Thursday, September 09, 2004
Not to get all "X Files" like, but does anyone else get a little upset or unsettled concerning this space probe (Genesis) crash? The craft held billions of solar atoms and again, CRASHED, in a Utah desert. Uh, isn't there even the slight chance that the containers holding the atoms might have ruptured? I have yet to read an article even commenting on this possibility. Who knows what intergalactic solar atoms may do once released into our atmosphere....
Less than a week after the GOP hate-fest was (thankfully) put to rest, the electoral map has begun to swing back in favor of Kerry. The margin is down to 254-243 in favor of Bush. Recall that this map peaked at 280-242 in favor of Bush during the GOP fest, but was already drifting back as soon as the balloons hit the floor at Madison Square Garden.
My other point made at the time was that Kerry held a sizeable electoral vote lead weeks after the Dems convention -- and here we see Bush spitting the bit not less than one week after his big show. Has to mean/say something.... (Get ready for Rove to give the "Capture Osama" order!).
P.S. Need more proof? Click here for the Zogby map, showing a 307-231 Kerry lead. Note: this map is being profiled on the Wall Street Journal web site -- last time I looked, the WSJ was no lefty-leaning operation!
My other point made at the time was that Kerry held a sizeable electoral vote lead weeks after the Dems convention -- and here we see Bush spitting the bit not less than one week after his big show. Has to mean/say something.... (Get ready for Rove to give the "Capture Osama" order!).
P.S. Need more proof? Click here for the Zogby map, showing a 307-231 Kerry lead. Note: this map is being profiled on the Wall Street Journal web site -- last time I looked, the WSJ was no lefty-leaning operation!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I've heard many a liberal cite Pat Buchanan as a conservative that has been against the Iraq war, not holding back with his criticism towards GW & Co.
Here's a bit of his blunt commentary in a recent interview:
Rumsfeld’s query has been answered: we are creating more enemies than we are killing.
Without more American troops and more years of fighting, we will not win this war. We can only stave off defeat.
However, don't make the mistake of believing Pat has switched sides -- he hasn't. When asked on Bill Maher's HBO show whether or not he'd vote for Bush, Pat grimaced and stuttered, not quite answering the question. Yet, it appeared obvious that he was NOT going to vote for Kerry. Here’s the exchange:
MAHER: Does that mean you're voting for Bush?
BUCHANAN: Well, you know, if it comes down to a choice between Kerry, who, you know, really doesn't seem to – he doesn't take a strong stand against the president's policy, like your other guest, Howard Dean, did. I don't know why you would vote for John Kerry, even if you're like Pat Buchanan and you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. On immigration, I think we ought to defend our borders. I think we ought to stop sending those jobs overseas and keep them home. And I think we ought to stop launching imperial wars. [applause]
MAHER: All right.
BUCHANAN: But why vote for John Kerry when he agrees with George Bush on all three of them?
MAHER: I'll take that as a yes. [laughter]
Buchanan has always loved the attention received by being the maverick in the GOP. To his credit, he doesn't simply tow the party line. But when you scratch the surface and cut through the subtleties, he's a fairly devout Republican at the end of the day. When he inevitably pulls the lever for Bush come November, his vote will 100% cancel out any Kerry vote -- and that's all that matters. He can quibble and nit-pick all he wants about how GW shouldn't have done this or that, the proof is in the voting booth.
Finally, if you need any more convincing, go to his web site. Some of the links listed under "Our Favorites" are such lovely folks as Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Oliver North, and Phyllis Schlafly. Need I say more?
Here's a bit of his blunt commentary in a recent interview:
Rumsfeld’s query has been answered: we are creating more enemies than we are killing.
Without more American troops and more years of fighting, we will not win this war. We can only stave off defeat.
However, don't make the mistake of believing Pat has switched sides -- he hasn't. When asked on Bill Maher's HBO show whether or not he'd vote for Bush, Pat grimaced and stuttered, not quite answering the question. Yet, it appeared obvious that he was NOT going to vote for Kerry. Here’s the exchange:
MAHER: Does that mean you're voting for Bush?
