MAY 18, 2010: HUGE WINS FOR REAL DEMOCRATS!!!

A big day for Democrats in primaries and special elections!

Joe Sestak spoiled Republican DINOsaur (Democrat In Name Only) Arlen Specter's plans to hold onto his job by switching parties to get an easier primary fight. The problem was that Joe Sestak didn't get the memo that the loyal Bush Republican Arlen Specter had secretly held Democratic values all along. He sure can keep a secret! And voters saw through Specter's sleazy swift-boat attacks for what they really were- character assassination by innuendo, having nothing to do with the real issues facing Pennsylvanians.

Meanwhile Mark Critz shattered Hannity/Limbaugh fantasies of sending the Democrats a message by taking the late Rep. Jack Murtha's seat. Surprise- the loyal Murtha Democrat won in this swing district. Hey Republicans: Did YOU get the message? The Democrats are stronger than ever!!

OK, in Kentucky, Rand Paul and the Tea Party bagged the Republican party nomination. The Republican leadership certainly received the message- that their party has been effectively hijacked by a coalition of libertarians, religious extremists, and black-UN-helicopter-hallucinating nut jobs. So this is news? Meanwhile, the Democratic primary in that Kentucky district showed that both the winning and losing Democratic candidates earned more votes in the primary than Rand Paul. And Democrats outnumber Republicans in Kentucky by 600,000. So it's pretty likely that the Democrat will be able to assemble a pretty strong coalition of Democrats and sane Republicans in November.

All in all, a great day for Democrats!

And a great way to end Gordo-Blog! This will be the last entry and the web site will be shutting down shortly.

Thanks for reading!

DECEMBER 16, 2009: DEAR HARRY REID AND THE HAPLESS DEMOCRATS: THREATEN THE NUCLEAR OPTION!!! NOW!!!

One thing I learned from the Republicans, if you want to win, you must play to win. If you don't play to win, then the truth is you really don't want to win. When Trent Lott ran things, he kept his troops in line by threatening them with isolation if they didn't. What do you do, Harry Reid? You kiss Joe Lieberman's lying, self-serving whiney, wimpy, lumpy butt! (Lieberman says he won't support the Medicare option like he used to anymore because of its unproven impact on the our deficits - deficits that he helped create with his support of the $2 trillion needless and senseless Iraq war! Stinking lying hypocrite.) Reid, you even welcome and support Arlen Specter!

When Trent Lott ran things, as soon as the Democrats got enough numbers that they could threaten to get in the way with a filibuster, Lott threatened to eliminate the filibuster through the"reconciliation" process, so they could pass anything with just a simple majority instead of needing 60%. Just the threat of it put the Democrats in fear and they cowed to all Lott's demands on judicial appointments. "Please don't take away our filibuster, Mr. Lott!!! We promise, we won't ever use it!" No wonder the Democrats adopted the jackass as their symbol. So try and learn from your mistakes, and learn from the successes of the Republican opposition, and learn it right now:

If you would at least THREATEN the Republicans with the "nuclear option" - eliminating the filibuster in order to get something done- you will find that you will not only scare them into dropping the filibuster threats over health care (like they did to you over judicial nominations when they were in power)- but it will also give them an easy political out- they can say they only dropped their filibuster over this bill to keep the filibuster alive for future battles. To keep their powder dry, as their NRA buddies might say. So everyone stays safe- even the Republicans afraid of their Limbaugh-fed constituents. It's a win-win!

So, threaten the filibuster "nuclear option". You might win without even carrying out the threat. If you still don't win, make good on your threat. Then you definitely will win. And you won't risk anything, because you were too chicken to use it when it really mattered, anyway.

If you "take it off the table", negotiating against yourself, and don't even threaten changing the rules, you are destined to lose every meaningful battle to the Republican't minority, and you will thereby ensure that you will again be the minority party, sooner than later. Who told you take it off the table anyway? What did they give you in return? Nothing! They didn't have to!

