|
For The Trees
Who is our economy FOR, anyway? About the Authors: Dave Johnson John Emerson Richard Reich Thomas Leavitt
Recent Posts: BEST OF STF: Dave's: Articles not at STF: The ATLA Speech on building a progressive infrastructure Lowering the Bar The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors On the Right and their communications infrastructure: Why Republicans Win Win or Lose The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine Some History of the Conservative Movement HOW TO FIGHT BACK An Amplifier Of Our Own Don't Blame the Democrats How They Do It 1 2 3 4 Getting Rolled Other: You're Gonna Get Drafted Scalia and Self-Government Who is Our Economy For? Voting Machine Story Link Collection What's Wrong with this Picture? (Voting Machines) Like Meat in the Supermarket Get Active Thin Line 1 2 3 Fixing Social Security Seeing the Forest I, II, III "Incredibly Positive News" The Breadth of It The Republican Crony Club Moon Bush Ralph Nader is a Scab John's Best Of: Kerry Smear Page Bandar Bush 9/11 Commission Report Damages Bush -- if you read it Florida Goon Squad Intimidated the Supreme Court The Use and Abuse of George Orwell Zizka's Archives (John's previous identity) Zizka Sampler News Sources: AlterNet BuzzFlash Common Dreams Cursor Drudge Retort Information Clearing House Smirking Chimp TruthOut What REALLY Happened Links to Other Weblogs: |
 3/31/2004 9/11 survivors' partisan anti-Clarke letter In an open letter published in the New York Post (story), about forty 9/11 survivors have accused Clarke of profiteering and divisiveness. They accuse of him of partisanship -- a charge for which there is no real evidence -- but then themselves come up with these Republican talking points: "[N]o one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon..... In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them." In an earlier story about Bush's 9/11 political ads in the Washington Times, one of the Post letter's signers, Rosemary Cain, is quoted as follows: "Anything that memorializes the victims of 9/11 is right and good," said Mrs. Cain, adding that "it angers me that they are flapping over" the imagery in the Bush ads. "President Bush displayed courage and tenacity. He brought this city together and this country together," she said. "He deserves to be able to speak on September 11th." In the same Times story, another signer of the Post letter, Ernest Strada (the Republican mayor of Westbury, New York -- and if you read the story, apparently not a very good one) said that he was "really disappointed — appalled — at some elected officials for the attacks on the president for the way he feels about the importance of us remembering" September 11. "We're not only here to support our son, we're here to support the president and to feel good about ourselves." Another signer, Frank Siller, donated money from the foundation founded in his brother Stephen's memory to Oliver North's Freedom Alliance. Another, Arlene Howard, is featured on the White House website since Sept. 14, 2001, when she gave her son's badge to President Bush at a memorial in New York. Three of the signers, including Boyle and Strada, also show up in this story about 9/11 and Iraq War survivors' ambivalence about President Bush. Nothing in the letter says anything at all about the truth of what Clarke was saying; it merely calls his motives into question. (This is characteristic of attacks on Clarke). There seems to have been very little real non-partisanship in this open letter decrying Clarke's supposed partisanship (for which there is no real evidence anyway). It looks more as if they, by attacking Clarke, were giving their own partisan support to Bush. My guess is, that with a little more research, we'd find that other signers had their own axes to grind. P.S. (from comments): If you look at the three stories, Mayor Strada appears in all of them, and he brought along six members of his family to sign the letter. My guess is that this is his baby, though Boyle's position at the top of the signers may mean that he was the one who actually wrote or circulated the letter. Before someone jumps on me, I should say that Oliver North's foundation seems to be a genuine charitable group, and not explicitly political. But one suspects that someone who donates to an Oliver North charity is on North's wavelength otherwise too. There's nothing wrong with the letter per se. Except for the claim to be opposing politicization, when the letter is itself political and written to support the politician Bush. And you could add, except for the attack on Clarke's motives. (Republicans love money, but when other people have it, it's sinful). And except for the ungrounded claims about Bush's performance -- the letter addresses none of Clarkes' substantive points. And then, the letter is presumably part of the coordinated effort to disparage the "partisan" activities of Kristin Breitweiser and the other anti-Bush survivors..... Note that the Newsday editors didn't let Strada's speech pass. What they print has obviously been edited down from a longer canned speech: "I’m appalled at what [other politicians ] are doing to Bush. . . . I’m sure that despite political differences, everyone supported the president at that time. Caught in the frenzy of the political season . . . their memories are cloudy." Certainly it originally read "I’m appalled at what the politicians are doing to Bush". --- Posted at 3/31/2004 09:51:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post  
More "Under the Radar" Bush Lies A friend wrote to me about the Kerry campaign's response to something he is hearing. He was reading something from a guy and: "He claimed that his accountant told him that it was well-known that Kerry was planning to tax rich people, but he defined rich people as anyone making more than $40,000! This is important. This is what's being stated EVERWHERE. THAT is what I wanted to find a rebuttal to on Kerry's site. Couldn't find it. More important, couldn't find an issue tab called TAXES. It is crucial to be absolutely STRAIGHTFORWARD about these issues. If Kerry is going to be afraid that he'll be Walter Mondale, then he WILL BE Walter Mondale."So what I get from this is: 1) I wonder if the Kerry campaign KNOWS that the Bush people are circulating "under the radar" the lie that Kerry is talking about people making more then $40,000 when he talks about tax cuts on "the rich." (This corresponds exactly to what I hear on right-wing radio, by the way.) 2) The Kerry campaign should have their finger on this stuff, and have places on their website with information that refutes what the Right is claiming. They don't. Update - "I'm saying a little more. I'm saying what you just said. But also I suspect that they don't already have an issues tab called TAXES because they are consciously or unconsciously afraid to even say the word. You and I know that Repugs win on two issues: (alleged) low taxes and keeping the you-know-who down. If you want to beat them you have to say as clearly as you possibly can that you know this and that you are on to them and here's what is good for the country and here's what you're going to do. Be proud of it. That's the deeper observation, but superficially, yeah, the web site needs to be much more DIRECTLY responsive to the repugs. And that cannot be done with NEWS sections or ANSWERING THEM sections. It needs to be done with top-level, ISSUES tabs. Right at the top of the site. The tabs I want are there, but they are not AGGRO enough." --- Posted at 3/31/2004 02:40:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Air America Radio Air America Radio is on the air now. Click to listen live online. Update - Their server appears absolutely swamped. I had it for a while, heard Al Franken's voice, then it went down. Trying to reconnect... Update - Did you hear Randi Rhodes telling Ralph Nader what she thought? Randi is now my hero forever. This is great. --- Posted at 3/31/2004 09:11:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
It's Working Surprise, surprise, Bush's ads are working. Bush Scores Points By Defining Kerry: "Since the end of the Democratic primaries, attacks on John F. Kerry by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, backed by millions of dollars in negative ads, have wiped out the narrow lead Kerry enjoyed at the beginning of the month and damaged his public image. [. . .] A month later, more voters see Kerry as "too liberal," and a solid majority says he is someone who has changed his positions on issues for political reasons -- both charges leveled by the Bush campaign's daily attacks through ads and public statements."Everyone knew this is what the Bush people would do. Yet I haven't seen the Kerry campaign doing much (in marketing terms) to counter this. If they let Bush "define" him among many voters as "too liberal" and as someone who changes his mind or says what he thinks voters want to hear, it will be very difficult for him to find his way back. But maybe this is because I am in California, so I don't see the ads or read the papers from the battleground states where things are happening. As it is I just don't see a high degree of consumer marketing awareness -- which is where the tobacco marketers handling the Bush campaign are at. Update - I just left the following comment to this post talking about Bush's flip-flops over at Angry Bear: Fine, but this isn't how marketing works. Bush is out there with ads that say Kerry flip-flops. Kerry is not out there with ads that say Bush does. So Bush wins. It's called "defining." In consumer marketing it's called "branding." Bush is the "low tax, leadership" brand. Can you tell me what the Kerry brand is? I saw Kerry speak Monday. He was all about issues and positions. But Bush is all about feelings and values. He has simple phrases that he repeats over and over. That is marketing. That is what works. Bush has tobacco marketing people handling his ads. Kerry appears to have 80's Democrat political marketing people handling his campaign.Bush is the "low tax, leadership" brand. Can you tell me what the Kerry brand is? If not, why not? --- Posted at 3/31/2004 08:29:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Just to cheer everyone up Kevin Drum has linked to this graph of Bush's 10-poll average approval ratings. It's really beautiful. Since his 9/11 85% rating, his approval has descended to about 48%. There have been two wartime spikes on the way, but after each spike the approval drops again. The wartime spikes tell us, of course, that Bush will make security his main issue. The only other issues he's got are low taxes and the social issues, and most people have made up their minds about those. The poll also tells us why they will do anything whatever to destroy Clarke, and why, even if they didn't really want to (JOKE!), the republicans would be forced to run a negative campaign. Bush really can't run on his record. Past experience tells us that poll results don't ultimately mean anything. The Republicans are masters at spreading large amounts of confusion at the last minute, and my belief is that they actually do not want landslides. For them, political capital is something to spend in order to ram their policies through, and if they had 65% approval they would just take that as justification for pushing an unpopular part of their agenda a little bit harder. But still -- Bush is NOT "a popular President". --- Posted at 3/31/2004 07:22:00 AM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/30/2004 Mormons Breaking Law? At the american street: Are the Mormons sharing lists with the GOP? If so, it would be illegal. Of course, who's gonna do anything about it? --- Posted at 3/30/2004 10:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A Joke, Right? The terms, if the 9/11 Commission falls for the White House's "deal" for Rice to testify: "Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."That would include, for example, Bush. And from CNN: Commissioners said they accepted those terms and would work to schedule a session "promptly."Suckers. Fell for it completely. What a joke - we're trying to look at what weaknesses in the country led to 9/11, and this is what we get from our own Administration and Commission. --- Posted at 3/30/2004 10:26:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/29/2004 The Band At The Fundraiser I went to a fundraiser in San Francisco this evening. The band that played consisted of Boz Skaggs, Ray Manzarek (from the Doors), Phil Lesh and Mickey Hart (from the Dead), and Norton Buffalo and Roy Rogers. I first saw The Dead with my mother when I was 13 or 14 at a small free concert in Ann Arbor. My hair started growing. Then I saw them at Woodstock. But I never saw the Doors and have always wanted to see Ray Manzarek perform, so tonite was a big occasion for me! I didn't know until I looked that up on Google that Norton Buffalo and Roy Rogers are on Blind Pig records! Many years ago I used to hang around at The Blind Pig in Ann Arbor! I even drove down to Chicago for a Zappa concert once with the guy who owned the place (and the record company.) Before the concert we were hanging around with the drummer, Terry Bozio, because someone with us knew him. (I wound up sitting behind the bass amp holding it in place through the entire concert because it was sliding around.) After the concert we all went to a party where The Who showed up. Update - OH YEAH! John Kerry spoke too. He was great. And they raised $3 million! --- Posted at 3/29/2004 09:46:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Kerry's Lead Drops 8 Points The poll says Bush Support Steady in Wake of Clarke Criticisms: but actually, "He [Bush] is now running even with Sen. John Kerry in a head-to-head match-up among registered voters (47% Kerry- 46% Bush) after trailing Kerry by 52%-43% in mid-March." Simple messages, repeated over and over. "Kerry will raise your taxes." "Kerry will not protect your children." "Kerry waffles on issues." And one thing I think is a big factor, under the radar smears being circulated over the internet. --- Posted at 3/29/2004 03:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bring It Back To Bush I'm wondering if all the controversey over Rice refusing to testify isn't just a cover for that fact that Bush also won't? After all, it did happen ON HIS WATCH. --- Posted at 3/29/2004 09:08:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
What's So Funny? Question Mark #34: What's So Funny? --- Posted at 3/29/2004 07:18:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/28/2004 Now It Really Starts Now the attack on Clarke is really getting started. In Murdoch's (owner of Fox News) New York Post NYERS: CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN it's the "9/11 families fuming" at Clarke. Some samples: "'We believe it inappropriate for [him] to profit from and politicize 9/11 and further divide America by his testimony before the 9/11 commission.' Retired FDNY firefighter Jim Boyle, who lent his name to the letter, ripped into Clarke, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to the past four presidents. 'Richard Clarke is doing all of this to sell his book,' said Boyle, whose Bravest son, Michael Boyle, died in the WTC. 'What he's doing isn't right. He's trying to make money off our pain. This was all orchestrated to benefit him,' Boyle told The Post. Retired FDNY Capt. John Vigiano Sr. said he's 'incensed' with Clarke. 'He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple,' said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks. 'It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful.' The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an 'appalling act of profiteering.' "Wow, signed by more than 36 people! The whole article is like that - a simple phrase, repeated often. Note, it comes a day after a top Republican used the same phrase. And, in case you don't understand about a simple phrase, repeated over and over, the headline at Drudge Report blares: SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED Something tells me we're going to hear variations on this theme repeated all week. That, and the charge that the Democrats are politicizing 9/11. --- Posted at 3/28/2004 10:11:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Randi Rhodes! Atrios posted a reminder to listen to Air America when it starts up on Wednesday. This kicked off a big thread of comments about Air America, its schedule, whether it would stream, its staff, etc., etc. Nobody mentioned the best thing about the new network (to me, shockingly!), so I added this comment: Unless my browser's search missed it, within all these comments nobody has mentioned RANDI RHODES! I too miss Mike Malloy and I agree that the network should have focused less on BIG NAMES and more on BIG RADIO TALENT. I fear they made a big mistake. We'll see. But one thing they did absolutely right is give Randi Rhodes a national voice. She is the best left of center radio host going. So listen to Franken, but BE SURE to listen to Randi after Franken from 3:00-7:00 ET (her old West Palm time slot).Listen to Randi, dammit! --- Posted at 3/28/2004 03:24:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Richard Clarke: Perjurer? Frist, Goss and other Republicans are floating the idea that Richard Clarke might have perjured himself. They're working on declassifying sworn testimony given to Congress when Clarke worked for Bush in 2002 (testimony thought to be similiar to that in the unclassified briefing released by Fox) so that they can compare it to the recent sworn testimony he gave to the 9/11 commission. This administration plays an amazingly creative game with regard to sworn, classified, confidential, secret, and public testimony. Condi is on TV all weekend, but she can't testify to the 9/11 commission publicly or under oath -- she wants to be able to debunk Clarke's public sworn testimony with secret unsworn testimony. Richard Wilson displeased the President, and his wife Valerie Plame's CIA identity was leaked. Paul O'Neill displeased the President, and he was threatened with prosecution for releasing classified documents. Now they want to declassify information selectively to use to discredit Clarke. Bob Woodward got access to reams of classified material to write a sycophantic book, but Bush's 9/10 briefing remains top secret, as do the records of Cheney's energy task force. I can't see Frist's hysterical rampage coming to anything. Clarke has already admitted that when he worked for Bush, he put the best spin he could on Bush's performance. Paul O'Neill has released documentary evidence showing that he was encouraged to mislead the public about Saudi cooperation in tracing terrorist finances, and we also have recently found out that Bush administration officials instructed their actuary, Rick Foster, to mislead Congress about the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan. At the least, Clarke will easily be able to escape the perjury charge. Beyond that, he will probably be able to show that the lies he told in 2002 were the ones he was ordered to tell. You have to wonder what Frist was thinking. Josh Micah Marshall has the story (note Sen. Graham's suggestion that they release everything, and not just the parts that help them). Frist's speech Powell doesn't join in, and Sen Graham supports Clarke. (And was Clarke really under oath before Congress?) Washington Post CNN Rick Foster directed to lie about prescription drug costs Foster II Briefing released to Fox by Bush Administration O'Neill coached to lie (he was NOT pleased with the Saudis, who had scarcely cooperated at all). O'Neill II --- Posted at 3/28/2004 03:21:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fake Kerry Pizza Story Some of you may have seen an internet story attributed to one Hal Cranmer about Kerry being a jerk in Vietnam. (It gets about 300 Google hits). I contacted one of the people whose email address has been attached to the story, and he's pretty sure it's fake. Attempts to contact Cranmer have been unsuccessful so far, though he seems to exist. Story Refutation --- Posted at 3/28/2004 01:15:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Is Condi history? One of the things going on these days is a battle between the Bush administration and the intelligence pros. Neither one is willing to be the fall guy for the Iraq invasion. Bush tried to stick Tenet with it, and he's been getting flak ever since. It looks now as if Rice is going to be the sacrificial lamb. Hiring Rice (and Powell) was good politics. Knowing that nice liberals will be hesitant to attack them personally, the Bush administration can use either one to front for them. Republicans know very well that smears and personal insults are effective political tools, and this way they take a valuable weapon out of the Democrats' hands. Thus, whenever there has been bad news, Rice or Powell has been sent out instead of Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush. Now Rice is on the hot seat, though, and it looks like she's being hung out to dry. Various things she's said in the last few days don't make sense, contradicting either other statements of hers or statements by Cheney and others in the administration. She's doing her job all right -- catching flak -- but she shouldn't expect to be thanked for it. Dick, Don, and George will let her twist in the wind awhile longer before they cut her loose. NOTE: A friend doesn't like to hear people saying that Rice is an affirmative-action token. That's not really what I'm saying, though. I think that Rice is competent enough, but she chose the wrong administration to work for, and I doubt that she has the reptilian infighting skills of Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney. It's really no insult to say that -- and besides, she's still young, with her whole future ahead of her. My guess is that Wolfowitz is next. Yeah, sure, I'm all anti-Semitic and shit. UPDATE: Frist is now signalling that he wants Rice's testimony. Very possibly he is carrying water for the executive branch. So it looks to me that she'll be taking the fall sooner rather than later. Some Bush Supporters Want Rice to Testify SECOND UPDATE: It doesn't seem that I was ahead of the curve at all: Time Magazine: Is Condi The Problem? ********** Two of the creepiest Republican operatives accuse Democrats attacking Rice of racism and sexism. Rice won't testify publicly or under oath, but she's showing up all over the place on TV: http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0403/27/politics-104861.