No Shit
by blogswarm
Thu Nov 25th, 2004 at 19:34:42 PST

What a great slogan for the Modern Democratic Party. No BS. Seriously, the Democratic Party isn't going to be full of shit any longer.

We are going to earn your respect before we ask for your vote. You might disagree, but you'll know where we are coming from and why.

We care enought to fight for our beliefs. We are Fighting Democrats. We are Reform Democrats.

DNC Reform:  Constituent Services
When we win that never-in-a-million-years race, the Democratic National Committee needs to help ensure that our victor effectively conveys a message of legislative success to the people who risked a vote. The Democratic Party needs to  research what works and provide the necessary tools to local legislative candidates. Even in states without Franking privileges, email newsletters can go a long ways towards letting people know they got what they voted for.

DNC Reform:  Take the Advantage
Democrats kicked ass in Montana. They won the Governor's Mansion, the Senate and are two votes away in a single house race from choosing the Speaker of the House. Why hasn't the DNC sent Montana a plane-load of bad ass hacks with a suitcase of money? The Montana legislature meets for 90 days every other year, which means if Democrats want to ride the wave in 2006 they need to act yesterday. When we have opportunities, we need to take the advantage.

DNC Reform:  Fight for Democrats
Why can't Democrats understand the concept of solidarity? Together we can get things done, when Democrats help the GOP, the Republicans get things done. We need Democrats willing to cover the backs of other Democrats. Together we have power, individually we are nothing more than people who belong to the loser party.

DNC Reform:  Reform Leadership
If the DNC Members choose a status-quo candidate as Chair, the DNC will be relegated to doing little more than putting on the conventions. The Party must be able to compete with the NDN and CfA, if they can't they the Party will become irrelevant. The only people who we know can operate on this level are Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean.

DNC Reform:  Internet
A modern Democratic Party needs leaders who can format a hyperlink. Not only do we need leaders who understand current e-campaigning, but we need visionaries who can see how vast potential that lies in the future of the internet. We need to fight in real-time across the internet, the blogosphere, and on the search engines. We need an online war room that never stops and interjects our side into every conversation online. Every site with a conversation needs our comments and links.

DNC Reform:  Email
No more fundraising emails. Period. If the Kerry campaign had asked the Dean campaign, they would have learned that constant cash-appeals turn people off. The Kerry campaign burned their list. As people stopped opening the emails the campaign suffered a huge opportunity cost when they needed to organize supporters in the end. Emails should only be used to initiate interaction, once people are vested in our actions they'll help fund the effort.

DNC Reform:  End Sentences with Prepositions
We need to campaign like we have an seventh grade education and unlearn the linguistic hindrances that hold us back. The people we target with our ads don't talk like the people who make them. Our candidates need sentences with a subject, a verb, an object and then a period. Look how people write emails, forget what you learned in English class and talk to people. Tell a story. Focus on connecting to the audience instead of winning the hearts of the proofreaders. What do you think you're more likely to hear at a small town diner an hour before sunrise, "Its the economy, stupid" or "A Stronger, Safer America"? We can earn street cred with our writing without pandering.

DNC Reform:  Lead America
If we only follow polls, we will be reactive to the whims of Americans and will not be able to win in the long run. We need to lead on issues, decide issues by value not polling worth and lead the people. This Gonzalez nomination is a great example, instead of having a debate about whether we should oppose him we should have a debate about whether a torture supporter should lead the Justice Department and then hit him with everything we have. No more conversations about whether it is strategic to follow our gut, instead we need to stand up for what we believe in and fight with everything we have.

DNC Reform:  Blogosphere
The DNC should invest financially in the blogosphere. The DNC should have an ad with the message of the day on every single liberal blog (new every day, even Sundays and holidays). For a million dollars we could have two thousand points of TV in a major media market or subsidize hundreds of bloggers fighting tooth and nail online, 24/7.