 

JULY 12, 2009: BUSH-CHENEY MUST BE INVESTIGATED FOR CRIMINAL SUBVERSION AND ABUSE OF POWER

One thing I learned over the Bush-Cheney years is that when it comes to foreign policy, the Bushists do not care one bit about the Constitution, or morality, or the law. It's not that they are inherently evil-doers. They DO care about the supremacy of the United States; I suppose that makes them patriots. This patriotism of theirs causes them to accept all kinds of illegal and un-Constitutional actions. The Bush-Cheney deliberate promotion of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" lies don't bother them at all; it doesn't really matter to them if Bush lied to the world or his own people to justify and incite a war against Saddam, because Saddam was a bad man. Therefore it doesn't matter to them HOW we overthrow and/or kill him, as long as we do overthrow and/or kill him. In fact, it doesn't even matter that he was a bad man. If he condoned torture or murder, that doesn't really matter either; they are ok with torture and murder, as long as it is done by us, to our own enemies. The main crime of Saddam's to the Bushists was his arrogance towards the good ol' USA. The other crime of Saddam's was that he sat on a lot of oil reserves that we wanted full unthreatened access to. If it takes the destruction of a country and the killing of 100,000 civilians and 3,000 of our own soldiers to get that oil, they are OK with that. We want that oil, and dammit, we'll take it! That is much more macho American than driving an electric car or building windmills. (Never mind that it is not really the oil we are getting; it's not really about oil, or even about us; it's about oil companies, and their money.)

Similarly, the Bushists never care about abuse of power by one of their own. I will grant that it is quite possible that all the illegal actions of the Bush administration were performed in a sincere desire to help protect our country against a second major terrorist act (after they totally dropped the ball in their 9 months leading up to 9/11, willfully ignoring the frantic protestations of their own anti-terrorist chief, Richard Clarke from Day One, January 2001). Again, the Bushist point of view is that it is ok for Bush to suspend the Constitution and claim supreme dictatorial powers- he can be a dictator, as long as he's OUR dictator- because he was going after those terrorists.

So does that mean it's ok to the Bush supporters for a future President or a Vice President to ignore all laws defining the separation of powers in the Constitution? What is to prevent abuse of such power to suppress dissent, or to suppress whistle-blowing truth-tellers, or to suppress any political opponents? Is it ok that any President have such power at his disposal? Would they feel that way if a President Obama did it? Or a President Hillary Clinton? Are they just OK scrapping the Constitution and trusting in a new dictatorial President?

IT IS NOT OK FOR A PRESIDENT TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION AND BREAK THE LAW. IF THE LAW IS WRONG, IT SHOULD BE CHANGED BY LEGAL MEANS, WITH FULL HONEST DEBATE, BEFORE THE PRESIDENT BREAKS IT.

IF BUSH-CHENEY GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES, THE MESSAGE SENT FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS IS THAT IT IS OK TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT, AND THEY WILL NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I am sick to my stomach about Democrats continuing to kowtow in fear about holding the Bush administration accountable. Obama says he wants to look forward, not backward. But if you don't hold them accountable, there is absolutely nothing preventing a repeat performance of this abuse of power by the next Bushist or Hitler that comes to power. There is ample evidence of abuse of power- and there has been for a long time. The Democrats failed to take action and investigate, impeach and convict them of their crimes while in office, but it is not too late to clearly establish the limits of power. Don't even stoop to respond to politics like John Cornyn saying "this looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover [to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats]". The response to that should be a laugh and then ignore him. Cornyn is welcome to investigate Pelosi (for what, exactly? Condoning torture? If so, i would be happy to see him throw Pelosi in jail, but he can't then stop at Pelosi- he'll have to throw Gonzales and Cheney and Yoo and Addington and Bush and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Rice in there too!). Hey Democrats: Cornyn can't do anything anyway- use your majority! Don't you remember how Trent Lott ran things? You have the steamroller now- use it!

