Public Nuisance |
|
|
Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement. Blog critics Gryffindor House Slytherin House Ravenclaw House House Elves Beth Jacob Prisoners of Azkaban Muggles
Party Animals:
Jewish Bloggers Join >>  
|
Friday, December 24, 2004
This will be my last post for several days, although I'll probably stop in again before the New Year. As a final assault on the personal dignity and religious freedom of any readers who may happen to be Christians, I'd like to wish you all Happy Holidays. Donald Rumsfeld has become the latest VIP to tour Iraq. He did something that I believe every senior Anglo/American official touring Iraq has done for the past year: he entered the country with no prior notice and was gone before his visit could be widely known. The visit will probably help with Rumsfeld's political troubles, but are these hit and run visits supposed to convince us that the project is going well? This layer of surprise seems very much like an admission that even one target, traveling under heavy guard and completely inaccessible to average Iraqis, can't be protected without the further device of secrecy. In only five weeks, we are preparing to hold national elections. Holding such elections successfully means protecting thousands of targets, throughout the country and simultaneously, which have been widely publicized in advance and are fully accessible to ordinary Iraqis. Is there even a slight rational basis for believing this can be accomplished? Department of Unintentional/Unconscious Self-Satire This morning, the high court considered whether King County -- the state's largest and a stronghold for Gregoire -- should be allowed to add to the recount 723 ballots that weren't counted originally because of mistakes by county election workers.... A Pierce County Superior Court judge on Friday granted the state Republican Party's motion for a temporary restraining order to stop King County from counting the newly discovered ballots. King County, the state Democratic Party and the secretary of state appealed that ruling. Unless the Pierce County order is reversed, Democrats argued, voters will be disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Republicans countered that the real harm would be if the newly discovered ballots are allowed to be counted so long after the election. Seattle Times, 12/22/04 After a bruising election and two recounts, Democrat Christine Gregoire emerged as the winner by a 130-vote margin in Washington state's astonishingly close governor's race.... Gregoire's lead in the statewide hand recount widened from 10 to 130 today after a state Supreme Court decision allowed King County to reconsider 732 mistakenly rejected ballots.... Gregoire said she was not declaring victory and would not ask Rossi to concede. Outside the Capitol, dozens of Republican protesters chanted "Count all votes!" Seattle Times, 12/24/04 Saturday, December 18, 2004
Good news for parents who have excess infants lying about: thanks to an innovative new EPA program, you can now poison those unwanted brats and earn exciting prizes, including cash, T-shirts, and even a camcorder. This nation, which once was deservedly both the envy and admiration of almost all the world, is now governed by people who actually think this is a good idea. You really don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Mark Kleiman is willing to buy the explanation the the recent Istook/not-Istook provision snafu was probably just an innocent accident. I'm not prepared to be so generous. There are a few problems with Mark's position. A minor one is that he dismisses the spin as "far too complicated to be an effective political response" and therefore probably true. That seems to be an argument that rather contradicts itself. If the official explanation is one that a skeptical, even outright hostile, observer like Prof. Kleiman is ready to go for, it seems to be a pretty effective response. There's a more serious and substantial argument found in the language of the bill itself. The provision was supposedly intended merely to enable Congressional oversight. Oversight is traditionally, and for very good reasons, a bipartisan responsibility. I'd be willing to yield to a real expert in this topic, which I make no claim of being, but I know of no instance where existing law relegates oversight authority solely to the majority party. Even in the area where it would be most natural, briefing Congressional leaders on intelligence operations too sensitive to reveal to the general Intelligence Committee membership, the practice is to brief both the Chairman and the ranking minority member, although this doubles the possibility of a leak. Compare the language of the proposed amendment: "Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein." That grants sweeping, unrestricted powers to the majority - and nothing whatsoever to the minority. The aggressively partisan nature of the grant persuades me that those who wrote it knew and intended what they were doing. The claim is that the new bill grants the Appropriations Committees "similar powers to enter IRS facilities and examine tax returns as are now available to the tax-writing committees of the two chambers". But are the existing powers really granted exclusively to the majority? And if extending the same access was the purpose, why not just incorporate the language that granted those rights from earlier legislation? Finally, even if Prof. Kleiman is right about this bill and I'm wrong, criticism of the Republican leadership in this instance is still entirely justified, not only politiically but morally. The excuse for the provision being in the budget reconciliation bill in the first place has been simply that 'the system is broken'. But the current system, in which huge, complex bills are extensively rewritten in secret proceedings, numerous provisions inserted without any lawmaker having to be publicly accountable for the insertions, and the whole mess then sent to the floor and voted on before the membership has had time to examine what's in the bill, is one that was designed by the current leadership and has been used repeatedly for just this purpose - inserting unpopular provisions into laws and getting them enacted. For just one recent example, the Bush rules eliminating overtime for millions of workers were rejected in an open vote - giving vulnerable Republicans the ability to tell their constituents they had voted against the rules - then quietly inserted into an unrelated bill. Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Looking at the nearly-final electoral map, the most striking thing is how firmly lines have been drawn. So far, the only state that has switched from 2000 is New Hampshire. Florida, which Bush had to steal in 2000, he seems to have won honestly, making the generous assumption that the count there, including counts from electronic machines, was legitimate. Iowa and New Mexico, extremely close for Gore in 2000, seem to have gone extremely close for Bush this time. But they don't actually count; only Ohio matters at this point. However, we have to accept that the election is probably a lost cause. Bush has a current lead and, as the overtime starts up, has the same advantages he had in 2000: an initial lead (much larger than before), a total lack of scruples, a GOP Secretary of State, GOP Governor, GOP state legislature, and, if he needs a last minute miracle, GOP Supreme Court. He'll find a way to win. Update: As I was writing, news came through that Kerry has conceded. So what comes next? The Democrats now have a choice: whether to go along as in 2001 - 2003 or actually be an opposition party and oppose. Clearly, the grass roots and most of the party will support real opposition. However the main forum for real fighting in the near future will be the Senate, and a relatively small number of defections would mean de facto no serious opposition. Monday, November 01, 2004
Our GOTV efforts seem to be reaching saturation level. In calling Ohio today, I repeatedly spoke to people who said they had gotten several calls in the last few days; others didn't say it directly but acted as if such calls were expected and getting tiresome. I just hope we're doing as much for Senate candidates. We have the potential to take back the Senate tomorrow, but it will take a strong GOTV effort, and only 3 of 10 seriously competitive races are in swing states; the rest are all in states that are strongly red. The house appears to be out of reach, but with huge turnout a surge that takes it back is an outside possibility. My final pre-election prediction: I still think that it's Kerry, and not as close as people are predicting. I'm calling both FL and OH for Kerry, with a final of 325 - 213 in the EC. Friday, October 29, 2004
One part correction, two parts self-satire: the following is an actual correction from the Wall Street Journal, as pointed out by BOP. "Corrections & Amplifications" News Corp.'s Fox News was incorrectly described in this article as being sympathetic to the Bush cause. Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Final Stretch Only a few days left now, and it's unlikely that anything will happen to significantly change the face of the campaign before D-Day. My own feeling is that prospects are looking very good. An incumbent generally loses the undecided voters who break in the final days of a campaign, so he's in trouble if he can't muster 50%. Bush is consistently below 50% in every state Gore wone and New Hampshire. If Kerry takes those, he starts with a base of 264 electoral votes and needs only 6 more. Bush only rarely breaks 50% in OH, FL, and CO - all three are very much in play, but Bush will likely need to win all three. And even if he does, there is another potential Kerry victory if he can grab the two small states of WV and NV. In NV, the polls are mixed as to the 50% number; Bush leads in all recent polls but the margin is consistently small. WV seems to have been conceded to Bush; oddly, there are no recent polls for the state, although the polls taken through mid-October are consistently close. There are other states, such as AR, AZ, MO, and VA, where a Kerry upset is possible, but recent polls in these states are trending towards Bush. But if Kerry holds his base states and pulls out only one of these four, which is certainly doable, it's a Kerry win. So the electoral math hasn't moved much from where it was when I looked at this just after the Democratic convention. If Kerry can win the Gore states and NH, which it seems he can, there are a lot of other states in play and Bush virtually needs to win every one. All signs point to a monster turnout, and that has to help Kerry. It isn't just the polls; we now have early voting numbers from several states, including FL. And the numbers look pretty consistent: early voting is way up from 2000, and it is up especially among Democratic groups and in Democratic counties. The number of new voters is going to be huge, they will break heavily against Bush, and they are being undercounted by pollsters. My prediction on the popular vote is a large Kerry margin: 7.5 to 8.5 million votes. It's pretty clear now that the various spin lines used to explain away the explosives stolen from Al Qaqaa are all phony - the footage that shows the 82nd Airborne examining the material is pretty solid. But really, it wouldn't even be relevant if the materials had been proven not to be there when the Airborne arrived. The following facts are all undisputed:
