It is clear - what the John Kerry and the Democrats are doing is NOT patriotism, it's treasonous MURDER. Why are we so hesitant to say this? Why are we apologetic when we should be outraged?
DEAD SOLDIERS
RALPH PETERS
New York Post
"September 23, 2004 -- Taking comfort from Kerry: Celebrating in Baghdad under the black flag of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi's group around a burning U.S. tank. AFP
IMAGINE if, in the presidential election of 1944, the candidate opposing FDR had insisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.
We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.
In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.
Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.
Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?
And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist - against all hard evidence - that the terrorists are winning?"
READ MORE
This must be made clear, somehow, some way. Does anyone remember March of 2004? Before the Democrats began their onslaught against the war in Iraq? Deaths, though still grievously mourned, slowed dramatically; the reconstruction was well underway. A hopeful beginning was being unveiled. Then Teddy Kennedy stood up and declared, out of the blue, that Iraq was "our Vietnam" - and suddenly all hell broke loose. Deaths in April skyrocketed. The enemy saw an out - and they have continued to pound us, believing that if they could just cause enough bloodshed, the American public would demand a withdrawal...
just like they did in Vietnam.
I wonder who gave them that idea?
Let us be honest, finally, about who gave them that idea...
John Kerry slaughtered one generation of American soldiers in Vietnam, using this same tactic - slander the soldier, slander the cause, and promise to meet the enemy on their own terms. His meeting in Paris personally extended the war by one year, causing the deaths of 20,000 American Soldiers.
Now he comes again, damning the war, denigrating the soldier, bending towards Baghdad with promises of withdrawal and capitulation.
I'll be damned if he does it on my watch.
It's time somebody called out this treasonous liar for what he is - a murdering narcissist who cares nothing for peace, nothing for truth, and everything for himself. John Kerry is backed by a group of leftist thugs who love nothing more than to burn down a village in the name of peace, or to beat up a soldier in the name of tolerance. These pigs are at it again, and they think they can get away with it...
They're wrong. This ends here. NOW.
How many American soldiers have to die before these slavering ghouls will stop? They gather around the glowing candles, drooling over the dead while they weep for the camera. But when real mourners come to grieve, they draw back their lips to reveal fangs, savaging the true victims.
The Left loves the blood. Every dead American Soldier is one more notch in their ideological gun, one more reason to raze the nation. They love to tear down, to destroy, to wreck in the name of "protest". They love to spew venom in the name of "free speech". Theirs is no sorrow for the dead - just the sadistic, onanistic joy they feel in knowing that another American Soldier has died.
What a photo op! What a thrill! What a pleasure to know that the "grim milestone" has been reached - why, surely they can get a photo-op out of this one! The Leftists fly to the graveside to find some weeping relatives to interview -
and they descend, vultures feeding off the raw emotion of the living left behind.
How many American Soldiers must die to satisfy the Left? How many more will be killed to expedite the Left's rise to power? How many more must fall before we realize that Kerry's criticisms and calls to withdraw are really the causes of their deaths?
This is not patriotism. It never was. It is just as wrong today as it was thirty years ago, and it will still be just as wrong a hundred years from now. It is not patriotism; it is treason, it is murder, and it is OVER. John Kerry at last must be called by his true names, and by his fruits he must be known - liar, traitor, murderer of the American Soldier.
The time has come to call it treason.
Huwebes, Setyembre 23, 2004
Miyerkules, Setyembre 22, 2004
CBS AND SOROS TEAM UP TO FUND, PUBLISH KERRY PUSH POLL
Once again, CBS continues to carry water for the Kerry Campaign - even going so far as to "partner" with a Soros-funded 527 designed to push polls for John Kerry.
MTV's "CHOOSE OR LOSE" - ROCK THE VOTE 2004 -
Poll Gives Kerry Big Lead Among Voters Under 30
09.21.2004 11:53 AM EDT
Younger voters think the country is heading in the wrong direction and that President Bush does not share their priorities, but they like Bush personally and are unsure about John Kerry.
Overall, Kerry has a substantial lead among voters under thirty, a reversal of the Bush's nine-point advantage among all registered voters. In a head-to-head contest, Kerry is leading Bush by 10 points (51-41), and in a contest that includes Ralph Nader, Kerry is ahead by 6 (46-40-4).
These results came from a new poll of 18-29-year-olds (conducted September 8-13) by CBS News on behalf of MTV and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE).
A previous investigation revealed the direct ties that "CIRCLE" - aka CIVICYOUTH - has to the Soros/Kerry money machine. Now, dear reader, we find that CBS is partnering directly with Soros to publish press-releases for the Kerry campaign; but CBS/MTV is disguising these Soros press releases as news. This may be a flagrant violation of the Federal Election Laws, and is most certainly a violation of what used to be journalistic ethical code.
---SNIP---
Don your fedoras, cyber-detectives: it's time to see whom the "researchers" are working for...
Center for Information and Research
"Since 2001, CIRCLE has conducted, collected, and funded research on the civic and political participation of young Americans. CIRCLE is based in the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation of New York."
Sounds good, eh? But a little further googling takes you to The Democracy Collaborative, and you see CIRCLE is connected to -
"The Democracy Collaborative: About the Collaborative"
---SNIP---
"Founding Principals"
"The principal initiators of The Democracy Collaborative include:
---SNIP---
Benjamin R. Barber Distinguished University Professor, Gershon and Carol Kekst Professor of Civil Society and the Maryland System-wide Wilson H. Elkins Professor at the University of Maryland, and author of Jihad vs. McWorld, Strong Democracy, and other works.
---SNIP---
William A. Galston, "Saul I. Stern Professor" of Civic Engagement in the Maryland School of Public Affairs, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, Director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) and a founder of the National Alliance for Civic Education.
---SNIP---
And what is their mission, pray tell? Well, a Global Society, according to their own website:
"The Civworld Campaign"
The Democracy Collaborativebelieves it is is vital that "preventive war" strategiesbe supplemented and/or replaced by "preventive democracy" strategies. Our CivWorld initiative is now promoting the "Declaration of Interdependence" and an "Interdependence Day" celebration scheduled for September 12, 2003 as a positive alternative program of international cooperation. The first annual Interdependence Day will be launched at the American Philosophical Societyin Philadelphia and on the campus of the University of Maryland at College Park. For more information, visit www.civworld.org.
"CIRCLE/Democracy Collaborative" is also very aggressive in pushing for a "transnational society", meaning: no national boundaries. Ahhhh, this is no objective polling organization; rather, it is a "non-profit" with an agenda. An agenda that supports John Kerry's campaign...
And who might be behind this "Democracy Collaborative"? Why, none other than George Soros himself.
Soros Foundations Network Minidirectory 2003
---SNIP---
Democracy Collaborative
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019 USA
Phone: (212) 548 0600
E-mail: bbarber@sorosny.org
Principal: Dr. Benjamin Barber
---SNIP---
Why, look! There's Benjamin Barber, one of the Founding Principals of CIRCLE!