If what Bush and Cheney did is legal- or if it was even necessary- that will come out from an investigation. Cornyn should welcome an investigation so that Bush's actions can be proven to be legal and appropriate. What is he and Cheney afraid of? The Bushists' actions were too controversial to ignore without a thorough investigation into the truth. These are extremely important issues that should be hashed out for the benefit of this country, one way or the other.

Dear Democrats: Let the Republicans like Cornyn lob their political grenades, and wage their little terrorist campaign against "liberals", but this time stand up to them and JUST DO THE RIGHT THING. Hold the Bushists responsible. Make it clear that the battle between Bush and the Constitution will be won by the Constitution. Be the Real Patriots and protect the Constitution for future generations. Make it clear that dictators will not be tolerated and will be held fully accountable for all crimes against the Constitution.

 

 

 

MAY 17, 2009: WHY DOES THE MEDIA GRILL PELOSI HARDER THAN THEY GRILL CHENEY?

It seems strange that there has been such a flurry of media activity about exactly what Nancy Pelosi knew, and when she knew it, about the Bush-Cheney torture practices. The media has focused in like a laser about supposed hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and dissembling in Nancy Pelosi's claims. Newt Gingrich has expressed outrage about the supposed "political attacks" and "lies" of Pelosi. Huh? There's a bit of pot kettle black on your face there Newt. Did Nancy Pelosi order the torture? Did she conduct the torture? Did she develop the policy about torture? Did she lie about the fact that torture was being conducted? Did she violate the law passed by Congress banning torture with a "signing statement"? NO. Yet, nobody ever probed Bush or Cheney or Yoo about it to the degree that they are pouncing on this "gotcha!" story about Pelosi.

If I were Pelosi I would say, "ok, let's investigate me, and if I am guilty of any conspiracy to torture, or to develop a pseudo-"legal" framework free of any judicial or legislative oversight, then I should be held accountable. Let's get started!! But let's include Bush, and Cheney, and Yoo, and Bybee, and Gonzales and everyone else." Why are they so eager to relentlessly probe Pelosi, but they throw softballs to Bush and Cheney without any follow-ups?

Meanwhile, President Obama has said that he wants to look forward and not backward- noone will be prosecuted, and the torture photos won't be revealed, etc. He just "wants to make sure it won't happen again". But how can you prevent it from happening again if you set a precedent that no-one will be held accountable for torture?

The dittoheads are prevailing with the propagation of the iodea that the only "torture" consisted of "panties on people's heads"; and that only truly-threatening terrorists were tortured. The fact is that people- including innocent people- were tortured, injured and even killed. Imagine being trapped in a coffin whil;e you believed you were being buried alive. Imagine being repeatedly slammed into walls. Imagine being repeatedly drowned. Torture is disgraceful. Tyrants- even tyrants that are supposedly on "our" side- must be held accountable, and punished for their crimes.

Tyranny must not be allowed to go unpunished. Bring Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Bush, Cheney and whoever else was involved- even Nancy Pelosi if that's where the path leads- to trial!

 

OCTOBER 20, 2008 : WHY DOES EVERYBODY LIE?

I am fully aware that negative campaigning works. I did it myself, and it helped a lot. In my case, how else could I have convinced people to vote for an unknown challenger against a familiar incumbent? Why else would I have even been challenging an incumbent, unless I thought he was doing a bad job? So, I'm not against negative campaigning, whether to expose the bad job someone's doing, or to draw contrasts between yourself and your opponent.

But it is entirely wrong to LIE, or even to deliberately mislead. This year it seems that everyone is doing it. Last weekend I got a silly email from NARAL that claimed that McCain was ridiculing the "health" of women, showing him using air quotes around the word "health". Of course McCain was talking about his opposition to Obama's demand for exceptions allowing mid-term abortion procedures in pregnancies endangering the health of women, because McCain believes that sometimes the "health" exception would be abused. I disagree with McCain's position, as I believe the woman and the doctor should determine the best course, the best procedure, and the best medical technique, rather than a bunch of politicians, but his point was deliberately misrepresented by NARAL. NARAL grossly distorted his point by taking it out of context and looping it to make him look ridiculous. NARAL of course put their ads out independently from Obama, so Obama can not be held responsible. And of course, McCain has been repeatedly distorting Obama's votes on taxes, and his ties with Ayres. But I don't think it's fair to so grossly misrepresent someone - even an opponent.