Thanks to George Bush's incompetence the chance of a nuclear or dirty bomb being detonated, in NYC, DC, or perhaps Tel Aviv, have risen significantly. Which really makes you wonder about Bush apologists like Giuliani and Hume, now busily lying to blame Bush's latest blunder on Kerry, or the UN, or the soldiers, or anybody else not actually responsible. Sure, these guys are used to lying about Bush's policies, and that makes a certain amount of cynical, amoral sense. If you know you are part of the small elite that will profit from Bush's tax cuts, and you have no integrity, it's reasonable to try to trick the great unwashed who stand to gain nothing into believing that Bush is helping them. Have they just gotten so used to lying that they never even noticed when they crossed the line from lies that line their pockets to lies that could get themselves, their families, and their friends killed? Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Summer radio ratings are now coming out city by city and show generally strong results for Air America. The most impressive result has been in San Diego, where Air America affiliate KLSD jumped up from dramatically. What makes that extraordinary is that AAR started in San Diego around September 1, meaning that only 1/3 of the period shown is AAR. Assuming that the old format continued to draw its old rating, that would extrapolate to about 4.6 for AAR in its very first month, a number that would mean it hit the ground as already a market leader - only one FM station in San Diego drew better ratings than 4.6 in the summer book. That's comparable to the fast start AAR had in Portland, but more impressive since San Diego is a conservative area that consistently votes Republican. Randi Rhodes is already saying she has the #1 rated show in the 25 - 54 demographic for San Diego. Flagship station WLIB in NYC had a slight increase in total ratings, up 0.1. But an article in the right wing NY Post shows that its 25 - 54 numbers are stronger. WLIB also showed improvements in suburban markets around New York, rising from 0.6 to 1.1 in Nassau-Suffolk, 1.5 to 1.9 in Westchester, and 0.0 to 0.4 in Northeast NJ (Middlesex-Somorset-Union). No summer ratings are out yet for Portland, but a Clear Channel executive who spoke before Al Franken's recent show in San Francisco said that the trends (preliminary ratings data released only to industry insiders) showed that the summer numbers for KPOJ were likely to improve on the blockbuster spring ratings. WHAT in Philadelphia carries less AAR programming on a weak signal, and also had no AAR for most of the summer. It still doubled the low ratings number from the spring. The only exception was Albaquerque where WABQ showed no ratings change at all. I have no information on whether the key demographic numbers have improved. It should be noted that the ratings listed here are 12+, i.e. all listeners 12 or older. These ratings are available for free on the internet because they don't really matter. What advertisers look for is specific age groups, especially the 25 - 54 grouping. Arbitron publishes these numbers for paid subscribers only, but they aren't on the net and are difficult to find out; Arbitron doesn't like having them publicized. It is known that, generally speaking, Air America has so far done much better in the 25 - 54 demo than in the published 12+. Conservative talk radio has a large 55+ audience so does better in 12+ than in 25 - 54. So if you see an article that cites the published 12+ numbers to prove AAR is failing, know you are being spun. Friday, October 15, 2004
Not So Swift Vet Tonight's Nightline sent a crew to Vietnam where they actually interviewed Vietnamese soldiers who fought against John Kerry in the batle where he earned a Silver Star and civilian witnesses. Long story short: Kerry's account is truthful and the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are, you guessed it, lying liars. After the story, Koppel brought on John O'Neill who waved books at the camera, refused to answer questions, and generally looked like a complete embarassment. He lied about everything - he even lied about the previous books written about John Kerry, which he referred to seven different times as 'autobiographies'. It was an embarassing performance. Thursday, October 14, 2004
Did Jake Read the Memo? Get up Jake It's late in the morning The rain is pouring We got work to do. Get up Jake No need for lying You tell me that you're dying but I know it's not true. -Robbie Robertson ABC reporter Jake Tapper apparently lacks the energy of late to read his e-mail. ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin recently sent out a memo urging journalists not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that" when discussing inaccuracies in the candidates' statements. One might think that Tapper, whose job includes doing fact checks on campaign speeches, might pay attention. But consider the 'fact check' that Tapper posted on Tuesday. (I saw essentially the same material on the ABC News broadcast, I believe on Monday.) Tapper starts out with a familiar lie: Bush's claim that Kerry is the most liberal Senator. He also, to his credit, points out that this lie has been repeated many times, in fact being an element of Bush's standard stump speech. He then refers to Bush's misrepresentation of the Lewin Group's analysis of Kerry's health care plan, pointing out that Bush overstates by 25% how many people would, according to author John Sheils, go onto Medicaid. Bush, incidentally, repeated this same falsehood in last night's debate: "The Lewin report accurately noted that there are going to be 20 million people, over 20 million people added to government-controlled health care." Since the report states that 25 million more people will get health care under the Kerry plan, this is the same lie. But Tapper's fact check for last night's debate ignored that lie, as it ignored Bush's repetition of the lie that Kerry is the most liberal Senator. Next up, Tapper starts criticizing Kerry. But what Kerry statement does he find to correct? On Monday in Sante Fe, N.M., Kerry unleashed a new line of attack against the president on why gas prices are so high. "One big reason is because of this president's gross mismanagement and miscalculation regarding the war in Iraq," Kerry said. "There are a host of other reasons at play here," said Seth Kleinman, an energy markets specialist at PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. "There are issues in Russia, there's rampaging Chinese demand growth, there's a lack of tankers, a shortage of refinery capacity, so it's not exactly accurate to lay all of the blame on expensive gasoline on the war in Iraq." In fact, Iraq is currently producing less oil than it did before invasion, and estimates it needs about $6 bn to return to prior output levels. Unless you believe that supply and demand is a liberal fantasy, that means that the problems in Iraq are, in fact, a significant factor in the recent oil price increases. Yes, there are other causes - but Kerry said "one big reason", not "the only reason". Kerry's statement is completely accurate. Yet Tapper labels it a "misrepresentation", while Bush's lie about medical coverage is given the weaker label, "discrepancy". Tapper is not an idiot and is fluent in English. He knows perfectly well that Kerry told the truth, but feels the need to list a Kerry misstatement to go with the Bush lies. Even if he has to make one up. Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The main difference between Andrew's satire of H. P. Lovecraft and the real thing is that Andrew's is far better. Lovecraft is actually one of the more overrated authors I've ever read. So Where is the Video? One more step in the Republican Party's continuing campaign to make it absolutely impossible to tell the difference between real news and satire: Oklahoma Senate candidate Tom Coburn is taking on the new issue of teen lesbians. The Republican Senate candidate in Oklahoma warns of "rampant" lesbianism in some schools in the state in a tape released Monday by his Democratic opponent.... In the tape released by the campaign of Brad Carson, the Democratic candidate, Coburn says a campaign worker from Coalgate told him that "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?" Joe McCulley, school superintendent in Coalgate, chuckled when asked about Coburn's remark. "He knows something I don't know. We have not identified anything like that. We have not had to deal with any issues on that subject -- ever," McCulley said. Now, as a hetero male myself, I am well aware that many of us spend more time contemplating hot teen lesbian action than is strictly necessary. Indeed, almost every day I receive e-mail premised on this very fact. But at least when running for office, it has traditionally been considered bad form to discuss this particular interest in public. Mr Coburn, however, clearly feels that the time for action - what action is unclear - on teen lesbianism has arrived. After all, if nothing is done now, these young women may soon move to Florida and take up pool. (Thanks to Kos.) Monday, October 11, 2004
