The Rutland Herald published an editorial entitled “GOP Adrift” today.  Good you say?  On the surface it seems good, until you read it!  Embedded in the text is criticism of the Democrats as having no message.  This is blatantly false.  Howard Dean has repeatedly framed the Democrats Message which I post below the fold below. Howard Dean has repeated this message repeatedly, most recently at a speech he gave at the American Medical Association.  The challenge is to get this message into peoples’ mind so we can end these lies that the Dems do not have a message.  I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.

PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO TO GO TO THE RUTLAND HERALD EDITORIAL AND POST A COMMENT

[URL]http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/NEWS/603210301/1038[/URL]

Howard Dean, speaking on Face the Nation, February 12, 2006 framed the
Democratic platform/agenda for election year 2006 as:

ONE, we want honesty and openness back in government again.

TWO, we want a strong national defense, first of all, based on telling the truth
to our citizens and our soldiers before we send troops abroad to defend America.

THREE, we want American jobs that will stay in America using energy Independence
as a new industry to create millions of construction and manufacturing jobs.

FOUR, we want a health-care system that works for everybody, just like 36 other
countries have in the world.

FIVE, we want a strong public education system so we can have optimism and
opportunity back in America.

Remember this from Freyne’s column in Seven Days back in November?

The Center [for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal]‘s stated goal is “to promote and protect traditional values based on the Judeo-Christian ethic . . . Our goal is to renew the promise of America envisioned by the Pilgrims of the 17th Century and the Founding Fathers of the 18th Century restoring our greatest institutions; traditional marriage, two-parent families, community and religious organizations, and civic responsibility for the purpose of renewing our values to fall in line with our most cherished traditions.”

Earlier this year, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Richard Tarrant went to Rutland and spoke to CFACR members in his run-up to declaring his candidacy. Apparently Richie Rich, a good Catholic boy whose charitable foundation has a policy against contributing to pro-choice organizations, made a good impression.

Lest you think as I did, that this is just some small, grouchy, right-wing social group, the bloggers at Blier Watch have made it their mission to get the word out about them (and are now facing a right-wing blogger’s attempt to intimidate them into silence for it…more on that in a bit).

In fact, these folks are so bad that it begs the resurrection of Freyne’s point about Tarrant’s visit. Consider the folks he did such a good job impressing (click on the link for the full story):

Kevin Blier, the founder of the group, keeps fairly busy. He has been in the local press:

…as a frequent Letters-to-the-editor contributor (“As the Court Jester of Congress, Mr. Sanders seemingly struggles to comprehend a document he swears an oath to defend … the U.S. Constitution”)

…Opposing bipartisan transgendered rights legislation (“I’m not sure the legislature should be in the business of giving minority protections and special privileges to people who have a clinical psychosexual disorder”)

…Worked to have Vermont Supreme Court Justices thrown off the bench over Civil Unions (“Justices take an oath to uphold the constitution the way it is written, not an oath to uphold the constitution the way they wish it was written”)

So, basically another John McClaughery with, as some of his saner fellow Republicans have said,  “no Washington presence and little clout with social conservatives outside Vermont”, right?

Well, first of all, the guy is a desperate social conservative ladder-climber. Despite the complete irrelevence of the organization in the right-wing world, a simple Google search will reveal the guy is trying his damndest to position himself among the stars of the right every chance he gets. The Center For American Cultural Renewal pops up on lists like this one (supporting the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts) alongside groups such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Center for Moral Clarity (chuckle — love that last one’s name)

He’s also got an eye on politics, having just unsuccessfully run for office in Brandon.

Oh, and did we mention how he feels about “fags?” From an article reprinted on his site entitled “Fag Commentary: ‘Rebuke Them Sharply'”

As anyone can see, the meaning of “Hate the sin but love the sinner” has almost been inverted in the 20th and 21st centuries. Now it means indulging the sinner, not offending him, and certainly not punishing him. But loving the sinner, according to Augustine, includes such strong medicine as expelling the sinner as well as milder forms such as reproving — e.g., shaming.