Locally, in my old favorite race, the 70th State House district, there's been some ridiculous mud-slinging back and forth. I guess it's not exactly lying, but it comes close. The Republican, Jay Moyer, has been a vast improvement over the previous incumbent, John Fichter. Of course, just about anyone who shows up to work would have been an improvement over Fichter. But I still give Representative Moyer credit for showing some energy in the office, and generally keeping his promises. I was especially grateful as a Board Member of Habitat for Humanity that Representative Moyer helped us get a significant grant from the state to help fund some projects we were working on. But lately the Moyer campaign has been putting out mailing after mailing claiming that his challenger, Matt Bradford, caused the murder rate to double because he fired 8 policemen in Norristown while acting as borough manager. It should be noted that police represent almost two-thirds of the Norristown budget, with a total of about 75 officers, give or take. How would a responsible manager have balanced the budget to get the borough out of arrears, without cutting the force? And didn't the bipartisan borough council have some say in approving the budget? And, while policemen may be helpful in solving murders, I am not sure how they would have prevented the murders from happening in the first place.

Also, what exactly does it mean for the murder rate to have "almost doubled"? Luckily, the campaign literature does reference a web site: www.city-data.com. Here is the data presented on that web site:

Year	Number of Murders in Norristown
1999	2
2000	2
2001	5
2002	5
2003	4
2004	3
2005	No Data
2006	5

So let's see; I believe that the date of Matt Bradford's service to Norristown was around 2004-2005. So, that means the murder rate went from 3 per year in 2004 to 5 per year in 2006; which is actually the same rate it had been in 2001 and 2002. Interestingly, arson and car theft went down over the same period. Should Matt take credit for that?

Meanwhile, Matt Bradford's literature attacks Jay Moyer for Jay's taxpayer-funded car; while Jay Moyer's literature fires right back at Matt Bradford's taxpayer-funded car. The lit of both campaigns is designed to make the opponent look like some kind of corrupt, greedy, dishonest politician on the take. All of these charges and counter-charges are bogus- both men are decent politicians trying to do some good for their community, according to their own political philosophy, while making a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.

Eventually it comes down to whether you want a strong Democratic majority in the State House to push Governor Rendell's agenda through for the next 2 years, or if you want a stronger Republican opposition to keep a check on Rendell's initiatives. As a pro-Rendell Democrat, I'd like to see a stronger majority to end the gridlock and let our re-elected Governor get some things done. But, can't we please stick to the issues? Even a little bit?

AUGUST 26 , 2008: McCAIN- HAVE YOU EVER BEEN EXPERIENCED?

I do get a kick out of McCain's minions attacking Barack Obama by holding up their boy's "Experience" as so important to our national security. McCain has indicated that he is ready to bomb entire countries into submission, as well as to torture all suspects, as part of the Global War on Terror. (Note: while McCain claims to have broken with the Bush administration on torture- that break was very temporary. Although he made a very public display of that break, he eventually vote for the bill which allowed us to continue to torture suspects, including the waterboarding that McCain originally said he wanted stopped.) The fact that tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, harmed, and tortured is just the price we pay for our security (or rather, the price They pay). After all "Freedom isn't Free"! McCain's "experience" these past 7 years has been to cheer Bush on in all of his immoral and unconstitutional adventures. Not only does that kind of "experience" result in a loss of any kind of moral USA high ground, not to mention making more enemies. But now, that kind of "experience" makes it just a little difficult to respond credibly and coherently to a country like, say Russia, invading a neighbor, like, say Georgia. Maybe we need someone with less such "Experience", and better "Judgment". We can't afford another 4 years of reckless behavior.