Let's go over the evidence one more time, shall we?
-Center for Information and Research at the University of Maryland =CIRCLE
-CIRCLE = Democracy Collaborative
-Democracy Collaborative = George Soros
-George Soros = funding of fake Kerry Campaign "polls" via Soft Money.
-Fake Kerry Campaign "Polls" = free advertising by CBS, MRV, Viacom
It comes as no surprise that CBS/Viacom Empire would literally hand over air time/print space to Kerry for a free commercial funded by soft money. Rather than surprise us, it should outrage us that a once proud network has become nothing more than a Propaganda machine for George Soros and the Democratic Party...
MTV's "CHOOSE OR LOSE" - ROCK THE VOTE 2004 -
Poll Gives Kerry Big Lead Among Voters Under 30
09.21.2004 11:53 AM EDT
Younger voters think the country is heading in the wrong direction and that President Bush does not share their priorities, but they like Bush personally and are unsure about John Kerry.
Overall, Kerry has a substantial lead among voters under thirty, a reversal of the Bush's nine-point advantage among all registered voters. In a head-to-head contest, Kerry is leading Bush by 10 points (51-41), and in a contest that includes Ralph Nader, Kerry is ahead by 6 (46-40-4).
These results came from a new poll of 18-29-year-olds (conducted September 8-13) by CBS News on behalf of MTV and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE).
A previous investigation revealed the direct ties that "CIRCLE" - aka CIVICYOUTH - has to the Soros/Kerry money machine. Now, dear reader, we find that CBS is partnering directly with Soros to publish press-releases for the Kerry campaign; but CBS/MTV is disguising these Soros press releases as news. This may be a flagrant violation of the Federal Election Laws, and is most certainly a violation of what used to be journalistic ethical code.
---SNIP---
Don your fedoras, cyber-detectives: it's time to see whom the "researchers" are working for...
Center for Information and Research
"Since 2001, CIRCLE has conducted, collected, and funded research on the civic and political participation of young Americans. CIRCLE is based in the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation of New York."
Sounds good, eh? But a little further googling takes you to The Democracy Collaborative, and you see CIRCLE is connected to -
"The Democracy Collaborative: About the Collaborative"
---SNIP---
"Founding Principals"
"The principal initiators of The Democracy Collaborative include:
---SNIP---
Benjamin R. Barber Distinguished University Professor, Gershon and Carol Kekst Professor of Civil Society and the Maryland System-wide Wilson H. Elkins Professor at the University of Maryland, and author of Jihad vs. McWorld, Strong Democracy, and other works.
---SNIP---
William A. Galston, "Saul I. Stern Professor" of Civic Engagement in the Maryland School of Public Affairs, Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, Director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) and a founder of the National Alliance for Civic Education.
---SNIP---
And what is their mission, pray tell? Well, a Global Society, according to their own website:
"The Civworld Campaign"
The Democracy Collaborativebelieves it is is vital that "preventive war" strategiesbe supplemented and/or replaced by "preventive democracy" strategies. Our CivWorld initiative is now promoting the "Declaration of Interdependence" and an "Interdependence Day" celebration scheduled for September 12, 2003 as a positive alternative program of international cooperation. The first annual Interdependence Day will be launched at the American Philosophical Societyin Philadelphia and on the campus of the University of Maryland at College Park. For more information, visit www.civworld.org.
"CIRCLE/Democracy Collaborative" is also very aggressive in pushing for a "transnational society", meaning: no national boundaries. Ahhhh, this is no objective polling organization; rather, it is a "non-profit" with an agenda. An agenda that supports John Kerry's campaign...
And who might be behind this "Democracy Collaborative"? Why, none other than George Soros himself.
Soros Foundations Network Minidirectory 2003
---SNIP---
Democracy Collaborative
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019 USA
Phone: (212) 548 0600
E-mail: bbarber@sorosny.org
Principal: Dr. Benjamin Barber
---SNIP---
Why, look! There's Benjamin Barber, one of the Founding Principals of CIRCLE!
Let's go over the evidence one more time, shall we?
-Center for Information and Research at the University of Maryland =CIRCLE
-CIRCLE = Democracy Collaborative
-Democracy Collaborative = George Soros
-George Soros = funding of fake Kerry Campaign "polls" via Soft Money.
-Fake Kerry Campaign "Polls" = free advertising by CBS, MRV, Viacom
It comes as no surprise that CBS/Viacom Empire would literally hand over air time/print space to Kerry for a free commercial funded by soft money. Rather than surprise us, it should outrage us that a once proud network has become nothing more than a Propaganda machine for George Soros and the Democratic Party...
Kerry Website Referenced Forged Docs in April 2004?
Is it possible that a hallmark of the forged Bush Guard Documents surfaced on the Official Kerry website MONTHS before the story aired on "60 Minutes II"? If true, then this could be quite awkward for the Kerry Campaign, which has disavowed any knowledge of the forged Guard documents prior to the CBS air date...
Come with me, dear readers - a-hunting we will go.
First, the background of this happy jaunt through cyberspace:
----------
Posted on FREEREPUBLIC:
----------
To: Pikamax
I know that we have discussed President Bush's Air Guard service sited by CBS's forged documents but the Air Force Manual that the documents refer to has nothing to do with Flying Boards or meeting Flight Physical Standards. In the 70s the manual that covers these items is AFM 160-1. AFM 160-1 contains the actual schedule and other requirements about these medical exams.
Now Kerry on his web site on 27 Apr 2004 raised the following question:
FACT:
Bush Was Suspended From Flight Duty For Failing To Take Mandated Medical Exam. On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush's suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush's local commander "will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m] Where Are the Complete Results of the Required Investigation into Bush's Absence from the Exam?
We now know that the memo's were completely bogus and the reference to
AFM 35-15 was a ruse by the person that forged the documents to add a touch of realism.
My question is this:
How does the Kerry campaign explain away the fact that they and the CBS memos cite the same bogus Air Force Manual 35-13 without being in contact with each other. Two groups just dreaming up the same non-existent manual goes way beyond coincidence?
7 posted on 09/21/2004 10:50:21 PM CDT by wattsup (wattsup)
----------
This warranted some fact-checking: an excellent analysis of the AFM (Air Force Manual) issue was found at One Hand Clapping:
----------
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/more-format-and-content-analysis-of.html
What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.
So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:
35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).
So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.
Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.
----------
Further digging around led to THIS - great minds run alike, evidently, both here and at NewsMax.com:
----------
Kerry Campaign Touted Forged Doc Info in April
---excerpted---
"The forged Aug. 1, 1972 memo alludes to the same Air Force Manual provision, with Killian saying he's considering "covening a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13" to handle Bush's case.
Though the information contained in the April campaign release mirrors that in forged memos broadcast by CBS in September, the similarities may be a coincidence.