DNC Reform:  Go Young
People under the age of thirty are the only age group that we won. The young vote was turned out by young people managing organizations with enough resources to succeed. We need more young people in decision-making roles at the DNC and in positions where they have the resources to maintain and expand our domination of young people.

DNC Reform:  Ask The Right Questions
The question wasn't how the war started; it was whether it should have started. The question wasn't how we were waging the war, but whether we were winning. The question wasn't how the economy was managed; it was whether it was good or bad. The question wasn't how we fought the terrorists; it was whether we were winning or losing. Kerry was too focused on the first questions to realize we needed to win the second questions.

DNC Reform:  Worldview
We need to learn to distill issues. The right will never say an issue is complicated because every possible situation fits into their worldview in a manner where they know what to do. People learn our values by seeing how issues fit into our worldview, not because we say, "God Bless America" at the end of our speeches. When we turn our backs on our values, people lose respect for us.

DNC Reform:  Bold Action
Only looking at this calendar year, I think it is easy to conclude Gavin Newsom is the only Democrat with any guts in America. Newsom reframed the issue of gay marriage as equality and personalized a narrative for the issue. His strong offense shifted the country the few points we needed so that we didn't get burned on the issue as badly as the right had planned. For the first time in a generation, a Democrat held the national stage and talked about equality and civil liberties. If Kerry had been as bold on any single issue, we would have won. It could have been Iraq, health care, jobs -- it really didn't matter.

DNC Reform:  Value work
Kick consultants off percentage, pay a good hourly wage and demand results. Have you ever heard a consultant on percentage recommend not spending more money on TV? Even in the battlegrounds with markets so saturated with political ads that people are 100% tuned out? We need to budget according to results which is impossible when consultants have a financial incentive to spend on distribution instead of creation.

DNC Reform:  Training
How many trainings on e-campaigning has the Democratic Party hosted? With a couple of cycles experience in online politics, let me be the first to say it would have been nice to have had somebody teach the tactics instead of having to figure things out as I went. I've been to multiple Party and progressive organization trainings on organizing which taught me a great deal. Other than the one training I have given myself, I have yet to hear of any trainings on how to campaign online.

DNC Reform:  Make News
Dean understood this, but Kerry didn't get it until he brought in the Clinton people and by that time everything that happened was news. We can decide what we want the headlines to be with bold action. The further up the ticket the greater the role the media plays in the outcome. Instead of complaining about the coverage, we need to understand the media's perspective and needs, then create campaign storyboards too good for them to pass by.

DNC Reform:  Non-political Geography
When we look at maps, we look at color-coded representations based off of political boundaries drawn by city-folk. Looking at everything outside of the suburbs as rural America is simplistic view repeated by people who live in urban environments. Instead of focusing on red or blue squares on maps, we need to focus on geography. We win near large bodies of water, near the Great Lakes, the oceans, and the Mississippi. We can win in the mountains easier than on the plains. We do better where it is cold and where it is sandy. When we talk about campaigning outside of the cities we need to focus on the extremes, big water, big mountains, bad weather.

DNC Reform:  Rapid Response
We got our asses kicked, yet the DNC posted three posts on the official Party blog in the following 12 days. WTF???

DNC Reform:  Alternatives
We cannot offer compromises, instead we need to offer coherent alternatives to Republican proposals. These proposals must be crafted with an eye towards framing the next election, not influencing the outcome since we will be fighting to prevent any change from occurring.

DNC Reform:  Opposition
Any changes advanced by the GOP will regress our country. We need to fight every proposal. Choosing battles is a strategy that is inherently flawed. Compromising is likewise flawed. We need to fight to win and plan to lose strategically. As an opposition party, we must evaluate our leaders by their success at opposing. If they are ineffective, we must immediately replace them.

DNC Reform:  Operate with Transparency
Who is doing what, with what results and what costs? Much of the disgust directed at the party by the grassroots is due to poor communication. The Party needs to do good things and keep the grassroots informed by involving them in the process. We need a modern party that is beholden to the grassroots. We need to work smarter by questioning and quantifying, then calculating how we can do more.

