apple juice

For anyone who hasn’t heard, the iowa caucus was last night…

1. John Kerry
2. John Edwards
3. Howard Dean

It’s a tough finish for Dean in the first round, but I think he’ll bounce back. We’ll see how it plays out, as I’ve told people all along, I’m voting for ABB, but I’ll have to grimace a bit if I have to support a candidate that voted for the war and voted for the Patriot Act.

Of course, whoever the yet-to-be-deterimined candidate is, he’s sure to be better than Bush.

State of the Union address tonight. Have fun, be safe!

This is a good one… (standard Salon.com note about clicking through for the free daypass)

Howard Dean is so angry! He has no credibility on foreign policy! He wants to take away your grenade launcher!

Lately I’ve been getting a lot of questions about Howard Dean from friends, relatives, and even random people that see the sticker on my car. Most of the questions boil down to one of two things. Why is Dean so angry? and Why is the media so mean to Dean?

Question #1 is a direct result of Question #2. The media, the established party insiders and his opponents have all drummed up this angle that he’s all about anger, veins popping out of his neck, etc.

If you believe this, you need to start doing a little more of your own research. Watch a speech given by Dean, watch one of his TV appearances yourself. They’re on the Dean For America website. Make your own decision, don’t let the media do it for you. It’s lazy, and if you let them do it for you, we’ll end up with another 4 years of the downward spiral our current administration has set us on.

Salon.com has written an excellent article about this whole phenomenom, entitled The media vs. Howard Dean. I would love it if you’d check it out. You’ll have to click the “Free Day Pass link on the first page and watch a quick ad. It’s worth it.

By some measures, Dean’s media troubles began with his June 22 appearance on “Meet the Press.” During the hour-long sit-down, Dean faced off against a clearly combative host, Tim Russert, who prepared for the interview, in part, by asking the Bush Treasury Department to produce what the Washington Post called a “highly selective” analysis of the Democratic tax program, including rolling back scheduled tax cuts. Later in the program came a pop-quiz question about how many men and women currently serve in the military. When Dean said he didn’t know the exact number and complained it was like asking him “who the ambassador to Rwanda is,” Russert shot back: “As commander in chief, you should know that.” Dean estimated there were between 1 and 2 million men and women in active duty; according to the Pentagon, there are 1.4 million.

What a sharp contrast to ’99, when Russert had a warm, respectful one-on-one with then-candidate Bush. When the host sprang a specific policy question on Bush about how many missiles would still be in place if a new START II nuclear weapons treaty were signed, Bush answered: “I can’t remember the exact number.” But unlike his session with Dean, Russert dropped the topic without lecturing Bush that “as commander in chief, you should know that.”

Beltway insiders clucked over Dean’s June appearance on NBC’s mighty “Meet the Press,” labeling him evasive and unprepared. But lots of party faithful saw something else — a candidate who would stand up to biased, big-foot pundits — and flooded the campaign with contributions that day. Instead of marking Dean’s leveling-off point, “Meet the Press” marked the beginning of his ascent to undisputed front-runner status.

An op-ed in the boston globe, Powell’s shrinking credibility on Iraq

At one point Powell said: “This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well documented.”

But no stockpiles of either chemical or biological weapons have been found. There was no effective nuclear program. The United States still invaded Iraq.

Excellent speech by Senator Kennedy

An excerpt:

Despite the obvious Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan, the White House had now made Iraq our highest national security priority. The steamroller of war was moving into high gear. The politics of the timing is obvious. September 2002. The hotly contested 2002 election campaigns were entering the home stretch. Control of Congress was clearly at stake. Republicans were still furious over the conversion of Senator Jim Jeffords that had cost them control of the Senate in 2001. Election politics prevailed, but they should not have prevailed over foreign policy and national security.

The decision on Iraq could have been announced earlier. Why time it for September? As White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained on September 7th, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

That was the bottom line. War in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It was a product they were methodically rolling out. There was no imminent threat, no immediate national security imperative, and no compelling reason for war.

Hello my 3 readers. I hope that everyone has had a nice holiday so far. Mine has been very nice as well, being able to see some friends and family over the past week was very nice.

For the article today, I have a little fish tale for you.

Forum: The fish that threatened national security

Like many college students who flew home for the holidays, I had to endure the latest airport safeguards in the name of homeland security. A lot of us have stories to tell, but only mine is a fish tale, a contemporary melodrama of the absurd to prepare you for future travels.

I hope you enjoy it! I will get my Top 10 Albums of the year posted soon, and then I will be out for another week or so. So happy new year if I don’t talk to you! Get those new year’s resolutions ready!

Here is a really interesting article that predicts some interesting changes in the American political landscape within the next 20 years… Q: What will happen when a national political machine can fit on a laptop?