In a February 2004 document dump, the White House released a batch of President Bush's National Guard records, which included material cited in the Kerry press release.
In a February 12 story headlined "Bush's Loss of Flying Status Should Have Spurred Probe," the Boston Globe covered some of the same material. The Kerry release, however, cites, not the Globe report as its source, but "Aeronautical Orders" apparently included in the White House document dump.
The April 27 press release does show, however, that the topic of Bush's flight suspension by Killian was very much on the Kerry campaign's radar screen at least four months before CBS broadcast forged military records to further document the story.
----------
Lastly, we unveil the evidence from the Kerry Website- I would suggest a nice screen capture, or perhaps save of the source code, for it may surely disappear with the dawn. We wouldn't want it to vanish now, would we?
----------
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html
Key Unanswered Questions: Bush’s Record In The National Guard
April 27, 2004
---excerpted---
"On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush’s suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush’s local commander “will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination.” [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m] Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush’s Absence From The Exam?
FACT: The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: “Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush…from flying status are confirmed…Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972, emphasis added]
Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.” [Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13, emphasis added] Why Did Bush Specifically Request NOT To Be Sent Overseas For Duty?"
Come with me, dear readers - a-hunting we will go.
First, the background of this happy jaunt through cyberspace:
----------
Posted on FREEREPUBLIC:
----------
To: Pikamax
I know that we have discussed President Bush's Air Guard service sited by CBS's forged documents but the Air Force Manual that the documents refer to has nothing to do with Flying Boards or meeting Flight Physical Standards. In the 70s the manual that covers these items is AFM 160-1. AFM 160-1 contains the actual schedule and other requirements about these medical exams.
Now Kerry on his web site on 27 Apr 2004 raised the following question:
FACT:
Bush Was Suspended From Flight Duty For Failing To Take Mandated Medical Exam. On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush's suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush's local commander "will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m] Where Are the Complete Results of the Required Investigation into Bush's Absence from the Exam?
We now know that the memo's were completely bogus and the reference to
AFM 35-15 was a ruse by the person that forged the documents to add a touch of realism.
My question is this:
How does the Kerry campaign explain away the fact that they and the CBS memos cite the same bogus Air Force Manual 35-13 without being in contact with each other. Two groups just dreaming up the same non-existent manual goes way beyond coincidence?
7 posted on 09/21/2004 10:50:21 PM CDT by wattsup (wattsup)
----------
This warranted some fact-checking: an excellent analysis of the AFM (Air Force Manual) issue was found at One Hand Clapping:
----------
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/more-format-and-content-analysis-of.html
What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.
So I browsed over to the Air Force's official web site for its publications, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. There I searched for AFM 35-13 without success. The intelligent search engine recommended using only the numbers, so I searched using only 35-13. Result:
35-13 has been rescinded or superceded by another publication. Additional information is available at Obsolete Publications.
So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation).
So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is.
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program.
Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.
----------
Further digging around led to THIS - great minds run alike, evidently, both here and at NewsMax.com:
----------
Kerry Campaign Touted Forged Doc Info in April
---excerpted---
"The forged Aug. 1, 1972 memo alludes to the same Air Force Manual provision, with Killian saying he's considering "covening a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13" to handle Bush's case.
Though the information contained in the April campaign release mirrors that in forged memos broadcast by CBS in September, the similarities may be a coincidence.
In a February 2004 document dump, the White House released a batch of President Bush's National Guard records, which included material cited in the Kerry press release.
In a February 12 story headlined "Bush's Loss of Flying Status Should Have Spurred Probe," the Boston Globe covered some of the same material. The Kerry release, however, cites, not the Globe report as its source, but "Aeronautical Orders" apparently included in the White House document dump.
The April 27 press release does show, however, that the topic of Bush's flight suspension by Killian was very much on the Kerry campaign's radar screen at least four months before CBS broadcast forged military records to further document the story.
----------
Lastly, we unveil the evidence from the Kerry Website- I would suggest a nice screen capture, or perhaps save of the source code, for it may surely disappear with the dawn. We wouldn't want it to vanish now, would we?
----------
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html
Key Unanswered Questions: Bush’s Record In The National Guard
April 27, 2004
---excerpted---
"On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush’s suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush’s local commander “will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination.” [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m] Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush’s Absence From The Exam?
FACT: The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: “Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush…from flying status are confirmed…Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. [Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972, emphasis added]
Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.” [Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13, emphasis added] Why Did Bush Specifically Request NOT To Be Sent Overseas For Duty?"
RatherBiased.com: Burkett Was 'City Captain' for Kerry Veteran Effort
While digging through Burkett's extensive byte trail on the internet, RatherBiased came up with THIS:
September 21, 2004 20:04:12 EDT
Embattled former National Guardsman Bill Burkett, the source of CBS's forged documents has more ties to the Kerry for Senate campaign, RatherBiased.com has learned.
In a message posted on the Texas Democrats message board that everyone has been looking through of late, RatherBiased.com discovered that Burkett was an official "City Captain" for an event sponsored by the Kerry campaign.
Shades of Ben Ginsberg and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? We're not sure how much of a connection there is between the CBS memos and Texas and national Democrats, this latest development is interesting. Certainly, those media orgs who reported Ginsberg's connection need to check this out.
September 21, 2004 20:04:12 EDT
Embattled former National Guardsman Bill Burkett, the source of CBS's forged documents has more ties to the Kerry for Senate campaign, RatherBiased.com has learned.
In a message posted on the Texas Democrats message board that everyone has been looking through of late, RatherBiased.com discovered that Burkett was an official "City Captain" for an event sponsored by the Kerry campaign.
Shades of Ben Ginsberg and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? We're not sure how much of a connection there is between the CBS memos and Texas and national Democrats, this latest development is interesting. Certainly, those media orgs who reported Ginsberg's connection need to check this out.
Martes, Setyembre 21, 2004
V
They beat the hell out of us. They scream at us. They spit at us. They throw us down and rage in our faces: we are no good - evil - stupid. We can't do anything right. No matter what we do, no matter what we say, no matter how we try to defend ourselves, they will take us by the hair and pound us until their rage is abated for the moment. Then, spent, there will be the blame -
"Look at what you made me do."
It's the little things that set them off. Something that no one else would even think anything about, they are suddenly up and after us, and we can cower in the corner and explain why we were doing it - but it won't help. It doesn't matter what we do, because WE are really what the Left hates. They just want us to just stand there, and give them an excuse to do it all again. They need a repository for their rage, and America is so convenient.
Attacked? We brought it on ourselves.
Why would one of the Left's Friends attack us, unless we deserved it?
We shouldn't have said what we said - what ever that was.
We shouldn't have done what we did - what ever that was.
It doesn't matter that the attack was so awful, or that the perpetrators were so evil. If we hadn't been standing there, just being so - so - AMERICA - we wouldn't have been attacked. Why, they want to kill us too. The Left oughta destroy us. Whore. To the moon...