BUCHANAN: Well, you know, if it comes down to a choice between Kerry, who, you know, really doesn't seem to – he doesn't take a strong stand against the president's policy, like your other guest, Howard Dean, did. I don't know why you would vote for John Kerry, even if you're like Pat Buchanan and you believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. On immigration, I think we ought to defend our borders. I think we ought to stop sending those jobs overseas and keep them home. And I think we ought to stop launching imperial wars. [applause]
MAHER: All right.
BUCHANAN: But why vote for John Kerry when he agrees with George Bush on all three of them?
MAHER: I'll take that as a yes. [laughter]
Buchanan has always loved the attention received by being the maverick in the GOP. To his credit, he doesn't simply tow the party line. But when you scratch the surface and cut through the subtleties, he's a fairly devout Republican at the end of the day. When he inevitably pulls the lever for Bush come November, his vote will 100% cancel out any Kerry vote -- and that's all that matters. He can quibble and nit-pick all he wants about how GW shouldn't have done this or that, the proof is in the voting booth.
Finally, if you need any more convincing, go to his web site. Some of the links listed under "Our Favorites" are such lovely folks as Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Oliver North, and Phyllis Schlafly. Need I say more?
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Said with a straight face?!
Although several months old, this quote typifies the stupidity of this administration:
In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."
You can't make this stuff up.
(Thanks Al Franken)
Although several months old, this quote typifies the stupidity of this administration:
In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review."
You can't make this stuff up.
(Thanks Al Franken)
Where in the world is Alan?
After writing about McAuliffe's milktoast disposition (below), when thinking of a brilliant, go-for-the-jugular, attack-dog style that could do some real damage to the Republicans, the person that quickly came to mind was Alan Dershowitz. I used to enjoy watching him on the Hardball-type shows at night, but I must ask: where is he? It's like he fell off the face of the planet. Why isn't he on the talk shows anymore, esp. since we know he's not publicity-shy??
After writing about McAuliffe's milktoast disposition (below), when thinking of a brilliant, go-for-the-jugular, attack-dog style that could do some real damage to the Republicans, the person that quickly came to mind was Alan Dershowitz. I used to enjoy watching him on the Hardball-type shows at night, but I must ask: where is he? It's like he fell off the face of the planet. Why isn't he on the talk shows anymore, esp. since we know he's not publicity-shy??
I realize that Michael Moore has warned Democrats from giving in to panic and begin the self-critical and blame domino fest, however I just can’t resist. Trust me, I absolutely understand that this race is FAR from over and anything can happen in the next two months, but at least a few things are already fairly clear.
One, which I have felt strongly about for a long time, is Terry McAuliffe should have been relieved of his duties years ago. Granted, he’s a big-time fund raiser, but that doesn’t mean he should be rewarded with calling the strategic and tactical shots for the party. He should be assigned responsibilities that deal with his expertise: raising money.
My feeling has always been that he’s simply not Karl Rove-ian enough. Do I mean purposefully evil or willing to do anything to win? No. But what I do mean is someone who can go for the jugular, who can conduct the extensive science (yes, science) to figure out what works when it comes to winning elections (Rove is a pro at this), who does not have to be the TV-friendly nice face with pearly white teeth for the DNC but instead more of an in-the-trenches, brilliant, and fiercely competitive force. We just don’t have that with Terry. Oh no? Don’t believe me? Just watch him on TV – he’s about as soft as it gets concerning his “stinging” commentary. He just doesn’t have it in him.
As The New Republic wrote after the 2002 elections, which were a debacle for Democrats:
Most importantly, McAuliffe has been an abysmal party spokesperson. There could be no finer coda to the McAuliffe era than his election night performance on CNN when, with the returns already indicating a GOP landslide, he proclaimed, "I think it's going to be a very good night for Democrats."
Granted, you can’t hang everything on one person, but unlike Bush, you have to start somewhere when enforcing accountability and McAuliffe is an obvious, and overdue, target -- irregardless of what happens in November.
One, which I have felt strongly about for a long time, is Terry McAuliffe should have been relieved of his duties years ago. Granted, he’s a big-time fund raiser, but that doesn’t mean he should be rewarded with calling the strategic and tactical shots for the party. He should be assigned responsibilities that deal with his expertise: raising money.
