Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard repeated a quote attributed to Richard Clarke, where Clarke stated in an email "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," with Hayes attempting to link Clarke’s quote to reasons supporting an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection (despite the 9-11 commission report contending the contrary) and that the Iraq occupation potentially thwarted an escape route for Osama.
I don’t think the correct implication here is that Clarke would have endorsed an Iraqi preemptive invasion – far from it! In fact, Clarke is on record denying as much. Rather, he’d probably recommend other means to insure Osama did not slip away.
And by bombing one country, what stops Osama from simply fleeing to another, such as Iran (which the 9-11 commission report states – unlike Iraq – there was an existing Al Qaeda relationship) or Pakistan, which apparently is the country he’s likely already slipped away to for cover. Do we bomb Pakistan next?
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Shannen Coffin of National Review Online recently asked the question, "Is it unconstitutional for Americans to say 'Shut Up and Sing'?" when it comes to celebrities speaking out politically.
I argue that it's not the threat of boycott by fans that is the problem, but rather it's Slimfast firing Whoopi and the Alladin casino physically escorting Ronstadt out of the building, informing her that she won't be invited back. In other words, the marketplace is not at work in these instances, as Coffin would like to believe, as fans (or consumers) are not doing the firing and escorting. Corporations are making these decisions -- often times at the behest of one person (the CEO) -- not the fans. And as we know, much of this is being driven by corporate cronyism and special interest considerations, and also just simply fear and cowardice.
All evidence points to Howard Stern being fired from six Clear Channel radio stations due to Stern suddenly becoming very anti-Bush and passionately voicing this stance. The top fellas at Clear Channel are well-know Bush buddies. Where do the fans or marketplace fit into this equation? As another example, it's one thing for fans to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks CDs, but it's quite another matter for Clear Channel radio stations (which are many!) to categorically ban their music from the air waves.
Here we have a question of allowing the public to exercise their right of choice as consumers versus just flat-out censorship. Needless to say, they're not one and the same!
P.S. View one more time the prescient film "Network," as it shows Ned Beatty as a CEO of a huge media conglomerate and despite declining ratings for crazy-man Howard Beal, Beatty orders that they keep Beal on the air simply because head-honcho Beatty agrees with the message that Beal is conveying to the public. In other words, the marketplace (nosediving ratings) is voting "no" and yet because the CEO happens to agree with the ideology behind the message, it's "marketplace be damned!" But once Beal goes off course, or off message (ala Howard Stern), the plug is pulled.
Of course, the far right has very little problem with this fact since in general, corporate top brass is by far dominated by Republicans.
I argue that it's not the threat of boycott by fans that is the problem, but rather it's Slimfast firing Whoopi and the Alladin casino physically escorting Ronstadt out of the building, informing her that she won't be invited back. In other words, the marketplace is not at work in these instances, as Coffin would like to believe, as fans (or consumers) are not doing the firing and escorting. Corporations are making these decisions -- often times at the behest of one person (the CEO) -- not the fans. And as we know, much of this is being driven by corporate cronyism and special interest considerations, and also just simply fear and cowardice.
All evidence points to Howard Stern being fired from six Clear Channel radio stations due to Stern suddenly becoming very anti-Bush and passionately voicing this stance. The top fellas at Clear Channel are well-know Bush buddies. Where do the fans or marketplace fit into this equation? As another example, it's one thing for fans to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks CDs, but it's quite another matter for Clear Channel radio stations (which are many!) to categorically ban their music from the air waves.
Here we have a question of allowing the public to exercise their right of choice as consumers versus just flat-out censorship. Needless to say, they're not one and the same!
P.S. View one more time the prescient film "Network," as it shows Ned Beatty as a CEO of a huge media conglomerate and despite declining ratings for crazy-man Howard Beal, Beatty orders that they keep Beal on the air simply because head-honcho Beatty agrees with the message that Beal is conveying to the public. In other words, the marketplace (nosediving ratings) is voting "no" and yet because the CEO happens to agree with the ideology behind the message, it's "marketplace be damned!" But once Beal goes off course, or off message (ala Howard Stern), the plug is pulled.
Of course, the far right has very little problem with this fact since in general, corporate top brass is by far dominated by Republicans.
In an article written a few weeks ago, David Brooks makes some good points about how we will need to shift gears from what we’re normally accustomed to doing diplomatically given the challenges in Iraq. He rightly emphasizes our focus should see them as “primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army” and what is needed is a “new training method to understand people who are uninterested in national self-interest, traditionally defined.”
Yet, his brief comparison to the success of Cold War tactics, as if they might work here, is a bit misleading. He often mentions “ideological” but I would argue “theological” is the operative word in this case. Communism was not religious-based and therefore was much more purely ideological, allowing for a higher success rate for reason & logic (vs. faith & beliefs) to take root and spread. Also, we did not invade and enforce our system on Cold War nations (as compared to Iraq). Communism imploded on its own without firing a missile. To some extent, MTV, the internet, etc., were responsible. Access to images and information can be very powerful.
To grant access to these same things in this case may not work because of the theology element involved. One can figure that where religion, faith, and strong beliefs are involved, resistance to change will be stronger. Western appeal may have to come from other avenues or sources.
Yet, his brief comparison to the success of Cold War tactics, as if they might work here, is a bit misleading. He often mentions “ideological” but I would argue “theological” is the operative word in this case. Communism was not religious-based and therefore was much more purely ideological, allowing for a higher success rate for reason & logic (vs. faith & beliefs) to take root and spread. Also, we did not invade and enforce our system on Cold War nations (as compared to Iraq). Communism imploded on its own without firing a missile. To some extent, MTV, the internet, etc., were responsible. Access to images and information can be very powerful.
To grant access to these same things in this case may not work because of the theology element involved. One can figure that where religion, faith, and strong beliefs are involved, resistance to change will be stronger. Western appeal may have to come from other avenues or sources.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Great op-ed by Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life:
"When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire.
<...>
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans.
<...>
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
<...>
This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....
<...>
....the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam."
"When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire.
<...>
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans.
<...>
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
<...>
This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....
<...>
....the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam."
Vet retracts criticism of Kerry.
"I'm the one in trouble here.... I knew it was wrong.... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
"I'm the one in trouble here.... I knew it was wrong.... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
Catholics can vote for Kerry.
Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
<...>
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Hallelujah.
Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
<...>
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Hallelujah.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Interesting profile of Sen. Bill Frist. The most revealing part: his critics point out that his major failing is his lack of willingness to compromise (surprise!). He will adamantly focus in on minor issues, despite what many deem as a larger good.
It's educational to learn of an example where Frist did this. The article cites:
Some senators and lobbyists say Frist appears too unwilling to risk setbacks on measures he opposes in order to clear the path for bigger priorities. For example, one of the amendments pushed on the class-action bill would have required many U.S. companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The "climate change" measure's chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said he did not know whether he had enough votes to pass it, but there was only one way to find out. "Someday we've got to learn that you've got to allow votes on things," McCain recently told reporters. "Otherwise we might as well be the House of Representatives."
So, we learn that 1) Frist will remain stubbornly firm on something anti-environmental, 2) despite the fact that a fellow Republican sponsored the legislation! It shows you just how far to the right Frist is and yet how sane & moderate McCain remains, regardless of how far his party has moved to the right.
In addition,
Some advocacy groups complain Frist is too eager to please his party's conservative base. Among the angriest are backers of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, a multinational agreement that seemed within reach of Senate ratification last spring after decades of debates and setbacks. Despite the Foreign Relations Committee's unanimous endorsement, Frist kept the measure from reaching a Senate vote after conservative writers -- most notably Phyllis Schlafly -- attacked it and the White House visibly softened its support.
"This is a complete cave-in to the right wing," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
All the more reason we need a change that goes beyond just the #1 & #2 office holders.
It's educational to learn of an example where Frist did this. The article cites:
Some senators and lobbyists say Frist appears too unwilling to risk setbacks on measures he opposes in order to clear the path for bigger priorities. For example, one of the amendments pushed on the class-action bill would have required many U.S. companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The "climate change" measure's chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said he did not know whether he had enough votes to pass it, but there was only one way to find out. "Someday we've got to learn that you've got to allow votes on things," McCain recently told reporters. "Otherwise we might as well be the House of Representatives."
So, we learn that 1) Frist will remain stubbornly firm on something anti-environmental, 2) despite the fact that a fellow Republican sponsored the legislation! It shows you just how far to the right Frist is and yet how sane & moderate McCain remains, regardless of how far his party has moved to the right.
In addition,
Some advocacy groups complain Frist is too eager to please his party's conservative base. Among the angriest are backers of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, a multinational agreement that seemed within reach of Senate ratification last spring after decades of debates and setbacks. Despite the Foreign Relations Committee's unanimous endorsement, Frist kept the measure from reaching a Senate vote after conservative writers -- most notably Phyllis Schlafly -- attacked it and the White House visibly softened its support.
"This is a complete cave-in to the right wing," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
All the more reason we need a change that goes beyond just the #1 & #2 office holders.
In catching up with some old reading material, the May 24th The New Republic chastised the NY Times about "exaggerating Bush's bad environmental policies while downplaying the good."
Oh, give me a break. I'm a long-time reader of TNR and I've come to realize that they like to every now and again take a whack at the more liberal establishment to help build "cred," or to help substantiate that they don't blindly align with the left. I get their intention (though I don't completely agree with it; anyone who reads the publication knows that they're one of the most intellectually honest publications out there and they should not have to take deliberate actions to point it out), yet I think the ire directed at the Times is just laughable.
OK, so here we have a president which by all accounts has been THE worst (#1) environmental president in U.S. history, bar none, and yet when he apparently does something pro-environment, he is to be applauded and cheered. Sorry, no. To begin to erase such a horrible record will require many more such mandates. Many.
(And I was surprised to see that the normally-shrewd TNR didn't even at least allude to the fact that perhaps Bush has become recently pro-environmental due to the impending election. To a point, judging a president on election-year legislation is ludicrous).
P.S. case and point: today's NY Times story.
Oh, give me a break. I'm a long-time reader of TNR and I've come to realize that they like to every now and again take a whack at the more liberal establishment to help build "cred," or to help substantiate that they don't blindly align with the left. I get their intention (though I don't completely agree with it; anyone who reads the publication knows that they're one of the most intellectually honest publications out there and they should not have to take deliberate actions to point it out), yet I think the ire directed at the Times is just laughable.
OK, so here we have a president which by all accounts has been THE worst (#1) environmental president in U.S. history, bar none, and yet when he apparently does something pro-environment, he is to be applauded and cheered. Sorry, no. To begin to erase such a horrible record will require many more such mandates. Many.
(And I was surprised to see that the normally-shrewd TNR didn't even at least allude to the fact that perhaps Bush has become recently pro-environmental due to the impending election. To a point, judging a president on election-year legislation is ludicrous).
P.S. case and point: today's NY Times story.
This whole fiasco in Illinois just has to make any intellectually honest Republican (granted, speaking to few) cringe. Now Mr. Keyes decides to throw his hat in the ring. This after Denny Hastert has stated, "I got down into last week interviewing a 70-year-old guy who was a great farm broadcaster in Illinois.... He decided because of his health problems he couldn't do it." Wow, just pathetic.
So they needed to go outside the state to find someone (Keyes is resident of Maryland). It might just be me but doesn't this say that Illinois is pretty much wrapped up for Kerry?!
As cited at TalkingPointsMemo, Keyes was a very vocal critic of Hillary Clinton running in NY despite not being a resident. He stated then, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there."
What a joke. These Republicans love to throw around the "flip flopper" term, as if they're immune to it. Here we have exhibit #8,986,566, your honor! Will we hear anything about Keyes flip-flopping? Hah!
As the Washington Post reports, Keyes acknowledged that he "gave no remote thought of coming to Illinois until six days ago" and said he told state party officials last week that when it comes to switching states to run for office, "as a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."
Illinois newspaper Rockford Register Star has it right when they state, "The whole thing is an embarrassment.... The choice of an out-of-stater makes the Illinois GOP hierarchy a national laughingstock. It sends the message that this scandal-ridden state party organization is in such bad shape that it can't even find a decent candidate from its own ranks."
So they needed to go outside the state to find someone (Keyes is resident of Maryland). It might just be me but doesn't this say that Illinois is pretty much wrapped up for Kerry?!
As cited at TalkingPointsMemo, Keyes was a very vocal critic of Hillary Clinton running in NY despite not being a resident. He stated then, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there."
What a joke. These Republicans love to throw around the "flip flopper" term, as if they're immune to it. Here we have exhibit #8,986,566, your honor! Will we hear anything about Keyes flip-flopping? Hah!
