Ruskin v Poizner

Okay, let's see if I can do this rationally...

I live in the 21st Assembly District in California. Our Assemblyman has termed out and is running for State Senate, so two new guys are running. The Democrat is Ira Ruskin. He serves on the Redwood City City Council, has been mayor of our city (largest city in the district), and has a good record on the issues important to me. (Guess who I'm voting for?!?) His Republican opponent is Steve Poizner, a rich man who is out-raising Ruskin 4-1. (Another example of a Republican trying to buy an election in California. Haven't they figured out that it doesn't work?) It's been a pretty nasty race, especially for a State Assembly seat. It's also a Democratic district and has had Democratic representation for a very long time.

Lately these guys have been sending out mailers trying to affirm their positions and cut down that of their opponent, but this time Poizner really got to me. He has never served on a city council, but was a White House fellow, starting in September 2001... that means under THIS president. He states that he is a moderate Republican and is pro-choice and has gotten a pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood.

Ruskin's campaign material points out that Poizner "contributed thousands of dollars to national pro-life council endorsed candidates". Guess what?!?! This isn't a lie. A simple check of the Federal Elections Commission website shows that Poizner has contributed $18,000 to political committees since 2000. Granted, he contributed $2,000 to Kerry in February 2001. However, he contributed $2,000 to George Bush in June 2003 and $2,000 to the Congressional campaign of Kris Kobach in Kansas. Who is this Kris Kobach person? Well, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The other donation in question was to a Kansas congressional candidate who served with Poizner in a nonpartisan White House fellowship program." So, Poizner is just giving money to his "bud". The implication being that since the program was non-partisan, the money must be, too. (Poizner's using this quote in his campaign literature, he's trying to get readers to believe that this is a logical progression.) But guess what? This "bud" has been endorsed by Kansans for Life "as an especially attractive candidate to pro-life citizens." (Right off Kobach's website!)

So, our pro-choice "rated" candidate is endorsing candidates attractive to pro-life citizens both in Kansas and nationally (because you canNOT tell me that George W. Bush is not anti-choice!) While the man is free to give his money to whomever he chooses (notice he gave the maximum contribution in all cases), if he is TRULY PRO-CHOICE why would he give money to candidates that advance the anti-choice agenda!??!!?!?

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?!

A CIA report released today said that Saddam Hussein did not have have stockpiles of weapons and didn't have a program in place to create them. "The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of WMD at some time in the future." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html) "The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush ... told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq 'possesses and produced chemical and biological weapons' and 'is seeking nuclear weapons.'" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?! Bush FREAKING LIED about going to war, Saddam's worse transgression was to circumvent the sanctions and to think about weapons, but there was nothing, NOTHING that directly threatened America. He didn't have 'em and he didn't produce 'em. As Senator Jay Rockefeller, D- W. Va. said, "In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger."

George W. Bush has to be the most dangerous man in the world, his actions have caused the mess in Iraq, as well as Iran and North Korea ramping up their nuclear programs. He bitches about Saddam's intent, but he should be reminded that the U.S. is still the only country in the world to actually deploy nuclear weapons. He uses "September the eleventh" as his excuse for EVERYTHING, that the world has changed since then and we need to be safer. I say there's no way to know if we are safer than September 10, 2001 cuz we don't have anything to compare it to. On 9/10/2001, I thought our airport security sucked and today, 10/7/2004, I still think it sucks. But, then again, I've been to Israel. El Al's security is the best in the world and until we achieve such a level, we're no safer than that fateful day. Sure there have been no attacks on American soil since then, but there have been attacks against American interests and allies. Shrub hasn't kept the terrorists off our soil, I don't think they will attack again on American soil, they don't need to, they've won, we've sufficiently changed our way of life that we're worried about them. Especially when the freaking Bush Administration puts out predictable "terror alerts". (And we know they will increase as we move closer to the election.)

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

On a related note, cuz George Bush is partly to blame, three (3!) bombs went off at Israeli vacation spots in Egypt. IN EGYPT!!! They're freaking attacking Jews on Arab soil!!!! I was hoping there would be no attacks during the chagim. There weren't, they waited until after, when people were decompressing (my word) from the holidays. According to the Jerusalem Post a previously unknown group called World Islamist Group is claiming responsibility in the name of "martyrs dying in Palestine and Iraq."

I've been in tears for the last hour or so between hearing about the Duelfer report and the bombs in Egypt. This stuff makes me sick to my stomach. Shrub has so f*cked up the world ... he HAS to be defeated on November 2! We can't handle anymore of his actions. He blames everyone and everything else except himself, he refuses to admit that he's done anything wrong. Hmmm.... seems to me that only God is infallible, man makes mistakes and Bush claims to be God-fearing. F*cking hypocrite.

I don't understand!

Okay, I just don't get it. I was just reading a post over on the Weight Watchers boards. This woman posted that Too-Stupid-to-be-President is going to be in her town. She can't attend the rally cuz they sanitize the crowds (my term) and only allow the big money donors into the rally. She says she is struggling week to week and that if she had extra funds they would go to groceries for the kids, not to a campaign that doesn't need it. Her husband has worked his ass off to register people and they don't get to go see TSTBP. Why the HELL are they still supporting this bozo? Ugh! It sounds like it's the whole, "But he shares my values" thing. I don't know why they're struggling, but I'm willing to bet it's due to Bush's stewardship (or lack thereof) of the economy, they live in Ohio, after all. Someone else posted that it's probably the local folks deciding who gets to attend... While the local folks may decide the who, the campaign directs what they want... and it's all very scripted. Remember, the "war president" who makes decisions from the oval office must be carefully scripted and can't speak without notecards or a prepared speech. (Remember his response when he was asked about mistakes he's made? He wished he had the f*cking question in advance!!!) Did anyone see his performance in the "debate" the other night? This man needs to be removed from office, he is a disgrace to our country!