I'm sure all of us are relieved to learn that George Bush wants the judges he appoints to be anti-slavery - I guess that's what compassionate conservatism is all about - but Bush managed to reach his normal levels of incoherence even in criticizing slavery. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. Atrios was only half right in asserting that the Dred Scott case was based on racism rather than property rights. There were two major findings in the decision: the first was that Scott, or any other black man, could not be a citizen or have any rights that the federal government recognized: 4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. 6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. 7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. The second ruling, which was squarely based on property rights, was that Congress had no power to ban slavery from any territory it administered. 3. The United States, under the present Constitution, cannot acquire territory to be held as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fits it to become a State, and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population which, in the judgment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted as a State of the Union. 4. During the time it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United Statesand may establish a Territorial Governmentand the form of this local Government must be regulated by the discretion of Congressbut with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property.... 3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. 4. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. 5. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitutionand the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to freedom. But Bush was quite wrong in asserting that this was some fantastic or indefensible activist interpretation of the Constitution. There was a reason why the great abolitionist Garrison shocked a Fourth of July rally in 1850 by publicly burning a copy of the Constitution. The Constitution, as it stood before the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments, was indisputably a pro-slavery document. In fact, the Dred Scott majority was quite explicit in making the defensible claim that they were defending the original intent of the document against the liberal interpretations of abolitionists. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.... No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Bush is equally on thin ice in asserting that the Pledge of Allegiance decision is an instance of activism. On the strict reading of the language of the First Amendment, the Pledge is almost certainly unconstitutional. But Bush is making it pretty clear that when he says 'strict constructionism' he actually means 'any decision I like'. Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Good 2, Evil 0 The big media boys give solid explanations of why last night was a victory for Kerry/Edwards here and here. The key point is that of the four men who have debated so far, Bush definitely looks like the one who doesn't belong in the picture. The other three were all able to give coherent explanations of their positions while Bush grimaced and stammerred. Also, while Cheney did do a few things to fire up the base, he did remarkably little to promote Bush; Edwards kept his eye on the ball and repeatedly pushed Kerry. It's the advantage of being an experienced lawyer - unlike Cheney, John Edwards last night never forgot who his client was. In some ways, it was less successful than it could have been. In both debates, Bush and Cheney claimed that the vote against the $87 billion was a betrayal of the troops, and Kerry's supporting one bill for the money and opposing another was an obvious flip flop. I am at a complete loss to explain why neither Kerry nor Edwards has pointed out that Bush opposed the version that Kerry supported - by his own standards, Bush has betrayed our troops and Kerry/Edwards won't mention it. Also, Cheney left a fat opening when he talked about how the atmosphere in Congress was more congenial and bipartisan when he was in it. Edwards should have pointed out that this was under a Democratic leadership, and invited voters to bring back that era by returning a Democratic majority in Congress. Minor landmark last night: it seems that for the first time, Mary Cheney and her life partner were allowed to go on stage for the traditional family greetings after the debate. Monday, October 04, 2004
Best Laugh of the Day Right wing gay-hating Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave has a web site for her current campaign, musgrave2004, that's filled with decent hate-filled Christian material. But it seems she forgot to keep registration paid up on her last campaign website, which normally means that the site will go back to the internet host, who in turn will sell it to the highest bidder. And if a site is drawing decent traffic, you never know who might want to buy it. Oops. More on this new trend here. Sunday, October 03, 2004
The post debate polls are interesting. Polls taken the night of the debate did show Kerry winning by solid but modest margins: 45-36 (ABC), 44-26 (CDS), 53-37 (CNN). But a few days later, it's a runaway: 61-19 (Newsweek), 54-15 (LAT). And a new series of polls show that the debate has paid off, with Kerry tied or narrowly in the lead. Actually, this debate was a complete success for the good guys. The pre-debate expectations were low (Al Franken was bragging about that on Friday), Kerry came through strongly in the debate, and the post debate spin game, including a nice video that was up Friday morning on the DNC home page, sealed the victory. The next phase will have different challenges. Edwards will face high expectations on Tuesday, expectations that will be tough to meet. But he was chosen over any number of other candidates (Clark, Biden, Graham, Richardson) who clearly were better prepared to take over if a catastrophe happens on January 21 on his speaking skills, so it's time to show them. Cheney has weaknesses on Halliburton, several very public misstatements, his own close involvement with a string of failed policies, and his continued insistence against all evidence that Saddam Hussein was tied to 9/11. Edwards has to open him up on some of those to keep momentum going into the third debate. The third debate will be an interesting performance. The expectations spin for the third debate will be that Bush is an accomplished debater who had an inexplicably weak performance and is sure to come roaring back. It has the advantage of being, at least arguably, true. The pressure will be on Bush rather than Kerry. Bush certainly responded well to pressure after 9/11, and gave by far the best speech of his life. On Friday, the challenge will be more personal and, obviously, he'll have to work without a teleprompter. My own feeling is that Bush is fundamentally a small, mean man who won't be able to rise to the occasion. But I'll have the opportunity to find out if that's character insight or just my irrational Bush hatred. The Message Some selected Bush phrase counts from Thursday night:
The Republican propaganda machine functions by repeating the same ideas over and over again. But when it's done properly, the speaker works the talking points into a statement, making them sound like observations rather than talking points. When it's done this crudely, the propaganda element is laid bare and too obvious to be effective. In particular, repeating not merely the same ideas but the same exact words over and over again was what made Bush so ineffective on Thursday. He sounded like a telemarketer who sticks to his script and can't actually say anything else. For Kerry, this was a complete victory because he accomplished exactly what he needed in this debate. He stood next to Bush and looked more presidential, more secure, more knowledgeable. Friday, October 01, 2004
Mexed Missages You cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win. And I expect to win. It's necessary we win. George Bush, 09/30/04 I don't think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. George Bush, 08/30/04 Thursday, September 30, 2004
As several others have noted recently, the televised 'debates' are a lot like gymnastics: the outcome is determined not by the competitors but by the judges, who in this case are the media. That worked well for Bush in 2000. After a very poor performance in which he lost ground in overnight polls, Bush was propelled forward by negative commentary on Al Gore's dreadful misconduct during the debate (his main offense was breathing) and received by far the largest post-debate surge in history. With the media engaged in a crusade against Gore, almost the only way Bush could have failed in 2000 would have been to spend the debate drinking from a whiskey bottle and pass out onstage halfway through. It won't be so easy for Bush this time. The refs are likely to actually call him on any blatant foul. While still cringing in fear of the right's slime machine, they are belatedly noticing that wrecking the country actually does have consequences. I think the debate is likely to go well for Kerry because it will be something of a replay of 1980: most of the country continues to be dissatisfied with Bush, but he has been successful so far in reducing Kerry as an alternative. The debate, starting with the traditional handshake which will show Kerry's height advantage of about 5 inches, puts them on an equal footing. Kerry only has to come off as an acceptable choice to pull enough of the undecideds and Bush's weak support over. Sunday, September 26, 2004