My feeling has always been that he’s simply not Karl Rove-ian enough. Do I mean purposefully evil or willing to do anything to win? No. But what I do mean is someone who can go for the jugular, who can conduct the extensive science (yes, science) to figure out what works when it comes to winning elections (Rove is a pro at this), who does not have to be the TV-friendly nice face with pearly white teeth for the DNC but instead more of an in-the-trenches, brilliant, and fiercely competitive force. We just don’t have that with Terry. Oh no? Don’t believe me? Just watch him on TV – he’s about as soft as it gets concerning his “stinging” commentary. He just doesn’t have it in him.
As The New Republic wrote after the 2002 elections, which were a debacle for Democrats:
Most importantly, McAuliffe has been an abysmal party spokesperson. There could be no finer coda to the McAuliffe era than his election night performance on CNN when, with the returns already indicating a GOP landslide, he proclaimed, "I think it's going to be a very good night for Democrats."
Granted, you can’t hang everything on one person, but unlike Bush, you have to start somewhere when enforcing accountability and McAuliffe is an obvious, and overdue, target -- irregardless of what happens in November.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Regarding the developing spy case within the Pentagon, this quote from a NY Times story today:
"They have no case," said Michael Ledeen, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a friend of Mr. Franklin. "If they have a case, why hasn't anybody been arrested or indicted?"
Hmm. I could be mistaken but isn't the AEI basically a "home base" for this administration's large group of neocons? I believe so, making this quote meaningless with regards to its objectivity. Also, the fact no arrests have occurred may also have something to do with the guy in charge of the Justice Dept., no?? Ashcroft is not exactly a non-partisan figure (!). In fact, I would argue given the degree to which neocons run things and influence this administration, it's shocking this story broke at all, saying to me anyway that there must be AMPLE evidence of wrongdoing for them to lack the ability to keep this out of the press.
"They have no case," said Michael Ledeen, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a friend of Mr. Franklin. "If they have a case, why hasn't anybody been arrested or indicted?"
Hmm. I could be mistaken but isn't the AEI basically a "home base" for this administration's large group of neocons? I believe so, making this quote meaningless with regards to its objectivity. Also, the fact no arrests have occurred may also have something to do with the guy in charge of the Justice Dept., no?? Ashcroft is not exactly a non-partisan figure (!). In fact, I would argue given the degree to which neocons run things and influence this administration, it's shocking this story broke at all, saying to me anyway that there must be AMPLE evidence of wrongdoing for them to lack the ability to keep this out of the press.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Bush is unwilling to take on escalating health care costs and in many ways is playing a direct role in their escalation (see Medicare bill boondoggle). By all accounts, the lack of robust hiring in this so-called economic recovery can in large part be blamed on high health care costs. Many employers are on record stating their reluctance to take on new workers given the high cost of health care benefits. And a good deal of the hiring that is occurring, when the data is looked at more closely, is actually part time workers and other forms of employment that allow employers to safely escape the offering of benefits. Exclude this form of hiring and the unemployment figure goes way up.
Therefore, if Bush truly cared about doing something that could meaningfully improve the job market, he would pledge to do whatever it takes to get these costs under control, but of course he doesn't because he's in the pocket of all the huge health care corporations. Kerry has already spoken out on this problem, but I don't recall many people listening.
Meanwhile, the Angry Bear presents a very good explanation of how Bush's proposed solution is so ridiculously anemic it's laughable. His solution: medical liability reform -- of course! It's the lawyers to blame! But as the Bear points out,
If tort reform had been passed earlier this year, and every dollar saved from reduced malpractice suits was passed on to consumers, then the effect on the country's health care bill would (with luck) have been to reduce it from perhaps $1,670bn in 2004 all the way down to $1,663bn. Instead of a 7.2% increase in health care costs, we would have been faced with a 6.8% increase in health care costs this year.
<...>
Such figures suggest that tort reform would effectively do absolutely nothing to reduce health care costs in this country.
