|
 |
Welcome to Backyard Blog, our group online journal for this election season. We've asked a broad array of people with deep ties to the region to share their views on politics during the 2004 campaign.
Send your comments to bbcomments@seattletimes.com. |
August 31, 2004
| Reader/blogger response |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 03:43 PM |
It concerns me that people in this country are more swayed by propaganda than finding out the truth. Is it possible we are not really an intelligent society at all?
I don't really think that people are the easily lead automatons that you make them out to be. I think that most people are intelligent but take actions with motives behind them. In this case, I think that the motive for the swift boat vets is a little bit of sweet revenge for being branded by Kerry as a bunch of baby killing, village burning war criminals.
In looking at the poll numbers, his testimony on Capitol Hill is what really resonated with voters, not the medal controversy. In this case, I would almost have to fault Kerry for bringing this on himself. He was the one that brought up his actions 30+ years ago, not Bush or the swift boat vets. Kerry was smoking by the gas tank when he thought that he could talk about his war record without his testimony coming back on him.
It's always nice to get your first comment from a fellow West Seattleite. Thanks for reading.
Respond |
| "Bush-isms" anyone? |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 03:40 PM |
Due to the fact that I haven’t watched a newscast, local or national, since early 2000, I have never once caught any Bush soundclips. I have not heard him flub words or skip lines in speeches, and I have only read about some of his goofy quotes. However, I do find some of what I’ve heard to be “circular talk”. He defines a word by using that word in the definition. He uses words that do not exist. He confuses the heck out of me.
I know that I’m a little slow on catching up to this phenomenon of the rather odd presidential speeches, so what IS the definition of “Bushism?” While I’m waiting for something exciting to come out of the GOP Convention, send me your favorite “Bushism”. Let’s see who can come up with the best quotes, and I’ll try and include them in my post later this week, when Bush is scheduled to speak.
Calling all Bush-isms. Send 'em here. |
| Reader response |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 12:04 PM |
This blog is only two days old and I’ve already gotten someone upset enough to respond to my post! This is exactly why I wanted to get into this whole blogging thing (not to upset people as such, but to get them to respond in some way). Here’s what a reader in Woodinville had to say about my August 30 post:
“WOW, How irresponsible of you to think this way. It's as if you live in a different country than I do. What happened on Sept 11, 2001 was a VERY personal attack on each and every American in this land! The terrorists didn't pick NYC, they picked the USA! Do you believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor was just an attack on Hawaii? If so then you probably think that only the people who lived there had a vested interest in extracting revenge? So why did we declare war on Japan?”
In response to this I will only say that I agree wholeheartedly with this reader (for his first 49 words that is). The terrorists that attacked on 9/11 were not attacking New Yorkers; they were attacking the American ideals that were represented in the World Trade Center. However, I will stand by what I said in my earlier posting, that there are some New Yorkers for which 9/11 was not just an attack on the US, but an attack on their own families and loved ones. For them, it is much more personal than it is for me or for our reader in Woodinville.
One more thing: please do not confuse 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. They are two different events that took place within completely different historical contexts; to make the analogy is inaccurate, and to assume that the way I feel about one equates to the other is wrong.
And as Ruben Bolling says this week about the Republicans in New York City: “We came, we shamelessly evoked the specter of 9/11, we left.”
To the reader in Woodinville: thank you for responding, your input is appreciated.
More response? |
| The race to the middle |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 11:35 AM |
[Editor's note: This post introduces our newest blogger, Carl Gipson, whose photo and bio will appear soon]
While watching the Democratic convention last monght, I was almost duped into believing that Republicans were saying the nifty catch phrases coming from the podium. Terms such as "strong national defense," "American values and vision," and "America's financial and moral support for our armed forces must be increased" were bantered about enough to make me think I was seeing the Conservative Political Action Conference. Plenty of pundits noticed the Dems' attempt to come off to the American populace as mainstream.
That feat is being accomplished again this week, but from the opposite party.
Though the classic Republican phrases abounded (defense, vision, God, national sovereignty), the idea was again to move the perception of the party more towards mainstream America. Moderate GOP supporters such as former NYC mayor Giuliani, Sen. McCain and part time-liberal actor Ron Silver were paraded in front of the screens while the right-wing of the party sat behind the curtain like puppet-masters.
Is this perpetual bolting to the middle a good thing? I'm not so sure. I hate to see people (or parties) pander and change their message or beliefs merely to gain political favor. But on the other hand, it's nice to see the parties recognize that most Americans (Seattleites notwithstanding) live in the hazy middle, going about their lives trying to put bread on the table, and genuinely despising those on the outer fringes of both the right and the left.