As the Washington Post reports, Keyes acknowledged that he "gave no remote thought of coming to Illinois until six days ago" and said he told state party officials last week that when it comes to switching states to run for office, "as a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."
Illinois newspaper Rockford Register Star has it right when they state, "The whole thing is an embarrassment.... The choice of an out-of-stater makes the Illinois GOP hierarchy a national laughingstock. It sends the message that this scandal-ridden state party organization is in such bad shape that it can't even find a decent candidate from its own ranks."
The Bush administration is taking credit for disrupting an Al-Qaeda plot aimed at the November 2nd elections. Great, good to hear. Yet Sen. Biden has stated based on what he has seen (and he is privy to some damn good info!), "I have not seen any hard evidence that there was an active moment that was contemplated in the very near term.... If there was a smoking gun that said we know for certain that was going to occur, I didn't see it."
Look, as I have stated, every American is all for news like this concerning the foiling of potential terrorist attacks (duh!). However, Bush/Cheney have only themselves to blame if when such news is released that many Americans now will hear it with a hugely skeptical ear.
The incompetence and deception now clearly evident when it came to the Iraq war properly places this administration in a highly questionable light. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we are told so many lies and distortions about things even beyond anything having to do with Iraq, who can blame us for not believing everything going forward? GW & Co. did not just squander international goodwill post-9/11, but they also managed to squander any goodwill when it came to the public taking at face value what this administration had to say or report on.
They cannot indignantly respond to such justified skepticism with enraged annoyance ("how dare you think we're playing politics or that we're not telling the truth!"), for they made their bed....
That said, for the record I agree with Richard Clarke when he states, "This has been the best week in counterterrorism since perhaps December 1999 -- the best series of leads, leads going to other plots, leads going to other people, international cooperation." And the reason I agree with it is because Mr. Clarke said it -- not someone within the administration. Until proven otherwise, I can still take on its face whatever Clarke says as truthful, no questions asked.
Look, as I have stated, every American is all for news like this concerning the foiling of potential terrorist attacks (duh!). However, Bush/Cheney have only themselves to blame if when such news is released that many Americans now will hear it with a hugely skeptical ear.
The incompetence and deception now clearly evident when it came to the Iraq war properly places this administration in a highly questionable light. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we are told so many lies and distortions about things even beyond anything having to do with Iraq, who can blame us for not believing everything going forward? GW & Co. did not just squander international goodwill post-9/11, but they also managed to squander any goodwill when it came to the public taking at face value what this administration had to say or report on.
They cannot indignantly respond to such justified skepticism with enraged annoyance ("how dare you think we're playing politics or that we're not telling the truth!"), for they made their bed....
That said, for the record I agree with Richard Clarke when he states, "This has been the best week in counterterrorism since perhaps December 1999 -- the best series of leads, leads going to other plots, leads going to other people, international cooperation." And the reason I agree with it is because Mr. Clarke said it -- not someone within the administration. Until proven otherwise, I can still take on its face whatever Clarke says as truthful, no questions asked.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Reverend GW.
Chris Suellentrop at Slate.com writes about how Bush has been performing a Sunday-morning preacher show of late.
Soon we'll see GW decked out in a white robe, wielding the Bible in one hand and gesturing for the crowd to rise with the other.... I wonder if he passes around baskets, accepting donations?
Chris Suellentrop at Slate.com writes about how Bush has been performing a Sunday-morning preacher show of late.
Soon we'll see GW decked out in a white robe, wielding the Bible in one hand and gesturing for the crowd to rise with the other.... I wonder if he passes around baskets, accepting donations?
You think Florida 2000 can't happen again? Read.
We're the greatest democracy ever on the face of the planet, and yet we just can't seem to get this tricky thing about insuring all votes are counted worked out.
We're the greatest democracy ever on the face of the planet, and yet we just can't seem to get this tricky thing about insuring all votes are counted worked out.
When reading the papers, there's this competition of good & bad cousins going on. For every good story I read about anti-Al Qaeda arrests, investigations, etc. (i.e. the real bad guys), there's at least one, if not more, Iraq-related story (truce over, more U.S. soldiers dead, etc.) that manages to crowd-out what should've been the sole-focus stories if not for the occupation-of-Iraq debacle.
Republicans will insist they're all related (one big, fat war on terror), but they're not. One set refers to that group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) actually responsible for 9-11, and the other set of stories refers to the fallout of a preemptive invasion on false pretense. Remember this distinction when perusing through the daily papers....
Republicans will insist they're all related (one big, fat war on terror), but they're not. One set refers to that group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) actually responsible for 9-11, and the other set of stories refers to the fallout of a preemptive invasion on false pretense. Remember this distinction when perusing through the daily papers....
Thursday, August 05, 2004
I have to give GW this much when it comes to his "official" endorsement of a new national intelligence chief -- yet one without teeth: would have no control over budget, no White House office, no power over personnel and no authority over intelligence operations.
In 2000, Bush made promises only to go back on many of them. He had no problem doing that. Now he faces a second -- and final -- term. Why doesn't he just go along with the 9-11 commission recommendation and state that he will grant this national intelligence czar maximum power (budget control, White House office, etc.)? Then if he wins, he can just negate much of what he promised -- again, like he's done before. Despite what he wants Americans to believe, the last thing this guy does is stand by his promises (although he did promise tax breaks for the rich, and delivered).
And this time around, when he goes back on his promises, what are people going to do? He can't run again (which just further brings up an extremely frightening scenario: a second, and final, term of a president that's been willing to go to extremes and now will have no restraint in the form of voters -- buckle up!).
In 2000, Bush made promises only to go back on many of them. He had no problem doing that. Now he faces a second -- and final -- term. Why doesn't he just go along with the 9-11 commission recommendation and state that he will grant this national intelligence czar maximum power (budget control, White House office, etc.)? Then if he wins, he can just negate much of what he promised -- again, like he's done before. Despite what he wants Americans to believe, the last thing this guy does is stand by his promises (although he did promise tax breaks for the rich, and delivered).
And this time around, when he goes back on his promises, what are people going to do? He can't run again (which just further brings up an extremely frightening scenario: a second, and final, term of a president that's been willing to go to extremes and now will have no restraint in the form of voters -- buckle up!).
@UNITY 2004 convention:
Referring to the moment, now immortalized in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," when Bush refused to leave a group of schoolchildren in Florida for seven minutes after being notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry told the minority journalists: "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to."
Kerry drew a warm response for his speech, with about three out of four standing in applause at one point.
Referring to the moment, now immortalized in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," when Bush refused to leave a group of schoolchildren in Florida for seven minutes after being notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry told the minority journalists: "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to."
Kerry drew a warm response for his speech, with about three out of four standing in applause at one point.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me"
John McCain condemns anti-Kerry attack ad.
It would've been nice to have McCain speak at the Dem convention, given Zell Miller doing so for the Republicans.
John McCain condemns anti-Kerry attack ad.
It would've been nice to have McCain speak at the Dem convention, given Zell Miller doing so for the Republicans.
More evidence that the NY Times has dropped in quality....?
Former Republican Sec. of State in the '80s, George Shultz, attempted to make an economic case for GW in yesterday's NY Times, using the following graph to illustrate his point.
The chart shows GDP growth based on percent change (quarter-over-quarter) and not levels of GDP growth.
I will assume Shultz's expertise is not economics -- and I can understand why. A few flaws exist with his analysis and the way in which he's trying to make his case.
For one, via the rules of mathematics, when you start at a lower level or base, you are going to arrive at higher percent increases. For instance, 10 growing to 15, or a 5 pt. increase, equals a 50% gain. However, the same 5 pt. increase from 50 to 55 equals just a 10% gain. Thus, for the purposes of this graph, recessions, or lower-level points, help both Bush I & II look good.
Beyond that, the truly astonishing feature of the chart -- which Schultz does not point out for obvious reasons -- is that Clinton was able to maintain an extraordinary consecutive years of quarter-over-quarter percent gains. Even I did not realize this fact -- wow, thanks Mr. Shultz! It makes me want to go back in time to look at other presidents to see if this has ever been accomplished before.
In other words, during those eight years, the level of GDP could have been growing, and a line graph would've displayed an upward-slanting line, however the percent change through the years could have diminished (i.e. growth in the growth, so to speak, could have been slowing or decelerating). Again, this gets back to (as I already mentioned) as the economy, or GDP, grows, the subsequent base or level is bigger and thus a larger percent increase becomes that much more difficult in future quarters. However, as you see in Shultz's chart, the GDP line for the Clinton years is not sloping down (which would have been OK as long as the line did not dip below the zero threshold), but rather maintains a steady line in the +2% to +4% range. Clinton was able to grow an ever-increasing-in-size GDP / economy at a near-constant percent-change clip. Again, wow!
I find it a bit depressing that the NY Times would give the "OK" to such an obviously less-than-rigorous presentation of the facts. And yet, I would say that it's likely even more depressing for Republicans that this may be the best that can be done in terms of making the economic case for GW.
But a big "thank you" to Shultz for offering just one more item of evidence showing how superior a president Clinton was! (perhaps this was the "liberal" Times' intention all along?)
Former Republican Sec. of State in the '80s, George Shultz, attempted to make an economic case for GW in yesterday's NY Times, using the following graph to illustrate his point.
The chart shows GDP growth based on percent change (quarter-over-quarter) and not levels of GDP growth.
I will assume Shultz's expertise is not economics -- and I can understand why. A few flaws exist with his analysis and the way in which he's trying to make his case.
For one, via the rules of mathematics, when you start at a lower level or base, you are going to arrive at higher percent increases. For instance, 10 growing to 15, or a 5 pt. increase, equals a 50% gain. However, the same 5 pt. increase from 50 to 55 equals just a 10% gain. Thus, for the purposes of this graph, recessions, or lower-level points, help both Bush I & II look good.
Beyond that, the truly astonishing feature of the chart -- which Schultz does not point out for obvious reasons -- is that Clinton was able to maintain an extraordinary consecutive years of quarter-over-quarter percent gains. Even I did not realize this fact -- wow, thanks Mr. Shultz! It makes me want to go back in time to look at other presidents to see if this has ever been accomplished before.
In other words, during those eight years, the level of GDP could have been growing, and a line graph would've displayed an upward-slanting line, however the percent change through the years could have diminished (i.e. growth in the growth, so to speak, could have been slowing or decelerating). Again, this gets back to (as I already mentioned) as the economy, or GDP, grows, the subsequent base or level is bigger and thus a larger percent increase becomes that much more difficult in future quarters. However, as you see in Shultz's chart, the GDP line for the Clinton years is not sloping down (which would have been OK as long as the line did not dip below the zero threshold), but rather maintains a steady line in the +2% to +4% range. Clinton was able to grow an ever-increasing-in-size GDP / economy at a near-constant percent-change clip. Again, wow!
I find it a bit depressing that the NY Times would give the "OK" to such an obviously less-than-rigorous presentation of the facts. And yet, I would say that it's likely even more depressing for Republicans that this may be the best that can be done in terms of making the economic case for GW.
But a big "thank you" to Shultz for offering just one more item of evidence showing how superior a president Clinton was! (perhaps this was the "liberal" Times' intention all along?)
"If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." -- from Hannah & Her Sisters (Woody Allen)
Thanks to a caller into the Mike Malloy show for reminding me of this excellent reference. Though the movie came out in 1986, as is often the case with many Woody Allen creations, this line is more timely than ever.
Thanks to a caller into the Mike Malloy show for reminding me of this excellent reference. Though the movie came out in 1986, as is often the case with many Woody Allen creations, this line is more timely than ever.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Bruce Springsteen writes in today's NY Times:
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values.
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values.
On the environment: bad news, good news.
A key line in Kerry's convention speech: "I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Yet, to my shock and dismay, I believe this was the only line in the speech referring to Bush's horrible record on the environment.
As I've written here before, this issue is a low-hanging-fruit, no-brainer winner for Kerry/Edwards to exploit at will. I realize by definition that the Kerry campaign figures they need to take it to Bush/Cheney on those issues where they're similar, not far apart, to better define for voters a choice between the two candidates. By far, the key issue in this regard is Kerry's ability to protect America (war on terror, etc.); thus, he's addressing this matter big time.
However, over the years, the time-tested most important issue to Americans during election time has always been their wallet, i.e. the economy. It's what is closest to them, what is closest to home. But I would venture to say that Americans should care second-most about the environment. I think many do, but I just don't think they realize, consciously, how much they actually do. More and more evidence shows that dirty air is related to an increasing number of deaths -- and unlike say obesity, where we can at least choose not to eat at McDonalds -- it's very difficult to have a choice in breathing (or not).
Ironically, most of the Republicans I know confess to being very-much pro-environment. There's this huge disconnect, which I continue to feel is very exploitable -- for the good of our planet! In this sense, GW is extremely divisive, pitting his corporate polluter buddies against basically the rest of America, but attempting to do so as unnoticed as possible.