Hate the sin but love the sinner? Of course. And to be precise: Hate the faggotry but love the fag.

You’ll notice the link is from the Google cache, as Mr. Blier edited his site after Blier Watch brought it to public attention. Guess he forgot about caching. Oops!

In fact, his excessive self-promotion and his loathing of gays found expression in his grotesque exploitation of the Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins affair, where one partner in a former civil union became an “ex-gay” and tried to keep her former partner away from their daughter. The case pitted the Virginia Courts against the Vermont Courts (with Blier clearly working against Vermont) and was a particularly heartbreaking and disgusting display of the real anti-family, anti-civil rights, win-at-all-costs agenda of the phony ex-gay movement and the theocratic wing of the Republican Party.

And Republican US Senate hopeful Rich Tarrant made “a good impression” on this crowd. This begs the question as to which scenario is worse: that this is a crowd Tarrant is simpatico with, or that its simply a crowd he felt the need to pander to?

Yuck.

But the Kevin Blier phenom has a new wrinkle in the Vermont blogosphere. The right wing theatrical-blog Will Chamberlain’s Vermont (a winger whose presumptious schtick is to pretend he’s some kind of Vermont Founding Father) claims:

Justice Department sources confirm today that documents pertaining to “BlierWatch”, an anonymous blog that has surfaced in recent months here in Vermont, have been turned over to the Criminal Investigation Division for possible Telecommunications Act violations by the Federal Communications Commission.

Excuse me for a moment while I recover from laughing so hard I sprayed some of my tea out my nose.

Okay, this is so dumb, I have no doubt it’s made up. I’m not sure by whom since WC’s Vermont (‘WC’…heh-heheheh-heh) has no actual living human’s name attached to it, but I doubt there are many degrees of seperation from Mr. Blier, there.

Kevin, look: as a result of all the naked attempts to make yourself into a public figure, you’re now a public figure. That means people can tease you on a blog. Deal with it.

Cathy Resmer, Vermont’s premier metablogger, broke the story this morning, although in a somewhat matter-of-fact way. She finds Blier Watch distasteful because its, well, pretty harsh. It’s hard not to have sympathy though — this Blier guy is a nasty, nasty fellow who wants to be a major player — which would in turn give him greater impact in Vermont. The BW crowd is basically saying, not on our watch and not without a fight. Who can blame them? The guy is irrelevent now, but may not be if he gets a friend…oh, in the US Senate, for example?

Still, I hope Cathy and others will respond to what this is: a naked (albeit crude) attempt to intimidate bloggers out of their free speech rights. An attempt doomed to failure, but bloggers — right, left, and center — should respond in no uncertain terms that this is not okay. In my opinion, Cathy tends to have a reporter’s tendency to judge lefties a bit more harshly and to give right-wingers broader latitude, rather than a blogger’s tendency to throw caution to the wind. Still, this kind of free-speech slam hits us all where we live out here in the blogosphere, and if she hadn’t reported on it, I might have missed it. Nice catch, Cathy.

How about some good news, by way of RadicalRuss.net (and thanks to Delaware Dem at DailyKos.com for bringing it to a broader audience):

Click on the image for a bigger, clearer view. Russ explains:

This map displays the state-by-state job approval polls of Pretzeldunce Chimpy McFlightsuit. His Net Approval is his job approval minus his job disapproval ratings, with positive numbers representing states where more people approve than disapprove, and negative numbers representing the opposite.
I’ve color-coded the states according to their relative “Bush Love” in red to their relative “Bush Hate” in blue, with those states more toward the center shaded in purple….The map begins at the 2004 Election, and every five seconds a new month appears

Nice, yes? An encouraging image to enter the weekend with.

This takes some time to go through, but, the exercise is worth it.  I would be interested to hear from all of you after you look at the data, what conclusions, big picture, you come to.  Also, any thoughts about the methodology described in this report card. 