Maybe our attackers ought to come over more often - our fear is funny to watch. If we weren't such a bitch, the Left's friends wouldn't attack us now, would they?
And in the back of our head, we think - maybe it's time to leave. Maybe, even as bad as we are, America would be better off without the Left -
"You can't leave!" they rage - America needs them. We need them to tell us what to do; we are too stupid, too ignorant, too evil to live without them. We'd be NOTHING without them...
Who's going to take care of us if we leave the Left? No one will want us; fat, lazy America - so hick, so ugly. America thinks it's so good, huh? Think we're so pure, bitch? No one will EVER want us after the Left gets finished with us -
And the Left starts to prove it. They show pictures to humiliate America. They lie to our friends. They tell damaging secrets to the world. We weep. It is so true - America is not perfect. But some of these - these are outright lies.
Maybe we could call our friends...
No! they scream. Those aren't America's friends. Those people America call friends are no friends to the Left. And so the Left rants against those who try to help us - the Left smears them, denigrates them, tells us that our friends will abandon us when they see us without the Left. The Left, they tell us, is the ONLY reason anyone puts up with us - we will be alone.
With all the screaming, and the chaos, and the protests, it's so hard to think. We just want it to end. America believes, if we just do what the Left tells us to do, they'll stop beating us up. They'll stop hurting us. They'll stop lying and yelling if we just do what they say - but wait -
That's never worked.
They never stop. America does what the Left says, and the Left finds something else to be angry about; the Left finds something else to hate about us. The Left will never be happy because - because -
They do not love us.
Maybe, just maybe America is not the problem - maybe the Left is the problem.
We have to leave.
It is time to leave.
And the chorus of screaming from the Left will grow louder, and louder - if we try to leave the Left, they'll KILL us, they SWEAR IT -
but what will the Left do to America if we don't leave?
"Look at what you made me do."
It's the little things that set them off. Something that no one else would even think anything about, they are suddenly up and after us, and we can cower in the corner and explain why we were doing it - but it won't help. It doesn't matter what we do, because WE are really what the Left hates. They just want us to just stand there, and give them an excuse to do it all again. They need a repository for their rage, and America is so convenient.
Attacked? We brought it on ourselves.
Why would one of the Left's Friends attack us, unless we deserved it?
We shouldn't have said what we said - what ever that was.
We shouldn't have done what we did - what ever that was.
It doesn't matter that the attack was so awful, or that the perpetrators were so evil. If we hadn't been standing there, just being so - so - AMERICA - we wouldn't have been attacked. Why, they want to kill us too. The Left oughta destroy us. Whore. To the moon...
Maybe our attackers ought to come over more often - our fear is funny to watch. If we weren't such a bitch, the Left's friends wouldn't attack us now, would they?
And in the back of our head, we think - maybe it's time to leave. Maybe, even as bad as we are, America would be better off without the Left -
"You can't leave!" they rage - America needs them. We need them to tell us what to do; we are too stupid, too ignorant, too evil to live without them. We'd be NOTHING without them...
Who's going to take care of us if we leave the Left? No one will want us; fat, lazy America - so hick, so ugly. America thinks it's so good, huh? Think we're so pure, bitch? No one will EVER want us after the Left gets finished with us -
And the Left starts to prove it. They show pictures to humiliate America. They lie to our friends. They tell damaging secrets to the world. We weep. It is so true - America is not perfect. But some of these - these are outright lies.
Maybe we could call our friends...
No! they scream. Those aren't America's friends. Those people America call friends are no friends to the Left. And so the Left rants against those who try to help us - the Left smears them, denigrates them, tells us that our friends will abandon us when they see us without the Left. The Left, they tell us, is the ONLY reason anyone puts up with us - we will be alone.
With all the screaming, and the chaos, and the protests, it's so hard to think. We just want it to end. America believes, if we just do what the Left tells us to do, they'll stop beating us up. They'll stop hurting us. They'll stop lying and yelling if we just do what they say - but wait -
That's never worked.
They never stop. America does what the Left says, and the Left finds something else to be angry about; the Left finds something else to hate about us. The Left will never be happy because - because -
They do not love us.
Maybe, just maybe America is not the problem - maybe the Left is the problem.
We have to leave.
It is time to leave.
And the chorus of screaming from the Left will grow louder, and louder - if we try to leave the Left, they'll KILL us, they SWEAR IT -
but what will the Left do to America if we don't leave?
Lunes, Setyembre 20, 2004
Bill Burkett: Steering Committee, Van Os for Texas Democratic Chair 2002
According to the Associated Press, Bill Burkett is a broken man, a loose cannon seeking to share "the truth" about President Bush's military record. State and National Democrats, including Max Cleland (whom Burkett claims to have contacted), seem to know little about Burkett.
But according to Bill Howell, Dallas County Chair for the Texas Democratic Party 1999-2002, Bill Burkett is not only connected to the Texas Democratic Party - he is a major player in the Texas Democratic Party.
As first reported last night,, Bill Burkett is certainly well known within the Texas Democratic Party. Tonight, new documents reveal that Burkett is not only known, but is a major player who is well versed in the structure and workings of the Texas Democratic Party.
From the archives of Bill Howell's old Weblog, "StoutDem", letters and documentation regarding the race State Democratic Party Chair for 2002 point to a bitter struggle for power within the party. These documents refer directly to Bill Burkett as a member of the Chair Steering Committee for David Van Os, a current Democratic Candidate for State Supreme Court Justice:
This year there WAS, for a few weeks, a serious contest for state Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. Delegates (and Alternates) voting at the State Convention in El Paso on June 13-15, 2002, will elect a Chair for a new two year term. The incumbent, MOLLY BETH MALCOLM, WAS being challenged by DAVID VAN OS. The choice to be made in this race would certainly have had a major effect on all of our campaigns for office this year, both state and local, and would have helped set the tone and direction for the entire party here in Texas. The two candidates had a very different style and approach.
On May 29, the Democratic candidate for Governor, TONY SANCHEZ, asked David Van Os not to continue his campaign for State Chair. On May 31, Van Os sent out a news release withdrawing from the race. We have posted it here, along with a covering note which Van Os sent to his supporters with the release.
[I have left this page and its linked emails up as an archive of the race. As you can see here, emotions were running very hot and heavy over this contest. Insults and accusations of dishonesty and worse were (and still are being) irresponsibly hurled by partisans. I have not posted the nastiest stuff. Both candidates were head and shoulders above a few rabid supporters on each side. Now people need to get over this and work together to defeat some awful Republicans this fall.]
Futher down the page, this link is given for BILL BURKETT:
BILL BURKETT, a member of the steering committee for Van Os, sent this email May 25, disputing the charge that he is running a divisive campaign, and severly criticizing Malcolm and her campaign.