Since 9-11, the constant threat of terrorist attack(s) will now very likely be a fact of life. We'll have to do what we can to stop any threat, but the threat will always remain. In the meantime, things that can be done to insure a clean environment are not at the mercy of such uncertainties. We have much more control over how we can act in a pro-environment manner than we do over how we can prevent terrorist attacks. Stopping corporate polluters is an easier task than stopping terrorists, and yet to this end the war on terror is often used as a distracting point to hide such behind-the-scenes, anti-environmental chicanery.
Get angry! Make demands!
A key line in Kerry's convention speech: "I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Yet, to my shock and dismay, I believe this was the only line in the speech referring to Bush's horrible record on the environment.
As I've written here before, this issue is a low-hanging-fruit, no-brainer winner for Kerry/Edwards to exploit at will. I realize by definition that the Kerry campaign figures they need to take it to Bush/Cheney on those issues where they're similar, not far apart, to better define for voters a choice between the two candidates. By far, the key issue in this regard is Kerry's ability to protect America (war on terror, etc.); thus, he's addressing this matter big time.
However, over the years, the time-tested most important issue to Americans during election time has always been their wallet, i.e. the economy. It's what is closest to them, what is closest to home. But I would venture to say that Americans should care second-most about the environment. I think many do, but I just don't think they realize, consciously, how much they actually do. More and more evidence shows that dirty air is related to an increasing number of deaths -- and unlike say obesity, where we can at least choose not to eat at McDonalds -- it's very difficult to have a choice in breathing (or not).
Ironically, most of the Republicans I know confess to being very-much pro-environment. There's this huge disconnect, which I continue to feel is very exploitable -- for the good of our planet! In this sense, GW is extremely divisive, pitting his corporate polluter buddies against basically the rest of America, but attempting to do so as unnoticed as possible.
Since 9-11, the constant threat of terrorist attack(s) will now very likely be a fact of life. We'll have to do what we can to stop any threat, but the threat will always remain. In the meantime, things that can be done to insure a clean environment are not at the mercy of such uncertainties. We have much more control over how we can act in a pro-environment manner than we do over how we can prevent terrorist attacks. Stopping corporate polluters is an easier task than stopping terrorists, and yet to this end the war on terror is often used as a distracting point to hide such behind-the-scenes, anti-environmental chicanery.
Get angry! Make demands!
Corporate leaders flocking to Kerry:
Among the Kerry converts is David Bonderman, founder and managing partner of the Fort Worth, Texas, investment firm Texas Pacific Group, who supported Mr. Bush for president in 2000 and earlier for Texas governor.
In an interview from a chartered boat off Italy where he is vacationing, Mr. Bonderman said: "George is a really good guy personally. But his policies are really terrible. And he had an opportunity to bring the country together -- which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore -- and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."
Ouch! From a fellow good-old-boy Texan no less!
And this from a corporate chairman:
"I think to have big tax cuts when a war is going on is wrong economically," he said, adding, "I've benefited tremendously from the Bush tax cuts. But I don't think it's right."
Among the Kerry converts is David Bonderman, founder and managing partner of the Fort Worth, Texas, investment firm Texas Pacific Group, who supported Mr. Bush for president in 2000 and earlier for Texas governor.
In an interview from a chartered boat off Italy where he is vacationing, Mr. Bonderman said: "George is a really good guy personally. But his policies are really terrible. And he had an opportunity to bring the country together -- which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore -- and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."
Ouch! From a fellow good-old-boy Texan no less!
And this from a corporate chairman:
"I think to have big tax cuts when a war is going on is wrong economically," he said, adding, "I've benefited tremendously from the Bush tax cuts. But I don't think it's right."
Bush & Co. quickly responded to news reports that the terror alert info was many years old. Yet, the source is "unnamed officials" -- doesn't anyone want to go on record (fear?)?
Of course, nothing has really been cleared up on this topic -- just muddled confusion remains. Example, from Washington Post:
But authorities did not publicly make it clear until yesterday that the information compiled during that surveillance, contained on computer disks and documents seized during raids in Pakistan, was created in 2000 and 2001 or, in some cases, undated. Much of the information was also obtained from the Internet or other public sources, officials said. Authorities issued somewhat conflicting signals yesterday about the timing of the surveillance.
And then this in USA Today:
Although U.S. authorities continue to analyze information, the material does not point to an existing plan of attack, said the law enforcement officials. But the same officials and U.S. intelligence authorities cautioned that the surveillance activity -- although much of it was done three to four years ago -- should not be discounted because al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance.
OK, let me understand. Now we are being lectured about how "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance" and therefore we should embrace such warnings based on seemingly old intel.
Fine. But then how does this square with the now infamous PDB and Dr. Rice's explanation of such? Recall that on August 6th, 2001, Bush (who at the time was set to enjoy the longest presidential vacation in 32 years) was informed of the PDB intel alert titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States," and proceeded to spend 27 days vacationing on the ranch. (Note: this briefing was only one of 40 on the threat of bin Laden that the president received between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, '01).
As recent as May of this year, our National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, is on record stating this Aug. 6th PDB contained "historical information based on old reporting," adding that "there was no new threat information."
OK, now wait a minute. On the one hand, the administration is using as a supporting reason for the recent high-alert status, "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance," and yet just a few months ago, we were to accept from our top national security official quite the opposite (a sort of "chill out, the info was old, relax, no imminent threat was perceived," etc.)....? Which is it? Rice makes the case that "historical" intel is of little urgency or relevance, yet today we learn from officials that such dated info is very relevant and pertinent.
Squirm left, squirm right. Is it any wonder this administration has very little credibility left? Where is Mr. Rove to check the consistency of this stuff?
Of course, nothing has really been cleared up on this topic -- just muddled confusion remains. Example, from Washington Post:
But authorities did not publicly make it clear until yesterday that the information compiled during that surveillance, contained on computer disks and documents seized during raids in Pakistan, was created in 2000 and 2001 or, in some cases, undated. Much of the information was also obtained from the Internet or other public sources, officials said. Authorities issued somewhat conflicting signals yesterday about the timing of the surveillance.
And then this in USA Today:
Although U.S. authorities continue to analyze information, the material does not point to an existing plan of attack, said the law enforcement officials. But the same officials and U.S. intelligence authorities cautioned that the surveillance activity -- although much of it was done three to four years ago -- should not be discounted because al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance.
OK, let me understand. Now we are being lectured about how "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance" and therefore we should embrace such warnings based on seemingly old intel.
Fine. But then how does this square with the now infamous PDB and Dr. Rice's explanation of such? Recall that on August 6th, 2001, Bush (who at the time was set to enjoy the longest presidential vacation in 32 years) was informed of the PDB intel alert titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States," and proceeded to spend 27 days vacationing on the ranch. (Note: this briefing was only one of 40 on the threat of bin Laden that the president received between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, '01).
As recent as May of this year, our National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, is on record stating this Aug. 6th PDB contained "historical information based on old reporting," adding that "there was no new threat information."
OK, now wait a minute. On the one hand, the administration is using as a supporting reason for the recent high-alert status, "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance," and yet just a few months ago, we were to accept from our top national security official quite the opposite (a sort of "chill out, the info was old, relax, no imminent threat was perceived," etc.)....? Which is it? Rice makes the case that "historical" intel is of little urgency or relevance, yet today we learn from officials that such dated info is very relevant and pertinent.
Squirm left, squirm right. Is it any wonder this administration has very little credibility left? Where is Mr. Rove to check the consistency of this stuff?
Last night, I caught a repeat showing of Bill Maher's show on HBO. Interesting stuff. The guests were Michael Moore (received a standing ovation), and Rep. David Dreir (Republican) and former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell (she's wonderful). In addition, Ralph Nader shows up!
No one needs to remind me at how smug at times Mr. Moore can get (example: "You never saw the seven minutes (of film, GW in classroom) because they don't want our leader to look like a deer in the headlights... Which is actually being unkind to deer"), though he's improving on that front. Yet I feel for him in that regard because often times a snappy reply to a semi-dumb statement or question is staring him straight in the eyes (what is even a semi-bright person to do?). When you watch Dreir aimlessly flapping his lips in a panicked, exasperated attempt to defend Bush/Cheney any way he can, you truly get a sense at how difficult the job is to defend this president and with a straight face no less. The audience is obviously majority-Dem, and Maher has to vocally keep them in line at times (jeers & cheers), yet even he can't help "his good friend" Dreir make even a marginally strong case for GW. Maher looks on at him with this feeling of resigned sorrow ("I did my best buddy!"). Several times, Dreir appears befuddled, often leaning way back in his seat for a bout of relief.
At one point, Dreir goes on the attack and attempts to corner Moore by stating "Fahren. 9-11" contains lies. After Moore asks if Dreir saw the film (he admits "no," audience jeers and laughs), Dreir then begins to describe the scene with a supposed lie, only to quickly be corrected that he has the description of the scene all wrong (uh, perhaps because he didn't see the movie!). Of course, what little credibility Dreir had left up to this point in the show is now lost.
Meanwhile, Kim Campbell offers several very cogent, lucid points, well-reasoned and beautifully delivered. Why can't we get politicians like her?! She all the more makes Dreir look like a true lightweight in our country's political circles.
Throughout the show, Moore ends up repeating an effective refrain. Maher makes the case that "flip-flopping" as directed as a criticism towards Kerry implies that if one were to ever change their mind based on experience, then that's bad (obviously absurd). "The big knock against Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper; because sometime between the ages of 18 and 60, he's changed his mind," Maher says. He goes on, "He went to Vietnam because as a young man, he thought that was the right thing to do. He saw what was going on in Vietnam, came back, threw his medals away, changed his mind. Is it wrong that a guy goes to the slaughterhouse and comes back a vegetarian? Isn't that what thinking people do?"
Maher is indirectly trying to show that what the Republicans excel at are labeling. Better to just tag a one-word label ("flip-flopper," "liberal") then to present a complex, reasoned explanation. They simply want to quickly program their voters, like one would do their Tivo. Kerry volunteers to go to war, goes, is a hero, comes back with a new view. Republicans pronounce this "flip-flopper," or at least Mr. Dreir did a very poor job at making the case otherwise (!).
Anyway, Moore peppers the latter part of the show with rhetorical questions aimed at Dreir: "if I were to become a Republican, would that be a flip-flop, i.e. a bad thing?" In fact, you never hear a peep about Sen. Zell Miller in this regard. I can't recall the last time I witnessed an opposing party office holder speaking at the other party's convention (Democrat Miller will have a prime speaking spot come the Repub. convention). Yet, not one utterance of "flip-flopper" directed at Miller -- obviously because flip-flopping is A-OK as long as you flop to their side. Recall GW ran in 2000 on a no-nation-building pledge as well as his Kyoto agreement flip-flop, to name just a few.
And then Ralph shows up! I urge a viewing of this show.
No one needs to remind me at how smug at times Mr. Moore can get (example: "You never saw the seven minutes (of film, GW in classroom) because they don't want our leader to look like a deer in the headlights... Which is actually being unkind to deer"), though he's improving on that front. Yet I feel for him in that regard because often times a snappy reply to a semi-dumb statement or question is staring him straight in the eyes (what is even a semi-bright person to do?). When you watch Dreir aimlessly flapping his lips in a panicked, exasperated attempt to defend Bush/Cheney any way he can, you truly get a sense at how difficult the job is to defend this president and with a straight face no less. The audience is obviously majority-Dem, and Maher has to vocally keep them in line at times (jeers & cheers), yet even he can't help "his good friend" Dreir make even a marginally strong case for GW. Maher looks on at him with this feeling of resigned sorrow ("I did my best buddy!"). Several times, Dreir appears befuddled, often leaning way back in his seat for a bout of relief.
At one point, Dreir goes on the attack and attempts to corner Moore by stating "Fahren. 9-11" contains lies. After Moore asks if Dreir saw the film (he admits "no," audience jeers and laughs), Dreir then begins to describe the scene with a supposed lie, only to quickly be corrected that he has the description of the scene all wrong (uh, perhaps because he didn't see the movie!). Of course, what little credibility Dreir had left up to this point in the show is now lost.
Meanwhile, Kim Campbell offers several very cogent, lucid points, well-reasoned and beautifully delivered. Why can't we get politicians like her?! She all the more makes Dreir look like a true lightweight in our country's political circles.
