Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Kerry should go on Howard Stern

I think Kerry should make an appearance - or a phone interview - with Howard Stern. here s the letter I wrote his camapign in the hopes that someone with half a brain will respond.
I know this seems like a stupid idea, but I think it will actually be better for Kerry than many of the Washington insiders think. Kerry will never win over the core Bush voters. They have gone beyond argument - they are running on faith, now. He can, however, make a dent on the working class people that make up a large chunk of the NASCAR demographic.

I think Kerry should go on the Howard Stern show as a way of appealing to this demographic - and as a way of humanizing Kerry. John can admonish Howard playfully for his ribald subject matter while taking a stand for free speech.

The public appetite for the indecency quest has crested and I think most people think the whole reaction by the FCC and Bush is overblown. I think this is the perfect time for such a stunt.

If Kerry can stand up to Howard's tough interviewing style, I think he could make a great impression with a key bush demographic. Kerry can also help diffuse some of the bile thrown on him by the Republican claims that he is soft on defense, terrorism, etc.

Howard has 18 million rabidly loyal listeners that could really help swing Kerry in November. Stern has been very critical of bush lately, and I think he would respond well to John if John takes a common sense approach to indecency standards - and points out that this whole whirl is really just an effort to distract the public from the poor management of the Bush administration.

I don't know if anybody will ever read this, but I really think it would be a good idea.

Paul Krugman hits the nail on the head

In "Lifting the Shroud" in Today's NYT, Krugman reinforces the assetions made by Clarke - and hammers the point home. The administration is doing everything they can to skew the story - and impugn Clarke's character, but they can't seem to get a good bead on him.

Cheney described Clarke as "Out of the loop" - which was the same description administration insiders gave to John Dilulio ( "mayberry machiavellis" ) and Paul O'Neil ("blind man in a room full of deaf people"). What bothers me about this is Cheney's assertion reiterates Clarke's complaints. Clarke was saying that he was warning the administration and they disregarded his warnings. Cheney is saying that the administraiton's head of counterterrorism was "out of the loop". How the hell can you be doing a good job when your head of counterterrorism is not involved in the policy decisions regarding counterterrorism?!

If they thought he was too incompetant to stay, why did they keep him on? If he is wrong on the substance of the issues, why are they trying to hard to paint a registered Republican as though he was a communist holdover from the evil Clinton empire. Hell, the guy has worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 - the guy was a vetted insider. He was not some boob that just walked in off the street.

Then Cheney makes the assertion that Clarke did nothing during the Clinton administration even though the counterterrorism activities and budget skyrocketed under Clinton. Clinton had to fight through hordes of Republican asshats that accused him of wagging the dog any time he tried to do anything about terrorism - but Clarke did nothing. Which leads me back to... WHY THE HELL DID THEY KEEP HIM ON?!?!?!

Then they blame 9-11 on Clarke. Clarke was running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to get the administration to beef up security because an attack was imminent - they decided to ignore him - and then HE is blamed for the attack. This is beyond the FUCKING PALE! How the FUCK can you blame the guy that was warning you that you were going to get hit - to watch out - when you ignore his warnings?!?!

Then, to cap it all, Cheney says this is all about getting publicity for Clarke's book. Clarke just really needed that extra cash.

Even though Clarke could have made a mint publishing books like "Bush at War" or "Bias" or "Liberals want to kill your children", he decided to challenge the most powerful man in the world. Even though Clarke could have made a mint praising Bush all over the lecture circuit - Clarke was trying to make a fast buck with the book. Even though the White House has been sitting on Clarke's book for 3 months, it's release now is political. Even though Clarke could have gotten a cushy job with the Carlyle group or Richard Perle's organization is he came out in defense of "Bush on Terra", Clarke was trying to make a fast buck.

This is just fucking bizarre.

If Clarke came out and praised the administration, he would have been carted around every talk show and given millions of dollars for his efforts to ensurte Bush's reign. If Clarke kept his mouth shut, he would have made millions in consultation fees from a hundred Republican organizations. He might have even gotten his own talk show on FOX News.

Instead, this career civil servant is being smeared with everything the Republicans can find. I would not be surprised if allegations that Clarke is gay or a pedophile or that he has a drug problem come to the surface over the next few days.

I hate those fuckers.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?