DNC Reform:  Lighting
The GOP is better at stage lighting. They learned the lesson of Nixon and spent the eighties bringing Hollywood tricks to political events. Clinton understood, but as recently as this year Howard Dean flopped after a snafu that would never had happened if the campaign had used a mixer before the mult-box for the press pool.

DNC Reform:  Responsiveness
In post-modern campaigns, things change faster than we can create new rules. Democrats need to realize this and be able to react and take advantage of change.

DNC Reform:  West Coast Offense
Yes, I saved the sports analogy for last. We had the largest GOTV ever and we still finished 10 points shy from where we needed to be. The Kerry campaign thought they were going to win and tried to run out the clock in the last two weeks. The Democratic Party has been silent since the election. We can never let this happen again. Elections come and go by the battle for America's future never stops. We need to campaign every single day of every year like we are 10 points down, because we are. We need a passing game and a strong blitz, we must never again finish an election like we only needed to make it to field goal range and GOTV will put us over the top. No. We need to be winning beyond the margin of error and let our hustle and determination show that we want to win more than the GOP. We need to contest every down, force turnovers, and inside the pile we need to claw and poke and squeeze and do whatever it takes to make sure we have the ball in the end.

New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulation
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
November 25, 2004

COLUMBUS -- A floodtide of evidence of questionable practices in the 2004 election is mounting fast against Ohio Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and Republican Franklin County Board of Elections (BOE) Director Matt Damschroder. New transcriptions of sworn voter testimony, presented below for the first time, confirm growing suspicions of widespread use of rigged machines. Voters experienced hostility from poll workers, refusal of Republican election officials to follow the law, and discriminatory manipulation of voting machine placement, driving significant numbers of Democrats away from the polls.

The Columbus Dispatch, central Ohio's dominant conservative daily newspaper, which endorsed Bush for the presidency, says Damschroder “has faced criticism locally and across the country from groups that contend an already short supply of voting machines were shifted from Democratic precincts in Columbus to Republican areas outside the city.”

Damschroder is the former head of the Franklin County Republican Party. He claims that the 23.4% increase in voter turnout is a success story. He admitted to the Dispatch on Tuesday, November 23, that he had not asked the Franklin County Commissioners for any additional money this year for new machines, despite a 24% increase in voter registration. “If we had 5000 machines we would have put every one of them out there,” Damschroder says. But he also defends his refusal to ask for more in the run-up to the election.

In fact, according to the Dispatch, Damschroder's own records show large numbers of voting machines were not deployed on election day despite frantic requests from inner city poll workers. According to the Dispatch, Damschroder's office received 32 calls from precinct judges requesting more machines, not one of which was filled. Only nine of those calls came from suburban precincts, while 23 came from the Inner City.

Overall the board logged 101 calls for voting machine problems this year. In 2000 the number was just 46.

Through it all, Damschroder insisted in a Dispatch interview that, “From our perspective, there are (thousands of) stories of people who stood in line and voted.”

But many voters had very different views. The Free Press offers the following sworn statements from public hearings held at the Franklin County Courthouse November 15:

Janine Smith-White, Youngstown:
“I went to my polling place approximately about 9:45 to vote. I waited, I would say, 30 minutes in a line. When I did get to my machine, I pushed John Kerry and my vote immediately jumped up to George Bush. After I started screaming about them cheating again, the aide hurried up and came over and said, oh, that's been happening a lot. Just go ahead and push John Kerry again and I'm saying, you say that's been happening a lot and it hasn't been corrected? Yes, but we can't do anything about it. So I did push John Kerry again and the vote did stay on John Kerry. Even though I completed my voting and after I went over my ballot and I pushed the vote button, I'm still not sure that I voted for John Kerry because, I mean, did my first vote that went to George Bush count or did John Kerry count.”