Throughout the show, Moore ends up repeating an effective refrain. Maher makes the case that "flip-flopping" as directed as a criticism towards Kerry implies that if one were to ever change their mind based on experience, then that's bad (obviously absurd). "The big knock against Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper; because sometime between the ages of 18 and 60, he's changed his mind," Maher says. He goes on, "He went to Vietnam because as a young man, he thought that was the right thing to do. He saw what was going on in Vietnam, came back, threw his medals away, changed his mind. Is it wrong that a guy goes to the slaughterhouse and comes back a vegetarian? Isn't that what thinking people do?"
Maher is indirectly trying to show that what the Republicans excel at are labeling. Better to just tag a one-word label ("flip-flopper," "liberal") then to present a complex, reasoned explanation. They simply want to quickly program their voters, like one would do their Tivo. Kerry volunteers to go to war, goes, is a hero, comes back with a new view. Republicans pronounce this "flip-flopper," or at least Mr. Dreir did a very poor job at making the case otherwise (!).
Anyway, Moore peppers the latter part of the show with rhetorical questions aimed at Dreir: "if I were to become a Republican, would that be a flip-flop, i.e. a bad thing?" In fact, you never hear a peep about Sen. Zell Miller in this regard. I can't recall the last time I witnessed an opposing party office holder speaking at the other party's convention (Democrat Miller will have a prime speaking spot come the Repub. convention). Yet, not one utterance of "flip-flopper" directed at Miller -- obviously because flip-flopping is A-OK as long as you flop to their side. Recall GW ran in 2000 on a no-nation-building pledge as well as his Kyoto agreement flip-flop, to name just a few.
And then Ralph shows up! I urge a viewing of this show.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Washington Post:
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.... "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.... "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Why is it GW's Homeland Security Dept. can publicly warn that they're considering postponing the November election, and yet we don't hear such similar dire warnings about possibly postponing the Republican convention....? By all accounts, the upcoming convention in NYC should be garnering much more attention in this regard than Election Day. For one, the Republican convention is 2+ months closer to occurring than the November election. But even more so, based on the "credible" threats received over the last few days, where NYC, DC, and Newark, NJ were the suspected targets, and now we're hearing that Al Qaeda is targeting all corporations based in NYC (!), I must ask: where are the sensible calls for possibly postponing the Republican convention -- by Homeland Security, or any other responsible group that is supposed to offer informed, prudent advice in order to protect us?
Could it be that given the political importance of such an event, and all of the planning that has gone into it, the Republicans are willing to risk life & limb to hold it ("Dems had theirs, we must have ours no matter what!")? Or could it be that the terrorist threats all along, while credible, actually had a very remote chance of occurring, and therefore makes one justifiably question the need for the Homeland Security Dept. to even mention any possibility of postponing the November election at all?? (Yet, by doing so conveniently keeps the country in that frozen state of moderate fear -- always favoring the incumbent, i.e. "don't change course now").
I'm sorry but as I see it, if this administration is going to float the idea of possibly postponing the election, than given all of the evidence as we know it, they must also float the idea of possibly postponing the Republican convention. Not doing so just further makes the intent of the former warning look that much more nakedly political.
Could it be that given the political importance of such an event, and all of the planning that has gone into it, the Republicans are willing to risk life & limb to hold it ("Dems had theirs, we must have ours no matter what!")? Or could it be that the terrorist threats all along, while credible, actually had a very remote chance of occurring, and therefore makes one justifiably question the need for the Homeland Security Dept. to even mention any possibility of postponing the November election at all?? (Yet, by doing so conveniently keeps the country in that frozen state of moderate fear -- always favoring the incumbent, i.e. "don't change course now").
I'm sorry but as I see it, if this administration is going to float the idea of possibly postponing the election, than given all of the evidence as we know it, they must also float the idea of possibly postponing the Republican convention. Not doing so just further makes the intent of the former warning look that much more nakedly political.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Here we go again with the flat tax being floated as a viable alternative to the current Byzantine system. Then Steve Forbes, now Denny Hastert.
While there are actually a few things I do like about the flat tax, in the end I must conclude that it has an absolute zero shot of ever getting passed and that said, it then simply becomes an empty symbol used to win over less-realistic (and less-informed) voters.
Look, the fact is before the flat tax has even a smidgen of a chance of ever seeing the light of day in Congress, the first thing that must be overhauled is the degree to which money buys influence in our political system. The special interests & lobbyists have so much power in DC, and so much at stake in the current loophole-heavy tax system, that they will pull out all the stops to keep things as they are. One of many examples for why they will resist change: more than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the GAO recently reported.
And make no mistake, Hastert is absolutely aware of this fact. He realizes this is a no-brainer issue to lob at the Republican base -- and the best kind too. On the one hand, they can trot out examples of high-earning liberal millionaires who pay near zero in taxes under the current system, thus throwing red meat to their ravenous devotees. At the same time, they can divert attention away from their ultra-rich-favoring tax breaks and the resulting deficit, and they can cast a knowing "wink-wink" to their special interest backers, with both assured that the status quo will remain.
C'mon people, we have to wake up & see through this stuff. It's once again their favorite tactic: they want to divert your attention to the left hand, while the right hand does something very different.
While there are actually a few things I do like about the flat tax, in the end I must conclude that it has an absolute zero shot of ever getting passed and that said, it then simply becomes an empty symbol used to win over less-realistic (and less-informed) voters.
Look, the fact is before the flat tax has even a smidgen of a chance of ever seeing the light of day in Congress, the first thing that must be overhauled is the degree to which money buys influence in our political system. The special interests & lobbyists have so much power in DC, and so much at stake in the current loophole-heavy tax system, that they will pull out all the stops to keep things as they are. One of many examples for why they will resist change: more than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the GAO recently reported.
And make no mistake, Hastert is absolutely aware of this fact. He realizes this is a no-brainer issue to lob at the Republican base -- and the best kind too. On the one hand, they can trot out examples of high-earning liberal millionaires who pay near zero in taxes under the current system, thus throwing red meat to their ravenous devotees. At the same time, they can divert attention away from their ultra-rich-favoring tax breaks and the resulting deficit, and they can cast a knowing "wink-wink" to their special interest backers, with both assured that the status quo will remain.
C'mon people, we have to wake up & see through this stuff. It's once again their favorite tactic: they want to divert your attention to the left hand, while the right hand does something very different.
Last week, a caller phoned in to Bill Bennett's radio show (can you believe it? "One Armed Bandit" Bill has a radio show. I believe any right-winger with even remote notoriety has a shot at getting his/her own show), asking how Kerry expected to pay for all he promised Thursday night. Of course, Bennett simply uttered, "excellent question."
Hmm, let's look at this issue. I believe they said the exact same thing when Clinton laid down a national agenda hen he was running for office -- "how is he going to pay for it?" I could be wrong but if memory serves he left office with a near-trillion dollar surplus.
Cut to GW, where he quickly squandered this surplus and now sits atop a near-half-trillion dollar deficit. When GW undoubtedly lays out his goodies for all Americans at the Republican convention, do you think Mr. Bennett will again ask this same question? Me thinks not. And don't forget, many right-wingers have been irked for some time at how Bush has become a tax-cut-&-spend president. It shows the irresponsibility and the degree to which Bush/Cheney will try to win at all cost (deficits? who cares...throw tax breaks at the rich, subsidies at the farmers, tariffs at the steel unions, weaken environmental laws for polluters, etc.).
Hmm, let's look at this issue. I believe they said the exact same thing when Clinton laid down a national agenda hen he was running for office -- "how is he going to pay for it?" I could be wrong but if memory serves he left office with a near-trillion dollar surplus.
Cut to GW, where he quickly squandered this surplus and now sits atop a near-half-trillion dollar deficit. When GW undoubtedly lays out his goodies for all Americans at the Republican convention, do you think Mr. Bennett will again ask this same question? Me thinks not. And don't forget, many right-wingers have been irked for some time at how Bush has become a tax-cut-&-spend president. It shows the irresponsibility and the degree to which Bush/Cheney will try to win at all cost (deficits? who cares...throw tax breaks at the rich, subsidies at the farmers, tariffs at the steel unions, weaken environmental laws for polluters, etc.).
Here's an example of just how "non-crazy" and purposeful these terrorists think. Based on this item, given the entire massive global oil market, Al Qaeda has managed to identify the weakest link in which they can penetrate and potentially wreak havoc.
By the way, I've had the discussion on more than one occasion that NYC (and DC) will continue to be a favorite target for terrorist attacks. I've had some people debate this notion. For whatever reason, they conclude that such attacks are like a lightening strike: once a hit occurs, it's rare to occur at that location again.
Huh? These are cold-calculating people, not non-thinking forces of nature. Recall they attacked the WTC years before the 9-11 attack. Now, we get word that they're targeting -- you guessed it -- buildings in NYC & DC (and Newark, NJ -- which is basically NYC).
While this may appear to be a very minor point, I only feel it portrays how some Americans may think when it comes to terrorists. As far as I can tell, much of the thinking is far removed from how Osama & Co. actually think. It does not take a big leap to guess that terrorists are here to stay and if that's the case, I would urge Americans to at least try to get to know how these "crazies" actually reason. It's too easy (lazy thinking) to just assume that they operate in some loopy, half-assed-planned, evil manner. In fact, our best intel experts are on record stating that what we're dealing with are shrewd, and obviously very dangerous, operatives.
Huh? These are cold-calculating people, not non-thinking forces of nature. Recall they attacked the WTC years before the 9-11 attack. Now, we get word that they're targeting -- you guessed it -- buildings in NYC & DC (and Newark, NJ -- which is basically NYC).
While this may appear to be a very minor point, I only feel it portrays how some Americans may think when it comes to terrorists. As far as I can tell, much of the thinking is far removed from how Osama & Co. actually think. It does not take a big leap to guess that terrorists are here to stay and if that's the case, I would urge Americans to at least try to get to know how these "crazies" actually reason. It's too easy (lazy thinking) to just assume that they operate in some loopy, half-assed-planned, evil manner. In fact, our best intel experts are on record stating that what we're dealing with are shrewd, and obviously very dangerous, operatives.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Inspired by a Chepooka.com post (notice a source for the chart is ultra-conservative Forbes):
Also, this (note the blue donkeys vs. the red elephants):
Wow.
Also, this (note the blue donkeys vs. the red elephants):
Wow.
One thing I notice repeatedly about the far right that I find very disturbing is there is no gray to them, just black & white. There's either right or wrong, up or down, hot or cold -- nothing in between. Everything is framed in stark, strident terms contrasting one thing versus another with hardly any blending or attempts to find a middle ground. In fact, I almost named my blog, "Embrace The Gray."
There are two reasons I believe this to be the case. The first is it's too difficult to ponder the many nuances in the middle; it's much easier (lazy thinking) to quickly lay down the two opposite views and simply pick one. It could also be the case they lack the intellectual capacity to actually surmise what could be in the middle, which most of the time is where the real complexities of an issue dwell (of course, now I'm sounding like an "elite").
The other reason, and more likely, is the gray or "muddled" middle is simply not polarizing enough, i.e. it's boring. The priority of the far right is to excite their base and keep them in a state of anger, with fangs showing, claws slashing. They can't have them consider the many sides of an issue and then choose the most reasonable, i.e. they can't have them consider a topic carefully and afford it the time for introspective thought it deserves. If they allowed for this to happen, they'd likely lose voters and even more so, given the many right-wing TV and radio hosts, they'd lose viewers/listeners. After all, the last thing the far right seems to do is encourage their base to think for themselves.
Here's an example of the above: after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).
It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).
Is this "grayness" to complex for the far right to handle? Likely not. Instead, it simply doesn't fire-up their ravenous base and therefore is of no use to them.
There are two reasons I believe this to be the case. The first is it's too difficult to ponder the many nuances in the middle; it's much easier (lazy thinking) to quickly lay down the two opposite views and simply pick one. It could also be the case they lack the intellectual capacity to actually surmise what could be in the middle, which most of the time is where the real complexities of an issue dwell (of course, now I'm sounding like an "elite").
The other reason, and more likely, is the gray or "muddled" middle is simply not polarizing enough, i.e. it's boring. The priority of the far right is to excite their base and keep them in a state of anger, with fangs showing, claws slashing. They can't have them consider the many sides of an issue and then choose the most reasonable, i.e. they can't have them consider a topic carefully and afford it the time for introspective thought it deserves. If they allowed for this to happen, they'd likely lose voters and even more so, given the many right-wing TV and radio hosts, they'd lose viewers/listeners. After all, the last thing the far right seems to do is encourage their base to think for themselves.
Here's an example of the above: after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).
It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).
Is this "grayness" to complex for the far right to handle? Likely not. Instead, it simply doesn't fire-up their ravenous base and therefore is of no use to them.