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/ --- Posted at 3/28/2004 12:04:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/26/2004 War Cross-posted at Daily News Online. The Wrong War: "Mr. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, writes in his book, "Against All Enemies," that despite clear evidence the attacks had been the work of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, top administration officials focused almost immediately on the object of their obsession, Iraq. He remembers taking a short break for a bite to eat and a shower, then returning to the White House very early on the morning of Sept. 12. He writes:I have a cousin who went to Iraq. He was in a Marine recon unit that went in before the war. He's very gung-ho about "defending America" and retaliating against the terrorists for 9/11, so we don't talk about this. But I wonder what he's going to think about this later, when he realizes that he was NOT "defending America" or avenging 9/11. More than that, I wonder about the families of the dead. And I wonder about the injured. I wonder how they feel -- or will feel when the truth is accepted -- having sacrificed so much for the wrong war, for a trick, for an election gimmick, for a far-right ideology. And when the troops return, and the truth is known, how will they react? What will they say about this period of their lives, spent away in Iraq, seeing what they have seen and for some of them having done what they did in the course of a war and the year following that war. I wonder how will we ever ask others to sacrifice? Now that our country has done this, how will we be able to ask people to sacrifice when it really IS necessary, really IS about defending the country, and really IS about fighting for freedom? This betrayal is beyond politics, beyond impeachment, beyond resolution by law, certainly beyond a swinging left-right pendulum of national attitudes that naturally resolves itself back to some center. America was hijacked, politics was hijacked, our law was hijacked, our SYSTEM was hijacked, international law was hijacked, morality was hijacked... There is nothing worse than war. When this is all over (if we do come to our senses) we must -- MUST -- repair our system and put in place oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent anything like this from happening again. And I mean a lot more than just preventing a war -- I mean all the steps that led up to this, from the one-dollar-one-vote campaign system that let them get a foothold, to the repeal of the equal time doctrine that allowed them to turn our radio and TV stations into full-time right-wing propaganda outlets, even to indirect-but-related activities to consolidate their power over our institutions of morality like their taking over the Southern Baptist Church. That's part of the whole equation, and we need to look at every little piece of how they accomplished the takeover that led to this terrible, unforgivable war.'I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. . . . Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.'" --- Posted at 3/26/2004 02:49:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Free Trade Again Matt and Kevin are posting about free trade again, so I'm being the free trade skeptic again. (How about you? Anything new with you?) As always, I'll start off by saying that free trade is in many respects a good thing, etc., etc., and that under certain circumstances it might have been a very good thing. Free trade defenders always point to the formal economic principle of comparative advantage and claim that it proves that with free trade, everyone is always better off. Even at best, though, it doesn't prove that; the most it can prove is that, on the average, free trade between two countries makes both countries better off. Not "everybody". One major American product is labor, and Indian and Chinese labor, by and large, have an enormous comparative advantage over American labor. So perhaps America should reduce its production of labor, and stress products for which we do have a comparative advantage. Problem solved, except that most Americans have nothing to sell but labor. What then? Well, they collect unemployment for a few months, and then they hunt for work for another few months, and then they become "discouraged workers". And then -- voila! -- they disappear from the statistics, and everything is fine again. It is dogmatically asserted by all free traders that the tradeoff is even -- one job exported, one job imported. There may be some formal tendency of the system to gravitate that way, but isn't this an empirical question? What has actually been happening? On the one hand, maybe our big partners like China and India aren't playing the game the same way we are. There is, after all, an enormous trade deficit. And on the other, maybe our exporting firms are exporting products which are less labor-intensive. So what are the facts? (I don't know, but I don't think we can get them by extrapolating from the formulae in our Economics 101 textbook). From the point of view of labor, free trade tends to force labor producers (i.e. workers) to compete with overseas workers whose pay is much lower. And even these workers (e.g., in China and India) have to compete with workers elsewhere who are paid still less (e.g., in Egypt and Bangla Desh). And maybe this is a good thing on the whole, but it's certainly not good for everyone. Specifically not American workers. Kevin Drum points out that if one job is lost and one gained, the loser will be angrier than the winner is happy (what's called "prospect theory"). This again assumes a parity that may not exist, but even if there is a one-for-one exchange, and even if the jobs are equally good, there's no real advantage in breaking even like that -- certainly no advantage big enough to justify the messianism about free trade. You really need a better than one-for-one ratio. So maybe prospect theory is a good guide -- if you're only going to break even with free trade, you better not do it. As usual, I will conclude that free trade might have been a good thing. (Yes, I've failed to mention some of its benefits here). But combined with our present economic slump with its jobless recovery, and the relentless long-term reduction in public amenities (especially medical insurance, pension plans, and access to education), and finally the lack of real commitment to the various proposals floated to soften the impact for displaced workers, I find it hard to be sure that free trade was a good thing. And certainly the Democrats made a big political mistake by sacrificing a chunk of their core constituency in the name of the global general welfare. Clinton's allies in the free-trade battles were mostly Republicans -- and most Republicans are anti-labor pure and simple. With free trade, the Republicans won, and both the free-trade Democrats and the protectionist Democrats lost -- to say nothing of labor. And the Democratic party is now that much weaker, and the Republican Party that much stronger. --- Posted at 3/26/2004 12:53:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
March Madness and Budget Watch Posted by Tom Manatos Advisor to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Check out the right kind of humor/cleverness to use these days, as opposed to President Bush's poor taste humor.....Leader Pelosi is tying in the "March Madness" theme into the Republican Madness recently. See site for first round of "Republican March Madness" and vote for the most outrageous Republican priority. Speaking of outrageous Republican action, the Republican budget just passed on the House floor last night and it will now go to conference committee with whatever was passed in the Senate. See fact sheets on how the Republican Budget affects different issues: Education, Homeland Security, the Environment, Veterans and Armed Forces and Health Care. Also, definitely check out the House Democrats central site for everything regarding the budget including actual video of Republicans voting against protecting social security and veterans benefits, "Budget Watch." For information like this or any information pertaining to House Democrats please feel free to contact me at Tom.Manatos@mail.house.gov. --- Posted at 3/26/2004 10:50:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Lying Liars Update Awhile back my buddy Dave posted a piece on the Bush-Rove strategy of lying all the time. More recently, mind-mannered neoliberal Josh Micah Marshall said about the same thing, and for Brad DeLong's opinion just google "Brad + DeLong + these + liars" for the ongoing series. (Dave's piece is now the #1 google for "They just lie".) The Rove-Bush strategy doesn't seem to work as well overseas, and deception still can be an issue for Spanish voters and also for Polish leaders. But here in America we're all California fuzzy-logic situational ethics: "That was then -- it doesn't really make any difference any more -- it's water over the dam -- we're positive people who look forward -- solutions are more important than fingerpointing." Or at least Rove and Bush hope so, judging by Bush's recent lame WMD jokes. For my Polish and Spanish readers, however, with their naive enthusiasm for their recently-won democracy, here's a collection of links about the Bush administration's lies, Chalabi's lies, and the circulation of lies through the American media. (The Knight-Ridder pieces are of special interest: throughout the Iraq War, reporters for this chain consistently did actual reporting, instead of just typing up administration handouts the way the deteriorating New York Times and Washington Post did. Perhaps market forces will eventually propel one of the Knight-Ridder newspapers to national status to fill the journalistic gap.) 237 misleading administration statements about Iraq (pdf file complied by Rep. Waxman, of the House minority) Knight-Ritter: Exiles plant fake stories in media Knight-Ridder II Editor and Publisher: Fake Iraqi exile stories planted in media Editor and Publisher II Chalabi: "So what if we lied?" Chalabi family has cashed in for $400 million so far Google cache of Royce story The two Chalabi stories got very little coverage in the U.S. media, and the second story has apparently been pulled from the internet by Newsday, which originated it. I saved the Google cache. --- Posted at 3/26/2004 07:23:00 AM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENT-2004 [... this is a little bit old, but well worth thinking about. I couldn't find an "original" posting site via Google, and found all sorts of copies reposted, so I think I'm o.k. in posting the full text. The theory espoused is provactive, at the very least, and the information included re: relative levels of positive/negative coverage is disturbing (although, admittedly, Dean's campaign, in challenging conventional wisdom, was bound to provoke more reaction, positive and negative, than that of his opponents). --Thomas Leavitt] THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENT-2004 By Carl Jensen Howard Dean supporters across the country were surprised when they woke up Tuesday morning, January 19, to read reports of Dean's unexpected third place finish in the Iowa caucuses. What happened? Gov. Dean started 2003 with little name recognition and even less campaign funding. Through the summer he spread the old familiar theme of power to the people, mostly through the Internet, and Americans by the hundreds of thousands responded with their support and dollars. We wanted to take our country and the Democratic Party back. Then in late 2003, the media, which had anointed Dean as the front runner, started to attack him. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the polls showed him plummeting and the media's new darling, Senator John Kerry, soaring. Kerry's remarkable overnight turnaround even surprised the candidate himself who gleefully declared he was the "Comeback Kerry." Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, DC, which conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and information for most Americans. The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors received significantly more positive comments. The research examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003. Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent favorable coverage. In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second, just below Kerry, with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly all, 96%, of the comments about Kerry were positive. However, Gov. Dean's coverage during those first 18 days of January was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air evaluations. What happened in the campaign that inspired the media to turn on Dean and throw their support to uninspiring Kerry? A clue may be found in a story published in the Washington Post on November 19, 2003. The Post reported that, "In an interview Monday night (11/17/03), Dean unveiled his idea to 're-regulate' utilities, large media companies and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad protections for workers, including the right to unionize." Also on November 19, the Associated Press reported, "Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom." Dean's idea of re-regulating two out-of-control business sectors produced criticism from some of his competitors and surely struck a raw nerve within monopolistic utilities and mega-media companies. I believe Dean's progressive attack on monopolies helps explain why the corporate media started piling on Dean, portraying him with the pejorative term of the "angry candidate." But while this helps explain why the media went after Dean, it doesn't explain why they suddenly anointed Kerry as their Golden Boy. However, it would appear that Kerry would not pose a threat to corporate America while Dean would obviously challenge their monopolistic control. First, a search of Lexis Nexis, a comprehensive computer databank of news and information, failed to find a single comment by Kerry supporting re-regulation of media companies. In fact, Gov. Dean was the only major candidate who ventured into no-man's-land to criticize media monopolies and even threaten to break them up when elected president. We then discovered a newly published book by the Center for Public Integrity(CPI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that does investigative reporting and research on public policy issues. The book is titled, "The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and his Democratic Challengers - and What They Expect in Return, (Harper Collins, 2004) According to CPI, the three largest fundraisers in the presidential campaign at this time are Howard Dean with more than $25 million; John Kerry with more than $20 million; and, of course, President George W. Bush with $85.2 million (as of Sept. 30, 2003). As has been reported, Bush plans to build a war chest of some $200 million for the election. His top major donors include financial firms Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston, UBS Paine Webber, and Goldman Sachs Group. The President's top career donor is the scandal-ridden Enron Corp. Kerry's top donors include Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Time Warner, and a variety of major law firms. Time Warner, as we know, is the world's largest media conglomerate. Among a variety of media outlets, it also owns Internet giant America On Line and CNN - a virtual cheerleader for Kerry. The research Center does not cite any major donors for Dean. As we know, the majority of his contributors are ordinary citizens who donate an average of $77 dollars. Dean's "special interest group" is the American people. Finally, we come to a January 28, 2004, report from "The Campaign Desk," which produces a daily analysis of the 2004 campaign and is sponsored by the Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University. The non-partisan "Campaign Desk" reported that it is concerned "when the press singles out one candidate for the kind of mauling and piling on by exaggeration and distortion that Dean has endured in the past week. "On CNN last night, Judy Woodruff joined the mob at 10:42 p.m. when she suggested that perhaps Dean's lower-key post-election address in New Hampshire means that he was 'preparing his minions, all of his supporters, for the fact that he may not win this nomination?' "That's neither fair nor journalism," "The Campaign Desk" concluded. There may be a limit to the piling on. When Wolf Blitzer polled his CNN viewers on January 25, "Are the media unfairly characterizing Howard Dean's post-Iowa loss rally?" 89% said "Yes." Carl Jensen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Sonoma State University, Founder of Project Censored --- Posted at 3/26/2004 01:25:00 AM by Thomas Leavitt Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
(un)Common Sense discussion of public policy in re: the economy. [Read the whole article. This guy is dead on target with his analysis. Another gem from Dave Farber's IP list. -Thomas] The Economy Summed Up: Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden, to Avoid Creating Jobs-http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/03/the_economy_sum.html The political analyst Charlie Cook's weekly column, available by e-mail subscription http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm is a real treasure, and usually offers much more than just the horserace. There's a single paragraph in today's column that I think sums up what we need to know about the economy and jobs better than anything I've read: In December, the CEO of a California-based high tech firm told me that "there is no amount of overtime that we will not pay, there is no level of temporary services that we will not use, there is no level of outsourcing or offshoring that we will not do, in order to prevent us from having to hire one new, permanent worker in the U.S." As I travel around the country, meeting with business leaders, I hear similar, though less succinct thoughts in almost every sector and every part of the country. U.S. wages, health care, and other benefit costs have gotten so high -- and the press by investors for high stock prices is so great -- that the premium is on wringing every last bit of work out of as few employees as possible, to do anything but incur the costs of adding permanent employees. [emphasis added] [see url above for full article] --- Posted at 3/26/2004 12:19:00 AM by Thomas Leavitt Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/25/2004 Bush has lost I don't see how our comedian President is going to be able to survive this: "Political pundits recently showcased on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" said the outcome of this year's election may rely on the swing votes of undecided voters in states like Oregon. Voters like me. I'm a registered Republican who is loath to vote for a Democrat. But if President Bush doesn't act swiftly to get our sons and daughters out of this hand-picked war of his, he won't get my vote. Those of us who lost fathers in Vietnam have spent a lifetime debating the wrongs of that war. We shouldn't have to spend our futures distraught over the sacrifices of our offspring, too -- sons like Joel K. Brattain, who gave his life this month while fighting to help free the oppressed people of Iraq." "A swing voter's plea: Get them out of Iraq, and soon" --- Posted at 3/25/2004 09:14:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Richard Clarke may still be a Republican To the Editor, Portland Oregonian: Both today and yesterday you printed columns disparaging Richard Clarke's testimony about 9/11 preparedness. Debra Saunders claims that Clarke is part of "the Clinton machine" and explains that 9/11 was all Clinton's fault. David Reinhard says that it's impossible to take Clarke seriously because his friend Rand Beers now works for John Kerry. Beers and Clarke both worked for Bush as experts on counter-terrorism – Beers took over when Clarke resigned. Neither was a Democrat then, and Clarke isn't one now. They resigned because they were dissatisfied with Bush's counter-terrorism performance -- Clarke is now giving us the details. Contra Saunders, Clarke does not exonerate either Clinton or himself. Contra Reinhard, Clarke's book is being published now because of a three-month security-review delay – not because of the upcoming election. Reinhard and Saunders are trying to discredit Clarke because they think his book will hurt Bush. Aren't they the ones being political? John Emerson (150 words -- count 'em.) ********** They don't usually print my letters; we'll see. (UPDATE: They did: Friday, March 26) Here are some links about Clarke. Clarke has the Republicans terrified -- Bush's anti-terrorist leadership is one of the very few positive things they had to run on, and without it they're doomed. They're scarcely contesting his facts at all, and are mostly just trying to discredit him. Talking Points Memo: just read everything. Brad Delong: Republican Attack Monkeys Billmon: Clarke will be hard to discredit Conason interview of Clarke Sketch of Clarke's career Summary of administration smears against Clarke Daniel Benjamin ("The Age of Sacred Terror") backs Clarke Clarke and Beers are only two of many professionals to resign from the Bush administration --- Posted at 3/25/2004 03:12:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/23/2004 George W. Bush Coloring Book [Got this in my inbox at SavageStupidity.com today. Looks amusing. Anything that helps spread the word about the "alternative reality" that this president and his administration operate within is a good thing. --Thomas Leavitt] New Book by Publisher of Temp Slave Drawing from the imaginative quotes President Bush has uttered over the years, the George W. Bush Coloring Book illustrates Bush's very own words in the form of a coloring book. Illustrator Karen Ocker lends her visually distinct style to on-the-record quotes such as "It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency," and "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." The coloring book includes an essay on Bush by Joley Wood. Wood has written on numerous Irish writers, including essays on James Joyce, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, and