To my knowledge, Vermont DOES NOT have a Report Card.  The link I am posting is for the Drum Major Institute’s NEW YORK STATE REPORT CARD.  Since I live within a few miles of New York State, I found it instructive. 

As a Progressive Democrat in Massachusetts, we put in place a similar process to scorecard our state legislators. We took this “radical” step because we found our legislators wanted to use the progressive base to get into office, but then, once firmly planted in office, did not adhere to what we considered the Democratic platform.

DINO, Democrats in Name Only, remain a challenge. The scorecard or report card, is one way to assess legislators who profess to be Democrats, but, don’t walk the talk and vote like a Democrat.

[url] http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/outerenvelope_exec.htm[/url]

I just threw a drink in Josh Marshall’s face.
See, at first, I was cool with it. I saw it as simply an opposing point of view; another way to look at the situation. I pride myself on my tolerance. That and my humility, which is actually my most admirable and meritorious personal trait. And that’s saying a lot, because it has a lot of competition in my personality profile. I’m damned proud of my humility.
(I often think that what the world needs are more geniuses that still have a bit of humility. After all, there are so few of us left.)
Be that as it may, the other day, my wingnut boss called me “the most intolerant person I’ve ever met.” That one sent me reeling. The primary GOP political officer (self-appointed) of my work environment called ME intolerant. This man thinks civil liberties begin and end with the Second Amendment. He seems to give not a fuck about the Fourth or Sixth. I wonder what he’d do if suddenly his Third Amendment rights were violated.
Anyway, I came to the realization that he was at least partly right. I AM intolerant. I am intolerant of this administration and its water-carrying MSM.
I did tell him about the HR 1606 thing as well as the latest attempts to gutshoot the 527s, and while he doesn’t like Move On, he did rail somewhat angrily at the idea of the government suppressing the blogosphere. There’s hope for this guy. he also watched Markos on KO last night. He tried to dismiss the guy, but his rhetoric bellyflopped. “Another anti-gun liberal….” “Hey, wait a minute! What did he say about guns? I missed that! Let’s watch the video and catch what Kos said about guns.”
He changed the subject.
But come to think of it, I guess I did too. I digress.
Quite frequently, and quite adroitly too, if I may.
I’ll go back on topic below the fold.

I want to share with you an editorial my local fish-wrapper put up about the Feingold censure resolution:

Feingold’s Flakiness  Posted 2006-03-14
http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=3424&sub=Editorial

There is something about Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis, that is immensely likeable, no matter the flakiness of some of his actions. Perhaps it’s the fact that there is no guile in him. Stealth and manipulative tactics don’t seem to be a part of his character. He is upfront, direct and candid.

His judgement, though, is sometimes questionable. His latest direct and upfront crusade is for the Senate to “censure” President Bush due to the administration’s electronic surveillance program.

The chances Sen. Feingold’s censure resolution will pass are nil to less-than-zero, but it has certainly delighted Democratic activists who are gaining more and more influence in the party.

Sen. Feingold doesn’t provide any evidence that a single law was broken – as he alleges – nor does he mention that experts (not the pundits, but the constitutional experts) disagree with him.

Osama bin Laden and the Islamicfascism around the globe are dangerous to this nation, just as they have been lethal to Dutch film producers, clubgoers in Bali, women and children in Iraq and passengers on the London subway system. Listening to conversations of such people is a vital part of our defense.

Even if Sen. Feingold disagreed with the program, one would think he would grant the administration the benefit of the doubt since President Bush is trying to protect American lives. Alas, that is not the mentality of the Democratic left.

One congressman who might actually support Sen. Feingold’s resolution is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich, who has called for President Bush’s impeachment. If the Democrats take over the House in November, Rep. Conyers would take over the House Judiciary Committee. No doubt he would then launch dubious investigations and sent subpoenas galore to the White House, thus obstructing and undercutting this nation’s war on terrorism.

Something to ponder come November.