I noted a few posts below that Air America still isn't on the air in the Bay Area, although there are multiple right wing talk stations here. It's now all but official that that will be changing within days. Air America will be coming on Tuesday to KABL 960, which will be renamed KQKE. There are continuing reports that it will also soon be on the air in Boston. Since that earlier post, AAR has also added new stations in Atlanta and Phoenix, as well as Rochester and one other small market. The Atlanta and Phoenix stations are both reportedly weak signals, but KABL has a solid signal that is easily heard through the core Bay Area. I still think that liberal talk is a perfect fit for this market and likely to be a smash hit. By January I expect KQKE will be no worse than 2nd among local AM stations. Knocking off #1 KGO will be tough; they've been the leading station here for decades and have advantages including a major advertising budget and a monster signal - it isn't unusual for their local shows to get call-ins from as far as Oregon. KABL is owned by Clear Channel and, as with almost every other CC station that has picked up Air America, they will reportedly drop 'Unfiltered' to carry the non-AAR Ed Schultz show. Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Politcal Animal recently posted: Now, I happen to agree with Tomasky that Republicans generally go for the jugular more effectively than Democrats, but it's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude — although it is — but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. There are two basic problems with this. For starters, just what is the 'Republican position' on national defense that voters prefer to the Democratic one? Both parties want to build up the military and fight a war against terrorists. Such distinction as there is comes from Iraq, although even that is blurred: Bush hasn't offered much of a plan beyond 'stay the course' and Kerry hasn't offered much of anything. His plan to bring in other countries to share the burden was workable at one point; now the ugly reality is that there probably is no good option. The main difference, although Kerry has allowed Bush to obscure it, is that Bush still says, and may actually believe, that starting the Iraq war was a good idea. Why is there still significant support for the war? A recent report (pdf) on public opinion and Iraq makes it pretty clear: Such beliefs are highly correlated with support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Among those who believed that Iraq had WMD 81% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought it had a major WMD program 49% believed it was the right decision. Among those who thought that Iraq only had some WMD-related activities only 21% thought war was the right decision, and for those who thought there was no such activity just 8% thought it was the right decision. Likewise, among those who thought Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, 73% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought Iraq was giving al Qaeda substantial support 69% thought this was the right decision. But among those who thought there were only a few contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, 21% thought war was the right decision; and among those who thought there was no relationship at all, only 16% saw war as the right decision. In other words, making the rather plausible assumption that support for Bush's war correlates to support for Bush's candidacy, we have about as clear a demonstration as you could ask for: Republicans do in fact "fool people into voting for them". Those who believe inaccurately that there were Iraqi WMDs and an Iraqi connection to 9/11 support the war. Those who know these claims are false oppose it. Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Is it the Apocalypse? Atrios has now not posted for over 24 hours, in fact about 33.5 and counting. While there is no confirmation at this time that the world is ending, nothing short of a major global disaster such as giant comets striking the Earth or Bush stealing another election is known to cause such unprecedented behavior. Update: Apparently it was Blogger, not Atrios, that was behaving oddly. When I wrote the above, I had just visited the site and found no posts since yesterday morning; I just looked at the site again and counted 12 posts dated between what had previously shown as the most recent and when I wrote, then stopped counting with a few left. Sunday, September 12, 2004
There has been some controversy regarding the explosion of aggressively right wing media and the lack of similar liberal outlets. Was the reluctance of the media to air progressive voices a result of corporate control or a response to the market? Would the corporate media air a liberal voice that could make a profit? The early history of Air America can be read on either side of this debate. AAR hurt itself significantly with a shaky start where it was on the brink of bankruptcy and fired several key executives. That bad beginning might well have killed it off had not early ratings exceeded even most optimistic forecasts. In spite of strong ratings, AAR is not yet getting into most of the top markets. Currently the network claims 28 affiliates, but that number is a bit deceptive; quite a few of those stations only air one or two AAR programs; generally Al Franken and/or Randi Rhodes. Several stations which do broadcast significant AAR content are in tiny markets such as Key West, Chapel Hill, Plattsburgh, Anchorage, and Santa Cruz. Recently AAR did add Philadelphia to its stable, but whether that is actually good news is debatable. They're on a small station with a weak signal, and the station is only broadcasting Franken and Rhodes. Presumably AAR wouldn't have gone for that unattractive offer if anything better was in the offing. Yet Philadelphia is still the only top 15 market, other than the flagship station in NYC, where AAR is heard. At present, AAR is heard in 9 of the top 50 markets (including Philadelphia), but that number has been growing. In fact, it could easily grow tomorrow; AAR has added stations each of the last several weeks. That's solid market penetration for such a new entity, but it could be better. The large and extremely liberal San Francisco market is in the absurd position of having multiple talk stations going after the minority of hard core righties and not a single station catering to the liberal majority. The same is true of equally liberal Boston. Several major markets are rumored to be gaining AAR outlets in the near future; SF and Boston are among them. Oddly, Seattle doesn't seem to be, although AAR's ratings in the similar Portland market have been nothing short of sensational and are the main reason that so many other markets are opening up. Most of AAR's stations in key markets are owned by Clear Channel, a company known for its close ties to Republicans. Whether this is hedging bets against a Kerry victory or a purely economic decision is unclear. A pretty current list of AAR stations is here. A good source for info about new markets and AAR news is here. You can get streaming audio from AAR's own site, or the affiliates in Miami, Key West, San Diego, or Portland. Postscript: AAR did add a new station today, but not in a major market. It picked up WPEK, another station with a weak signal located in the #183 market, Asheville, NC. So did North Korea test a nuclear bomb? The official answer seems to be no, but the responses are odd. According to a diarist on Kos, Rice gave a non-committal answer, "We don't know if it was a Nuclear test." Powell sounded more direct on ABC. When asked if the explosion of a few days ago was a nuclear test, Powell said, "No.... No indication that that was a nuclear event of any kind." So why are we hearing different stories from Powell and Rice? It seems hard to believe that it wasn't easy very quickly to determine if a nuclear explosion had taken place. The monitoring equipment is already there, and North Korea is a small country, relatively easy to monitor. An explosion that created a visible mushroom cloud, reported by observers, would have created a vast amount of airborne radiation, easily detectable. (It also would almost certainly have dumped substantial radiation on China, and perhaps also Russia and/or South Korea, which those governments are unlikely to appreciate.) An act like that seems shockingly rash, even by Kim Jong Il's standards. We'll know soon, but an early guess is that the explosion probably wasn't nuclear and probably wasn't intentional. Rice either had less information or just shied away from actually answering the question. But the alternate explanation, that it was nuclear and we're being misled to avoid exposing another Bush failure before the elections, can never be dismissed with this crew. Note: Powell gave another amusing answer on Korea. Steph: "The President has said that the United States 'would not tolerate' a nuclear North Korea.... What does 'not tolerate' mean?" Powell: "'Not tolerate' means we don't think there should be nuclear weapons on the Korea peninsula." Instant Panic I know it's premature to write off a team that has not yer run an offensive play. But after watching Pittsburgh's opening offensive drive against Oakland, you have to suspect it's going to be a long season. It was really the defense more than the offense that brought in new talent over the off season, and it could well pay off, but it sure didn't in that first drive. Thursday, September 09, 2004
The Saddam Rule (Much) shorter Dan Bartlett: It dosn't really matter if George Bush obeyed orders. What's important is that he engaged in order-obeying related programn activities. And that's just the same as actually obeying. Last night's story on 60 Minutes was mixed; the interview with Barnes was relatively pointless. It added nothing to what was already on the record, although not as widely known as it will be now. Rather's questions were useless: he didn't even bring up Barnes's meeting with Evans or ask about whether his silence on the question influenced his work as a Texas lobbyist when Bush was Governor. Instead he asked a string of questions to elicit how Barnes felt about what he did for Bush. Dan, I know you've bent over for Bush so many times that you may have forgotten by now, but you actually are a man, and a white man at that. You aren't Oprah. But Kevin Drum is surely right when he says that the new documents amount to a smoking gun. We now have clear evidence, from the time Bush was in the Guard, that he violated at least one valid direct order, that his immediate superior felt he wasn't meeting basic standards, and that political pressure was used to cover it up. By the way, am I the only one to notice a suspicious consistency of phrasing in these denials? Here's Bush in the Guardian: "I don't know if Ben Barnes did or not, but he was not asked by me or my dad," he said. "I can just tell you, from my perspective, I never asked for, I don't believe I received special treatment." A quote in last night's story, undated but not recent: Any allegations that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true. Here's another denial: "Gov. Bush did not need and did not ask anybody for help," said a Bush campaign spokesman, Scott McClellan. "President Bush has said he did not seek any help for his son in getting into the National Guard." It's always phrased as the father. But according to most folks who know them, it isn't George Sr who wears the steel-toed boots in that family. Has anybody even bothered asking whether Barbara made calls? I've seen flat denials that any Bush contacted Barnes directly, and flat denials that George asked for special favors. But never a flat denial that the family sought special favors. Tuesday, September 07, 2004