a preface for Shaw's "Saint Joan" (Penguin). Examples at: http://www.gcpress.com/gwbush/ Available through INGRAM. ISBN: 1891053949 The George W. Bush Coloring Book 8.95 release date March 28, 2004 Contact: G.K. Darby Garrett Ct. Press http://www.gcpress.com/ 504.598.4685 --- Posted at 3/23/2004 09:24:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Brian Brought to you by the People's Front of Judea, uh, or the Judean People's Front, or, uh, oh bugger! --- Posted at 3/23/2004 07:02:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Saying a lot This is one of Billmon's finest. And that's saying a lot. --- Posted at 3/23/2004 06:00:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Rallying Just a quick comment about Bush and 9/11. It is conventional wisdom that Bush did a good job leading the nation after the 9/11 attack. Here's what I say. (So listen up.) After 9/11 Bush did not rally the nation under his leadership. The Democrats rallied under Bush because that was the patriotic and sensible thing to do -- we're under attack, we need one leader, etc. Immediately Bush began abusing that patriotic sentiment for political purposes. Immediately they began steering that unity towards more tax cuts, invading Iraq, and the rest of their far-right agenda. AND they used 9/11 to instill a sense of fear and intimidation in the press, the political opposition, and the public. So enough about Bush being an excellent leader. Why should BUSH get credit because WE "rallied 'round the flag?" (So there.) --- Posted at 3/23/2004 08:54:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/22/2004 The Spanish Election and Democracy The reaction to the Spanish election, in which the party of Bush's ally Aznar was voted out of office, was a litmus test of attitudes toward democracy, and the message I'm getting is not encouraging. David Brooks: "It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable." Now, Brooks obviously would not have said this if the Spanish voters had voted correctly -- in Israel, terrorist attacks have thrown the election to Likud several times. Since, as Matt Yglesias astutely pointed out, the conservative attacks on the cowardly Spanish voters were just dry runs for attacks at some later date on cowardly Kerry voters, Brooks' speculation about cancelling or postponing the Spanish election makes you wonder whether a terrorist attack might also lead to an attempt to postpone this year's Presidential election -- especially if it seems that voters might vote "wrong". After the tainted 2000 election, and granted what we know about the Bush machine, I think that we should insist in advance that the 2004 election be held, no matter what. Not only that, we should insist that the prescribed Constitutional procedures for recounts and challenges be followed to the letter next time, without an ad hoc Supreme Court intervention. (Considering that the problematic Diebold machines apparently will be used in many states, a contested election seems very likely unless there's a real landslide, and one wonders whether a post-election struggle -- which worked so well for them last time -- might not be part of the Republican plan.) The standard right-wing interpretation of the Spanish vote is that the cowardly Spaniards caved in to terrorism. A more reasonable interpretation (based on the facts) is that the Spaniards rejected the Aznar government's strategy on terrorism, and especially the dishonesty of the Aznar government's attempt to convince the voters that the bombing was done by the Basques. In other words, as Krugman said -- in the Spanish election, democracy worked: "By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy." However, there is an anti-popular theory of democracy which says that democracy cannot be allowed to be harmed by the wrongheadedness of "temporary majorities", and I think that that is what is going on with the conservative commentators. This theory also says that, by and large, the electorate really is not able to understand the larger issues and really do not need to be told the truth. Fortunately, the Spanish do not believe that, nor do the Poles (judging by some things their President said). But perhaps this is because they are new to democracy, and thus overenthusiastic and lacking in sophistication. In America, the official conservative story is that what Bush said before the war doesn't make any difference any more. That was then. When they figure out what they were trying to do and why they did it, they'll tell us. Or something like that. In the U.S., everything works against popular democracy: media concentration, money in politics, experts at "engineering consent" like Karl Rove, and the anti-democratic convictions of the elite. We're definitely fighting an uphill battle. Demanding the truth might be the place to start. (Documentation here, including a bunch of links about the Iraq lies.) --- Posted at 3/22/2004 08:51:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
John O'Neill Don't forget about John O'Neill, the FBI's terrorism expert who quit in disgust at the Bush administration's lack of response to bin Laden. More here. --- Posted at 3/22/2004 03:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Divisions Cross-posted at american street. The White House response to Clarke's interview and book reveals a lot about their thinking. From Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11: "'If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns about the direction of the war on terror, why did he stay on the team as long as he did, and why did he wait till the beginning of a presidential campaign to speak out?' Mr. Bartlett said. He said the book's timing showed that it was 'more about politics than policy.'"1) How about he stayed because he cared about the country and wanted to try to do some good rather to leave the country in the hands of those who would do nothing but give speeches -- trying to actually do something as contrasted with just making a political statement? That does not appear to be a concept that is in the thinking of this White House. 2) The timing? Since timing of activities to coincide with elections seems to be on the White House's mind, let's talk about timing of events to coincide with campaigns. In September of 2002 the White House rolled out what it called a "marketing campaign" to "sell" the Iraq war. They launched their campaign on Labor Day -- the traditional beginning of campaign season. The Iraq War campaign was EXACTLY timed for the 2002 elections. In this White House politics is everything. Bush's father waited until AFTER the election to hold a vote on getting Iraq out of Kuwait because he did not want to introduce such a potentially divisive issue -- a war vote -- during a campaign. That would have been bad for the country, and he cared about that. But THIS Bush forced the vote DURING the campaign BECAUSE he wanted to divide the country. And he brought up the --- Posted at 3/22/2004 08:58:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Thanks Again, Joe White House Rebuts Ex-Bush Adviser Claim: "Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush -- who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election -- was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks. 'I see no basis for it,' Lieberman said on 'Fox News Sunday.' 'I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.'"Go away, Joe. You and Zell. Oh yeah, then there's Other Joe: "And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's 'This Week' that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, 'I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.'"You go away TOO, Other Joe. When we say we want more "Democrat" Senators, maybe we should be careful what we wish for. --- Posted at 3/22/2004 07:09:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/21/2004 The Smearing Begins Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation: "The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind. "This is from February (after they knew he was writing a book exposing Bush), but is brought out on the far-right Drudge Report to honor his appearance on 60 Minutes, and begins the inevitable character assassination. Doesn't take long... And what are Clarke's sins? In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan."Helping Clinton go after bin Laden. THAT'S "misguided." If you read the piece, it seems to say Clarke is a bad person because he say we should go after bin Laden instead of Saddam. --- Posted at 3/21/2004 10:01:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Well, Did You See It? Clarke on 60 Minutes. What did you think? A Green friend says tomorrow the Republicans will "challenge" Kerry to say whether he "agrees with Clarke that the soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq died in vain," and Kerry will say NO, and that's the end of it. I say, Kerry, prove him wrong! --- Posted at 3/21/2004 08:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
When The Company IS The Party -- II Businesses Point Workers Toward Ballot Boxes: "A growing number of large U.S. corporations are offering services to register their employees to vote and mounting get-to-the-polls drives that advocates hope will swell the ranks of pro-business voters this election year. Companies portray the voter push as a nonpartisan employee benefit. But Republicans see it as a boon to their hopes of maintaining control of the House and Senate and reelecting President Bush."This is not as bad as pressuring employees to contribute to The Party (then reimbursing them) but it's clear where the pressure lies. Don't DARE register as a Democrat in these circumstances if you want to keep your job. --- Posted at 3/21/2004 02:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/20/2004 This Is "Reporting?" NY Times today, in After 19 Years in Senate, Kerry of Today Is Far From Kerry of 1985: "When he first entered the Senate, in 1985, John Kerry was a proponent of a nuclear arms freeze and he joined other liberal Democrats in challenging numerous elements of President Ronald Reagan's military expansion. He called the build-up unnecessary and said some of the weapons systems were useless. Mr. Reagan's military expansion was subsequently credited for helping hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union."WTF??? It was? Credited by who? The Soviet Union did not increase their spending by one thin dime in response to Reagan's huge military buildup. It had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is a good example of how lies, repeated over and over, become "conventional wisdom." --- Posted at 3/20/2004 12:53:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/19/2004 Some Facts on the Spanish Election The hawks' interpretation of the Spanish vote is mostly wrong. First, several days before the bombing the election was already very close (42 - 38) and trending toward the Socialists. Second, the biggest issue for the voters who switched was the aggressive dishonesty of the Aznar government, which went so far as to mislead the U.N. and German police officials. Third, while Aznar's party did support Bush in Iraq, its counterterrorism policy per se was not very good. And finally, the Socialists are not planning to surrender to terrorism; they are simply rejecting Bush's leadership and his discredited strategy. The Spanish Socialists are not alone. They were followed almost immediately by several Central American countries and South Korea. President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland meanwhile expressed serious doubts about the way the war had been sold. (Kwasniewski's initial statement had said that Poland might withdraw from the coalition, though a later statement, which presumably had been made under pressure, declared that Poland would stay.) And finally, the Dutch are also showing signs of restlessness. Furthermore, during the controversy about Kerry's claims of foreign support, any one of the coalition members could have come forward to make clear that it was Bush whom they supported. But no one did -- not Tony Blair, and not even Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who met with Bush recently. The hawk's conclusion is that the formerly plucky Spaniards have been mysteriously transformed into loathsome Old European appeasers -- and that Western civilization is doomed. A more reasonable conclusion is that Bush's Iraq-based counter-terrorism strategy has almost no international support, and should be replaced by a different and better counter-terrorism strategy. It's Kerry's job to make that case. (Searching "Aleksander Kwasniewski" in Google News seems to show that the Polish story didn't get much coverage in the US, and that the later statement of Polish support got more coverage than the earlier expression of doubt. So it never really happened.) --- Posted at 3/19/2004 07:27:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bloggers of the World Unite! Bloggers of the World Unite! --- Posted at 3/19/2004 08:30:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/18/2004 Where's The Party? Salon's War Room agrees with me about Kerry's bad week, so they must be brilliant: "But this isn't just Kerry's problem. It's a party problem, and one for anyone who wants to see new leadership in Washington. Which begs the question: Where are Kerry's surrogates? Where is the unified Democratic Party we heard so much about during the primaries? Howard Dean came out to support Kerry on Wednesday, and ended up generating controversy by suggesting Bush's war in Iraq led to the Madrid bombings. Dean later clarified the remark and reporters chased Kerry until he distanced himself from Dean."Yes - where is the party? As Atrios pointed out yesterday (also agrees with me, therefore also brilliant) in the post United They'll Stand "The Democrats have about 250 members of Congress. They have numerous official and non-official allies. They need to figure out how to use them to run this campaign in the 24/7 news cycle in a media landscape which is much more fractured than it was back in 1992. At any point in time, they need to have dozens of people ready to fan out to every possible media outlet and perform the inverse judo flip any time the Bush machine turns on the slime. There should be a small army, including a couple top generals, ready to lend their voice on any subject at any time. They should be briefed and prepped with the latest talking points, and they should be out there screaming them at every opportunity."So how about it? WHERE"S THE PARTY? --- Posted at 3/18/2004 05:56:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Here's A Way To Help Earlier I asked how we can get the word out about Bush's lies? Here's one way, but only if you send them some moolah: MoveOn.org Voter Fund. Go watch their Polygraph ad, then send some MOOLAH to help them get it on the air! --- Posted at 3/18/2004 04:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Media Fund This is a group running ads in swing states, attacking Bush: Make America Work For Us. Go throw them some money! And watch their ads. --- Posted at 3/18/2004 03:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Chickenhawk Alert Over at Altercation today: "And speaking of Cheney, did you know that he received four 2-S draft deferments -- granted to students -- from 1963 through 1965 while he was a student at the University of Wyoming. He married Lynne in 1964, and was thus banned from the draft. But in October 1965, the Selective Service announced that married men without children could then be drafted. Exactly nine months and two days later -- on July 28, 1966 -- his first child was born. Cheney hadn't waited until her birth before he sought a 3-A deferment classification -- given to those with dependents. He did so when Lynne was only 10 weeks pregnant." --- Posted at 3/18/2004 03:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
In Salon: Bush's war on truth Salon.com News | Bush's war on truth: "The Bush campaign is twisting the meaning of a quote from Sen. John Kerry to the breaking point, making it clear that the president and his supporters will not allow facts to get in their way."Yes, we know. He lies. They just lie. But so what? You and I, we read weblogs, so we know all about this. The public doesn't know it, and hardly anyone is telling them. Weblogs don't count. You and I are in an "echo chamber;" WE know things, so we assume everyone does. In fact, what we know and understand is very different from what the rest of American knows and understands. Remember, the most recent polls still show that half of all Americans think that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, had WMDs and that we found them. Every time someone calls Iraq part of the "war on terror" this just confuses matters further. This is a "frame" they have put together, and each time it is repeated it reinforces itself. The Right has the entire AM radio band broadcasting 24/7 telling America how Kerry and Democrats lie to them, and that "the liberal media" should not be trusted, especially if they report things that are bad about Republicans -- like that they lie. The far right has FOX News and the NY Post and Drudge and most of the TV pundits and most of the newspaper pundits, and ALL the Republicans all repeating the same line over and over. And then, the rest of the media is "centrist" which means they don't want to appear "extreme" by pointing out where the President is lying. This is not to mention those in the mainstream corporate media who are not rightists but are outright spouting a pro-Bush line. In fact, the Bush people are so brazen and sure of themselves that President Bush said the other day, I think if you're gonna make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts. Imagine what universe America lives in when the Bush people can get away with saying that KERREY needs to back up his accusations with facts! So how do we get more and more people checking "progressive" news sources, so that they will learn about what is really going on? The news is here, but we have to get people to it. --- Posted at 3/18/2004 02:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines People For the American Way has come out for verifiable voting machines. See Protecting the Integrity and Accessibility of Voting in 2004 and Beyond. Item 2 is "Voters must be able to independently and privately cast and verify their ballot." --- Posted at 3/18/2004 11:58:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Ah, there’s culture and then there’s agriculture... You know, living in the heartland, here in Bush’s America (Missouri narrowly went for Bush in 2000 but my county is in the rural northern part of Missouri that votes Republican), sure does lead to some interesting experiences. We often hear about the importance of values and education here in Bush’s America. Well, listen to this story about the value placed on education in my little town, a town, I remind you, with a university in it no less. Anyway, our local high school team has made the state final four tournament. I was appalled to discover yesterday that the school district decided that, by golly, they’d just take TWO DAYS OFF so that everyone could go down to Columbia and watch the game. Yes, you read that right, boys and girls. The local school district took two days off from school because the team made the final round of the state tournament. Anyone see anything the slightest bit wrong with that? What kind of message do you send to kids when they get days off from school essentially to celebrate the basketball team’s achievements? I mean, let’s be honest, the high school kids aren’t going to miss much losing two days of school there (it’s high school for goodness sakes) – but the elementary and middle school kids too? Are you kidding me? This whole thing led one of my colleagues at work to quip that we should get a local referendum passed renaming the School District the “____________ (town’s name withheld to protect the innocent) Athletic Club.” Well last night I went to a church function and made a few sarcastic remarks and boy did I get a response. I found out a bunch of people planned to go to the games. My remarks were most certainly NOT appreciated by a lot of people there. Of course, at least one person seemed to agree with me and even quipped “Well, it does seem a bit much. What if they lose on Thursday and therefore don’t play on Friday? Is everyone just going to dutifully just come back and go to school on Friday?” I responded “No. That will be an official day of mourning.” The most awful part was when I got in the car after this function and my nine-year-old son, Michael, who had heard all of this, said “But Dad it is important. It’s why Maryville is known.” You can imagine my response. I won’t share that lecture with you too. And I'm not even a particularly anti-sports or anti-athletics person at all. It just seemed so out of proportion to cancel school for the basketball tournament. But, you know what, this really is an important question. Is this the sort of vapid culture and fake commitment to education that exists here in Bush’s America? "No Child Left Behind" – at least when the team bus leaves for Columbia, huh? --- Posted at 3/18/2004 08:33:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/17/2004 Something more serious: Coca-Cola's union busting campaign in Columbia continues. [See the full details on my personal blog - said posting includes a sample letter to Coca-Cola's top management via their PR person. This is only the latest in a long string of vicious human rights abuses by the Coca-Cola company's local proxy in Columbia. Please write - the only way we'll preserve our standard of living and rights in the workplace here in the United States, is to ensure that those abroad have the same freedoms. Your letters could mean the difference between life and death for these workers. -Thomas] Dear Friends, This morning, Monday March 15, Coca-Cola union workers in Colombia began a hunger strike in front of the Coke bottling plants in Barrancabermeja, Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cartagena, Cúcuta, Medellín, and Valledupar. Juan Carlos Galvis, vice president of the local union in Barrancabermeja, has said, “If we lose the fight against Coca-Cola, we will first lose our union, next our jobs and then our lives.” On September 9, 2003, Coca-Cola FEMSA, Coca-Cola’s largest Colombian bottler, closed the production lines at 11 of their 16 bottling plants. (The Coca-Cola Company shares several board members with Coca-Cola FEMSA and owns 46.4 % of its voting stock.) Since then, they’ve pressured more than 500 workers into “voluntarily resigning” from their contracts in exchange for a lump-sum payment. Most of the union leaders have refused to resign and the company has now escalated the pressure against them. On February 25, the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection (Labor) authorized Coca-Cola FEMSA’s plans to dismiss 91 workers - 70 percent of whom are union leaders. This is Coca-Cola’s effort to essentially eliminate the union. The Campaign To Stop Killer Coke supports the union’s call for Coca-Cola FEMSA to relocate those workers to other positions within those plants or to transfer them to other plants. This is what the company is required to do, according to Articles 18 and 91 of the current collective bargaining agreements. In January, a Colombian judge also ordered the company to do this for the workers at the plants in Barrancabermeja and Cúcuta. On behalf of the workers and their families, please send the strongest possible message to The Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta and Coca-Cola FEMSA in Colombia. Here are sample messages and contact information, along with a communication that was issued by the union this morning. In Solidarity, Ray Rogers Director Campaign To Stop Killer Coke 212-979-8320 http://www.killercoke.org StopKillerCoke@aol.com Please read on... --Thomas Leavitt --- Posted at 3/17/2004 09:29:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A world of difference: Brits make fun of FCC/American Puritanism. Here's a link to a commercial being broadcast by Channel 4 in the U.K. - the participants, many of whom are famous, are asked to say their favorite cuss words on camera (it says something that this is simply unimaginable in the U.S.). It's bloody good fun! http://www.channel4.com/ads/index1.html Note: this commercial is likely to land you in hot water if your workplace is corporate or uptight. I heard about this on Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list. This, along with Declan McCullagh's Politech mailing list (see below), qualifies as the two most essential bits of reading available anywhere. See the original posting for more detail. --Thomas Leavitt --- Posted at 3/17/2004 09:19:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