<...>
In a nutshell, medical liability tort reform is a red herring. Malpractice lawsuits have an insignificant impact on the nation's overall health care spending, and curbing them will do virtually nothing to change the cost of health care in this country. Bush has no interest in policies that would have a real impact on health care costs. His solution is no solution.
Again, this growing problem is severe and significant. It's obviously a reason jobs are being outsourced out of the country, but you'll never hear this administration mention THAT fact. It continues to remain one fat, giant, insidious secret.
Therefore, if Bush truly cared about doing something that could meaningfully improve the job market, he would pledge to do whatever it takes to get these costs under control, but of course he doesn't because he's in the pocket of all the huge health care corporations. Kerry has already spoken out on this problem, but I don't recall many people listening.
Meanwhile, the Angry Bear presents a very good explanation of how Bush's proposed solution is so ridiculously anemic it's laughable. His solution: medical liability reform -- of course! It's the lawyers to blame! But as the Bear points out,
If tort reform had been passed earlier this year, and every dollar saved from reduced malpractice suits was passed on to consumers, then the effect on the country's health care bill would (with luck) have been to reduce it from perhaps $1,670bn in 2004 all the way down to $1,663bn. Instead of a 7.2% increase in health care costs, we would have been faced with a 6.8% increase in health care costs this year.
<...>
Such figures suggest that tort reform would effectively do absolutely nothing to reduce health care costs in this country.
<...>
In a nutshell, medical liability tort reform is a red herring. Malpractice lawsuits have an insignificant impact on the nation's overall health care spending, and curbing them will do virtually nothing to change the cost of health care in this country. Bush has no interest in policies that would have a real impact on health care costs. His solution is no solution.
Again, this growing problem is severe and significant. It's obviously a reason jobs are being outsourced out of the country, but you'll never hear this administration mention THAT fact. It continues to remain one fat, giant, insidious secret.
I realize much of what Drudge conveys as news is often misleading, however I hope this time he's right when he posts:
Bill Clinton spoke with John Kerry from his hospital bed on Saturday night in a 90-minute conversation in which he offered Kerry detailed advice on how to reinvigorate his candidacy... Clinton told Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam... Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in Kerry campaign are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg... Developing...
Drudge also links a story informing us the "October Surprise" is right on schedule:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.
"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.
Make no mistake, Bush/Cheney/Rove have been putting on the blistering heat to get Osama caught. They'll probably want it to happen sometime in the next few weeks. My fear is given how the public will naively suck up this news, I don't know how Kerry counter-attacks it effectively. In raw fashion, it offers up one of the truest advantages held by the incumbent -- mainly because he is the commander in chief.
Bill Clinton spoke with John Kerry from his hospital bed on Saturday night in a 90-minute conversation in which he offered Kerry detailed advice on how to reinvigorate his candidacy... Clinton told Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam... Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in Kerry campaign are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg... Developing...
Drudge also links a story informing us the "October Surprise" is right on schedule:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.
"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.
Make no mistake, Bush/Cheney/Rove have been putting on the blistering heat to get Osama caught. They'll probably want it to happen sometime in the next few weeks. My fear is given how the public will naively suck up this news, I don't know how Kerry counter-attacks it effectively. In raw fashion, it offers up one of the truest advantages held by the incumbent -- mainly because he is the commander in chief.
If you ever wished for a brief nugget to tell you all you need to know about the brain trust writing the editorials at Rupert Murdoch's rag, the NY Post, this from today's edition:
On Thursday night, ABC anchor Peter Jennings felt the need to explain to viewers that two protestors had been forcibly removed by security officers from the floor of the Republican Convention when they tried to disrupt President Bush's acceptance speech.
Jennings seemingly couldn't understand why the Bush-bashers were being escorted out. Weren't they merely exercising their First Amendment rights?
"What they could be charged with, other than political expression, I do not know," intoned the perplexed Jennings.
Did he sleep through 9/11?
Whether you agreed with the right of those two protestors to do what they did Thursday night (and frankly, I felt it was inappropriate), you've got to be kidding me that the editorial is comparing this brief disruption by two, again two, vocal critics and what occurred on September 11, 2001? And to think that some actually take these editorials seriously!