By the way, after a commercial break, this Levin character takes a call from a listener that's critical of his Ben Cohen ice cream indictment/segment and Levin simply says the caller just doesn't get the show, as if there was humor to all of it. Take a look at Levin's oh-so-impressive bio -- does any of it mention anything of comedy? Is there a hint of non-serious credentials? Nope, it comes across 100% serious and high-brow, which would tend to encourage a listener to regard Levin as a serious commentator. They want it both ways: to be taken seriously, but then to also have an easy-out escape hatch.
I've heard Limbaugh do the same thing: when pressed on an idiotic point that appeared on the surface to be serious, presto, he simply proclaims that he's first and foremost an "entertainer," as if this absolves him from any culpability to the many lies and absurd distortions regularly trotted out on his show. Once again, it's the three-card-monte used on the listeners, or sleight-of-hand trickery, but the listeners don't really care whether it's truth or not. They just want hate-filled, "red meat" thrown on the table for them to devour.
I've heard Limbaugh do the same thing: when pressed on an idiotic point that appeared on the surface to be serious, presto, he simply proclaims that he's first and foremost an "entertainer," as if this absolves him from any culpability to the many lies and absurd distortions regularly trotted out on his show. Once again, it's the three-card-monte used on the listeners, or sleight-of-hand trickery, but the listeners don't really care whether it's truth or not. They just want hate-filled, "red meat" thrown on the table for them to devour.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Right-wing talk show host Mark Levin recently had on Jason Salzman, co-author with Ben Cohen of “50 Ways YOU Can Show George the Door in 2004.” Levin proceeded to spend the entire five minute segment trying to get Salzman to admit that Cohen is a liar in that he sells ice cream and it’s a contributor to heart disease and Ben is not “coming clean” to this fact. In fact, Levin conducts some quick, back-of-the-envelope math and comes up with the accusation that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream likely contributes to the deaths of 10,000 people per year in this country, and then compares this 10K figure to the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq (approaching 1,000) and hopes to use this twisted logic to put the number of dead soldiers in perspective.
What can you say? Where do you begin to take apart this garbage? Salzman barely makes any come backs to Levin’s line of “reasoning,” mainly because it’s obvious Salzman can’t believe what he’s hearing and is brain-locked. I myself was simply dumbfounded. Levin even attempts to equate selling ice cream to selling tobacco (not mentioning that for one, nicotine has been shown to be as chemically addictive as heroin or cocaine – unlike anything found in ice cream).
The other obvious difference is people can choose to eat ice cream, or not. Our soldiers don’t have the luxury of choice: they sign up and then must go and fight wherever and whenever they’re told.
It’s these same morons on the right that pontificate about how our educational system is in the toilet and how the country is going to hell in a hand basket. The above example of astute thinking should serve to show in what parts of society our educational system has failed.
(Of course, like most right-wing hosts, Levin could not spend the time to address the issues brought up in the book, the many lies and distortions of GW. Nope, instead their tactic is to distract their listeners and employ a three-card-monte move where they hope to skim along on the surface up to November and that their listeners will just go along for the ride, not expecting or demanding anything more).
What can you say? Where do you begin to take apart this garbage? Salzman barely makes any come backs to Levin’s line of “reasoning,” mainly because it’s obvious Salzman can’t believe what he’s hearing and is brain-locked. I myself was simply dumbfounded. Levin even attempts to equate selling ice cream to selling tobacco (not mentioning that for one, nicotine has been shown to be as chemically addictive as heroin or cocaine – unlike anything found in ice cream).
The other obvious difference is people can choose to eat ice cream, or not. Our soldiers don’t have the luxury of choice: they sign up and then must go and fight wherever and whenever they’re told.
It’s these same morons on the right that pontificate about how our educational system is in the toilet and how the country is going to hell in a hand basket. The above example of astute thinking should serve to show in what parts of society our educational system has failed.
(Of course, like most right-wing hosts, Levin could not spend the time to address the issues brought up in the book, the many lies and distortions of GW. Nope, instead their tactic is to distract their listeners and employ a three-card-monte move where they hope to skim along on the surface up to November and that their listeners will just go along for the ride, not expecting or demanding anything more).
Prediction: the growing-more-desperate-by-the-week right-wing will cite the following opening lyrics from Springsteen's "No Surrender" -- a regular Kerry campaign tune -- as irresponsible, seemingly endorsing a bad precedent for kids (their lame, brainless criticism has become so pathetically predictable I thought I'd throw them a free bone):
We busted out of class had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school
We busted out of class had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school
Friday, July 30, 2004
I've been writing about how the media coverage of the Dem convention has been anything but slanted to the left. If anything, they've either been overly critical (I hope I see the same from them come the Republican show) or, as Paul Krugman points out today, irresponsibly focused on the trivial. A terrific segment from Krugman's column:
A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."
As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.
A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."
As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.
Realted to my "July Surprise" post below, Josh Marshall writes this,
This is just the latest, but perhaps the most blatant, example of how this administration has placed politics and, really, political dirty tricks above national security itself, and along the way persisted in defining political deviance down until tactics we used to associate with banana republics start to seem commonplace here.
And while we're at it, this is yet another example of how truly important it is that we democratize the Middle East. Because once we have, some of them will be able to come back here and redemocratize us.
Hmm, could Bush & Pakistan be saving the big one (Osama) for the Republican convention? "August Surprise" anyone?
This is just the latest, but perhaps the most blatant, example of how this administration has placed politics and, really, political dirty tricks above national security itself, and along the way persisted in defining political deviance down until tactics we used to associate with banana republics start to seem commonplace here.
And while we're at it, this is yet another example of how truly important it is that we democratize the Middle East. Because once we have, some of them will be able to come back here and redemocratize us.
Hmm, could Bush & Pakistan be saving the big one (Osama) for the Republican convention? "August Surprise" anyone?
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Remember when I wrote this?
Whelp, right on cue, this story just out.
Assuming it's true, Pakistan delivers just in time to steal Kerry's thunder. These guys will stop at nothing....
Whelp, right on cue, this story just out.
Assuming it's true, Pakistan delivers just in time to steal Kerry's thunder. These guys will stop at nothing....
I heard Pat Buchanan this morning (I know, you think all I do during the morning drive is tune into right-wing radio programs). He started with the near-obligatory statements about the convention being a fraud, and how the media has been complicit (though I’ve argued quite the opposite), but then he actually brought up a fairly interesting point.
For what it’s worth, out of the many right-wing talking heads out there, I must say that Buchanan sounds downright lucid and reasonable in comparison. His point was that Iraq appears to be a “cauldron,” an operation that is a mess and very likely will become a much greater mess. Buchanan has stated, “Operation Iraqi Freedom was an unnecessary war.” Yet, he criticizes Kerry for not shooting straight in that Buchanan believes deep down Kerry believes, as the delegates believe, that this occupation is wrong and we should get out. With Kerry telling the American people the contrary, he might be setting himself up for disaster if he wins the election and the Iraq situation takes a significant turn for the worse. Having inherited a disaster, and yet proclaiming in 2004 that he will stay the course, the American people may begin to tag Kerry with their anger, not caring a wit about the prior guy who got us into this mess. It’s a bit like LBJ inheriting the Vietnam War. It’s not like Reagan inheriting Carter’s Iran hostage “mess.”
In that sense, when right-wingers question whether Dems love the country or instead simply love Kerry, I would say if we simply loved Kerry, for the reason above we could urge him not to run. GW created this Iraqi mess, let him finish cleaning it up. On top of that, Kerry will have to clean up the deficit mess. We love our country because despite these things, we go ahead and urge Kerry to run. We know that it will only get worse if GW stays in office.
For what it’s worth, out of the many right-wing talking heads out there, I must say that Buchanan sounds downright lucid and reasonable in comparison. His point was that Iraq appears to be a “cauldron,” an operation that is a mess and very likely will become a much greater mess. Buchanan has stated, “Operation Iraqi Freedom was an unnecessary war.” Yet, he criticizes Kerry for not shooting straight in that Buchanan believes deep down Kerry believes, as the delegates believe, that this occupation is wrong and we should get out. With Kerry telling the American people the contrary, he might be setting himself up for disaster if he wins the election and the Iraq situation takes a significant turn for the worse. Having inherited a disaster, and yet proclaiming in 2004 that he will stay the course, the American people may begin to tag Kerry with their anger, not caring a wit about the prior guy who got us into this mess. It’s a bit like LBJ inheriting the Vietnam War. It’s not like Reagan inheriting Carter’s Iran hostage “mess.”
In that sense, when right-wingers question whether Dems love the country or instead simply love Kerry, I would say if we simply loved Kerry, for the reason above we could urge him not to run. GW created this Iraqi mess, let him finish cleaning it up. On top of that, Kerry will have to clean up the deficit mess. We love our country because despite these things, we go ahead and urge Kerry to run. We know that it will only get worse if GW stays in office.
I continue to laugh at how obviously the Republican powers-that-be sat down weeks ago and decided upon a unified set of talking points to rehash on TV & radio during this Dem convention. All I’ve heard is how this convention is a fraud, how it’s being so controlled, how the speakers are being told what to say (and not say), how they’re not allowing it to turn into the freak show they oh-so desire, etc. This is not surprising. What is a bit more surprising is the degree to which I’ve heard this kind of stuff from the more mainstream, and supposedly liberal, media.
I’ve always known that “liberal media” stuff was for the most part a big fat red herring. While admittedly the mainstream media on average leans more left than the average American, in no way would I say it’s extreme. However, what is extreme is the degree to which those right-wing media outlets are to the right. Using a 50/50 scale, I would say the NY Times leans to the left by say 60%, whereas FOX News and the Wall Street Journal lean to the right by 85+% -- far beyond a moderate 60%!
Anyway, as more anecdotal proof, last night I watched the convention coverage on CNN and Larry King had on former Sen. George Mitchell, David Gergen and Bob Dole as a fairly bipartisan panel (Dole a Republican, Mitchell a Dem, and Gergen has worked for many presidents in both parties). However, in terms of what we heard on the air, most of it was Dole’s cranky rantings of criticism, granted mild when compared to lunatics like Limbaugh or Hannity, but nonetheless Dole received far more air exposure than say Mitchell. And what Gergen had to offer leaned more to the right than left.
Then this morning on Imus, I hear Andrea Mitchell of NBC bring up one bit of criticism after another. (Isn’t NBC the mainstream media?). She poked satirical fun at Sharpton’s speech (which has become an immediate favorite subject of the right-wing), then went on to comment on how controlled everything is and how speeches are being doctored (another RNC talking point), and finally she stated that despite Edwards’ best efforts, there still remains a question on credibility concerning how Kerry/Edwards will protect this country from terrorist attack. Boy, that sounds like real lefty liberal commentary to me!
As for this ludicrous question surrounding the Kerry/Edwards ticket with regards to a lack of credibility when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists, I ask: what exactly would it take for them to close the supposed gap on this credibility issue? You never hear anything specific on this because they don’t have an answer to the question. What did GW offer in this regard prior to 9-11? Prior to 2000? Doesn’t he have perceived credibility on this issue simply because he happened to be president at the time when this tragedy happened and has for the most part, gained credibility just by acting (somewhat) presidential in the meantime? And what would be the most likely credential that people would say should be a requirement concerning this issue? I would venture to say prior wartime experience. In that case, Kerry has it, GW lacks it – end of story.
I’ve always known that “liberal media” stuff was for the most part a big fat red herring. While admittedly the mainstream media on average leans more left than the average American, in no way would I say it’s extreme. However, what is extreme is the degree to which those right-wing media outlets are to the right. Using a 50/50 scale, I would say the NY Times leans to the left by say 60%, whereas FOX News and the Wall Street Journal lean to the right by 85+% -- far beyond a moderate 60%!
Anyway, as more anecdotal proof, last night I watched the convention coverage on CNN and Larry King had on former Sen. George Mitchell, David Gergen and Bob Dole as a fairly bipartisan panel (Dole a Republican, Mitchell a Dem, and Gergen has worked for many presidents in both parties). However, in terms of what we heard on the air, most of it was Dole’s cranky rantings of criticism, granted mild when compared to lunatics like Limbaugh or Hannity, but nonetheless Dole received far more air exposure than say Mitchell. And what Gergen had to offer leaned more to the right than left.
Then this morning on Imus, I hear Andrea Mitchell of NBC bring up one bit of criticism after another. (Isn’t NBC the mainstream media?). She poked satirical fun at Sharpton’s speech (which has become an immediate favorite subject of the right-wing), then went on to comment on how controlled everything is and how speeches are being doctored (another RNC talking point), and finally she stated that despite Edwards’ best efforts, there still remains a question on credibility concerning how Kerry/Edwards will protect this country from terrorist attack. Boy, that sounds like real lefty liberal commentary to me!