Steven Heyman, Pickerington:
“I noticed that one of the big problems was on Molar Road there are two different buildings that you can vote in, 1201 and 1560 Southmore Middle and Bowler School. People were sometimes confused as to which precinct they were supposed to vote in. I had a listing of all the voters for 51 A and if I could catch them before they went in and [stand] in line for two or three hours, and they were really upset if they were in the wrong precinct and had to go to the other one. We probably lost at least 75 voters during the 12 and a half hours I was there.”

Tom Pinnetello:
“I need to tell you what happened on my first experience voting in Ohio. On November 2nd, I got to my polling station early, so I got -- I wanted to get there early so I got in the car and I headed over to nearby Livingston School and I signed in and waited about 45 minutes in a line that looked to have about 60 people waiting to vote. Once in the library, we noticed that there were only three voting machines. Once it was my turn, I got inside and looked over the voting machine, and this is one of the electronic voting machines. It consisted of an array of blinking lights urging you to vote for something, and once you did vote for something, the blinking light would go out and a steady red light would appear next to your selection. On the upper left-hand part was the selection for president. I wanted to do this, I wanted to get this out of the way, that's what I came here, to vote, that was my number one priority. So I pushed the button for John Kerry for president of the United States. And the light -- the flashing light went out and the light next to John Kerry's name came on. I then mulled over the rest of the propositions and local races that were taking place, some of which I knew about, some of which I didn't. It took the better part of five minutes or so to get through them all. Some of the political players locally I don't know about so I just left them blank because I think you should be making an informed decision and not just pressing buttons. Once I was finished, I got down to the lower right-hand corner and the big green vote button was beckoning. I almost pushed it and I said, no, wait a minute, I want to -- I want to proofread what I just did. I want to look over my selections. I looked up into the upper left-hand corner and the area for president of the United States was now flashing again. My vote for John Kerry had been neutralized. It had been reset. Now, you can call this a glitch, you can call this a design flaw, you can call it a bologna sandwich if you want, but whatever you call it, that machine nearly threw out and neutralized my vote for John Kerry.”

Jen Miller:
“I went ahead and walked in because the lines at that point were four hours long. Again, this used to be my polling location, after the last presidential location it was my polling location and at that time there were two precincts and there were four booths per precinct. This year the first thing I noted that there were three and not one of the precincts had a booth down, so they were operating on two, just 50 percent the amount that they had the election before. The next thing I noted that there were more people in line, probably, at that point than I had probably had ever voted in that precinct. I had voted there for several times. It was just absolute chaos. People were wandering this way and that. The first thing someone said to me is, I don't think they want me here. This is confusing. I voted here for years and I'm leaving. And I asked him to stay, but he wouldn't.. . . So I would say at least a third of the people that were in line were elderly or had mobility challenges. A lot of those people would be standing in line for one to three hours to then come across some steep steps that would be even challenges for the average able-bodied person. One side of the steps could -- one side of the steps didn't even have a rail to hang onto and there was no one to assist people down, okay.”

Cathy Varian:
“I was a poll worker at 39B at Creeder Wood School. Quickly, the polls did not open at 7:00. They didn't open until 7:20. We did not sign our tapes like we were supposed to at the beginning. We signed everything at the end and it was very chaotic. The presiding judge was very inexperienced and lacked training. He was very judgmental against a lot of people that came into our poll, one especially that I want to speak out for today. . . . during the day he turned away several people that were in our precinct from work who said they had signed up but they weren't on our books. . . .I wanted to assist him going downtown because I was afraid he was going to open up the provisional ballots and do something with them because I fought so hard and so long all day trying to protect them. And it was a horrible, horrible experience.. . . The police were involved. The police did escort him down to the Board of Elections, but a Democratic representative could not go with the presiding Republican judge in a Democratic precinct, period. . . .Our presiding judge was Republican in a Democratic precinct and they would not let me, the Democratic poll worker accompany him downtown, . . .Only one person went with the ballots and the tapes and I begged and pleaded and called everybody I could. . . .We did not sign the tapes until the end of the evenings. Signs on how to use the machines weren't posted and people were turned away.”