Here we read the words of Bill Burkett: not the ramblings of a loose cannon, but the tempered strategies of a Democratic Party Power Player. These documents are included in their entirety here in the interest of completeness:
http://www.geocities.com/stoutdem/bb525.html
Stoutdem
State Chair Contest
Bill Burkett 5/25
[This following email was from BILL BURKETT on may 25. It has not been edited. PLEASE NOTE: As always, the opinions expressed in these emails are those of the authors themselves, and not necessarily those of the candidates, or mine either.]
Mr. Howell,
Knowing your history within the Texas and Dallas County Democratic parties, I wanted to give a short background to my role in the race for State Party Chair and what I think has brought the need for a debate about the future of the Texas Democratic party to a head. Please bear with me if this is a little long, but there have been several allegations made of a slanderous nature trying to build an impression that the candidacy of David Van Os is an "anti" candidacy or a divisive step. Since I was involved within asking Mr. Van Os to run for this position, I think it would be best to answer these questions and take any heat that Ms. Malcolm and her supporters want to give and then allow the discussions about the future and role of the Texas Democratic party to be debated on grounds of substance rather than cheap allegations and falsehoods.
I first wrote and then called Molly Beth to discuss troubling reports that I was receiving about decisions being made by her independent of the SDEC and contrary to CECs across the state. Like all of you, I was troubled that the party had not enjoyed a very impressive track record under her tenure as Chair, but respectful of her efforts. She is a very nice and well intentioned person and she and I talked candidly but with mutual respect.
It is impossible to place the full load of a 0 for 29 statewide election record at her feet. Yes, she is the Chairman and the responsibility ultimately stops at her desk. But I do cut her some slack over some things that she was unable to stop, which were totally irresponsible acts by candidates within the 1998 general election campaigns. I told her that and she was honest in admitting that she can't control such independent and destructive acts by a few prominent Democrats. I respect her honesty, but not her position.
But I also told her that we had to enforce some basic principles within the SDEC and CECs; principles that members of the SDEC and CECs had to follow but a few of the candidates refused to do so. Yes, that means standing on the stage with other Democrats and supporting the whole ticket. She admitted that she had been unable to enforce that. We discussed in depth that she had to share her burden with and let the SDEC enforce that principle; they are the decision body of the Texas Democratic Party. But she continued to speak of making sure that certain decisions/discussions were not conducted in front of the press and others. She indicated that was the reason many decisions were not made by the SDEC but by her. I disagreed and plainly spoke that our party has nothing to hide; nothing to slack from and that as a history, Democrats always debated fiercely before coming together with a decision. In fact, this was what set us apart fro! m the other party.
I was honest and forthright in telling Molly Beth that I could not support such independent acts and such an approach. I told her that I felt strongly that the party had to stand together from the White House to the Outhouse [an old Democratic slogan lost in days of better plumbing]. I was further very forthright in telling her I felt it unforgivable that when control of the State Senate was up for grabs, Mr. Underwood in SD30 did not receive massive help (only cosmetic help) in his runoff race with Craig Estes, and from that failing we lost the Texas Senate. Her excuse was money, rather than talking about utilizing State Party staff or asking other neighboring districts to help at a time in which only one race was being contested. Her answer, in my opinion did not speak to the question I had asked.
Following my call with Molly Beth, I spent several hours on the phone and other means of contact seeing if I was the only Texas Democrat who felt this way. I visited websites and entered discussions on numerous websites; some of which now favor Molly Beth and others which seem to favor Mr. Van Os. The New Texas Democrat was one of those sites and it certainly was not established by Mr. Van Os as claimed by one of your writers. [This refers to Don Kirkpatrick's email.]
I found that other Texas Democrats also were frustrated by the loss of voice and representation of the rank and file within the SDEC and by Molly Beth. I and several others, including members of the SDEC, CECs across the State and other rank and file Democrats asked David Van Os to run and bring about this debate. It was our feeling that the rank and file had not willed away our role within the Party. We agreed that the party leaders were the backs, legs and muscle of the party, but by the very mechanism created as the precincts, CECs and SDEC the brain and spirit of the Party was still in the PEOPLE - the rank and file.
Since I have been on David's steering committee, I can tell you from the inside that we and David have made every attempt to keep this debate about the good of the party rather than make it a distraction. As a gentleman and a professional and a 'non-divisive person" David sent a letter to Molly Beth and the Party Staff to insure that they knew that he had no plans of making this either an "anti" debate or a divisive race. David has forwarded a spirited letter which speaks of the grassroots principle to the congressmen and other elected officials further explaining his stance and the basis of his request for this non-divisive debate. I have conversed with Congressmen. I have answered a few very well phrased questions and several attacks based upon deceit for David and his effort along with other supporters. I have spoken with other elected officials as well.
I also know what happened in El Paso and the attempts made to circumvent the gathering of these delegates. Both Molly Beth and David were invited to appear at that gathering. That was quite unlike Cate Read's reference to the Road Women in Houston.
What began as a debate about the future of the Party has rapidly escalated into a demonstration of my concerns of what the Party has become.
I am proud to be a Democrat because this party has a heritage of being centered on PEOPLE. That's a big difference from the Republican Party where the decisions are all made by a powerful, moneyed few. Coming from several generations of Texas Republicans, I always thought of the Republicans as the Big I, Little U party.
But, as I told Molly Beth, without pure intent, but simply by the way she runs things she has imported that approach to our State Party and her unintended outcome has been that the rank and file; the PEOPLE have suffered and voted with their feet. They simply don't turn out to vote.
Contrary to what Mr. Sanchez believes and actively tells party operatives, MONEY will not activate voters and get out the vote. Enthusiasm, involvement and empowerment will.
So with great respect to Molly Beth Malcolm for her absolute effort on behalf of the party it is a difficult position that I must take that we have to make a fundamental change to the approach of the Texas Democratic party. Since, by statute, we can only do so at the State convention, we must do so now.
Within the David Van Os for Chair campaign we have made every effort to keep everything Democratically partisan, yet non-divisive. We have been disappointed but not surprised that some have chosen to utilize an approach of boasting falsehoods and slander against David. Norma Chavez did not have to be divisive nor manipulative. Nor did Cate Reed. This is a debate centered on a race for leadership, not a display of who controls the power of the party. Gather every forum and demonstrate Democracy in action. Invite both Molly Beth and David Van Os and let the debate be about the future of the party rather than the elation of rumor and innuendo. Its about electing Democrats not flexing personal influence. For if this debate is about the demonstration of the inner power of influence, we have just confirmed what so many of us at the rank and file have come to know was true. The Texas Democratic Party has taken on the ways of! the Big I, Little U Party.
With respect,
Bill Burkett
Baird, Texas
Back to State Chair Contest home page.
The page also directs readers to another letter, indicating Burkett's intimacy with the Texas Democratic Party's inner workings:
http://www.geocities.com/stoutdem/bb527.html
Stoutdem
State Chair Contest
Bill Burkett 5/27
[This email was received from Bill Burkett May 27.]