They simply can't stop lying. Joshua Micah Marshall agrees with me: "They simply can't stop lying." --- Posted at 3/17/2004 05:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
New MoveOn Ad MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action. I think people might have to explain to regular Americans who this is in the ad, what he's being caught at, and why this is is so important, but so be it. Pass it along! --- Posted at 3/17/2004 05:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Important To Read This This just out from Media Transparency. The Apparat -- George Bush's Back-Door Political Machine "...a vast machine that ... has "played a critical role in helping the Republican Party to dominate state, local and national politics." It is now operating at full throttle to keep Bush in office. Though its activists like to call themselves conservatives, there is nothing they wish to "conserve" beyond their power, status, and wealth. They are right-wing radicals who have stolen the GOP away from the true conservatives who once dominated it."Please go read this. It talks about how and why the Right is so powerful now, and how "behind-the-scenes" forces are working to keep the Right in power. Update - "The architectural shape of the right-wing counter-establishment resembles the apparatus that ran the Soviet Union. The Russians called it the "apparat" -- a vast bureaucratic web of power that housed the organs, official and unofficial, of the ruling Communist Party. It included the administrative departments that fictively ran the Soviet government. In fact, the party ran it all. Its ruling Politburo and Central Committee were paramount. The Soviet apparat was headed by a privileged ruling class, the nomenklatura, manned by a faceless army of bureaucrats, the apparatchiki. [. . .] The American apparat of the far right can be viewed as a variant of the Soviet model - amorphous in overlapping functions at the top but monolithic in its aims. It is an external government that guides the federal government. In a stunning sense, it is counter-revolutionary and anti-Constitutional. The American apparat has learned from the failures of the Iran-Contra and Watergate operations, which functioned within the government, and were thus subject to governmental oversight and correction. Not so the apparat. With its operations spread over a spectrum external to government, it attracts neither official nor media attention. It operates invisibly -- in the open. [. . .] Like its Soviet counterpart, the American apparat is also a closed society, largely unelected and unaccountable to the body politic, and casts its penumbra upon the White House. As in the former USSR, there is little discussion or debate. Loyalty is absolute -- "you are either with us or you are with our enemies." Under Bush and Cheney, brisk exchanges of view, the engine of policy formation in prior administrations, are discouraged. Cabinet meetings are scripted for a president unprepared for spontaneous exchanges (as revealed in documents posted by Ron Suskind, that were used to research his best-selling The Price of Loyalty). The endgame for the apparat is a one-party state in which elections project only a vestigial appearance of democratic process. It is run, in effect, by the ruling oligarchy, whose members are beholden only to the apparat. [. . .] The apparat's media-attack organizations are charged with keeping journalists in line, mobilizing the base to wage harassment campaigns against media organizations and reporters they dub as too "liberal." Journalists who dare criticize the Administration are priority targets for abuse. For that reason, among others, Americans learn almost nothing from mainstream media about the apparat, whose media-attack operations effectively silenced Hillary Clinton's charges of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" operating against her husband's administration."Bloggers -- PLEASE point to this story! Everyone should read this. --- Posted at 3/17/2004 03:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Tears I see a story this morning that almost brings me to tears: Kerry Doesn't Share Dean's View on Spain, "Presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday he does not share fellow Democrat Howard Dean's position that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appears to have been a factor in the Spanish train bombing."Even though, as Dean had pointed out, THE BOMBERS say they did it because of Iraq: A man who identified himself as an al-Qaida spokesman said on a videotape that the bombings were in retaliation for Spain's backing of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.The Republican statement asks Kerry to repudiate Dean, and others who "blame America" for the attacks by opposing Bush's war on Iraq: "If Senator Kerry understands the nature of this threat and the need to take on terror, then he should immediately repudiate these troubling comments, and stop all efforts on behalf of his surrogates to blame America for these attacks," said Racicot, former governor of Montana.And then Kerry DOES repudiate Dean (and me, and all the others who oppose Bush)? Like I said, brings me to tears. It was a short throw-away story, maybe I read it wrong. Maybe Kerry actually stood up for Dean, and me, and criticized Bush's war on Iraq for contributing to what happened in Spain, and the story had it wrong. BuzzFlash Message to John Kerry: It's the Golden Hour of Opportunity, Define Bush or Be Defined by Him. There is No Option "B." Update - I think a good answer for Kerry would have been, "I don't believe that a mature person in a position of responsibility would say something as stupid and dishonest, or would accuse a respected national leader like Howard Dean of blaming America. Statements like that divide us and diminish America, and I am surprised that you would repeat it. So I am not going to respond." --- Posted at 3/17/2004 08:37:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/16/2004 March 31 If you still don't know who Randi Rhodes is, here she is on CNN today kicking the living crap out of an admittedly third-string wingnut radio goon: COLLINS: Let's go ahead and get to the crux of the issue, and I want to hear from both of you on this. Do voters, though, when it comes down to it, do they actually go to the ballot box and pull a lever on any of the issues that they have heard on the airwaves? Michael, why don't you go ahead and take a shot at that? SMERCONISH: No. Heck, no. Talk radio listeners are not lemmings. They're not out there as automatons following the instructions of Rush or Sean Hannity of someone else. It's more like a gathering place, talk radio, for like- minded individuals who are there to be informed. And let me just say to the woman who is seated there with you that it's not as if I have to check a box on my employment application as to whether I'm a liberal or a conservative to get hired. If you can generate ratings and revenue, no one cares what you look like. No one cares what you sound like. And they don't care what your politics are. (CROSSTALK) RHODES: Michael, you don't generate either. You're No. 18 in your marketplace, and you're working. (CROSSTALK) RHODES: I'm a liberal working for Clear Channel, and I had to be No. 1 every single book, 12-plus, No. 2, 25-54, which is the big money demo, as you know, in order to keep my job working for them. And I have kept my job through ratings and revenue. And guys like you just are copycats. That's all you've done, was get on the conservative gravy train.And: SMERCONISH: If there were a demand for liberal talk radio, it would be on the air already. It's not. No one has heard of any... RHODES: March 31, Michael. SMERCONISH: Please give me a moment to respond to you. RHODES: No, because I've heard this argument over and over. (CROSSTALK) RHODES: March 31 in major markets across this country. (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: The viewers haven't had (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: Michael, go ahead and let him finish. SMERCONISH: If you listen to her, you see why nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio in this country. That's it. RHODES: That's it. Nobody wants to listen to you. COLLINS: To the both of you, thanks so much, I think. SMERCONISH: Thank you. COLLINS: Randi Rhodes, Michael Smerconish, thanks once again for joining us. RHODES: March 31. (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: To the both of you, thanks, guys.Yeah, March 31! --- Posted at 3/16/2004 08:01:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Aristide to Jamaica (Via Amy Goodman/Reuters/Le Monde)  --- Posted at 3/16/2004 07:46:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
They Just Lie Hesiod spots a big fat Bush lie. Someone has changed a story in order to smear Kerry as weak on terrorism, when it is actually Bush who did the bad deed. He's outraged. He counters with the truth. Kash spots that decisions in the bush admin. are made "according to political calculations instead of according to the advice of specialists." He is shocked. Bush is making stuff up and lying, and everyone is surprised and shocked and outraged. And everyone counters with the truth and argues the finer points and tries to disprove each claim. But what is happening is that while we're all chasing down each and every particular of each and every lie, the general public is hearing over and over again a much broader theme. They're hearing that they should be suspicious of Kerry. For example, today they are hearing the lie that Kerry "voted against American troops," and "did not support bills that would have ensured troops had body armor and earned higher combat pay, and would have given reservists and their families better health care" and all kinds of just the nastiest stuff. Listen, there is something we all need to get through our heads. They just lie. If the Bush people did a focus group and found out that people would vote against him because he owns a miniature green Chinese monkey with an earring, THEN WE WOULD BE HEARING THAT KERRY HAS A MINIATURE GREEN CHINESE MONKEY WITH AN EARRING! They are making it up, they are lying, they are going to say and do ANYTHING. OK? They just lie. Get used to it. They just lie. So don't be surprised and don't be shocked. And most of all, don't start responding by trying to disprove their charges and going through all the points and specifics and particulars! YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THE CHARGES THEY WILL MAKE TOMORROW AND NEXT WEEK ARE FALSE. OK? They just lie. What have I been telling you since day one of Seeing the forest? THEY JUST LIE. See the forest, don't get bogged down with trees. See the bigger picture. If you get all bogged down trying to argue each point or disprove each lie you are going to be 100 lies behind by the time you refute the first point of the very first lie. They just lie. Remember the lead-up to Iraq, all nicely timed for the 2002 election? They just lie. Remember what they said about why we need tax cuts? They just lie. Remember what they said about Al Gore? They just lie. Remember what they said about Clinton? They just lie. We know it. So when do we figure out that they just lie? When we do figure it out, THEN maybe we can start responding effectively, instead of getting all bogged down in the lies each and every time. The public needs to understand that they just lie, and the things they say should just be ignored. THAT is where we should be spending our time. (Does repetition work? Tell me what they do.) --- Posted at 3/16/2004 04:13:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Interpreting the Spanish Vote I've spent a fair amount of time in the last couple of days following the reactions to the Spanish vote. A few observations: 1. The hawks are convinced that the Madrid bombing justifies everything Bush ever did (and nullifies all criticisms of him), and they are enraged when anyone disagrees. (No one else can exploit this tragedy, though; just them). 2. In the world of the hawks, the most vicious chauvinism is right beneath the surface. A few days ago, Spain was our brave ally. Then, right before the election, about 10% of the voters switched parties, and Spain was instantly relegated to that loathsome, detestable hellhole: Old Europe. (Expect to start hearing lots of weird ethnic slurs about Don Quixote, Don Juan, beans, garlic, greasy mustaches, etc., etc. They'll probably mix in a lot of Mexican stuff too -- because, really, who cares?) 3. Many of the hawks primarily just want to vent, and they believe that jumping to conclusions is tough, macho, and sexy. For example, there are good reasons to believe that Aznar's party was voted out mostly because of its dishonest insistence that the Basques were responsible for the bombing, rather than because of its stance on the Iraq War per se.* But the hawks leaped gleefully to the most invidious conclusion that they could: that Spain has surrendered to the terrorists. So whatever allies we still have in the world should clearly understand that, in the eyes of America, they will be counted among the good guys only as long as they obey us completely. 4. Hawks are completely committed to the Bush brandnaming of the War on Terror, and anyone who proposes an alternative brand will be regarded as a quisling appeaser. No criticisms of his approach are to be allowed. 5. Hawks have a complete and utter contempt for Democrats and liberals, and nothing we say to them will be listened to. We're just a bunch of weenie America-hating pacifists who don't care at all if hundreds of innocent people get killed. 6. As long as the War on Terrorism lasts, all elections should be decided based on what we guess that Osama wants -- we should just vote for the opposite. (However, the idea that Osama wants Bush re-elected, in order to "sharpen the contradictions", is too ridiculous even to think about). And since the War on Terrorism, which isn't against any specific enemy, can't possibly ever be won (Osama is irrelevant, they're still saying), we should plan for terrorism to be the only real political issue for the rest of our natural lives. Conclusions We will never make the hawks happy and shouldn't try, but Kerry definitely needs to get out in front on the counter-terrorism issue. Bush's Saudi ties make him extremely vulnerable, and Kerry should show no mercy. The Bush-Saudi connection is pretty good political red meat, but it also can be the basis for a valid and powerful criticism of the inept and misdirected Bush strategy. Beyond that, if a terrorist attack occurs on American soil, as it very well might, Kerry has to be ready and waiting. We can be sure that Bush will exploit the tragedy to the hilt, and while we shouldn't sink as low as we can expect him to do, we need to take the battle to Bush and put him on the defensive where he belongs. Otherwise we can kiss the election goodbye. *Of course, the hawks just spent the last year explaining that Bush's lies about WMD were really perfectly OK, so they might have trouble believing that Spanish voters really do get angry when they're lied to. --- Posted at 3/16/2004 03:33:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
How often have we heard this? People looking for work this spring could find the strongest U.S. job market in more than three years, even as companies remain reluctant to hire, a new survey shows. Roughly one in four employers plan to add workers in the second quarter of the year to keep pace with increased demand for their products or services, according to a survey of 16,000 businesses by Manpower Inc., set for release Tuesday. "Someone looking for a job no doubt will have an easier time now than in recent memory, than in the past two or three years," said Jeffrey Joerres, Manpower's chief executive officer and chairman. "It's still going to be difficult in that companies are going to begin this process very cautiously." Substantial job growth will come if companies fulfill their hiring projections for the quarter, he said. The survey found 28 percent of companies expect to hire more people in the second quarter, while 6 percent intend to cut jobs. The rest anticipate no change or are uncertain about hiring prospects from April to May.Now, hold on a minute. I'm no math whiz but doesn't that mean that this survey demonstrates that 72% of employers (the overwhelming majority -- three out of four in fact) have no hiring plans or, worse yet, plan to lay off some workers? So how is that good news? Sounds like a pretty flaccid job market to me! Is it my imagination or is this yet another transparent attempt to pump up Dear MisLeader's poll numbers? Does anyone happen to know how much money Manpower or people associated with Manpower have given to W's campaign in the last four years? --- Posted at 3/16/2004 02:58:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Big Flap This is a big deal, all over the airwaves, pushed by the Bush people. And it would be so simple to respond. Bush Prods Kerry to Name Leaders Who Want Him Out: "'If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts,' Bush told reporters during a meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said he had met with leaders who told him 'you've got to beat this guy' because of unhappiness over U.S. foreign policy. "Something like this: President Bush is asking me to betray world leaders by revealing confidential conversations we have had, and says I should do so for political purposes. No wonder they've gotten things into such a mess. --- Posted at 3/16/2004 11:55:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
New Bush Ad New Bush Ad Attacks Kerry on Iraq Vote: "Ratcheting up his criticism of John Kerry, President Bush accuses his Democratic rival of voting against American troops in a new television ad that begins airing Tuesday. "Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October 2002 for military action in Iraq, he later voted against funding our soldiers,'' the ad says. The 30-second ad labels Kerry "wrong on defense'' and claims that the Massachusetts senator did not support bills that would have ensured troops had body armor and earned higher combat pay, and would have given reservists and their families better health care."This is nasty, lying stuff here, and it makes people like me angry and looking for ways to fight back. With this stuff going on, why don't I hear Kerry calling for all Democrats to send him $100 so he can effectively respond? So what if it's Dean's idea? 2 million Democrats sending him $100 each is $200 million to fight back! I suggest as a response: Why is the President dividing us in time of war, when we most need to stick together? --- Posted at 3/16/2004 09:58:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Just As Bush Said The NYT/CBS Poll -- Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds: "while the public has doubts about Mr. Kerry's political convictions"Bush has been repeating that Kerry takes both sides on issues. Now we have polls feeding this message back from the public. Do not underestimate the ability of the Right to plant messages in the brains of large segments of the public. From the story, Already, most voters think Mr. Kerry is a politician who says what people want to hear, the poll found, rather than what he believes — the line of attack Mr. Bush has used against him in speeches.And for my Green friends: The candidacy of Ralph Nader looms as a potentially lethal threat to Democratic hopes of regaining the White House: With Mr. Nader in the race, Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry by 46 percent to 38 percent, with Mr. Nader drawing 7 percent of the votes.No question about it, Nader throws the election to Bush. Do you guys LIKE seeing American imperialism, global warming, massive military spending increases, tax cuts for the rich, and all the rest? Is that what you WANT? It's certainly what you'll GET! --- Posted at 3/16/2004 09:38:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