Respond |
| Where's Emily Post when you need her? |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 11:04 AM |
I don’t watch television. Very often. We live in some sort of pit where you cannot get ANY channels if you do not have cable (which we do not) so I am blissfully ignorant of things like “The Newlyweds” on MTV and most of the Olympics.
I was, however, “lucky enough” to catch some of Matt Lauer’s interview of President Bush Monday morning. To tell you the truth, I was a little bit appalled. It seemed (to me at least) that Lauer was verbally sparring with the president and the president went straight to a defensive position.
I know that a lot of people don’t like “W” and don’t like the way he is running things, but he is still the president, if only for “two more months” (as Michael Moore is so fond of saying.) Shouldn’t we still respect him as the leader of our country? Would Emily Post approve of the way some people are behaving?
Respond |
| First night of the convention |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 10:57 AM |
I arrived home last night just in time to catch Senator John McCain's remarks. After surfing past the major networks' "more important" programming -- two reruns of Friends, Evening Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, etc. -- I finally came to rest—in the high cable numbers—on CNN and the convention coverage.
John McCain's remarks were entertaining, with a left hook (or was it a right?) at Michael Moore. However, what brought this young Republican to his feet (yes, this is all the emotion a Republican is allowed to show) were the words of two men: Rudy Guilliani and Zainab Al-Suwaij.
The good (former) mayor of NYC spoke of the smoke he saw billowing forward from the collapse of the first WTC tower, while his mind raced--everyone thinking that these attacks would be the first of many. He turned to the police chief at his side and without thinking said "Thank God George Bush is our President."
Zainab Al-Suwaij, director of the American Islamic Congress, is a man who lived in Iraq experience the horror of Saddam's regime first hand. He described how life changed for the best as a result of the action taken by President Bush. He thanked our nation for the action of our president. It was then that this blogger realized that who we elect matters. Policy and, most importantly, action are at stake--as well as the lives of millions--depending on the vote we cast in November.
Respond
|
| Signs of the times |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 09:52 AM |
This past Friday, my pal Steve DuBois and I went up to the Evergreen State Fair in Monroe. There, in that time-honored fair tradition, we perused the Republican and Democratic party booths (both of Snohomish). Being young, gullible, conservative types, we picked up a couple of Bush signs to stick in the windows of our homes. It was then that we hit upon an excellent idea: my friend would get a Kerry/Edwards sign, I would hold our Bush signs, and we would both gauge the reaction of the ordinary folks in the crowd. Steve went back to the Democratic booth, and asked the nice, red-beret-wearing (I’m not kidding) lady for a Kerry sign.
“That’ll be $2,” she said, somewhat haggardly.
“Two bucks, for a sign?” asked my incredulous friend.
“Yes, please.”
“But the Bush/Cheney signs are free…”
“Bush has all the money, so his signs don’t cost anything. We, on the other hand, need to buy more signs…”
So, being a good sport, my buddy produced the $2 and paid her. Wracked by guilt, I gave him a dollar to help defray the cost of out first political donation, ironically, to a party which neither of us will vote for come November.
Anyway, for the rest of the afternoon, we walked around the fair with our signs, producing a great myriad of reactions, with everything from “where can I get one (of the Bush signs)?”, to “uggh, a Kerry fan, let’s go this way (around them).”
I have to be honest and say that Monroe is definitely Republican-country. We did have one very interesting conversation, however, with a self-described, very polite, “nominal Kerry supporter”. When asked about how he felt about President Bush, especially with the Republican National Convention happening this week, he admitted to us that he had, at one time, been a “fiscally-responsible” Republican, of the Gerald Ford-ilk, but that he had switched parties after Reagan.
I found this curious, and pressed him for an explanation for his change-of-party. He explained that our current-day Republicans, and particularly our president, were irresponsibly spending huge sums of money on fruitless military actions, driving up the national deficit, and, in general, making a bad name for America everywhere. “Plus,” he pointed out, “Bush is as dumb as the dirt you’re standing on.” My reply was that he sure is down to earth (all right, that wasn’t too funny). And shouldn’t fighting a global war on terrorism cost money, as well as make a few people a little miffed at us?
We were pressed for time, and had to end our conversation there (amicably, as it turned out; he couldn’t believe my “democratic” friend and I got along so well). This man was a thoughtful, nice person, with real concerns. I respected him, and he respected me. We had a good little talk, in the middle of a bunch of farm animals and caramel apples, and shared a laugh or two.
I encourage all of us to discuss our differing political views, to dissect them, to think about them, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, especially during this week of convention coverage. Although you might not accidentally donate a dollar to your not-so-favorite political party (oops ;-), you might get an interesting discussion or two out of it. Just like here, on the Backyard Blog.
“Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.”