On Thursday night, ABC anchor Peter Jennings felt the need to explain to viewers that two protestors had been forcibly removed by security officers from the floor of the Republican Convention when they tried to disrupt President Bush's acceptance speech.
Jennings seemingly couldn't understand why the Bush-bashers were being escorted out. Weren't they merely exercising their First Amendment rights?
"What they could be charged with, other than political expression, I do not know," intoned the perplexed Jennings.
Did he sleep through 9/11?
Whether you agreed with the right of those two protestors to do what they did Thursday night (and frankly, I felt it was inappropriate), you've got to be kidding me that the editorial is comparing this brief disruption by two, again two, vocal critics and what occurred on September 11, 2001? And to think that some actually take these editorials seriously!
The dialogue with my Naderite friend continues.... My response to her feedback in the "Comments" section of yesterday's post follows:
Ms. K, I respectfully disagree with your contention that my blog sounds like I know all of the troubles of the world. Instead, I believe nearly the entire purpose of my posts involve one thing: stop-gap solutions, for lack of a better description. I have repeatedly stated (to you anyway) that Bush is so extremely bad that what's key right now for the sake of the country is to vote for a better alternative (a better pig?). NOT an ideal, super-duper candidate that has all the right answers to every issue (as I've said, much more so like Nader), but rather one that has a highly-credible chance of beating the truly, extremely awful GW/Cheney. (As much as you may think Kerry is headed to certain defeat, I got news for you: his neck-and-neck polling results versus Bush are at least a tad bit better than Nader's). It's really that simple.
This argument or clarification has more than once gone round the track, but again, the by-far major difference between us is our outlooks on the current political landscape. You/Nader find the two political parties 100% equivalent, both equally bad, toxic, etc., and therefore reject both in favor of Ralph. I disagree feeling that while there absolutely are serious problems with our party system, I find that at this point in our history, NOW is not the time to take an overly-idealistic stance regarding this matter. Thanks to the extremism of GW & Co., I do NOT believe as you and Ralph do that at this point in time the two parties are equal. The percentages do not matter, yet what DOES matter is I find the Dems less repugnant, less damaging, less harmful, less hypocritical, less religious (zealots), etc. etc. Therefore, Kerry (duh) gets my vote.
If we had a Republican Party currently running the show that was just mildly bad, still had moderates with some pull/voice, were at least somewhat reasonable, etc., than I would be much more so with your cause RIGHT NOW. As it is, and as I've said, I agree with nearly everything Ralph says and stands for -- BUT it's a matter of timing. Your railing on and on about how the Dems are just as bad on issue X (put in what you want) as the Repubs is well-meant and frequently accurate, but I believe ultimately misguided given what we may face as an alternative in the next four years.
Whichever one wins (Bush or Kerry), you'll be able to pop off for the next four years with "I told you so" indignation. In effect, you're really not taking a side (at least not a pragmatic one) but instead just effectively condemning and dismissing the whole kit and caboodle, leaving you free and clear to finger point and dictate. You know, I could easily do the same (again, I agree with Ralph) but choose not to for the reasons stated above. In the end, I truly believe I'm taking the more difficult stance / path. Lord knows my "pig" (Kerry) will be imperfect and will be a ripe target for criticism, but 1) I'd rather that imperfect pig over the other one (to use Animal Farm imagery), and 2) if Ralph were to win (!), you know, he'd be ripe for criticism also (he's not perfect!) -- I can elaborate on how this might be so.
Enough for now, but I have a feeling this endless debate will be repeated, fresh with new analogies, metaphors, etc.
Ms. K, I respectfully disagree with your contention that my blog sounds like I know all of the troubles of the world. Instead, I believe nearly the entire purpose of my posts involve one thing: stop-gap solutions, for lack of a better description. I have repeatedly stated (to you anyway) that Bush is so extremely bad that what's key right now for the sake of the country is to vote for a better alternative (a better pig?). NOT an ideal, super-duper candidate that has all the right answers to every issue (as I've said, much more so like Nader), but rather one that has a highly-credible chance of beating the truly, extremely awful GW/Cheney. (As much as you may think Kerry is headed to certain defeat, I got news for you: his neck-and-neck polling results versus Bush are at least a tad bit better than Nader's). It's really that simple.