So is it really wrong for Cheney to say that if we vote Bush out we could get hit again? After all, you have to figure that if we screw the Saudis' best friend, they're likely to retaliate. Besides, in an era where we desperately need improved human intelligence, George Bush is uniquely suited. During his youth, he repeatedly infiltrated a military base, stayed for hours and even full days, and took part in drills and trainings, all without ever being observed by a single individual on duty at the base. Clearly this man is one of the great intelligence assets of our time. Sunday, September 05, 2004
Wonkette noted on Thursday that a google of the phrases "Zell Miller" and "Barking mad" turned up only 16 matches. As of early Sunday, it now generates 93 hits. That actually makes Zell 13% more barking mad than Alan Keyes and Lyndon Larouche combined, which doesn't seem right. This diagnostic method may require some further refinements before it's ready to be listed in the DSM. Thursday, September 02, 2004
A few first responses to tonight's speech. These are immediate reactions without having bothered to locate a transcript:
I've generally watched both conventions on PBS, since I don't get cable. During the Demo bash, I wanted to hear the speeches and was mostly just irritated at the blather of their talking heads. This time, I was less interested in the speeches, so probably paid more attention to the other stuff, which last night was really deeply lame. In a long discussion of Ronald Reagan, there was much discussion of his tax cut and, to be fair, of the resulting deficits. What went totally unmentioned was the tax increases that followed. Even though those were the largest tax increases in American history, by far the largest increases on the middle class, they have simply disappeared down the memory hole. Pundits, including so-called liberal pundits, have agreed to repeat the Republican spin line that only Democrats increase taxes. This was followed by a discussion of Zell Miller, preparatory to his speech, in which the pundits praised his independence. Nobody mentioned the obvious point that Miller isn't a maverick who at times embraces positions of either party, like McCain or Schwarzenegger, but a straight Republican hack who never varies from the party talking points on any subject. Tonight's chatter has been less egregious, but no more informative. Highway to Zell I didn't feel any trace of the disgust that Zell seems to have inspired in Andrew Sullivan. Probably for the simple reason that I wasn't remotely surprised. I just expect this sort of nastiness and dishonesty from these guys; it's about as shocking as finding a sexist remark in "Maxim". So much of the speech was rancid and/or preposterous that it's hard to pick out just a few lines to mock. But here are my favorites: But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. Gee, I knew that Zell left the Democratic Party years ago. But until now, I hadn't realized that he'd joined the Spartacist League. Our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. And it's the cheerleader, not the soldier, who is fit to be Commander in Chief. Wednesday, September 01, 2004
What idiot was it who wrote the script for the Bush twins last night? From beginning to end, in spite of the weak attempts at humor, it put across the worst possible message - it showed what it means to them, and to their parents, to be a Bush. They started out with a reference to their underage drinking and drug use, which they simply shrugged off without even a gesture in the direction of regret. Instead, they used a quote from Daddy, reminding us of his own dubious early life. That was followed by some truly cringing humor in which they talked about deciding to involve themselves in the campaign and assuming they were entitled to start at the top. That is far too reminiscent of their own father, whose first job title was CEO, first elected office was Governor, first federal position was President. It speaks far too honestly to the twins' view, inherited from their father, of the world. Being a Bush means privilege. And there's no need to feel a tinge of guilt over your priveleges, or worry about any silly notion that some sort of responsibility should come with them. We're simply better than the peons, and we deserve everything we have. You couldn't get more off-message than that. The only part that was actually on-message was possibly the most transparent political theatre in recorded history, when Bush 41 and Barbara held up silly hand-painted signs saying they loved their granddaughters. Now what was the point of that? Is there one solitary human being alive who believes that George and Barb stayed up late on Monday hand-lettering those signs? Aliens from Neptune who landed Monday morning could have figured out by Tuesday night that it was fake. Friday, August 20, 2004
It's fashionable, and not unjustified, to trash NBC's coverage of the Olympics. Last night, I know before turning it on the Patterson had won the All-around Gold, since the final routine was showed in California something like 10 hours after it took place. Any number of perfectly sound criticisms can be made of the cheerleading, the selections of what to show, and the silly little bio pieces they slip in. And yet, that fails to kill the event. Hamm's incredible work to pull out the All-around a few days back, perfectly nailing a spectacular high bar to make up for the ground he lost falling down on his vault, was the best television I've seen this year. Last night, the endlessly-hyped Michael Phelps proved once again that he deserves the promotion with a feat that was even more amazing: after winning the Gold in the 200 IM by a few seconds, he had only 30 minutes to rest up before swimming the semi-final heat in the 100 breaststroke. No problem; he won the heat - and set a new Olympic record doing it. It seems unfashionable to admit to this, but I watch the Olympics for hour after hour. As bad as some of the broadcasting is, the athletes keep giving me reasons to come back for more. Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Matthew Dowd needed some quick facts on Sunday to support Bush's feeble economic record. How to get them? How else - make them up. The number of jobs created in the first six months of this year, almost exactly the same as it was in 1996. In fact, the number of jobs created in the first six months of 2004 was 1.205 million; in 1996 it was 1.437 million, 20% higher. To get even that substantial discrepancy, Dowd had to pick his period cautiously; if he had just changed to the last 6 months versus the same period in 1996, 56% more jobs were produced under Clinton. Looking over a longer period, the contrast is even starker: in 2003, job creation was negative for 7 months and never exceeded 94,000 in any month; in 1995 job creation was positive for 11 months and at least 140,000 for 10 of those. Inflation... is lower than what it was up in 1996. Inflation wasn't too bad in either 1996 0r 2004, but for the 6 months Dowd used as his basis for job creation comparison, it was 2.4% in 2004, 1.8% in 1996. For the most recent 6 months, it was 2.3% vs 2.0%. There's 5.5% unemployment in 1996. There's 5.5% unemployment today. Actually true, but done by weaseling. The unemployment rate is the same, but labor participation is lower (66.9% vs 66.2%). So the number of unemployed has gone up, but they're no longer counted as unemployed. One other Republican who showed up on Sunday morning was miles off his talking points. Senator Chuck Nagel was actually talking honestly about what a mess Iraq has become, using both of the Forbidden Words, 'quagmire' and 'Vietnam'. He also came very close to directly saying that uniformed military was bullied out of giving Bush proper advice about Iraq: We've got a big problem on our hands. Many of us were concerned... and questioned a lot of these things before going into Iraq.... If you do put more troops in, then you sink deeper into that terrible word, quagmire. And it is not unlike what we found in Vietnam over the years. You just keep putting more and more troops in, propping up governments, propping up governments, and, in the end, if the people are not with you, you lose.... I think we have to rely on our commanders' analysis on the ground. I think we should be careful of that, that those commanders are not nuanced or compromised by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon saying, 'I said we'll listen to the commanders, but the commanders say, wink, wink, `We don't need more troops.`' This is a time for uniformed military to show some courage, step up.... It is now very much up to the courage and the leadership of the uniformed military to be very straight with our policy makers. Friday, August 13, 2004
Atrios points out that the New York Times has finally admitted their false claim that American casualties in Iraq have declined since the handover. Let's take a moment to salute the delicate language that was used in this 'correction': An article on July 21 about President Bush's campaign plans for the rest of the summer referred imprecisely to the trend in American military casualties in Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty there on June 28. From the transfer date to the date on which the article was written, casualties increased compared with the same length of time before the transfer; they did not show "some reduction." In other words, the Times asserted that up was down. I suppose that could be decribed as "imprecise". Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Avedon at Sideshow has the best blogger's remembrance I've seen of the 30th anniversary of Nixon's resignation. Clearly a woman who was raised properly by parents who managed the rare feat of despising Nixon even more than mine did. I was a teen then and can remember vividly. I was at a summer camp that focussed on camping and wilderness activities. With no electricity or TV available, a bunch of us were listening to the speech over AM radio in a camp van. I must have really loathed Nixon because my excitement was not so much that he was being driven out of office as enjoying the thought of how utterly crushed and humiliated he must have felt as he delivered the resignation speech. The moral so often drawn after the crisis, that the system worked, looks about right to me with a few decades of hindsight - more right than it did at the time, when I felt that Nixon being pardoned and spared a prison sentence was a catastrophe. The leadership of both the 'Establishment', such as it was, and the Republican Party agreed to cut loose a man who had become an impediment, and who clearly was guilty as charged of high crimes and misdemeanors. Allowing for the fact that no real precedents existed, it was a relatively clean operation. The famous 'smoking gun' tape of June 20 that finally pushed Nixon out has never seemed to me very important. In reading the transcript, I didn't see that it provided overwhelming new evidence, certainly not enough for every member of the House Judiciary Committee and most members of the Republican leadership in both House and Senate to give up the cause simultaneously and publicly, which they did. Unfortunately, we've gone mostly backwards in the 30 years since. One very large change, which is profoundly destructive, is that the congressional Republicans of Nixon's era felt a duty to hold one of their own to accountability. They played a hesitant, not completely willing, but ultimately positive role in the investigations into Watergate. Their current successors view congressional oversight as an entirely partisan activity, not really distinct from campaigning. Friday, August 06, 2004