"Spain in perspective" Over at This Modern World, Tom has posted a letter from Spain that does a good job explaining why the elections went the way they did. Apparently the government tried to blame the ETA (and discredit anyone saying different) even though it was becoming pretty clear it was an al-Queda attack, because the conservative government wanted voters to associate ETA violence with the Socialist party. (I guess they thought it would reinforce a campaign accusing them of being "weak on terrorism.") "After more than 30 years of ETA terrorism, many people thought at once that this murderers well known to the Spanish people had caused the massacre. But well-informed people immediately noticed it was a classical "Chechen attack", completely different of what ETA has done up to today and essentially identical to the Moscow subway attack several weeks ago. This caused some turmoil, specially when a pro-ETA spokesman made the point. Some minutes later, Interior (Security) Minister Angel Acebes declared openly that the authors were ETA and anyone denying it was a "miserable".Doesn't this sound a lot like our Republicans? Deny the obvious and call the opposition names for daring to point out what is in front of everyone's faces, because it contradicts their party line? "Now let me explain to you this turmoil. ETA is an independentist Basque terrorist group who declares itself "marxist-leninist". The Conservative government of José MarÃa Aznar has fought hard to combat it while avoiding any concession to moderate Basque nationalists, saying that the only possible way to manage the issue is "the hard one". Some weeks ago, a member of the Socialist / Nationalist coalition Government in Catalonia met ETA representatives and the Aznagovernmentnt used this to proclaim that Socialist weren't hard enough against ETA since they shared government in Catalonia with a guy that spoke to terrorists. If the authors of the carnage were ETA, Aznar government would have been reinforced in their opinion that against those beasts, only force can solve the problem and the Socialists and their Nationalist friends were too weak to do it. But if the authors were Islamic, a very different panorama arose. The opposition in Spain against Bush's war in Iraq was very important. I don't know if it reached 90% as it has been stated in this groups, but there surely was a wide majority against a conflict that common Spaniards didn't buy. There were massive demonstrations, with several million people in them, against the involvement of Spain in the war. In despite of this, José MarÃa Aznar government went to war with Bush and Blair. Many people went home thinking "this guy is involving us in a madmen's war that we don't want and will provoke bloody consequences". If Islamics blew the trains, it was a strong confirmation of this position, something that could only focus anger against Aznar's Government. . . . The Government stuck to the ETA hypothesis trying to avoid this probable electoral damage. They must have thought that using their massive media control they could cover it up for four days, until election's aftermath. Government-controlled public and private televisions, radios and newspapers broadcasted once and again "it was ETA", but each minute less people was buying it. It has been said that workers of some of this media were near to revolt because of the pressures to avoid the Islamic hypothesis (today, EFE -Spanish state press agency- workers' unions have asked for the immediate resignation of their boss because of this)."The public was already sick of the government for its lies about Iraq and support of Bush, and this crystallized opinion. Note that "media not controlled by the Government" played a very important role. "But then, media not controlled by the Government started broadcasting the Islamic hypothesis and how the controlled media were manipulating the whole issue. In a matter of hours, Spain was bipolarized, with thousands seeking information in Internet and sending it via SMS to their friends. IMHO, the Government went mad and commited suicide in this moment. They agreed there were "Islamic clues" but said once and again it was ETA although the mass crime was claimed three times by Al-Qaeda and there were several tapes (two or three, still unknown) with Islamic messages claiming "Operation Trains of Death" in Madrid and threatening "Smoke of Death" in Italy and "Winds of Death" in the USA. Millions began to think they were being lied, with the blood of 200 Spaniards still warm. SMS messages with the truth spreaded very quickly (I received about 50 from about 40 different sources). In workers' districts through the country, people began to protest beating pans in the windows and shouting "they make wars, we suffer them", "we are not puppets" and "Spain is not to be lied". Others demonstrated before Aznar's party offices in different cities singing "Liars, liars!" and "Culprits, culprits!" [all emphasis mine - DJ]The public resented the conservative government's attempt at manipulating the election through the media and voted them out. In other words, the government acted exactly like the Bush administration is acting, and an event crystallized this in the voters' minds just in time for the election. But according to this source, the real difference it made was that people who typically do not vote decided they had enough and showed up. That is what made the difference. "Aznar-Rajoy's party lost about one million votes. Not much, it's true, given the situation. But three million voters arose essentially from disenchanted abstentionists to nail them. And almost all of these voters supported the Socialist Party, the main opposition group that had spoken openly against the Iraq war and was also denouncing the media manipulation. This inverted completely the results, where Rajoy had started as favorite. José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, not Mariano Rajoy, will be the next president of Spain."And, finally, he ends the letter with, "Sorry for my English if it sounds a bit strange, I can't practice it often."Hey, pal, don't worry. This is Seeing the Forest. Grammar, spelling, even coherence are strictly optional. --- Posted at 3/16/2004 08:20:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
You and I get to pay for Janklow's negligence Holy cow! SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) -- Bill Janklow was on duty as South Dakota's congressman when his speeding car collided with a motorcycle last summer, meaning federal taxpayers would pay any civil damages arising from the fatal crash, a prosecutor has concluded. U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger's decision came in connection with a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the former congressman and governor by the motorcyclist's family. In concluding that Janklow was on duty at the time of the accident, Heffelfinger filed a notice Monday asking that the case be moved from state to federal court, and the federal government be substituted as the defendant for Janklow. Randy Scott, of Hardwick, Minnesota, was killed August 16 when his motorcycle struck the back of a car Janklow was driving. Janklow spoke earlier that day in Aberdeen and was returning to his home near Brandon when the accident happened. Lawyer Ronald Meshbesher, who represents the Scott family, said he'll try to keep the case in state court where, unlike federal court, the family could win punitive damages. "I'm not sure what duty he was doing for the taxpayers of the United States or the state of South Dakota by driving 80 miles an hour through a stop sign," Meshbesher said. "And quite frankly, if he was politicking before it happened I'm not sure that's considered to be on duty."You're kidding me, right? Ah, isn't it great that Republicans take personal responsibility so seriously! --- Posted at 3/16/2004 07:42:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/15/2004 Taxes and Jobs Cross-posted at American Street Scenario One: Government man, handing briefcase full of cash to business owner: "Here’s a briefcase full of cash. Go hire more people." Business owner: "Well, we don’t really need anyone right now, but thanks very much for the cash." Scenario Two: Business owner: "Gosh, there sure are a lot of people coming in to buy today." Owner’s spouse: "You nitwit, don’t you see that people are turning away because of the line that has backed up? Each time that happens you lose another $25!" Business owner: "You’re right, Honey. Maybe I should go to the bank and borrow some money, or sell our car or something so we can hire a couple extra people." Scenario Three: Business owner: "You know, if I hired a few more people to work on the shop floor, we could produce many more of our product. We’re selling everything we can make now." Owner’s spouse: "But Honey, if you made more money you’d have to pay part of it out in taxes. You know how bad that is." Business owner: "You know, you’re right again, Honey, I think we should just put this company out of business because we’re making too much money, which means we have to pay part of it in taxes!" In the Washington Post today there's a story that says a lot about how people in Washington and the media think these days. Link Between Taxation, Unemployment Is Absent: "It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that rising tax burdens crush labor markets. Bush castigated his political opponents last week for "that old policy of tax and spend" that would be "the enemy of job creation." Yet an examination of historical tax levels and unemployment rates reveals no obvious correlation."Actually an examination DOES reveal an obvious correlation, but not the one of the “conventional wisdom” referred to in this aticle. So what “conventional wisdom” are they referring to? "Republican economists -- and White House officials -- contend that higher marginal tax rates stifle business investment, hiring and the desire to work. . . . "The bottom line is, cuts in taxes lead to economic growth, which leads to improvements in the labor market to levels that are better than they otherwise would have been," said Mark J. Warshawsky, acting assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy."But… "But finding the proof in historical data is difficult, conceded Eric M. Engen, a Republican economist at the American Enterprise Institute. . . . Still, Burtless noted, some prominent conservative economists, including Harvard University's Martin S. Feldstein, predicted wrongly that the Clinton tax cuts would choke off the 1990s recovery and kill jobs, while the millions of new jobs that Bush said his $1.7 trillion in tax cuts would generate have not materialized. The historical disconnect does not stop there."It's "conventional wisdom” that tax cuts create jobs. (As contrasted with government programs to create jobs... perhaps employing people to retrofit buildings to be energy efficient...) But I think we know where that kind of “conventional wisdom” comes from, don’t we? It comes from right-wingers repeating a carefully crafted phrase over and over, and creating an atmosphere of intimidation and character assassination that makes people afraid or uncomfortable arguing the other – the people’s – side. The great Thom Hartman wrote a piece the other day, Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class. I don’t want to quote from it too much because I want you to go read the whole thing. In fact, go to his website and read some of his other writings as well, and listen to his radio show. In this piece Thom writes, "Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history: 1. There is no such thing as a "free market." 2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering). The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.”And, "Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest."And, "Of course, they can't explain how it was that the repeated series of huge tax cuts for the wealthy by the Herbert Hoover administration brought us the Great Depression, while raising taxes to provide for an active and interventionist government to protect the rights of labor to organize throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s led us to the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. (The top tax rate in 1930 under Hoover was 25 percent, and even that was only paid by about a fifth of wealthy Americans. Thirty years later, the top tax rate was 91 percent, and held at 70 percent until Reagan began dismantling the middle class. As the top rate dropped, so did the middle class it helped create.)"So maybe there IS a correlation between taxes and jobs and the economy, but not the one the right-wing clucks want you to believe. Some previous thoughts and questions... largely (and obviously) off the top of my head. Just to get people asking questions instead of accepting "conventional wisdom." Economists will tell me where I'm wrong. Who pays taxes now? Do tax cuts “create jobs?” Do tax cuts increase government revenue? Do taxes “take money out of the economy” as Bush likes to say? Do companies pass taxes on to their customers? Tax cuts or spending increases? And, of course, the most dangerous question, "Who is our economy FOR, anyway?" --- Posted at 3/15/2004 01:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Almost $80 Million Look how much your own government is spending on Bush's re-election effort, and this is for just the ONE campaign that we know about! It adds up to almost $80 million leading up to the election to promote Bush's Medicare bill to seniors! The ad campaign is being done by the Bush campaign's own ad agency, which means they not only get the $$ for doing this campaign, but also the commission - $12 million - for placing the ads. Nice work, if you can get it -- and you can't. U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny: "Other documents suggest the scope of the publicity campaign: $12.6 million for advertising this winter, $18.5 million to publicize drug discount cards this spring, about $18.5 million this summer, $30 million for a year of beneficiary education starting this fall and $44 million starting in the fall of 2005." --- Posted at 3/15/2004 08:32:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/14/2004 Kerry I have set up a Kerry donation page, with the Kerry campaign icon on the left side of the page. Click it to donate. Even if it is just a dollar or two, get in the habit. Don't like the nasty "Kerry will send terrorists after your children" theme of the Bush ads? Well, Kerry can't respond unless you send some money to pay for the ads. Think about this, if all 200 million readers of Seeing the Forest just donate $1 each... --- Posted at 3/14/2004 05:04:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/13/2004 Free Markets I just love Thom Hartman! Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class: "Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history: 1. There is no such thing as a 'free market.' 2. The 'middle class' is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering). The conservative belief in 'free markets' is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a 'free market.' Markets are the creation of government."And "Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest."Everyone should go read this piece! However, the idea that corporations should only be allowed to exist if they are benefiting the American public is going to really piss off the right-wing vermin that have been leaving comments here lately. --- Posted at 3/13/2004 08:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
I'm shocked, shocked! Blockbuster from the Independent via Common Dreams: Washington has been channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago. --- Posted at 3/13/2004 06:42:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Social Security Calpundit is writing about fixing Social Security. Here's my two cents: Since 1981 the government has been borrowing from Social Security to pay for tax cuts given primarily to the rich, and to pay increased bond interest because of the deficits caused by those tax cuts, and that interest goes primarily to the richest, who HAVE trillions to loan to the government. Other items that contributed to the country's deficits include massive military spending increases, the parts of which that didn't cover military pay were skewed to defense contractors owned by the richest - like the Carlyle Group - and to ag subsidies, which largely go to the giant corporate farm companies. THOSE are the spending items that increased dramatically since the early 80's. So the Social Security money has gone out to the tax cuts for the rich, and the government's deficits have been occurring for spending that largely benefits the richest. The FIRST Social Security crisis occurs in a few years (2018?) when it stops running a surplus and wants to cash in some of the government debt it holds because of the borrowing to finance tax cuts for the rich. People like Alan Greenspan are worried about how the government is going to pay that money it borrowed from Social Security. He says we need to cut benefits NOW, and raise the retirement age NOW, to delay the time when Social Security stops running a surplus -- that finances tax cuts for the rich -- and instead needs to start cashing in the government bonds it owns. Once again, the "crisis" is that the government has to start paying back some of the money it owes Social Security recipients. The SECOND crisis occurs many, many years down the road when Social Security no longer has this reserve fund. It happens so far in the future that they have to use very interesting models to predict what might happen, and every year they seem to be adding TWO years before this second "crisis" occurs. I think currently it is projected to be OK for 39 years. Last year I think it was OK for 37. I've worked my whole life and payed into Social Security. I didn't get the tax cuts. I haven't been receiving debt interest payments. I don't own any defense companies or ag companies. So I am not going to accept any Social Security "fix" that involves cutting MY benefits or making ME work extra years before I can retire. As Jesse Jackson says, let's get the money from where the money went. This FIRST "crisis" -- finding the money to pay some of what was borrowed from Social Security -- sounds to me like the obligation lies with someone other than the people the money is owed to... like maybe the people who GOT the money that was borrowed. Why should the people it was borrowed FROM have to accept less benefits or work more years to "fix" it? I say solve the FIRST with an increase in the income "cap." People do not kow that there is a "cap" on incomes, that means that if you make more than $87,000 you no longer pay in to Social Security. THAT'S RIGHT - people who make more than $87,000 DON'T PAY IN TO SOCIAL SECURITY ANYMORE!! They got tax CUTS instead! And they're talking about cutting benefits so that people who make more than $87,000 don't have to pay more in to Social Security! AND I say add an income surtax on the rich and the corporations that GOT all the extra money people like me were paying in. In fact, maybe add enough of a surtax to cover INCREASING benefits to the people who loaned the money to give the rich fucks tax cuts that caused this problem in the first place. Maybe then they'll stop acting like that! And the second crisis -- the one that is projected to occur 39 years from now when Social Security needs some funds to shore it up? I say let the government loan some money to Social Security for a change. --- Posted at 3/13/2004 05:18:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Limbaugh and others spread disinformation about the 9/11 survivors groups; Bush fixer James Baker defends the Saudis against their lawsuit Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle are members of the "Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 Survivors", which has filed a lawsuit against the Saudi government for their complicity in 9/11. The lawyer defending the Saudis is Baker Botts -- the law firm of the Bush family's old and trusted friend James Baker, whom Bush just recently used for an important U.S. mission to the Mideast. When Breitweiser and Gabrielle recently appeared on national TV criticizing Bush's 9/11 ads, Rush Limbaugh (along with Newsmax, the N.Y. Post, Republican operative James Pinkerton in Newsday, and others) immediately claimed that Breitweiser's group was funded indirectly by Theresa Heinz-Kerry. This is doubly false. First, Breitweiser has her own group and is not a member of the group Limbaugh is thinking about -- "Peaceful Tomorrows". Not only that, but Peaceful Tomorrows is not funded by the "Tides Center" (the group funded by Heinz-Kerry). Peaceful Tomorrows does its own fundraising and actually pays money to the Tides Center for administrative support. Limbaugh has also claimed that the survivors are Democrats and that that is why they are criticizing Bush. Well, you can be sure that they are Democrats now, regardless of what they might have been before. Just seeing Bush's friend James Baker standing there in court alongside the Saudis would be enough to turn anyone around. Survivors' lawsuit Survivor's lawsuit II Survivor Jeremy Glick gets in Bill O'Reilly's ugly face "Any questions about Tides Foundation or the Tides Center can be addressed to Christopher Herrera , Tides Foundation's Director of Communications at 415. 561. 6355, or Willa Seldon, Executive Director for the Tides Center at 415. 561. 6300." The heavy lifting for this post was done by Allan Duncan of Oped News. --- Posted at 3/13/2004 01:52:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Dotcom Bust -- or Fraud? Everyone knows that we're in the worst economic slump in decades. The official explanation is that besides the normal fluctuations of the business cycle, we're dealing with the after-effects of the dotcom bust. Too many people put too much money into risky high-tech and dotcom ventures, and they lost their shirts. As a result, even the ones who still have money are reluctant to invest. Isn't this being euphemistic? One of the big things we're dealing with is the after-effects of massive fraud. Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and too many others to name defrauded their investors. And most of them were not dotcoms or even high-tech; Enron was an energy company. Back in the boom days, proponents of tighter business regulation were called "anti-business" or worse. Laws were relaxed, and as a result many of the fraudulent activities were entirely legal. Everyone was the loser, and the ones who lost the worst were the small investors and pensioners whom "business Democrats" were catering to. (Joe Lieberman was the number one business Democrat, and unsurprisingly, he was the Democrat with the biggest say in the Enron investigation.) So now a lot of that money has disappeared from the face of the earth. Some of it is in the hands of the perps, who I am sure have invested it very conservatively --offshore. And even people who have money are gun-shy. Sure, over-optimistic investment in dotcoms had something to do with it, but a lot of it was just plain fraud. 10.6 billion dollars worth of creative accounting at WorldCom --- Posted at 3/13/2004 08:02:00 AM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/12/2004 The Myth of Washington's Farewell Address I get tired of having to correct this historical myth but I'll try to do it again. In response to this post by Kevin on partisan politics (discussion thread is here), someone once again raised the argument that Washington and many of the Founding Fathers were "against parties." With regards to Washington, this is a myth -- and an egregiously inaccurate one at that. Here's the response I posted on the comment board: BTW, the idea that Washington at the end of his administration was "against parties" is a myth perpetrated by people grasping at straws to claim that partisan politics are somehow beyond the bounds of good discourse. Most people who claim this haven't read Exhibit A of paranoid politics, the Farewell Address. If you've ever read the actual Farewell Address, Washington was primarily against people joining that other party. Washington was perfectly happy with his own party (he clearly was a Federalist by the end of his second term) and thought that everyone should join it, not the Democratic Republican party. Despite popular myth, by the end of his second term, Washington is not necessarily against political parties, he was just against there being more than one of them.This is one of those myths I get really tired of having to knock down. If people would just read the documents for themselves and learn a little bit about the time, they'd know what a ridiculous myth this is. --- Posted at 3/12/2004 11:15:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/11/2004 Nasty Bush Ads By now you're heard about Bush's "Muhammad Horton" (Willie Horton revisited -- get it?) campaign ad, showing a threatening-looking Arab, and charging that Kerry would "weaken fight against terrorists." Well, the question is will the Democrats have enough money to respond, or is this how the Republicans are going to win. Which is it going to be? The Dean strategy was to get everyone donating money every time the Republicans run another nasty, negative, character assassination ad. If 2 million Democrats give $100 each, we match Bush's (direct) campaign donations. (Indirect might total a billion. Seriously.) Well, here we are. Are we going to take this seriously or not? Are you out there talking to EVERYONE YOU KNOW about the importance of donating MONEY? And are you responding every time they make you mad, with a few more dollars? It is so important. Do it. Click here to donate to the DNC, or click on the "Boot Bush" button over on the right side of the screen. --- Posted at 3/11/2004 09:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
So that's what desperation looks like! WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) unleashed the first negative ads of the general election campaign Thursday, accusing Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) of seeking to raise taxes by $900 billion and wanting to "delay defending America."Only a day after his campaign whinily blasted Kerry for saying something negative about him and demanded an apology, W spends multiple millions on negative attack ads. Congratulations W! You have flip-flopped and made yourself look like the ultimate crocodile-tears-crying hypocritical politician in, um, less than 24 hours. That took some real skill, huh? Desperation folks. That's all it is. Update: My goodness. I think they've stumbled once again. People are already calling one of these ads the "Mohammed Horton" ad because it so clearly tries to use fear (this time the bogey man is an Arab instead of an African-American) in the same way. You also should read this hilarious post making fun of Bush ad as well. --- Posted at 3/11/2004 05:40:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Gold Standard for Political Smears: Newt Gingrich, 1994 This is going to be a dirty campaign, and the Republicans are already sliming Kerry while they whine about how dirty the Democrats are. This is a good time for a flashback to what I think is the nastiest example of dirty politics of recent times: Newt Gingrich's 1994 Susan Smith smear. "When Susan Smith confessed to drowning her two children in a South Carolina lake, Gingrich was quick to blame the Democrats. 'I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way to change is to vote Republican.'" This accusation makes no real sense because it doesn't actually accuse anyone of anything specific. It just takes a single horrible act and laughably blames it on the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress. This was really the bottom level of gutter politics, and it seems to have worked. The Republicans took control of Congress in that election and Gingrich (who never apologized) became Speaker of the House -- the second-most-powerful man in American government. That's bad enough, but the truth was really much worse. In fact, the horrible story did have a political angle, but it worked in the opposite direction. The woman who killed her two kids, Susan Smith, was the stepdaughter of a member of the South Carolina Republican Party Central Committee (also active with the Moral Majority), Beverly Russell. Furthermore, Beverly (a man) sexually molested his stepdaughter for several years during her teens. Of course, once it was found that there really was a political angle on the story, and that it was not just a baseless Republican smear, the story died. Today, if you Google "Beverly Russell" + "Susan Smith" + "Newt Gingrich", you will get a grand total of 16 hits, mostly on marginal political sites. (Props to Robert Scheer for keeping the story -- just barely -- alive). The moral of the story? Let the Republicans whine, and expect the worst. They've already shown that there is nothing so creepy that they aren't willing to do it, and I won't be surprised if they outdo themselves this year. More on the story: Russell was under investigation for using Moral Majority funds in Pat Robertson's presidential campaign Beverly Russell and Susan Smith More Republican Party sex criminals, including an Iran-Contra connection --- Posted at 3/11/2004 04:31:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
When Republicans Whine When Republicans whine about how mean the Democrats are, and how innocent Republicans are, and how the Democrats and Kerry are saying such bad things about them, remember that they have already come out with this: "Also, Kerry's ardent fans clamor over the Purple Hearts he received for each of his several wounds. What is not widely known is that even a minor wound can qualify for a Purple Heart, and a combination of Purple Hearts can be the basis for reassignment to a safer post. Kerry did, in fact, take a safer post after accepting his war medals. Other veterans tell me they didn't even put in for Purple Hearts, because they did not want to be transferred home unless they were seriously wounded. These veterans didn't want to leave their buddies behind just to seek the safety of distance from the battle.'"So cry me a river. And donate some money to a Democrat, any Democrat, so they can fight back. That's how we're going to win this election; every time you hear a Republican say something like that and makes you mad, send $5 or even $2 to a Democrat somewhere. There are MILLIONS of us, so even the occasional $2 matters! --- Posted at 3/11/2004 09:37:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
See Those Ads See those ads over on the right side of the page? Three of these are for campaigns that are very important. Even if you can only donate $5 it will help them fight the Right. Nothing is more important. And if they have a code to use -- the Minnesota ad wants you to add 12 cents if you came from Seeing the Forest -- please do. We're accomplishing two things here. First, we are using the Internet to reach many small donors to counter the Right's corporate money. Second, we are starting to show that weblogs matter. Billmon wrote the other day about weblogs being the many small, furry creatures running around swiftly dodging the dinosaurs' feet. The dinosaurs are the newspaper "conventional wisdom" pundits like George Will. Even $5 makes a big difference, because there are a lot of weblog readers. --- Posted at 3/11/2004 09:28:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/10/2004 Bedtime Reading Go let Striling scare the crap out of you. Laboring Under Illusions: "That this is a Depression, and only structural change will remove obstacles to growth, and a warning that a price shock is on the way, can be seen from the next graph." --- Posted at 3/10/2004 08:36:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A Bad Day for W Link: "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Kerry added. "It's scary."And just exactly what is wrong with that statement? BTW, is the Bush campaign's response ot this not the whiniest thing you've heard in a while? "At every turn, John Kerry has claimed to be the victim of an imaginary smear machine," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "Today, John Kerry made a comment that showed his true colors: a relentlessly negative campaign that is negative and pessimistic and offers no positive plan or agenda."Waaaah. Oh yeah, and public faith in the economy has plummeted. And the market tanked today. Is it my imagination or does it appear that the wheels are finally coming off the Bush White House? It looks like Bush's carefully constructed artificial reality is finally falling apart. Americans are apparently no longer buying the bull that W is peddling. I think W has told several lies too many over the last several months. I sure hope that's what going on. It took long enough, didn't it? Update: The fine whine continues: Senator Kerry's statement today in Illinois was unbecoming of a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, and tonight we call on Senator Kerry to apologize to the American people for this negative attack," Racicot said in a statement. "On the day that Senator Kerry emerged as his party's presumptive nominee, the president called to congratulate him. That goodwill gesture has been met by attacks and false statements."Pathetic. This is getting to be fun, isn't it? As my man Atrios says, pass the popcorn. --- Posted at 3/10/2004 06:20:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The New Pentagon Papers Now we are told by our president and neoconservative mouthpieces that our sons and daughters, husbands and wives are in Iraq fighting for freedom, for liberty, for justice and American values. This cost is not borne by the children of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush's daughters do not pay this price. We are told that intelligence has failed America, and that President Bush is determined to get to the bottom of it. Yet not a single neoconservative appointee has lost his job, and no high official of principle in the administration has formally resigned because of this ill-planned and ill-conceived war and poorly implemented occupation of Iraq. Will Americans hold U.S. policymakers accountable? Will we return to our roots as a republic, constrained and deliberate, respectful of others? My experience in the Pentagon leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq tells me, as Ben Franklin warned, we may have already failed. But if Americans at home are willing to fight -- tenaciously and courageously -- to preserve our republic, we might be able to keep it.Indeed. Go read it (get the Day Pass) now. --- Posted at 3/10/2004 06:52:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/09/2004 Bush's Insider Trading t r u t h o u t - Bush's Insider Trading: "After a decade of striking Texas brown dust instead of oil, his luck finally turned that year when go-for-broke Harken Energy Corp. bought his failing oil exploration firm for stock. Four years later the company concealed large losses just before the GOP presidential hopeful unloaded those securities for a nice profit. That, in turn, helped finance his stake in the Texas Rangers baseball club and catapult him into the ranks of multimillionaires."Let's hear more about this. --- Posted at 3/09/2004 09:06:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Flip-Flop? Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has another example of a Bush flip-flop. Fine. But that's not how marketing works. You don't point at Bush and say "he does it too." That doesn't work. Bush has now branded Kerry as a flip-flopper. Kerry did not respond well. The fact of Bush SAYING that Kerry flip-flops (and votes against military and intelligence programs), and repeating it, and not being answered immediately, MAKES IT SO. This is how "defining" works. Now that Bush has labeled Kerry as the flip-flopper without Kerry answering it effectively, any discussion of flip-flops will be on Bush's terms, and will be a discussion of HOW MUCH of a flip-flopper Kerry is. The press and the public will be looking at everything Kerry says for more examples. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. Bush SAYS Kerry does it, and repeats it, so that is the topic of discussion. Don't you get it? You don't let them define you! You and me snickering at counter-examples on obscure blogs isn't going to make a difference. You and me are not the American Public and WE do not see what THEY see! THEY hear that Kerry is a flip-flopper. That is how it works. And Bush's ads! The fact that Bush has SAID he is better at national security, and repeating it, MAKES IT SO. The fact that he ran pictures of 9/11 and victims in his ads MAKES IT SO. And they got away with it because the Democrats were too busy saying it wasn't fair that he used pictures of 9/11 -- like anyone understands what that is about -- and so Bush has won the opening gambit with the public identifying him with "leadership" and Kerry not effectively answering by saying "ON HIS WATCH!" Now all discussion is doing to be in terms of how much better Bush is as a leader, while Kerry flip-flops. Bush SAID he is a LEADER and REPEATS IT and THAT IS HOW IT IS DONE. You repeat a simple message. DUH! Kerry is doing some very good things to define Bush as well, but he's like a neophyte at the game. He has to learn to say something simple, AND REPEAT IT AND REPEAT IT and, just as important, get everyone on his side repeating it, too. That is what the Republicans DO. And I think "On His Watch" is a GREAT place to start. Repeat it and repeat it. Bloggers, repeat it. And repeat it. ON HIS WATCH. IT HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH. Repeat that phrase over and over and over AND DON'T STOP -- I mean, what happened with AWOL, anyway, it was just starting to get somewhere, a few more months of repeating it and Bush would have been branded with it! That's what "REPEAT IT" means! DUH! Uh-oh. Wife's giving me that "there you go again" look... Update - I left out something. A big part of Bush winning the opening gambit is that he got out there FIRST. He ran ads in several states, talking about "leadership." Kerry gets a few minutes on the news, for people who watch the news. But I don't think that people who watch the news, and do it on channels that cover Kerry, are who Kerry needs to reach to define himself. Again, this is a thing where YOU AND I see one thing and most Americans see another. WE think that Bush has been "hit" by the accusation that he exploited 9/11 by using pictures in his ads. But I think that anyone who cares about this, or even KNOWS about it, is irrelevant to the upcoming battle. And Bush's people know this. --- Posted at 3/09/2004 08:57:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Fight For 51 Over on the right in the adstrip there is a 'Fight For 51' ad from DSCC. They are raising money to TAKE BACK THE SENATE. This is extremely important. Do you remember how having a one-seat majority in the Senate protected us during the first two years of Bush? So go over to that ad and sign up to help out. And donate money! This is really important. --- Posted at 3/09/2004 08:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Laugh Line of the Week From Lingering Job Insecurity of Silicon Valley: "Assuming that the American work force can upgrade skills and, where necessary, move to new jobs, according to many economists, most people are likely to benefit. And so far, these economists argue, the effect of offshore outsourcing on American jobs and wages in general has not been great.HA HA HA HA HA !!!! An article about engineers and programmers with Masters degrees not being able to find work. But to get jobs they need to "upgrade their skills." And "move to new jobs." Now, I do agree with this line, to a point: " 'The impact of outsourcing is overblown,' Professor Brynjolfsson said. 'The far larger factor is substituting technology for labor.' "It's both. Outsourcing AND replacing people with machines. But if we're replacing people with machines, and replacing people with highly-educated but low-paid people in other countries, how is getting another Masters degree going to help? And what about the people who only have ONE Masters degree? Not to mention the rest of us. American society is taking a turn toward a three-tier structure. Those at the bottom, who have lost their jobs and have lost or are in the process of losing everything else. Then there are those who still have jobs and are in the grind - doing the work formerly done by two, losing health care and pensions, running up their credit cards, seeing income barely rise while housing and other costs go up. Finally, those few at the top who "own" everything, "own" the companies where we work, "own" the government, "own" the hospitals, "own" the chain stores, "own" the banks, "own" the mortgages and credit card companies and mines and forests and factories where we make things, etc. The problem is WHO is getting the benefits of all of this. Concentration of wealth has accelerated. All the moolah is flowing to the very top, because they "own" the stocks and the land and the patents. AND those at the top are using the political influence that money is allowed to buy to skew the policies of the society AWAY from providing assistance to those people most affected by this. Imagine if we were taxing the wealth and profits that are coming in from these cost savings, and using that revenue to benefit ALL OF US, maybe it would be a different story. But instead we are using the job pressures to cut wages, destroy unions, decrease health benefits and pensions, etc. Who IS our economy for? What does it mean to "own" land, or a company, or other huge shares of the society & planet's resources? Do the rest of us starve if it comes to that, because someone "owns" the land for growing food and others don't have enough "money" to pay? Do we just die because some people "own" pharmaceutical companies and others don't have enough "money" to buy the drugs? This is what IS happening in the world today. Think about the concept of "ownership." What does it mean? Society -- and in America that is still supposed to mean you and me, the people -- decides what someone can "own." People used to be able to "own" other people, then society decided they can't do that anymore. Today people are allowed to "own" land or companies or patents or other resources that might otherwise be used to benefit more of us. Think about this. These are powerful, dangerous questions. Who IS our economy for, anyway? Who ARE our laws about ownership FOR, anyway? --- Posted at 3/09/2004 01:18:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Oh, you've got to... watch this (you'll need Real Player). Scott McClellan's tap-dancing is hilarious. --- Posted at 3/09/2004 12:32:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A Two-Track Justice System The other day I wrote that the conviction of Martha Stewart sends the message that donors to Democrats will be investigated and prosecuted, while donors to Republicans will not. One more corrruption of our government by the Bush administration is this two-track justice system -- one legal system for Republicans, another for Democrats. Here is another story along these lines. Democrats Cite Politics in Probe Reimbursement: "A little-known Washington court that oversees the investigations of presidents has approved more than a million dollars in legal-fee reimbursements for Republican administration officials caught up in the probes while rejecting similar requests from Clinton-era officials. [. . .] "The partisan pattern is undeniable," said John Q. Barrett, a St. John's University law professor who was a lawyer in the independent counsel's office for the Iran-contra investigation. "Republican petitions have been getting reimbursed. And people connected with Democratic administrations are getting turned down. And it makes the court look bad." "Got that? The people investigated in Iran-Contra - which yielded many convictions, including Ollie North, and many last-minute pardons that avoided sure conviction - are said to be investigated unfairly and reimbursed for their expenses, while those investigated in Whitewater - in which all the charges were found to be completely without merit - are not. Not to mention that this panel of judges has assigned far-right investigators to every case since Iran Contra. These investigators have found no wrongdoing by any Republicans but hounded Democrats. "Academics note that Sentelle's panel criticized Walsh's investigation and moved to shut it down. Later, Sentelle's panel chose Starr, a former federal judge who was solicitor general in the first Bush administration, to run the Whitewater investigation and gave him