This argument or clarification has more than once gone round the track, but again, the by-far major difference between us is our outlooks on the current political landscape. You/Nader find the two political parties 100% equivalent, both equally bad, toxic, etc., and therefore reject both in favor of Ralph. I disagree feeling that while there absolutely are serious problems with our party system, I find that at this point in our history, NOW is not the time to take an overly-idealistic stance regarding this matter. Thanks to the extremism of GW & Co., I do NOT believe as you and Ralph do that at this point in time the two parties are equal. The percentages do not matter, yet what DOES matter is I find the Dems less repugnant, less damaging, less harmful, less hypocritical, less religious (zealots), etc. etc. Therefore, Kerry (duh) gets my vote.
If we had a Republican Party currently running the show that was just mildly bad, still had moderates with some pull/voice, were at least somewhat reasonable, etc., than I would be much more so with your cause RIGHT NOW. As it is, and as I've said, I agree with nearly everything Ralph says and stands for -- BUT it's a matter of timing. Your railing on and on about how the Dems are just as bad on issue X (put in what you want) as the Repubs is well-meant and frequently accurate, but I believe ultimately misguided given what we may face as an alternative in the next four years.
Whichever one wins (Bush or Kerry), you'll be able to pop off for the next four years with "I told you so" indignation. In effect, you're really not taking a side (at least not a pragmatic one) but instead just effectively condemning and dismissing the whole kit and caboodle, leaving you free and clear to finger point and dictate. You know, I could easily do the same (again, I agree with Ralph) but choose not to for the reasons stated above. In the end, I truly believe I'm taking the more difficult stance / path. Lord knows my "pig" (Kerry) will be imperfect and will be a ripe target for criticism, but 1) I'd rather that imperfect pig over the other one (to use Animal Farm imagery), and 2) if Ralph were to win (!), you know, he'd be ripe for criticism also (he's not perfect!) -- I can elaborate on how this might be so.
Enough for now, but I have a feeling this endless debate will be repeated, fresh with new analogies, metaphors, etc.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
"Gang of Neocons" apparently caught neck-deep in developing story of espionage
Is it just me or is this story HUGE? The current administration is basically run by neocons and now there is fast-developing story about the top leaders of this group involved in spy games within the Pentagon, etc., apparently at the highest levels. I plan to keep a close eye on this one and my hope is the "liberal" media does the same.
Is it just me or is this story HUGE? The current administration is basically run by neocons and now there is fast-developing story about the top leaders of this group involved in spy games within the Pentagon, etc., apparently at the highest levels. I plan to keep a close eye on this one and my hope is the "liberal" media does the same.
Wow, an absolutely excellent article by Fred Kaplan on Slate.com:
Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.
In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.
Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.
Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.
This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.
What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.
Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.
In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie.
Before moving on to Cheney's speech, we should pause to note two truly weird passages in Zell's address. My favorite:
Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"? Most people call this a "presidential election." Someone should tell Zell they happen every four years; he can look it up in that same place where he did the research on Kerry's voting record ("I've got more documents," he said on CNN, waving two pieces of paper that he'd taken from his coat pocket, "than in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library combined.")
The other oddball remark: "Nothing makes me madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Huge applause line, but is he kidding? The U.S. troops in Iraq are occupiers. Even Bush has said so. If he doesn't understand this, then he doesn't understand what our problems are.
Cheney followed Zell, and couldn't help but begin with … not a lie, but certainly a howler: "People tell me Sen. Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair. [Pause] I said, 'How do you think I got the job?' "
Funny, apparently self-deprecating line, but does anybody remember how he did get the job? Bush had asked Cheney to conduct the search for a vice presidential candidate, and he came up with himself. He got the job because he picked himself.
Later in the speech, Cheney made this comment: "Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger. That thought might have been comforting; it was also false."
