Los Angeles for a Senate fundraiser that is expected to net $1 million for the national party. The next day, he will visit Colorado to stump for John Kerry and Senate candidate Ken Salazar.

"He's a player," says Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. "He's a national figure. ... People don't want to 'be like Mike' anymore. They want to be like Barack."

With Republicans holding a tenuous 51-48 majority in the Senate, even a gain of one seat by the Democrats will change the political dynamic. Obama and Keyes are vying for a seat left vacant when Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald opted to retire after one term. "I've served in the minority, and I've served in the majority," Obama says. "It's a lot more fun to serve in the majority."

'Two ships passing in the night'

When Obama is in Illinois, as he is most of the time, he focuses on reaching out to moderate voters in the suburbs and conservative voters downstate, where towns like Cairo are closer to Little Rock than Chicago. He talks about the economy and foreign policy. He rarely mentions Keyes, whose emphasis has been on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

"Mr. Keyes' campaign and my campaign seem to be two ships passing in the night," Obama says between campaign stops.

Keyes has often been his own worst enemy. His vitriol has turned off much of the electorate and caused Illinois' GOP leadership to shun him. State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, the party chairwoman, declined to talk about the race.

Keyes has even disappointed the party's conservative wing, which lured him here after Republican nominee Jack Ryan dropped out of the race amid a sex scandal. "Many of us would have preferred that he focus on economic issues," Rockford state Sen. Dave Syverson says.

Much of the focus has been on Keyes' sulfuric criticism of Obama for supporting abortion rights — even saying at one point that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama.

"That's not a distraction from the issues," Keyes says. "It's a fundamental issue of principle. ... The thing that's so different between him and me is he doesn't see these as deep, fundamental issues of principle." Keyes has struggled to win over African-American voters. In Chicago, two separate polls show him with single-digit support among African-Americans. He was even booed when he marched in the parade for Bud Billikin Day, an annual African-American festival.

Obama, on the other hand, has taken on a stature equal to, if not greater than, the longtime civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, whose Rainbow/PUSH organization is headquartered here.

"We're past the point of having one great black hope," says Laura Washington, a DePaul University sociology professor and columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. She says Obama is more acceptable to the public than Jackson because he is a Harvard-educated lawyer and elected official. His immigrant story, with a father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, is appealing. "Being biracial helps increase the comfort level," she says.

Living up to his billing

On the campaign trail, Obama likes to roll into his remarks with a humble preface, saying that 18 months ago he was unknown. "People said, 'This guy has no cash, no organization, and nobody can say his name,' " he recalls.

For the most part, that was true.

Obama was one of seven candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Others were richer or backed by Democratic organizations in Chicago. At one point, polls showed him running fourth. But when the divorce records of Blair Hull, a wealthy, retired commodities trader, were made public days before the election, the accusations of spousal abuse and cocaine use knocked him from the lead. Obama stepped into the breach, winning with 53% of the vote.

Three months later, the unsealing of divorce records also undid Ryan, the GOP nominee, who was trailing in the polls by 20 points. Then Kerry tapped Obama to give the convention's keynote speech.

"No doubt we've experienced some serendipity the last several months. Some call it luck," Obama says. "I just get on my knees every night and ask God to make me worthy of all these blessings."

Obama hedges his words when talking about the future. With a reputation as something of a policy wonk at the state Capitol in Springfield, he says he's eager to dive into the daily grind as one of 100 members of what some call the world's most exclusive club.

David Axelrod, a Democratic consultant and one of Obama's top advisers, says that's what he will need to do, in much the same way New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did after moving from the White House to the Senate. "He has had a lot of flattering advance billing," Axelrod says. "All of that is meaningless unless he delivers."

Poll Monitor, anyone?
 

my county, Hamilton, in OH is looking for poll monitors for election day. if anyone out there is interested in doing so, send me a PM. if you would like to do so in your area, contact your local board of elections or the local Urban League. i'm looking forward to doing this:D