Mark Dunbar, Columbus:
“I got off work about 9:30 that morning. I went down and dropped off some ballots down at the Board of Elections. Then I went to my home near Eastgate Elementary. I arrived there at 10:00. I went in. There was no signs as to how to use the voting machines. I heard one of the poll workers tell a guy in one of the booths that he had one minute because he had been in there four minutes. So they were actually rushing people in and out of the polls. The line was about three hours when I got there. There was only three voting booths and I remembered the last time I vote there, we had at least four to five voting booths, so we were down to three. They did allow the people to sit in chairs and move the chairs up and down the line. They did have an elderly woman who was in a wheelchair just sitting there for a couple hours and she was still sitting there when I left. So she didn't get to vote the kind of way she should have. She should have been taken to the front but I didn't see any accessible voting booths and I saw -- I counted at least 27 to 30 people who left while I was there, but I didn't leave. I had to vote.”

John Perry, Upper Arlington:
“For the record, I did observe, in my voting place, that there was a sticker over the ballot and spot apparently originally intended for Ralph Nader. However, in looking at the machine times from other precincts, I noticed that there were numerous machine votes, not write in votes but machine votes for Nader in other precincts. So apparently if you pushed the button for the Nader spot, it was recorded as a vote for Nader and printed out as such on the tape.”

Monica Justo, Columbus:
“I ran 6 wards for the Kerry campaign in the Clintonville corridor. At 8:00 -- my precinct location was 19H -- it is run out of the Southwick Funeral Home by Bill Good. Bill Good is a Republican. At 8:00 in the morning, he went out to the people in line. There was already over an hour wait at this time and informed them that they all needed to get out of line and move their cars because he had a funeral coming. . . . According to the Franklin County Board of Elections, it was their fault for not verifying that business was not being held on that day, that they needed to inform them of that.”

Michael Greenman, Westerville:
“I live in Westerville, voted in precinct 3B. I voted there in the elections for the last five years. When I went to the precinct this last election, I came in and looked at the list and my name was not on the list. It was a computerized list. My wife's name was on the list. I asked them how this could be. They had no explanation. They were very cooperative, gave me a provisional ballot. I was in and out right quick like. They were very efficient, it was a good precinct. But I cannot imagine how many could have been removed from the list without some active action. I'm a political activist. I'm the head of a political group called Citizens for Democracy and the corporate rule but I don't know why my name was not on the list.
MS. TRUITT: [Hearing Examiner] Had you voted within the last five years?
MR. GREENMAN: Every year, every time for the last five years at that precinct.”

Tom Kessel, Bexley:
“. . .in precincts 4 A and 4 C in Bexley. What it was is Republican challengers got there about 7:30 in the morning. Precinct 4 C was going fine, so I watched her. On three different occasions, I caught her sitting at the table with the poll workers. Each time I had to go up there and say, excuse me, you're not allowed here, you know, you're not allowed to be sitting there. She was not challenging it. She was talking and kibitzing and working with the poll workers. I don't know. One time I went outside, I came back in, she was actively going over some sort of computerized list she had with the precinct judge in precinct 4A in Bexley. One of the three machines went down and they were not able to get the tape out of it and the cartridge at the end of the day. Later on, when I got the poll -- data from Franklin County poll workers, that machine which had the lowest numbers of votes had the highest percentage of Bush votes. The other two machines were coming back 30 percent for Bush. This one came back 40 percent for Bush. I don't know. Also, they sealed up their provisional ballots before I had a chance to count them and let them know how much provisional ballots were there. Also, she signed off as an official witness at the end of the day, even though she was a Republican worker. I was met with open hostility from the workers in precinct 4 A in Bexley. They let me know in no uncertain terms that they were Bush people.”

--
Dr. Bob Fitrakis, JD, moderated the public hearings on voter suppression held in Columbus November 13 and 15. He is publisher of freepress.org, of which Harvey Wasserman is senior editor. Their ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION: VOICES OF THE DISENFRANCHISED, 2004 will soon be available at freepress.org.