Who are these people who thought this? The implication is that it was the Democrats who preceded Bush and Cheney. But it was Bill Clinton's administration that stopped the millennium attack on LAX. It was Clinton's national security adviser who told Condoleezza Rice, during the transition period, that she'd be spending more time on al-Qaida that on any other issue. It was Rice who didn't call the first Cabinet meeting on al-Qaida until just days before Sept. 11. It was Bush's attorney general who told a Justice Department assistant that he didn't want to hear anything more about counterterrorism. It was Bush who spent 40 percent of his time out of town in his first eight months of office, while his CIA director and National Security Council terrorism specialists ran around with their "hair on fire," trying to get higher-ups to heed their warnings of an imminent attack.
"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures," Cheney said. What is an empty threat if not the warnings Bush gave the North Koreans to stop building a nuclear arsenal? What is a halfway measure if not Bush's decision to topple the Taliban yet leave Afghanistan to the warlords and the poppy farmers; to bust up al-Qaida's training camps yet fail to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose name has virtually gone unmentioned at this convention); to topple the Iraqi regime yet plan nothing for the aftermath?
"Time and again Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security," Cheney said. The first example he cited of these wrong calls: "Sen. Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.' " Yes, Kerry did say this—in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s?
The second example of Kerry's wrong calls: "During the 1980s, Sen. Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiative that brought victory in the Cold War." We've been over this—unless Cheney is talking about the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka the "star wars" missile-defense plan. It may be true that SDI played some role in prompting the Soviet Union's conciliation, though it was at best a minor role—and wouldn't have been even that, had it not been for Mikhail Gorbachev. But two more points should be made. First, lots of lawmakers opposed SDI; almost no scientist thought it would work, especially as Reagan conceived it (a shield that would shoot down all nuclear missiles and therefore render nukes "impotent and obsolete"). Second, Kerry voted not to kill SDI, but to limit its funding.
"Even in the post-9/11 period," Cheney continued, "Sen. Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side." A big laugh line, as it was when Cheney first uttered it on Aug. 12 before a group of veterans. But Cheney knows this is nonsense. Here's the full Kerry quote, from an address to journalists on Aug. 5: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
In context, it's clear that "sensitive," a word that has several definitions, is not meant as a synonym for "soft." And Cheney, who is not a stupid man, knows this.
"He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere.
"Sen. Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve," Cheney continued, "as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent countries." No, that's not it. Kerry thinks that other countries should go along with our actions—that a president must work hard at diplomacy to get them to go along with us—because going it alone often leads to failure. Cheney should ask his old colleague Brent Scowcroft or his old boss W's father about this. Or he should simply go to Iraq and see what unilateralism has wrought.
Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.
In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.
Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.
Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.
This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.
What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.
Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
I'm not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.
In other words, it's not just that Cheney and those around him are lying; it's not even just that they know they're lying; it's that they know—or at least Cheney knows—that the same lie could be said about him. That's what makes it a damned lie.
Before moving on to Cheney's speech, we should pause to note two truly weird passages in Zell's address. My favorite:
Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"? Most people call this a "presidential election." Someone should tell Zell they happen every four years; he can look it up in that same place where he did the research on Kerry's voting record ("I've got more documents," he said on CNN, waving two pieces of paper that he'd taken from his coat pocket, "than in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library combined.")
The other oddball remark: "Nothing makes me madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Huge applause line, but is he kidding? The U.S. troops in Iraq are occupiers. Even Bush has said so. If he doesn't understand this, then he doesn't understand what our problems are.
Cheney followed Zell, and couldn't help but begin with … not a lie, but certainly a howler: "People tell me Sen. Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair. [Pause] I said, 'How do you think I got the job?' "
Funny, apparently self-deprecating line, but does anybody remember how he did get the job? Bush had asked Cheney to conduct the search for a vice presidential candidate, and he came up with himself. He got the job because he picked himself.
Later in the speech, Cheney made this comment: "Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger. That thought might have been comforting; it was also false."
Who are these people who thought this? The implication is that it was the Democrats who preceded Bush and Cheney. But it was Bill Clinton's administration that stopped the millennium attack on LAX. It was Clinton's national security adviser who told Condoleezza Rice, during the transition period, that she'd be spending more time on al-Qaida that on any other issue. It was Rice who didn't call the first Cabinet meeting on al-Qaida until just days before Sept. 11. It was Bush's attorney general who told a Justice Department assistant that he didn't want to hear anything more about counterterrorism. It was Bush who spent 40 percent of his time out of town in his first eight months of office, while his CIA director and National Security Council terrorism specialists ran around with their "hair on fire," trying to get higher-ups to heed their warnings of an imminent attack.