In response to Mr. Kirkpatrick [see this email]
Mr. Kirkpatrick is right to clarify and assure accuracy of the record, but he left out one critical point. BOTH candidates were invited and a letter was read from Molly Beth, even according to the newspapers.
I think what is being missed in all of this is a sincere need for each of us to hear both candidates within a proper forum answering the questions about the future of the party. Mr. Kirkpatrick brought up a court case brought against Mr. Van Os and probably did not know that the case had been found completely in favor of Mr. Van Os with some severe comments within the ruling concerning the honesty and credibility of the plaintiffs. [see this letter] Both of Mr. Kirkpatrick's questions were fair questions, IF the candidate is allowed to answer them and IF they are based upon facts rather than fiction.
But there are also serious questions that must be asked of Molly Beth which need to be answered. One of those questions is about the SD 30 race, in which the Texas Democratic Party did not even provide minimal support for Mayor Underwood, since they believed the district was becoming more Republican and had a Republican edge. This district was the only race in the State and its outcome dictated the control of the Texas Senate. Yet the State Democratic party didn't fire a shot. That's not leadership.
The 0 for 29 record in her tenure as Chair also brings lots of questions to bear. Specifically, Molly Beth developed a strategy to 'heavily weight' East Texas races and let the more Republican West Texas Districts go it alone, since they had less of a chance to win. By her 1998 approach, we left West Texas Democrats only one option - to become Republicans, and that is purely not acceptable to a few. But this certainly contributed to a 0 for 29 then; and the loss of the State to redistricting this last year.
So the question I have to ask is "Molly Beth, what have you learned from these miscues and what would you have us do now?"
Certainly, we have precincts within Texas that are stronger than others, but when you lose even in your strongest districts and you have taken all of the assets out of those districts and precincts to apportion and reinforce those "heavyweight" districts, you have taken such risk that when you lose, you can't blame it on everyone else.
Bill Burkett
Back to State Chair Contest home page
These letters, if authentic, prove Bill Burkett is not an independent party, simply peddling forged letters on a whim. Bill Burkett is a major player in the Texas Democratic Party - and known to them at the highest levels.
If Bill Burkett is this powerful in the Texas Democratic Party, it is possible that he is also known to the Democratic Party at the National level...
----------
ADDITIONAL LINKS:
David Van Os posting messages for Bill Burkett on "Texas Democrats" Yahoo Group
"TIMELY MESSAGE FROM A RURAL WEST TEXAS DEMOCRATIC GRASS ROOTS ACTIVIST"
Bill Burkett describes New Mexico Governor/Clinton advisor Bill Richardson as "old friend"
"Since I am a native of New Mexico, I suggest that you learn to appreciate the
difference of flavor of the New mexico style Mexican food and send my regards
to my old friend Bill Richardson. They're not so arrogant and important in
New Mexico. They still treat people as equals.
Bill Burkett"
David Van Os posting for Bill Burkett re: lack of communication from Texas Democratic Chair
"From: "David Van Os"
Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:05 am
Subject: RE: A Letter from Molly Beth Malcolm
Forwarded comments from West Texas Democratic Party activist Bill Burkett
Subject: Re: A Letter from Molly Beth Malcolm
Without making this in to a debate about a letter, I would like to make a few observations that continue to add more questions rather than answers to the issue of Molly Beth Malcolm's tenure as Texas Democratic Chair.
I have read the referenced letter from two indirect sources. I did not receive a copy of the letter"...
But according to Bill Howell, Dallas County Chair for the Texas Democratic Party 1999-2002, Bill Burkett is not only connected to the Texas Democratic Party - he is a major player in the Texas Democratic Party.
As first reported last night,, Bill Burkett is certainly well known within the Texas Democratic Party. Tonight, new documents reveal that Burkett is not only known, but is a major player who is well versed in the structure and workings of the Texas Democratic Party.
From the archives of Bill Howell's old Weblog, "StoutDem", letters and documentation regarding the race State Democratic Party Chair for 2002 point to a bitter struggle for power within the party. These documents refer directly to Bill Burkett as a member of the Chair Steering Committee for David Van Os, a current Democratic Candidate for State Supreme Court Justice:
This year there WAS, for a few weeks, a serious contest for state Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. Delegates (and Alternates) voting at the State Convention in El Paso on June 13-15, 2002, will elect a Chair for a new two year term. The incumbent, MOLLY BETH MALCOLM, WAS being challenged by DAVID VAN OS. The choice to be made in this race would certainly have had a major effect on all of our campaigns for office this year, both state and local, and would have helped set the tone and direction for the entire party here in Texas. The two candidates had a very different style and approach.
On May 29, the Democratic candidate for Governor, TONY SANCHEZ, asked David Van Os not to continue his campaign for State Chair. On May 31, Van Os sent out a news release withdrawing from the race. We have posted it here, along with a covering note which Van Os sent to his supporters with the release.
[I have left this page and its linked emails up as an archive of the race. As you can see here, emotions were running very hot and heavy over this contest. Insults and accusations of dishonesty and worse were (and still are being) irresponsibly hurled by partisans. I have not posted the nastiest stuff. Both candidates were head and shoulders above a few rabid supporters on each side. Now people need to get over this and work together to defeat some awful Republicans this fall.]
Futher down the page, this link is given for BILL BURKETT:
BILL BURKETT, a member of the steering committee for Van Os, sent this email May 25, disputing the charge that he is running a divisive campaign, and severly criticizing Malcolm and her campaign.
Here we read the words of Bill Burkett: not the ramblings of a loose cannon, but the tempered strategies of a Democratic Party Power Player. These documents are included in their entirety here in the interest of completeness:
http://www.geocities.com/stoutdem/bb525.html
Stoutdem
State Chair Contest
Bill Burkett 5/25
[This following email was from BILL BURKETT on may 25. It has not been edited. PLEASE NOTE: As always, the opinions expressed in these emails are those of the authors themselves, and not necessarily those of the candidates, or mine either.]
Mr. Howell,
Knowing your history within the Texas and Dallas County Democratic parties, I wanted to give a short background to my role in the race for State Party Chair and what I think has brought the need for a debate about the future of the Texas Democratic party to a head. Please bear with me if this is a little long, but there have been several allegations made of a slanderous nature trying to build an impression that the candidacy of David Van Os is an "anti" candidacy or a divisive step. Since I was involved within asking Mr. Van Os to run for this position, I think it would be best to answer these questions and take any heat that Ms. Malcolm and her supporters want to give and then allow the discussions about the future and role of the Texas Democratic party to be debated on grounds of substance rather than cheap allegations and falsehoods.
I first wrote and then called Molly Beth to discuss troubling reports that I was receiving about decisions being made by her independent of the SDEC and contrary to CECs across the state. Like all of you, I was troubled that the party had not enjoyed a very impressive track record under her tenure as Chair, but respectful of her efforts. She is a very nice and well intentioned person and she and I talked candidly but with mutual respect.
