A new and powerful excitement here at Daily Kos

Good afternoon my friends,

I was supposed to write another chapter in my series about the swiftboating of Bev Harris today, full of links to hard evidence that can only lead to one logical conclusion - a devious, coordinated effort to malign her, and her efforts towards fair elections.  If anyone would like to see some of those links, just post below and I'll provide some without commentary.  Hopefully I'll get this next chapter up on Monday.

The events of the past week however have instilled me with new hope, and I sense a great many of you share that hope.  Indeed, there is a new and powerful excitement in the air here, unlike anything I've seen since Bushboy won slimed his way to another term.

In a world full of darkness, bright shining lights suddenly appeared.  In a world full of ineptitude, real leaders suddenly raised their voices for all to hear.  In a world full of evil, right-wing law-breaking traitors and misfits, two honorable men stepped forward and cried out to us that enough is now truly enough.  No more.  No more.

Thank you, President Kerry and President Gore, on behalf of all good Kossacks, and the hundreds of millions of Americans who never signed up for this farce of a government.

America needs both of you now more than ever.

I was only 7 when JFK was murdered.  It was a day that I'll never forget - a beloved man, who gave hope to so many less fortunate than himself, brutally gunned down by a man with no real reason to pursue such an agenda...more than likely, just one of many involved in the terrible events that day.

Then came LBJ and the Great Society, ushering in significant gains in the war against both poverty and racism, ultimately diluted by the horrors of a war based on lies.

We all know that Nixon covertly led our nation away from a path of law and honor, but for all his crimes, no one can ever take away from him the desire to be liked by everyone.  Dick Nixon really wanted to be liked, wanted to be loved, so although what he did was terribly wrong, at least the man had a bleeding heart of sorts.

I always felt that Gerald Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon, but he didn't do a whole helluva lot else.  Ford of course gave way to a most honorable man among men, Jimmy Carter, a truly great man, himself eventually torpedoed by events beyond his control, events that may or may not have been covertly orchestrated by the evil that now threatens our very existence as Americans.

I actually fell for the "Shining City on a Hill" crap - what a naive young soldier I was at the time.  (EDITED) Ronald Reagan was a very bad man, who sure as hell didn't care much for the poor, since only the rich and powerful could visit his shining city on the hill.  While I feel we must not deny his contributions towards the downfall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, we most certainly must also diminish his legacy by never forgetting all the terrible events that occurred during his administration, and all the people he left behind in a massive pile of red ink that signaled the beginning of a too-powerful foreign influence on the health of our once-great nation.

Say whatever you want about the first President Bush - perhaps he was right when he told that silver-haired Marie imitation to get an abortion...just kidding...about the "he told her" part.  How can anyone not support Roe vs Wade these days?  However, I will always give credit when credit is due, and Bush deserves credit for Desert Storm - we went in with others, we pushed Saddam back, and we got out with none of this razzle dazzle WMDs ummm, bringing democracy to the middle east sorry...war on terror ummm, oil bullshit.

Did I say oil bullshit?  LOL, who knows for sure.

IMO, a great man led our nation for the next eight years...William Jefferson Clinton.  Forgive and forget his one true error...the man led our nation to both peace and prosperity like never before seen in my lifetime.  I need to say this next thing...like her or hate her, can anyone honestly say that they'd rather have the evil Bushboy in office instead of Hillary?  She's smart, she speaks without notes because she knows her stuff, she's a liberal who's cleverly diluted future right-wing attacks against her if she chooses to run, and she'll have the first and perhaps the best "First Man" that anyone could possibly have at her side.

Which leads us back now to the darkness of today.  George Bush is evil.  George Bush is incompetent.  George Bush is a lying SOB who should be tried for treason.  He and the rest of these right-wing bastards must be overthrown.  Put all your stamps on your mail upside-down, something I've been doing for five years now.  Get yourself an ink stamp with something like "Impeach Bush" or "Try Bush for Treason" and use it on the back of all your mail like I've been doing.

Seize this moment.  New hope and excitement have returned, and we do not dare allow it to fade away yet again.