Osama Bin Laden and the Terrorists hacked the election.

Prove that sentence to be wrong. Prove our election wasn't rigged. Prove every vote counted. Don't let the Terrorists win!

Special Report

Saudis, Enron money helped pay for US rigged election

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

November 25, 2004—According to informed sources in Washington and Houston, the Bush campaign spent some $29 million to pay polling place operatives around the country to rig the election for Bush. The operatives were posing as Homeland Security and FBI agents but were actually technicians familiar with Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Triad, Unilect, and Danaher Controls voting machines. These technicians reportedly hacked the systems to skew the results in favor of Bush.

The leak about the money and the rigged election apparently came from technicians who were promised to be paid a certain amount for their work but the Bush campaign interlocutors reneged and some of the technicians are revealing the nature of the vote rigging program.

There have been media reports from around the country concerning the locking down of precincts while votes were being tallied. In one unprecedented action in Warren County, Ohio, election officials locked down the facility where votes were being counted. The officials said this was in response to a Level 10 high-threat terrorist warning being issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for Warren County. George Bush won 72 percent of the vote in Warren County, much larger than his percentage of victory statewide.

The money to rig the election in favor of Bush reportedly came from an entity called Five Star Trust, largely based in Houston but a worldwide entity that is directly tied to the Saudi Royal Family. Five Star Trust was termed "a well-protected vehicle" that has been used to support both Bush and Osama bin Laden in the US and around the world.

Can we drive a wedge into Bush's coalition?
by brainwave
Thu Nov 25th, 2004 at 08:17:10 PST

Many people here believe that the tensions among the various factions inside the Republican Party (and the Bush-voting world) are much more disruptive than the divisions between moderates and progressives on our side. I'm honestly not sure whether this is true. But I want to explore the possibility here and a possible policy platform that might exploit these tensions in an effective manner. I mean this as a forum for discussion - I'm interested in your views. Below the fold, I'll try to get the discussion started with some talking points.

The sparks between moderates/centrists and liberals/progressives have been flying high for years. Yet, it strikes me that the issues we've been fighting over are more of a strategic/tactical than of an ideological nature. Don't get me wrong - there are serious ideological differences between moderates and progressives. But what they've been warring over is not so much who is right on these ideological questions but how to win elections. For a concrete example, I believe that deregulation in the 1990s went too far and that Dean was right on the money when he said capitalism without regulation is like hockey without rules. But this is not something I'm prepared to go to battle over right now, and if I'm gauging the mood in these parts correctly, I'm not alone. So the first question I want to submit to you is this: We have our ideological differences as they have theirs. On either side, there is a potential for a faction going third party or crossing over to the other side (in a variety of ways, ranging from voters moving to the other camp via senators/representatives voting with the other side on specific issues via them caucusing with the other side in Congress to them actually switching parties). On which side is this more likely to happen, theirs or ours?

Now, here's an overview of the major factions within the Republican Party (distilled from this WikipediA entry - the author's categories aren't always non-overlapping i.m.o.):

Some major issues that divide these factions:

Now, if we were to assemble a single policy package designed to best exploit these fault lines, it would most likely drive a wedge between religious right and neocons (and thus the Bush administration) on the one side and moderates and libertarians on the other, with fiscal conservatives and paleoconservatives caught in the middle. Here's what a platform crafted to be the wedge might look like:

These are all policies Democrats and their constituencies can live with. But can they be effective? Will the factions of the Republican Party stick it out together, no matter how deep their ideological differences, because no faction finds itself opposing a particular other faction on all the issues? Or will they stick it out together no matter what, as long as staying together means hanging on to power?

Your views? Take the poll (if you please)!

Strap-On Veterans for Truth 

An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter

Ms. Coulter today, with vestigal Adam's apple clearly visible.

We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger.

Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbara Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways.

As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is.

Background

The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.”

Ms. Coulter, a.k.a. Pudenda Shenanigans, in an undated photo taken in Key West.