 

MAY 3 , 2008: "YEARS OF SHAME" FINALLY CRAWL TOWARDS THE FINISH LINE

Finally we are in the waning days of the Worst President Ever. While they can't end soon enough, and should have ended long ago, at least America seems to be waking up to the fact that we've been had. A government that campaigned with false slogans like "Trust the People" and "Restore Honor and Dignity" has been recklessly abusing that trust from Day Zero with its stolen election. George W Bush abused his power, has operated above, beyond, and with contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, International Law, and common decency and morality. Even when given unprecedented unified support brought on by the single most horrific attack on our shores (an attack he willfully ignored as it developed), he squandered this advantage and has gone from having the highest favorable ratings ever to the lowest ever. He lied us into a reckless war, needlessly and senselessly killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, dipped into our treasury for generations to come to line the pockets of his greedy buddies. Unlike his more humble father, Bush didn't lack the "vision thing"- his vision is one of arrogance, torture, and disgrace to our great country. He played the dirtiest of gutter politics, employing henchmen and professional liars to slander legitimate patriots and heroes to maintain his grip on power. All along he was assisted by a cowardly media and weak opposition party, and buttressed by loudmouth zeaolots who would stop at nothing to impose their arrogant world view. Only now that his policies have been shown to be failures is the worm starting to turn. That "Jobs Creation Act" tax cut for the billionaires has been a woeful failure, with the worst jobs creation record since Hoover. I never supported Bush, and in fact have vigorously opposed him throughout his term, but even his most inveterate supporters are now looking at him with disgust. Good riddance, you arrogant, hateful, lying thief, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. May you spend the rest of your days tortured by the torture you have inflicted on families throughout this country and the world.

FEBRUARY 29, 2008: TELECOM IMMUNITY- WHAT'S IT REALLY ALL ABOUT?

The hot political topic of the past few days was Bush's continued browbeating of Democrats to pass the law extending Bush's ultra-dictatorial-surveillance law, giving himself supreme powers to wiretap anyone without any meaningful judicial oversight nor recourse. Bush demands that the bill include retroactive immunity for telecoms that broke the law at his request before the surveillance was made legal. He says that if they are not granted immunity, then they won't help in the future.

I'm trying to understand what is really the issue here. Why are we debating whether the telecoms should be granted immunity for breaking the law, while ignoring whether Bush should be granted immunity for asking them to break the law? He clearly knew what he was doing was against the law, based on speeches he made before the illegal activity was uncovered, assuring Americans that he was complying with the law. Is the reason Bush is so insistent that, if telecoms are brought to court, he will be brought to court along with them? And it may come out that he wiretapped not only terrorists, but political enemies, environmental groups etc. Why don't the Democrats make it clear that they want to hold Bush accountable for breaking the law?

And Bush's argument that "we must grant telecoms immunity or else they won't help in the future" is absurd on its face. "Won't help with" what? The only thing they would not help with would be activities that are illegal! For everything else, they would be required to comply based on the law. So why don't the Democrats respond to the specious argument? It's infuriating, but once again the Democrats fail to respond soberly to Bush's saber-rattling, and fail to make the case to the American people that we need to rein in unchecked executive superpowers that are a violation of the Constitution.

All Bush is doing is trying to keep himself immune from prosecution and to keep the wraps on his illegal activity, which may very well include political spying and harassment and blackmail. If he gets away with this, we would never know! We know that Bush knowingly broke the law on wiretapping. We also know that it was unnecessary for him to break the law to meet his objectives of swiftly tracing terrorists. The only thing that the law would have prevented was the slightest, non-political judicial oversight. Why is he afraid of oversight? Even retroactive oversight? What is he hiding?

Retroactive telecom immunity will only set a precedent assuring telecoms that they must act illegally if requested by the President.

Preventing retroactive immunity will not - CAN NOT- prevent a telecom from acting on legal demands in the future. It will only discourage them from performing illegal actions in the future. As it should!

If Bush broke the law, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and he deserves to be impeached, and his crimes should be fully invetsigated.