STOP ALITO!
STOP THE MACHINES!

John

•  You certainly wrong about Reagan.

  He was pure, unadulterated evil without a decent bone to his body. There wasn't a single blood-thirsty dictator on earth that man didn't find a way to fund or give weapons to.

  One incident to illustrate what a fundamentally indecent human he was. There were massive earthquakes in dirt poor Nicaragua - a nation whose leaders Reagan irrationally despised. Reagan not only refused to aid Nicaragua personally, he sent our military to blockade the harbor to prevent ANYONE from aiding them. No Europeans were allowed help. No Red Cross. As  a result of that one action, thousands of innocent peasants died. Add to that the Iraqis who died because of Reagan's intervention on Hussein's behalf, factor in the $50 million he funneled to Pol Pot through China, remember the victims of the Contras as well - millions are dead because that man was president.

  As for the Cold War - he prolonged it's life so that his friends in the defense industry could profit a bit more. By the middle of the seventies, the CIA was predicting that they wouldn't survive the eighties. Reagan was unhappy with that cheery assessment and revamped the CIA to give him the dour estimates he required for his arms build up. Career analysts were knocked out of position and were replaced by political staffers (sound familiar?) who promptly upped the estimate of the threat the Soviet Union presented. At his most efficacious, he extended the life of the communists - nothing unites like a common enemy. The Soviets are as motivated by an external threat as anyone else.

  Reagan was a bad man - one of the worst. Mean-spirited, dishonest to the core and corrupt to the bone. And more people in his administration were convicted of crimes against their office than any other president in the twentieth century - over 20. For comparison, there were only eight staffers convicted in Watergate.

  by lorelynn on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:29:33 PM PDT

  •  Ok, I'll edit

    You're right...when you add all that other stuff into the mix, you're right.  While writing this diary, I was in a really good mood, a happy mood, trying to think of something good to say about everyone except Bushboy, since he has established a new low when it comes to evil in the White House.

    But you're right - Reagan's contributions towards ending the Cold War that they themselves were a big part of perpetuating, are about his only positive, and I need to call a spade a spade.

    I'll edit, and thanks!

    John
    

    by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:37:51 PM PDT

    •  I'll give you this though.

      RayGun was WAY more easier to like than Bush will ever be. He at least had some humility.

      (-8.25, -6.15)

      by A Patriot on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:41:07 PM PDT

      •  Heh.

        I've met dust particles in my throat easier to like than Bush.

        But it is true, Reagan was at least more of a developed person than Bush could ever be in his next dozen lives.

        by Tirge Caps on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

        •  Yea

          He had that ability to suspend your beliefs and get you to like him in spite of what he did. Nixon was the same way later on. You could feel sorry for him and even like what he had to say. I doubt Bush will EVER be able to do either.

          (-8.25, -6.15)

          by A Patriot on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:37:35 PM PDT

  •  Reagan sucked

    but GHW Bush was behind at least some of that.

    by McGirk SF on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:39:41 PM PDT

    •  We'll never really know

      to what extent Bush Sr. influenced the Reagan Administration, but I would venture to guess, next to Cheney, GHWB was the most powerful VP we've had.

      by Tirge Caps on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:16:49 PM PDT

  •  yea.... well guess what?

    The American public voted him "the greatest American in history"! Shows you WTF the public knows! Blind sheep, not just stupid... you know why sheep need Shepards? To prevent them from eating poisionous plants, protect them from doing stupid things (like getting their horns stuck).... oh how much the American public are like sheep (esp the republican)! BTW I was a Reagan Republican ;)

    by pinkpanther on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:43:12 PM PDT

    •  I'm sure that was some great

      polling for "greatest American."  Let me guess, a bunch of great Americans who split the votes of 80% of respondents, while the 20% (Flat Earth Society Members) all voted for Reagan because he was the only conservative nutjob on the list.

