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, 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 |