As for this ludicrous question surrounding the Kerry/Edwards ticket with regards to a lack of credibility when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists, I ask: what exactly would it take for them to close the supposed gap on this credibility issue? You never hear anything specific on this because they don’t have an answer to the question. What did GW offer in this regard prior to 9-11? Prior to 2000? Doesn’t he have perceived credibility on this issue simply because he happened to be president at the time when this tragedy happened and has for the most part, gained credibility just by acting (somewhat) presidential in the meantime? And what would be the most likely credential that people would say should be a requirement concerning this issue? I would venture to say prior wartime experience. In that case, Kerry has it, GW lacks it – end of story.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Bush is expected to introduce his ideas for a second term between now and the Republican convention. During that time, I believe Kerry – and especially Edwards (VP = attack dog) – need to hammer home Bush’s lack of credibility with regards to any promises or proposals he makes for the next four years.
Bush said many things when he ran in 2000, offering up lots of committed statements and promises, and yet we’ve seen him go back on these campaign pledges time after time (Kyoto, no nation building, etc.). You talk about flip-flopping! And in addition to these many reversals, we have the many lies he’s told (with the rest of his cohorts) over the last 3+ years.
His lack of credibility is astounding and Kerry/Edwards should make this a campaign trail mantra. Anything Bush/Cheney promise should not be believed.
Bush said many things when he ran in 2000, offering up lots of committed statements and promises, and yet we’ve seen him go back on these campaign pledges time after time (Kyoto, no nation building, etc.). You talk about flip-flopping! And in addition to these many reversals, we have the many lies he’s told (with the rest of his cohorts) over the last 3+ years.
His lack of credibility is astounding and Kerry/Edwards should make this a campaign trail mantra. Anything Bush/Cheney promise should not be believed.
"Florida is headed toward being the next Florida."
You still think FLA 2000 was a one-time fluke? Still trust electronic voting machines? I say, "no" and "no." (Please read both stories, scary stuff).
I agree with the Democrats call to have the U.N. observe this November's election (yes, in some ways, we've become a banana republic).
You still think FLA 2000 was a one-time fluke? Still trust electronic voting machines? I say, "no" and "no." (Please read both stories, scary stuff).
I agree with the Democrats call to have the U.N. observe this November's election (yes, in some ways, we've become a banana republic).
Powerful imagery.
The American Friends Services Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization, put out this display of 900 pairs of combat boots which symbolize American casualties in Iraq.
(thanks Centerfield)
The American Friends Services Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization, put out this display of 900 pairs of combat boots which symbolize American casualties in Iraq.
(thanks Centerfield)
Do not become completely distracted by the convention; other worthy news items make their way out, many hoping to duck and weave and not be noticed.
Example, the SEC under big-biz friendly Bush/Cheney has apparently not been able to hire enough people to fill openings. Despite Congress upping the SEC's budget by a whopping $300 mil., and also during a time when you'd think this administration would want to improve the unemployment number via hiring, they have instead chosen to drag their heels on beefing up the arm of government in charge of corporate oversight.
Yeah, I know, a surprise -- go figure.
Example, the SEC under big-biz friendly Bush/Cheney has apparently not been able to hire enough people to fill openings. Despite Congress upping the SEC's budget by a whopping $300 mil., and also during a time when you'd think this administration would want to improve the unemployment number via hiring, they have instead chosen to drag their heels on beefing up the arm of government in charge of corporate oversight.
Yeah, I know, a surprise -- go figure.
More from BC:
"When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
They protected my tax cuts while:
· Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind
· Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training
· 100,000 working families out of child care assistance
· 300,000 poor children out of after school programs
· Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans
· Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.
Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts."
------
Ah yes, and we are still to believe that the GOP would be the party of choice if Jesus were alive today....
"When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
They protected my tax cuts while:
· Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind
· Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training
· 100,000 working families out of child care assistance
· 300,000 poor children out of after school programs
· Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans
· Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.
Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts."
------
Ah yes, and we are still to believe that the GOP would be the party of choice if Jesus were alive today....
It's worthwhile printing segments of Bill Clinton's speech (below). After all, if not for anything else, his performance made me long for the days when we could actually listen to our president and learn something (or two), and not simply feel embarrassed about our leader and be thankful that he made it through a speech with out mispronouncing too many words. Bill's mistake with Monica pales when compared to the many disgraces of Bush/Cheney.
"They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
He's right. They need and desire a split, polarized country. Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest are secretly hoping that Kerry wins. It will return them to the days when they were able to hound Clinton for eight years, spreading hate and picking up many small-minded listeners & viewers who respond to such rhetoric. Because they can't defend on the issues, they do best attacking using labels and names, appealing to base emotions in your more pea-brained American.
"They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
He's right. They need and desire a split, polarized country. Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest are secretly hoping that Kerry wins. It will return them to the days when they were able to hound Clinton for eight years, spreading hate and picking up many small-minded listeners & viewers who respond to such rhetoric. Because they can't defend on the issues, they do best attacking using labels and names, appealing to base emotions in your more pea-brained American.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
This morning, I flipped on the radio and heard Sean Hannity being interviewed on a right-wing talk show. He was breathlessly reciting the RNC talking points regarding the Dem convention, throwing around the "L" word as much as possible and complaining because the event was being overly "controlled" and had not been allowed to turn into a "freak show." He was depressed because he felt it was all staged & fake, as if wolves in sheepskins.
Oh give me a break. There was nothing more repulsively fake than the 2000 Republican convention, where they attempted to hoist on the American people the absurd idea that what looked to be 90% of the faces on TV were minorities -- as if suddenly the Republicans were the tolerant, inclusive, big-tent party. It was a joke! I'm sure Hannity believes that convention was a 100% truthful portrayal of the real GOP, which would just confirm how delusional he can be. If he wants to sling around the "H" word (hypocrisy), in my mind that is the single word that best describes Republicans. Just wait till their convention, you just won't believe your eyes (and ears).
And as for that non-existent liberal media, Salon is out today with just how slanted the media has been against the convention,
"While not openly contemptuous of Kerry, the way so much of the press was of vice president Al Gore in 2000, TV's talking heads had a habit on Monday of spinning things in a slightly negative light."
Oh give me a break. There was nothing more repulsively fake than the 2000 Republican convention, where they attempted to hoist on the American people the absurd idea that what looked to be 90% of the faces on TV were minorities -- as if suddenly the Republicans were the tolerant, inclusive, big-tent party. It was a joke! I'm sure Hannity believes that convention was a 100% truthful portrayal of the real GOP, which would just confirm how delusional he can be. If he wants to sling around the "H" word (hypocrisy), in my mind that is the single word that best describes Republicans. Just wait till their convention, you just won't believe your eyes (and ears).
And as for that non-existent liberal media, Salon is out today with just how slanted the media has been against the convention,
"While not openly contemptuous of Kerry, the way so much of the press was of vice president Al Gore in 2000, TV's talking heads had a habit on Monday of spinning things in a slightly negative light."
Big day yesterday (!). I’m still attempting to come up with some intelligent things to say, but in the meantime why reinvent the wheel -- the following from Josh Marshall:
In any case, there I am a few feet from (Michael) Moore; and it's one of the first times all day when I can think of a question to ask someone where I'm really curious and uncertain as to what the answer will be. So I ask him what he makes of all of this. No attacks on the president. Not even any mention of the man's name. It's like the anti-Michael Moore event. Or rather the non-Michael Moore event. (I caught myself the first time, realizing that hadn't come out precisely as I'd intended.)
Clearly, the guy didn't know what to make of me. And as he breezes by he says, "Oh, Really? I liked it. You don't even have to say it. Everyone knows how bad it is."
Think what you will about Michael Moore or evening one of the convention, I think that sums up precisely what this event is all about and the dynamic on which it's operating. I've seen a slew of articles today arguing that the Democrats must energize their 'base' while not alienating the swing voters John Kerry needs to clinb from the mid-40s past 50%.
But this strikes me as a tired conventional wisdom that has little to do with what's actually happening here.
To be in the hall tonight -- or even to have watched the Democrats closely for the last five or six months -- is to know that that tension or trade-off hardly exists.
When it first occurred to me to write this post I was going to say that partisan Democrats have decided to give Kerry a free hand in appealing to independents and swing voters. But that doesn't get it quite right. That was the case in 1992 when the party's core voters, after twelve years out of the White House, were willing to give Bill Clinton all sorts of leeway with what most viewed as his DLC heterodoxies. But something different is at work here.
Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. The headline of Susan Page's piece in USA Today reads: "Speakers offer few barbs, try to stay warm and fuzzy." But the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.
Perhaps it's a touchy analogy, but like voters who understood the code-words Republicans once (and often still do) used to flag hot-button racial issues they dared not voice openly, these Democrats could hear the most scathing attacks on President Bush rattling through the speeches they heard tonight.
Bravo Josh.
In any case, there I am a few feet from (Michael) Moore; and it's one of the first times all day when I can think of a question to ask someone where I'm really curious and uncertain as to what the answer will be. So I ask him what he makes of all of this. No attacks on the president. Not even any mention of the man's name. It's like the anti-Michael Moore event. Or rather the non-Michael Moore event. (I caught myself the first time, realizing that hadn't come out precisely as I'd intended.)
Clearly, the guy didn't know what to make of me. And as he breezes by he says, "Oh, Really? I liked it. You don't even have to say it. Everyone knows how bad it is."
Think what you will about Michael Moore or evening one of the convention, I think that sums up precisely what this event is all about and the dynamic on which it's operating. I've seen a slew of articles today arguing that the Democrats must energize their 'base' while not alienating the swing voters John Kerry needs to clinb from the mid-40s past 50%.
But this strikes me as a tired conventional wisdom that has little to do with what's actually happening here.
To be in the hall tonight -- or even to have watched the Democrats closely for the last five or six months -- is to know that that tension or trade-off hardly exists.
When it first occurred to me to write this post I was going to say that partisan Democrats have decided to give Kerry a free hand in appealing to independents and swing voters. But that doesn't get it quite right. That was the case in 1992 when the party's core voters, after twelve years out of the White House, were willing to give Bill Clinton all sorts of leeway with what most viewed as his DLC heterodoxies. But something different is at work here.
Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. The headline of Susan Page's piece in USA Today reads: "Speakers offer few barbs, try to stay warm and fuzzy." But the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.
Perhaps it's a touchy analogy, but like voters who understood the code-words Republicans once (and often still do) used to flag hot-button racial issues they dared not voice openly, these Democrats could hear the most scathing attacks on President Bush rattling through the speeches they heard tonight.
Bravo Josh.
Monday, July 26, 2004
A NY Observer editorial echoes what I wrote about on June 30th, discussing the success rate of the taller candidate.
They write, "In five of the past six U.S. Presidential elections, the taller candidate has won." Perhaps technically, but I'd make that six for six (Gore is taller than Bush). Note: Kerry is 4 inches taller than GW.
They write, "In five of the past six U.S. Presidential elections, the taller candidate has won." Perhaps technically, but I'd make that six for six (Gore is taller than Bush). Note: Kerry is 4 inches taller than GW.
Kerry is apparently seeking the help of several Kennedy-associated folks. Such a close alliance may make some Dems sweat a bit, setting Kerry up to be an easy target for the, uh, dreaded "L" word.
Limbaugh and the rest of them have been bashing Kerry with the "Mass. liberal" label long before this revelation. And besides, near zero percent of Limbaugh or Hannity listeners are candidates for switching their vote to Kerry (likewise, a very low percent of Air America listeners likely to switch and vote for Bush). The question then remains of the less than 20% of still undecided voters (80+% are "locked in" to either Bush or Kerry), will this liberal label become like kryptonite as it did for Dukakis?
Given how much GW has tarnished the conservative label, I would venture to say that many (like myself) would be proud to be considered leaning left or, gulp, liberal.
Again, if all you hear on FOX or the right-wing radio shows is the "liberal" word being thrown around -- absent any discussion of the issues -- then you know they got nothin'. You'd think the "boy genius" Rove could do better than that!
Limbaugh and the rest of them have been bashing Kerry with the "Mass. liberal" label long before this revelation. And besides, near zero percent of Limbaugh or Hannity listeners are candidates for switching their vote to Kerry (likewise, a very low percent of Air America listeners likely to switch and vote for Bush). The question then remains of the less than 20% of still undecided voters (80+% are "locked in" to either Bush or Kerry), will this liberal label become like kryptonite as it did for Dukakis?
Given how much GW has tarnished the conservative label, I would venture to say that many (like myself) would be proud to be considered leaning left or, gulp, liberal.
Again, if all you hear on FOX or the right-wing radio shows is the "liberal" word being thrown around -- absent any discussion of the issues -- then you know they got nothin'. You'd think the "boy genius" Rove could do better than that!
Another example of the right-wing avoiding substantive, timely issues (for obvious reasons).