-Hubert H. Humphrey (1911–1978), U.S. Democratic politician, vice president. Speech, June 6, 1965, Syracuse University, N.Y
Respond
|
| Stick to singing |
| Posted by Stephanie Sanguinet at 09:49 AM |
The MTV-generation has moved into politics. This can be found by watching either of the political party conventions that have been bombarding our press. High profile Hollywood names and musical acts have been added to the conventions to lure the young voters to the ranks and add their names to the respective party’s list. However, not only are the musical acts appearing at the conventions, but they are taking their political views on the road in a new concert tour called, “Vote for Change”.
While concert-goers will be wooed with the names appearing (such as Dave Matthews Band and R.E.M.), some may not be to keen to hear their political views spouted about like a sprinkler on hiatus. Musicians should stay with what they are paid to do, sing; just as politicians are paid to make decisions for the public they represent.
Should musicians lend their voices to politics or stick to the music? |
August 30, 2004
| Bush belongs in the Big Apple |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 05:00 PM |
Monday morning, as I slowly embrace the reality of clients, ringing phones, and morning coffee, I see a group gathered at our water cooler. This cannot be good. The topic is the protests in New York City. The Republican convention. Even my fellow bloggers seem to be gearing up in anticipation holding shots of rum in their hands, selling their television sets, and gnashing their teeth as President Bush makes his return to the big apple.
That is what I have reminded the water cooler—Bush returns to the Big Apple. Our nation has suffered one of the largest attacks on its soil as Bush just began his presidency. There can be no denying it has defined our nation. It has defined him. And it will continue to define this debate. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush has been successful because he is direct.
Instead of pretending that the war on terror is not one of the most important issues facing our nation, in big Texas style, W. is going to ride right back to ground zero and define this debate. Will it have a negative or positive impact—only the next few days will decide.
However, this is what this blogger has challenged his liberal friends from across the aisle and in particular those from our generation: What does Kerry stand for? Is it enough to run for president as the guy who is not Bush. Maybe I will be wrong, but I think you will see a president with a plan on Thursday.
Respond
|
| Soul for sale! |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 01:25 PM |
My political soul is for sale. I don’t want money for it; I just want someone to convince me that choosing to be one party or the other is a good thing. I have been researching the candidates and voting histories of both Republicans and Democrats, and I think maybe I’m half and half. Is that possible? In order to be a “good American”, do I have to pick one or the other?
Well? Does Libby have to pick? What should she do? |
| The polls tighten |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 01:20 PM |
In the days leading up to the Republican National Convention, all the talk seems to be about the swift boat veterans. I've looked over two of their ads. The first accuses Kerry of lying about his war record and making a hero out of himself when the reality of the situation was quite different. The second ad runs excerpts of his testimony before the Senate and accuses him of breaking faith with his fellow veterans through false accusations of war crimes.
While the truth of these statements can be disputed, the impact that they have had on this race cannot. Bush has now pulled ahead in many national polls, but of more interest to me is that he has now pulled ahead in Ohio. His is also closing the gap in Wisconsin. Since the ads have started running in Ohio, the polls show a swing of seven to eight points in Bush's favor. The latest LA Times poll has him up five points, above the four percent margin of error. Wisconsin is showing a similar shift, though the polls there are less clear.
Respond |
| Off we go |
| Posted by Lucy Mohl at 11:50 AM |
Editor's note: Today is the launch of the Backyard Blog project. We coincide with the opening of the Republican National Convention in New York City.
As it happens, more writers from the left side of the political aisle weighed in than the right (does this mean something?) Let the blogging begin. |
| A New York state of mind |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 11:49 AM |
With the RNC beginning on the 30th in New York City, even before the events get underway, I think I’ll kick things off with a question. Does the Bush campaign’s use of New York City as a political strategy piece amount to exploitation?
If you’re like me, you didn’t know anyone who died in the September 11 tragedy. For us, 9/11 was something that affected our country, but happened to other people. We see 9/11 as history, something that happened in the past and far away, and we remember it because it’s important, not because it was personal.
This is certainly not the case for New Yorkers who survived that day and lost friends and loved ones: these people are still living with the very real memory of 9/11. They are aware of where the threat level is for their city, what the color alerts mean, and what security measures are in place. For them 9/11 is not history, it is their personal reality – past and present.
A co-worker of mine brought these feelings to my attention, and I was surprised. The friends she has in New York do not appreciate Bush and the Republican Convention using their personal tragedy as a political talking point, and as the justification for a war and policies in which they do not believe. The state is a bastion of the Democratic Party and the city itself is exceedingly diverse, a characteristic it does not share with the GOP. My guess is that there are more than a few New Yorkers that despise the Convention’s choice of city.