It is impossible to place the full load of a 0 for 29 statewide election record at her feet. Yes, she is the Chairman and the responsibility ultimately stops at her desk. But I do cut her some slack over some things that she was unable to stop, which were totally irresponsible acts by candidates within the 1998 general election campaigns. I told her that and she was honest in admitting that she can't control such independent and destructive acts by a few prominent Democrats. I respect her honesty, but not her position.
But I also told her that we had to enforce some basic principles within the SDEC and CECs; principles that members of the SDEC and CECs had to follow but a few of the candidates refused to do so. Yes, that means standing on the stage with other Democrats and supporting the whole ticket. She admitted that she had been unable to enforce that. We discussed in depth that she had to share her burden with and let the SDEC enforce that principle; they are the decision body of the Texas Democratic Party. But she continued to speak of making sure that certain decisions/discussions were not conducted in front of the press and others. She indicated that was the reason many decisions were not made by the SDEC but by her. I disagreed and plainly spoke that our party has nothing to hide; nothing to slack from and that as a history, Democrats always debated fiercely before coming together with a decision. In fact, this was what set us apart fro! m the other party.
I was honest and forthright in telling Molly Beth that I could not support such independent acts and such an approach. I told her that I felt strongly that the party had to stand together from the White House to the Outhouse [an old Democratic slogan lost in days of better plumbing]. I was further very forthright in telling her I felt it unforgivable that when control of the State Senate was up for grabs, Mr. Underwood in SD30 did not receive massive help (only cosmetic help) in his runoff race with Craig Estes, and from that failing we lost the Texas Senate. Her excuse was money, rather than talking about utilizing State Party staff or asking other neighboring districts to help at a time in which only one race was being contested. Her answer, in my opinion did not speak to the question I had asked.
Following my call with Molly Beth, I spent several hours on the phone and other means of contact seeing if I was the only Texas Democrat who felt this way. I visited websites and entered discussions on numerous websites; some of which now favor Molly Beth and others which seem to favor Mr. Van Os. The New Texas Democrat was one of those sites and it certainly was not established by Mr. Van Os as claimed by one of your writers. [This refers to Don Kirkpatrick's email.]
I found that other Texas Democrats also were frustrated by the loss of voice and representation of the rank and file within the SDEC and by Molly Beth. I and several others, including members of the SDEC, CECs across the State and other rank and file Democrats asked David Van Os to run and bring about this debate. It was our feeling that the rank and file had not willed away our role within the Party. We agreed that the party leaders were the backs, legs and muscle of the party, but by the very mechanism created as the precincts, CECs and SDEC the brain and spirit of the Party was still in the PEOPLE - the rank and file.
Since I have been on David's steering committee, I can tell you from the inside that we and David have made every attempt to keep this debate about the good of the party rather than make it a distraction. As a gentleman and a professional and a 'non-divisive person" David sent a letter to Molly Beth and the Party Staff to insure that they knew that he had no plans of making this either an "anti" debate or a divisive race. David has forwarded a spirited letter which speaks of the grassroots principle to the congressmen and other elected officials further explaining his stance and the basis of his request for this non-divisive debate. I have conversed with Congressmen. I have answered a few very well phrased questions and several attacks based upon deceit for David and his effort along with other supporters. I have spoken with other elected officials as well.
I also know what happened in El Paso and the attempts made to circumvent the gathering of these delegates. Both Molly Beth and David were invited to appear at that gathering. That was quite unlike Cate Read's reference to the Road Women in Houston.
What began as a debate about the future of the Party has rapidly escalated into a demonstration of my concerns of what the Party has become.
I am proud to be a Democrat because this party has a heritage of being centered on PEOPLE. That's a big difference from the Republican Party where the decisions are all made by a powerful, moneyed few. Coming from several generations of Texas Republicans, I always thought of the Republicans as the Big I, Little U party.
But, as I told Molly Beth, without pure intent, but simply by the way she runs things she has imported that approach to our State Party and her unintended outcome has been that the rank and file; the PEOPLE have suffered and voted with their feet. They simply don't turn out to vote.
Contrary to what Mr. Sanchez believes and actively tells party operatives, MONEY will not activate voters and get out the vote. Enthusiasm, involvement and empowerment will.
So with great respect to Molly Beth Malcolm for her absolute effort on behalf of the party it is a difficult position that I must take that we have to make a fundamental change to the approach of the Texas Democratic party. Since, by statute, we can only do so at the State convention, we must do so now.
Within the David Van Os for Chair campaign we have made every effort to keep everything Democratically partisan, yet non-divisive. We have been disappointed but not surprised that some have chosen to utilize an approach of boasting falsehoods and slander against David. Norma Chavez did not have to be divisive nor manipulative. Nor did Cate Reed. This is a debate centered on a race for leadership, not a display of who controls the power of the party. Gather every forum and demonstrate Democracy in action. Invite both Molly Beth and David Van Os and let the debate be about the future of the party rather than the elation of rumor and innuendo. Its about electing Democrats not flexing personal influence. For if this debate is about the demonstration of the inner power of influence, we have just confirmed what so many of us at the rank and file have come to know was true. The Texas Democratic Party has taken on the ways of! the Big I, Little U Party.
With respect,
Bill Burkett
Baird, Texas
Back to State Chair Contest home page.
The page also directs readers to another letter, indicating Burkett's intimacy with the Texas Democratic Party's inner workings:
http://www.geocities.com/stoutdem/bb527.html
Stoutdem
State Chair Contest
Bill Burkett 5/27
[This email was received from Bill Burkett May 27.]
In response to Mr. Kirkpatrick [see this email]
Mr. Kirkpatrick is right to clarify and assure accuracy of the record, but he left out one critical point. BOTH candidates were invited and a letter was read from Molly Beth, even according to the newspapers.
I think what is being missed in all of this is a sincere need for each of us to hear both candidates within a proper forum answering the questions about the future of the party. Mr. Kirkpatrick brought up a court case brought against Mr. Van Os and probably did not know that the case had been found completely in favor of Mr. Van Os with some severe comments within the ruling concerning the honesty and credibility of the plaintiffs. [see this letter] Both of Mr. Kirkpatrick's questions were fair questions, IF the candidate is allowed to answer them and IF they are based upon facts rather than fiction.
But there are also serious questions that must be asked of Molly Beth which need to be answered. One of those questions is about the SD 30 race, in which the Texas Democratic Party did not even provide minimal support for Mayor Underwood, since they believed the district was becoming more Republican and had a Republican edge. This district was the only race in the State and its outcome dictated the control of the Texas Senate. Yet the State Democratic party didn't fire a shot. That's not leadership.
The 0 for 29 record in her tenure as Chair also brings lots of questions to bear. Specifically, Molly Beth developed a strategy to 'heavily weight' East Texas races and let the more Republican West Texas Districts go it alone, since they had less of a chance to win. By her 1998 approach, we left West Texas Democrats only one option - to become Republicans, and that is purely not acceptable to a few. But this certainly contributed to a 0 for 29 then; and the loss of the State to redistricting this last year.