I am DAMNED SICK AND TIRED of Democrats cowering in fear of political damage. They’re so spooked behind the last few years they’re afraid to move in for the kill on an opponent that is maimed by self-inflicted wounds. If not now, when?
I am a fourth-generation Democrat. My family pisses blue. But I am to the point where I am about to begin advocating a blood purge of the party. And it’s because of people like Hillary, like Steny Hoyer, like Joe Lieberman, like Ben Nelson, like Cuellar. Because of people like Zell Miller. But at least he’s out of play.
Any Democrat that will not support Feingold’s resolution, for example, can kiss my fucking ass. I am SICK TO DEATH of this shit. This sorry-ass excuse for a President has turned record surpluses into staggering deficits, has lied us into an unnecessary and unproductive war, in which our children and theirs are dying, has squandered any good will and sympathy we had around the world after 9/11 with arrogant, jack-booted militarism, violates our Fourth Amendment rights on a daily basis, has granted tax breaks to corporate entities exacerbating the brown-acid-trip deficits which he claims must be combatted by slashing Medicare, Medicaid, low-income heating asistance and student loans, and nearly every other form of assistance this government provides to the least among us. He has exposed the identities of covert operatives as political punishment. His party’s money trail is dirtier than the flow lines at a sewage treatment plant. Elections are a joke-the mechanisms by which we vote are designed and built by his supporters. His mouthpieces dominate the airwaves. And as his standing with the American people falls into the abyss, he contemplates another war as a means to unite the people he has intentionally divided to the same end: insuring control by his party, which he unquestionably places before the good of the country.
To ANYone who will not pursue any and all political and legal means to damage this bastard and his circle-jerk posse as severely and as often as possible, to those who cower in fear of the GOP noise machine, I say: Fight with us, or stay out of it.
And the horse you rode in on is presumably tied to the hitching post outside the Catamount.
ITMFA!

“You Haven’t Done Nothing”

We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that you’ll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!

It’s not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That’s becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a person’s mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!
-Stevie Wonder

That is all.
 

 Loading ...

I’ve spent a fair amount of bandwidth on the prospect of impeachment in general and the ongoing project to have the Vermont Legislature use obscure US House rules to call the subject to a vote in Washington. I’ve been gently encouraging while raising lots of caution flags along the way. So now that there’s lively debate amongst GMD’s own front pagers, let me say that I do come down in favor of the state-based impeachment drive, while I still have tremendous respect for those who think its a bad idea — particularly those who feel that the time spent on impeachment would be better spent on crafting and supporting good public policy that has some chance of passage (such as Health Care reform). There are two points I feel strongly need to be made, however.

One: I do strongly disagree with the notion that the Democratic Party’s involvement will make us look like wingnuts and drive away voters. As an emailer pointed out, two State Democratic Parties did that very thing last election cycle with no ill effects.

Two: The highly-covered censure motion proposed by Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) — which many felt would “compete” with the impeachment momentum — is doing just the opposite. The discussions are merging, and their fates are becoming intertwined. So much so that the success or failure of the censure motion could be critical to the chances of impeachment efforts, both now and under the future prospect of a Democratic Congressional majority.

Please click on “Theres More” for an explanation, and to see how you can help promote censure and/or impeachment.

First on the history of Democratic State Committees calling for impeachment (and thanks to Kagro X for birddogging this info out). If the VDP goes forward, they would be following in the footsteps of others, before anyone had ever heard of the Jefferson Manual, state-initiated impeachment, or even the NSA wiretapping scandal.

The Wisconsin Democrats called for impeachment in June of last year, and Nevada’s Democrats did so in May of 2004. The Nevada Dems went so far as to write impeachment into their Party Platform:

ELECTIONS, ETHICS and GOVERNMENT
An informed electorate which demands that elected and appointed officials serve the public in an ethical, competent and honest manner forms the basis of good government which serves all of its citizens equally. Therefore, the Democratic Party:…

…19. Calls for the Impeachment of President Bush for lying to congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq

Sure, they got hammered for it a bit. But did it matter come election time? As kagro reported to me:

* NV Dems picked up a net two seat gain in the legislature (+3 in the 42-seat House, -1 in the 21-seat Senate).