The American people deserve to know whether Bush has abused his illegal wiretapping powers for political purposes. If preventing telecom immunity will allow the truth to come out, then keep retroactive immunity out of the bill! But if Democrats can't make the case, we will be sure to see them fold, cowering in fear, afraid of looking "weak on terrorists", which is irrelevant to the whole controversy.

FEBRUARY 22, 2008: MEDIA FIX IS IN

Watching the Democratic debate on CNN last night was infuriating- both because of the lopsided, absurd, and biased questioning of Hillary Clinton, and her inability to respond effectively. Almost every question to her was a variation of the same unfair question, over and over again: "You say that you're the one candidate with the experience to be Commander-in-Chief- are you saying Obama does not have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief?" "You say that you are the candidate who will be ready to take action on the economy on Day One- are you saying Obama will not be ready?"

The Republicans would like nothing better than to have a soundbite from Hillary Clinton saying "Obama is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief", etc. The media seemed intent on drawing such a soundbite out of her to disparage the current Democratic frontrunner.

Meanwhile, they never asked Obama to explain, "You say you will reach out to all Americans- are you saying Hillary won't reach out?" The questioning was rather one-sided to draw Hillary into a direct attack on Obama's credentials.

Each time, Hillary struggled through a muddled answer, trying to explain without falling into the trap they were laying for both her AND Obama, with this line of attack. She did avoid falling into the trap, but came out sounding vague and evasive, She said "It's the voters that will decide; Distinctions have to be made; I am ready to be President."

I wish she had said the following:

"From these questions you seem intent on forcing me to attack Barack rather than explain why I believe I am the best candidate. Let's face it: One of the two of us up here is going to be the Democratic nominee, and either one of us will be better for Americans than Bush has been or John McCain would be. It would not serve either of us to attack the other so that Republicans can use the attack in their ads. So if you are intent on fostering petty squabbles, backstabbing, and trivial attacks, to support the Republican campaign goals and divide the Democratic party, you are wasting your time with me. Democratic voters have a choice between an excellent candidate in Barack, and an even better candidate in me. In the speeches you quoted, I am trying to answer the question, why do I believe that I am the best candidate? Are you interested in my answer to that question?"

NOVEMBER 25, 2007: DEMOCRATS EXCITED-
FINALLY READY TO RUN AGAINST BUSH-
IN 2008!

APRIL 23, 2007: GERLACH VOTES TO DENY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS ANY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

APRIL 22, 2007: SUPREME COURT IS THE PARTIAL-BUSH ELECTION BAND

APRIL 12, 2007: DEMOCRATS AGAIN PLACE PRIORITY ON LOSING-
COMPLAIN TO THE LANDLORD ABOUT LEAKY FAUCETS
WHILE HE IS BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE

APRIL 8, 2007: BUSH BILKS BILLIONS FOR BLOOD, BRUTALITY, BARBARISM AND 'BURTON

JANUARY 26, 2007: SOME GOOD NEWS

JANUARY 17, 2007: DEMOCRATS STILL FROZEN IN FEAR

JANUARY 13, 2007: THE SENATE IS STILL INSANE

JANUARY 6, 2007: JERRY FORD WAS NO HERO

 

DECEMBER 30, 2006:
BUSH'S IRAQ...
"WHERE THE EXECUTIONER'S FACE IS ALWAYS WELL-HIDDEN"

______________________________________________________

ARCHIVE ARTICLES:
CLICK ON THE HEADLINES BELOW TO READ PAST ENTRIES
______________________________________________________

NOVEMBER 11, 2005: CORRUPT STATE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES REFUSE TO LET GO OF PAY GRAB; TRICK MEDIA!