wide leeway."The corruption has become so blatant. --- Posted at 3/09/2004 11:44:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/08/2004 Ah, Cheney's Company Continues to Impress This is disgusting: Halliburton has a multibillion-dollar contract to feed and house U.S. troops in Iraq. But there are problems. A food subcontractor that runs 10 percent of the dining facilities in Iraq claims it hasn’t been paid by Halliburton for months and is threatening to stop serving hot meals. The company, Event Source, serves 100,000 meals a day in Iraq under a contract with a Halliburton subsidiary. vent Source claims Halliburton owes it $87 million, including payment for President Bush's Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. “When you get stuck out there for $87 million,” explains Event Source Chief Executive Officer Phil Morrell, “it’s a question of economics.” In an interview with NBC News, Morrell says he’s already laid off employees in the United States and soon will have to feed sandwiches to the troops, instead of hot meals, because his company is running low on money. Last month, Halliburton was accused of overcharging the government for feeding troops and agreed to forgo further payments until the issue is resolved. Morrell says he believes Halliburton and its other food service contractors did overcharge, billing the government not for meals actually served, but for meals a facility could have served. “In a lot of cases,” says Morrell, “that was two or three times the number of troops who were actually coming in. And we just thought that was just unethical and decided not to go down that path.”If the choice is between serving the troops and fulfilling your contract or making obscene profits through unethical overcharges, we now know which choice the Republicans' favorite company will make, don't we? Reprehensible -- and the administration should do something about it right now. --- Posted at 3/08/2004 07:42:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/07/2004 Could there be anything more crass? Remember that a GOP insider told The Hill a couple weeks ago that there is a "real possibility ... we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero. It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.” Let's be clear. The White House hasn't said they're going to do this. And we don't have any direct knowledge that they're considering it. But the idea is apparently being widely discussed in Republican circles. I mean, the question isn't whether that would be a crass use of the 9/11 tragedies for political gain. The question is whether it's possible to imagine anything more crass. Isn't ground zero something like a graveyard? What could be worse? The president addressing the crowd wearing a pelt from a recently executed Guantanamo prisoner? Personally executing Saddam on stage with a scimitar? Not to be flippant, but could anything be more crass than accepting a presidential nomination on ground that is still mixed with the bodies of thousands of Americans? Lincoln dedicated a cemetery at Gettysburg; he didn't hold the 1864 Republican convention there. I know it probably seems like I'm piling on here. And perhaps I am. But this seems like such a compact example of the sort of hyper-politicization of this national tragedy that is one of the main reasons Democrats are so energized this year and eager to drive the president from office. People miss the point of this if they view it in isolation. I think the danger for the White House is that this plays to suspicions held by a not-insubstantial part of the electorate that they've been using this as a political lever from the start.Indeed. --- Posted at 3/07/2004 07:03:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Here's a chart... to go along with my earlier post about W's failed economic policies. And how do you like this little factoid?: According to Gallup, every incumbent since Truman has been ahead of his eventual challenger at this point in the cycle -- all except Gerald Ford, who lost."As I said earlier, I'm beginning to think W may be doomed after all. --- Posted at 3/07/2004 11:41:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/06/2004 Growth In Las Vegas Everyone knows that Las Vegas is the city of fast growth. Why is that? Maybe this opinion piece has a clue to the answer. What Wal-Mart Has Wrought: "Anyone who doubts the ability of these unions to transform dead-end jobs into productive careers should check out the improbable union city of service-sector America: Las Vegas. By organizing almost every Strip hotel, HERE has created an employer-funded training academy where maids and dishwashers can become cooks and servers and wine stewards, and a hotel workforce that makes enough to purchase new homes. The biggest housing boom in the nation today spreads across the Vegas desert and, as in Los Angeles a half-century ago, it is largely the consequence of unionization."Sounds sort of like how the REST of the country was, back when unions were strong. Unions brought good wages, benefits, overtime, vacations, health insurance and created the middle class. Now they're weak, overtime is gone, wages are dropping, we're losing our health insurance, the middle class is being split up into the poor (if you add in debt, most of the middle class is worth very little now) and a few rich who own almost everything. I wonder if this is related? --- Posted at 3/06/2004 10:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Most Recent Kerry Smear is Fake Below Dave has posted a piece of GOP-USA disinformation about Kerry's Vietnam service -- a story claiming that Kerry received an unearned medal for killing a Vietnamese who was unarmed and dying. Here's the truth (from Snopes): "Kerry earned his Silver Star on 28 February 1969, when he beached his craft and jumped off it with an M-16 rifle in hand to chase and shoot a guerrilla who was running into position to launch a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat. Contrary to the account quoted above, Kerry did not shoot a "Charlie" who had "fired at the boat and missed," whose "rocket launcher was empty," and who was "already dead or dying" after being "knocked down with a .50 caliber round." Kerry's boat had been hit by a rocket fired by someone else — the guerrilla in question was still armed with a live B-40 and had only been clipped in the leg; when the guerrilla got up to run, Kerry assumed he was getting into position to launch a rocket and shot him." (Incidentally, if some winger starts raving about Kerry murdering innocent civilians -- that accusation has been made against Sen. Kerrey from Nebraska, not Kerry.) There's a lot more at Snopes: Snopes on Kerry's Vietnam Service --- Posted at 3/06/2004 08:33:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
9/11 Survivors Protest Rove Ads Here's a nice site by 9/11 survivors. It's got a rundown of the various protests of the Bush administration's use of 9/11 images. They don't want the Democrats to capitalize on 9/11 either, but you can tell that they have major objections to Bush's whole approach. --- Posted at 3/06/2004 08:15:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
They've gambled and, so far, they've lost I've said for more than a year now that the Bush team was trying to rerun Reagan's 1984 campaign. Reagan, who was one of the luckiest presidents in my lifetime was also one of the most unpopular presidents ever judging from his poll numbers in 1982 and early 1983. Reagan lucked out in 1984 when the economy recovered just in the nick of time (you and I can debate whether it had a damn thing to do with his policies) and Americans rewarded him with a second term. I have long contended that if the economy recovers and jobs start returning in any way we'll get another four years of W, immoral war based on lies and exaggeration notwithstanding. Well W and the boys clearly thought they were going to be able to party like it was 1984 again. As Atrios so perceptively points out in this post, W and the boys have essentially revved the engine up and dropped the clutch as far as fiscal and monetary policy is concerned. There's nothing left they can do. They keep expecting the economy to respond and it stubbornly refuses to do so. We're still essentially in the same place as we were two years ago. Furthermore, continuing the engine metaphor, I would contend that the RPMs are currently nearing the redline point and the wheels are spinning but we're not going anywhere. If the tires don't get traction soon folks, there could be one helluva mess. (A "dubya dip" recession perhaps?) And, as Atrios notes, any sort of shock to the system at this point (say, a major terrorist attack) would be nothing short of disastrous for the economy. Through pursuing such reckless economic policies in order to assure his re-election, W has actually left us all in a very vulnerable position economically. Politically, W had certainly better hope nothing at all goes wrong in the next eight months because he has absolutely no margin for error now. And, even if things go relatively well, I'm really beginning to think he may still lose. Hey, I can dream, can't I? --- Posted at 3/06/2004 06:56:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Smears -- "Invented By Democrats"? Cross-posted at american street. When you hear a line like this one: "Nothing is sacred in today's politics of personal destruction - invented and perfected by the Democrats" on a website called GOP USA, you know there's really going to be some nastiness in the coming Presidential campaign. Republicans accuse others of what they are doing, as a tactic to give them cover. "Self-acquittal." And then it begins: "In the debate about which man has given more to his country, no evidence has been more emotionally persuasive than Senator Kerry's own claims of war heroism. One basis for this assertion is that while serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed great courage in leaping off his boat to attack and kill a wounded North Vietnamese soldier."Some time back I said that the Republicans are going to spread so many disgusting smears that soon YOU will hate your own candidate. This is an example. This kind of stuff is so nasty, so wrong, so foul, and so low that you feel sick just being in the same country where it is being said. It makes my stomach turn, and I want OUT of the campaign already. And there are 8 months of this to go. If you think the stuff they were saying about and doing to President Clinton was bad, this is going to be so much worse. If THIS smear doesn't "have legs" then they'll try a different one. And another one. And another one. And on and on until they either find one that DOES have an effect, or until the accumulation of dirt just makes the guy look bad. People will say, "Where there's smoke there's fire." Today people still talk about "all the Clinton scandals" even though NO ONE in the Clinton administration was EVER found to have done something wrong! Every single person accused was exonerated of every single charge. (Except Clinton got a blow job.) I'll be surprised if Kerry gets even ONE vote. "Evidence suggests the Vietnamese soldier had previously been wounded by a 50-caliber round. Veteran friends of mine tell me if a person is hit by a 50-caliber round, it is highly unlikely they could continue to be a threat, because of the hydro-shock associated with the impact of the round. I am assured this is true regardless of where the enemy was hit. I know from my own FBI training that certain high-powered rounds can destroy vital organs and blow away entire limbs - due to this same hydro-shock factor. Kerry's claims that he saved his fellow soldier's lives by taking the life of the wounded Vietnamese fighter now lie in reasonable doubt."This is what they are spreading, especially in the South, where they worry that Kerry's service to the country might carry some weight against Bush. "Also, Kerry's ardent fans clamor over the Purple Hearts he received for each of his several wounds. What is not widely known is that even a minor wound can qualify for a Purple Heart, and a combination of Purple Hearts can be the basis for reassignment to a safer post. Kerry did, in fact, take a safer post after accepting his war medals. Other veterans tell me they didn't even put in for Purple Hearts, because they did not want to be transferred home unless they were seriously wounded. These veterans didn't want to leave their buddies behind just to seek the safety of distance from the battle."Got that? Kerry wasn't BRAVE for volunteering to serve in VietNam, and getting wounded saving men he commanded, he was in fact TRYING TO LEAVE HIS BUDDIES BEHIND by receiving multiple Purple Heart medals for being injured several times. (And what about his Silver Star?) "In total, it appears Kerry was in-country less than five months. Yet some prisoners of war served more than seven years and had many serious wounds. "This Kerry guy, what a wimp. Trying to shirk his duty to his country, trying to leave his buddies behind. But wait, there's something EVEN MORE sinister about this Kerry guy: "Did he only participate in peaceful war protests, or did he join the Hard-Left, anti-US, pro-Communistic cabal of Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and other well-known Hard-Left, anti-US radicals? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know where to find them. Every significant leader of any anti-war, anti-US protest from the 1960s has a large file sitting in a file drawer over at the FBI Headquarters. The Bureau's headquarters is located at 9th street and Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown Washington, D.C. To get a copy of the FBI file, which would clear up this entire thing, Senator Kerry merely has to file a form. But HE must be the one to do it. Nobody else can get a copy - only John F. Kerry."My God! The guy is a COMMUNIST AGENT! We need to see his (illegally obtained, in the Nixon years) FBI file. He has an FBI FILE! "Today I am announcing the formation of an exploratory committee to encourage and assist Senator John F. Kerry in the acquisition and distribution of these two [FBI and Navy record] files. In due course, we will send the appropriate forms to Senator Kerry to be filled out. Soon, following President Bush's lead, Senator Kerry can reveal to the mainstream media the various documents establishing the truth about his conduct."The truth about his conduct. Right. If you think for a minute this was really written by Aldrich... This is the real thing: pure, researched, focus grouped, professional stuff here. And we're going to see a LOT more of it! Update - One more thing I want to say. As I said above, this isn't Aldrich speaking. This isn't even Bush - even though it is the Bush style to "stay above the fray" while sending out surrogates to do their dirty work. Like Bush did with McCain in the 2000 primaries. This is "The Party" at work here. This is who they are, and what they do. This is how they get power and keep it. Be ready for it. --- Posted at 3/06/2004 01:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Why Did They Drop It? Why did the Democrats drop the AWOL controversey? Why did they stop talking about it? It was just starting to get somewhere. It was just starting to penetrate America's conciousness? And, while I'm talking about Democrats dropping things, what about Harken Oil? --- Posted at 3/06/2004 01:29:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
On His Watch Bush Defends His Sept. 11 Ads, Economic Policies: "Despite pressure from Sept. 11 families and firefighters, Bush said he 'will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency.' 'I have an obligation to those who died. I have an obligation to those who were heroic in their attempts to rescue (the victims). And I won't forget that obligation,' Bush said. But he added: 'How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion. And I look forward to discussing that with the American people. And I look forward to the debate about who best to lead this country in the war on terror.' "An OBLIGATION to exploit their tragedy for political gain? WTF does that mean? This happened on his watch. He shouldn't be bragging about it. Update - George W. Bush acts like he's entitled to treat the remains of a dead man like a souvenir. Maybe he feel this way because it happened ON HIS WATCH. --- Posted at 3/06/2004 01:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/05/2004 Anonymous voice of America's unemployed Go here and click "Hear the Tape" : Anonymous voice of America's unemployed "This week I got a call from America, who happens to be a 43-year-old unemployed woman living in the Valley. She is angry. She is sad. America got my answering machine and left a message. George Bush's line must have been busy. John Kerry was probably out of town. The woman on my recording does not actually claim to be America, but she is. She is a mother and a wife whose husband also recently lost his job. There are millions like her, she says, and no one is paying attention."Anyway, go click "Hear the Tape" --- Posted at 3/05/2004 06:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Truths Go see 120 truths about liberals, including gems such as "The liberal must create an atmosphere of crisis and fear to justify collectivist oppression." --- Posted at 3/05/2004 03:16:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Message From Martha I fear the real message from the sweeping investigation, swift prosecution, and conviction of Martha Stewart is: if you are a high profile person of some wealth, you had better not be contributing to Democrats. Martha is the symbolic prosecution for the corporate accounting scandals in which billions and billions were stolen. Ken Lay is not. End of message. --- Posted at 3/05/2004 02:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Outrage? I left a comment to this post: Whiskey Bar: Bush Hits the Trifecta Again. My comment: As a marketer, I think that all this "outrage" is going to do is amplify Bush's message, which is "Bush 9/11 Bush 9/11." It's intentional - carefully calculated, releasing the first ads with these pictures. Of course they knew what the response would be -- they counted on it. It's free advertising to have all the news outlets reporting that people are outraged that Bush is using 9/11 pictures in his ads. His TARGET audience will be reinforced by that. To them the news reports will just be seen as liberals whining. (I haven't tuned in to Limbaugh for a few days, but wanna bet something like that is today's theme?) Others, regular Americans who don't pay a lot of attention, will take in the message, the association between Bush and 9/11 and nothing else. "Bush 9/11 Bush 9/11". They aren't going to spend a lot of time. They'll see the ads, and it will push a message into one side of the brain -- Bush 9/11 Bush 9/11 -- and then they'll hear some news report or some discussion and that will push it in the other side - Bush 9/11 Bush 9/11. That's how marketing works -- it's called "spell my name right." NO ONE BUT US understands or cares about the finer point of the politicization of 9/11 as a bad thing. The REASON they politicize 9/11 is that it WORKS for them. We can be as outraged as we want, but as long as there is no consequence to them, of course they'll politicize 9/11. Because it does work. These ads show that this is where they are going to go 100% - because it works. An anecdote -- a friend in Intel marketing told me that the best thing that ever happened to Intel was that math error as they were releasing the Pentium chip. They were in the process of changing from a number - 80586 or something - to a name so they could "brand" the idea of a processor chip. So "Pentium" was the brand. And then they have this math error and every news outlet in the country writes about it. But all consumers came away with was that Intel is now naming chips instead of numbering them, and everyone remembered the name. The math error was worth tens of millions in free advertising for their new branding campaign. The Bush people aren't stupid. They are the people who market tobacco to kids. They convince people to kill themselves but to hand them their money first.I left a similar comment to this post at american street. Update - I just came across this: Bush Campaigns Amid a Furor Over Ads, Mr. Bush's aides said that they would not pull the commercials and that the battle over them could even work to their advantage by focusing new attention on what they said was the president's forceful response to the attacks and the continued threat from terrorists. They said the controversy had been expected and was serving their aim of changing the debate from Democratic turf like health care and jobs to Mr. Bush's strongest suit, national security. "Are we on the Democrats' issue of health care, or are we on the Republican issue of national security?" said one Republican official with ties to the campaign. "On Wednesday we rolled out the spot — we changed the tone fundamentally. They missed the opportunity to tell the American people what the campaign is about. This is how the president has framed the question before the American people."Doh! --- Posted at 3/05/2004 08:34:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