* 2004 Democratic Congressional candidates outperformed (by percentage
of votes cast) 2002 Dem candidates in every district.

NV-01:
2002 – Shelley Berkley (D) 54%
2002 – Lynette Boggs McDonald (R) 43%

2004 – Shelley Berkley (D) 66%
2004 – Russ Mickelson (R) 31%

NV-02:
2002 – Jim Gibbons (R) 74%
2002 – Travis Souza (D) 20%

2004 – Jim Gibbons (R) 67%
2004 – Angie Cochran (D) 28%

NV-03:
2002 – Jon Porter (R) 56%
2002 – Dario Herrera (D) 37%

2004 – Jon Porter (R) 54%
2004 – Tom Gallagher (D) 40%

I just dont think this is a problem. Platforms and State Committees have a role and an effect, but the fact is that nobody looks at the Platform or the list of approved Committee motions to decide whether or not they’re voting for a specific candidate — especially not in Vermont where everything is so person-to-person. The only thing such an action would show is that there are enough people who feel strongly enough about the matter that they got organized and made a public statement.

Now again, I think the “waste of time” argument is compelling. There is always a lot of work to be done on policy and electioneering, and an impeachment push in Vermont could be a distraction. It’s a valid point, and it may be correct. But I’m at the point where I want to err on the side of making clear, unambiguous statements of right and wrong to the world — and I have to believe that people will respond to that. We are, to large extent, in uncharted territory, and I choose to be guided by my conscience.

And my conscience tells me, as loudly as I can, to call King George to account.

So where does Censure fit in?

Rather than materializing as a competing notion, censure is taking shape as impeachment lite — especially since even I have been caught by surprise at just how timidly the Democratic Caucus is reacting to the motion. As of this blog entry, only Senators Harkin and Boxer have signed on, while Senator Kerry is reminding us why he was such a poor candidate for the Presidency by bobbing and weaving on the issue. They are so terrified, that the media is now smelling blood, which means the scrutiny on, and polarity of the narrative are increasing before our very eyes.

So make no mistake. If you prefer Censure as an option — that option is in serious peril, and Senators Leahy and Jeffords MUST hear from you.

If you prefer Impeachment as an option, without at least a decent showing on Feingold’s Censure motion, Impeachment may be DOA in the media, the Congress, and ultimately by extension, the public. The dominos tend to fall like that, unfortunately. Therefore, Senators Leahy and Jeffords still must hear from you.

Complicating all of this is the word that right-wing talk radio is encouraging folks in some markets to call Democratic Senators in support of censure, as they believe the same media reports telling them that this is a wingnut issue. That Democrats will look bad. And that Bush’s 33% approval ratings are all a big left-wing conspiracy, and that America is really behind their President.

Yeah, right.

So in the short term, regardless of your feelings on Impeachment, we need a strong showing on censure. Do we need to win? No, but we can’t get creamed again.

Contact information:

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-4242 (DC Office Phone)
800-642-3193 (Home Office Phone)
email

The Honorable James M. Jeffords (I-VT)
United States Senate
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-5141 (DC Office Phone)
800-835-5500 (Home Office Phone)
email

I think it’s clear that George Bush has knowingly and intentionally violated the law in numerous ways, including his invasion of Iraq, which violated internation law; his violations of American citizens’ constitutional rights; and his policy of torturing prisoners, which violated both domestic and international law. You can undoubtedly add to this list.

The question, though, is whether pursuing impeachment is a good idea from any number of perspectives. Josh Marshall, who is one of the most astute political analysts I read every day, has a new column out in which he sets forth why he doesn’t think we should be rushing to impeach Bush.

Here’s how he starts out, and you can read more by following the link.

Since talk of impeachment is in the air, it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to go on the record with their points of view on this momentous question. So let me devote this column to explaining why I think it’s a bad idea on both policy and political grounds.

State Senator Mark Shepard weighs in on the reasons we should mistrust Venezuela and CITGO. 