Just in the past month, the seemingly oh-so-intellectual George Will has written about the following bracing, of-the-moment issues: charity work in Congress, Schwarzenegger, Turkey & the EU, the decline of reading in the USA.
Wow, these topics are of burning interest to most Americans! I'm glad Mr. Will is dedicating his time & effort to the cause!!
Just in the past month, the seemingly oh-so-intellectual George Will has written about the following bracing, of-the-moment issues: charity work in Congress, Schwarzenegger, Turkey & the EU, the decline of reading in the USA.
Wow, these topics are of burning interest to most Americans! I'm glad Mr. Will is dedicating his time & effort to the cause!!
Hooray!
As I wrote here on July 19th, it's true, Mike Malloy will be joining Air America Radio on August 2nd.
As I wrote here on July 19th, it's true, Mike Malloy will be joining Air America Radio on August 2nd.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Mediamatters.org reports on another (in a long series of) lie put forth by bonehead Hannity. The subject this time: medical malpractice suits. The target: John Edwards, of course.
Forget the facts, this time around Hannity chooses anecdotal, in-the-family evidence to defend his stance. Gads.
According to the CBO, malpractice-related costs add approximately 2% to overall health spending -- hardly the "astronomical" figure Hannity was gasping about.
What I want to know is by how much does the extreme power of the big pharma lobby escalate healthcare costs? Huh Sean? Just in that bogus, 3AM-voted-upon Medicare bill this lobby likely had tremendous influence, and we know the true cost of that bill was well over $100 bil. more than first fessed up -- or at least five times more expensive than the 2% added to costs due to malpractice.
Also, regarding trial lawyers, they perform before a jury of our peers, a set of citizens that ultimately decides upon these "obscene" awards. Hmm, with that logic, we all should've hated Michael Jordan for his "obscene" salary. Hey, he got what the Bulls were willing to pay, right? Is he to blame? In the end, it's the average Joe & Jane who are to blame, not the trial lawyer; he/she is just doing his/her job.
But, Hannity says things with such frightening certainty that most of his blockhead viewers & listeners just take what he has to say as gospel. (And you can count on lame-o Colmes to comply & behave). It's truly scary.
Forget the facts, this time around Hannity chooses anecdotal, in-the-family evidence to defend his stance. Gads.
According to the CBO, malpractice-related costs add approximately 2% to overall health spending -- hardly the "astronomical" figure Hannity was gasping about.
What I want to know is by how much does the extreme power of the big pharma lobby escalate healthcare costs? Huh Sean? Just in that bogus, 3AM-voted-upon Medicare bill this lobby likely had tremendous influence, and we know the true cost of that bill was well over $100 bil. more than first fessed up -- or at least five times more expensive than the 2% added to costs due to malpractice.
Also, regarding trial lawyers, they perform before a jury of our peers, a set of citizens that ultimately decides upon these "obscene" awards. Hmm, with that logic, we all should've hated Michael Jordan for his "obscene" salary. Hey, he got what the Bulls were willing to pay, right? Is he to blame? In the end, it's the average Joe & Jane who are to blame, not the trial lawyer; he/she is just doing his/her job.
But, Hannity says things with such frightening certainty that most of his blockhead viewers & listeners just take what he has to say as gospel. (And you can count on lame-o Colmes to comply & behave). It's truly scary.
Proof that I attempt "to inform of the truth."
After posting the prospective electoral college map (below), I discovered an AP-type story that disputed the 310-217 margin in favor of Kerry. In contrast with right-wing pundits, I care very much about conveying the truth as accurately as I can so I contacted the source of the data behind the map, electoral-vote.com, questioning this discrepancy. Their reply,
I don't believe them. I'll bet they assigned some cub reporter to write this story and he botched it. I follow this very closely and I doubt I have missed a poll. Even electionprojection.com has Kerry way ahead and that site is rabid Republican.
Just FYI, electionprojection.com has the tally at 327-211 and the popular vote at 51.5%/46.7%, both favoring Kerry.
Sounds about right.
After posting the prospective electoral college map (below), I discovered an AP-type story that disputed the 310-217 margin in favor of Kerry. In contrast with right-wing pundits, I care very much about conveying the truth as accurately as I can so I contacted the source of the data behind the map, electoral-vote.com, questioning this discrepancy. Their reply,
I don't believe them. I'll bet they assigned some cub reporter to write this story and he botched it. I follow this very closely and I doubt I have missed a poll. Even electionprojection.com has Kerry way ahead and that site is rabid Republican.
Just FYI, electionprojection.com has the tally at 327-211 and the popular vote at 51.5%/46.7%, both favoring Kerry.
Sounds about right.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
The map below likely appears very red/pink, which would favor Bush. However, when you add up those numbers in each state, the electoral vote total sums to a significant Kerry advantage -- to the tune of a 310-217 margin. Wow!
It's a reminder that if winning elections took garnering the majority of acreage in the country, well then Bush would have it made.
This map brings to mind a terrific article by Richard Rosenfeld in a recent Harper's, titled "What Democracy? The case for abolishing the United States Senate." (Harper's does not reprint articles online. However, for those interested, I would be willing to type here some key passages from this wonderful piece.)
(Thanks to Oliver Willis for pointing out this map).
Source: electoral-vote.com
It's a reminder that if winning elections took garnering the majority of acreage in the country, well then Bush would have it made.
This map brings to mind a terrific article by Richard Rosenfeld in a recent Harper's, titled "What Democracy? The case for abolishing the United States Senate." (Harper's does not reprint articles online. However, for those interested, I would be willing to type here some key passages from this wonderful piece.)
(Thanks to Oliver Willis for pointing out this map).
Source: electoral-vote.com
The underlying numbers for polls can be so interesting -- and perplexing. Example, with yesterday's poll results, we have seen how dramatically Bush's poll numbers turn around if Cheney were dropped from the ticket, yet reportedly 72% of Republicans, as well as about half of independents, say they want Cheney to remain on the ticket.
The race remains close (49/47 in favor of Kerry) and perhaps reflecting the deep polarization of the country, decided (certain) voters amount to a whopping 83%, i.e. Bush & Kerry are supposedly fighting for less than 1 in 5 up-for-grabs voter. Note also that when you throw Nader into the mix, the lead for Kerry drops from 49/47 to 47/46. I realize these results are statistically insignificant given +/- 3% error, however the movement in the numbers is a tell. I still maintain hope that Nader will finally come to his senses and drop out. The very-Nader-like Kucinich recently endorsed Kerry/Edwards.
Another interesting tid-bit: Cheney's favorable/unfavorable numbers 47/43, Edwards' 52/26 (huge difference vs. Cheney), yet note Hillary Clinton's 56/38. Yes, she has a 56% "favorable" number, ahead of her husband's 54% and Bush's 52%. The fact is many people like her -- despite what you hear from the right-wing media. Yet, Edwards was the better choice given his low 26% unfavorable number vs. Hillary's 38% (she's more polarizing -- not what Kerry needs).
Finally, in terms of individual issues, the only one Bush leads Kerry on: Iraq & terrorism (surprise!). Kerry leads on the economy, health care, education, and, get this, taxes. Given this one-note presidency, if things get woefully worse in Iraq or with a terrorist incident, it should dramatically tip the scales in Kerry's favor.
The race remains close (49/47 in favor of Kerry) and perhaps reflecting the deep polarization of the country, decided (certain) voters amount to a whopping 83%, i.e. Bush & Kerry are supposedly fighting for less than 1 in 5 up-for-grabs voter. Note also that when you throw Nader into the mix, the lead for Kerry drops from 49/47 to 47/46. I realize these results are statistically insignificant given +/- 3% error, however the movement in the numbers is a tell. I still maintain hope that Nader will finally come to his senses and drop out. The very-Nader-like Kucinich recently endorsed Kerry/Edwards.
Another interesting tid-bit: Cheney's favorable/unfavorable numbers 47/43, Edwards' 52/26 (huge difference vs. Cheney), yet note Hillary Clinton's 56/38. Yes, she has a 56% "favorable" number, ahead of her husband's 54% and Bush's 52%. The fact is many people like her -- despite what you hear from the right-wing media. Yet, Edwards was the better choice given his low 26% unfavorable number vs. Hillary's 38% (she's more polarizing -- not what Kerry needs).
Finally, in terms of individual issues, the only one Bush leads Kerry on: Iraq & terrorism (surprise!). Kerry leads on the economy, health care, education, and, get this, taxes. Given this one-note presidency, if things get woefully worse in Iraq or with a terrorist incident, it should dramatically tip the scales in Kerry's favor.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
It's All Partisan!
From Center for American Progress:
House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, yesterday called the actions of Samuel R. Berger "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol" and said his committee will soon begin an investigation into the matter, despite CBS News reporting "law enforcement sources say they don't expect any criminal charges will be filed."
- Washington Times, 7/22/04; CBS News, 7/20/04
VERSUS
In 2003, when he was asked to hold hearings into the administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name, Davis declined, saying, "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book." He had his spokesman claim an investigation into the administration leak "should be conducted by career FBI agents."
- St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/03/03; Roll Call, 9/30/03
If true, what Mr. Berger did is inexcusable. However, one has to question the timing of this leak. This administration has made a habit of using diversionary tactics to take the media's attention off the ball -- in this case, the release of the 9-11 report.
From Center for American Progress:
House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, yesterday called the actions of Samuel R. Berger "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol" and said his committee will soon begin an investigation into the matter, despite CBS News reporting "law enforcement sources say they don't expect any criminal charges will be filed."
- Washington Times, 7/22/04; CBS News, 7/20/04
VERSUS
In 2003, when he was asked to hold hearings into the administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name, Davis declined, saying, "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book." He had his spokesman claim an investigation into the administration leak "should be conducted by career FBI agents."
- St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/03/03; Roll Call, 9/30/03
If true, what Mr. Berger did is inexcusable. However, one has to question the timing of this leak. This administration has made a habit of using diversionary tactics to take the media's attention off the ball -- in this case, the release of the 9-11 report.
More evidence of incompetence? Iraq effort near broke:
The U.S. military has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is scrambling to find $12.3 billion more from within the Defense Department to finance the wars through the end of the fiscal year, federal investigators said yesterday.
The U.S. military has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is scrambling to find $12.3 billion more from within the Defense Department to finance the wars through the end of the fiscal year, federal investigators said yesterday.
Rick Sanctimony
Could Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) be the most dangerous Senator in America? His name seems to pop up whenever there’s an issue that involves “values” or ethics. He was quick to state something about the Sandy Berger issue. And of course, he co-sponsored the marriage act that recently failed in the Senate (which McCain pronounced as “un-Republican”).
Out of curiosity, I reviewed some of the things this guy has said over the past year or so. As I’ve mentioned, he has attempted to become the go-to person in the Senate concerning issues involving “family values” and the like. In other words, his mentor is likely Bill Bennett.
What’s extremely troublesome when you read some of his quotes in past interviews is his language; the way he attempts to express his thoughts appears to qualify as Orwellian doublespeak. He’ll attempt to answer a question in what he states is a frank and up-front manner, yet if you closely read what he says (and I recommend two or three re-readings) it’s very difficult to parse out his true meaning. I’ll give some examples:
"This is an issue that is so important to the foundation of our country. I say often that we can have either one or the other in this country: strong government or strong family. But they are antithetical to each other. The fact that if you do not have strong families in America, you must have strong government to make up for the dysfunction that follows from that."
OK, so here we have a less-government-is-better conservative and yet isn't he saying that if the family "fails," the government needs to step in "to make up for the dysfunction"...? Who decides whether or not you "do not have a strong family" and therefore require the rescue of the government? Your church? The GOP?? It's outrageous how these guys want less government for certain things, but lots of government for others.
When asked about an interview where he appears to place some blame for the Catholic Church scandal on liberals, his answer:
You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
Real clear in his answer, right? It sounds like he's implying that those who are for privacy are in part to blame for priests abusing young boys! More importantly, he never comes right out and bluntly condemns neither the Catholic Church nor the priests for this entire debacle.
Finally, this:
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
So he's for limiting rights and freedoms in this country. Meanwhile, we're over in Iraq spending billions of dollars to bring freedom to that country.
One thing he makes crystal clear:
"They are calling into my office, but not in huge numbers. I have not been hearing from my colleagues that they are being overwhelmed by calls at this point."
Regarding his marriage bill, apparently his constituents -- and much of America -- have other issues as priorities. It sounds like this issue keeps Mr. Santorum, and he alone, up at night.
Finally, it's no surprise that Santorum is very much pro-life, a real zealot when it comes to the abortion issue. However, note that like Bush, when it came to the closely contested race in PA between the pro-choice Specter and pro-life Toomey, guess who Santorum endorsed? Yup, like Bush, he endorsed pro-choice Specter. Again, as I wrote at the time about Bush, politics will be politics and anyone that believes these guys truly care about the issues over their political skins is a fool, plain & simple. As I understand it, the abortion issue is supposed to override all politics, and yet when GW and Rick buckle under political pressures, the pro-life folks are silent. Where's the publicly-expressed outrage from them?