February Job Numbers Lately all the right-wing radio shows have been touting the "Household Survey" over they "Payroll Survey" because the Household shows that unemployment is not as bad as the Payroll shows. (Economists say the latter, Payroll, is the more reliable number.) But today's job numbers for February are terrible if you use the Household numbers, which actually fell. Don't expect to be hearing about the Household Survey on right-wing radio anymore. The numbers are here: Employment Situation Summary. --- Posted at 3/05/2004 08:12:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/04/2004 Scalia Knows No Law Justice Scalia denies that there are any problems with his two recent hunting trips paid for by people with cases coming before the Supreme Court. (His precise response: "Quack quack".) As far as I know, Supreme Court justices are invulnerable to any challenge except impeachment by Congress, and with the Delay-Lott Congress we still have, impeachment is unthinkable. Thus Scalia is untouchable and knows it, and is acting accordingly. The authors of the constitution certainly must have recognized that there are certain critical points of vulnerability in our system of checks and balances, and that Supreme Court Justices are among the most important of these. I would imagine that over the years, quite a bit has been written about the system's dependence on having individuals of a high ethical standard located at these critical positions. (Nope, no citations. Am I wrong?) But like most people who call themselves conservatives, Scalia seems entirely indifferent to conflict-of-interest considerations. Whereas the founding fathers presumably hoped that people in these positions would discipline themselves, Scalia seems to have decided that since there are no real legal restrictions on his behavior, that means that he can do anything he damn well pleases. This feeling of sovereign and invulnerable entitlement, rather reminiscent of that of a feudal lord or a Saudi prince, is also widely felt among the captains of industry and by Republican political leaders. Many of these recognize no limits to their actions except the letter of the law, and often enough they feel justified in ignoring the law too if it cramps their style. "Trust us!" is their motto. If you're wondering who I'm talking about, Scalia's hunting partner Dick Cheney would be a pretty good example. And also the Idiot King imposed on us in the year 2000 by Scalia and four of his friends. Scalia / Cheney hunting trip Scalia's Kansas hunting trip The Court Ignores its Own Principles P.S. Note Lessig's dilemma in "The Court Ignores Its Own Principles". He thought that he could win by arguing on the basis of the principles in which he knew the Justices believed. He's puzzled that that didn't work, but there's no mystery here at all if you assume that at least five of the justices are political operatives. --- Posted at 3/04/2004 07:19:00 PM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
This Is Very Good This is very good: the american street: The Po-Mo Prez and Identity Politics. Values vs issues. And this: With God as my Copilot. Very good indeed. Bush saying he hadn't realized America could be attacked. He doesn't read papers, so I guess he never knew about the Soviet Union. --- Posted at 3/04/2004 11:21:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
On His Watch Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad "After 3,000 people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that that takes an awful lot of audacity. Honestly, it's in poor taste.' - Kristen Breitweiser, with her husband's ring."I’d like to see a TV ad with this script: "3000 people were killed on his watch, our worst national tragedy, when he was on vacation. He had already taken more time off than any president before him, but he went to his ranch in Texas, after he had been warned by the FBI, by the CIA and by the outgoing Clinton Administration, that we could be attacked at any time. Before 9/11 Bush blocked funding for anti-terrorism. He blocked the FBI from looking into the bin Laden family and other Saudi connections to terrorism. After 9/11 Bush used the attack for politics. He used it to justify a war with Iraq they had been planning all along. He used it to influence the 2002 elections. He even used it to justify more tax cuts for the rich. And since 9/11 Bush has been doing everything he can to block investigations into how we let ourselves get attacked, into where our intelligence failed and what we can do to improve things. This happened on his watch. Why isn't anyone held accountable? Why won’t he take responsibility for ANYTHING?"Make suggestions for changes to this script. Maybe we can get something going, raise some money to put it on the air. I don't want to let him get away with using 9/11 again. --- Posted at 3/04/2004 10:58:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/03/2004 Oh my! With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq. But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council. ... In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added. And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.But W would tell you that all of this is not his fault. Apparently, "prosperity is just around the corner" as W attempts to replay Reagan's "Morning Again in America" campaign but without any of the, um, positive news that Reagan could brag about back in 1984. --- Posted at 3/03/2004 07:37:00 PM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
One for the good guys Shockingly, the really bad guys lost really badly. --- Posted at 3/03/2004 04:40:00 PM by richard Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Straussians With Nukes Sometimes I think that the right-wingers are competing to get weirder and weirder, like rock bands appealing for new teenagers by trying to top last year's acts. But the stuff going on on the Right matters, because they are firmly in charge and have nukes. For an introduction to the kind of thinking the Right is engaged in, Matthew Yglesias writes about the Straussian influence on Bush's Bioethics Council: "Simply put, the view is that scientific research holds the promise of radically improving human health and therefore must be stopped. To be clear, the view is not that scientific research holds the promise of radically improving human health and nevertheless must be stopped because of some other issue (this would be, I take it, the 'pro-life' thought on stem cell research). No. The view is that the problem with the research is that it might succeed in letting people live longer. Now it's been hypothesized to me that the really really real reason for Gulf War II is that Straussians believe it's a good thing when lifespans are shorter (because this makes people more religious, which makes them more virtuous) and that therefore war is a good thing per se because it decreases life expectancy."This article confirms the above, discussing Bush's appointments to the Council on Bioethics, headed by University of Chicago bioethicist Leon Kass. Please read or scan this article to get a sense of the kind of appointments being made by our government. "A surprising number of the council members, including Kass, are closely associated with the neoconservative religious magazine First Things. [. . .] Leon Kass is a physician and philosopher with a decidedly anti-modernist bent. A disciple of University of Chicago anti-modernist philosopher Leo Strauss, Kass has long believed that the Enlightenment was something of a mistake. In his view, its focus on individual rights and individual conscience undermines the traditional bases for morality."So... Straussian philosophy. Before I start - I don't claim to have particularly studied it, except to scratch the surface. Straussians are basically anti-modern -- the Enlightenment brought with it a liberal ideology of social-political progress. Strauss felt this liberalism allowed (or inevitably created) a weak German government that would fall to evil -- Nazism. "The modern world is held to be the deliberate creation (with some unintended consequences) of the modern philosophers -- namely, the Enlightenment, which gave birth to both scientific-technological progress and the liberal ideology of social-political progress. The Enlighteners argued (though still covertly) that instead of hiding philosophy, philosophers should reform society to make it more hospitable to philosophy: in particular, by undertaking the "project" of modern science, by which reason masters nature and provides material gratifications -- safety, health and wealth -- to common men, bribing them into acquiescence to philosophy. Physical science and technology would provide the know-how, while a new kind of regime, liberalism, would provide the conditions of liberty and equality enabling men to pursue their self-interest. "One of the points of Straussian philosophy is that there are a special few who are supposed to run the world. And this elite is also the group that will understand "straussian writings" - philosophy written by previous philosophers on two levels, one for the masses and one that the ruling elite will understand. There's a sort of Calvinist idea here: Only a few people are Chosen to go to Heaven, and they will know who they are -- only a few elite people are Chosen to understand the higher-level messages in Straussian writings -- and therefore be rulers -- and they will know who they are by understanding these messages. Here is a discussion of Straussian philosophy from a far-right viewpoint: "The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the "calling into question" part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics. Worse, it is unclear whether philosophy really can construct a rational basis for ethics. Therefore philosophy has a tendency to promote nihilism in mediocre minds, and they must be prevented from being exposed to it. The civil authorities are frequently aware of this, and therefore they persecute and seek to silence philosophers. Strauss shockingly admits, contrary to generations of liberal professors who have taught him as a martyr to the First Amendment, that the prosecution of Socrates was not entirely without point. This honesty about the dangers of philosophy gives Straussian thought a seriousness lacking in much contemporary philosophy; it is also a sign of the conviction that philosophy, contrary to the mythology of our "practical" (though sodden with ideology and quick to take offense at ideas) age, matters. Strauss not only believed that the great thinkers of the past wrote Straussian texts, he approved of this. It is a kind of class system of the intellect, which mirrors the class systems of rulers and ruled, owners and workers, creators and audiences, which exist in politics, economics, and culture. He views the founding corruption of modern political philosophy, which hundreds of years later bears poisonous fruit in the form of liberal nihilism, to be the attempt to abolish this distinction. It is a kind of Bolshevism of the mind. Some dispute whether Straussian texts exist. The great medieval Jewish Aristotelian Moses Maimonides admitted writing this way. I can only say that I have found the concept fruitful in my own readings in philosophy. On a more prosaic level, even a courageous editor like my own canÂ’t print certain things, so I certainly write my column in code from time to time, and other writers have told me the same thing. According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the key turning point that leads to modern political philosophy, and Machiavelli's sin was to speak esoteric truths openly. He told all within hearing that there is no certain God who punishes wrongdoing; the essence of Machiavellianism is that one can get away with things. Because of this, he turned his back on the Christian virtue that the belief in a retributive God had upheld. Pre-Machiavellian philosophy, be in Greco-Roman or Christian, had taught that the good political order must be based upon human virtues. Machiavelli believed that sufficient virtue was not attainable and therefore taught that the good political order must be based on men as they are, i.e. upon their mediocrity and vices. This is not just realism, or mere cynicism. It amounts to a deliberate choice as to how society should be organized and a decided de-emphasis on personal virtue. It leads to the new discipline of political science, which is concerned with coldly describing men as they actually are, warts and all. It leads ultimately to Immanuel Kant's statement that, "We could devise a constitution for a race of devils, if only they were intelligent." The ancient view is that this will get you nowhere, because only men with civic virtue will obey a constitution. The modern view leads naturally to value-free social science and social policies that seek to solve social problems through technocratic manipulation that refrains from "imposing value judgments" on the objects of its concern. The key hidden step in the Machiavellian view, a bold intellectual move that is made logically rigorous and then politically palatable by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, is to define man as outside nature. Strauss sees this as the key to modernity. Man exists in opposition to nature, conquering it to serve his comfort. Nature does not define what is good for man; man does. This view is the basis for the modern penchant to make freedom and comfort (read "prosperity") the central concerns of political philosophy, whereas the ancients made virtue the center. Once man is outside nature, he has no natural teleology or purpose, and therefore no natural virtues. Since he has no natural purpose, anything that might give him one, like God, is suspect, and thus modernity tends towards atheism. Similarly, man's duties, as opposed to his rights, drop away, as does his natural sociability. The philosophical price of freedom is purposelessness, which ultimately gives rise to the alienation, anomie, and nihilism of modern life."Please read on, and you'll find: "In a nutshell, Strauss would lead us back to the Aristotelian conception of man as naturally political. Politics implies natural goods that are prior to human thinking about them. If man is political by nature, the goods of politics also exist by nature. The goods of politics are the ways man must behave to make political community work. If there are natural goods, there is a natural hierarchy of goods, and therefore a natural hierarchy of men, as different men pursue different goods. Civic equality may be salutary for the functioning of society, but men are not truly equal in value. All these things and more follow. Following Strauss's arguments, it is not hard to realize that much of what conservatives find attractive in society is ultimately premised on philosophy that is pre-modern and to some extent anti-modern. We realize that our America is a modern society but not only a modern society. This alone is worth the price of the Straussian ticket."I wonder where I fit in this hierarchy? I don't really think there has been an ongoing conspiracy of secret organizations of elites who control the world. I do, however, wonder if those in today's right-wing movement listened to all the theories and decided, "That would be cool, as long as it's US doing the controlling," and got started setting it up. A friend just said, "It's a good thing we're unable to actually do anything about all this stuff, because otherwise they'd shoot us for talking like this." More Strauss stuff: Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception, The long reach of Leo Strauss. --- Posted at 3/03/2004 02:18:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/02/2004 Working The Polls I worked at the polls today. Just got home. This time I was the "inspector" -- the person in charge of the precinct operation... Got there at 6am, home after 9pm. Long day. Exhausted. Might blog tomorrow. Might sleep. Congrats to Kerry. Good night. --- Posted at 3/02/2004 09:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Is Kerry a Liberal? Well, yeah, sort of. I'm not the guy to defend Kerry against this particular charge; my hero is the late Paul Wellstone, who was unquestionably more liberal than Kerry. And yeah, Kerry really is from Massachusetts too. Kerry and the Democrats are really going to have to take the bull by the horns on this one. Kerry has stated his intention of attacking rather than letting himself be put on the defensive -- thank God -- and once Bush's wretched record on counter-terrorism is widely known, half the "Massachusetts liberal" smear will become inoperative. Bush is supposedly "strong on defense", but you don't become strong on defense by talking loud, strutting around in a flight suit, and tying the American military down in the wrong country. Iraq was never the main problem. As for the rest of it: deep down, most Americans would rather live in Massachusetts, California, or Minnesota than in Texas or Alabama. There is indeed a bigoted demographic which has a bitter hatred of Northerners and liberals, and they should be allowed to vote for George W. Bush. But there are also a lot of voters who thoughtlessly buy the "Northern liberal" smear without really being quite that bigoted, and we should change their minds. Massachusetts is America too. P.S. And New York is also America. When al-Qaeda wanted to hurt us, they didn't attack Dallas. Really, why should they have? They have lots of friends in Dallas. Conason on the "Liberal" Charge --- Posted at 3/02/2004 07:05:00 AM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Blasts Kill 143 at Iraq Shiite Shrines Link KARBALA, Iraq - Simultaneous explosions ripped through crowds of worshippers Tuesday at Shiite Muslim shrines in Baghdad and the city of Karbala, killing at least 143 people on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar, a U.S. official said. It was the bloodiest day since the end of major fighting. The blasts came during the Shiite festival of Ashoura and coincided with a shooting attack on Shiite worshippers in Quetta, Pakistan that killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 150. Three suicide bombers set off their explosives in and around Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine, killing 58 and wounding 200, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. At least one suicide attacker blew himself up and pre-set explosives went off in Karbala, killing 85 and wounding more than 100, he said. A fourth suicide bomber whose explosives did not detonate was captured at Kazimiya, and four people were arrested in connection to the attack in Karbala, Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.Aren't you glad we started this war in Iraq? We sure have improved life for the people of Iraq, haven't we? --- Posted at 3/02/2004 06:53:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
3/01/2004 Bush & Guard Inflation Boston.com / Bush bio on Web inflates Guard service: "But the State Department biography of Bush, which has been on its website since 2001, makes the president out to be more of a frequent flyer than the embellished account in Bush's 1999 autobiography, 'A Charge To Keep.' In that book, Bush said he flew with his unit for 'the next several years' after his five months of training on the F-102 concluded in June 1970."You can be sure these websites will soon will be set to "never said that." --- Posted at 3/01/2004 04:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
More on "Who is Bandar Bush?" I'll be continually updating my Kerry Smear and Who is Bandar Bush? files from here on. Here are some recent samples from the latter: From the March, 2004 Harpers: "Since September 2001, the administration has designated hundreds of individuals and organizations, including several Islamic charities, as terrorists or sponsors of terrorism and frozen their assets. Yet Saudi organizations and individuals have emerged relatively unscathed.... And although in January the Treasury Department designated several branches of the Saudi charity al-Haramain, U.S. officials declined to freeze the assets of the group's dozens of other offices worldwide, including the one in Riyadh....." From the Sept 11, 2003 Time Magazine: "U.S. investigators, he says, sometimes suspect that the Saudis are fishing, trying to ferret out details of U.S. intelligence, or stalling, to protect Saudi individuals from embarrassment. One of the Administration's top counterterrorism officials says the Saudis still appear to be protecting charities associated with the royal family and its friends..... .....Indeed, when President Bush spoke to Abdullah for 20 minutes by phone last week [fall 2003], say U.S. and Saudi sources, he went out of his way to compliment the Prince on Saudi Arabia's efforts to combat terrorism." There's more. --- Posted at 3/01/2004 10:47:00 AM by John Emerson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Haiti Takeover Part Of Bush's "War On Terror?" Something's going on concerning Haiti, and I don't know what it is. Listening to AM radio this morning, the local far-right station followed the network news with a "War on Terrorism" report that President Aristide has left Haiti, and American troops are securing the country following over 100 killed in the uprising to get rid of him - the wording implying that Aristide had been behind the rioting and killings. Then O'Reilly comes on and rants about how the mainstream media just lies, and you should never listen to or read mainstream media news reports because they are all liberals and just lie because they truly believe that government solves every problem and they want to tax you to pay for their big-government solutions and will always take the side of the Democrats. Then I tuned to Limbaugh who was going on about the "atrocities committed by Aristide," and how "the Democrats" are circulating stories that the Bush administration was behind the uprising against Aristide because they were against this just like they were against invading Iraq to get rid THAT dictator (and Democrats always support dictators,) and it is really all about securing "the black vote." (Limbaugh is ALWAYS pre-emptive, telling his audience that "the Democrats" or "liberals" are circulating stories that... and it's always way ahead of any stories actually appearing, but the stories he refers to will be accurate reports of what is really happening... And he ALWAYS tells his audience that what Democrats do is about "the black vote" and not about "real Americans...") So I think (tinfoil hat guy) something is going on concerning Haiti. For some reason they are selling the takeover of the elected government of Haiti as part of Bush's strong leadership in the war on terror... --- Posted at 3/01/2004 10:06:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Read Billmon When I combine this with Aaron Brown blowing his stack over the GOP machine's attempt to deep six the 9/11 investigation, I can only conclude the Matrix is experiencing a serious program run error in its CNN subroutine. If this keeps up, Agent Rove may have to reboot the system -- in which case I assume we'll all wake up tomorrow and it will be September 10, 2001 again.And, under Agent Rove's direction, the system is about to crash. If you start seeing green numbers, be very afraid. --- Posted at 3/01/2004 07:22:00 AM by Tom Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Copyright © 2002-05. |
Blogger's RSS feed 
Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks! I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right. Archives 
|
|||