The Old College Try Robert Kuttner thinks that Kerry has trouble with the Electoral College: Kerry could win the popular vote by piling up huge majorities in New York, California, and the rest of "blue" America, but still lose the Electoral College and the White House if he can't carry two out of three crucial swing states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Certainly that's a possibility, but the situation looks somewhat better than Kuttner allows for. A lot can change in 3 months, but the EC seems to presently lean to Kerry. Starting from the red/blue split of 2000, the current EV total would go to Bush, 278 - 260. But the real question is how firm each side's votes are. Kerry seems to have a good chance of winning everywhere that Gore won. The most comprehensive list of state by state polling I know of is here. It shows that in the two largest blue electoral prizes Bush had been hoping to take, PA and MI, Kerry seems to be safe - 13 polls in the past month and he leads in all of them, with the trends moving in his favor and recent polls showing leads of up to 11 or 12 points. In fact, Kerry isn't in serious trouble in any blue state. The only poll in the past month showing him trailing in any blue state was a poll in Wisconsin, where the results have varied from a 53 - 44 lead to a 45 - 46 deficit. Bush's best shot at a pickup is Iowa, where one recent poll showed a tie; the other 7 all showed thin leads for Kerry. Polls in Minnesota have swung between a tie result and a decent 8 point Kerry lead. Kerry is the favorite in all of these states; he has a pretty good chance to run the table. In the small red state of New Hampshire, Bush is in deep trouble, trailing in 7 straight polls, the most recent showing a 9 point deficit. And the trend seems to be moving against him: in the most recent polls by Zogby and ARG, he trails by more than in earlier polls by the same firms. Bush also trails in one or more recent polls in all of the following red states: Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia - 89 total EV. In addition, Arkansas is extremely close, very winnable if the undecideds break for Kerry. Virginia, which Bush should be able to take for granted, is close in some polls. North Carolina is an upset possibility. If Kerry is able to hold the blue states and NH, Bush probably has to sweep every contested red state to win. (He can afford to lose one, but only if it is NV or WV and, even then, only if he wins every district in Nebraska, where one vote is awarded to the winner of each congressional district.) Looking at the electoral count, one other conclusion leaps out: Bush just can't win without Florida. Even if he somehow holds Hew Hampshire, wins all the other problem red states, and grabs both Iowa and Minnesota, losing Florida still sinks him. As others have pointed out repeatedly, Florida 2004 is shaping up with a lot of potential to repeat Florida 2000. What would the impact on the nation be of another stolen election? Democrats would likely not accept it as easily as we did 2000. Bush will consider any challenges to his legitimacy unpatriotic at best. One very possible outcome of this election is the worst national crisis since 1876. Monday, August 02, 2004
Kerry's speech was strong, but for us unreformed Clarkies, Clark's speech was the real highlight of Thursday night. The conventional wisdom, wrong yet again, was that Edwards was a better choice than Clark because, although Clark had the better resume, Edwards coud give a strong speech and Clark couldn't. In fact, Clark was far better at the convention than Edwards. Is the conventional wisdom ever right? Is it just me or is the DNC not entirely comfortable with the strong grassroots support still enjoyed by both Dean and Clark? All through the main speeches, signs appropriate to the speaker were handed out and shown on TV. None for Dean or Clark, though - they were the only speakers I saw who had delegates waving signs that were obviously home-made. Having indulged in this final plate of sour grapes, I will now do my best to forget what could have been and focus on supporting the very strong ticket that we actually have. Thursday, July 29, 2004
Surprise! TNR reported a few weeks back that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to announce the arrest of a major Al Qaeda target during the Democratic Convention. Here it is. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is one of the 22 terrorist operatives on the famous list published shortly after 9/11, and allegedly involved in the bloody embassy bombings of 1998. That he is no longer in circulation is unambiguous good news. That the story states he was apprehended "a few days ago" is hard to read as anything but confirmation of TNR's story. This looks, though, like another sign of sloppiness in the White House PR campaign. The arrest of OBL would be such a dominant story that the oxygen would be sucked out of Kerry's speech; the arrest of a second level murderer who most people have never heard of will have little effect. At the same time, the announcement on the day of Kerry's speech, just after the plan was described in a magazine that everybody in Washington reads, is so obvious that even the Washington media will be tempted to ask questions about it. Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Oratory Edwards may well have been a victim of expectations in his acceptance speech yesterday. Certainly it was a pretty good speech and well delivered. But after everything I'd heard about what an incredible campaigner he was, and why he was a brilliant choice based on his speaking skills, it came off as pretty much a letdown. Good, just not good enough to live up to the hype, sort of like Spiderman 2. Obama did live up to his hype and gave a brilliant speech. And it was the speech of a very smart politician - for all its power it had, when examined closely, remarkably little content, and almost no specific policy ideas. But the bloggers who are already planning their visits to Barack's Inaugural may be a bit premature. It's worth keeping in mind that, for over 50 years, only one man who first came out on the national stage in a convention keynote has reached the Oval Office - and that was Clinton, whose 1988 keynote was a famous bomb. It's Clinton who has delivered, for all the talk about Obama, the best speech of this convention. Clinton's speech was funny, personable, and gave plenty of reasons to vote for Kerry in language that people largely uninterested in politics can understand. It was just an amazing feat, vastly better than the speech he gave for Gore four years ago. The speech by Teresa Heinz Kerry was the most interesting so far. It was a very personal speech, but it introduced the audience much less to Kerry than to Teresa. This was read by the pundits as a mistake, but it could well turn out to be a shrewd move - Teresa seems to have an ability to connect with voters, especially women, that will make her a formidable weapon. Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Hey, I love the Daily Howler. But lately, Somerby has at times been spinning just as hard as the elite journalists he mocks. Here's an excerpt from today's column: But then, Okrent seems prepared to credit almost any red-state-sounding complaint. “[A] creationist will find no comfort in the Science Times,” he even complains at one point. But should a creationist “find comfort” in science reporting? Okrent doesn’t address this obvious question. Here's the relevant passage in the article he was criticizing: The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side." And a creationist will find no comfort in Science Times. Not that creationists should expect to find comfort in Science Times. Although Somerby does raise some better points, Okrent's article is essentially right: on social issues, the Times is very much a liberal paper. If you're working against legalized abortion or legal recognition of gay unions, you're likely to believe, with good cause, that the Times, and in fact most of the mainstream media, is unfriendly. At least with regard to the Times, as Okrent notes, this is perfectly appropriate: it reflects the views of New Yorkers who write the paper and are the main target audience. How this ties into the paper's right wing bias in electoral coverage is another question, which Okrent completely ducks. Sunday, July 25, 2004
Matt Drudge recently complained that the upcoming Manchurian Candidate remake was being descirbed as "more partisan than 'FAHRENHEIT 911'" by a NYT reviewer who has seen it. Although Drudge's money quote isn't in the actual review, it turns out the rest of the item was uncharacteristically accurate. I just saw the original last night, and I'm a bit surprised that this would surprise anyone. The earlier film isn't partisan, but only in the narrow sense that it comes from a period when both parties had liberal and conservative wings. The story is unabashed liberal propaganda. The American villain is very obviously Joe McCarthy; his even nastier wife, Angela Lansbury in the original and Meryl Streep in the remake, is explicitly a Republican. The evil Senator also has an exuberantly patrician lifestyle, visibly contrasted with the rival good guy Senator, whose home is a few steps above a log cabin. But his apparent near poverty doesn't prevent him from donating a windfall entirely to the ACLU. If anything, the new film, judging from this report and others, seems to back away from the liberal message of the classic by making the Lansbury/Streep character resemble Hillary Clinton. Friday, July 23, 2004