Could Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) be the most dangerous Senator in America? His name seems to pop up whenever there’s an issue that involves “values” or ethics. He was quick to state something about the Sandy Berger issue. And of course, he co-sponsored the marriage act that recently failed in the Senate (which McCain pronounced as “un-Republican”).
Out of curiosity, I reviewed some of the things this guy has said over the past year or so. As I’ve mentioned, he has attempted to become the go-to person in the Senate concerning issues involving “family values” and the like. In other words, his mentor is likely Bill Bennett.
What’s extremely troublesome when you read some of his quotes in past interviews is his language; the way he attempts to express his thoughts appears to qualify as Orwellian doublespeak. He’ll attempt to answer a question in what he states is a frank and up-front manner, yet if you closely read what he says (and I recommend two or three re-readings) it’s very difficult to parse out his true meaning. I’ll give some examples:
"This is an issue that is so important to the foundation of our country. I say often that we can have either one or the other in this country: strong government or strong family. But they are antithetical to each other. The fact that if you do not have strong families in America, you must have strong government to make up for the dysfunction that follows from that."
OK, so here we have a less-government-is-better conservative and yet isn't he saying that if the family "fails," the government needs to step in "to make up for the dysfunction"...? Who decides whether or not you "do not have a strong family" and therefore require the rescue of the government? Your church? The GOP?? It's outrageous how these guys want less government for certain things, but lots of government for others.
When asked about an interview where he appears to place some blame for the Catholic Church scandal on liberals, his answer:
You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
Real clear in his answer, right? It sounds like he's implying that those who are for privacy are in part to blame for priests abusing young boys! More importantly, he never comes right out and bluntly condemns neither the Catholic Church nor the priests for this entire debacle.
Finally, this:
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
So he's for limiting rights and freedoms in this country. Meanwhile, we're over in Iraq spending billions of dollars to bring freedom to that country.
One thing he makes crystal clear:
"They are calling into my office, but not in huge numbers. I have not been hearing from my colleagues that they are being overwhelmed by calls at this point."
Regarding his marriage bill, apparently his constituents -- and much of America -- have other issues as priorities. It sounds like this issue keeps Mr. Santorum, and he alone, up at night.
Finally, it's no surprise that Santorum is very much pro-life, a real zealot when it comes to the abortion issue. However, note that like Bush, when it came to the closely contested race in PA between the pro-choice Specter and pro-life Toomey, guess who Santorum endorsed? Yup, like Bush, he endorsed pro-choice Specter. Again, as I wrote at the time about Bush, politics will be politics and anyone that believes these guys truly care about the issues over their political skins is a fool, plain & simple. As I understand it, the abortion issue is supposed to override all politics, and yet when GW and Rick buckle under political pressures, the pro-life folks are silent. Where's the publicly-expressed outrage from them?
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Tom DeLay has described this Berger incident as a "third-rate burglary." You've got to be kidding me. This two-bit lout has the nerve to pass judgment on someone else? This is the same guy who is currently being investigated for illegal fund raising, who "stole" several district seats from the Dems in Texas via an out-of-the-norm redistricting, who by many accounts spearheaded the Republican-led brawl in FLA in the "stolen" 2000 election, who had the horrible Medicare bill passed at 3AM in the morning, etc. It's a laugh to hear this stalwart beacon of ethics making such a statement.
Tom, a word of advice for your sake: keep a low profile when it comes to anything involving ethics.
Tom, a word of advice for your sake: keep a low profile when it comes to anything involving ethics.
Thanks to recent reports, we now know Iran very likely played a part in 9-11. Prior to this anti-American story, this country has a history of running into trouble with the U.S. (recall, they're one of the three "Axis of Evil"). Now we learn (none too surprisingly) that Halliburton is being investigated for conducting business with Iran while the U.S. had sanctions barring such actions. And who was in charge of Halliburton during much of this time? That's right, Mr. Patriot himself, Dick "F*** You" Cheney.
We'll see if the lame Dems will make hay of this -- as the Repubs have done so with the Berger story.
Of course, for Kerry, this is both good and bad news. Good news for the obvious reasons, but bad news in that it's another demerit for Cheney, putting him that much closer to the rumored exit door on the ticket.
Just thinking out loud, I'm not sure if Bush were to dump Cheney that it would be a big negative for Kerry. While yes, we've seen the poll numbers where Bush gets a big boost with say Powell as VP, yet if Kerry/Edwards played it right, they could score many points with such a dumping. For one, it would be an admission that something went wrong, that Cheney had made mistakes, etc., i.e. all the things Bush adamantly avoided admitting to during the 9-11 hearings (admitting to mistakes). It also serves as a sign of desperation and a lack of loyalty -- something Bush wears like a badge of honor. It further would confirm the "they'll do anything to win" phrase that properly has been attached to the Republican wing. Finally, Kerry would be able to air several effective TV ads showing Cheney's face and listing the many questionable items he has amassed over the years.
Also, don't forget that Powell may very well want no part of that ticket (nor McCain). It's been long rumored he would quickly retire if Bush were to win a second term, and given how badly he's been wounded during his time spent in this administration, his credibility crushed and shredded, one has to wonder if he could stomach it.
We'll see if the lame Dems will make hay of this -- as the Repubs have done so with the Berger story.
Of course, for Kerry, this is both good and bad news. Good news for the obvious reasons, but bad news in that it's another demerit for Cheney, putting him that much closer to the rumored exit door on the ticket.
Just thinking out loud, I'm not sure if Bush were to dump Cheney that it would be a big negative for Kerry. While yes, we've seen the poll numbers where Bush gets a big boost with say Powell as VP, yet if Kerry/Edwards played it right, they could score many points with such a dumping. For one, it would be an admission that something went wrong, that Cheney had made mistakes, etc., i.e. all the things Bush adamantly avoided admitting to during the 9-11 hearings (admitting to mistakes). It also serves as a sign of desperation and a lack of loyalty -- something Bush wears like a badge of honor. It further would confirm the "they'll do anything to win" phrase that properly has been attached to the Republican wing. Finally, Kerry would be able to air several effective TV ads showing Cheney's face and listing the many questionable items he has amassed over the years.
Also, don't forget that Powell may very well want no part of that ticket (nor McCain). It's been long rumored he would quickly retire if Bush were to win a second term, and given how badly he's been wounded during his time spent in this administration, his credibility crushed and shredded, one has to wonder if he could stomach it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Republican who headed EPA criticizes Bush. (thanks Oliver Willis)
Key passage:
Bush's record on the environment was so dismal that he would cast his vote for Democrat John Kerry. "It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," Train said. "I find this deeply disturbing." In 1988, Train was co-chairman of Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of George W. Bush's father.
Key passage:
Bush's record on the environment was so dismal that he would cast his vote for Democrat John Kerry. "It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," Train said. "I find this deeply disturbing." In 1988, Train was co-chairman of Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of George W. Bush's father.
Regarding the Sandy Berger story, from TalkingPointsMemo.com:
However, it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.
Consider the timing.
According to this article in the Post, the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.
The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.
That doesn't mean Berger doesn't have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.
-- Josh Marshall
However, it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.
Consider the timing.
According to this article in the Post, the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.
The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.
That doesn't mean Berger doesn't have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.
-- Josh Marshall
During his monologue last night, Letterman joked about recent reports that Iran -- not Iraq -- had something to do with 9-11, saying "apparently we invaded the wrong country due to a typo."
Funny -- but also not funny.
Funny -- but also not funny.
An update from the gambling front concerning the upcoming elections (as you know by now, I greatly respect the predictive ability of such market-driven devices). Odds greatly favor the Republicans retaining control of the House (currently at about 87% probability), however the Senate is at least a bit more hopeful. While odds still very much favor a GOP-majority there (about 75% probable), the odds have been steadily eroding from a peak of 84%.
Another bright note: the odds of Bush winning another term have plummeted from a high of 75% at the start of the year to the current 50%. That's huge. And perhaps the best news is odds favor Cheney staying on the ticket, at a whopping 87%. Let's hope Dick is watching his diet and remains healthy!
Another bright note: the odds of Bush winning another term have plummeted from a high of 75% at the start of the year to the current 50%. That's huge. And perhaps the best news is odds favor Cheney staying on the ticket, at a whopping 87%. Let's hope Dick is watching his diet and remains healthy!
Krugman today paints a fairly convincing case as to why Bush just might be, as he terms it, "The Arabian Candidate" (playing off the remake of the "The Manchurian Candidate").
Meanwhile, bedlam erupts in Vegas when Linda Ronstadt dedicates a song to Michael Moore. The scene sounds similar to the Republican-led brawl in Florida during the 2000 recount. What did concert goers expect from Ms. Ronstadt? After all, she was part of the "No Nukes/Muse" concert in 1979. I guess folks figured she'd switch sides once she went big band era ala Nelson Riddle -- you go girl!
Meanwhile, bedlam erupts in Vegas when Linda Ronstadt dedicates a song to Michael Moore. The scene sounds similar to the Republican-led brawl in Florida during the 2000 recount. What did concert goers expect from Ms. Ronstadt? After all, she was part of the "No Nukes/Muse" concert in 1979. I guess folks figured she'd switch sides once she went big band era ala Nelson Riddle -- you go girl!
Monday, July 19, 2004
Say It's True!
The White Rose Society has up some terrific news regarding Mike Malloy, if true: "Industry insiders tell us that Mike will have a Show on Air America Radio beginning August 2nd. The show will air from 10pm to 1am ET."
I miss listening to Mike's radio shows. He was as no-holds-bar as it gets concerning criticism of this administration. Yet, he did so by using facts (as compared to Rush, Hannity, etc.). What I loved was the passion in his voice.
He is a true angry liberal!
The White Rose Society has up some terrific news regarding Mike Malloy, if true: "Industry insiders tell us that Mike will have a Show on Air America Radio beginning August 2nd. The show will air from 10pm to 1am ET."
I miss listening to Mike's radio shows. He was as no-holds-bar as it gets concerning criticism of this administration. Yet, he did so by using facts (as compared to Rush, Hannity, etc.). What I loved was the passion in his voice.
He is a true angry liberal!
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Hmm. No relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda & 9-11, however there does appear to be an Iran/Qaeda/9-11 relationship.
Your move, Bush/Cheney. Do we bomb / punish them? What, why not? Not enough oil? They have nukes (WMD)??
Your move, Bush/Cheney. Do we bomb / punish them? What, why not? Not enough oil? They have nukes (WMD)??
It continues to amaze me how such a large portion of less-than-affluent voters will vote for GW. As Bush said at a high-priced dinner (captured in Fahrenheit 9/11), "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." Bush/Cheney couldn't give one hoot about the average American, but the genius is in how they can convey that they do seemingly care. Today's NY Times article is just another item of evidence for the pile. A key quote:
"There's a bit of a dichotomy," said Ethan S. Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers. "Joe Six-Pack is under a lot of pressure. He got a lousy raise; he's paying more for gasoline and milk. He's not doing that great. But proprietors' income is up. Profits are up. Home values are up. Middle-income and upper-income people are looking pretty good."
"There's a bit of a dichotomy," said Ethan S. Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers. "Joe Six-Pack is under a lot of pressure. He got a lousy raise; he's paying more for gasoline and milk. He's not doing that great. But proprietors' income is up. Profits are up. Home values are up. Middle-income and upper-income people are looking pretty good."
Saturday, July 17, 2004
I could be wrong, but a few years down the road look for a backlash to these reports that the lower your cholesterol the better. I do a good bit of reading on health-related matters and statins are more of a controversial set of drugs than most people are aware. For one, they lower levels of CoQ10, ironically a very crucial nutrient for the heart. In addition, it has not been shown whether or not such extreme low levels of cholesterol in humans actually does damage in other areas (i.e. for some bodily functions, cholesterol is needed). Also, we know that statins put stress on the liver -- what will happen longer-term when dosages are increased to get cholesterol down to these new lower levels? Finally, these studies are somewhat questionable given the fact that many of the researchers have received $$ from the pharma firms who produce statins.
Buyer beware.
Buyer beware.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Should the following be a statement made by a U.S. tax-exempt, religious organization?
"I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush."
Guess who? Yup, that non-partisan Falwell. How does a conservative jive separation of church & state (Constitution) with this stuff?
"I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush."
Guess who? Yup, that non-partisan Falwell. How does a conservative jive separation of church & state (Constitution) with this stuff?
Bush & Co. refusing to hand over documents regarding non-compete Halliburton-type deals. The monarchy lives on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)