In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.”

Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he WAS Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.”

Ms. Shenanigans and companion in New Orleans during Mardi Gras, 1987.

Former boss Phil Yoras recalled those heady days, “Pudenda was really popular with all the celebrities who came in. She really worked the Republicans. Dennis Hastert, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Dick Cheney, they all used to sit right up front for her shows. Arnold Schwarzenegger used to be her favorite, but once she dressed in lederhosen and tried to do “My Favorite Things” while sitting on his lap. That was the last time Arnold came in. Of course he left holding a plate in front of his pants, I don’t know why.”

By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or muslims in general.”

After that Ms. Shenanigans disappeared for years, only resurfacing in the 90’s as Ann Coulter. Her hatred for muslims, gays and feminists is odd for her former coworkers. Long Dick Gone, a former co-worker stated, “At first I thought there was something funny about this Ann Coulter. I mean here’s a woman who claims to hate feminists, but is in her 40’s, single, no kids, is very opinionated and outspoken and concentrates on her career. Ann Coulter is the biggest example of a feminist I ever saw. Then I noticed that in just the right light you could see that adam’s apple and that’s when I recognized our little Pudenda Shenanigans, the hottest drag queen this side of Fire Island.”

Strap-On Veterans For Truth

Once they realized who Ann Coulter was, Strap-On Veterans For Truth was formed.

Ann’s former friends and co-workers realized that her intense hatred of gays, feminists and muslims was really self-loathing and continuing hurt from the loss of her beloved Toubohls. Although we know she’s been through a lot, we feel hurt by her turning against everything she used to hold dear. We love you Ann, or Pudenda, or Jeremy. We respect whatever lifestyle of gender you choose. We just want you to be true to yourself and please stop the hatred. Come back to us and share the love of your friends and community again.

Strap-On Veterans for Truth is a proud partner of The Hoolinet.

http://www.straponvets.com/

Falwell's Thanksgiving message: "I thank God" for Hannity, Limbaugh, FOX, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and The Drudge Report

During his November 21 pre-Thanksgiving sermon, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority founder and national chairman of the Faith and Values Coalition, encouraged his audience to "praise the Lord" at Thanksgiving for "alternative news media" sources such as FOX News Channel, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, which he said are "telling the truth."

From Falwell's November 21 televised sermon, broadcast from his Thomas Road Baptist Church:

Let me talk to you about five good things of late ... for which this week I hope you and your family around your Thanksgiving table will praise the Lord. ... No. 5: America has alternative news media and is no longer held hostage by the major print and broadcast media. I remember a day when ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and the major print media controlled all the news flow to the American people and we found ourselves getting warped and distorted news. I thank God now in the 21st century for talk radio, that three hours a day people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and hundreds of others are telling the truth of what really is going on. I thank God for FOX News Channel [applause]. I thank God for the Internet bloggers and the news producers like NewsMax.com, WorldNetDaily.com, even The Drudge Report.

Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of false statements made by the so-called "truth" tellers that Falwell is thankful for:

Sean Hannity

Rush Limbaugh

FOX News Channel

NewsMax.com

WorldNetDaily.com

The Drudge Report

Falwell is pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, a 22,000-member church in Lynchburg, Virginia, that is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Falwell's weekly services, titled "The Old Time Gospel Hour" are broadcast from the church and reach global audiences by television, radio, and Internet. Falwell is founder and chancellor of Liberty University. He operates the Liberty Channel cable and satellite network, publishes the National Liberty Journal, and writes a weekly column published by conservative news outlets such as WorldNetDaily.com and NewsMax.com. Falwell endorsed President George W. Bush's reelection.

Dem Branding: Lessons from Lincoln
by Armando
Thu Nov 25th, 2004 at 09:58:27 PST

[Promoted from the diaries--DHinMI]

On Thanksgiving Day, created a national holiday by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, I want to offer this diary on the lessons offered by our greatest President on the question of branding.  Of course today, Lincoln is an icon, but his campaign for the Presidency in the 1859-1860 period provides important lessons that we can draw from.