CITGO is dividing Americans according to the Senator?  uuummmm, I think America was divided well BEFORE the CITGO programs. 

Also, Senator Shepard DOES NOT address that a major leader of the Religious Right friendly with the Bush Administration, called for the outright assassination of the President of Venezuela. 

I don’t know about Senator Shepard, but I am really divided from the poor elderly widow that lives down the street getting fuel oil cheaper than me.  Why should she get the cheap oil?  I want some cheap oil!  I want my Maypo.

The Senator speaks of an OLIVE BRANCH?  An outright threat by a powerful American to assasinate the President of Venezuela is an OLIVE branch? 

  [url=]http://timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060315/NEWS/603150309/1022] TIMES ARGUS LETTER FROM SHEPARD HERE[/url]

Citgo oil deal a Trojan Horse

March 15, 2006

Thank you for your editorial (March 1, “Bad Company”) recounting my objection to the Vermont legislature honoring Chavez by formally thanking him for his “gift” of discount oil. And thank you for pointing out “The oil discount program shows Chávez clearly understands the value of the grand gesture.”

This “gift” was not about charity, in my opinion. It was and is propaganda used by Hugo Chávez, whom your editorial points out is “the most vocal and visible symbol of a rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Latin America.”

If any of the countries you mentioned in your article made a similar move and there were a resolution thanking them for it, I would have also objected to that. And it appears that after reviewing my objections, the sponsors of the Chávez resolution quickly came to agree with my position, as they did not even try to defend it, but rather sent it to committee to die.

As the world’s greatest power we must take extra care that our actions work toward building positive and confident relationships with the people (not just the leaders) in other countries, most especially our neighbors in the Americas.

The unrest and difficulties of life in many of the countries south of us is why people from those countries risk their lives to illegally enter the United States. Our foreign policy in South and Central America has often been very poor and has not focused on building long-term healthy relationships between nations. We can do better, and being consistent is the starting point. How can we just enjoy our freedoms and incomparable wealth, while at the same time we honor a man whose policies have reduced freedoms and increased poverty in other nations?

It is critical that our leaders differentiate between an olive branch of help and a Trojan horse designed with the intent to divide Americans.

State Senator Mark Shepard

North Bennington

One of these quotes is not like the others. From The Times Argus:

As he has in the past, the (Vermont) Republican governor (Jim Douglas) declined to stake out a position on whether the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I really don’t see the value in looking backward. I would rather look forward,” he said. “I don’t think there is much point to second-guessing the policy decisions of the past.”

Some other viewpoints:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Liberty without learning is always in peril
John F. Kennedy

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
George Bernard Shaw

No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar.
Donald Foster

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius

Mistakes are the portals of discovery.
James Joyce

Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.
Cato the Elder, from Plutarch, Lives

The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.
William Faulkner

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Here’s the entry from Peter Freyne’s column last week. You really have to wonder if the Republicans want Vermont to be the kind of place where outside organizations like the Swifties tell lies about our candidates, whatever the party, don’t you?

Parke Goes Swift-Boat — It looks like Vermont TV viewers will be guaranteed a slew of out-of-state attack ads. The other Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Greg Parke, a commercial pilot for a private charter outfit, has just picked up the support of the truthless “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” outfit that trashed John Kerry’s Vietnam war record.

In a fundraising letter put out this week by Friends of Greg Parke, John O’Neill, the Swift Boat Vets leader, zeroes in on Bernie Sanders.

“Sanders is as radical as they come,” writes O’Neill to donors. “In fact, he’s so far to the Left that he calls himself an ‘independent’ because he thinks Democrats are ‘too conservative.’ His record in the House of Representatives — particularly on defense matters — is disgraceful.

“He’s consistently fought President Bush on issues of national security — most specifically he voted against the use of force to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

“And even though we are in the middle of a global war on terror, Bernie Sanders proudly says he’s ‘leading the charge against the Bush Administration.’

And proud of it! I know, I know. With enemies like this, Ol’ Bernardo won’t have to break a sweat. It’s free advertising!