      I'm sure the whole thing was quite scientific as well...not that I'm discounting all the Reagan worship that goes on in the media...especially during that funeral/beatification.

      by peaceandprogress on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:29:04 PM PDT

      •  This was a "Greatest American" series

        on either Discovery Channel or The History Channel.  The poll was not scientific -- hell, I voted for Ben Franklin several times.  Reagan, Franklin, MLK, and a couple of others were finalists.  Reagan won, probably because the poll was freeped.

        by Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:09:26 PM PDT

        •  how could Franklin and George Washington

          both have lost? Even MLK? Reagen has an important place in history (not like the Titanic....at the bottom of the Ocean) as being instrumental in the Cold war.  But for him to be above Ben or George... no way.

          by pinkpanther on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:27:22 PM PDT

  •  Yes. That fucker sucked.

    And it's a testimony to the degree to which people want to believe against evidence, that people recall his name fondly at all.

    Huge numbers of his administration's personnel indicited for influence peddling and corruption; tripling the national debt; sending soldiers into harm's way in Beirut without giving them the ability to defend themselves, and NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS!!!

    That last part still blows my mind. He secretly sold MILITARY WEAPONS SYSTEMS to our sworn enemy, Iran, in violation of the Constitution - in order to pursue a private war in South America, also in violation of the Constitution!!!

    Let alone hosing unions, lead-piping the poor, bringing Saddam Hussein into power and selling weapons to BOTH sides during their war; starting off Osama Bin Laden, and kicking little dogs...that last part is the only part that isn't fully documented....
    

    by jbeach on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:51:59 PM PDT

    •  Annoying factoid

      Saddam Hussein's rise to power in Iraq predated the Reagan Administration. wikipedia

      In 1976 Saddam was appointed a general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government, and was the de facto ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon gained a powerful circle of support within the party.

      As Iraq's weak and elderly President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became increasingly unable to execute the duties of his office, Saddam began to take an increasingly prominent role as the face of the Iraqi government, both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. By the late 1970s, Saddam had emerged as the undisputed de facto leader of Iraq.

      by ben masel on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:17:32 PM PDT

      •  Yah, true dat.

        I'm sure Hussein was helped up to some degree by Carter's administration, and even possibly by Ford. And let's not forget Carter's role supporting the abusive and murderous Shah of Iran...

        There's enough blame to go around. Just want to make sure Reagan's share isn't ignored.

        by jbeach on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:08:35 PM PDT

      •  How is that an annoying factoid?

        What is a fact is that Reagan personally changed Hussein's status with the State Department so that Hussein could purchase the WMD and the helicopters he used to slaughter the kurds. The human rights organizations, and a lot of lefty groups organized against that change based on Hussein's already well documented pattern of human rights abuse - the ones that had got him put on the the State Department list in the first place.

        Reagan's behavior with Hussein is deplorable because he well established as a tyrant at that point in time.

        by lorelynn on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:33:34 PM PDT

  •  So very well put.

    And one could on and on...

    by Tirge Caps on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:18:05 PM PDT

•  Carpe Diem or Just Plain Carp?

  With John Kerry now part of the community, one can only hope that more Dems will join and/or read the posts, then grow some balls and come out fighting instead of the rope-a-dope -- without the ropes -- they have been doing. People appreciate someone telling it like it is, even if they don't want to hear it at the time. The secret to beating this right wing culture of corruption? Tell the truth anywhere, anytime, all the time, everywhere. That means on national television or in your local pub. A leading Dem gets asked a loaded question, fire back like Dean did with Blitzer. We got to see Blitzer get Blitzed by the truth. It's time for the Dems, and everyone else, to take their balls out of DeLay's and Bush's pockets and put them back where they belong.

  (-8.25, -6.15)

  by A Patriot on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:39:05 PM PDT

  •  Carpe dentum -- seize the teeth!

    Instead of weakly and meekly allowing Rethug talking points to dominate the rhetoric of the traditional media, it's time for all Democrats of good conscience to fight tooth and nail for our democracy, before BushCo turns our country into a complete fascist dictatorship.

    by wiscmass on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:17:11 PM PDT

    •  I love it!

      Carpe dentum!

      (-8.25, -6.15)

      by A Patriot on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:39:02 PM PDT

•  Interesting.

  I can predict some comments here.