Lincoln is reported to have said "[Matthew] Brady and the Cooper Union speech made me President."  What would Lincoln mean by that?  I'll explore this on the flip.

Matthew Brady was of course the most famous photographer of his age - his Civil War photographs are familiar to us all.  But Brady also is famous for his portraits of Lincoln. When Lincoln says Brady helped him win in 1860, it is because Brady took a very flattering portrait of Lincoln just hours before Lincoln delivered his famous Cooper Union speech.  This image, portraying Lincoln as solid, vigorous and Presidential, is the one most Americans, particularly Northerners and Westerners, saw of Lincoln.  It's silly, but even in that era of 4 hour debates, image was a critical component of politics.

And this imagery of a solid Presidential figure was critical, because Lincoln's Cooper Union speech was incendiary and divisive.  Douglas was the uniter, the compromiser, the DLCer of his time.  Consider this excerpt from the Cooper Union speech:

And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address.  . . . Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . . Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

. . . When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor.

. . . Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. . . .  When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? . . .

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" . . .

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . . Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

. . . Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Lincoln

As you can see, Lincoln shoots right across the bow of the South.  What was he trying to do - obviously, flip the extremist label - place it on the South, take it off the Republicans.

Win the Center.  Douglas advocated something different.  But this strategy of demonizing the South required the imagery provided by Brady - the counterpoint.

This is already long and I think Lincoln makes my point here.  Something to consider when we are urged to reach out to "values" voters, compromise on Iraq, etc.

My answer - Lincoln is my guide.

Fighting Democrats by JamesNYC Link: Basically, if you can't be a fighting Democrat in 2004, then you really shouldn't be a Democrat at all.  Because without fight, at this point, we all know that we are lost. That's the bottom line.  There comes a time when you have to draw the line in the sand and stand up and fight for what you believe in.  We need a mighty purge of the Democratic party.  We have already lost control of the House, Senate and the White House what more do we have to lose.

I think we need to take a new approach in the the upcoming 2 years before the next primaries.  We need to let every single politician in our party know that we are determined to fight and that they are either with us, or against us.   Part of the problem with the Dems now is that they try to stay centric with their ideas knowing that they'll keep the liberal/leftist vote just because they're not Republicans.  I say to hell with that philosophy.  I say we make it clear, starting now, that unless the people that represent our parties are willing to stand up and shout and fight with us that we will let them sink into obscurity.   No more voting for the lesser of two evils.  No more voting for someone just because they claim to be a Democrat.  We need to let them know that in this unprecedented grassroots movement we started that we will purge and keep purging anyone who sells out on our ideals.   It's become clear that there aren't many in the party who are willing to stand up for what is right even if it's unpopular.  We need to start rewarding those who do and punishing those who don't. You have a Harvard/Yale education?  So what, screw you.  You have a daddy that was a Senator, who gives a shit.  Unless you are willing to be on the front lines with us, pointing out injustices and fighting for our rights, all of our rights then you are not a part of our party. If you are with us we will use the network we have built up and are still building to help you raise money to make a stand.  We will help you get your word out.  We will support you when the wingnuts try and attack your character and patriotism as they undoubtedly will.   But if you try and win the centrist vote, be warned you can no longer rely on the most powerful network of grassroots activists in the history of the country.  Not your name, not your stump speeches, nothing but your actions will get you elected anymore.  That time has passed.  If we have to give up every single seat in the House and Congress until we find someone willing to not sell us out then so be it. 2004 should be the year that we finally put to rest that we actually need the centrist vote to win our elections.  If we start standing up for our left/liberal agenda again and start fighting for what we actually say we are fighting for we can ignite a huge portion of our party that has been so disenfranchised for so long that they have given up.  It's those votes we need to be going after, not snipping away here and there at fence sitters. It's time that the true Democrats, the fighting mad Democrats take back control of the party we built.  Take back control of our future, and our children's future.