Watching the Berger story unfold has been amusing - sort of like a bit of 90's retro. Almost makes you want to go out and rent a few Pauly Shore movies. But that would be over-reacting - much better to watch a few extra re-runs of "Friends" which, like the job market, was actually good back in the Clinton years. The Republicans are using the tried and true tactics of spreading wild rumors and discussing every rumor that they spread as a known fact. Get that misinformation out and widely repeated. The retractions will come eventually, but they'll be quiet, as usual. The idea that Berger would shove documents in his socks when he could have just slipped them into his briefcase is preposterous, but the very absurdity makes for a memorable story, much better propaganda than reporting what really happened. The story is one that investigators don't seem to take seriously - Breuer, Berger's attorney, never heard about it before it was leaked. But these guys have never cared if they were telling the truth. In all the grave reporting and stern faces on the news, everyone has known not to say, not to even hint at the one obvious point: "This is approximately the 358th time that we have reported to you that a member of the Clinton administration is being investigated for misconduct, as well as the 358th time we have declared that, although the facts were not yet fully known, we were pretty certain that something awful had been done. In a few of these previous cases, we turned out to have been wrong. OK, technically in all of them. But we're blowing this up into a huge deal because we're confident that this time is different. Just as confident as we were the last 357 times." Yes, it is possible that there is really something here. Every time that Lucy swears she's really going to keep the ball in place, there is a chance that she means it this time. But don't count on it. Sunday, July 18, 2004
Fox Hunt You can pick your own favorite from this impressive collection of Fox internal memos by news director John Moody. My personal favorite is this: We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. ...Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." In other words, don't lose sight of the all important distinction between actual terrorists and those nice folks who merely provide refuge and assistance to terrorists. They've done nothing wrong, at least when they are Christians and assist the good terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and fag bars. Also evident in the memos, mentioned over and over, is Moody's obsession with hyping the 'scandal' over the UN oil for food program. It's still possible that a real scandal may emerge here, but it's looking increasingly like another fabrication from Chalabi and his crew. Don't forget to see the new documentary, "Outfoxed". Find a viewing party where you live. Thursday, July 15, 2004
The most recent polling of swing states, done by Zogby, looks extremely positive. He shows Bush leading in 3 states, but in 2 of those, NV and AR, there are substantial Nader and undecided votes that may well erase Bush's small margin. In fact, when looking at state by state counts such as this, remember they all tend currently to understate Kerry's chances, because the undecided vote is almost certain to break for him, and by historical trends it's also likely that a significant percentage of Nader supporters will. Overall, the current count of swing states looks roughly like this:
The only bad news in the latest polling had been that NC, even with Edwards, had appeared uncompetitive. But a new poll changes even that and shows Kerry/Edwards within striking distance in Tarheel territory. Another Gallup poll shows Bush up by 15 among LV in NC, but only by 7 among RV. Given the motivation of the Democratic base in this election, that large LV adjustment is very likely to be wrong. There's an interesting argument that NC is not only winnable in this election but likely to remain a swing state here. Wandering Back An interruption in my web connection last month temporarily silenced this page; the silence stretched on somewhat due to a shaky enthusiasm on my own part for resuming. I've found this blog increasingly harder to write over the
Still, I'm going back on the chain gang, returning once
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Kevin Drum gives us another striking look at the lunatic Republican platform in Texas. If anything, he has been rather kind to the extremism implicit in this document. That's especially true of the anti-abortion plank,"The Party affirms its support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children." Kevin glosses this as, "All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment." That's true, but it's really much stronger than that. By stating that a fetus is a human life entitled to equal protection, this proposal not only labels abortion as a crime, but specifies what type of crime it is: first degree murder. What this proposal really amounts to is: "Women who obtain abortions should be executed." Friday, June 04, 2004
The 'resignation' for 'family reasons' of George Tenet sounds more than suspicious. If only because resigning at this moment looks so much like getting fired, I have to think Tenet would have stayed on for the rest of the year unless he either was fired or perhaps wanted to be out of office with a freer hand to respond to the upcoming reports on WMD intelligence and 9/11. Even if Tenet does have personal reasons for wanting to quit, which is probably true, he knows that there will be a housecleaning in December/January regardless of what happens in November. To quit alone and ahead of that looks very much like being the fall guy for all the screwups on Iraq and maybe 9/11 too. On the plus side, the Onion reports that at least one failed appointee from this administration is finally going to be held accountable. The O'Franken Factor blog (no permalinks, see 06.02) now links to Franken's demolition of Neal Boortz in a recent interview. Check out also Boortz's clever desciption of the incident - it's an instructive case of how to completely misrepresent everything without actually telling any lies. Actually, Boortz did slip in one lie at the beginning, an odd one since it doesn't seem to have a point. Franken did greet him at the beginning of the interview, then launched directly into catching him in his lie about inviting Franken to guest host. Of the AAR shows I've heard so far, Franken's is the best, Rhodes a close second. Majority Report I usually miss to see TV, but what's not to like in a show that has Atrios and several other bloggers as regular guests? Morning Sedition really isn't working out. Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Ryan Lizza noted a while back that being counter-terrorism director under Bush has been a bit like being the drummer for Spinal Tap: he loses one after another. In reading Clarke's Against All Enemies, I noticed that what's been true at the NSC has been equally true at the FBI: Dale Watson came in late in the Clinton Administration to replace John O'Neill, probably the most effective counter-terror officer in recent years. O'Neill went to New York, but continued working on numerous national and international briefs while Watson was the Bureau's counter-terror man in Washington. O'Neill left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and was killed on 9/11. Meanwhile:
In 2002, Dale Watson, the FBI's leading couterterrorism official, retired. Months later, Watson's replacement asked to be reassigned and a third person became the Executive Assistant Director for counterterrorism. Within two months, the next incumbent retired and the post was vacant again. Monday, May 24, 2004
Can we shut up now about the silly idea of McCain being Kerry's running mate? This dying horse was still being flogged on Sunday by Chris Matthews; fortunately it seems to be less popular now than it was last month. The Democratic Party should nominate candidates who are Democrats and who endorse the party's candidates. Besides, McCain's status as a decorated veteran can be matched by Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland, among others. Wes Clark has the combat decorations, executive leadership in wartime, and the track record of not being a partisan activist until driven to it by Bush's incompetence. The only thing McCain really brings that Clark doesn't is the adoration of the Washington media. And that's a very mixed blessing - it's handy to have a candidate whom the media loves, but we really shouldn't trust anyone who has a big fan club among the liars who stuck us with Dubya in the first place. This article in the Washington Post is a strange duck. It does show just how incompetent and politicized the CPA is, but goes to some pains to spin away what it shows. The article discusses a team of 6 conservative activists who worked on budget issues for the CPA. It lets slip a few hints about who they are, stating that, "Many had strong Republican credentials... and had no foreign service experience." But that's rather an understatement, as is the later description of those profiled. It does focus on Simone Ledeen, daughter of neo-con activist Michael Ledeen, and also describes Todd Baldwin as an aide to Rick "man on dog" Santorum. But it also describes team member John Hanley as a webmaster; in fact, he is the webmaster of the Heritage Foundation and also worked as a columnist for townhall.com. While in Iraq, he wrote a dispatch including a photo of himself with Andrew Burns, another Heritage and CPA minion. Anita Greco, described as a "teacher", was an intern at Heritage. The other member of the team, Casey Wasson, was a recent graduate of Patrick Henry College (where she won the Beverly LeHaye Leadership Award), an institution specifically designed to train home-schooled children as far right activists. Although not an accredited school, PHC currently has 7 students working in White House internships. Among the 6 CPA employees that Cha profiles, the number with close Republican/conservative ties is 6. The number with expertise in Arabic, Islam, or economics is 0.