OCTOBER 31, 2005: JOHN FICHTER RATED AMONG THE WORST REPRESENTATIVES ON PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

OCTOBER 3, 2005: GIVE IT BACK, JOHN!
JOHN FICHTER OWES HIS CONSTITUENTS $1,300 FOR HIS FRAUDULENT EXPENSE CLAIM

OCTOBER 2, 2005:
DEAR JOHN: GORDON OFFERS JOHN FICHTER A FREE IDEA TO FIGHT IDENTITY THEFT

SEPTEMBER 2, 2005:
FICHTER BOWS TO PRESSURE FROM CONSTITUENTS; PLEDGES TO DISCONTINUE HIS UNVOUCHERED EXPENSE FRAUD

AUGUST 13, 2005:
"DO-NOTHING" FICHTER INSPIRES NEW SCALE FOR MEASUREMENT OF INACTIVITY:
THE "FICHTER SCALE"!

AUGUST 11, 2005:
IRAQ WAR BRINGS TRAGEDY HOME TO THE 70TH DISTRICT

AUGUST 8, 2005:
DO-NOTHING FICHTER PARTICIPATES IN MASSIVE FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS
BY COLLECTING "UNVOUCHERED EXPENSES"

JULY 8, 2005:
DO-NOTHING FICHTER VOTES HIMSELF
ANOTHER UNDESERVED PAY RAISE IN MIDNIGHT VOTE

JULY 5, 2005:
MORE OF THE SAME: JOHN FICHTER, CORPORATE PAC PUPPET

QUOTE OF THE MONTH, JUNE, 2005:

"Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy."

-George W. Bush, June 16, 2005

JUNE 9, 2005:
JOHN FICHTER, PAWN OF THE BIG TELECOMMS, HMOs, AND ENERGY INDUSTRY

JUNE 8, 2005:
DC DEMOCRATIC SENATE INVERTEBRATES SURRENDER, DECLARE VICTORY

APRIL 15, 2005:
JOHN FICHTER PROPOSES TO MAKE PA TAXPAYERS PAY FOR POLLUTERS' MESS;
TAKES NO ACTION AGAINST POLLUTERS

APRIL 13, 2005:
COWARDLY COMPROMISE GROWING GREENER II BILL;
BETTER THAN NOTHING, BUT LEAVES THE TOUGH DECISIONS FOR LATER

APRIL 5, 2005:
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FICHTER STILL HIDING FROM CONSTITUENTS

MARCH 21, 2005:
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FICHTER MISSING IN ACTION

MARCH 14, 2005:
FREE "PROUD TO LIVE IN A BLUE STATE" BUMPER STICKER!

Free "Proud to Live in a Blue State" bumper sticker! Download it here, print it on bumper sticker label stock available at most office supply stores, sport it on your car, and remind the Bushists that they are in Blue territory!

MARCH 11, 2005:
SOCIAL SECURITY "REFORM" SCREWS THE BABY BOOMERS

FEBRUARY 10, 2005:
JOHN FICHTER: INCOHERENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

FEBRUARY 10, 2005:
CONDI RICE: A MONUMENTAL NATIONAL SECURITY FAILURE GETS PROMOTED BY BUSH

DECEMBER 11, 2004:
JOHN FICHTER, IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPERS

NOVEMBER 3, 2004:
WEAK, VULNERABLE, INEFFECTIVE, AND UNPOPULAR JOHN FICHTER:
#3 ON "PENNSYLVANIA'S LEAST-WANTED REPRESENTATIVES" LIST

• ELECTION RESULTS ARE IN! (FINALIZED 12/10/04)
  GORDON, MATTHEW: 13,025 votes (45%) (First-time Democratic Challenger)
  FICHTER, JOHN W.: 15,929 votes (55%) (Six-term Republican incumbent)
  
  NOTE: THIS WAS THE FIFTH-CLOSEST ELECTION FOR AN INCUMBENT STATE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA!

NOVEMBER 3, 2004:
MATTHEW GORDON'S STATEMENT ON THE ELECTION

SEPTEMBER 24th, 2003:
BUSH IS BEHAVING IRRESPONSIBLY

 

To visit Matthew's original Campaign home page, go here.

To read patriotic cartoonist Ted Rall, click here.

 

 

powered by doteasy.com