  1.  Hillary is evil.  She must be stopped at all costs.

  2.  Bill did a disservice to Democrats.  

  by Delaware Dem on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:07:25 PM PDT

  •  Hillary isn't evil...

    she just can't win...

    The latest Diageo/Hotline poll shows Sen. John McCain defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton 52%-36% among regis. voters in a WH '08 match-up. This is alone is not earth shattering as it reaffirms previous results, but this poll takes the next steps and pins McCain and Clinton against generic counterparts, resulting in some notable numbers.

    WH '08 General Matchups
                  All Dem Ind GOP                     All Dem Ind GOP
    McCain        52% 21% 57% 82%       McCain^       36% 15% 30% 68%
    Clinton       36  66  32   7        Generic Dem   29  59  19   7
    Undec/Oth     12  13  11  11        Undec/Oth     35  26  51  25

                  All Dem Ind GOP
    Clinton^      41% 72% 37% 12%
    Generic GOP   39   7  36  74
    Undec/Oth     20  21  27  14

    Note that when McCain goes up against a generic Dem candidate, his overall support drops significantly, not just among Dems and indies, but also among GOPers. It's not that GOPers are crossing the aisle, but that they become undecided. The opposite happens to Dems when Clinton is pegged against a generic GOPer -- her Dem support jumps up to 72%. Now this is can mean a number of different things:

    Does McCain become easier for GOPers to elect when the "other" is Clinton? Does her liberalism make McCain easier to swallow? Or is McCain just so attractive to Dems that he distracts from Clinton's base? One thing this certainly shows is that Clinton is beatable. If a generic GOPer can come within 2% of Clinton in a WH match-up, that spells some trouble on the horizon for Dems. The 20% of undecided voters will undoubtedly be the deciding factor in this generic race. The question is, who would fill that spot?

    At this stage of the WH '08 cycle, it would be interesting to do more of these generic tests, showing the potential for weakness and strengths with the respective bases. Of course the caveat becomes name ID. With the exception of Rudy Giuliani, McCain and Clinton are really the only ones with the name ID to offer a formidable match-up

    As for Bill, all his triangualting didn't help the Democratic party have a clear message during his Presidency, but his personality helped him overcome it. Now that Bill is long gone the Dems are still having a problem with a coherent message.  
    

    by jbou on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:27:01 PM PDT

•  Plenty of reasons not to like Reagan

  But let's not make things up here. The great Nicaraguan earthquake did indeed kill thousands of peasants, but it happened in 1972, way before Reagan came on the scene. DailyKos is gaining some influence, especially with the appearance of Senator Kerry. Let's not squander that by making claims our opponents can seize upon as examples of our so-called "extremism."

  by IComeInPeace on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:11:22 PM PDT

  •  Wow, I don't even what to say.

    You don't know there was an earthquake in Nicaragua in the eighties and that Reagan blockaded the harbor, therefore I'm a liar.

    Now, is it always the case that if I know something you don't I'm lying, or is it just when the precious little Ronnie gets attacked that I'm lying?

    You owe me an apology.

    by lorelynn on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:53:42 PM PDT

•  Reagan didn't win the Cold War

  
  Lech Walesa won the Cold War. Just sayin'.

  by howth of murph on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:55:05 PM PDT

  •  As far as I'm concerned

    Pepsi won.

    Oh wait COLD war, you said?
    Never mind.

    Seriously though, no president ever elected in this country, Dem or Repub has clean hands.

    And no President since FDR has ever been completely autonomous in the Oval Office. The Pentagon, the CIA, the Saudis, the Fed and a million Jack Abramoffs have control over the Oval Office that ranges from peripheral to overt. It's more pronounced in Repub administrations but its always there.

    Having said that, the original poster is correct in that no president -- in fact you could say no two or three presidents combined have ever done as much damage to this nation as Dubya -- who, mark my words, will be championed for a third term by his party and his spanking new Supreme Court.

    by Jank2112 on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:08:05 PM PDT

  •  in my opinion, no one won. russia

    imploded from within.

    by stodghie on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 11:57:10 PM PDT