"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures," Cheney said. What is an empty threat if not the warnings Bush gave the North Koreans to stop building a nuclear arsenal? What is a halfway measure if not Bush's decision to topple the Taliban yet leave Afghanistan to the warlords and the poppy farmers; to bust up al-Qaida's training camps yet fail to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose name has virtually gone unmentioned at this convention); to topple the Iraqi regime yet plan nothing for the aftermath?
"Time and again Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security," Cheney said. The first example he cited of these wrong calls: "Sen. Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.' " Yes, Kerry did say this—in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s?
The second example of Kerry's wrong calls: "During the 1980s, Sen. Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiative that brought victory in the Cold War." We've been over this—unless Cheney is talking about the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka the "star wars" missile-defense plan. It may be true that SDI played some role in prompting the Soviet Union's conciliation, though it was at best a minor role—and wouldn't have been even that, had it not been for Mikhail Gorbachev. But two more points should be made. First, lots of lawmakers opposed SDI; almost no scientist thought it would work, especially as Reagan conceived it (a shield that would shoot down all nuclear missiles and therefore render nukes "impotent and obsolete"). Second, Kerry voted not to kill SDI, but to limit its funding.
"Even in the post-9/11 period," Cheney continued, "Sen. Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side." A big laugh line, as it was when Cheney first uttered it on Aug. 12 before a group of veterans. But Cheney knows this is nonsense. Here's the full Kerry quote, from an address to journalists on Aug. 5: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
In context, it's clear that "sensitive," a word that has several definitions, is not meant as a synonym for "soft." And Cheney, who is not a stupid man, knows this.
"He declared at the Democratic Convention," Cheney said of Kerry, "that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked." Where in Kerry's speech did he say this? Nowhere.
"Sen. Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve," Cheney continued, "as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent countries." No, that's not it. Kerry thinks that other countries should go along with our actions—that a president must work hard at diplomacy to get them to go along with us—because going it alone often leads to failure. Cheney should ask his old colleague Brent Scowcroft or his old boss W's father about this. Or he should simply go to Iraq and see what unilateralism has wrought.
Parts from Krugman's latest column:
The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it.
The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ.
<...>
There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden.
Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval.
Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).
<...>
Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.
The suggestion that Mr. Soros, who has spent billions promoting democracy around the world, is in the pay of drug cartels came from Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, whom the Constitution puts two heartbeats from the presidency. After standing by his remarks for several days, Mr. Hastert finally claimed that he was talking about how Mr. Soros spends his money, not where he gets it.
The claim that Mr. Soros's political spending is driven by his desire to legalize heroin came from Newt Gingrich. And the bit about the Holocaust came from Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, which has become the administration's de facto house organ.
<...>
There was plenty of hatred in Manhattan, but it was inside, not outside, Madison Square Garden.
Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval.
Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).
<...>
Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Great post by Professor Juan Cole:
Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let's say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You're on the Board of Directors and the CEO's term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That's what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.
And what if you had been working for America, Inc. all your life, and were vested in its pension plan (i.e. social security)? And you heard that the company is now hemorrhaging money and that the losses are going to be paid for out of your pension? What if you thought you were going to get $1000 a month to retire on, and it is only going to be $500? Or maybe nothing at all? Because of the new CEO whose management turned a profit-making enterprise into an economic loser? Would you vote to keep him on?
Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let's say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You're on the Board of Directors and the CEO's term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That's what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.
And what if you had been working for America, Inc. all your life, and were vested in its pension plan (i.e. social security)? And you heard that the company is now hemorrhaging money and that the losses are going to be paid for out of your pension? What if you thought you were going to get $1000 a month to retire on, and it is only going to be $500? Or maybe nothing at all? Because of the new CEO whose management turned a profit-making enterprise into an economic loser? Would you vote to keep him on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)