Ledeen's journey to Baghdad began two weeks earlier when she received an e-mail out of the blue from the Pentagon's White House liaison office. The Sept. 16 message informed her that the occupation government in Iraq needed employees... Without hesitation, she responded "Sure" to the e-mail and waited -- for an interview, a background check or some other follow-up. Apparently none was necessary. A week later, she got a second e-mail telling her to look for a packet in the mail regarding her move to Baghdad. Cha quotes a CPA spokesman as saying of the hiring "Nowhere did we ask party affiliation", apparently meaning that jobs were as open to Democrats who worked for the Heritage Foundation and the Bush campaign as to Republicans.
The article could have, but didn't, mention who wasn't working for the CPA - the people who have actual experience from the efforts to rebuild Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo after US or NATO interventions, and those who actually do know something about Arabic culture and the Middle East. They stayed home so that unqualified ideologues could have a free hand.
We are steadily told that Iraq is essential, that we can't afford to fail there. It's important enough to be worth the lives of the soldiers who die there almost evey day. But not, it seems, important enough for civilian jobs to be staffed by professionals instead of being a public works program for Republican campaigners in an off year. Friday, May 14, 2004
So I take a little break from blogging for a month or so, and when I come back Blogger has a whole new interface. I guess I'll figure out how to publish this post and then see how it looks. Some things don't change, and one of them is hate radio shock jock Michael Savage. As David Brock's new site points out, Savage has decided who to blame for the murder of Nick Berg and it isn't the murderers:
Nick Berg, an American, not military, over there building transmission towers, was captured by the Untermenschen the sub-humans, who wrap themselves in a religion....you can thank the Democrats, you can thank the Senate Arms Services Committee for their hysterical hearings. You can thank John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Biden, The New York Times, the alphabet channels and The Washington Post for this atrocity because they caused it.... Thank you New Yorker. Thank you Carl Levin. Thank you Ted Kennedy. Thank you Hillary Clinton. I'm sure that Mr. Berg's parents appreciate what you've done for them.
Funny how eager the folks who always complain about the 'blame America first' crowd are to do just that, as long as they can blame the right Americans.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Next Question One really startling moment from Bush's press conference was when he was asked why he needed Cheney's support to speak to the 9/11 commission. It was an obvious question, one he should have been prepared for, and he had nothing at all except an obvious duck. It was the worst answer I can recall hearing from any president in a long time. It's perfectly clear his own people have nothing but contempt for him. Speaking toi the comission isn't that hard, as others have shown. There's a 10 minute limit for each questioner, and it's always easy to pad out an answer to about 3 minutes. So each questioner gets only about 4 questions, they have no real way to force answers to those, and most are friendly. As easy as it is, his own people don't think he's capable to handle it. If the man's own aides don't respect him, why should we? Monday, April 12, 2004
The latest news from Iraq is relatively positive, with negotiations in the Shia south, a ceasefire generally holding in Fallujah, and hostages reported released. However, there are new reports that a group of Russians have been taken hostage. Beyond today's developments is the reality that Iraq appears to be spiraling out of control. It is certainly possible to defeat the Mahdi militia of al Sadr, it wouldn't even be very hard. But when the Army of a pro-Israel, primarily Christian occupier fights the forces of a local religious leader, it is almost impossible to prevent the great majority of Iraqis, even those who dislike al Sadr, from perceiving the conflict as a battle of Us vs Them. And as long as that is the case, we are fighting a hydra - every time we kill one fighter, two more spring up. There's almost no way short of genocide to solve this problem. And if there is a solution, it would take a leadership that was resolutely practical, creative, and flexible to find it. What we have is an administration that in its stubbornness, xenophobia, and religious extremism is nearly a mirror image of its enemies.
Just as disastrous is the new tactic of kidnapping. The CPA has sought to gain popularity by national reconstruction that would improve the lives of ordinary citizens; but the willingness to target the international technicians and volunteers that make nation building projects possible means that they will come to a virtual halt, only functioning to the degree that they can be operated entirely by Iraqis - and even Iraqis will be nervous about being seen as collaborators. So forget about the vast majority of projects aimed at improving daily Iraqi life, and even moreso attempts to build civil society. If power plants or construction projects have to replace foreign workers with Iraqis, there are plenty who have the technical skills to do those jobs. It may in some ways be positive, given the very high unemployment rate. But after decades of Ba'athism, there are no Iraqis with experience conducting free elections or organizing civic groups.
And the handover of sovereignty, now only weeks away, continues to be a mystery. There is no legitimate government to grant sovereignty to, no apparent way to create one in the next two months. Worse, there aren't adequate police or miltary forces ready to assume control, and the bureaucratic resources also probably aren't ready to take over. It seems likely that the new government July 1 will assume a very nominal 'sovereignty' with primarily American forces running the armed services and police. And if attacks are made, and they surely will be, against our forces, Bremer has pretty much said that we will determine the time, place, and extent of retaliation. So whoever takes over , being appointed by us rather than elected, and agrees to assume 'sovereignty' with no authority over the main military force in the country, is liable to be seen as a puppet. To overcome that, they will have to take strident anti-American positions, delay or rig any elections, or quite possibly both. And we'll be stuck supporting them under the usual concern that the opposition would be even worse. (Presumably, like the dictators we support in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, they will crack down harshly on any pro-democracy stirrings while being tolerant of radical anti-Western and Islamist movements, the better to remind us that we have no alternative.)
Anybody out there want to bet that Iraq will become a true democracy any time in the next few years? I'm willing to give good odds. |