To someone like this in New York, it’s as if Bush and his supporters were saying: “I’m going to adopt your personal tragedy as my own, and use it to support my own interests.” I can understand how this would be upsetting.
Respond |
| Bush v. Republicans |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 11:44 AM |
The Republican National Convention is this week. I will not be watching it. Actually, I probably will watch it a bit, with a shot of rum in one hand and a bottle of Tums in the other. I literally get angry whenever I see our president on TV or read about him in the paper. I am not so much anti-republican as I am anti-w. He is not what I want in the leader of the free world. The leader of the free world folks!! This guy has his hand on the button and he couldn’t even manage a baseball team successfully! I have three birds and I enjoy putting w’s likeness face-up on the bottom of their cages. It’s a game. The first bird to cover w’s face gets a special treat.
Anyhow, I am angry this election. I am angry about what I feel are the close-minded and ego-centric policies of our current administration and I am confident that we will have a new administration sworn in this January. However, I am learning to separate the republican party from the president and his good ‘ole boys. Though it took some time and convincing by a few patient right-leaning friends, I no longer feel that all republicans only have their own best interests in mind. But the republican leaders most certainly do IMO. So to those of you reading this who have decided or are thinking about voting for w, I am pleading with you not to. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for Kerry than simply abstain from voting for president. I will write more on this in future blog entries.
Respond
|
| Voting for ... the First Lady |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 11:38 AM |
“The American ideal, after all, is that everyone should be as much alike as possible.”
{James Baldwin (1924–1987), African-American author; in Notes of a Native Son, pt. 2 (1955). “The Harlem Ghetto,” first published in Commentary (New York, Feb. 1948)}
My fellow Northwesterners, we have a choice to make this fall. And no, it’s not just an election decision between John Kerry and George Bush…or between John Edwards and Dick Cheney…or even who we want as Washington State’s governor, senators, or representatives.
It’s a choice of who we want as First Lady. That’s right. Which of the two wives of the major candidates do you want to be America’s Top Mom and all-round symbol of American Womanhood? Now, we have two possible alternatives.
Here are our contenders and their backgrounds:
(Information taken from www.johnkerry.com and www.georgewbush.com, respectively.)
Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry
“Teresa Simoes-Ferreira (Heinz) Kerry was born and raised in Mozambique in East Africa. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in romance languages and literature (French, Italian, and Portuguese) from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. She speaks five languages. After graduating from the Interpreters School of the University of Geneva, she worked for the United Nations in New York…”
And…
Laura Welch Bush
“Laura Bush was born on November 4, 1946, in Midland, Texas, to Harold and Jenna Welch. Inspired by her second grade teacher, she earned a Bachelor of Science degree in education from Southern Methodist University in 1968. She then taught in public schools in Dallas and Houston. In 1973 she earned a master of library science degree from the University of Texas at Austin and worked as a public school librarian in Austin…”
Hmmm…two very different ladies, it seems, doesn’t it? One is practically an ambassador with multi-lingual and multi-culturalness oozing out of every pore, while the other seems…well, average. I mean, come on! A librarian and teacher…you can’t get more average than that. Theresa sounds like a pretty cool momma by comparison. Just think of how the World-at-Large would be impressed at her credentials: speaks five languages, grew up in South Africa, worked for the U.N., and involved in a global company (ketchup, anyone?). If America was a giant business, and the First Lady was the de-facto Most-Important-Advisor to the President, then it seems logical to have Mrs. Kerry as our Mom-in-chief…right?
Well, no, it doesn’t. And here’s why: Americans like their First Ladies relatable. “What do ya’ mean?” you might ask. They don’t have any official roles, do they? It shouldn’t even matter, by any coldly logical analysis. Do all our First Ladies have to be as gregarious as Mrs. Carol Brady? As handy at the sewing machine as Mrs. Walton, or even as resourceful as Mary Tyler Moore?
What if, as in the case of Mrs. Kerry, she has an awesome resume?
The truth is, my fine voting friends, is that deep down, in our Apple-pie-eating, Mariners-cheering, Diet-coke-drinking selves, we all want a mom-like First Lady. A smash–bang background is not enough. Now, I’m sure Theresa is a wonderful mother and all-round great person. But you want somebody your mom would feel comfortable hanging out with. You know what I mean. Ideally, the American First Lady should be somebody who you could invite to your mom’s book club, block party, or game night. If the potential First Lady lacks this everyday-momminess, it’s really hard to earn or prove it. Theresa doesn’t, but Laura does, and in spades. I encourage you to vote with your gut on this one, and for all moms everywhere, go with the First Lady who’s the most normal.
Or, in other words, most like your own mom.
What do you think? Voting for a First Lady = First Mother to the nation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2005
|
|
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
| 16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
| 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
| 30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top