So the question I have to ask is "Molly Beth, what have you learned from these miscues and what would you have us do now?"
Certainly, we have precincts within Texas that are stronger than others, but when you lose even in your strongest districts and you have taken all of the assets out of those districts and precincts to apportion and reinforce those "heavyweight" districts, you have taken such risk that when you lose, you can't blame it on everyone else.
Bill Burkett
Back to State Chair Contest home page
These letters, if authentic, prove Bill Burkett is not an independent party, simply peddling forged letters on a whim. Bill Burkett is a major player in the Texas Democratic Party - and known to them at the highest levels.
If Bill Burkett is this powerful in the Texas Democratic Party, it is possible that he is also known to the Democratic Party at the National level...
----------
ADDITIONAL LINKS:
David Van Os posting messages for Bill Burkett on "Texas Democrats" Yahoo Group
"TIMELY MESSAGE FROM A RURAL WEST TEXAS DEMOCRATIC GRASS ROOTS ACTIVIST"
Bill Burkett describes New Mexico Governor/Clinton advisor Bill Richardson as "old friend"
"Since I am a native of New Mexico, I suggest that you learn to appreciate the
difference of flavor of the New mexico style Mexican food and send my regards
to my old friend Bill Richardson. They're not so arrogant and important in
New Mexico. They still treat people as equals.
Bill Burkett"
David Van Os posting for Bill Burkett re: lack of communication from Texas Democratic Chair
"From: "David Van Os"
Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:05 am
Subject: RE: A Letter from Molly Beth Malcolm
Forwarded comments from West Texas Democratic Party activist Bill Burkett
Subject: Re: A Letter from Molly Beth Malcolm
Without making this in to a debate about a letter, I would like to make a few observations that continue to add more questions rather than answers to the issue of Molly Beth Malcolm's tenure as Texas Democratic Chair.
I have read the referenced letter from two indirect sources. I did not receive a copy of the letter"...
Linggo, Setyembre 19, 2004
Bill Burkett: "Charter Member" of the Progressive Populist Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party
The Old Press presents Bill Burkett as an alienated lone wolf, a disabled former member of the National Guard working independent of all power bases - but nothing is further from the truth. Far from being a wacked-out loner, Bill Burkett is powerful and influential figure in the Texas Democratic Party.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-Democrats/message/7278
From: "Stan Merriman"
Date: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:11 pm
Subject: Bill Burkett and David Van Os vs. Karl Rove
Fellow Progressive Populist Caucus Members:
Our brother, Bill Burkett is under siege by the Carl Rove smear machine. Bill is a charter member of the PPC and our friend. Co-founder of the PPC with me,
David Van Os assures me that as Bill's legal Counsel on a longstanding basis, any assertions that Bill has engaged in "forgery" vis a vis the now infamous documentation of the Bush desertion of duty as a Texas National Guardsman is total smear with the footprints of the Karl Rove modus operandi all over it. Representing the PPC, I stand with both our brothers Burkett and Van Os and applaud their guts to stand up to the right wing slander machine; President
Kerry and many of our DNC brethren can take a lesson from our two populist
fellow-Texans who have the cajones to look contemptuously in the eye these
ruthless cowards bringing down our formerly proud democracy and tell them to go
to h*ll.
Stan Merriman
Chair, Progressive Populist Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party.
The Progressive Populist Caucus, in their own words, is "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party in Texas". Their Steering Committee is comprised of a stellar group of Texas Democrats:
OFFICERS
Chair: Stan Merriman, Harris County
Secretary: Kathy Curley, Dallas County
Treasurer: Armando C. Cadena, Bexar County
Sgt. at Arms: Anna V. Casey, Collin County
Membership: John Curley, Dallas County
Strategy Chair: Melissa McIntosh, Dallas County
Convention Strategy Chair: John Behrman, Harris County
Parlimentarian: David Van Os, Bexar County
Vice Chairs:
San Antonio/South: Ann Marie Schroeder, Bexar County
Austin/Central: Bruce W. Barrick, Travis County
Houston/SouthEast: Julie Jackson Lusby, Harris County
DFW/North: Bill Howell, Dallas County
West: Wild Horse, El Paso
Among them, David Van Os - who is Burkett's legal counsel, and is currently running for Texas Supreme Court Judge.
The Texas Democratic Party thinks enough of Stan Merriman to let him write copy for their website - and Merriman, Chair for the Steering Committee of the Progressive Populist Caucus, thinks enough of Bill Burkett to call him "a Charter Member". Clearly, Bill Burkett is not working alone, but is instead working with the blessing of the Democratic Party...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-Democrats/message/7278
From: "Stan Merriman"
Date: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:11 pm
Subject: Bill Burkett and David Van Os vs. Karl Rove
Fellow Progressive Populist Caucus Members:
Our brother, Bill Burkett is under siege by the Carl Rove smear machine. Bill is a charter member of the PPC and our friend. Co-founder of the PPC with me,
David Van Os assures me that as Bill's legal Counsel on a longstanding basis, any assertions that Bill has engaged in "forgery" vis a vis the now infamous documentation of the Bush desertion of duty as a Texas National Guardsman is total smear with the footprints of the Karl Rove modus operandi all over it. Representing the PPC, I stand with both our brothers Burkett and Van Os and applaud their guts to stand up to the right wing slander machine; President
Kerry and many of our DNC brethren can take a lesson from our two populist
fellow-Texans who have the cajones to look contemptuously in the eye these
ruthless cowards bringing down our formerly proud democracy and tell them to go
to h*ll.
Stan Merriman
Chair, Progressive Populist Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party.
The Progressive Populist Caucus, in their own words, is "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party in Texas". Their Steering Committee is comprised of a stellar group of Texas Democrats:
OFFICERS
Chair: Stan Merriman, Harris County
Secretary: Kathy Curley, Dallas County
Treasurer: Armando C. Cadena, Bexar County
Sgt. at Arms: Anna V. Casey, Collin County
Membership: John Curley, Dallas County
Strategy Chair: Melissa McIntosh, Dallas County
Convention Strategy Chair: John Behrman, Harris County
Parlimentarian: David Van Os, Bexar County
Vice Chairs:
San Antonio/South: Ann Marie Schroeder, Bexar County
Austin/Central: Bruce W. Barrick, Travis County
Houston/SouthEast: Julie Jackson Lusby, Harris County
DFW/North: Bill Howell, Dallas County
West: Wild Horse, El Paso
Among them, David Van Os - who is Burkett's legal counsel, and is currently running for Texas Supreme Court Judge.
The Texas Democratic Party thinks enough of Stan Merriman to let him write copy for their website - and Merriman, Chair for the Steering Committee of the Progressive Populist Caucus, thinks enough of Bill Burkett to call him "a Charter Member". Clearly, Bill Burkett is not working alone, but is instead working with the blessing of the Democratic Party...
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)